Gay Episcopalians in central and southern Ohio can have their relationships blessed in church starting on Easter next year.
Bishop Thomas E. Breidenthal announced at the annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio on Friday that he would lift the prohibition on blessing same-sex unions.
The diocese includes Columbus and the lower half of the state, a territory of about 25,000 Episcopalians in more than 80 churches.
To allay the fears of some conservatives, Breidenthal added that no priest will be required to perform a same-sex blessing.
“…no priest will be required to perform a same-sex blessing.”
Not until the week after Easter next year.
The folks I know in Southern Ohio are going ape over this.
And yet how many Episcopalians will remain in communion with this heretic?
Southern Ohio is apparently doing the new thing now. I don’t know how a diocese that used to have a fairly conservative bishop (Thompson) and a decently-sized conservative contingent, can end up at a place where the bishop announces same-sex blessings and the whole convention erupts in cheers. It just boggles my mind. Of course, I posted about where our conservative contingent eventually ended up, and most of us have left TEC.
I am very curious how the average layperson is reacting to this. A lot of people I knew when I left TEC in 2004 thought I was right in my opposition to TEC’s innovation, but thought I was too radical by leaving because “it isn’t happening in our diocese/parish.” Well, now it IS happening, and I wonder how everybody is reacting. Southern Ohio is culturally pretty conservative.
25,0000 on the books maybe, but not attending worship. Less than 10k I think on a Sunday.
This is what happens when large parishes with large delegations to an electing convention decide to elect a one-issue candidate.
…and this will be coming soon, to a TEC diocese near you!
I pity the poor ostriches you’re referencing, DavidBennett, whether in Southern Ohio, Georgia (where my church is physically located, though not spiritually, thank goodness), or elsewhere. Any parishioner who thinks his parish priest will protect his church from this better hope his priest doesn’t retire any time soon. With the reappraisers in power in TEC, vacant posts will all be filled by priests who do approve of ssbs.
Windsor Process? What Windsor Process? What Covenant?
We don’t need no stinkin’ Windsor Process, we slithered our way past Lambeth ’08 and now none of it matters!
Permission granted not to like it, Anglican Communion!! Ask us if we care…
Thanks, David Bennett (#4), for that timely reminder and personal testimony. I’ve witnessed a similar radical lurch to the left in the Diocese of VA after so many conservatives left TEC in 2006/2007.
And +Breidenthal has the reputation of being relatively “moderate”?? Compared to whom, I wonder? We see here how TEC is already starting to reap the bitter fruit of the foul seed that was sown at Gen Con this past summer.
I was especially struck by the report here that the bishop’s announcment was greeted by “a standing ovation” and no visible protests. That speaks volumes about how quickly a diocese can go downhill, in our current permissive cultural climate.
David Handy+
#4, Remember Neuhaus’s Law: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will eventually be proscribed.”
Example: At GC 97, Bp. Herbert Thompson of SO, the prime alternative to Frank Griswold for PB, met me like Nicodemus in private to thank me for my book [url=http://www.stephenswitness.org/search/label/Two Sexes One Flesh]Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriage[/url] and to say that he agreed with almost all I had to say.
I think that Bp Thompson only missed becoming the PB in 97 by a fairly small margin. Imagine how differently things might have been had he been elected….
I’ve been covering this a lot.
http://elderoyster.wordpress.com/category/bp-briedenthal/
I think it’s important to acknowledge that Bp. Briedenthal isn’t your ordinary average liberal. Conservatives who know him say the same thing – he’s actually quite orthodox, “without THAT thing.” E.g., he took a lot of flack from his cronies for opposing Thew Forrester becoming a bishop. The point contention was over the Atonement.
The “On the bright side,” article offers some balance to this complicated man; but my other articles lean on the other side of the tetter-totter, also.
Nothing happens quickly. I was a lay delegate for the 2003 Southern Ohio convention. The now former St. Matthews Parish Westerville wished to submit a resolution stating the traditional Church teaching on sexuality in a careful and loving way. It was not even brought up for a vote, they were blocked on procedure. They then attempted just to allow the convention to vote in support of the Lambeth statement 1999 on Marriage. They were voted down. At the next table the Rector of Calvary Church, Cincinnati jumped up and went to near by tables to tell everyone to vote against these people. At my table an assistant clergywoman said a member of the American Anglican Council running for some committee postion was bad (because conservatives are bad). Bishop Thompson was no help, in fact he was visably irritated with all this, and crushed them like a bug. Bishop Thompson was a kind, gentle, man and preached in a traditional way, but he ordained the most liberal people possible and was no help in holding back the winds of the world.
I agree with the assessments of Bp. Thompson. I liked the guy a lot, and may he rest in peace. I think he was personally orthodox, but didn’t like controversy. I remember he voted against consecrating Gene Robinson, then issued a letter immediately basically apologizing for his vote. He would assure many of us he agreed with us, and “had our backs,” then go out and thwart our efforts to do much about it. I think he knew, as many of us did, that TEC is basically a democracy, and rather than waste time being on the losing side, he just cut off debate and upheld the status quo. Not a good way to lead as a bishop IMHO, but I think he knew the liberal make-up of his diocese well (a make-up, as has been mentioned, he helped create).
I was there as a Clergy delegate when Bishop Breidenthal made his announcement. After a period of silence, there was general applause when he made his announcement, although it was not unanimous. This is after all a pretty liberal place. As I recall the day, the standing ovation was at the end of the Bishop’s address, which contained a lot more than his comments on same sex unions. I saw it more as an appreciation for the Bishop than as a blanket explosion of joy over the announcement of the blessing of some same sex unions.
I was ordained by Bishop Thompson, who treated me very well. He was often moved by forces in the diocese, expecially after the tragic and untimely death of Mrs. Thompson. He was a good and godly man in a difficult time.
Within hours of Bishop Breidenthal’s election, he called me, and I presume other conservative rectors, to assure us of his respect and his desire to be in open and ongoing dialogue with us. He has been true to that promise at every turn. In addition to his open discussions with the clergy, he called me and others again before the convention to tell us of his decision, and to assure us that there would be no coercion. I believe him absolutely because I have total confidence in his character. While I disagree with him on matters of human sexuality, I do find him to be very orthodox in his christology, and to have a higher regard for Scripture than many other people I know from across the spectrum of the faith.
This is a difficult time to be a Christian, and many of the old ways and organizations seem to be in free fall. The people of God look for stability and security, and it seems so elusive. I trust that we might all continue to pray for each other, and to realize that many of us are trying to be true to Christ and to the faith received in circumstances we would not have chosen. To God be the glory, and may He have mercy on us all for our rashness and cruelty, as well as for our lukewarmness and our attempts to avoid conflict.