If anyone thinks the Episcopal Church actually intended in New Orleans to abide by any kind of slow down on the march to fully authorized rites for SSB’s, resolutions like this may cause them to think again. Here’s proposed resolution 5 in the diocese of Northern California:
Supporting Same-Gender Relationships of Mutuality and Fidelity
Resolved: That this 97th Convention of the Diocese of Northern California, desiring to support our sisters and brothers in Christ who are in same-gender relationships of mutuality and fidelity, and desiring to provide clergy with appropriate pastoral tools for ministering to persons in same-gender relationships, calls upon General Convention of the Episcopal Church to develop and authorize same-sex union blessing rites.
The Convention is Nov. 10 – 11. You can read all the resolutions here.
Guess they don’t want to be part of the Anglican Communion any more
More lies from the reappraisers. Nothing surprising.
Let’s get serious, here, folks…suppose one is an orthodox priest and the diocesan bishop issues orders for every priest in the diocese to perform such a rite. Is not performing such a rite a serious sin? Doesn’t this undermine the sacraments and, in a sense mock them, and in a consecrated space as well? I would like more discussion of the theology of doing this…exactly what activities violate the sacred space of a sanctuary and in a sense make it no longer sacred. My conjecture is no longer a wild fantasy. Isn’t it clear this innovation is coming to a parish church near you, maybe every parish church near you, in the name of civil rights? And will it make our worship spaces unworthy of worship by being places of scandal?
It should pass and GC 09 should develop such rites. It will bring more clarity, if any is still needed. In addition, who will be there to oppose it? And as Adam 12 says it will be made mandatory, if not sooner then later.
I would point out that it is not mandatory now for a priest to officiate at any marriage ceremony. It is always at the priest’s discretion. Even if SSB rites are developed, I can’t imagine the “rules” for implementing them will be any different from the “rules” of any of the other pastoral offices.
Blessings,
Catharine
#6 – I wonder if the same sort of questions arose when asherah poles were being put up in the Temple?
#3 even
#6 Well put, Pageantmaster.
Catherine, how about if you do any marriages you must do them all.
#5 Catherine–I fear you haven’t dealt with these people enough. There probably will never be requirement that one MUST bless any marriage, but the authorities will look at the fact that a preist has performed heterosexual marriages but not gay marriages, and charges will be brought based on a pattern of conduct. And as I think about it, there probably will be some requirement that any priest who refuses to perform any wedding or blessing report to the bishop the reasons therefor, and if they have anything to do theology, inhibition will follow. One simply can not believe that TEC is doing anything other than playing extreme hard ball anymore.
Catherine, don’t look for any grace allowed for any aspirant to holy orders if he or she is not willing to perform SSB’s. And don’t look for the bishop to refer any priest unwilling to perform SSB’s to the rector search committees of any parishes in transition.
Get a grip, people! This is a resolution offered by a single delegate to a single diocesan convention in one of the most theologically liberal and sociologically gay-friendly areas of the country. Even if it passed, which it hasn’t yet, it would not represent anything other than a request by one diocese (out of 110) to General Convention to reverse the recent HoB action.
It has precisely the same relevance to whether “the Episcopal Church actually intended in New Orleans to abide by any kind of slow down on the march to fully authorized rites for SSB’s” as the statements of any individual poster here, and considerably less relevance than recent actions in Fort Worth, et al.
A little clarification for #12. The Diocese of Northern California does not contain most of the Bay Area, which is the Diocese of California. While we in NorCal do have some significantly reappraiser communities and parishes, we also have much of the rural heartlands of the Sacramento Valley and the surrounding mountains which have some strong reasserters. While it is safe to say that we are now trending “reappraiser”, this diocese is a bit more theologically complex than, say, California.
Also, this resolution, while represented by one person at convention, I believe our local Integrity chapter has crafted it.
Dale, something like this will most assuredly pass at GC 06.
Integrity is indeed the source of this resolution.
So, how about everyone on this blog helping the reasserter minority in North Cal come up with resolutions to their Convention which support the orthodox believers there (of which there are many, but their clergy are usually uber-liberal grads of CDSP?
Let’s have some samples posted here. God bless you!
Thank you, Richard, for clarifying the nature of the Diocese of N. California. That’s helpful. Many people are not aware, when they don’t live in California, how diverse it is not only in landscape and climate, but also theologically.
And I have to smile at the curt ‘None’ as to the ‘Fiscal Impact of the Resolution’.
#15–You can try what Bp. Keith Ackerman tried at GC 2003–basically a resolution that says that Jesus is Lord and the Bible is the Truth. However you will probably get the same result he did. It will be voted down. Even in my “moderate” “Windsor” diocese, all such resoultions are routinely discharged. You will have the satisfaction of knowing who you are actually dealing with, however.
I am a member of the Diocese of Northern California and a convention delegate. I don’t know very much yet about Convention procedure, but I was toying with proposing an amendment to this resolution along the following lines:
*******************
RESOLVED, that this 97th Convention of the Diocese of Northern California affirm the ACC and Primates’ Joint Standing Committee’s Report, in which it is stated that
“Given that there is no agreed theological framework on ministry to homosexual persons entering into committed relationships, it is currently widely understood that it would be inappropriate to develop liturgical expressions of blessing for such relationships.”
And be it further,
RESOLVED, That this 97th Convention of the Diocese of Northern California, desiring to support our sisters and brothers in Christ who are in same-gender relationships of mutuality and fidelity, and desiring to provide clergy with appropriate pastoral tools for ministering to persons in same-gender relationships, yet desiring to live into our responsibilities and obligations as part of the Anglican Communion, calls upon General Convention of the Episcopal Church to consider developing same-sex union blessing rites only if a new consensus emerges in the Anglican Communion permitting the development of such rites.
****************
Now, I would not vote in favor of a final resolution stating the above. But what do you all think of proposing this as an amendment? My point would be to model a Windsor compliant statement of support of SSB’s that does not actually call for SSB’s until there is an Anglican consensus. If the Convention would defeat this amendment, it would clearly be repudiating the JSC report.
Let me know your thoughts, including as it relates to this overall idea, but also as to tactics and procedural issues.
Hey Libbie+
Well, yes, admittedly the quite innocent “fiscal impact” statement of the resolution could have a rather ironic connotation.
#18: Looks good, although you might want to add some language from the New Orleans document of the HoB showing that this is not only the position of the JSC, but ostensibly of almost all the members of that House including your own bishop.
However, I would probably not introduce it if it would generate a backlash making the other resolution more likely to pass. Do your procedures allow a vote by orders on controversial measures? From the descriptions of the diocese above, you might manage a majority of reasserter and “Windsor-moderate” laity.
18 and 20, sorry No. 18 your proposed resolution is completely contrary to scripture. Pastoral care is necessary to help such persons deal with their sin, but not even the AC has the authority to call sin not sin. And you wonder why the orthodox have had enough and are leaving.
#21/Br. Michael, Remember the serpents and the doves?
James, I like it — at least, I’m intrigued. The point needs to be made somehow, and this seems good. I’m trying to think how it will be received.
Br. Michael: Please note that I said “I would not vote in favor of a final resolution stating the above”, and I wouldn’t. I would offer the amendment but would, of course, vote to defeat this resolution in a final vote either in its orginal or amended form. The point is NOT that this would be a good resolution for a convention to pass.
The point in offering the amendment is that the resolution is already there, already in play, and the amendment would force the convention to do one of two things:
(1) explicitly repudiate the JSC report (which TEC is supposed to love); or
(2) pass a resolution that effectively calls on GC not to pass SSB liturgies until the Anglican Communion deems it okay to do so.
In effect, I am asking the DNC diocesan convention to either adhere to the JSC report or openly repudiate it. But don’t pretend to adhere to it out of the one side of your mouth, but repudiate it with the other side.
I raised the matter of this resolution in comments two days ago. Dale is mostly correct, in that the resolution can be the product of just one person. However, resolutions do go through a screening process. So there is some implicit validation of this as at least an appropriate subject matter.
I like jamesw’s approach. However, he will have to offer it as a substitute, as it clearly will not be accepted as a friendly amendment and it is to late to submit resolutions.
Sadly, I will not be there to vote if it is offered. After 20 straight diocesan conventions, I resigned this week due to the failure of the HoB to show any sincere intent to reconcile TEC with the Anglican Communion. It is incredibly ironic that one of the few honest member assesments of the HoB mtg came from VGR (no change).
The intellectual dishonesty and willful disregard of rules in TEC is staggering. Despite all the homage now paid to the altar of General Convention, history has shown quite clearly that reappraiser bishops have had no problem violating General Convention whenever they felt like it. (I commend the Bishop of Hawai’i’s recent statement as a surprising exception.)
Bill and others: Can you let me know the procedure for substitution?
Bill – sad to hear that you won’t be at convention. I can’t fault you for resigning, and I have no hope that my presence will change anything. But I have decided that, for now, I will offer battle as I fall back, and I will draw the liberals out when I can.
To be honest, conservatives have no hope of getting any resolutions passed, and perhaps it is time for us not to try that anymore, but instead offer amendments up to show graphically what a bunch of hypocrites the liberals really are.