I’m not trying to debate the resolutions themselves, but having read through the proposed resolutions, I find it interesting that the sponsors of the first resolution chose to use Wikipedia as a source. As many a professor tell students today at schools and universities, Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. I could go change that paragraph in Wikipedia right now if I so choose. I am not necessarily questioning the validity of the information, but I instead simply ask, if we expect our students and children to use more reliable sources of information for papers in school, shouldn’t everyone be held to these higher standards when forming opinions and reasoning for possible changes at church.
In the interests of full disclosure, the background notes should add that in countries where civil marriage must precede ecclesiastical (eg France), the Catholic Church does not recognise the civil ceremony for Catholics.
What is marriage in the Episcopal Church? Is it ‘just’ a blessing? Or is it something sacramental, in which God, through human love and sexuality, gives his grace to those who step forward courageously in this commitment and way of life? Does the Episcopal Church have a theology of marriage? All this talk of blessing seems to me to be denuded of theology, a thin, thin, doctrinal understanding.
The revised baptismal covenant is actually interesting. The initial three questions, to which the candidate responds by reciting and affirming the Apostles’ Creed, are unchanged in the resolution. The remaining questions, as the comments explain, have flipped the question and answer; so for example
Celebrant: Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord? People: I will, with God’s help.
in the current prayerbook becomes
Celebrant: How will you respond to temptation and failure? People: With God’s help, by persevering in resisting evil, and, whenever falling into sin, repenting and returning to the Lord.
in the proposed revision. But they also add an additional clause to the baptismal covenant, not found in the prayer book:
Celebrant: How will you bring about the reconciliation between human beings and God’s created order, thereby providing for future generations? People: With God’s help, by actively working for the just and proper use of God’s creation, to include caring for all creatures, as well as responsible stewardship of the things necessary to sustain life in this world of ours.
That last clause may make the resolution harder to pitch; everything else is arguably just grammatical changes which give the active words to the people but leave the substance of the covenant unchanged. The final clause modifies the covenant itself.
In the interests of full disclosure, the background notes should add that in countries where civil marriage must precede ecclesiastical (eg France), the Catholic Church does not recognise the civil ceremony for Catholics.
I wonder how this would play out in the US and Canada. As I was reading the statement I was thinking if the state wants to recognize a union between two people as legally binding … fine. To my mind, this would allow the Church to say, if you want to be legally bound. However, if you want to come together into a union according to the will of God, here is what God is calling you to … a relationship between man and woman, a relationship of procreation, a relationship of fidelity and mutual submission of self, etc …. And I agree, it isn’t an issue of blessing (that seems to limited both in time and in force); it’s an issue of marriage being a sacrament.
The civil blessing doesn’t get around the issue of the ability to participate in the Eucharistic sacrament. One must examine one’s own conscience which is informed by the Church in its discernment of Scripture, not by an individual’s feeling or personal interpretation of Scripture. The Church has discerned that Scripture clearly articulates that God intends marriage to be between man and woman for the purpose of procreation. So if one examines one’s own conscience informed by the Church, one should see that living in a same sex union is living in a relationship contrary to God’s will. So to partake of the Eucharist while still remaining in a relationship contrary to God’s will, would be to eat and drink judgment upon one’s own self.
Anyway, I don’t really know how this would work itself out in North America. The above is simply what ran through my mind.
Don’t miss the rationale for the “Creation Season” that approvingly quotes Dr Schori’s remarks about creation’s being “the body of God”. Nothing like a little panentheism – or actually outright pantheism – from our churches in North Carolina, eh?
I am reminded of something that Stanley Hauerwas said to me a few weeks ago, regarding words that certain groups of Christians shouldn’t be allowed to use anymore. After noting the words that Presbyterians and Methodists shouldn’t be allowed to use, he said that , “Anglicans [and Episcopalians] shouldn’t be allowed to use the word ‘incarnation’ because they mean that God took on human flesh and decided, ‘Hey, this isn’t so bad.'”
The goal of the first resolution is clearly stated,
[blockquote]”It will allow the church to discuss the blessing of the relationships of gay and lesbian persons offering the same pastoral and sacramental ministry which is allowed to heterosexuals. This resolution will allow the church to address the pastoral and sacramental lives of persons (particularly retired persons) for whom civil marriage would cause financial burdens, such as lost pensions and other retirement benefits as well as the encumbrance of estates.
This resolution simply separates “rights†from “rites†and allows the church to proclaim and act with integrity and justice concerning Civil Marriage and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It allows the church and members of the clergy to pastorally engage and support all people in their most important relationships and offers all of the Sacraments of the Church toward that end.”[/blockquote]
Oh, dear…
The baptism resolution reflects the revisionist belief that Christ has conquered Sin, so we no longer need the purification aspect of baptism. This also relieves the revisionist priest of the duty of having to explain to a sweet “innocent” baby’s parents and God parents that this little one and each of them have been born into Sin. Tough language for a revisionist.
I’m not trying to debate the resolutions themselves, but having read through the proposed resolutions, I find it interesting that the sponsors of the first resolution chose to use Wikipedia as a source. As many a professor tell students today at schools and universities, Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. I could go change that paragraph in Wikipedia right now if I so choose. I am not necessarily questioning the validity of the information, but I instead simply ask, if we expect our students and children to use more reliable sources of information for papers in school, shouldn’t everyone be held to these higher standards when forming opinions and reasoning for possible changes at church.
In the interests of full disclosure, the background notes should add that in countries where civil marriage must precede ecclesiastical (eg France), the Catholic Church does not recognise the civil ceremony for Catholics.
What is marriage in the Episcopal Church? Is it ‘just’ a blessing? Or is it something sacramental, in which God, through human love and sexuality, gives his grace to those who step forward courageously in this commitment and way of life? Does the Episcopal Church have a theology of marriage? All this talk of blessing seems to me to be denuded of theology, a thin, thin, doctrinal understanding.
Don’t miss the revised Baptismal Covenant (pages 4-5) and the new liturgical season to be known as “Creation” (page 6).
The revised baptismal covenant is actually interesting. The initial three questions, to which the candidate responds by reciting and affirming the Apostles’ Creed, are unchanged in the resolution. The remaining questions, as the comments explain, have flipped the question and answer; so for example
in the current prayerbook becomes
in the proposed revision. But they also add an additional clause to the baptismal covenant, not found in the prayer book:
That last clause may make the resolution harder to pitch; everything else is arguably just grammatical changes which give the active words to the people but leave the substance of the covenant unchanged. The final clause modifies the covenant itself.
Oh, brother, Irenaeus. Am I ever glad I’m not sending money to a DioNC church any more.
If I get the applied for job in NC, I am definitely [b]NOT[/b] going to be attending an Episcopal Church!
TerryTee,
You bring up an interesting point.
I wonder how this would play out in the US and Canada. As I was reading the statement I was thinking if the state wants to recognize a union between two people as legally binding … fine. To my mind, this would allow the Church to say, if you want to be legally bound. However, if you want to come together into a union according to the will of God, here is what God is calling you to … a relationship between man and woman, a relationship of procreation, a relationship of fidelity and mutual submission of self, etc …. And I agree, it isn’t an issue of blessing (that seems to limited both in time and in force); it’s an issue of marriage being a sacrament.
The civil blessing doesn’t get around the issue of the ability to participate in the Eucharistic sacrament. One must examine one’s own conscience which is informed by the Church in its discernment of Scripture, not by an individual’s feeling or personal interpretation of Scripture. The Church has discerned that Scripture clearly articulates that God intends marriage to be between man and woman for the purpose of procreation. So if one examines one’s own conscience informed by the Church, one should see that living in a same sex union is living in a relationship contrary to God’s will. So to partake of the Eucharist while still remaining in a relationship contrary to God’s will, would be to eat and drink judgment upon one’s own self.
Anyway, I don’t really know how this would work itself out in North America. The above is simply what ran through my mind.
Don’t miss the rationale for the “Creation Season” that approvingly quotes Dr Schori’s remarks about creation’s being “the body of God”. Nothing like a little panentheism – or actually outright pantheism – from our churches in North Carolina, eh?
I am reminded of something that Stanley Hauerwas said to me a few weeks ago, regarding words that certain groups of Christians shouldn’t be allowed to use anymore. After noting the words that Presbyterians and Methodists shouldn’t be allowed to use, he said that , “Anglicans [and Episcopalians] shouldn’t be allowed to use the word ‘incarnation’ because they mean that God took on human flesh and decided, ‘Hey, this isn’t so bad.'”
The goal of the first resolution is clearly stated,
[blockquote]”It will allow the church to discuss the blessing of the relationships of gay and lesbian persons offering the same pastoral and sacramental ministry which is allowed to heterosexuals. This resolution will allow the church to address the pastoral and sacramental lives of persons (particularly retired persons) for whom civil marriage would cause financial burdens, such as lost pensions and other retirement benefits as well as the encumbrance of estates.
This resolution simply separates “rights†from “rites†and allows the church to proclaim and act with integrity and justice concerning Civil Marriage and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It allows the church and members of the clergy to pastorally engage and support all people in their most important relationships and offers all of the Sacraments of the Church toward that end.”[/blockquote]
Oh, dear…
The baptism resolution reflects the revisionist belief that Christ has conquered Sin, so we no longer need the purification aspect of baptism. This also relieves the revisionist priest of the duty of having to explain to a sweet “innocent” baby’s parents and God parents that this little one and each of them have been born into Sin. Tough language for a revisionist.
Big mistake, NC.
libraryjim, there are increasing numbers of Anglican parishes in the NC diocesan area, so all is not lost.
include caring for all creatures, as well as responsible stewardship of the things necessary to sustain life
Maybe somebody will get up and argue that this needs rewording because of its implications re: pregnancy. I.e, is a fetus a creature?
From the diocesan web site:
Delegates tabled action on a resolution calling for revisions to the Baptismal Covenant.
I don’t see anything about the other resolutions.