(Anglican Ink) House of Bishops endorses "provisional" same-sex blessing rites

The bishops then spoke in “yes/no” order. Bishop Michael Vono of the Rio Grande rose in support of the resolution, urging the House to vote in favor of the resolution as it was the “Jesus thing” to do “for our time.” Bishop John Bauerschmidt of Tennessee asked for a roll call vote on the resolution. He stated he would vote “no” as he believed that same-sex blessings were incompatible with the plain meaning of Scripture.

Bishop William Persell, the retired Bishop of Chicago, voiced his support for the resolution but asked Bishop Ely why the resolution had been amended, changing the words “gender” for “sex” and “trial” for “provisional” rites?

Bishop Joe Burnett, assistant Bishop of Maryland ”“ a member of the committee ”“ said that the change had been made to avoid triggering procedural issues. “Trial use” was a canonical term that could lead to “Prayer Book revision,” he said. The neutral term “provisional” was used to indicate the provisional period for study and use of the rite was for the coming three years.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, --Gen. Con. 2012, Episcopal Church (TEC), General Convention, Liturgy, Music, Worship, Same-sex blessings, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion), TEC Bishops

3 comments on “(Anglican Ink) House of Bishops endorses "provisional" same-sex blessing rites

  1. c.r.seitz says:

    “One conservative bishop told Anglican Ink that he and other like-minded bishops had lobbied the Standing Committee on Liturgy to remove the designation “trial rite” in the committee stage of the proceedings. He said he believed that calling it a “trial rite” would indicate that gay marriage rites would be “inevitable.””

    Fascinating.
    1. It will be inevitable no matter what it is called.

    2. If it had remained a ‘trial rite’ it would not have had nearly enough votes for passage — that is, if, as the conservative Bishop apparently realized, Art. X’s ‘trial rite’ voting requirements were to be fulfilled.

  2. c.r.seitz says:

    “The neutral term “provisional” was used to indicate the provisional period for study and use of the rite was for the coming three years.”

    No term is of course “neutral.” What has happened is that space has been carved out so to sit fully outside the logic of Art X as written. We have an unregulated liturgical rite, unforeseen by our Constitution, and precisely OK to that very degree.

    Oddly enough, for all the talk of a unitary hierarchy, passage of this has underscored the diocesan hierarchy of TEC, as it will be up to each Diocesan to rule on this ‘extra-constitutional’ rite.

  3. MKEnorthshore says:

    “Bishops” trump Scripture again.