The Liturgical Covenanting, Blessing, and Sending Forth of Couples in Committed
Same-Gender Relationships
RESOLVED, that this 158th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of California
commend to the Bishop of California the lectionary, rubric entitled “Concerning the
Service,” and three rites endorsed by the Commission on Marriage and Blessing, and
urge the Bishop to approve the trial use of these forms as resources in the Diocese of
California for formalizing the blessing of same-gender unions.
Explanation:
The Commission on Marriage and Blessing, in response to a resolution passed at the
156th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of California, has adapted three extant rites
for use in the liturgical blessing of same-gender unions in this diocese. The rites are
adapted from:
Ӣ The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage (as well as The Blessing of a Civil
Marriage and An Order for Marriage) in The Book of Common Prayer
Ӣ A Rite for the Celebration of Gay and Lesbian Covenants, commonly referred to
as The New Westminster Rite, from the Diocese of New Westminster in the
Anglican Church of Canada
Ӣ Marriage Liturgy, Second Form, in A New Zealand Prayer Book
In endorsing these rites/resources, the Commission celebrates the intention of the
Episcopal Diocese of California to support and bless both same-gender and ”˜straight’
couples in godly relationships, while hoping for the day when ”˜marriage equality’ will be
the reality in our Church and State.
The Commission calls particular attention to the part of the rubric ”˜Concerning the
Service’ which sets forth, in addition to the familiar material adapted from the Book of
Common Prayer, the expectation that the use of liturgies of blessing for marriage and
union occur in the context of Christian community and with the community’s
understanding of its role in fostering godly relationships.
The rites and other materials referred to in the Resolution may be found in the
Commission’s Report to the 158th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of California and
on the Commission’s website (http://marriageandblessing.org) along with other
materials such as a bibliography for use in pre-marital/pre-union counseling and
examples of particular rites drafted or used over the years which are offered, without
endorsement, for informational purposes.
Commission on Marriage and Blessing
From here. Page 3-4. Note, the report is dated October 2007. It would be interesting to know exactly when this resolution was drafted. Pre or Post New Orleans?
From this blurb on page 6, we assume this resolution was drafted PRE New Orleans:
2007 and Beyond
The various CMB subgroups have been meeting during the first part of 2007,
including a working CMB retreat on March 31. We anticipate having a website up and
running by early summer, with sections on rites, resources, and matters of church and
state. (www.marriageandblessing.org) We plan on reporting to Diocesan Convention in
October, commending a list of Commission On Marriage and Blessing Endorsed Rites
and Resources for consideration by Convention, the Diocese, and Bishop Marc.
Having completed the initial phase of our work on rites, our primary tasks in 2008
will include continued development of resources for couples, clergy, and congregations
(per the second of the three resolutions cited above) and work on matters of church and
state, especially the issue of whether clergy should act as functionaries of the State in
marriage/civil union, etc.
Will New Orleans make any difference to the folks in the diocese of California? We’ll know next week.
So, if they pass this gem in convention, will the Bishop of California accede to the wish of the delegates? Will he blow away the supposed work of the HOB in New Orleans? Does anyone even care what the Anglican Communion believes?
Br_er Rabbit: Yes, yes, and probably not. Is anyone surprised at this? I’m certainly not.
In the event that the AoC, ACC, ACO, JSC, primates, laity and anyone else have any doubt whatsoever that HoB’s NOLA statement is a recklessly, intentionally, wholly, patently, and wildly inadequate response to Dar es Salaam, Windsor, Dromantine, tearing the fabric of the AC at the deepest level and so on and on – well, y’all take a reading of these resolutions. Such is and will be the result of no discipline of TEC. ‘Nuff said.
Anglican rope-a-dope.
Good for them. I hope it passes. But even if it doesn’t, SSU’s are happening and will continue to happen in TEC, especially in my diocese of Los Angeles and at my parish, All Saints Church. There, they have taken place for 16 years. Next saturday will mark yet another blessing to which the entire parish is invited and many will attend. There will be no turning back. I, for one, am thrilled and privileged to live in a diocese and attend a parish which will not turn away from the teaching of Jesus and the gospel.
Fred,
Please cite the chapter and verse in the Bible where it says that homosexual relationships are to be blessed or celebrated as equivalent to Holy Matrimony. Your claim that this is the teaching of Jesus and the Gospel, please help the rest of us understand where in the Bible Jesus teaches this.
And on the secular side California is well on the way to normalizing homosexuality in the schools and silencing anyone who dares to speak out against it. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130
I am sure this will make Fred even happier.
Fred, Get a grip on it. What parents, in their right minds, will send their children, say, to an Episcopalian Bible Vacation Sunday School run by a parish where SSBs are practiced, even, promoted? Such, in my humble opinion, does not pass any Biblical test, nor the “yuck’ test nor, even, the continuation-of-the-family test. What are you asking of society– not to care for its perpetuation? I sense a struggle for survival here!
Best. Dick
#8 has said what I have said and I suspect many others now understand. This is not a bitter family feud not an institutional row of substantial proportions, but, as the lady from New Zealand said, is “in the air” and is at last a struggle for survival on a very big scale indeed. What we now have is the collected forces of homosexuality and their agents pitted in a life and death struggle with the heterosexual world. We ourselves are seeing the Christian battlefront because this is the Battle of the Bulge. The Germans have broken through the lines and we are now asking whether we can gather our forces and defeat the enemy. LIke the earlier battle, the outcome is uncertain, but the conflict has come to a sharp focus. Larry
#6 Bills
I don’t think a Biblical verse can be found that will bless SSB’s but there are many that condemn it outright. And there are more than Lev. 18. St Pauls Epistles have more than one condemnation of men doing what is unseemly as they burn with their lust for one another (women too!).
Paul also says that it is against nature for men to have long hair. Is that an eternally binding moral law inspired by the Holy Spirit, or is that Paul talking out of his own cultural preconceptions? If the former, why haven’t I heard a single reasserter speak out against the tonsorially permissive attitude of the church? If the latter, then how do we know that Paul’s attitudes towards homosexuality aren’t similarly culturally bound?
Ross,
The answer to that one may well be that Paul’s statement is right on both accounts– as an eternally binding moral law and as a sentiment that is culturally bound. We can only hope for a congruence of the two. Anyway, most parents that I know don’t like to see their male children running around with girlish hair, nor displaying other effiminate characteristics. As Paul said, it seems to be against nature.
#12:
Long hair is “effeminate”? I disagree.
So do several generations of European artists who committed variations of this. Wotta wimp, that guy.
Ross, if you check the verse I think you’ll find that Paul says that it’s a [i]shame[/i] for men to have long hair. Paul knew this not only from the culture around him but from personal experience.
You see, Paul [i]had[/i] long hair in Corinth when he took the oath of a Nazirite to not cut his hair, most probably for a full year. In Corinth the men who had long hair were the pagan temple male prostitutes, so Paul assuredly felt the stigma and shame of wearing his hair long in Greek society.
Paul had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, most probably at the end of a full year. To complete the oath/vow he had taken, he had to save that hair and offer it to be burned on the altar when he reached Jerusalem and had to take care of his business at the temple.
In sum, there are certainly cultural indications here. There are many cultures, Native American for example, where it is not a shame for men to have long hair. Yet Paul could use that cultural practice among Greeks as a simile to help make the greater point he was preaching.
Well, the verse in question says (1 Cor 11:14-15a, in ESV, emphasis added):
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?
So Paul feels that the “disgrace” is a fact of nature, not just because it happened that Corinthian temple prostitutes had long hair. And yes, it’s incidental to a larger point he’s making; but my point was just that Paul says that it’s against nature for men to sleep with men, and Paul also says that it’s against nature for men to have long hair. Most modern people would, I think, say that what constitutes proper hair length on men has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with ultimately arbitrary cultural standards; as you point out, there have been plenty of cultures where long hair on men was encouraged. So I’m not convinced that Paul has a proven track record of being a reliable authority on what is and is not “against nature.”
And for those people who appeal to the inspired nature of Holy Scripture — where is the righteous outrage over society’s decadent permissiveness about long hair on men? This isn’t part of the holiness code that we got freed from by the new covenant, this is Paul writing in the New Testament. Why is homosexuality the bogeyman, but not hair?
Ross, I must go along with you on part of your response.
First, we must take note that in the verse in question, Paul is not [i]stating a fact[/i], but [i]asking a question[/i]. It is probably a rhetorical question, for it is fairly clear that Paul expects that the Corinthians he is writing to would answer that question in the affirmative.
Now fast-forward 2000 years. When I read that passage, and take it as Paul asking [i]me[/i] that question, “Does not nature itself teach you that… (etc),” my honest answer is, “No. It does not seem to me that nature itself teaches me that.”
Just because I answered in the negative does not mean that Paul is wrong and I am right. Nevertheless, it does illustrate the persuasive tools that Paul is using to make his point. I would suspect that if Paul was writing today, and writing to me rather than the Corinthians, he would not have used that example to drive home his point.
For the other part of your post, no, a prohibition on long hair is not part of the holiness code of the Old Testament (although cross-dressing [i]is[/i] part of it). Homosexuality is the bogeyman, because that is one expression of [i]porneia[/i], which is universally condemned in every sin list in the New Testament, and is universally assumed as condemned in the Old Testament, to the point that the later prophets even used [i]porneia[/i] as a metaphor for idol-worship.
Hell, Ross, there’s no problem: am sure that Paul was not envisioning your own long, tough guy, Viking style hair. And I, in any case, referred not to long hair but to “girlish hair,” which yours is certainly not. And as for Christ’s long hair, if it were long, I see it more like yours, not like the Breck girl’s portrayed in your Renaissance illustration of the gentle Jesus (see your #13). But, as for the several generations of long-haired Eurpopean artists whom you cite, I wouldn’t put my hand in the fire for any one of them! Now, put down the sword! Best. Dick