No thoughts?
Lots of you have come here via Louie Crew’s web page, I notice (at least 50). But no one has left any comments…. =-(
So drop a line, let me know what you think, start a conversation. This is an interactive medium (although it’s my space, so play nicely), and I want to interact.
Ecto blogging software
24 July 2003 at 7:19 pm.
Okay, I’ll comment!
A technical note on the issue of the proposed same-sex blessing rite. According to a column my bishop wrote for our diocesan newspaper, the proposal coming before the General Convention is to prepare a blessing rite only, not to authorize its use. As Bishop Alexander puts it, we can’t really debate whether or not to authorize a rite which does not exist. The proposal is to draft such a rite. Whether it is used, included in the Book of Occasional Services or the BCP, and so on will not be decided at this Convention.
A lot of folks on both sides of this issue don’t understand that (I didn’t myself until I read the bishop’s column), so I thought I’d bring it up.
25 July 2003 at 1:19 pm.
This is a good point by Bishop Alexander; I would like to make one other. The issue actually ISN’T “the proposed same sex blessing rite” although a lot of press reports have said that.
Here is the text:
“Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That desiring to support all couples living in life-long committed relationships of mutuality and fidelity outside the relationship of marriage, which mediate the grace of God, the 74th General Convention direct the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to prepare for consideration by the 75th General Convention rites for inclusion in the Book of Occasional Services by means of which the Church may express that support; and be it further
Resolved, That the guidelines for the use of such a rite be included in rubrics for the rite and stress the necessity of pastoral support, discernment and preparation.”
Note carefully that the rite is for relationships outside of marriage which “which mediate the grace of God;” strictly speaking this involves a whole lot more than committed relationships between people of the same sex.
25 July 2003 at 7:32 pm.
Both comments raise a good point.
The first is right on, but I might note that in my direct discussion of the reso, I said pretty much what Matt said. The SCLM would only develop rites. But confusion could occur as a result of the rest of what I wrote. So I’m grateful that Matt cleared up what *could* be confusing. *grin*
Kendall’s comment is also quite accurate, but the argument is a little specious. Yes, the rites could extend to people who are not same sex. This is the same argument that people in California made with regard to domestic partnerships legislation when that came around. I think there are two points that don’t refute what Kendall is saying, but they do amplify it. First, this sort of argument, that the rite would extend to many more than gay people, while technically true, seems more designed to palliate conservatives than to come from a pastoral issue regarding, for example, elderly couples who would lose Social Security benefits if they were to marry “officially.” I think this is a bit disingenuous. Who will make the most use of these rites? I bet nine out of ten times it will be us gay and lesbian members of the church. Second, this idea never seemed to surface until gay and lesbian Anglicans pushed for it, which, although it may have broader ramifications than just for GLBT Episcopalians, ties it fairly closely into gay and lesbian concerns in the church.
But you’re both right, and I’m glad that you helped to clear up any ambiguities that my words might have created.
However, as I know (I’m a professional political scientist), technicality can sometimes be the essence and winning order of the day in politics. And GC is all about the confluence of politics and the Holy Spirit’s moving. Doesn’t God have a great sense of humor?