They voted for it before they voted against it

It seemed too good to be true when the delegates to the Episcopal Church's national convention voted to dismiss Anglican leaders' request that they temporarity stop ordaining "openly" gay bishops. And it was. In a later vote, they went along with the resolution that doesn't use the word "moratorium," but clearly implies it.

The non-binding resolution calls on church authorities "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate (for bishop) whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said that "The wider Communion will therefore need to reflect carefully on the significance of what has been decided before we respond more fully."

In case you're wondering what that means, Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the U.S., explained it on "Fresh Air" today. Griswold said that American Episcopalians need to be in a personal dialogue with Anglicans in other parts of the world so that they can form relationships with members of the U.S. church, and therefore be more open to new ideas. That sounds good on the face of it, but how many people from deeply conservative cultures are ever really going to accept the ordination of gay bishops? And how much effort will the church make to activate this dialogue?

Also, the Episcopal Church of the U.S. does not recognize gay marriage and does not officially endorse the blessing of gay partnerships. So, in review, American Episcopal churches need to stop ordaining gay bishops whose partnerships they haven't blessed.

There was also a lot of talk about respecting the dignity and contributions of gay church members, which made me think of how the Baptist (and other) churches bend over backwards to explain that women are to be "respected," even though they cannot be ordained or can never be the heads of their households.