Inclusive Church 2 - Indecisive Church 1
Indecisive Church wins
I'm a little confused as to what when on in Canada yesterday. Evidently there's nothing wrong with blessing gay couples but you can't do it.
A major disappointment for gay Canadians but extremely good news for scientists throughout the world studying quantum mechanics. At long last an experiment has been conducted that has proved conclusively that an object can exist in two distinct places at the same moment in time without the object experiencing any feeling of contradiction or disappearing into nothingness due to the irreconcilable paradox of its dualistic manner of existence. (see diagram)
19 comments:
A185 says that the blessing of same sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being credal) of the Anglican Church of Canada. Of course it isn't - it's not mentioned in the Creeds! But then, not much that makes us Anglican is! It does not say that there is no reason why we should not bless same-sex unions. If the motion meant that anything not in conflict with the creeds was allowable, we could start lay-presidency at the Eucharist tomorrow.
A186 refuses local option and basically says that if we're going to move on this we're going to move as a church, not as individual dioceses. Personally I think it is irrelevant. New Westminster is not going to stop, Niagara will probably start this Fall. People who want to do this have already demonstrated that they are prepared to disobey church discipline in order to do it. It is only a matter of time before the practice is widespread, whether or not General Synod approves of it. How you feel about that depends, of course, on where you stand on the issue. But there is no inconsistency between the two motions, when they are understood properly.
Hi, Tim ...
It just sounds like another typical stall tactic to me. Justice delayed is injustice.
There's no equivalence between presiding at a sacrament and receiving a blessing. The first is to do with how we order our Church and the second is about how we interpret the words of Jesus. As church order is not touched upon by Jesus it's up to us how we go about it. Inclusion in the Kingdom is talked about by Jesus so we have no choice in the matter. The argument is about how the words of Jesus should be applied in this situation.
Nice try Tim. I almost thought you'd got me there.
Best damn summation of theology this dog's heard in a long time, MP. Your ability to cut through all the crap and find the heart of a matter is brilliant!
Some Canadian friends have clued me in to a very relevant piece of info WRT this vote. This being that conservative, rural sensibilities are quite over-represented in the ACoC's HoB. With them, it's one bishop, one vote - whether you're a bishop in Toronto or the "back of the beyond."
And to make matters worse, a few of these small, rural, conservative dioceses (e.g. the Arctic) sent suffragans who were also allowed to vote, while populous dioceses like Niagara and New Westminster had only their diocesan.
Conservative ballot-box stuffing, if you ask me.
(and yes, Amen! to Clumber's praise of MP. He has mad "cuttin' through the crap" skills!)
I thought the situation is a bit similar to the US Electoral College in which the scantily populated areas are proportionally very much over-represented.
A MadPriest suggestion.
Get rid of scantily populated areas
Bring on the scantily clad, babelicious bishops
Either sex, of course.
Hmmm ... I might rather have sparsely clad bishops. Let me think on it for a bit.
/me is always in support of the "scantily clad, babelicious" - bishops or not ;)
I get why the Synod did what it did conceptually, but think we are on the brink of TEC-style anarchy here. Parishes here in Ottawa, Toronto and Niagara will probably move forward with their bishop turning a blind eye.
1) The church said that it doesn't violate core doctrine.
2) They didn't tell New Westminister to stop
3) Bishops already said that a parish can celebrate a Eucharist with a gay couple, say intercessor prayers but not bless the couple.
Holy Trinity Toronto has said they are going to have same sex blessings and I expect my church St John the Evangelist Ottawa will probably follow suit. My priest, right before the vote on A187, came to the mike and said "we really don't need affirmation" to bless couples.
And I should say that I don't always think a little anarchy is a bad thing. As one of the speakers said yesterday "Sometimes you have to tear the fabric to let the light in."
"Sometimes you have to tear the fabric to let the light in."
Now that says it very well, I think. That way you can wear the dress, yet look like you don't really want to.
Like the physics analogy of MP's.
Yes, I believe the speaker was referencing Leonard Cohen.
'...There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.'
Dan, I've been thinking the same thing about congregations going ahead anyway.
My gut feeling about the bishops is that their vote has an element of self-preservation. I think the naysayers must be reluctant to justify their reasoning in writing now, particularly after the core doctrine decision. And I suspect there are some who just don't want to handle the reactions to it.
Law generally follows practice rather than is permissive. No one can stop any priest from blessing s/he chooses.
This feels very much like the voting down of women's ordination at GC1973. The 1974 ordinations blew the lid off the GC resolutions. God is going to do what God is going to do.
Toujoursdan -- I see one of your interests is Cobble Hill in Brooklyn. I used to live there -- Henry Street between Kane and DeGraw. Wonderful little neighborhood, but it's too bad Camereri Brothers Bakery closed down years ago. Wish I could move back there, someday, but I'm sure rents are three or four times what they were in the early-mid 90's.
Hi Suzer. I rent a room next to Christ Church at Clinton and Kane. (The house next door just sold for $5 million and apt rents are about $3000-4000/mo)
Thanks for portraying the only Anglican (Episcopal) bishop ever disemboweled by an artillery shell while commanding a pro-slave army - and serve him right.
Well, ah, yes, ah, um - well, of course that was completely deliberate on my part. Honest guv.
Post a Comment