h/t Stand Firm
Bishop Gray has indicated that he will not authorize the use of the liturgy
within the diocese.

From here and there is a news report here. There will be a Diocesan Day on August 11th

With thanks to Jill Woodliff at Lent & Beyond for this call to prayer
Bp Mark Lawrence met with his clergy on 25th July 2012, in regards to the actions of General Convention.

St. Patrick’s Breastplate, pronouns modified

We bind unto the clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.

We bind this day to them forever
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
His baptism in Jordan river,
His death on Cross for our salvation;
…Please pray it all

Finally, General Convention approved provisional rites for the blessing of same-sex unions with the permission of the diocesan bishop. As your bishop I do not authorize use of these rites in this diocese. However, I do not make this decision from a posture of condemnation. Many of us have beloved gay and lesbian friends and relatives, and there are many gay and lesbian individuals and couples in our congregations. Their devotion to our Lord is sincere and their ministries enrich our church. I encourage us all to welcome everyone in the Name of the merciful Lord Jesus Christ.

Although I am only newly seated as your bishop, the Holy Spirit has already filled my heart to bursting with love for you. I give thanks to God for each of you and the faith he has poured out to you. I can hardly wait to meet and get to know each and every one of you. Please know that I am always open to hear from you and seek to serve you in any way that I can. In Christ’s love,

Read it all on Page 2

How could anyone attend General Convention, where soaring worship, beautiful music and uplifting preaching marked daily worship, and note only the size of the Presiding Bishop’s crozier? And to pick two pieces of legislation out of more than 400 pieces presented (and then to mischaracterize one of them) is grossly unfair.

At this convention we decided to embark upon significant changes in our Church’s structure, agreed to trial use of a same-sex blessing policy and passed substantive resolutions in a variety of areas of our common life. Failing to address any of these key topics is to have missed the lede.

Read it all.

…as a Christian theologian, I believe that the soundness of theological teaching does indeed manifest itself over the long run. That doesn’t imply that the churches should teach only what has been handed down from long ago; the church has changed its mind, and the church has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. There is no way to guarantee that you’re not off-base. On the other and, if you adhere to what millennia of the saints have taught and believed, you’re a least somewhat less likely to be found in error than if you decide that you’re going to think it all up on your own, taking as fundamental a set of political and philosophical ideas developed over the last couple hundred years. The Enlightenment wasn’t A Bad Thing, but neither was it the dawning of the messianic era. If there’s something you want to identify with Jesus, or Christianity, then your argument is stronger if you can actually give numerous reasons for making that identification; and the more such reasons that you can provide, the stronger the theological argument. And if you want to repudiate a great deal of what is plausibly associated with Jesus and Christianity, it’s not unreasonable for people to question the extent to which your enterprise is still ”˜Christian’.

Read it all.

In a sense, this was probably to expected. Just view the language now used around issues of sexual identity. Whereas gay and lesbian ”” or even just gay ”” was once considered fine it is now necessary to add a whole bunch more of sexual identities.

The simplest is LGBT ”” lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ”” but it is not uncommon to see LGBTTIQ ”” lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning.

Use these terms enough and no longer is it right question why these various groups are being jammed together ”” even though being transgender has nothing to do with being gay and I still have no idea how two spirited became a category. The decision that they are related comes from interest groups and not common sense. And now politicians, journalists and social scientist feel obliged to repeat this litany as if it was the law of the land.

This is nothing to do with liberalism but with group-think.

Read it all.

The bottom line is that we at the Advent will do our best to remain true to the teachings of the Bible. That means we’re all sinners; no one person is above another. That also means we cannot bless any sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. The Bible is clear about this. If anyone who declares the Bible teaches otherwise, then I wouldn’t doubt his or her sincerity, but I would have to question their training in biblical interpretation. (Again, if you would like an overview of the many passages that deal with sexual morality, let us know by using the aforementioned email or telephone number.) While we love one another and reach out to all sorts and conditions of people, and while homophobia by any person on our staff will not be tolerated, we cannot bless same-sex relationships.

Bishop Sloan knows exactly where we stand. He and I have talked openly about our differences. While we do not agree, he not only “tolerates” the Advent’s position, he accepts and respects our position and sees that we have a legitimate voice within his diocese.

Some of my colleagues have long left The Episcopal Church. We respect their decision. But we do not feel called to leave. We feel called by God to be a faithful witness within, but without being in collusion with flawed theology that lies at the heart of this presenting issue. But the presenting issue shall not sidetrack us. Our preaching and teaching ministry will remain focused on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, bearing witness to the Light. “The light shines in the darkness and the darkness shall not overcome it” (John 1:5). We will not waver in our conviction. In all that we do, say and think, may God alone be glorified.

Read it all

Bishop Kee Sloan, the head of the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama, voted in favor of a new ritual of blessing for same-sex unions that the Episcopal Church approved July 10 during its General Convention.

But he won’t allow priests in the Diocese of Alabama to perform it, he said.

Read it all

See also Bishop Sloan Kee’s video report on the theological basis for his vote here

As you are aware, both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops passed by wide margins a resolution that gives Episcopal clergy the opportunity to offer an authorized liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions (A049). The liturgy is entitled, “The Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant.” One can only preside using this liturgy with the permission of the Ecclesiastical Authority- in our case, the diocesan bishop. This liturgy also has the status of being only in “provisional” usage- meaning that it has no constitutional or canonical status. It is presently temporary.

While the title of the liturgy might indicate that something is happening other than a marriage service, the rite itself contains the same structure and components of the marriage rite found in the Book of Common Prayer: Scripture readings, vows, rings, a pronouncement, prayers and a blessing. Consequently, it is clear that such a service is a step towards redefining Christian marriage as clearly expressed both in the Scriptures and in the Book of Common Prayer. As such, I cannot endorse or extend permission for the use of this rite by the clergy under my care in the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida. As I wrote to the Diocese during the election process for bishop: I see nothing in the Scriptures or in our Anglican tradition that give me permission to expand or redefine the institution of marriage. The Scriptures and the Book of Common Prayer are clear that God established the bond and covenant of marriage; and it is my responsibility as a bishop to uphold and maintain what God has created.

Read it all

In my address to the 113th Convention of the Diocese of Northern Indiana last October, I recognized both the diversity of conviction and the necessity that I now face of articulating a policy in the diocese regarding the provisional liturgy. I said:

General Convention in 2009 passed a resolution (C056) that asked the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to assemble and develop theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same-sex unions. As I mentioned in earlier addresses, I voted against this resolution, though with some sadness. I am very grateful for the gay and lesbian Christians who are members of our diocesan family. Their presence is a gift to their parishes and a gift to me. And I realize that they may understand my “No” vote to be a negative word about them. That, however, is far from my intention. Rather, I believe that such a development violates an important Anglican principle: Lex orandi, lex credendi ”“ “the law of praying is the law of believing” ”“ or, more colloquially, you can tell what people believe by listening to the content of their prayers. Anglicans enshrine their doctrine in prayer. We simply do not have the consensus of the Anglican Communion, or of our ecumenical partners, in making such a change in doctrine. A liturgy for blessing same-sex unions will put the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican mainstream and indeed out of the Christian mainstream more generally

…..

In light of the actions of General Convention, and of the convictions and pastoral concerns articulated last fall at our diocesan convention, I make the following response.

First, the provisional liturgy entitled “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” is not authorized for use in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. There will be no exceptions to this policy.

Second, priests of the Diocese of Northern Indiana who, for pastoral reasons, wish to use “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” may travel to a neighboring diocese to do so. I have spoken with the bishops of Chicago, Western Michigan, Michigan, Ohio, and Indianapolis (dioceses that border our own), and they have agreed that Northern Indiana priests may request permission to use a church in their dioceses for such a liturgy. Those priests should also apply for a “license to officiate” from the bishop of the neighboring diocese, since the liturgy would be under that bishop’s sacramental covering rather than mine.

Read it all.

***We conclude: taken as a whole, Resolution A049 is not just a legal nullity and theologically incoherent, although it is that. It is also profoundly unconstitutional in that it purports to do something General Convention is not authorized to do and encourages clergy to violate the canons, the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and their vow to conform to the worship of the Church***

Some extracts From here:-

…….But there is a more ominous aspect to these resolves. They clearly purport to “authorize” something General Convention has no jurisdiction to authorize, thus usurping the authority of the very bishops they purport to authorize. And they invite (using the permissive “may”) bishops to use or adapt this rite in “civil jurisdictions where same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal.” This calls on bishops to ignore both the rubrics for marriage (including civil marriage) defining it as between a man and a woman and the marriage canon, which as the resolution itself acknowledges “applies by extension.” The House of Bishops was expressly advised that the intention of this resolution was to encourage clergy to perform same sex marriages.

One diocesan bishop has already reversed his position and will now allow clergy to perform same sex marriages, concluding “we are left with a situation in which the mind of this recent Convention appears to be to allow such services. However, The Constitution and The Book of Common Prayer still say something else.” For him “the mind of this General Convention” trumped both of these foundational instruments.

The incoherence of this position is demonstrated by the liturgical materials that were approved, which simultaneously opine that the rite can be used in connection with civil marriages and that “A bishop, priest, or deacon who violates the rubrics or the Canon risks disciplinary action under Title IV.”…
………………………………
Every bishop, priest and deacon undertakes at ordination “to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.” The recent action by General Convention purporting to authorize bishops to authorize a rite for blessing same sex couples raises in an acute way the question of what exactly is the worship of The Episcopal Church to which all clergy promise to conform. We look carefully at this question below. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows:

Ӣ The authority to define the worship of the Church is spelled out with precision in Article X of the Constitution.

”¢ Subject to the exceptions in Article X, the worship of the Church is that found in the Book of Common Prayer, which is to be used “in all the Dioceses.”

”¢ General Convention has authority only to amend the Book of Common Prayer or to propose revisions to the BCP and authorize them “for trial use throughout the Church” “at any time” “as an alternative” to the standard Book of Common Prayer.

Ӣ Diocesan bishops, not General Convention, have authority to permit supplemental forms of worship under defined conditions.

Ӣ The proposed rite was not conceived as a revision to the Book of Common Prayer and therefore General Convention had no authority to authorize its use by any majority or supermajority vote.

”¢ The action of General Convention was theologically incoherent in that it assumed that God’s blessing can be invoked provisionally and in some dioceses but not others.

Ӣ The resolution passed is unconstitutional because it exceeds the authority of General Convention and invites clergy to violate BCP rubrics.

Ӣ Bishops cannot constitutionally permit use of this rite in connection with civil marriages.

We conclude: taken as a whole, Resolution A049 is not just a legal nullity and theologically incoherent, although it is that. It is also profoundly unconstitutional in that it purports to do something General Convention is not authorized to do and encourages clergy to violate the canons, the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and their vow to conform to the worship of the Church.
But this is only one instance of the proliferation of unconstitutionally authorized liturgical materials for a church in liturgical, theological and canonical chaos. General Convention itself has called attention to this problem and concluded “it is time”¦to honor the spirit of the prayer book rubrics.” We agree.

Read it all.

It was the church of George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, George Bush Sr and seven other United States presidents. The Episcopal Church is the US branch of the Anglican Church and it was once very influential. More than a third of Supreme Court justices have been Episcopalians. It was one of the first mainstream churches to ordain women; the first to consecrate an openly gay bishop. But over the past 20 years, the church has lost more than a third of its members, falling from 3.4 million in 1992 to 2.3 million in 2012. Now, following its convention in Indianapolis, the Episcopal Church appears on the brink of collapse. Beliefnet.com reports 46 members of the synod have spoken out in support of seceding from the Episcopal Church; six bishops have petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury for permission to leave the Church but remain part of the worldwide Anglican communion. Not all the tension is over liberal policies on sexuality. There’s also deep disagreement on fundamental matters of Christian doctrine. Author, journalist, and Episcopal minister from Florida, George Conger, explains the developments at the convention that sparked the latest crisis.

You can find the whole transcript here.

Supporters of the resolution have hailed the vote as a victory for “justice” and “inclusion” while critics charge the church has turned its back on the undivided witness of the universal church. However, one deputy noted the vote was more symbolic than practical.

The Archdeacon of Albany (New York) the Ven. David Collum told the convention that the “resolution would not change what is happening on the ground.” Those who support gay blessings and gay marriage are already using these rites, while those who opposed gay blessings as un-Scriptural will never use these rites.”

“What will happen is that more will leave the Episcopal Church,” he said, adding that “this really is about the majority wielding power ”“ saying ”˜we don’t care’ to the minority.”

Read it all (subscription required).

Read it all.

Things at the General Convention, from a certain perspective, certainly didn’t look good. My fellow deputies ”” I admit to serving as an elected member of this naughty assemblage ”” endorsed pretty much the same menu that hooked Episcopal appetites during the wild and woolly ’60s. We’re a church whose worship and formularies presuppose the ancient Christian truths; except the way we have come lately to express these truths often makes it seem our principal interests are “social justice,” cultural diversity and the liberalization of sexual norms.

We slammed “colonialism,” patted the Palestinians on the head, urged new government programs to create jobs, called for a carbon-unfriendly energy policy and instructed priests desirous of doing so to confer the church’s blessing upon same-sex unions. I mean, are we the churchy version of The New York Times editorial page or what? Can’t you see millions of Americans beating our doors down to hear us address the worst of modern anxieties ”” family disintegration, the loss of meaning in life, the burgeoning of government supervision and control over daily existence?

Actually, that’s not what the church itself, at a slightly less exalted level, was saying. A report by the Standing Commission on the Mission and Evangelism of the Episcopal Church noted bleakly….

Read it all.

The Rt. Rev. Mark Joseph Lawrence, the Episcopal bishop of South Carolina, fears for the future of his church.

One week after the U.S. Episcopal Church overwhelmingly voted to approve a provisional rite for blessing gay unions and the ordination of transgender people, Bishop Lawrence said in an interview with NBC News that his denomination is moving too far out of the mainstream.

“Do I think that these two decisions will cause further decline? I believe they will,” Bishop Lawrence said. “I think we’ve entered into a time of sexual and gender anarchy.”

Lawrence’s comments come amid a growing debate over the future of so-called mainline Christian churches: Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Lutherans and more. These denominations, which are generally more liberal than their evangelical counterparts, have been in decline for decades, a trend some observers attribute to their supposed leftward drift.

Read it all.

The leader of Midlands and Upstate Episcopalians said this week he remains in prayer and open talks with his fellow bishop in the Lowcountry in hopes of staving off a fracture within the state and the national church over gender issues.

The national church earlier this month approved a same-sex blessing rite and expanded ordination to include transgendered persons.

Bishop W. Andrew Waldo has tried to keep his diverse Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina unified despite theological differences over the controversial issues. He said this week he hopes that his friend, Bishop Mark J. Lawrence, leader of the more conservative and traditional Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, in the Lowcountry, will remain on that same path.

Read it all.

…I want to single out two considerations in my own words that lead me to a conclusion I will draw momentarily.

My first consideration is theological: Is this rite true? When I or any member of the clergy bless anyone, we use the form, “I bless you in the Name of God.” This is what may be called performative language: it performs the action that the words imply. We do not say, “I pray for,” or “I wish,” or “I think that” … God will do so and so. We are only authorized, however, to bless what God, in fact, blesses. And when we use these words, we had better have a clear warrant from Scripture or the theological tradition of the Church to back us up. No individual is competent to decide what God blesses, and no congregation or denomination is competent to do so either. Otherwise, we are merely guessing at best, and misleading people at worst.

My second consideration is closely related to the first: is it really pastoral? How may we give to people the assurance, the comfort and the strength of God’s blessing without the warrant of Scripture or the great Tradition, or even the agreement of our closest brothers and sisters in the Communion to which we maintain we belong? Indeed, how can we do so given the “theological diversity of this church” itself in “matters of human sexuality”? This seems to me to be an incoherent act. A pastoral blessing must rest on a more solid foundation than this. Furthermore, I must point to the “provisional” character of this blessing rite: I must ask our brothers and sisters in Christ who seek this rite if they are really satisfied with a “provisional” blessing? What happens if, or when, this rite is modified, or perhaps even rescinded? What General Convention gives, it can also take away! What kind of blessing is it that is subject merely to majority human vote?

Given these two considerations, my conclusion is predictable: I cannot give direction or permission for the use of the rite in this Diocese. I trust that this conclusion will not be understood to be either capricious or stubborn. The theological and pastoral stakes here are very great indeed. A bishop is ordained to “guard the faith, unity and discipline” of the Church. Given the teaching of Scripture, the Tradition as set forth in our own Book of Common Prayer, the witness of our Communion, and my own theological and pastoral concerns, I find no other alternative.
………..
Where do we stand now after July 12? I answer that we stand where we did on July 3. Our God-given mission remains the same. Our churches welcome all people into our fellowship, proclaim God’s Word, form disciples, strengthen our people for service and ministry, nurture one another in trust and commitment, and pray for one another and our world. We honor one God: the Father who created us, the risen Jesus who calls and transforms us, and the Spirit who strengthens us for mission and enables us to bear fruit that will last.

When people come to us, they rarely ever ask what our General Convention did. Instead they will ask, “Is God real to these people?” And then they will ask, “Is there a place for me here?” By our worship, our study, and our action together we answer that first question. By our openness and welcome we answer the second. “Welcome one another,” St. Paul wrote, “as Christ has welcomed you.” That is our mission. Now, and always.

Read it all and pdf is here

I am utterly serious when I describe myself as a radical centrist. It means that my very first principle as bishop when it comes to life and change within the community of faith is Jesus’ command to the disciple community to love one another as we have been loved, and to be willing to give up even our very lives for one another (John 15:12-13). To be a disciple is to be disciplined: disciplined in discernment, disciplined in theology, disciplined in action, disciplined in love. In his second letter, Peter writes, “For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love.”

My discipline is this: to listen deeply to the challenges and questions of all, from my position in that radical””and, I’m discovering, somewhat dangerous””center. My long-held and still-present desire to move forward on same-sex blessings has been given a new discipline upon listening to the questions of those who object to it and the questions of those who support it. Being the bishop of all requires of me an internal discipline that I am not free to ignore.

To those who object to same-sex blessings, my questions are these, among others:

– How, exactly, is Christian marriage threatened by the blessing of a relationship between two persons of the same sex?…

Read it all.

[Kendall] Harmon’s comment on holiness is surprising given the recent admission of Alan Chambers, president of Exodus international, that they cannot “cure” homosexuality after all. If I understand Harmon correctly he is saying that Jesus Christ transforms us to a holiness which is defined by the norms of the last two thousand years of Christianity. The problem with that statement is that the Holy Spirit hasn’t done that for me. And I know an awful lot of other people who haven’t been transformed into the shape defined by two thousand years of history; twenty centuries that have been wrought with conflict, war and oppression (I’m thinking Crusades, Inquisition, Thirty Years war, slavery). I have stopped trying to be heterosexual, I have stopped trying to be changed into that restrictive shape of holiness. Instead I look for the fruits of the Spirit in my life and ministry. And I see them.

So does the Episcopal Church. “To Set Our Hope on Christ”, an important theological statement written for the Nottingham meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 2005, says, “we note that members of our Church have begun to discern genuine holiness in the lives of persons of same-sex affection”. How much more so now we have experienced the gifts of ministry in the life and person of two bishops, as well as in the lives of the LGBT people we know and love.

We cannot and will not go back into the cookie-cutter holiness that demands that we conform to the social norms of a bygone era. Wasn’t that why Jesus constantly challenged the Pharisees? Wasn’t that why Paul was so opposed to circumcision and a return to the Jewish law?

Read it all.

Although the spiritual leader of Pensacola-area Episcopal churches is conflicted, he has decided to authorize blessing same-sex unions.

The Rt. Rev. Philip M. Duncan II, bishop of the 63-congregation Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast, stated in a letter to his flock of about 19,000 people: “I will consider each request for blessing individually, and I shall permit it where it has pastoral warrant.”

Duncan’s statement followed a decision by bishops at the Episcopal General Convention in Indianapolis this month to approve rites for gay and lesbian relationships….

Read it all.

The Rev. Jeffrey Miller, rector of The Parish Church of St. Helena in Beaufort, and the Rev. Charles Owens III, rector of The Church of the Cross in Bluffton, said they fully support and approve of Lawrence’s letter and views.

“Where we stand is very simple,” Miller said. “We stand foursquare behind the bishop, and we’re in total agreement with the letter that he wrote….”

The fourth area church, All Saints Episcopal Church on Hilton Head Island, staked a more moderate stance, but the Rev. Richard Lindsey, the church’s rector, said the congregation will comply with Lawrence’s views.

“I stand solidly behind the (national) Episcopal Church,” he said. “That’s not to say I’m not loyal to my bishop, but I tend to disagree. … We will honor where he stands because we are part of his diocese and he is our bishop.”

Read it all.

My Dear Brother and Sister Clergy in the Diocese of South Carolina,

The 77th General Convention embraced canonical changes and authorized rites that I, as bishop, felt I could not in good conscience embrace, assent to or pretend in the aftermath that a line had not been crossed. I believe it is important for you, the clergy of this diocese who are actively serving in parishes, to hear from me personally regarding this decision and particularly to know what I shared with the House of Bishops in our Private Session in Indianapolis on Wednesday afternoon July 11th. Certainly it is not for me to reveal what others may have said, as such matters are to be held as confidential. But I believe you are entitled to know what I shared in that session. These are demanding times within the life of the Episcopal Church and increasingly so for this Diocese of South Carolina. Therefore, I believe we need to meet””bishop and clergy to engage in pastoral conversation. I have scheduled a clergy day for this Wednesday, July 25th from 1:00””4:00 p.m. at St. Paul’s Summerville. Please make every effort to attend. I would not summon you on such short notice and during the summer if it were not of high importance. That does not mean, however, you should cancel your vacation plans.

Yours in Christ,

–(The Rt. Rev.) Mark Lawrence is Bishop of South Carolina

In a decision that could strain relations with the Catholic Church and within its own Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church has approved liturgical resources for the blessing of same-sex relationships.

The church’s House of Bishops voted 111-41 July 9 in favor of provisional use of the resources until the next General Convention, held every three years. About 80 percent of the church’s House of Deputies gave their approval July 10.

The secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity called the decision “a huge obstacle on the path to Christian unity,” saying it would affect the Catholic-Episcopal dialogue in the United States.

Read it all. I trust everyone reading the blog to keep up with some basic aspects of General Convention. The phrase “not being on the floor during the vote” is not accurate in reference to the “vote” in question. The majority of the South Carolina deputation and the bishop left General Convention on the second to last day–KSH.

The Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts will allow its clergy to bless same-sex couples, beginning the first Sunday of Advent.

Bishop Gordon P. Scruton and Bishop Elect Douglas J. Fisher made the announcement in a recent letter to clergy and laity.

“Our church has prayed, debated, and sought guidance for this decision for a number of years,” wrote the two bishops. “Same gender couples, committed in love, may now be blessed to enter into a lifelong covenant of fidelity with one another and the living God.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

Make sure to bookmark it and be ready to use it.

The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri, Bishop Wayne Smith, said in a statement that under his direction “the rites will be implemented carefully and pastorally, parish by parish, person by person.” The diocese, with about 14,000 members, encompasses the eastern half of the state.

Bishop Daniel Martins leads the 5,000 Episcopalians in the Springfield, Ill. diocese, which encompasses southern and eastern-central Illinois and includes congregations in Alton, Belleville, Carbondale, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, Granite City and O’Fallon.

Martins voted in the minority against the resolution, and told the Post-Dispatch in an e-mail Wednesday that he had been “clear all along that anything like what we just passed” would not be implemented in his diocese.

Read it all.

“We voted on a number of note worthy things[at General Convention 2012],” Jefferts Schori said. “We passed a trial right for blessing same-sex unions. It will be used on a provisional basis in some dioceses, with the Bishop’s permission only, for three years, and then we will consider something like that again.”

Read it all.

Yesterday the House of Deputies concurred with the decision of the House of Bishops to approve resolution A049, “Authorize Liturgical Resources for Blessing Same-Gender Relationships”. There was a roll call vote in the HOB where I voted “no”. In the HOD vote by Orders, the majority in both Orders from Fond du Lac voted against the resolution. However, the resolution passed by about a 75% majority in each of the Houses.

I would suggest you go to the web site and read the text of the resolution yourself, but let me make a few comments here.
The liturgy referenced in A049 is clearly a service of “Blessing”. It may look similar to the marriage service but it is not and cannot be used as a marriage liturgy. In Genesis God created us male and female; at Cana in Galilee Jesus recognized and honored the covenant of the marriage between a man and a woman; and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin says that marriage is between one man and one woman. The General Convention is clearly stating this is not a marriage, but a blessing of a life-long relationship between two persons of the same sex.

The wording of the resolution was changed to read that this is not for “trial use” but for “provisional use”. “Provisional is defined as “temporary”, “short term” and “conditional”. My understanding is that this means the use of the liturgy is for a period of time, during which it will be studied. It is also conditional in that the use of the liturgy requires the approval of the local Bishop for use in that Diocese. Regarding the approval of the Bishop, the resolution states the liturgy be used “under the direction and subject to the permission of the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority”.

Read it all.