To sum up the current anomalies, as presented in this post:
1. The Episcopal Church (USA) currently defines marriage, both canonically and in its rubrics, as the “physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman.”
2. There is no current measure proposed in the governing bodies of the Episcopal Church (USA) which would alter or amend its definition of “marriage” so as to incorporate therein the joining in “marriage” of two persons of the same sex.
3. Notwithstanding the Episcopal Church (USA)’s Book of Common Prayer and its associated Canons, certain clergy (including diocesan bishops) have performed, or have allowed to take place within their Diocese, rites of “holy matrimony” for same-sex marriages within the Episcopal Church’s liturgy.
4. The resulting spectacle of lawlessness is undermining the Church from within.
And this is news, how?
Good question!
Right, you folks (#1 and #2) — it’s not news that the termites are taking more bites, or that the fungus is spreading. The only thing that will be news under that view of the picture is when the structure finally collapses.
Ah, but those traditionalists/reasserters who are staying in TEC are merely postponing the day of collapse – and giving comfort, if not (pledge) aid, by remaining in TEC as numbers of parishioners to be counted.
So as I see it, the score is: Faithful- 1 (Supreme Ct of SC)
Relativist Revisionists – oh, heck, I can’t begin to count the number of faithful congregations shoved out of their church buildings and/or called “bigots” for maintaining their biblical beliefs. But it’s way, way more than “1.”
No. 4, I don’t think you can draw theological conclusions from the disposition of property disputes. The court actions to which you refer only relate to the notion that departing parishioners cannot claim physical properties and accounts when they leave. They do not address the theological or doctrinal aspects of what is often referred to here as the reasserter/revisionist dichotomy. While it is true, as you note, that a number of Episcopalians around the country have been shoved out of their places of worship by departing factions, and that there has been a lot of loose language heedlessly thrown about, I have never heard them referred to as “bigots.” “Heretics” seems to be the common phrase. Moreover, your criticism of Bishop Lawrence and others who are witnessing for sound doctrine within the Church is, it strikes me, a bit misplaced. We do not regard our continuing involvement as “merely postponing the day of collapse. . .” It is a matter of ensuring a safe place for sound doctrine within this Church.