A spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles agreed that doctrinal disagreements have stretched back decades, but said the denomination has not departed from its core values and tradition. Rather, the church “has come to understand more fully the meaning of the baptismal covenant that calls us to respect the dignity of every human being,” said Robert Williams, the church’s canon for communications.

There’s that pesky 1979 prayer book again.  Does anyone know who specifically is responsible to that particular amendment to the Anglican liturgy?

I guess that means that every human being should be ordained. The language appeared in 1976 at the same time Integrity came on the scene.The 1976 convention passed several gay friendly resolutions.

Where do we find the basis to conclude that every human being is dignified. Scripture teaches otherwise. This has not been my experience.

Such was my thought. Dignity is not a natural human condition. Neither is it something that you can confer by ritual.
The idea that every human being has dignity (not to say that they are incapable of assuming it) is a theological innovation that seems quite un-Anglican, and un-scriptural to me, but is a necessary foundation for the secularization of Anglicanism.
I would hope that if the amendment is to be the critical component of the baptism that someone could come up with some exegesis to support it.

While I agree that the Baptismal Covenant’s new provisions have been grossly misused, as a Catholic I have to respectfully disagree with the view that not every human being has dignity.  A human being’s dignity comes from the fact that they are created in the image and likeness of God, regardless of whether they act to conform to it. 

As the Catechism puts it:

THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God; it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude. It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment. By his deliberate actions, the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience. Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth. With the help of grace they grow in virtue, avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son to the mercy of our Father in heaven. In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

respect the dignity of every human being

I did not say that no human being had dignity. I said it was not a natural condition. Perhaps it would be more specific to say that dignity is not a natural attribute of a fallen human,  but something that can perhaps only be achieved through god’s grace.  That is not the same as professing as a postulate of baptism that every human being possesses it, even if only to some degree.
Now, if “dignity” has become one of those leftist weasel words with special meaning for the initiate then the idea of universal dignity could be logically true, but then a core of the sacrament would be based on a deception.

What jumped out at me was “the church “has come to understand more fully” as if anyone who breaks away just doesn’t get it - is not as enlightened, etc. Phoey. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, no matter how I or anyone else understands him.

Dignity of every human being is only half of the story. The other half the TEO does its best to ignore:

“You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve”, said Aslan. “And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth; be content.”

blockquote
Christians believe the preposterous: the God and creator of everything, the One that is all holiness and righteousness would reach out in a most personal and painful way to save us sinners. Simply ridiculous and utterly humbling. To Him be all praise and honor.

Although it has been sorely abused, the 1979 Prayer Book in general and the Baptismal Covenant in particular are not the cause of licentious behavior in TEc members. The question right before the “respect” question, directly addresses avoiding sinful behavior.  NW Bob has always read the baptismal covenent in light of 1 Peter 2:11-17.  You have to take the question about respect in context of the rest of the covenant and of Scripture.  I posted this previously a long time ago.

“What part of their baptismal vow do TEc not understand?  See BCP p. 299.  (Amplication from 1 Peter by NW Bob.)  The respect passage is what they misuse as an excuse to behave as they please.  The biblical view of respect is as a mechanism to win people over to Christianity, not to encourage people in sin.

Celebrant:  Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People:    I will, with God’s help.
…..
Celebrant:  Will you strive for justice and peace among all
          people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People   I will, with God’s help.

1 Peter 2:11-17 (NIV)
Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.  Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.”

Two more applicable bits of scripture with regard to sinful behavior and respect:

Romans 1:24-27 (NIV)
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.  26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Peter 3:14-16 (NIV)
13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.” 15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

I stand with Already Gone in respectfully disagreeing with the argument that dignity is not a “natural” human condition.  The Collect for the Second Sunday after Christmas Day reads:

O God, who wonderfully created, and yet more wonderfully restored, the dignity of human nature:  Grant that we may share the divine life of him who humbled himself to share our humanity….

Included in the American Prayer Book for the first time in the 1979 revision, this collect was taken from the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book.  It is a translation of a prayer found in the Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries.

The teaching that humans beings are endowed with dignity as a consequence of their being created in the image of God is not a revisionist one.  It has deep biblical roots and is robustly attested in the teachings of the undivided Church.  The fact that Episcopalian revisionists have distorted the teaching and put it to mischief is a mark of their heresy, not of the untruth of what they’ve distorted.

Fr. Bonnell Spencer, OHC was one of the ‘constucters’ of the Baptismal Covenant as found in the ‘79 BCP.  I was a member of OHC at the time he was involved.  He wrote ‘Ye Are The Body’ and then late in life authored ‘God Who Dares Be Man’ (would have been better titled ‘God Who Dares Be Married!).  Anyone who has read that book would understand where the theology found in the ‘Baptismal Covenant of the ‘79 BCP has it’s roots.

Telling someone that their sinful actions are blessed is not respecting their dignity.