Question

[MKJ]

I'm new but I'm kinda getting the impression I might be the only person participating on the Anglican forum who's ok with TEC? And I'm not even Episcopalian. I'm kinda just thinking since TEC strives to welcome all, the blessing ceremony right now is just something to aid in welcoming all including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Opposite sex couples have the marriage ceremony option. I know there is no SS marriage ritual but do you think it's possible if SS marriage becomes legal in more places, that eventually TEC will adopt one and celibrate marriage for both opposite and SS couples? And then with no need for it, the current SS blessing could just be done away with.

What TEC has done is put the views of some of its members on this issue above what the Anglican Communion has said. Even when asked to stop approving or using such blessings until the AC can achieve some sort of consensus one way or the other, they have continued on their course while still claiming to be members of the Communion. This has resulted in other provinces in the communion taking actions in response. There has also been actions to squeeze out or even sometimes persecute those within TEC who are more conservative on this issue and are in fact in line with the view of the AC, which has resulted in those parishes and even diocese breaking with TEC - in some cases having to leave behind churches and property and always their own relationship to the AC.

So rather ironically those who take seriously the position of the AC and the traditional teaching on marriage which has never been changed, are finding they are no longer welcome in TEC and have to leave the Communion.

So yes, many people are hostile to some degree to TEC, and people find it hard to characterize them as being warm and welcoming to all. TEC has over the last number of years lost substantial numbers of people who no longer felt welcome in their own home parishes.

At a theological level, the difficulty is they have instituted a ceremony that is at odds with what the AC believes about marriage, sex, and sexual behavior, and they have done it without the discussions and debate that would be required to make such a theological change. The way they have done it does not really even make a lot of sense - a blessing of a sexual monogamous relationship IS a marriage. And these blessings are not offered to heterosexual couples, even in places where same-sex marriage is legal.

The reason some have in a somewhat tongue and cheek way suggested that it is similar to offering a blessing for losing ones virginity or something similar, is that offering a blessing to same sex couples, or any couples having unmarried sex, is that those things are not considered appropriate from the standpoint of Anglican moral teaching.

 

[MKJ]

Without getting into it I know I've read the rationale and reasoning behind the views and beliefs some Christians perhaps of a more liberal persuasion have about homosexuality. So I'm sure everyone closer to the situation than I has read or heard reasoning too.

I would just say there are Christians who might not believe a SS couple living in a loving and committed monogamous relationship compares to a heterosexual married person in an adulterous affair or with heterosexuals shacking up together or losing virginity.

Heterosexuals have the opportunity to have their unions blessed and celebrated in TEC. And since some believe as they do about homosexuality, I would think the blessing is merely something to provide for the SS couple.

Why not shacking up - many people who live together outside of marriage are committed and monogamous and intend for it to be a permanent relationship.

There seems to be an almost total lack of thought about what marriage actually is.

 

[CMatt25]

What TEC has done is put the views of some of its members on this issue above what the Anglican Communion has said. Even when asked to stop approving or using such blessings until the AC can achieve some sort of consensus one way or the other, they have continued on their course while still claiming to be members of the Communion. This has resulted in other provinces in the communion taking actions in response. There has also been actions to squeeze out or even sometimes persecute those within TEC who are more conservative on this issue and are in fact in line with the view of the AC, which has resulted in those parishes and even diocese breaking with TEC - in some cases having to leave behind churches and property and always their own relationship to the AC.

So rather ironically those who take seriously the position of the AC and the traditional teaching on marriage which has never been changed, are finding they are no longer welcome in TEC and have to leave the Communion.

So yes, many people are hostile to some degree to TEC, and people find it hard to characterize them as being warm and welcoming to all. TEC has over the last number of years lost substantial numbers of people who no longer felt welcome in their own home parishes.

At a theological level, the difficulty is they have instituted a ceremony that is at odds with what the AC believes about marriage, sex, and sexual behavior, and they have done it without the discussions and debate that would be required to make such a theological change. The way they have done it does not really even make a lot of sense - a blessing of a sexual monogamous relationship IS a marriage. And these blessings are not offered to heterosexual couples, even in places where same-sex marriage is legal.

The reason some have in a somewhat tongue and cheek way suggested that it is similar to offering a blessing for losing ones virginity or something similar, is that offering a blessing to same sex couples, or any couples having unmarried sex, is that those things are not considered appropriate from the standpoint of Anglican moral teaching.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if in places where SS marriage is legal if down the road TEC will adopt a policy in favor of SS couples having the same marriage ceremony available to them as heterosexual couples do. I know the United Church of Christ's national denomination policy is in favor of SS marriage though views can vary from congregation to congregation. Or wait and see what will happen down the road between TEC and the rest of the AC.

In any case my view coincides with that of the Episcopal priest I conferred with on the subject. She asks if someone believes in one God and in Jesus? If the answer is yes, she says then we are on the same page and can worship together even if we disagree on something like homosexuality. I would add united in Christ. The One most important of all. Whom breaks down walls.

Thank you for your original answer to my question though. And to all who have participated in the thread. God bless each of you. Peace be with you.

 

[Sean611]

I guess we'll have to wait and see if in places where SS marriage is legal if down the road TEC will adopt a policy in favor of SS couples having the same marriage ceremony available to them as heterosexual couples do. I know the United Church of Christ's national denomination policy is in favor of SS marriage though views can vary from congregation to congregation. Or wait and see what will happen down the road between TEC and the rest of the AC.

In any case my view coincides with that of the Episcopal priest I conferred with on the subject. She asks if someone believes in one God and in Jesus? If the answer is yes, she says then we are on the same page and can worship together even if we disagree on something like homosexuality. I would add united in Christ. The One most important of all. Whom breaks down walls.

Thank you for your original answer to my question though. And to all who have participated in the thread. God bless each of you. Peace be with you.

In any case my view coincides with that of the Episcopal priest I conferred with on the subject. She asks if someone believes in one God and in Jesus? If the answer is yes, she says then we are on the same page and can worship together even if we disagree on something like homosexuality. I would add united in Christ. The One most important of all. Whom breaks down walls.

Thank you for your original answer to my question though. And to all who have participated in the thread. God bless each of you. Peace be with you.

SSBs is just the tip of the iceberg and is not even the most important issue facing TEC. What I have a bigger problem with is Episcopal parishes hosting and, in some cases, affirming Jesus Seminar nonsense (this is the seminar that suggests that Jesus had either lady parts or no sexual organs at all). I also have a big problem with bishops and priests who deny the importance of the resurrection, like what we saw with Bishop Budde during Easter. I have a problem with Bishop Spong getting invited by the Bishop of Virginia to speak during Easter and then go on to deny every central facet of Christianity and verbally trash the Nicene Creed. We also have a Presiding Bishop that can't bring herself to give a clear answer in regards to Christ's divinity and resurrection. Homosexuality is just a sympton, the real issues ailing TEC are much more serious. Stale mainline theology is running rampant in TEC and we are in dire need of a renewel.



In my estimation, a church that stands for anything and everything and has no limits wouldn't require much faith, would it?

 

[Albion]

I would just say there are Christians who might not believe a SS couple living in a loving and committed monogamous relationship compares to a heterosexual married person in an adulterous affair or with heterosexuals shacking up together or losing virginity.

No, but your logic does not explain why there should be a SS "blessing" in the first place. If there is such, other people are certainly going to think that the milestones in their lives are worth a blessing, too.

Heterosexuals have the opportunity to have their unions blessed and celebrated in TEC. And since some believe as they do about homosexuality, I would think the blessing is merely something to provide for the SS couple.

Heterosexuals do not have their "unions blessed" in the church. There is no "living together unmarried" or "friends with benefits" rite.

 

[FireDragon76]

SSBs is just the tip of the iceberg and is not even the most important issue facing TEC. What I have a bigger problem with is Episcopal parishes hosting and, in some cases, affirming Jesus Seminar nonsense I

I support gay rights (including marriage) but I'm also troubled by the rest of the liberal theology package that is pushed by the leadership of TEC. The Emergent Church movement shows there are alternatives to liberal theology that can involve moving forward on the "culture war" issues without abandoning Christian distinctives and mission.

 

[CMatt25]

In my estimation, a church that stands for anything and everything and has no limits wouldn't require much faith, would it?

Like you I have faith in Christ's resurrection. But actually in my estimation it takes a lot of faith in God, in Jesus. And faith to welcome all including those outcast. And faith not to fear discussion about what God is calling us today to do and to be. But we will have to agree to disagree. God bless and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Heterosexuals do not have their "unions blessed" in the church.

I didn't realize heterosexuals in TEC didn't unite and weren't blessed. We may have to agree to disagree too though. God bless and peace.

 

[MKJ]

I didn't realize heterosexuals in TEC didn't unite and weren't blessed. We may have to agree to disagree too though. God bless and peace.

No, they marry them.

Here is the thing. If you are saying same-sex blessing is the same as marriage, then that is a problem. Because TEC has been very careful to say the blessings of same-sex relationships are NOT marriage, that they are not oing ahead on a change to sacramental theology without the blessing of the AC.

So if it is the same thing, they are being disingenuous, and it raises real questions about their relationship to the AC. The position of TEC on this only works if a marriage is not the same thing as a blessed union.

If they are different, it runs into the problems that Albion expressed, as well as theological issues around what the difference between such a blessing and a marriage actually is.

 

[FireDragon76]

So if it is the same thing, they are being disingenuous, and it raises real questions about their relationship to the AC. The position of TEC on this only works if a marriage is not the same thing as a blessed union.

The Church has blessed same-sex unions before, in the East they had the rite of Adelphopoesis (blood brotherhood). In some cases those relationships involved homosexuality, we even have evidence of that from the complaints of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 13th century that many of these relationships were homosexual in nature. A blessing of two people commiting their lives together is not inherently un-Christian, nor does it amount to a blanket endorsement of their sexuality any more than a marriage ceremony legitimatizes marital sexual abuse.

I think the Episcopalians have done a poor job explaining the theological reasoning behind allowing same sex blessings. Too often the issue is articulated in humanistic language that both sides cannot agree to, and in fairness to the conservatives or traditionalists, they shouldn't have to agree to. But not all support of same-sex unions need be framed in sub-Christian terms: relatively conservative voices like Rev. Fleming Rutledge can articulate rationales for same-sex unions and more inclusion of gays into the Church.

 

[MKJ]

The Church has blessed same-sex unions before, in the East they had the rite of Adelphopoesis (blood brotherhood). In some cases those relationships involved homosexuality, we even have evidence of that from the complaints of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 13th century that many of these relationships were homosexual in nature. A blessing of two people commiting their lives together is not inherently un-Christian, nor does it amount to a blanket endorsement of their sexuality any more than a marriage ceremony legitimatizes marital sexual abuse.

I think the Episcopalians have done a poor job explaining the theological reasoning behind allowing same sex blessings. Too often the issue is articulated in humanistic language that both sides cannot agree to, and in fairness to the conservatives or traditionalists, they shouldn't have to agree to. But not all support of same-sex unions need be framed in sub-Christian terms: relatively conservative voices like Rev. Fleming Rutledge can articulate rationales for same-sex unions and more inclusion of gays into the Church.

No, there is no precedent of the Church blessing same-sex sexual relations. There are people who had them, illegitimately, within a church blessed friendship.

Are you suggesting that same-sex blessings are meant for non-sexual relationships, and those who have sex within them should be admonished.

Because that is not how they are being used. That is just totally outside of what they are trying to do.

 

[Rurik]

The Church has blessed same-sex unions before, in the East they had the rite of Adelphopoesis (blood brotherhood).

.

That is a big call and one that has very little proof one way or the other. Both sides of the argument use some very doggy argument to disprove each other.

 

[ebia]

No, they marry them.

Here is the thing. If you are saying same-sex blessing is the same as marriage, then that is a problem. Because TEC has been very careful to say the blessings of same-sex relationships are NOT marriage, that they are not oing ahead on a change to sacramental theology without the blessing of the AC.

So if it is the same thing, they are being disingenuous, and it raises real questions about their relationship to the AC. The position of TEC on this only works if a marriage is not the same thing as a blessed union.

If they are different, it runs into the problems that Albion expressed, as well as theological issues around what the difference between such a blessing and a marriage actually is.

In the CofE it used to be that divorced people remarrying were not allowed a church wedding, but were often allowed to have their relationships blessed. Is that not also the situation in countries where marriages have to be performed by the state?

 

[truthseeker32]

.

That is a big call and one that has very little proof one way or the other. Both sides of the argument use some very doggy argument to disprove each other.

Yeah, it seems up there with the claim that Jesus was a homosexual or that there was a female pope. You have to do some serious historical-critical gymnastics to make your case.

 

[MKJ]

In the CofE it used to be that divorced people remarrying were not allowed a church wedding, but were often allowed to have their relationships blessed. Is that not also the situation in countries where marriages have to be performed by the state?

That is a good question - I do not know what was done here before they allowed remarriage in the Anglican Church. I know they will sometimes bless marriages after the fact for people who for some reason get married by a magistrate. But yes, in many places where there has to be a civil marriage first, the couple then goes to get blessed by the church.

It sounds in a way that the logic was similar to the way they allow second marriages in the Orthodox Church, but the service is not the same. And doing it is considered a case of economy for pastoral reasons, it is not meant to be normative, even if it is not unusual. It seems that the Anglicans in this case were recognizing that these people have been really married by their vow to each other and being recognized by the state, and are just giving the churches blessing on the marriage.

The thing is, theologically, the blessing of a vowed monogamous, permanent sexual relationship between a man and a woman IS a marriage. So while they might have called it a blessing to emphasize the fact that marriage after divorce was not normative, it does not make it a different sort of union, fundamentally. Marriage is the expressed commitment of a man and a woman to each other, recognized by the community and, ideally, blessed by a priest.

This is a big part of the problem with the way TEC is treating these same-sex blessings. They are differentiating them from marriage because the AC is clearly not willing to go there, and many of their own people are not willing to go there, and there has been no determination if it is even possible to have a same-sex marriage.

But it seems to be the case that they are just going ahead with what is required for a marriage and calling it something else to avoid trouble. I tend to think that has as much to do with sloppy theological thinking as much as anything else, which illustrates the problem with going ahead with these things without bothering to clear up the theological basis for them.

 

[mark46]

The TEC has put the cart before the horse. We have decided to bless sexual relations outside of marriage. This clearly makes no sense, regardless of what the state does.

I suspect that TEC will NOT make SSB's required as was virtually the case in women's ordination. Rather, I suspect that TEC will deal with the issue directly and debate the definition of marriage, with the idea of accepting same-sex marriage.

To me, blessing sex out of marriage is an even larger step than redefining the requirements for the sacrament of marriage, whether for homosexuals or for heterosexuals.

 

[mark46]

I agree that homosexuality is not the central problem of the TEC. However, it is indeed the central issue for those who have recently decided to leave, including the one-issue ACNA and the one-issue Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina. This break is not about the heresies that have cropped up in the past 40 years. Curiously, no one has left because of the serious problems that you mention.

Note that I am not discussing the Continuing Churches that left for a variety of reasons, most particularly women's ordination.
==========================

So, here we are in TEC, with most of the self-defined conservatives gone. We now are in a fight for orthodoxy, not a fight over tangential issues.

IMHO, orthodoxy is NOT about the definition of the minor sacraments of marriage and holy orders. For me, the struggles over free will and double predestination were much more important than these issues. Rather orthodoxy is about the Creed, the Resurrection and the Nature of Christ. Orthodoxy is about what it means to believe in Jesus and to follow Him.
=============================
I continue to be amazed at those who would stay for years when clear heresy was being taught and leave when the definition of marriage is at issue.

SSBs is just the tip of the iceberg and is not even the most important issue facing TEC. What I have a bigger problem with is Episcopal parishes hosting and, in some cases, affirming Jesus Seminar nonsense (this is the seminar that suggests that Jesus had either lady parts or no sexual organs at all). I also have a big problem with bishops and priests who deny the importance of the resurrection, like what we saw with Bishop Budde during Easter. I have a problem with Bishop Spong getting invited by the Bishop of Virginia to speak during Easter and then go on to deny every central facet of Christianity and verbally trash the Nicene Creed. We also have a Presiding Bishop that can't bring herself to give a clear answer in regards to Christ's divinity and resurrection. Homosexuality is just a sympton, the real issues ailing TEC are much more serious. Stale mainline theology is running rampant in TEC and we are in dire need of a renewel.



In my estimation, a church that stands for anything and everything and has no limits wouldn't require much faith, would it?

 

[ebia]

But it seems to be the case that they are just going ahead with what is required for a marriage and calling it something else to avoid trouble.

That's exactly what they were doing by blessing re-marriages when the church did not allow for divorce.

 

[Albion]

I agree that homosexuality is not the central problem of the TEC. However, it is indeed the central issue for those who have recently decided to leave, including the one-issue ACNA and the one-issue Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina.

While we've agreed on much lately, I think the above is not entirely correct. In the South Carolina situation, it is simply not the case that the split was solely over the homosexuality issue. The diocese did not leave TEC in protest of gay clergy, etc. It was more about the Presiding Bishop acting against her own church's canon law to hold a kangaroo court in order to have it rubber stamp her decision to get rid of Bishop Lawrence and then recognize a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] diocese--again in violation of her own church's canons. Regardless of which side any Episcopalian stands on with regard to the homosexual issues, I would think there would be alarm at such ecclesiastical hijinks. But there doesn't appear to be much.

I continue to be amazed at those who would stay for years when clear heresy was being taught and leave when the definition of marriage is at issue.

I understand. Something's very wrong.

 

[Esdra]

In the CofE it used to be that divorced people remarrying were not allowed a church wedding, but were often allowed to have their relationships blessed. Is that not also the situation in countries where marriages have to be performed by the state?

You're correct.
But you can have as much civil marriages as you want, as far as I know. You only need to be divorced of your former husband(s) or wife/wives.