Welcome to the Alice in Wonderland world of “process” which so dominates the upper echelons of the leadership life of the Episcopal Church. If words COULD be interpreted in a way that does not favor the leadership’s goals, they are not, but when the wording does, they are interpeted that way, restrictively. There is some talk that this whole conflict and crisis among Anglicans is all about power, and it is not primarily about power, actually, but about truth and other things. Yet power plays a role, it is just that TEC leadership does not do much self-criticism about how they exercise their own power. Words mean what those in leadership in TEC want them to mean in too many instances. One wishes there would be some self-scrutiny on such matters because the implications would be considerable. The lack of honesty in this church in some matters has become intolerable. People are saying one thing and doing another and using words to mislead others into thinking they are not doing what in fact they are doing….
The key language in this resolution may be found here: Lambeth “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions.” Anglican practice needs to be in accord with anglican teaching. Therefore, there can be no pastoral practice in a local setting which either is or is seen to be somehow “legitimising or blessing”¦same sex unions.” And this means that local blessings, whether in houses or churches or wherever, and whether they have official sanctioned liturgies or not, cannot be done, if they are of non-celibate same sex couples.
Lest there be any doubt about this, the Archbishop of Canterbury said at the concluding press conference of the Tanzania primates meeting:
The teaching of the Anglican Church remains that homosexual activity is not compatible with scripture.
Read it all. And note that Bishop Councell’s article posted below is exactly legitimizing a same sex union in his diocese. This is the new theology and practice which TEC has embraced. Why will its leaders not admit this openly and honestly? Do they lack the courage of their convictions?
Kendall, note what ABC says in the NCR profile you linked:
“The requests that have been put to the Episcopal church are of slightly different kinds. The answers are not simple black and white.†So even after the American Anglicans of the Episcopal church have declared themselves, “there will still be some discerning and sifting to do by the standing committees of our international bodies.â€
The answers are not black and white.
Kendall,
Remember C051? (excerpt posted below) I think that puts us “openly and honestly” on the record regarding TEC’s position on the blessing of same sex unions. And since it was passed in 2003 Councell’s article is hardly breaking news.
=========
From GC03 Resolution C051:
That we reaffirm Resolution A069 of the 65th General Convention (1976) that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.”
That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
That we reaffirm Resolution D039 of the 73rd General Convention (2000), that “We expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God,” and that such relationships exist throughout the church.
That we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.
=========
Of course this puts us in disagreement those in the Anglican Communion who hold a different perspective. Also not breaking news. The more important question, however, is whether those differences are “communion breaking.”
Clearly the jury is still out on that one but there are certainly encouraging (from my perspective) signs that the bridge builders are gaining on the demolition squads — and that takes both courage AND convictions.
Susan, Kendall’s “Read it all” link discussed C051, so it’s safe to assume he hasn’t forgotten it. The resolution itself may be open and honest (but far from unequivocal or unambiguous.) I think rather that Kendall’s remark concerning the “lack of honesty” referred to the subsequent obfuscation regarding what C051 actually means or doesn’t mean. Note the context, immediately following a review of Bp Sisk’s failure to explain a distinction between informed consent vs. authorization.
Which reminds me… Has Smith of CT violated the spirit of C051 by officially authorizing such blessings and ordinations? He has in fact authorized the acts, just not the public Rites to accompany the acts. So, “openly and honestly”, has he contravened the will of the General Convention? I can’t be sure based solely on a reading of C051, nor after reading Bp Sisk’s interpretation.
All, as we all learned from the Righter Trial, resolutions of General Convention have no force – either legal or moral. They are nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing. They don’t express the will of TECUSA or of the General Convetion of TECUSA. They only express the will of a majority of delegates and bishops of TECUSA [b]at a specific point in time[/b] and can easily be outvoted by the next General Convention.
Susan, C051 has no force or strength. It is a statement in a point of time and nothing more. It is not the teaching of the General Convention nor does it say anything about TECUSA.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“If words COULD be interpreted in a way that does not favor the leadership’s goals, they are not, but when the wording does, they are interpeted that way, restrictively” —Kendall Harmon
ECUSA’s rulers prate about their glorious, representative Polity, then do as they please. They bend ECUSA’s rules so as to further their own power and convenience. Judges and legal scholars call this sort of inconsistent, politicized interpretation UNPRINCIPLED. Soviet leaders institutionalized it. So now does ECUSA.
“Resolutions of General Convention have no force”
Except when ECUSA’s rulers want them to.
Could we make this the “Bishop Sisk-Jim Naughton” loophole? I don’t want to seem to be getting ahead of myself.
Jim, LOL! Luke 14:10 and all that? 🙂
RE “Words mean what you want them to mean.” Kind of like the phrase “the faith once delivered” bandied about with wild abandon by so many on the dissenting end without the faintest collective clue as to the meaning.
Susan, #2, I don’t understand your comment. Are you claiming that C051 authorizes SSBs. If so, that is not the understanding of one of the clergy who helped to author it, who has told me (and several others at a forum after GC2003) that it is intentionally ambiguous, and he wanted it that way and was comfortable with it being that way. I read no authorization in it. I read an acknowledgement that GC2003 knew SSBs were happening in some dioceses and in some churches. I guess you can infer, since GC 2003 acknowledged it was happening and took no action to the stop it, that, in effect, it was authorizing it. But I suspect that would be news to those who authored it and to many who voted for it. And it certainly would be news to my diocesan, who is quite a reappraiser but has had a policy that no SSBs will be allowed until GC approves them. I don’t know how you can say the C051 put TEC on the record “openly and honestly” when it was made deliberately ambiguous to allow anything anyone wanted to make of it happen. Seems to me it is more “hidden and dishonest” in its deliberate ambiguity.
The ambiguity is obvious in the reading. The reason for ambiguity remains unknown. If the intention was to turn a blind eye to illegal practices why annnounce that one is turning a blind eye? If one wants same sex marriage, why suggest “blessings” and then merely note that they go on? One supposes that there is an element of stealth intended and if so the strategy has failed. Most people opposed to same-sex unions have concluded that TEC has actually authorized what it has not authorized and most who favor same-sex unions regret that there is no authorization. In a few days time our bishops will be given the opportunity to clarify the situation. One wonders whether they are clearer about it than the resolution they adopted?
You only see “stealth” in others (in this case) if you’ve allowed yourself to be conditioned to see it, even if it doesn’t exist. Says more about you than about them. The usual reason for intentional (and transparent) ambiguity is to allow flexibility (which can be of benefit to all sides); a pretty typical Anglican approach – you know, unity in diversity, and all that.