Saturday, the proposed resolution called on the Episcopal Church’s convention to develop and authorize same-sex union blessing rites, a step the national church has so far opposed.
However, 11 dioceses nationwide have approved official, written policies allowing the blessing of same-sex relationships, the resolution reads. It calls on Northern California’s to state that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are children of God and that the Episcopal Church “should grant them every blessing” other members receive.
Daniel Williamson, senior pastor of St. Johns Church in Roseville, said he’s one of those who respectfully opposes gay blessings, while accepting gay members as his brothers and sisters in Christ.
Williamson said his more traditional position against it stems from both the Bible’s rejection of homosexuality and because various Anglican archbishops have asked the Episcopal church not to appoint [noncelibate] gay clergy members.
2009. The year the GCC makes gay blessing official rather than part of our common life, I suppose. That is Integrity’s stated goal. I sure hope the Anglican Communion in all the Instruments of Unity is listening. Because no one in ECUSA/TEC is listening, they are merely proclaiming.
I’m sure KJS will get right on this, lest ++Rowan give a stern animadversion.
Or get the comfy chair.
Posted at StandFirm:
I was at the DNC convention. In his opening remarks, the bishop warned several times against resolving controversial issues legislatively and called on people to strengthen bonds of communion. However when it came time for him to actually do something concrete, he didn’t.
I proposed a substitute resolution to what passed – my resolution acknowledged strongly held views on both sides, quoted the JSC report about what it thought the HoB had decided, and called on GC not to pass same-sex blessing rites until the Anglican Communion came to a consensus that these rites could be developed.
Richardson objected to my substitute even being considered. The parliamentarian overruled his objection, and he then appealed the parliamentarian’s ruling (that my substitute was sufficiently related to his resolution). The Convention voted strongly to overrule their own parliamentarian and so refused to even consider my Communion-affirming substitute.
Before the vote, the question was raised by one delegate how this resolution impacted what the HoB had decided on in September – “did it not undercut what the bishops had promised?†Both Richardsona and Bishop Beisner said that it did NOT. Therefore, both the liberals and the House of Bishops clearly see the NO statement as ONLY BINDING THEM UNTIL GC 2009. This clearly proves that the JSC Report is a fraud.
Finally, I was in the restroom after the vote and I heard Richardson and some of his allies gloating about how they got their resolution passed. Sounded to me like a political convention.
Afterwards, I had many people come up to me, thanking me for trying, but I have to wonder where were all these people during the debate? Why didn’t they speak up then?
I knew early on that this SSB resolution was going to pass. It became quite obvious when the liberal extremist candidates were the first ones elected to be 2009 GC delegates.
Two other thoughts about this convention. First, immediately preceeding the SSB resolution, we heard from the budget people – our diocese is in serious financial trouble. But nobody asked “why?†Nobody connected the financial problems to the liberal agenda. At my table there was a lady I didn’t know – when I returned from offering my substitute, she commented to me that it was no wonder the church was in such financial trouble because with every move like this, the more people left the church or refused to give.
Second, I was pretty disgusted with the snarky and uncharitable attitude shown toward the recently departed St. John’s Anglican Church in Petaluma. The diocese took a retired liberal priest, a handful of malcontents from St. John’s, and a sprinkling of parishioners from the big liberal parish in the area and called them St. John’s Episcopal Church, Petaluma. The capering and snide comments towards the REAL St. John’s, Petaluma was pretty disgusting.
Overall, I realize (once again) that I am an Anglican who is currently worshipping in the Episcopal church. I realize that the battle for TEC is over. I see the TEC like a burning building. We might as well realize that there is no point in thinking we can extinguish the fire and save the building. The building is lost. Some people have led large groups outside. Others are in a part of the building that the flames aren’t threatening yet. Still others are ministering to people paralyzed by fear or ignorance or just plain confusion and who are at risk of being burned up. They don’t want to believe that their building is being destroyed.
I believe that there are two Anglicanisms in North America. There is the old, dying Anglicanism represented by TEC. It reminds me of the Bruce Willis movie “The Sixth Senseâ€. In that movie a little boy sees people who are dead, but who don’t realize that they are dead and who walk around like everyday people. TEC is like that – dead, it just hasn’t realized it yet. Then there is the new, growing Anglicanism in North America. It is messy, it isn’t terribly well organized yet, but it is growing – amazingly growing despite being around only a few years.
jamesw: Your analogy of TEC as a burning building is correct. IF you are lucky enough to live in an area where there is a realigning congregation, join it. If not (my family and I, alas, are not within 2 hours drive of such), then you need to start looking at worshiping with other Christian groups.
I, too, cherish Anglicanism. However, at least until the realignment shakes out (which will take 2 -5 years, at least), my family and I need refuge.
God bless you for your efforts; surely it is now time to shake the dust from your sandals and depart. That’s exactly what my family and I are doing. We began the day after our own diocesan convention, which was a disaster for the Gospel of Christ.
Little Cabbage: I will remain in the burning building a little longer. I have Jesus as my asbestos suit to protect me from the flames. I am teaching the highschool kids Sunday School at my local Episcopal congregation at which there is an orthodox priest who is under no illusions about TEC. My job is to instill in these kids as much of the Gospel as I can. We are laboring in a mission congregation to instill the Gospel.
Jamesw,
Canon Richardson was right about one thing. You should have submitted your alternate resolution in writing in advance. The parliamentary process was a sham. The chancellor couldn’t even call it what it was, an “alternate” or “substitute” resolution, leaving Richardson open to arguing it was not germaine as an “amendment”. I thought the chancellor and (I hate to say it) the Bishop mishandled the debate. Of course I realize that would not have made a difference. As much as it saddens me, the sea has changed in Northern California. In 2003 the vote to support the Primates statement failed by what 8 votes? In 2007 the vote to table this (which was a counted vote) failed by 70 (about 116 to 184, from my hazy recollection). I hold to the Gospel, but I have to get used to living in a changed world.
– Heartbroken in NorCal.
jamesw, All believers share that asbestos suit. My earlier point was that, unfortunately, many of us are not within reach of an orthodox congregation.
Alta: This was Bishop Beisner’s first Convention. It was also the first Convention for his new Chancellor/Parliamentarian. Perhaps this helps explain the parliamentary shenanigans?