(Anglican Ink) House of Bishops endorses “provisional” same-sex blessing rites

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The bishops then spoke in “yes/no” order. Bishop Michael Vono of the Rio Grande rose in support of the resolution, urging the House to vote in favor of the resolution as it was the “Jesus thing” to do “for our time.” Bishop John Bauerschmidt of Tennessee asked for a roll call vote on the resolution. He stated he would vote “no” as he believed that same-sex blessings were incompatible with the plain meaning of Scripture.

Bishop William Persell, the retired Bishop of Chicago, voiced his support for the resolution but asked Bishop Ely why the resolution had been amended, changing the words “gender” for “sex” and “trial” for “provisional” rites?

Bishop Joe Burnett, assistant Bishop of Maryland – a member of the committee – said that the change had been made to avoid triggering procedural issues. “Trial use” was a canonical term that could lead to “Prayer Book revision,” he said. The neutral term “provisional” was used to indicate the provisional period for study and use of the rite was for the coming three years.

Read it all.

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

Posted July 9, 2012 at 10:51 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. c.r.seitz wrote:

“One conservative bishop told Anglican Ink that he and other like-minded bishops had lobbied the Standing Committee on Liturgy to remove the designation “trial rite” in the committee stage of the proceedings.  He said he believed that calling it a “trial rite” would indicate that gay marriage rites would be “inevitable.””

1. It will be inevitable no matter what it is called.

2. If it had remained a ‘trial rite’ it would not have had nearly enough votes for passage—that is, if, as the conservative Bishop apparently realized, Art. X’s ‘trial rite’ voting requirements were to be fulfilled.

July 10, 9:52 am | [comment link]
2. c.r.seitz wrote:

“The neutral term “provisional” was used to indicate the provisional period for study and use of the rite was for the coming three years.”

No term is of course “neutral.” What has happened is that space has been carved out so to sit fully outside the logic of Art X as written. We have an unregulated liturgical rite, unforeseen by our Constitution, and precisely OK to that very degree.

Oddly enough, for all the talk of a unitary hierarchy, passage of this has underscored the diocesan hierarchy of TEC, as it will be up to each Diocesan to rule on this ‘extra-constitutional’ rite.

July 10, 9:57 am | [comment link]
3. MKEnorthshore wrote:

“Bishops” trump Scripture again.

July 10, 2:48 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): From the Morning Scripture Readings

Previous entry (below): Finally Tweaked Version of Same Sex Liturgy Resolution A049 as Passed by the House of Bishops Today

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)