Bishop Marc Andrus of the Diocese of California announced that he will deliver a statement signed by all six California diocesan bishops of The Episcopal Church that calls on Episcopalians to defeat a state ballot initiative that would amend the state’s constitution to read “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
In May, the California Supreme Court overturned by a 4-3 margin state laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Bishop Andrus will hold a press conference on Sept. 10 at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. He will be joined by assisting Bishop Steven Charleston of California and Bishop Barry Beisner of Northern California. Earlier that day, clergy and lay leaders from throughout southern Califorina will join Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, who will hold his own press conference at the Los Angeles Cathedral Center.
[blockquote] Sean McConnell, director of communication for the Diocese of California, contended that taking a public position on a ballot initiative is not covered under the law.
“Legally, a church can take positions on public policy, specific pieces of legislation, and even on ballot measures or initiatives,†he said. “Although it is not a good practice for a preacher to tell people how to vote, it is always good for a congregation to come together to take a public stance that lets politicians and the public know that core Christian values support or reject specific policies or initiatives.â€[/blockquote]
First of all common sense ( a substance which has long been lacking in several TEC diocese) would tell you that that as a church should never advocate for a specific candidate or party it should never advocate for or against specific legislation.
Second, the teaching of the church is still ( unless it has somehow magically changed) Lambeth 1.10. One whould hope that +Kate would be pulling out her magic inhibition letter and send copies to these bishops for spreading false doctrines.
Third, I love how clergy who will not take a stand against abortion (or Reproductive Choice as they call it), because murdering a baby is a matter of personal choice are so hip to take a stand on this issue.
RSB
One, this should not be any surprise.
Two, they view this as a matter of morality and the Church should speak out on such matters. It is not a question of Church/State separtation which really has to do with official state churches.
Three, it points out the revisionist’s hypocracy in that they openly support and use the Church as a platform to support the causes they support and switch positions on using that same platform when they disagree with the position advocated.
Like I said, no surpirse here.
Just a question – isn’t this a violation of the IRS code that tax-exempt organizations can not endorse political issues. I believe that one california congregation was in danger of losing their tax exempt status for endorsing a candidate a couple of years ago. Why should these dioceses be any different. Let’s revoke their tax exempt status and then watch the donations drop.
You can take an issue on political issues “germane” to your nonprofit organization. You cannot take a position supporting or opposing a specific political candidate.
However, this should send another strong message to Christians that they need to get out of the Episcopal Church as soon as possible. Certainly in California it’s beyond repair.
Hopper that’s OK. The Constitution only applies to government. It grants power to the Federal government and limits the power of the States. The last time I looked neither political party was an arm of government. If a party wants a religious test that’s fine. It may be stupid, but it’s not a constitutional violation.
And let’s be clear, just what is the limitation of Churches being as partisan as they want? It’s the internal revenue code and exemption from taxes. In my opinion this is a totally corrupt use of the tax code. Churches should be tax immune not merely tax exempt.
Now it may not be smart for a preacher to endorse Obama from the pulpit, not an uncommon practice in some churches, but I do maintain that it is none of Government’s business to regulate this, even through the tax code.
The bishops are standing firmly on the Episcopal Church position on same sex marriage:
GC 2006 – Resolution A095
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm The Episcopal Church’s historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the 71st General Convention’s action calling upon “municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples;†and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions.
MORATORIA, anyone? RESPONSIBILITY to the Anglican Communion?
They would welcome the “persecution” of the state since it would reinforce their delusion they are on crusade for “rights” like a bad 1960’s redux!
8, reminds us of the sexual corruption of the TEC.
11, maybe, but that was not the issue above.
#8, but did that resolution pass both houses at GC 2006?
14, and even if it did, as Ms. Russell would inform us, it’s not actually binding. Oh I forgot, for these people something is binding when it advances their agenda and is not binding when it is to the contrary.
But note how we are elevating a controllable behavior to being a civil right! This could be truly breathtaking as it plays out. What other behaviors could be civil rights. What might human beings want to do, I wonder?
12, why thank you Hopper. Pax.
#8: GAFCON, and even the ABofC after Lambeth, have clearly stated that, for the present time, taking this public stand is not in character with Anglican teaching. I say this not as a secular issue, but one relating to the position of the Church on sexual morality. Of course the majority of the nation and California don’t understand what is going on in the Episcopal Club. After this grandstanding, these lost bishops will make it clear to those looking on where their ecclesiastical agenda is focused.
#5: And yes, +Schofield is recognized by the majority of the souls in the Anglican Communion through their leadership, and he probably is grateful for the publicity so that people can appreciate why his diocese had to take such a drastic action to remain Anglican and true to the Faith.
And you can read the statement here.
I doubt that Episcopal bishops have much credibility anymore, even amongst Episcopalians. I think they simply play the role of “useful idiots” for the liberal political machine that is working to force same-sex marriage onto Western society. The goal of the liberal machine is to claim that the Christian church is “divided” on this question.
If I were the “California Six” bishops, I’d be concerned that since TEC is backing an intiative opposing Proposition 8, the Internal Revenue Service might interpret this as a violation of the Separation of Church and State, and would consequently rescind their tax exempt status.
Cennydd: I seriously doubt that pastors arguing pro or con same-sex marriage would have their tax status revoked. I would be mightily surprised if the IRS went after pastors arguing pro or con issues such as same-sex “marriage” and abortion.
I also doubt, as I said earlier, that TEC’s bishops have any credibility in and of themselves on this issue. Their only use is as “useful idiots” by the liberal political machine who will use them to argue that Christian denominations are “divided” on the issue, and therefore it is a perfectly “moderate” position to vote against Prop 8.
That was the powerplay from the start – infiltrate the law schools. Have your lackey’s get onto the supreme courts. Have your lackey’s make nonsensical constitutional rulings. Tell the people that to contest these constitutional rulings is extreme and hateful. Problem is that if all serious Christian denominations and other religions join together, the average person might just realize how extremist the Court’s decision was. But if the liberals can say “no, no, no, not all religious denonimations oppose this. Only the fundamentalists do” then they can appeal to the mindless moderates (not suggesting that all moderates are mindless, but rather referring to the potential swing group of voters who stupidly cling to whatever opinion they are told is “moderate” without thinking things through).
The Episcopal Organization has a lobbying budget. At least they did before I got fed up with their politics and left. And their lobbyists push for things like more gun control, higher taxes, looser immigration enforcement and other matters that have precious little to do with Scripture or traditional religion. That should be a matter of far greater concern for their tax exempt status than addressing the issue of marriage in a public forum. Marriage is directly addressed in the Christian faith. Abortion also strikes me as an issue on which a church may be expected to declare a position.
Hopper: Do you live in California? That great state which has a Hollywood terminator as the governor. That great state that creates so much trash in the entertainment media that I always worried that it could corrupt my children. Corrupt them as to the proper way to understand intimacy, love, marriage and sex, which is a great gift from God, but abused constantly. California, which takes the lead in judicial activism. California, which sits on a large tectonic fault line building up energy for the next great cataclysm. California, which needs to repent.
Regardless of the technicalities of tax law involved, this clearly violates God’s law and as such each of these so called bishops and other persons that are so called clergy like Ms. Russell should all be condemened by the Church and cast out. They show a complete disconnect from the reality of the Bible and complete contemp for our Lord and Savious Jesus Christ. They are followers and servants of satan and should be treated as such. The TEC has shown itself to be anything but Christian, so maybe they need to just slither away like the snake and hide so they can attack Christians again later. Yes Ms. Russel, I am saying that you and your bishop friends in California represent an antiChrist pseudo god.
“All the California bishops”…includes Diocese of San Diego!?! Sad, if true.
What a wonderful testament of bold leadership from the Episcopal Bishops in California. The church was among the last to finally come around to supporting civil rights for minorities, it’s refreshing to see the Bishops determined not to be on the wrong side of history again, but rather to be on the side of our loving God who taught us all how to love through the life and death of Jesus. Thanks be to God for the Episcopal leadership shown by this statement.
Hopper: Have you ever been to lawschool? Have you ever observed the social liberals in lawschool talking about how they can effectively promote their brand of “social change” by using the law and the courts? Well I have – many, many, many times.
In contrast, the conservatives don’t do that. Their argument is that the constitution should be interpreted as it was originally meant to be interpreted, and that if it is to be amended, it should be amended as per the constitutional amendment process.
I wonder Hopper – is it the conservatives in Canada that have attempted to shut down a university’s teacher education program because that university has a conduct code for students that forbids homosexual acts (as well as drinking, pre-marital sex, etc.)? Is it conservatives in Canada that have tried to dismiss a teacher simply because he wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper making a simply argument that the government ought not promote the homosexual lifestyle? Is it conservatives in Canada that have tried to sue a pastor for speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle and sought to bankrupt him? Is it conservatives in the U.S. who have sought to ban Christian clubs from university campuses because they teach that homosexual behavior is wrong?
No, Hopper, conservatives don’t do that sort of thing, and you know it. Liberals do. And liberals have used – and will continue to use – the courts to force their agenda through and to deny the rights and freedoms of others to oppose them.
# 29 Mark: I see that you appropriately didn’t capitalize the word church. The Church has not come around to this distorted doctrine. Just some apostate bishops, among others, have done it in California. There will always be others trying to distort the Word. Any kind of behavior isn’t a civil right. Forced political correctness on the majority isn’t a civil right. People can choose to either be married to the opposite sex or they can choose not to be through singleness or some other kind of behavior that is not universally accepted. Marriage was defined by nature even before it was defined by religion. The definition has never changed. Clergy who preach otherwise are on the wrong side of Christian history. Now if you want to address some real or imagined discrimination through secular law, fine, but secular law can’t force people to change their religious beliefs and it can’t change nature.