This convention did recognize the changing circumstances in particular civic jurisdictions regarding “legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons.” It called for “a renewed pastoral response” but did not authorize same-sex blessings.
The House of Bishops will be in theological discussion in the coming years regarding this pastoral issue. This is not new. An initial theological study from the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops was expected for Spring 2010 anyway. Resolution C056 expects the theological conversation to be held within the wider context of the Anglican Communion. The discussions in the House of Bishops at this General Convention were honest, caring, prayerful, respectful and thoughtful. Deep listening to one another characterized our time together. This particular focus may continue to unfold in years to come just as the issue of divorce and remarriage did within the church. Changes in the culture forced theological discussion regarding divorce at the Lambeth Conferences in 1920 and 1930. Our own General Convention slightly relaxed our canons regarding divorce and remarriage within the church first in 1946 and then set out current standards in 1973. The reality of faithful homosexual Christians was, to my knowledge, first mentioned at a General Convention in 1976 and at the Lambeth Conference in 1978.
Please note that no church canons regarding marriage were changed, or even debated, at this just concluded General Convention. The conversation is continuing within our church and the Anglican Communion about the pastoral approaches and theological understandings for gay and lesbian Christian’s who are loved by God and respond to God’s call.
No mention in the entire letter of D025 …. none. Records show +Dabney voted against it. Wonder if this means the Diocese is no longer adhering to the Windsor Report? This is almost as surreal as the Bishop of Nevada’s report: http://bishopdansblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/pastoral-letter-to-nevada-episcopalians.html
Both are Amazing!
#1 Bishop Smith voted no on D025 and yes on the C056…the number are beginning to blur. He did sign the Anaheim Statement even though his name did not appear on the versions I read. Because he believes the Canons and the Prayer Book are not changed, he sees himself and this diocese as both Windsors ones.
As a priest in this Diocese, I find his vote confusing and contradictory. Traditionalists are not going to accept it and neither are the more liberal folks. He has placed himself squarely in the middle and will have folks on both sides upset with him.
It is my opinion that taking the middle road is a mistake. Plus if folks can say yes to both resolution and still sign the Anaheim Statement it is worthless from a reassert or traditionalist perspective.
I believe the uneasy truth in this diocese we have lived with since his consecration is most likely over and we will all have to live with the reality and consequences of his leadership.
So, not having authorized same-sex blessings, 815 and its bishops will immediately inhibit those found performing them. Right, Bishop Smith?
#2 Creighton I was not aware he signed. Im not sure it really matters, as several others who voted yes/yes also signed. His statement can only be read as stating one thing however…the changes are going to happen, and it isn’t so bad, else why use the divorce/remarriage analogy? He technically denies a commitment to the Covenant by describing it as the covenant discussion process.
I don’t see him as fence sitting at all, just being dishonest, perhaps with himself, but certainly with communicants, about his true feelings by trying to conceal his commitment to TEC’s agenda.
aacswfl1: Yes Bishop Smith did sign the Anaheim Statement. His name was listed on Thinking Anglicans and a priest friend called him to verify it.
I was at Anaheim. My sense is that reading the many different views (by bishops) as to what happened there we can cover the spectrum. One thing for sure, regardless of interpretation if you read the language of C056 a major change happened with the recognition of “partnered” gay and lesbian persons being considered for ordination. The current canons state that the process is open to all person: Title III Canon 1, Sect 2. So in one sense there is nothing new. But the singling out of the word “partnered” does change things significantly. Under our previous bishop in SWFLA an openly partnered priest would have been advised to live celibate or leave the diocese. So the landscape has changed at the local level regardless of interpretation.
I would add Gary that if you vote yes on C056 but do not allow this pastoral sensitivity to persons in your diocese, why vote yes on it….I believe those on the liberal side who see this as a justice issue will be on the war path and frankly why shouldn’t they?
But as to the Anaheim Statement, you have bishops who voted against, divided votes on the two resolutions, and voted for both resolution. If anyone can sign on the Anaheim Statement means absolutely nothing. This is being double minded to the nth degree and yet so many do not see it.
Creighton – This is the first time B. Smith has gone on the record since his consecration. It was an important public vote. To stand for orthodoxy and to communicate his committment to those of us who are orthodox, he could have voted ‘no’ on both resolutions. But he did not. In his letter he agrees to more theological discussion. But Gagnon has already soundly refuted homosexuality. So I would like to know from Bishop Smith what exactly he wants to discuss. Secondly, he calls C056 a pastoral issue. But it is not a pastoral issue to begin with. So by naming it a pastoral issue, he obscures the issue for the average person because someone will think the homosexual is ok or normal. The homosexual needs gentle and encouraging words from the priest, rather than a strong rebuke of a sexual sin. Someone told me that he made a public statement that clarifies his view of same-sex marriage. Do you have any written record of his statements?