North Carolina Vote (II): North Carolina Episcopal Bishops’ Statement before the Vote

Posted by Kendall Harmon

“We oppose Amendment One because the love of God and the way of love that has been revealed in Jesus of Nazareth compels us to do so. We oppose Amendment One because every time we baptize someone in The Episcopal Church, the entire congregation vows to ‘strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.’* We oppose Amendment One because it is unjust and it does not respect the dignity of every human being in the State of North Carolina. If passed, it will harm not only law-abiding gay and lesbian citizens but other men, women and innocent children in our state,” reads one excerpt from the letter.

Read the whole document.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC Bishops* Culture-WatchLaw & Legal IssuesMarriage & FamilyReligion & CultureSexuality--Civil Unions & Partnerships* Economics, PoliticsPolitics in GeneralState Government* TheologyEthics / Moral Theology

15 Comments
Posted May 9, 2012 at 6:25 am

To comment on this article: Go to Article View

The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/42773/



1. Katherine wrote:

It’s nice to see this statement posted in conjunction with the 61% vote in favor of the amendment, and this in a primary with a hotly-contested race for the Democratic governor’s nomination.

May 9, 7:35 am | [comment link]
2. Yebonoma wrote:

So without being able to have sex with whomever you want in whatever way you want and whenever you want, you cannot have any dignity?  Can someone please come up with a rational, logical explanation of how these people can reach such a conclusion?

May 9, 8:02 am | [comment link]
3. Pb wrote:

The logical end game here is that every human being should be ordained since they are dignified.

May 9, 8:12 am | [comment link]
4. Charles52 wrote:

Actually, you can still have sex at will and love who you want; the rest of us just don’t have to pay the bills as though it were a marriage.

May 9, 8:20 am | [comment link]
5. David Keller wrote:

This is one of the main reasons why I am no longer in TEC.  The baptismal covenant, made up in the 1970’s, now trumps scripture and apostolic tradition.

May 9, 8:44 am | [comment link]
6. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

So…logically, let’s think about this. Polygamists aren’t recognized under the law. Does that not respect their dignity as human beings? Convicts can’t vote. Does that not respect their dignity as human beings? I can go on and on with that analogy, but it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

May 9, 8:56 am | [comment link]
7. evan miller wrote:

#5
I agree that the “Baptismal Covenant” from the 1979 BCP has for long been used as their justification for supporting the homosexual agenda.  For the life of me I can’t understand why any orthodox TEC or ACNA parish would continue to use the 1979 Baptismal service.  1928 or 1662 would be far more sound.

May 9, 8:59 am | [comment link]
8. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) wrote:

“If you love me, you’ll let me do whatever I want.” is the operational philosophy of a two-year-old.

May 9, 10:15 am | [comment link]
9. Ralph wrote:

To me, the letter reads as a de facto renunciation of Holy Orders.

Perhaps that was not their intent.

Perhaps they will issue another joint letter, noting that the voters of North Carolina have spoken, and announcing the formation of an alliance with their Roman Catholic counterparts, to defend traditional doctrines of Christian marriage.

May 9, 10:39 am | [comment link]
10. Ralinda wrote:

To borrow from the esteemed Rev. John Burwell, TEC espouses a baptismal theology detached from catholic and Biblical doctrine.

May 9, 12:19 pm | [comment link]
11. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

I would also point the bishops to actually reading the amendment.  The amendment itself says it “does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

In other words, the whole sob story part of this letter about it affecting people’s retirement benefits or unmarried couples seeking adoption or civil union agreements is bogus on its face. Anyone can still enter into contracts on such matters.

May 9, 12:55 pm | [comment link]
12. J. Champlin wrote:

I’m going to regret posting in defense of the 1979 Baptismal rite, but here goes . . .

The problem is not with the Baptismal rite itself, or even with the “Covenant” (although I’m not a big fan of the five questions; and, for the life of me, I don’t see what they add to the renunciations and affirmations already made by the candidates).  However, given that, even the language of the fifth question is capable of a better interpretation than the stock Episcopal abuse of it these days.  After all, Catholic social teaching identifies the common good with the dignity of the human person objectively considered.  For reasons already given in this thread, that would rule out the appeal made by the Bishops in their statement.

The ‘79 rite puts the Apostles’ Creed front and center; the Thanksgiving over the Water correctly invokes both the creation and the exodus; the confession that we are buried with Christ and raised with him in Baptism is at the center of the Thanksgiving; the prayer for the Holy Spirit is fully developed.

The problem isn’t the rite.

May 9, 1:47 pm | [comment link]
13. dwstroudmd+ wrote:

The problem is exactly the Trojan Horse language of the rite which is being utilized exactly as intended by the framers of the rite - see WORSHIP POINTS THE WAY and the essay on the true nature of the changes instituted by the revisionists.  Urban T. Holmes essay “Education for Liturgy” is a revelation of the intent and success of the project.

May 9, 3:28 pm | [comment link]
14. David Keller wrote:

#7—I am in PEARUSA and while we use a variety of rites, we do not ever say the “baptismal covenant”.  When we started our church last summer, people leaving TEC were so concerned about it that our bishop came to our second organizational meeting to tell us while we use the 1979 BCP as a temporary tool, we do not buy into the bc “theology”.  BTW we also use Kenyan liturgy which I really like.
#12—The poroblem the abyss TEC has fallen into because of the “God don’t make no junk” philosophy (ie NOT theology) displayed in this letter. TEC needs to get back to “We are all junk and we need a savior”. Once again, a major reason I am no longer in TEC.

May 9, 4:59 pm | [comment link]
15. Ralph wrote:

Baptism - schmaptism.

Adolf was baptized into the Roman Catholic church. Obviously, it either didn’t “take” or something went wrong afterwards.

May 9, 6:23 pm | [comment link]


© 2014 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.

For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com


<< Back to main page

<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)