Here is one:
R08-4
Development of Liturgical Rites for Same-Gender UnionsResolved: This 102nd Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta approves the following resolution to the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, meeting in Anaheim, California, in 2009; and be it further
Resolved: This council directs the Secretary of Council to transmit the following resolution to the Secretary of the General Convention:
Resolved: The House of __________ concurring, the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church authorizes the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to develop appropriate rites for the celebration and blessing of the sacred unions of gay and lesbian persons, taking into account the variety of civil arrangements for such unions available in the regions served by the church; and be it further
Resolved: that such rite or rites shall be presented at the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
EXPLANATIONIn light of events following the Lambeth Conference of 2008, it is clear that our charitable restraint and response to the Windsor Report in the matter of our declining to develop a rite or rites to allow the celebration and blessing of sacred unions for people of the same gender has not had the effect of preserving unity and civility between those who believe such unions may be good and moral and those who cannot conceive as such a possibility being within the bounds of Christian faith and the Anglican Tradition. It is also clear that while a great many Episcopalians remain undecided about their own beliefs in these matters, they recognize both the desirability of allowing those who seek to make such commitments in the midst of their community of faith to do so; and that the reality that the cost of our charity has been at the expense of one clear minority within our church; and further that there is no compelling reason that these brothers and sisters should have to continue to bear the burden of that charity.
The development of such a rite or rites by and for the whole church will allow a restoration of decency and order from diocese to diocese under the guidance of each bishop, the ensuring of theological integrity to such rites and the capacity of the church to “sanction” and declare such committed relationships among people of the same gender to be both moral and fully within the bounds of our common life.
Submitted by: The Rev. Geoffrey M. St.J. Hoare, The Rev. Charles M. Girardeau,
The Rev. Noelle York-Simmons, The Rev. Elizabeth Shows Caffey
All Saints’, Atlanta
That’s resolution 4. Resolution 5, which follows asks for the GC in 2009 to take back B033. I’m not sure Atlanta has any remaining orthodox parishes anymore, so these will probably be approved and pass.
All Siants, which is where these two proposals come from is a large, inner city parish with a congregation that has a high gay percentage. Like most Episcopal parishes the membership is slowly declining. It has a pretty building though.
It’s worth noting that in most TEC dioceses, for many decades now, there are always resolutions proposed that are far to the left, and many do not pass. Of course, it’s possible that this one will, but it’s important to observe that it is not in itself news that a far left resolution is on the ballot. What will be (mildly) newsworthy is if it passes.
That said, it neverthless strikes me as an interesting resolution because of the remarkable mindset it reveals, simply what an alien perception of reality (from ours) it reveals. I can definitely understand the writers producing a document that asks GC to go ahead with developing SSU rites; I can see a document that says they did the wrong thing by agreeing to what little they did agree to at GC 2006.
But it is just fascinating to me that the signers of the resolution look back at TEC’s behavior in 2005-2007, and at GC 2006, and see it as an example of “restraint” and charitable loving. Whatever they did was done angrily and with great reluctance — there was no charity involved at all! So it is just so amazing to me to watch such a wildly different picture of reality emerge.
“Our charitable restraint and response to the Windsor Report”
Don’t gag me so soon after supper.
#3… I agree. Stomach turning.
But here’s what I want to know. Do you think that the authors of this resolution really look back at GC 2006 and the two years following — and in their minds they now remember it as a time of gentle agape love for their brothers overseas, deep restraint, selfless concern and joyful sacrifice?
I guess my question is this: are they liars or lunatics? Are they engaging in a boldfaced but conscious reconstruction of history — possibly aimed at people who just haven’t been following it — or have they actually come to believe this version of the past?
Mousetalker,
I don’t know that I’d say orthodox…that’s a bit broad…but I can assure you that there are still traditionalist parishes, and priests, in Atlanta…just not so many. Come out to St. Simon’s, in Conyers.
Church of Our Savior: an orthodox anglo-catholic episcopal parish in the city of Atlanta. I moved and miss attending.
My only suprise is that the proposed resolution calls for TEC to wait until the 2012 GC to ratify. IMHO whatever SGU resolution is finally presented will be effective immediately – none of this waiting three years. I’m sure the Standing Committee on Liturgy & Music has already penned a final draft.
Let us suppose that prop 8 in Cal goes on the books. A TEC church marries two homosexuals. What has just happened, given the constitutional amendment? Clearly, such people cannot get a marriage license. Can TEC marry them anyway? What does this mean? I simply don’t see how this works. Larry
#1, outside the I-285 perimeter, many (probably most) of the parishes in D. of Atlanta are more reasserting than not, and some of those parishes are good size (over 1000 and few over 2000). But some of them also have clergy that are reappraising or who are moderate. It will be interesting to see what resolutions pass; I suspect they all will, but not by the runaway margin one might otherwise expect.