The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri, Bishop Wayne Smith, said in a statement that under his direction “the rites will be implemented carefully and pastorally, parish by parish, person by person.” The diocese, with about 14,000 members, encompasses the eastern half of the state.
Bishop Daniel Martins leads the 5,000 Episcopalians in the Springfield, Ill. diocese, which encompasses southern and eastern-central Illinois and includes congregations in Alton, Belleville, Carbondale, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, Granite City and O’Fallon.
Martins voted in the minority against the resolution, and told the Post-Dispatch in an e-mail Wednesday that he had been “clear all along that anything like what we just passed” would not be implemented in his diocese.
Please forgive me if I wander off the reservation a little here, but I couldn’t help but think about the seven bishops who recently submitted amicus briefs on behalf of the Anglican diocese of Ft. Worth and Springfield. In recent months, it’s become quite vogue in certain quarters to constantly refer to their “hierarchical church” (TEC), while concurrently assailing those who believe (understand?) that the hierarchy extends only as far as the ordinary of each see.
Anyway, this article included interviews and statements from two bishops – one who has made plans to do SSB in his diocese and the other who flatly refuses to do so. As 815 apparently does not have the authority to force SSB or Communion for the unbaptized, does this not reinforce the case by those who maintain that the [i]bishop[/i] is able to pick, choose and refuse which policies in his diocese will be followed?
ORNurseDude,
I get the impression that quite a few liberals are re-thinking that argument about the church being hierarchical. Its all very well when used against orthodox bishops, but its not so much fun if 815 can apply it against fellow liberals. There is no reason why 815 can’t do just that, and the penny seems to be dropping (finally) that there is no reason why it won’t do that.
I am happy to note the claim that the implementation of the SSBs is allegedly to be gradual and apparently carefully considered. This is quite a pull-back from the Diocesan Convention of 2008 deliberate violation of every one of the Windsor Moratoria (remember those?) and call for SSB liturgy development and deliberate export of “our version of the gospel” to the Sudan by continuing support despite the criticism of its Archbishop toward Episcopal mis-adventures in sexuality. So I am not sure I buy the claim.
No doubt there won’t be a widespread order of “Get your SSB here!” signs for front of every parish next Sunday, but like the elevation of support of women’s ordination to equality with Trinitarian “belief”, those signs will come to every diocesan parish that remains in the diocese of “radical stability” (not that I have checked the official stats, but at the time it was a lower than national average decline).
Attrition will assure it even in the most resistant, by hook or by crozier.
There is a huge moral difference between WO and SSB. It is not a sin to be a woman. You can make a scriptural case for WO. You cannot for SSB.