Episcopal Church Approves Gay Couples' Same-Sex Blessings

[mark46]

1) My understanding is that a bishop may forbid this ceremony in his or her diocese. I expect that Bishop Lawrence will do so, although it is just possible that he will allow a parish option. In any case, individual priests cannot be "forced" to perform the ceremony. Individual priests have been the power to just say no.

2) Bishop Lawrence isn't getting pushed out anytiome soon. That has been tried a couple of times.

I think it is hard to say at this point. A far as I understand it, and I may be wrong, bishops and even parishes are being allowed to offer same-sex blessings, but aren't required to.

If nothing happened to stop it, I have no doubt that it would become required in one way or another over time, in the same way that the acceptance of the ordination of women, which was originally supposed to be an example of legitimate Anglican diversity, is also now a non-negotiable. In that case you would see a slow battle between non-complying bishops and the national church, with parishes and individuals leaving over time as it came to affect them directly.

The real question I think is if there will be some sort of larger crises over it that will make things go in another direction. As I think it was Albion mentioned, it is not likely to be coming from TEC itself, because too many have left. Although I suppose a sudden emptying of a number of well-off parishes might precipitate something. More likely there could be a response from the rest of the Anglican Communion.

In the case of your parents, I would advise them for now to just wait. Their bishop may try to fight this, or may be pushed out, or may leave. Or the Communion may take action of some kind and everything could change. I would say within a year it will be pretty clear how things will fall out for TEC and their bishop will certainly communicate with his parishes before then.

 

[mark46]

Is adultery no longer a sin in TEC? At one time, sin was defined as sex with someone who is not your spouse.

IMHO, TEC (and others who agree) have this all backwards. Consideration of the definition of marriage should have been the first step, not the last. We now have bishops, priests and layfolk having sex outside of marriage, and now this will be blessed in the Church in a ceremony that sounds strangely like a marriage ceremony. This is hypocrisy! Blessings for continuing sinners makes no sense, although it is better than not having such blessings.

What would be more welcome would be a decision on the real issue, the definition of marriage. The purpose of sex is an underlying issue.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I am a theologically conservative (in a C.S. Lewis/N.T. Wright kind of way) and socially liberal/politically libertarian member of TEC.

I have no problem at all with this decision, nor do I expect that it will be very controversial within my parish or within the Diocese of Olympia (i.e., Western Washington).

 

[Cjwinnit]

At one time, sin was defined as sex with someone who is not your spouse.

It's the other way around

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

It's the other way around

Indeed. Lots of things are sinful that don't involve sex.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Indeed. Lots of things are sinful that don't involve sex.

Precisely

 

[file13]

If they had any moral valour they would take themselves out of the Communion.

I agree. But I get the impression that they believe they are taking the moral high road with their actions against those close minded fundie bigots, and thus, they're actually being the morally brave ones for staying in and pushing these decisions.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Mod Hat

This thread has been cleaned up.
Please remember that only members of STR may debate here.

 

[mark46]

We will have an update in the next couple of days. Bishop Lawrence will give his report and comments on the national conference on the diocese website tomorrow.

1) My understanding is that a bishop may forbid this ceremony in his or her diocese. I expect that Bishop Lawrence will do so, although it is just possible that he will allow a parish option. In any case, individual priests cannot be "forced" to perform the ceremony. Individual priests have been the power to just say no.

2) Bishop Lawrence isn't getting pushed out anytiome soon. That has been tried a couple of times.

 

[higgs2]

1) My understanding is that a bishop may forbid this ceremony in his or her diocese. I expect that Bishop Lawrence will do so, although it is just possible that he will allow a parish option. In any case, individual priests cannot be "forced" to perform the ceremony. Individual priests have been the power to just say no.

This is the case.

 

[higgs2]

I agree. But I get the impression that they believe they are taking the moral high road with their actions against those close minded fundie bigots, and thus, they're actually being the morally brave ones for staying in and pushing these decisions.

You will notice that the AC has not requested that TEC leave. Frankly, I wish they would.

 

[higgs2]

Is adultery no longer a sin in TEC? At one time, sin was defined as sex with someone who is not your spouse.

IMHO, TEC (and others who agree) have this all backwards. Consideration of the definition of marriage should have been the first step, not the last. We now have bishops, priests and layfolk having sex outside of marriage, and now this will be blessed in the Church in a ceremony that sounds strangely like a marriage ceremony. This is hypocrisy! Blessings for continuing sinners makes no sense, although it is better than not having such blessings.

What would be more welcome would be a decision on the real issue, the definition of marriage. The purpose of sex is an underlying issue.

A commission to study exactly that was formed in a resolution passed in both houses, to report its findings at GC78.

 

[higgs2]

They're capable and prepared if it comes to that, but why would they? Seriously.

indeed.

 

[MKJ]

I agree. But I get the impression that they believe they are taking the moral high road with their actions against those close minded fundie bigots, and thus, they're actually being the morally brave ones for staying in and pushing these decisions.

I think that some people may be in that position - people who haven't really thought much what it means to be in Communion with other churches.

I don't think that is really what is going on with the leadership. I don't tend to be cynical in general, but I have become pretty cynical about the motives of the Episcopal leadership. I think they want to keep the title as the official Anglican body in the US because they want the assets and possibly whatever prestige is attached to that body. If they took themselves out their legal arguments for keeping the properties of dissenting parishes and diocese would be seriously weakened.

 

[Albion]

I think that some people may be in that position - people who haven't really thought much what it means to be in Communion with other churches.

I don't think that is really what is going on with the leadership. I don't tend to be cynical in general, but I have become pretty cynical about the motives of the Episcopal leadership. I think they want to keep the title as the official Anglican body in the US because they want the assets and possibly whatever prestige is attached to that body. If they took themselves out their legal arguments for keeping the properties of dissenting parishes and diocese would be seriously weakened.

I don't recall membership in the Anglican Communion playing any significant role in the court battles over parish property. TEC is well-enough positioned by the changes made in her own documents. However, voluntarily leaving the Anglican Communion would imply that her stands on various issues forced her out or else were beyond the pale for Anglicans, neither of which she'd see any reason to concede.

 

[higgs2]

I think that some people may be in that position - people who haven't really thought much what it means to be in Communion with other churches.

I don't think that is really what is going on with the leadership. I don't tend to be cynical in general, but I have become pretty cynical about the motives of the Episcopal leadership. I think they want to keep the title as the official Anglican body in the US because they want the assets and possibly whatever prestige is attached to that body. If they took themselves out their legal arguments for keeping the properties of dissenting parishes and diocese would be seriously weakened.

There are no assets attached to that title, simply cost. A very high cost in dollars and in frustration. I believe, from what I saw and heard in person, that the TEC leadership truly does not want to take the step of turning their backs on their brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion. You are aware that other Provinces have rejected the covenant outright,which is not what TEC did, are you not? What assets do you believe the TEC keeps if they belong to the AC?

 

[Albion]

There are no assets attached to that title, simply cost. A very high cost in dollars and in frustration. I believe, from what I saw and heard in person, that the TEC leadership truly does not want to take the step of turning their backs on their brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion. You are aware that other Provinces have rejected the covenant outright,which is not what TEC did, are you not? What assets do you believe the TEC keeps if they belong to the AC?

The Covenant was opposed by friends and foes alike and plays a very small role in all these conflicts, however.

 

[higgs2]

The Covenant was opposed by friends and foes alike and plays a very small role in all these conflicts, however.

sigh

 

[JohnLocke]

Homosexuality wasn't the issue in this General Convention. That battle was fought years ago.

Albion, in all humility and respect can you give me a resource? I have begged for the answer to the question "Is homosexual activity sinful?" from priests and bishops in the Communion and have been blown off dozens of times. If this issue has been resolved I'd love to know the answer.

More generally,
I find it odd that the title of this Forum is "Scripture, Tradition, Reason" straight out of Hooker, and yet when I reviewed the Blue Book from the General Convention from the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music on this issue, I found:

1. Fairly tortured use of Scripture, "One of the ways Christians partricpate in mission is by witnessing to Christ in how we live in our closet relationship" (Blue Book, pg. 193) and as support the authors used John 13:35, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another"
I'm pretty sure the love the author of John was referring too was not the sexual kind.

2. Anti-Traditional arguments. e.g. "All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder" [Footnote 10, pg. 197 Blue Book]
Since when was the tradition of the American Psychological Association relevant to the traditions of the Episcopal Church?

"Over the last sixty years in the United States ... contributed to a grdaul shift in cultural perspectives on teh complexity of sexual orientation and gender identity" (Blue Book pg. 197)

3. Reason. The logic seems missing, at first the authors assert "Scripture and Christian tradition encourage us to see in these intimate relationships a refelction of God's own desire for us. The long tradition of commentatry on the biblical Song of Songs, for example, illustrates this spiritual significance of sexual relationships." (Blue Book pg. 194) and yet, when justifying the blessing of same-sex relationship by referring to the 2000 General Convetion resolution D039 "which identified monogamy, fidelity, holy love, and other characteristics of lifelong, committed relationships." Is it just me or did they try to take the whole "sex" thing out of the picture?

The authors also fail to provide any kind of limiting principle to their tortured argument. Should the Church create a new liturgy to bless the committed, monogamous, etc. relationship between a married person and their unmarried partner so long as the married person is not having sexual relations with his/her spouse?

Should the Church create a new liturgy to bless the committed, monogamous etc. relationship of nonsexual best friends?

Or the committed relationship between more than 2 people?

I don't pretend to know the answers, but it seems to me that the General Convention, as it efforts are reflected in the Blue Book, fell signficantly short of the requirement to use Scripture, Tradition and Reason to justify this rather radical change from tradition.

To be honest, I care less about the conclusion (pro, con, or undecided) than that the Church play by its own freaking rules.

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

Paul's letters were addressed to early Christians within the context of their contemporary social norms and structures. If his words are evidence of anything, it is that the Holy Spirit was guiding him to proclaim the gospel (Jesus is God, he paid the price for sin's mortal effects on our immortal natures, we are redeemed, etc...) and offer guidance on its practice within the norms of existing social structures. His words to the Collosians were very different from his words to the Ephesians.

The faith was not completely delivered, entire and whole, via the letters of Saint Paul -- the faith is alive and organic and metaphysical all at once, and continues to reveal the nature of God and his relationship to Man through the workings of the same Holy Spirit who was present to guide and inspire during his ministry. If we fail to listen and to apply it to the cultural and social contexts of today, we proclaim it dead. (or at least, frozen.)