Resolution: C009
Title: Develop Rites for Same Gender Unions
Topic: Liturgy
Committee: 13 – Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music
House of Initial Action: Bishops
Proposer: Diocese of Atlanta
Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church authorize the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to develop appropriate rites for the celebration and blessing of the sacred unions of gay and lesbian persons, taking into account the variety of civil arrangements for such unions available in the regions served by the church; and be it further
Resolved, That such rite or rites shall be presented at the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
EXPLANATION
In light of events following the Lambeth Conference of 2008, it is clear that our charitable restraint and response to the Windsor Report in the matter of our declining to develop a rite or rites to allow the celebration and blessing of sacred unions for people of the same gender has not had the effect of preserving unity and civility between those who believe such unions may be good and moral and those who cannot conceive as such a possibility being within the bounds of Christian faith and the Anglican Tradition. It is also clear that while a great many Episcopalians remain undecided about their own beliefs in these matters, they recognize both the desirability of allowing those who seek to make such commitments in the midst of their community of faith to do so; and that the reality that the cost of our charity has been at the expense of one clear minority within our church; and further that there is no compelling reason that these brothers and sisters should have to continue to bear the burden of that charity.
The development of such a rite or rites by and for the whole church will allow a restoration of decency and order from diocese to diocese under the guidance of each bishop, the ensuring of theological integrity to such rites and the capacity of the church to ‘sanction’ and declare such committed relationships among people of the same gender to be both moral and fully within the bounds of our common life.
[blockquote]…the ensuring of theological integrity to such rites …[/blockquote]
I am sorry, but I don’t think that is possible, but give them credit for sneaking in that “integrity” word in there.
[blockquote] “It is also clear that while a great many Episcopalians remain undecided about their own beliefs in these matters, they recognize both the desirability of allowing those who seek to make such commitments in the midst of their community of faith to do so.” [/blockquote]
[b]We do???? [/b]
“Theological integrity?” Umm, excuse me, but what would this bunch know about theological integrity? They’re the ones who’ve [b]ignored it,[/b] for Pete’s sake!
“The development of such a rite or rites by and for the whole church will allow a restoration of decency and order…”
I think not.
Is there a list of resolutions that we might want to keep an eye on?
There is no surprise here, and I fully expect the resolution to pass. The spiritual blindness evident in this resolution is complete in terms of its perverse calling of evil good. Notable is the language of calling SSB’s “sacred,” as in [i] “the celebration and blessing of sacred unions for people of the same gender”, [/i] and declaring them to be “moral,” when at the end it’s asserted that the church has the capacity to sanction and declare such unions to be moral.
This brazen assertion that TEC has the capacity to overturn the clear and consistent teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the universal consesnsus of the ethical teaching of the Christian Church for two millenia is simply making explicit what has been implicit all along in TEC’s support of the “gay is OK” delusion. And although it’s totally wrong, it’s refreshingly clear and unambiguous.
To me it suggests that many of TEC’s leaders operate on the principle that the will of God, like a presidential veto, can be overturned by a sufficiently large vote.
Which of the many pro-gay resolutions will pass is still unclear, but I have little doubt that some of them will. And I don’t want to be associated with a denomination that so flagrantly sets aside the revealed will of God. This was a major contributing factor in the timing of my decision to leave TEC last month, before the scandalous embarrassments that are likely to come out of GenCon 2009 actually happen. But a larger factor was the official launching of the ACNA a couple of weeks ago.
But in any case, no matter what nonsense ends up getting passed in Anaheim, at least I am no longer a part of such a tainted and thoroughly corrupted denomination. And that is a real relief to me.
David Handy+
Very glad to be out of TEC now
This may sound a bit extreme given Anglican sensibilities, but here goes. Has anyone ever given any thought to dealing with this problem in the manner once customary for resolving great heresies that threatened to tear apart the church? I am referring to convening a Great Council or at least a pan-Anglican Synod with representatives from as many provinces as can be assembled and very formally and solemnly condemning this as heresy with anathema attached.
Is this even possible in the Anglican communion?
If not, that raises all kinds of questions in and of itself.
Under the mercy,
John
[blockquote]it is clear that our charitable restraint and response to the Windsor Report in the matter of our declining to develop a rite or rites to allow the celebration and blessing of sacred unions for people of the same gender has not had the effect of preserving unity and civility between those who believe such unions may be good and moral and those who cannot conceive as such a possibility being within the bounds of Christian faith and the Anglican Tradition.[/blockquote]
Oh dear…where to begin on this logical train wreck?
Charitable restraint and response…I’ll start there. TEC’s actions were what “tore the fabric” of unity, the Communion told TEC repeatedly not to go there, and yet TEC said, “*dang the torpedoes, full speed ahead because God is doing a new thing…” I saw no charity there, nor in the B033 aftermath when these folks not in favor of that were screaming bloody murder. I know for a fact that blessings have been going on under the table in the Diocese of Atlanta. I got an invitation to one from an old high school acquaintance. I’ve heard tell of others by people in the know about such things. Don’t know how that defines as restraint.
not preserving civility and unity…So, we rip the fabric and create the dissension to begin with. We take a so called moratorium, which everyone knew was a paper tiger, which was never really a moratorium in the truth sense of “death” to the practice, as it was merely an unenforceable hiatus with no attempt at an amendment of life. The dissension remains in place, and so now the blame for that dissension falls on the conservative position on sexuality which was against the initial move to begin with? Nice obfuscating of blame there.
So logically, I connect the dots of the reasoning of this resolution as follows: We gave the Communion the proverbial kiss off despite warnings, the Communion blew up and responded with the Windsor report, we blew off the Windsor report, eventually created some moratorium that no one who was against it really followed, and this absolves us from the current dissension that we ourselves created because no one took it seriously, and thus this gives us the freedom to go back to doing what threw the Communion into dissension to begin with.
I dunno…3rd Base!
At least they dropped the justification that because states are doing it we need to make the rites available. Nothing like culture guiding the church.