Dear Friends,
Greetings to you of Grace and Joy! I write to let you know of my reflections as well as of new liturgical guidelines in light of the new opportunity for gay and lesbian persons to marry in the state of California. First of all, let me express my personal joy in the Supreme Court decision. While this victory is not yet complete, the Supreme Court’s decision is a deep breath of freedom that has been long awaited and fought for. Take in its refreshing spirit and all that this means for gays and lesbians not only here in California but for those around the world who do not experience a fraction of the freedom we enjoy in our country.
After reflecting with our Standing Committee, other California bishops, the chair of the Massachusetts task force on same-gender marriage and Bishop Tom Shaw, also of Massachusetts, here are the guidelines – for now. You may have a same-gender civil marriage and blessing in your church provided an Episcopal priest does not officiate at the marriage itself or sign the marriage license and the Book of Common Prayer is not used. For example, you may have a civil ceremony conducted by someone other than an Episcopal clergyperson, followed by a blessing of that union (which could surely include a Eucharist) by an Episcopal priest. Various liturgies have been used around the diocese for blessings; a practice which was approved by the 2004 El Camino Real diocesan convention. These guidelines are not a tremendous change from our previous guidelines, but rather an addition that helps us live into a new reality. As the national church proceeds toward full sacramental inclusion, so shall our diocese. As with all couples, your discernment and discretion is integral to the process of determining the suitability of blessing the marriage. My consent, per the instruction of the 2004 resolution, is still required.
Please know that I have decided upon the new guidelines in light of the current climate in our diocese and the national church as a whole, and looking ahead to the upcoming Lambeth Conference. They will be too liberal for some and not permissive enough for others. I welcome your feedback as we move through these historic times. Also, as a means of encouraging ongoing conversation and exploration, I am appointing a Task Force on Marriage and Family in our diocese. As I understand it, it has been a long time since El Camino Real has had any structured conversation about what distinguishes a Christian marriage and what it means to live with “Christian family values” in our tradition and in our very diverse world. While I rejoice at the election and consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson, it would seem that the deeper conversation about covenant relationships – no matter the gender – has been of less importance in a very political conversation about human sexuality focused on the specificity of gender. I would like to have a different conversation, one less focused on gender but which looks more carefully at the theology of Christian marriage and family life as we understand them in our tradition.
We are in the midst of a very long conversation prompted by our awareness of the complexities of human sexuality and our desire to live in relationships of integrity with God and with one another. May we continue prayerfully, loving each other. May we extend grace and understanding to one another in the various ways we are experiencing these times. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and grieve with those who grieve. Indeed, may we honor the covenant relationship we share together with Christ, “bearing each other in all things.”
My prayers and blessings to you for fruitfulness in our common ministry for Christ’s sake,
–(The Rt. Rev.) Mary Gray-Reeves is Bishop of El Camino Real
Mrs Gray is in for disappointment if California’s voters approve the constitutional amendment in November. It’ll be “back to square one” again.
How about allowing Bingo at the reception in the Parish Hall.
But don’t you see, she’s “Windsor compliant!”
[blockquote]How about allowing Bingo at the reception in the Parish Hall.[/blockquote]
“Provided an Episcopal priest does not officiate” and “followed by a blessing of [the winners] (which could surely include a Eucharist) by an Episcopal priest.”
A couple of folks bring up an interesting question. And this is in all seriousness.
Is Bingo Allowed in ECUSA/TEC parishes?
I have always wondered. Go figure?
I heard a priest say that gambling is not a sin that is covered in the Bible anywhere. He can’t find it…..he looked! The Bible has nothing to say about gambling. So….let the BINGO begin!
[i] Please, let’s return to the serious content of the post. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Same-sex = “marriage”??? Not in the Bibles I have on my book shelf (six different versions I might add). Nuff said!
I take it she will be declining the invitation to Lambeth. Of course not. Rowan Williams has completely capitulated to the American innovationistas showing his Advent letter meant nothing. So the innovationistas are proceeding post haste, not even pausing prior to Lambeth. I hold nothing but disdain for the man. Strong words? You bet.
But I fault +Tom Wright, too. Fool +Tom twice, shame on +Tom. The promised letters from Rowan? How about the phone calls? Whatever.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
[blockquote] I would like to have a different conversation, one less focused on gender but which looks more carefully at the theology of Christian marriage and family life as we understand them in our tradition.[/blockquote]
Why? Sounds to me that the conversation is over. The matter has been decided. I think what she means is getting opponants to accept what they are doing.
OK so the elf didn’t like the invertebrate reference. How about this:
Either Rowan Williams
1) Is such a weak leader that he can’t stand up to the Americans giving Ms Gray-Reeves and her ilk seeming carte blanche to proceed post haste with their anti-Windsor innovations, not even pausing prior to Lambeth, or
2) While feigning neutrality, he is playing out his [url=http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_108_SpreadSummary.pdf ]well documented liberal nature[/url] in a duplicitous manner.
No, there is not a third alternative that he feels that it is not his place to overstep his authority. Windsor was not unclear about not proceeding with same sex blessings unilaterally and Lambeth invitations are his prerogative alone.
8. Harvey wrote:
“Same-sex = “marriageâ€??? Not in the Bibles I have on my book shelf (six different versions I might add). Nuff said! ”
Following your example Harvey:
Multiple-wives = “marriage”??? Definitely in the Bibles I have on my book shelf…
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Isn’t there a typo in the diocesan name? I could have sworn that when +Mary Gray-Reeves was elected they changed the name to the Diocese of El Casino Real, right? And now she’s wagering all her chips that the Spirit of God is doing a bold New Thing, overturning centuries of religious prejudice against an oppressed minority group. After all, TEC has been on a lucky roll lately, and soon hordes of new members are going to flood into TEC as people realize how this denomination is on the cutting edge of social justice, especially in progressive, trend-setting California.
Forget churches sponsoring BINGO, this is serious gambling. This is high stakes stuff. She is betting that there will be no real downside in terms of any negative reaction from the ABoC (a safe bet!), or from conservative parishioners in the diocese (time will tell). She is so sure of it, she’s betting the house on it.
All is not just well along California’s central coast. All is swell in El Casino Real. They’re gonna hit the jackpot with this one.
David Handy+
The graph for El Casino Real is [url=http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_67200870704PM.pdf ]here[/url]. Notice how the membership was increasing till 2002 when it started a precipitous decline, down 16.6%. Now, what happened in 2003 and who is getting “married” this weekend?
Interesting how far they will go to “allow” what is clearly not allowed.
“You may have a same-gender civil marriage and blessing in your church provided an Episcopal priest does not officiate at the marriage itself or sign the marriage license and the Book of Common Prayer is not used…”
I’d like to ask “why?” Why is it so important the the above “rules” are followed? Could it be that you don’t want “clergy” to be linked to something that is clearly against the cannon and rules of your very own church and The book of Common Prayer? What hypocrisy, double speak… Do they even thing about what they are saying? Why not WAIT till you ACTUALLY change your rules…
“While this victory is not yet complete, the Supreme Court’s decision is a deep breath of freedom that has been long awaited and fought for. Take in its refreshing spirit and all that this means for gays and lesbians not only here in California but for those around the world who do not experience a fraction of the freedom we enjoy in our country.”
A one vote majority by an activist judge does not mean same gender marriage is now a Church sanctioned event. It only means that those who seek to pervert society under the Lie of “equality” will have 6 months to run amuck before the good people of California reigns in this feeble attempt to run over the overwhelming will of the voters.
“You may have a same-gender civil marriage and blessing in your church provided an Episcopal priest …” and ” would like to have a different conversation, one less focused on gender but which looks more carefully at the theology of Christian marriage and family life as we understand them in our tradition.”
What part of NO does Mary Gray-Reeves not understanding? The Bible says no, 2000 years of Church teachings says no, The Majority of the Worlds Religions say no, Lambeth says no. So what is her problem????
H
Robroy, I can tell you part of what happened in 2003: ECR got rid of +Richard Shimpfky. He got a $1 million buyout on being forced out by the Standing Committee.
Mrs Reeves’ problem is that she had so little experience before coming to ECR. It’s too early, though, to tell if she’ll be anything like Schori.
So as far as Episcopal Priest involvement goes… Eucharist is okay but officiating is a no… blessing is okay but signing the certificate is a no… and the BCP can’t be used, but go ahead and have a ceremony without it. What does that amount to?
It amounts to going through the motions with empty words.
archangelica, check out Titus 1:6 and 2,000 years of tradition, if Jesus’s reference to the two becoming one flesh isn’t enough for you.
#20 Thank you.
“As the national church proceeds toward full sacramental inclusion, so shall our diocese. As with all couples, your discernment and discretion is integral to the process of determining the suitability of blessing the marriage.”
That people still are not sure about the direction the national church is going is a sad thing indeed. Being in close communion with people in parishes that are on the fence about whether or not they should leave the church because it might actually not be “that bad” pains me deeply when I see things like this.
#24 And friends have asked my wife and me why we left that cesspool! Well, there’s your answer, folks!
Cue lightning strike….
And if that conversation discovers (gasp!?) that the theology of Christian marriage and family life require the presence of 1 (one) male human being and 1 (one) female human being, what then?
And if that conversation reveals (gasp Part 2!?) that part of what distinguishes a Christian marriage is the presence of 1 (one) male human being and 1 (one) female human being, what then?
And if that conversation discerns (gasp Part 3!?) that what it means to live with Christian Family Values means the presence within the marriage of 1 (one) male human being and 1 (one) female human being, what then?
As far as I can tell, they really have nothing meaningful to talk about, as all the big decisions have been made.
KTF!…mrb
This abomination of a pretend Bishop would not know the Truth if she was hit in the face with it. She denies the Truth. With the stastement that she finds personal joy in the court descision she shows her true colors. This is not freedon she is talking about. Freedon is the ability to do what is right and good and not have to be worried that you have done something wrong. What she is talking about is license. License to do whatever she wants whenever she wants and damn the complications. That is heresey at least. This is no Christian Bishop. She is a pretender, espousing heresy and should be tried for heresy and abandoning the church. It is time to sop patronizing such people and call them what they are.