Earlier today: House of Bishops Passes Marriage Resolutions
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/house-of-bishops-passes-marriage-resolutions/
Thoughts?
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/house-of-bishops-passes-marriage-resolutions/
Thoughts?
Upvote
0
Episcopal Church 78th General Convention Thread
- Thread starter Sean611
- Start date
graceandpeace
Episcopalian
TEC has overall been presenting itself as an inclusive & welcoming faith for LGBT persons.
At first I worried this passing would be too soon, but given the trajectory, it actually has been a slow movement toward this day.
I expect certain media sites/bloggers/voices already outraged about the SC decision will have more target practice with TEC over this. I would hope everyone would understand that it is only a coincidence that the timing of the GC & the ruling on the SC case were around the same time.
I rejoice for those who for this will be cause for rejoicing. I am understanding of those who will disagree. I think the Table can receive both.
Sadly, I've already been goaded by Christians on social media for supporting the SC decision. I responded in depth to them, & I made sure I was friendly. That was a few days ago & none of have responded back. I guess they dropped their stones.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
IMO it's more disturbing to see that if the federal government makes a change in civil law, the church feels an immediate obligation to change its policies and beliefs in order to be in step with that. It used to be the "Word of God" that was cited, or even the less specific "Holy Spirit," when such policy or doctrinal changes were inaugurated.
Upvote
0
CanadianAnglican
Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic
I don't think this is going to surprise anyone at all, given the statements which ahve been made in the past, the fact that many opponents have already left, etc.
My own view tends to reflect Albion's, though. The civil law changes ought to have zero bearing on the sacramental status of Holy Matrimony. It's the same here in Canada where proponents say, Same-sex Marriage (civil) has been legal for ten years and the Anglican Church must get with the times and authorize same-sex Matrimony. Why? Adultery has been legal in Canada for ages, does that mean adultery must also be authorized by the Church? Mormons are probably going to push for recognition of polygamous marriage because the arguments about love used in same-sex marriage are condusive to supporting polygamy. Does that mean the Church will need to support polygamy in a few years if that were to be authorized in civil law? It's silly.
Sure, we're told to render unto Caesar, but it's the Bible which is God-breathed and useful for teaching, etc.
The Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Canada (main ACC-RCC ecumenical group) has recently issued a statement to the ACC task force on same-sex marriage where they again asked to see what the Scriptural rationale for a change would be since the ACC has thus far failed to produce one. I imagine the same thing will be happening in the US if a similar pattern of exumenical relationship exists.
My own view tends to reflect Albion's, though. The civil law changes ought to have zero bearing on the sacramental status of Holy Matrimony. It's the same here in Canada where proponents say, Same-sex Marriage (civil) has been legal for ten years and the Anglican Church must get with the times and authorize same-sex Matrimony. Why? Adultery has been legal in Canada for ages, does that mean adultery must also be authorized by the Church? Mormons are probably going to push for recognition of polygamous marriage because the arguments about love used in same-sex marriage are condusive to supporting polygamy. Does that mean the Church will need to support polygamy in a few years if that were to be authorized in civil law? It's silly.
Sure, we're told to render unto Caesar, but it's the Bible which is God-breathed and useful for teaching, etc.
The Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Canada (main ACC-RCC ecumenical group) has recently issued a statement to the ACC task force on same-sex marriage where they again asked to see what the Scriptural rationale for a change would be since the ACC has thus far failed to produce one. I imagine the same thing will be happening in the US if a similar pattern of exumenical relationship exists.
Upvote
0
- Feb 24, 2012
- 965
- 150
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I knew this was coming almost from the day I stepped foot in a TEC parish. Here are my causes of concern:
1. Changing the marriage canon before a change in the Prayer Book seems to be a violation of the Constitution of this church. Prayer Book changes take a minimum of 6 years and it is a long and difficult process. What does it say about our leadership if they don't care about the Constitution of the Church? One doesn't have to be a traditionalist to be concerned with this possible implication.
2. What will happen with the Prayer Book and what is the official teaching of TEC regarding marriage? This is the canon law chaos, theological, and liturgical chaos that one Episcopal priest was concerned about in a article I posted earlier in this thread. We currently have two teachings on marriage in this church, canon law saws two people or a couple and the Prayer Book says one man and one woman. So which one is it? Secondly, will the Prayer Book be amended? Again, one doesn't have to be a traditionalist to be concerned with the current chaos.
3. Many in TEC are saying all God's people are now welcome in this church. Does welcoming and accepting mean affirming what Scripture and Tradition call sinful? Does being welcoming mean that we de-sin a previous sin and now affirm it? If that is the case, I guess I'm not truly welcome in TEC because my sins are still sins and I still have to confess them before God. It would never occur to me to think the church doesn't welcome me because it doesn't affirm all of my sins, but there you have it. I know that some here will disagree with this point, but I just can't shake it.
4. Many are saying that the traditionalist folks have left, but I can assure the posters here that there are many traditionalists still in TEC. Even though we/us/they know it has been coming, it is still difficult now that it is here and many of us have questions. Most importantly, how long will it be optional for a parish/diocese/rector to opt out of performing a SSM?
Upvote
0
- Feb 24, 2012
- 965
- 150
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I don't think it will take that long. When the Prayer Book is revised to reflect this view, it will be binding as the Prayer Book is binding.
Upvote
0
I totally support the SCOTUS ruling, but I'm not completely sure what to think in regards to this decision. I will say I'm not surprised by it, and although I realize that it's been "in the works" for quite some time, it *feels* like a knee-jerk reaction to the change in civil law. I echo some of your concerns, Sean - especially your first point. I guess I would say that I feel like this is the right choice for TEC, but I don't know that they're going about it the right way. Also, selfishly, one of the things I love about TEC in general and our congregation in particular is diversity of people and beliefs, and it would be really unfortunate for me and for many if this decision made more the conservative members feel the need to go elsewhere.
Upvote
0
This action will assure the continued reaction of the people in the pews voting with their feet.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
And here I was worried about cwob, which was a big reason I've become "eh" with the UMC. I guess it's back there for us now, though.
I hate it. The local TEC has been the most welcoming of any church since the one I grew up in. But with this, I know we won't be welcome anymore, even if we could accept our own feelings on theissue.
The only other option around is a AMiA church that's an hour away.
I hate it. The local TEC has been the most welcoming of any church since the one I grew up in. But with this, I know we won't be welcome anymore, even if we could accept our own feelings on theissue.
The only other option around is a AMiA church that's an hour away.
Upvote
0
Archbishop Welby speaks to my other concerns far better than I would ever be able to articulate them.
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/canterbury-responds-to-gc-action/
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/canterbury-responds-to-gc-action/
Upvote
0
Yardstick
Episcopalian
I understand the concern over changing the canon before the bcp but I'm not sure what a better solution would be. As has been mentioned, a change in the bcp would be an imposition on traditionalists. This is one of those things where you can't please everyone but the adoption of optional liturgies at least gives parishes the room to be faithful to their own beliefs.
Considering we have already been blessing same-sex civil unions I don't think we can really characterize this as a new decision to "de-sin" what the bible calls a sin.
Considering we have already been blessing same-sex civil unions I don't think we can really characterize this as a new decision to "de-sin" what the bible calls a sin.
I could see possible schism with those in Province IX (who unanimously voted against it). However the writing has been on the wall for a long time, and most who are going to leave have likely already done so.CelticRebel said:
In what way will you no longer be welcomed? Has the priest of your parish indicated that this resolution will change the church's attitude towards you?Destiny2015 said:
Upvote
0
Of course not (especially because it just happened). But it's been my experience that when a group bends over backwards towelcome or affirm another group, dissent isn't much tolerated.
Also, I'm not Episcopalian. I've flirted with the idea for a long time, so I hope I'm not violating forum rules here, but that definitely puts me at a disadvantage making my views known to anyone in the church.
Also, I'm not Episcopalian. I've flirted with the idea for a long time, so I hope I'm not violating forum rules here, but that definitely puts me at a disadvantage making my views known to anyone in the church.
Upvote
0
- Feb 24, 2012
- 965
- 150
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I'm honestly ready for them to just go ahead full steam and quit these tiny measures to ensure traditionalists don't leave entirely. The Prayer Book will be changed in either 2018 or 2021, SSM will be binding, and traditionalists will be forced out. I'm in no way trying to be overly pessimistic, however, I don't see how this plays out any other way.
Blessing same-sex unions is optional and SSM liturgies are trial liturgies and they will be optional. However, the canon was changed and made gender neutral. Since the Prayer Book teaches a different understanding of marriage than the canons, we officially have two different and conflicting beliefs on marriage. Either way, the church canon says that marriage is no longer something between a man and a woman. Regardless, the Prayer Book will be changed very soon.
I think that many have stayed and want to stay. Springfield, Albany, Central Florida, Tennessee, Western Louisiana (minus the bishop apparently), many parts of Texas, and other areas, are all dioceses and geographical areas dominated by traditionalists. TEC leadership can stick their head in the sand and pretend it don't matter, however, losing these traditionalist strongholds would be devastating for TEC.
I can't speak for the poster or their parish, however, I belong to a traditionalist parish and I still feel absolutely out of place in my diocese and in regards to the national church.
All in all, I don't wish to make a list of grievances against TEC. I really am thankful for my time in TEC and I will always love this church, regardless of what the future holds.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
graceandpeace
Episcopalian
I think there are some considerations in how we understand Scripture & even Tradition that can allow us to come to different conclusions. CF's rules don't allow us to have that conversation.
I support disagreement. I think faithful Christians can honestly come to different conclusions on this topic & how the Church should respond. I don't see how someone who disagrees on this one thing is automatically "unwelcome." Unless someone is making it a point to go beyond disagreement & is actually engaging in attacks on gay persons in their congregations (like what happened in a Episcopal church some years back with a congregant going out of their way to attack others), then I just don't see how dissent is a problem. Mainline churches like TEC tolerate dissent much better than conservative/evangelical churches, in my experience. The conservative/evangelical oriented churches I've been part of in the past would never tolerate a difference in opinion on this topic.
I think again as I already posted it is only a coincidence that the timing on this falls on the same timeline as the SC ruling. TEC has already been blessing SS persons for years & had been studying the rite of matrimony for years. The Church has always had to deal with new issues in the culture, from slavery to interracial marriage to using birth control to SS marriage. Individual denominations sometimes arrive at similar conclusions, sometimes not, & often at different times, it seems.
I think we can also consider PB elect +Curry. He supports gay persons, & he is fervent in his devotion to Jesus, & I think he is going to be good for all members of TEC.
I support disagreement. I think faithful Christians can honestly come to different conclusions on this topic & how the Church should respond. I don't see how someone who disagrees on this one thing is automatically "unwelcome." Unless someone is making it a point to go beyond disagreement & is actually engaging in attacks on gay persons in their congregations (like what happened in a Episcopal church some years back with a congregant going out of their way to attack others), then I just don't see how dissent is a problem. Mainline churches like TEC tolerate dissent much better than conservative/evangelical churches, in my experience. The conservative/evangelical oriented churches I've been part of in the past would never tolerate a difference in opinion on this topic.
I think again as I already posted it is only a coincidence that the timing on this falls on the same timeline as the SC ruling. TEC has already been blessing SS persons for years & had been studying the rite of matrimony for years. The Church has always had to deal with new issues in the culture, from slavery to interracial marriage to using birth control to SS marriage. Individual denominations sometimes arrive at similar conclusions, sometimes not, & often at different times, it seems.
I think we can also consider PB elect +Curry. He supports gay persons, & he is fervent in his devotion to Jesus, & I think he is going to be good for all members of TEC.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
People don't realize that this change is not of the same sort as the woman's ordination fight or the fight over changing the tone of the BCP. It's not even the same as the Communion without Baptism controversy.
It bears upon the matter of legitimizing and approving of something long considered sinful. I remember no one saying that ordaining women would be to authorize sin. It was simply a matter of retaining Apostolic Succession and correct doctrine. So also with many of the other hot button issues that have cost TEC most of its followers since the mid-20th century when six million Americans identified with the church.
Of course, 'Grace and Peace' is right that SS blessings have already become a feature of the church's operations. It remains to be seen if this is received as more of the same or as a quantum leap in that direction. It also remains to be see how many traditionalists are left to consider other choices.
It bears upon the matter of legitimizing and approving of something long considered sinful. I remember no one saying that ordaining women would be to authorize sin. It was simply a matter of retaining Apostolic Succession and correct doctrine. So also with many of the other hot button issues that have cost TEC most of its followers since the mid-20th century when six million Americans identified with the church.
Of course, 'Grace and Peace' is right that SS blessings have already become a feature of the church's operations. It remains to be seen if this is received as more of the same or as a quantum leap in that direction. It also remains to be see how many traditionalists are left to consider other choices.
Upvote
0
Let me explain where my unwelcome comment came from: I grew up in the UMC, in a church that always had a male pastor. Until it didn't. The UMC has always ordained women in my lifetime, and it was still a problem for many when a woman began preaching. The "official" stance of the congregation wasn't one of understanding but "if you don't like it, leave". Questions and discussions weren't encouraged, and those that had concerns were brushed aside. That church is now a shadow of what it was when I grew up there, not because of an ordained woman, but because of how they treated members with somewhat valid theological concerns. It happens. I personally don't want to go through it again.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
And you are correct about that, Destiny. A church takes on a character in addition to the official stands and policies that it adopts.
In my area, the Episcopal Cathedral sports a gay flag out front, hanging near the front door. There's an American flag in the courtyard, I guess. The local parish advertises (in the newspaper) that it is gay friendly. It is always in the news promoting some Lesbigay project, counseling gay teens, operating an office for the local gay rights organization from the church basement, and so on. I know not a single Republican who is a member. There must be some, but all the ones I knew have left.
Well, there aren't very many members of any sort any more, but there is one who says she is Episcopal and Wiccan at once...and another who says he's a Buddhist (but also a TEC member in good standing, natch). The newspaper did feature articles on both of those people.
So, is it the case that traditional Episcopalians would feel "welcome" and "affirmed" if this parish and diocese they opt to have this be the church of their allegiance? Just because they are not shown the door if they show up for worship??
Some will probably answer, "Sure!," but I doubt that it's true for very many when there are so many other churches to choose from and it's become socially acceptable to decline to hold membership in any congregation.
In my area, the Episcopal Cathedral sports a gay flag out front, hanging near the front door. There's an American flag in the courtyard, I guess. The local parish advertises (in the newspaper) that it is gay friendly. It is always in the news promoting some Lesbigay project, counseling gay teens, operating an office for the local gay rights organization from the church basement, and so on. I know not a single Republican who is a member. There must be some, but all the ones I knew have left.
Well, there aren't very many members of any sort any more, but there is one who says she is Episcopal and Wiccan at once...and another who says he's a Buddhist (but also a TEC member in good standing, natch). The newspaper did feature articles on both of those people.
So, is it the case that traditional Episcopalians would feel "welcome" and "affirmed" if this parish and diocese they opt to have this be the church of their allegiance? Just because they are not shown the door if they show up for worship??
Some will probably answer, "Sure!," but I doubt that it's true for very many when there are so many other churches to choose from and it's become socially acceptable to decline to hold membership in any congregation.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yardstick
Episcopalian
Albion, that is a much different situation from one where you currently feel welcomed in your local parish but fear that this change at General Convention will mean some switch is flipped at your local parish and you will no longer be welcomed.
If your parish isn't already blessing same sex unions then it seems to me you have little to fear that they are going to all of a sudden start performing a trial same sex liturgy.
If your parish isn't already blessing same sex unions then it seems to me you have little to fear that they are going to all of a sudden start performing a trial same sex liturgy.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
