The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music briefed nearly 200 invited General Convention deputies in Atlanta March 18 and 19 on how it is preparing a proposed rite for blessing same-sex couples. The SCLM invited two deputies, one lay and one clergy, from each of the Episcopal Church’s dioceses to attend the consultation.
“We are making history on a couple of levels,” said Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, because deputies are “meeting together outside of General Convention for the first time and discussing a topic outside of General Convention.”
Anderson reminded deputies of the limitations on General Convention’s authority, in that it “cannot change the core doctrine of the church,” but said that “the topic [rites for blessing same-sex couples] itself is history-making.”
Fascinating. So the marriage rite is not being changed, but a newrite is being introduced for SSBs, and this is riling the liberals who it seems did not get everything they wanted in 2009. This gives us a preview of what to expect in GC2012: a proposed canonical change to the definition of marriage.
The part that seemed the most revealing of the New TEC had to do with the liberal quandry of wanting to appear fair and yet knowing that the funding for this was from an advocacy group. It went something like this, ‘We feel badly because it doesn’t seem right to get the funds in this way, since we are making it look like a fair exchange of ideas. But then, we needed the money in order to sponsor a fair-looking event.’
Here are the key paragraphs, from Naughton’s site:
“A thought too about how this was financed. I remain uncomfortable that this meeting was paid for by an outside foundation with a clear stance about what it wants to see happen within the Church eventually. I know that there would loud voices objecting on the other end of the Episcopal Church’s spectrum of opinion if a group like the AAC or the IRD had financed the meeting, or some other sort of event. And I recognize the lack of resources available for our common work that has forced the SCLM to go after the grant that paid for the process that I’m so fulsomely praising.
Having experienced the event, I’m so convinced this is a model that has promise for moving us forward at all levels of church life that I want to ask the General Convention Commission on Program Budget and Finance to look for ways to use what money we can possibly find to finance in the coming triennial these sorts of events. I’m as big a proponent of technology as anyone in the Episcopal Church. But as President Bonnie Anderson remarked, there’s simply no substitute for face to face meetings. Too much nuance is lost when we aren’t afforded the chance to sit together. We are a relational church, and this event, and its planned next steps, is strengthening our common bonds of unity.”
Yes, by all means find the money from within TEC’s own reserves…
Why did the folks from Central Florida and South Carolina waste their time and money? This Rites for SSBs has been a foregone conclusion since at least 2003. I am so glad I am no longer part of the TEO
What will happen to/in dioceses that have canons that prohibit/proscribe same-sex marriages and/or blessings by their clergy or on their property?
“…the Task Group on Liturgical Resources has received hundreds of different rites for same-sex blessings from all over the church. Some were so old that “they were turned in on mimeograph paper.â€
He said same-sex blessings have been “extensively†used throughout the Episcopal Church for a very long time. Indeed, in an informal electronic survey of the participants attending the consultation, 60 percent said they come from dioceses where same-sex couples may have their relationships officially or unofficially blessed..”
Well, for heaven sake, it’s been done for *years*. When something is THAT old you just don’t need discussion do you? It was mimeographed. That’s like clay tablets in Episcopalian years. “Occasional Services” nothing, this demands BCP status NOW. The weddings that have less than two of a kind will have to get special examination and pastoral permission.
All of which makes me glad that I’m no longer a part of TEC. As far as I’m concerned, TEC has become a vast wasteland in which nothing but immorality can grow. Their leaders are watering dead grass planted in sand.
#5 it makes no difference what happens to them. They can join the “momentum” or wait until social pressure forces them to change. If neither works, then they will be left to wither on the vine, as far as TEC is concerned. All the social forces are with TEC at present; everything is going their way the weight of the government is behind it and the weight of our ethos is behind it. We have made “cheering for the underdog” a justification for altering the rules so the underdog can win this fight – hence the passion for presenting oneself as an underdog.
You and I can do nothing about this – save run and hide in another church (as some are doing in the ordinariate) because the aim of the prevailing force is to destroy us as an active force. The decline and death of church membership is a measure of this success. That TEC’s membership is falling fast is irrelevant to the Schori-ites; they are not here to foster the church, but to join a social “revolution.” The demise of the formal church is a small price to pay. It is losing a battle to win a war. Larry
Dear David Wilson,
You ask: “Why did the folks from Central Florida and South Carolina waste their time and money?”
One of the things that perhaps did not come through in the article is that none of the participants including the Central Florida and South Carolina deputies paid for the trip. It was completely underwritten by the Arcus Foundation: flights, meals, and lodging for everyone. The only cost was time.
Thanks Charlie for the info. What a bargain. I wonder who attended from my former Diocese, Pgh-TEC? Anybody know?
“What will happen to/in dioceses that have canons that prohibit/proscribe same-sex marriages and/or blessings by their clergy or on their property?”
Well, that’s an interesting question, and the Anschluss is probably coming.
Thanks for reporting Charlie! Great work on your part and thank you for going because I’m sure a root canal was sounding pretty appealing in comparison.
#11 — this point needs to be raised and raised carefully. Liberals wish to assure others that ‘no priest will be forced to violate conscience etc when it comes to SSBs. The canons assure this, etc.’ 1) The reality of SSBs is that it exists so much in the territory of ‘civil rights’ (and has no biblical warrant, in addition), that to deny this in the name of ‘priestly conscience’ will invariably prove impossible. It will be a class action denial of civil rights. 2) But even more crucial is that this will not be a matter of individuals, but of march larger realities. Entire dioceses will say that any such changes violate diocesan canons and the BCP itself. Will individuals within those regions, wishing the SSB rites being deployed elsewhere, sit quietly and say this is OK? Hardly.
Once one declares these blessings the Mind of the Holy Spirit and the new prophetic justice–and that is what is being said–how can they be denied in any case?
The is a slow motion train wreck and as far as one can see, unavoidably so.
Thank you for your response, Dr. Seitz; I was aware of that, but it is invaluable for others to read it in print, especially from a way more reliable source than me.
What happens, #11, depends at last what the Supreme
Court rules. If marriage is a civil right, the Dr. Seitz’s prediction is bound to come true. If it is not, then the drive for ssm will simply go to the states and agreements between them because civil partnerships can become marriage for all intents and purposes if the states so recognize them. My guess, though wholly untutored, is that the Supremes will bail on this issue, returning it to the states. This present Supreme Court will be hesitant to rule on an issue so completely cultural and so permeated by religion significance.
One thing is clear to me: More and more homosexuals and lesbians will run for and win public office precisely because of who they are. This will have a profound effect on what states will and will not do. This is not just and Precious East and West Coast issue. These changes will be everywhere.
This is indeed a slow motion train wreck, and when it happens, the US, younger that 70, will never notice, for the sound will be unheard in the headsets. Technology supplants meaning because its work is effortless and because it rewards social isolation. Larry
Hi David, per your comment #10, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh was represented at this odd event by Scott Quinn, rector of Crafton, who is clerical deputy #1 for 2012, and Andy Muhl, a member of St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, who is lay deputy #1 for 2012.
Bruce Robison
#15–You make an interesting point about the civil situation but it is unrelated to my comment, which had to do with TECdom as such.
1. Conservative priest in parish X has a SS couple come to him for a blessing/marriage. He refuses. It is then charged that his No was borne of prejudice. Liberal Bishop of the diocese concurs. How will this get resolved?
2. But the larger context (Diocesan Bishop says his diocese will not adopt these rites and declares them null and void in the diocese) is more complicated still. It is my opinion that one kind of Liberal says, ‘justice all the way down’ and another says, ‘let’s be fair and allow diversity.’ But once this train leaves the station, ‘fair’ will end up being ‘justice.’ It is hard to see how this will not be the end game, esp when one speaks of spiritual knowledge, prophetic insight, and a theology of ‘rights.’
#16 BMR+
Thanks Bruce. I was curious to see who yinz sent from the `Burgh. Also interesting that Scott is #1 deputy and not Dr Simons.
Well, if they eventually rule SSM as a “civil right”, I can’t wait to see them trying to force the RC and Orthodox churches to do it, too.
And, if it’s a “civil right”, that should entitle you to a “civil marriage”–where is it written that Christian marriage is a “right”? It certainly is not in the Anglican Church. It’s my understanding, though, that the RC priests are not allowed to deny a Catholic marriage to a constituent in good standing(no divorce/annulment pending, etc.) They can delay(or attempt to) for counseling, but cannot refuse. But, the sacrament is defined as “one man, one woman”, and I doubt the RC’s are going to be willing to change it any time soon.