There are now a few excellent blogs worth checking on a regular basis.
The best and most insightful critique of gay marriage in Nigeria, at present, is written by Matt Thompson of Political Spaghetti. Read it all.
Nick Knisley, with his sharp mind [he's a physicist] and writing talent, has become very popular, now summing up GC2006.
Mark Harris offers analysis: Deputies now had to face into
grim reality that the big guns had been brought to bear. If they did
not vote for B-033 gay and lesbian persons and their progressive
friends would be considered spoilers and would lose all political
leverage for the future. If we did vote for B-033 we were making gay
and lesbian candidates and others hostages to a bad piece of
legislation. Only the fact that legislation can be changed by any
General Convention made for a little light. Bad legislation can be
reversed the next time we meet. Still, it means hostages for three
So we voted and passed B-033. The house was not informed as to how the Bishop’s voted. Immediately following bishops from the left and the right disassociated themselves from the resolution.
The House of Bishops, having initiated this resolution and brought out the guns to bear, now retreated into various forms of righteousness, leaving the House of Deputies to hang out without any protection at all. It was dirty, and insult and finally a shame on us all.
On Tuesday the House of Deputies had done a stunning thing: it had rejected a bad resolution (A161) that deserved to die a horrible death. A deeply divided house had found a voice for a moment. On Wednesday expediency ruled, and the House of Deputies lost its voice to Episcopal oversight.
And a Mad Priest who deserves regular attention. It is the oft heard cry of the "biblically-based" Christian that liberal theologians reject any part of scripture that they are not able to fit in with their rationalist conclusions. This is an accurate accusation. But pre-biblicists are not liberals (there is often misunderstanding regarding this because so often our position on ethical matters is the same as those adopted by liberal theologians) and we fully accept that hermeneutically you "can't have your cake and eat it". Pre-biblicists view all parts of the Bible exactly the same - to us everything therein is the word of human beings with the exception of the words of Jesus Christ (subject to our knowledge that the words of Jesus Christ reported in the Bible are not exactly what he said). We accept divine inspiration in the writing of the Bible but we give equal import to divine inspiration in our individual and collective interpretation of the text.
But he is also very funny. I, also, am a pre-biblical Christian.