Questions recently have been raised regarding Bishop Ted Gulick’s interpretation of the 2009 General Convention’s resolution (C056) on “Liturgies for Blessings,” approved last summer by the House of Deputies and House of Bishops. The resolution asks The Episcopal Church leaders to gather and create “theological and liturgical resources” for same-gender blessings for future consideration by General Convention and, in the meantime, to allow bishops to permit their clergy “to provide generous pastoral response” to gay and lesbian Episcopalians who wish to affirm their partnerships, especially those residing in dioceses in which same-sex civil unions are legal. Last fall Bishop Gulick met with the diocese’s clergy to discuss how “pastoral generosity” should be practiced in the diocese….
Is this dithering?
Of course pastoral generosity means full steam ahead. Didn’t everyone understand that? I rather like what Bp G wrote.
One thing I found interesting was the word OBLIGATED below:
That, coupled with the rest of the piece, means that priests in his diocese who in conscience can’t give private blessings and liturgies for SS couples — these priests will be disciplined by the bishop. At least I think that’s what it means. For example, I am obligated to pay my taxes — if I don’t the IRS comes after me. So isn’t the bishop letting us know he’ll punish priests who don’t support SSBs?
Also of interest to me was this:
Since a guiding principle of Episcopal church life has been the phrase “lex orandi lex credendi†(the law of praying is the law of believing or “as we pray so we believeâ€)….
That phrase is used quite a lot by the ascendent liberal party. I hear it a lot. But surely the bishop is insane (I mean that literally, as in a break from reality) if he thinks it is really true. I mean, TEC is a clear counterexample to that right? You have all these people saying the Nicene Creed in TEC parishes across the country, and yet there is huge diversity of belief in the TEC parishioners who say it. Sales of books by Spong and Borg and Crossan are huge in TEC parish bookstores — so surely those readers must be meaning something very different then the comparatively small number of traditionalists.
Jon said “Sales of books by Spong and Borg and Crossan are huge in TEC parish bookstores”
I’ve read books by Borg and Crossan, but hadn’t realize what a clear window I was giving you into my soul! I’ll be more careful in the future.
I’d like someone to explain to me why there is a restriction being made to “covenanted partners”. Is there something significant insofar as a “covenant” is concerned, as opposed to “partners”, “current partners”, “designated partners”, “significant partners”, or any other combination of “partner” and adjective?
If it is reasonable to accept that the determination of two individuals (let’s say male-male, for the sake of this illustration) is valid as regards definition of a relationship, what makes it any less legitimate for 6, 7 or more individuals to declare that they are in a “covenant” relationship, which is deserving of official blessing?
I’m not being facetious or ridiculing anyone – I’d like an honest reply which addresses these issues.
#5… I don’t know anything about your soul, MarkP, or indeed anyone’s. Surely that’s for God alone.
Beliefs are a different story, however, since people frequently do disclose them.
At this point, I wouldn’t say that I know anything for certain about your theological beliefs, e.g. as touch the Nicene Creed. But can you help us out by shedding some light? Do you believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth (equivalently that she did not have sex with a man before Jesus birth)? Do you think that Jesus bodily rose from the dead?
I doubt that the Bishop has any feelings of remorse when trampling the belief system of those who oppose these blessings. Ruth Meyers of the Liturgical committee is busy harvesting ideas from heretic bishops so to celebrate “holy love” in gay celebrations within the Episcopal churches across America and double quick. I do not know what is more offensive… the gay agenda crammed down our throats or a Bishop who thinks we are too stupid to not know that he is telling and living a lie.
#1 – No; just Orwellian “double-speak†…
The dishonest use of language [public/private blessings] we associate with TEC. Am I right in thinking that Gullick, like his patron, Schori, came out of the liberal Catholic seminaries and tradition that Cardinal Levada closed down, along with Charles Curran and still pretending bishop Genpo? The same who have infiltrated and sought to take over TEC?
“to provide generous pastoral response”.
Can we see how this phrase nicely dovetails with “gracious restraint”. The latter phrase created a cruel false hope for the orthodox while signaling a green light to the innovators.
Sorry Dcn Dale; I do not quite see it …
“Gracious restraintâ€: restraint, enabled by the grace and humility and strength of Christ – rather than by means of an iron will to power.
“To provide generous pastoral responseâ€: to make available – hence the matter of “obligation†– a response, driven by the sense of necessary relationship due to the pastoral context and from out of a sense that the one receiving this care does not deserve it.
These do not dove-tail; they [i]contradict[/i] – in a non Orwellian world, that is.
6, I have never yet heard a proponent of SSM honestly address your questions. I have asked myself and have never gotten an answer that is consistent with their arguments. They just assume the number two, probably for tactical reasons, to conceal the fact that their arguments do in fact support poly-amorous relationships.
In fact it would seem that the equal protection argument works to do away with such arrangements all together. Why should couples, triples etc, get any privileges that singles do not get?
6 and #13: No, this issue is never addressed by the left for obvious reasons. But if the phrase “civil marriage” is to be continued, then
the issue you cite cannot be avoided. The Consitution must cover all such civil conditions equally. At present there is no way to force the Left to address this problem, but it’s there, the traditional elephant in the parlor. One wonders if this issue must appear in the present California suit. How can it not? Well, this is California.
the only solution is the logical one, to make civil marriage an oxymoron. If the joining is civil, it cannot be marriage; it if is marriage it cannot be civil. The First Amendment ought to prevail here. Larry
#12. Art,
“These do not dove-tail; they contradict – in a non Orwellian world, that is.” I rest my case. These phrases fall into the same category as abortion is a blessing. The English language has not been used to clarify sanction and proscription. It is being used to promote innovation through obfuscation. It is an Orwellian world for TEC. That is why KJS can boldly proclaim, “The canons mean what we say they mean.” TEC has abandoned tradition and traditional understanding of what your definition of words mean.
I include the creeds in the liturgies for which I’m responsible; I say the creeds — every word, as written — without crossing my fingers; there’s nothing in the creeds I’m aware of disbelieving, or of believing in a purely metaphorical sense. If somebody went back in time and came back with a video of Easter morning, would I be willing to bet the lives of my children on what we’d see? I don’t know the answer to that. Like many people, if I’m really honest with myself I have to admit that there’s a voice in my head arguing that I don’t really believe in God in the first place, but it’s only one voice among the many. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. And you can’t know a thing about what I believe from asking whether I’ve bought books by Borg or Crossan. (And, by the way, I think it was about “beliefs” that QE1 was speaking when she coined the whole “window into men’s souls” phrase, if indeed she did). I think it is tempting and easy for conservatives to believe that everyone in TEC is apostate (but wouldn’t it be more consistent to believe, as many often say, that they’re faithful but mis-represented by their evil leaders?)
Did anyone notice that the Diocese of Kentucky has changed its motto? Sometime back, Kendall posted a comment questioning DOK’s motto, ” Engaging Christ; Embracing the World.” They have now reversed it to, “Embracing Christ; Engaging the World.” Now that’s an improvement we can all agree on.
When you say Dcn Dale (#15) “abortion is a blessing†(and I recall the provenance!) – I quite see it! Thanks. For the wretched clarity …
As for other related comments re the abuse/use of the Creed, I myself have heard it straight from the horse’s mouth: “we hold the words in a ‘loosey goosey’ way.†And this from a theologian who really does know better … May our Yes be Yes and our No simply No!