The second resolution on same sex relationships also says two things: The first part is purely pastoral. Every resolution of the Episcopal Church mentioning homosexual persons since the early 1980’s has called upon the clergy to offer them pastoral care. The duty to afford pastoral care to gay and lesbian persons has been affirmed by the Lambeth Conference, the Windsor Report, and the Primates of the 39 Anglican Provinces. Every one of our clergy has taken vows to extend such care to “all” our people. So the principle is well established.
This Resolution notes that there has been a recent wave of law making and law changing concerning these relationships ”“some laws allowing gay marriage, some laws allowing civil unions, and other laws banning such unions. This new legal situation presents new pastoral challenges to which we must respond. The resolution says bishops “may” ”“ not “must” but “may” ”“ offer a “pastorally generous response.” What that means depends on the situation, the context, and the judgment of the bishop. The New York Times says it means blessing civil unions. But I never heard any bishop, liberal or conservative, define it that way. It could mean a special ritual or a prayer or a phone call. It’s up to the bishop. Pastoral generosity is not defined.
The second part of the resolution deals with developing theological and liturgical resources for same sex unions. There was no decision to authorize gay marriage or bless same sex unions. We worked with the language of the Resolution the best we could to make it clear that there is not a decision on that hard question. This Resolution requests the Liturgy and Music Commission to compile and develop theological and liturgical resources so that if and when we consider that issue in the future, we will have some examples to look at.
In 2006, we passed a resolution calling for restraint in “authorizing the blessing of same sex unions” until there has been time for an international conversation on the issue. We have exercised restraint for three years and will continue to exercise restraint while that conversation continues. That does not mean no one anywhere will ever bless a same sex union. The Primates have recognized some leeway for conscience in these matters. Well before General Convention, I assured our clergy that no one in Nevada would be disciplined for following their conscience on this question. That is still the case. The new resolution calls for pastoral generosity on the part of bishops. I hope I was already pastorally generous to all of our people and will try to always be so.
In other words – we call it “restraint” when we go ahead and do it anyway.
🙄
“There was no decision to authorize gay marriage or bless same sex unions”.
Other than giving certain bishops “generous discretion” to “adapt” the current Prayer Book liturgies of Marriage in those states that recognize gay marriage…uh, we haven’t changed the meaning of marriage and we haven’t said that those bishops can, uh… perform gay marriages by rephrasing the Prayer Book.
#1. The church is likely invoking resolution D039, from GC 2000, which lays out the ground rules: there are some sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage that the Church will consider as holy, and will respond to with all pastoral care and sensitivity. This isn’t the exact wording, but you get the drift…Since all “committed” homosexual relationships are sanctioned by General Convention, any bishop candidate engaged in a “committed” same-sex relationship falls within the bounds of the restraint called for in B033. Isn’t it ironic that a resolution (B033) so universally hated by progressives has now become their cornerstone?
This is so thoroughly disconnected from reality, there are no words that will cover the vertigo. I would call this a brazen collection of lies – and in the real world, that is is what it is – but in TEC-speech, this is simply a standard justification of an indwelling bias, the collating of an agenda, a position, and a desired outcome. But in the real world, this is a worthless piece of spin, what we have seen to often that it jhas become like rain in Maine this summer. Larry
Bishop Dan explains
ROTFLMHO!
Welcome to the world of newspeak and doublethink.
Well, I can think of a [i]special ritual[/i], though it will never be special, but commonplace, in orthodox parishes. It is called confession and repentance.
I have wondered how the good people of Nevada could elect KJS as a bishop. Now I see. They are completely gullible and in the dark about church matters. You can say anything and get away with it.
As the bishop makes clear in his letter, he has no intention whatsoever of honoring the moratoria, regardless of his signature on the Anaheim Statement. He has clearly authorized his clergy to be “pastorally generous” and do whatever they want without fear of discipline. In his own comment to a challenge on his blog, here is how he interprets the Anaheim Statement (go to the link Kendall provided above, and scroll down to find his comment]:
[blockquote]Sure. The AS was intended by the author as a clarification of the Resolutions, saying essentially the same things Bishop Katharine said in her letter to ABC Williams — not as a dissent as it was spun in the press. How could we dissent against our own votes? That interpretation is stuck in the old paradigm, not the new reality of this year’s effots to reconcile and heal.
The AS, I believe, was not signed by some bishops who opposed the inclusive resolutions. I know it was signed by a number of us who voted for the resolutions. I understand its intent is to reassure the Communion of our continuing commitment to dialogue — BTW it had some good effect that way according to ABC Williams’ reflections — and to reassure folks in conservative dioceses that we are still orthodox and committed to the Communion. After the last Convention the stir in conservative dioceses was over general orthodoxy, not so much GLBT inclusion. The only possbile snag language in the AS is over the moratoria. You know how I have been dealing with that issue and will continue doing so. Given that approach, I was able to sign the AS and did so to preserve Communion dialogue and so the 30 dissenting bishops can show thier people that those of us who support GLBT incluson also support core doctine and the Communion.[/blockquote] So, is this indeed a fair assessment of what the author of the statement meant, or is this the hogwash I think it is? You either abide by the moratoria or you don’t, this bishop clearly does not, and his name should be removed from the Anaheim statement, or the statement itself should be thrown in a trash can.
The Bishop of Nevada wrote:
“[P]astorally generous response … could mean a special ritual or a prayer or a phone call.â€
#6’s comment above sort of beat me to the bunch when he refers to repentance and reconciliation, but I’ll add this:
Q: Could a “pastorally generous response” be a kind but firm reaffirmation of traditional teaching regarding sexuality, and a kind but firm invitation to repentance and amendment of life?
A: Mmm . . . I don’t think that is what GC 2009 had in mind . . .
Let’s see, make up liturgies **JUST IN CASE** we ever need them. Hmmmm….Ever make a wrench for a bolt that didn’t exist? Only an Anglican could build a car like that.
[i]Several bold steps were taken to strengthen evangelism.[/i]
Um, yeah. Like canning the whole evangelism program and staff at 815? Less is more…? Sure. Tell me another one.
[i]We had some opportunities to depart from the traditional faith of the church. […] We did not do these things. The bishops and deputies were emphatically orthodox.[/i]
opportunities to depart from the faith (he makes it sound like a good thing!). As to the emphatic orthodoxy, hahahahahahahahahaha!!! Gee haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. (Yeah, I know I cut out the bit about affirming Mary’s virginity… but that was not the only “opportunity” TEC had to depart from orthodoxy. They pursued the others with gusto.
They had opportunities to AFFIRM orthodoxy too. They didn’t. Resolution C069 was discharged without a vote. See here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/24192
Even though the same resolution was passed by a whopping 283 – 8 by the CoE in February.
Oh yeah, and then there is the ludicrous bit about the Anaheim Statement, but TJ has already fisked that part of +Edward’s letter.
What a load of rubbish. I agree with TJ that Edwards’ words here basically turn the Anaheim Statement into a meaningless bit of paper. It is TEC hermeneutics as always… make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Sigh.
Of course, this is the “best” bit of Edwards’ letter. I just added it to Stand Firm’s document the heresy thread it is such a keeper:
[blockquote][b]That is perfectly ok. As Episcopalians, we are free to hold different beliefs about issues of doctrine.[/b] [/blockquote]
Oh and don’t miss the closing insult. Dissent = immaturity.
[blockquote]I hope and pray that we will respect each other’s feelings and values in these matters. We are called to love one another, not to agree with one another. [b]In the Diocese of Nevada, we are exceptional at knowing where we stand and letting our neighbor do likewise. But not everyone is so mature. There may well be dissension in other dioceses and internationally.[/b][/blockquote]
*Some* bishops actually care whether their sheep have entered through the narrow gate and are safe from the wolves and the thieves, etc. But if you want to leave your sheep wandering all over the place, well, fine, we can let you do what you want. Just don’t expect us to call it Christianity.
Meanwhile in the Diocese of Texas the rector of Church of the Resurrection in Austin is apparently arguing that in C056 [i]may[/i] means must and that particularly those bishops… means all bishops so that his version means:
And grouses that his bishops won’t allow it. But what the heck–generous pastoral response means a telephone call.
This ‘bishop” of Nevada couldn’t tie the shoes of William Fisher Lewis, his predecessor. Neither could KJS. The flies have occupied the camp where some giants once lived.