(SF)  Sarah Hey—Why The Same Sex Trial Liturgy Will [Very Very Likely] Pass

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)General Convention --Gen. Con. 2012Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion)Same-sex blessings* Christian Life / Church LifeLiturgy, Music, Worship* TheologyAnthropologyEthics / Moral TheologyPastoral TheologyTheology: Scripture

Posted July 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. Kendall Harmon wrote:

The very very likely is mine—it is not over until it is over in these types of environments.

Think Peter Drucker—the best indication of future performance is past performance.

July 9, 2:33 pm | [comment link]
2. cseitz wrote:

I think the problem with this mentality is that a) a liberal Bishop (+Ark) himself raised the issue, b) the canon is clear, c) I’m not sure the +Buchanon reference is relevant to Article X—he certainly didn’t rise in the HOB to declare this, d) if it does go through and is a trial rite and is in violation of Article X, then at least a Diocese like Dallas or SC would have yet additional reason to say, ‘not in this diocese—it’s not to be allowed and its manifestly against the C/C of TEC.’ I for one still believe that is a good thing to be able to say.

And the other thing: no one is claiming this is a deus ex machina. That is the same kind of exaggerated depiction we get from the Left. I don’t consider AS Haley to be a dramatic deus ex machina man. He’s the one who pointed this out, having done so *based upon the fact that *Benfield himself raised the issue and got a vague PB response and nothing like a definitive Nay.*

July 9, 3:08 pm | [comment link]
3. Br. Michael wrote:

I think Sara is absolutely right.  This will pass.  TEC is a past master at ignoring its own Canons and rules.  This is the Crown Jewel and it will pass.

July 9, 3:22 pm | [comment link]
4. Jill Woodliff wrote:

Prayers for General Convention

July 9, 4:25 pm | [comment link]
5. Adam 12 wrote:

I am inclined to agree with Sarah and appreciate her plainly calling developments for what they are, speaking in Biblical and spiritual terms. The question in my mind is, what cause will be left for a spectacular TEC encore three years from now?

Also, since by votes there is not much of a defense of orthodoxy on the ground in Indianapolis, I sense that much of the drama has left General Convention. What spectacle remains is likely found in the turf wars of the apparatchik as fights continue over dwindling resources.

July 9, 6:36 pm | [comment link]
6. c.r.seitz wrote:

It was explained on the twitter feed that ‘trial’ was swapped out because it is in Article X and implies en route to BCP revision. So it appears TEC is carving out some space that the canons don’t regulate. Genius. More liturgical on-the-ground-ism. Bishops didn’t need supermajority because this is not a trial use in accordance with Art. X. We are entering the liturgical twilight zone.

July 9, 6:37 pm | [comment link]
7. c.r.seitz wrote:

BCP is now blank Etch-a-Sketch. Liturgical life of TEC is without any canonical foundation whatsoever. This ‘provisional rite’ can even be adapted for states where marriage is OK for SS couples—or maybe, perhaps, who knows, and does it matter anyway? After all MA already has this.
Well, we needn’t any longer worry about the distinction between canons and constitution—both can be trumped by GC voting.

July 9, 6:45 pm | [comment link]
8. Northwest Bob wrote:

Twitter feed says this passed HoB 111 yes, 41 no, 3 abstentions.  Let the games begin!  Yes siree!  This will stop the attendance decline in its tracks.
In sorrow,
NW Bob

July 9, 6:45 pm | [comment link]
9. c.r.seitz wrote:

They didn’t ignore the rules for Article X. They just made up a new genre. Better change the headline here. A Trial Rite didn’t not get passed. We have the invention of a new category of rite.

July 9, 6:48 pm | [comment link]
10. Teatime2 wrote:

#5 Adam 12, That’s the question in my mind, too. I really, really don’t get this. You drive out a sizable portion of your members, vilifying them as they go, in the name of “inclusion” for a church that doesn’t really have a large number of GLBTs? What, did they think that the MCC was going to close down and merge with TEC?

And you can’t blame the secular forces, either, since studies continually show that gay relationships aren’t primarily monogamous and the majority of gay men, in particular, don’t want a marriage type of commitment. If the TEC bishops are claiming that by offering SSM or SSB they can change the nature of these relationships and make them somehow holy in the Christian understanding of the word, then they’re doing exactly the same thing that they freak out about. That is, attempting to “cure” innate homosexual tendencies.

So, in 3 years, what will we have? Tens of thousands of GLBTs aren’t going to be rushing to join TEC any more than they did when VGR predicted they would because of his consecration. How many conventions will it be before this lot retires out/dies off and new blood either nurses the church on Repentance Road toward recovery or presides over its final implosion?

By ONLY caring about GLBT issues (and occasionally tossing in some environmental concern), this church has alienated itself from the Communion, Christianity, and even the religious community, in general. How do they not get this?

July 9, 6:56 pm | [comment link]
11. c.r.seitz wrote:

# 10. Very nicely put.

My memory is that the Gay Theologian Eugene Rodgers, who served on TEC’s theological committee to study this, actually said he was not in favor of marriage equality. It’s not like we have a unitary phenomenon here.

Here you capture it:

“If the TEC bishops are claiming that by offering SSM or SSB they can change the nature of these relationships and make them somehow holy in the Christian understanding of the word, then they’re doing exactly the same thing that they freak out about. That is, attempting to “cure” innate homosexual tendencies.”

And many ‘Gay Christians’ also don’t want what they are offering.

July 9, 7:06 pm | [comment link]
12. Teatime2 wrote:

Thank you, c.r. seitz. And your observations are spot on. There will be some early, loudly trumpeted same sex or same gender whatever they’re calling the ceremonies now but I think it will die down very quickly. It would be poetic justice if TEC publicly attempted to encourage GLBT religious unions—they would see how quickly that “community” could turn on them and tell them to mind their own business, heh.

Something has just occurred to me, in regard to this “provisional” rite. It seems to me that the more TEC makes exceptions, changes language and circumvents its own rules and canons, the less it remains a hierarchical church. I think that there are many folks such as myself who only remain Episcopalian because of a solid parish experience and good leadership and mission at the parish level. Some, like SC, have a solid diocese that is accountable. The national church, however, is no longer reliable and if it won’t follow its own rules, then I think it could be proven in court, if necessary, that it is unreasonable for the national church to hold individual parishes or even dioceses because TEC doesn’t conduct business in good faith.

July 9, 7:45 pm | [comment link]
13. lostdesert wrote:

Teatime2 - Very interesting post - you nailed it.  That was some piece of insight.  I had not thought of the issue they way that you put it.  Well done.

July 10, 8:09 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): Live Twitter Feed (one of them) on the current House of Bishops debate on Same Sex Liturgies

Previous entry (below): Ambrose Evans-Pritchard—China heads for a deflationary shock

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)