Still in the closet. Why?

"Jefferts Schori said that research shows that when the Episcopal Church tells its story well, it attracts young adults for its liturgy, social-justice stances and passion for mission; immigrants and women at transition points in their lives."

Did you notice the missing constituency?

The Episcopal Church has gone out of its way to advance LGBT activists. The very public narrative - TEC's most public story - went into the consecration of LGBT clergy as bishops. This was accomplished, even at the cost of global Christian discord.

So why can't/doesn't the PB (or at least the TEC coverage of her remarks) include the LGBT in the list of those attracted by the TEC "story?"

Might it be that most LGBT people could care less about playing church, and that those who bought into TEC were of the activist fringe caught up in the symbolism and drama of public rituals? In which case, the whole strategy was a massive misread of the culture and a mission failure, one which the PB or someone in the elite needs to own.

Or might it be that the whole LGBT agenda had nothing at all to do with "a new thing of the Holy Spirit," or fostering church growth among waiting masses, or any of the other sundry explanations flung out as needed? Might it be that it had nothing at all to do with the well being of the whole church and everything to do with a very small group's interests?

Worst of all, might it be that TEC leadership is now habituated to obfuscation, deception and manipulation, suiting "the story" to particular audiences to reach particular interest group outcomes?

And speaking of being in the closet, did you read the whole article and notice the conspicuous absense of a significant church figure?