At the General Convention in 2009, the General Convention tasked the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music with developing theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same sex couples. These liturgical resources will be presented to the 2012 General Convention and voted on for trial use by the Church. If approved for trial use, what would that mean for the Diocese of Georgia?
Bishop Benhase cannot support the current version of the proposed trial rite because he does not believe it is sufficiently distinguished from the rite of marriage found in the Book of Common Prayer. There may be, however, a provision in whatever resolution is approved that would allow alternative rites from the one proposed to also be authorized. If that happens, then there is a good possibility that a rite of blessing may be available that meets the Bishop’s criteria.
Sounds like + Benhasse is one bishop of TEC who will not force the revisionist agenda on unwilling priests or parishes, despite whatever sympathy he might have for the revisionist position. Good for him.
You have to remember, this is the Deep South. (My parents are from Georgia originally.) Any bishop who openly campaigns for SSB’s is going to absolutely tank what’s left of his diocese.
Good for him? Wouldn’t it be better for him (spiritually) and for the diocese (materialistically and spiritually) if he were to side with Bp. Lawrence?
That diocese is trying to grow, and to raise $$$. Bringing in SSBs and openly homosexual clergy would seem to be at odds with those goals.
So, adopting a clearly-stated conservative position would seem to be wise, for several reasons.
He knows that if he ok’d this provision he might well anger St John’s, Savannah, the wealthy congregation that still uses the 1928 prayerbook. He already has one historic building with insufficient congregants to maintain (the old Christ Church building on Johnson Square); he can’t afford to have two.
This is not “good for him”. This is a bishop failing to defend the faith. The only proper response is to reject the supplemental “liturgies” and refuse their use by any priest, in any place, at any time. It is truly pathetic that we have come to point where we accept not forcing abomination on the church as a good thing.
#5
Of course it would be preferable for him to stand up for the faith. That should go without saying. Still, the fact that he won’t persecute the orthodox in his diocese should be some cause for relief. I’m sure St. John’s, Savannah, appreciates not having SSB’s, etc. forced upon them. I worship there when at Hilton Head and was there for +Benhasse’s first visitation as diocesan. We all knew he was a revisionist, but as far as I can tell from afar, he’s left them alone and I hope he continues to. And yes, #5, it is certainly pathetic that TEC has sunk to such depths, but “not forcing abomination on the church” remains a good thing nonetheless.
“sunk”
The bishop does not have to worry about same sex marriages in DGA since state law prohibits such. I suspect that in the future the US Supreme Court may find the right to a same sex marriage in the constitution and he would be on the spot. DGA is populated by pine trees and rural missions. As Nixon would say, this will not play in Peoria.
Of course since when did state law and state approval or disapproval have anything to do with what the Church teaches or blesses. It’s a complete, or should be, non sequitur.