The Episcopal Church suspended by the Anglican Communion for teachings on SSM &c

[Altair]

Doubtlessly so, I'm sure. Perhaps this will serve as a reminder to TEC in the future; to not stray so wrecklessly from the established doctrinal consensus...

That's a rather silly thing to say; it suggests same-sex couples would be better off if they were rejected not only by the broader communion, but also by their church--as compared to the situation at present, where their church welcomes them even if the broader communion doesn't.

In any case, I seriously doubt (as in "when hell freezes over") the Episcopal Church will reverse course on LGBT inclusion. Schism already, and be done with it. Leave the African Anglican churches to their poverty of spirit--and to poverty, since I'm guessing the vast majority of dollars for the Anglican Communion flows from the West.

[Allaya]

I have to defend Castus on this point. It is perfectly possible to view the existence of civil unions and/or same sex civil marriages as desireable reforms, and nurture the hope that most religious denominations will welcome guests and members to most of their religious services regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and still claim that a matrimony constituted by a baptised man and a baptised woman have another symbolic content than a marriage between two persons of the same sex. Atheists and Pagans ought not to dictate how Christians shall perform their rituals.

Speaking from a Reconstructionist Roman perspective, I have no problems, as a man, with the fact that I am forbidden to participate in rites dedicated to Bona Dea on the 3d of December or participate in the celebration of Matronalia the first day of March. Similarly, my participation in Carmentalia at this part of the year and Nonae Capratinae on 5th of July is very restricted, compared to how women celebrate these festivals. I would be very irritated if someone began to dictate how that must change.

 
So you're okay with the declaration that homosexuality is merely a "fashion of the day"?

Because I'm not cool with that AT ALL.

[RecycledBenedict]

So you're okay with the declaration that homosexuality is merely a "fashion of the day"?

Because I'm not cool with that AT ALL.

Where did he say that?

[Allaya]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/14/world/episcopal-church-suspended/

I'm honestly shocked. The issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage has threatened to cause a schism in the mainline Anglican community for years now; but I never thought they would have the collective backbone to move against TEC. Bravo to the bishops for standing up for orthodoxy, and refusing to cave to the prevailing fashions of the day. I hope that this act will bring TEC back in line with common consensus.

 

Where did he say that?

 
Right there in the first post of the thread.

[RecycledBenedict]

Right there in the first post of the thread.

No. That is one particular interpretation of the text, and and the reference is not clear. Until Castus has clarified what he means, I will give him the benefit of doubt.

[Castus]

^ There you go. Wasn't at all hard to find.

When you willfully dismiss peoples' core identities and states of being as merely "fashions of the day"...that's a pretty huge fuck you. Especially when you KNOW you're sharing space with them.

 
Oh what rubbish. By 'fashions of the day' I thought it was clear I was referring to the open acceptance/promotion of gay marriage, gay rights, etc etc. Support for gay marriage was ubiquitous in the media and urban classes following the decision last June, and American culture as a whole has been shifting inexorably towards an institutionalisation of liberal attitudes towards sexuality. It is that which the bishops of the Communion are opposing. Homosexuality itself has been around since we first started recording who was having sex with who, to say that it is merely a flickering fad would be roundly inaccurate. Of course, I doubt you or Jake would be mollified by this clarification, but c'est la vie.

As for your post, Altair, I think it may come down to a division between the rank-and-file Episcopalian who doesn't want to move an inch on SSM, and the episcopate, which may be less eager to sunder ecclesiastical ties over the issue. Who will win when push comes to shove, I cannot say.

[Redfaery]

Oh what rubbish. By 'fashions of the day' I thought it was clear I was referring to the open acceptance/promotion of gay marriage, gay rights, etc etc. Support for gay marriage was ubiquitous in the media and urban classes following the decision last June, and American culture as a whole has been shifting inexorably towards an institutionalisation of liberal attitudes towards sexuality. It is that which the bishops of the Communion are opposing. Homosexuality itself has been around since we first started recording who was having sex with who, to say that it is merely a flickering fad would be roundly inaccurate. Of course, I doubt you or Jake would be mollified by this clarification, but c'est la vie.

As for your post, Altair, I think it may come down to a division between the rank-and-file Episcopalian who doesn't want to move an inch on SSM, and the episcopate, which may be less eager to sunder ecclesiastical ties over the issue. Who will win when push comes to shove, I cannot say.

Oh, so it's just granting us LGBTQ+ folk equal rights that bothers you then. LOL, my bad.

[Castus]

Oh, so it's just granting us LGBTQ+ folk equal rights that bothers you then. LOL, my bad.

 
I'm glad we're on the same page now.

[RecycledBenedict]

Oh what rubbish. By 'fashions of the day' I thought it was clear I was referring to the open acceptance/promotion of gay marriage,

Civil or sacramental?

gay rights, etc etc.

Sorry to hear that. It is possible, that I have interpreted your position in a more positive  light than what you intended. I am, though, still not sure exactly what your position is. Doesn't Conservative synagogues perform same-sex weddings?

This discussion (and this is not directed exclusively to you, but to all participants of this thread) will not become balanced and nuanced until we take a few other observations in consideration:

The Scottish Episcopal Church has not adopted any official liturgy for blessing of a civil marriage, but it permit its clergy to use locally adopted rites in order to bless same-sex civil marriages. The Scottish Episcopal Church is not suspended from the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia have a liturgy for trial use in order to bless same-sex civil marriages. The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia is not suspended from the Anglican Communion.

What the Episcopal Church (vague name!) has done, is to adopt a liturgy that blurs the sacramental theology of Christianity, something the Scottish and New Zealandic liturgies do not.

[Demophon]

I very much wonder what this will mean, and how it will affect, other Anglican churches like Scottish Episcopal Church, Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, who - if  I am informed correctly - bless civil unions

Apparently the Anglican Church of Canada has been put on notice after all of this. It was planning to change its marriage canon recently, though it ended up not being pushed forward because of how divisive it would have been to the Anglican Communion. I admire that TEC actually had the backbone to go through with it.
 

In any case, I seriously doubt (as in "when hell freezes over") the Episcopal Church will reverse course on LGBT inclusion. Schism already, and be done with it. Leave the African Anglican churches to their poverty of spirit--and to poverty, since I'm guessing the vast majority of dollars for the Anglican Communion flows from the West.

I feel the same way about this. If it bothers the African Churches so much, let them break off. If Christianity wants to survive into the next century, it has to let go of archaic and oppressive ancient Hebrew ideas about sexuality, not to mention women, and humans having dominion over the earth. If Africans want to be regressive, or if they are afraid of Muslims perceiving them as corrupt for tolerating homosexuality and acting violently against them, just split and let the other churches come into the 21st century. I don't think it's about changing with current fashions, it's has more to do with having a better understanding of sexuality and letting go of false teachings stemming from ignorance. People don't like change because it's temporarily uncomfortable, but it's necessarily if they want to stay relevant in a society in which secularism is wiping the floor with religion when it comes to being in touch with reality and doing away with ignorance.

[Allaya]

Oh what rubbish. By 'fashions of the day' I thought it was clear I was referring to the open acceptance/promotion of gay marriage, gay rights, etc etc. Support for gay marriage was ubiquitous in the media and urban classes following the decision last June, and American culture as a whole has been shifting inexorably towards an institutionalisation of liberal attitudes towards sexuality. It is that which the bishops of the Communion are opposing. Homosexuality itself has been around since we first started recording who was having sex with who, to say that it is merely a flickering fad would be roundly inaccurate. Of course, I doubt you or Jake would be mollified by this clarification, but c'est la vie.

As for your post, Altair, I think it may come down to a division between the rank-and-file Episcopalian who doesn't want to move an inch on SSM, and the episcopate, which may be less eager to sunder ecclesiastical ties over the issue. Who will win when push comes to shove, I cannot say.

 
And you're correct...I'm not mollified. You're entitled to your opinion, but damn. Being okay with gay people as long as they remain second-class citizens doesn't really fly with me.

Equal rights means equal rites.

[RecycledBenedict]

Equal rights means equal rites.

No, they do not. Equal rights equal rites appropriate for the particular situation. It wouldn't be 'equal rights' if two brides were addressed with the words:

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony;

The rite must be adapted to the particular circumstances.

[RecycledBenedict]

I admire that TEC actually had the backbone to go through with it.

I do not. The liturgy from New Zealand is theologically much better than the two American ones, and even the New Zealandic one could need some improvement. I wish the member churches of the Anglican Churches consulted each other over common texts, and didn't cobble together bad pieces of text on their own. I hope the Scottish Episcopalians doesn't hurry to adopt an official version. The end result will be much better if they give the process some time, and let some trial-and-error go on on the local level first. These texts are meant to be used for decades or centuries.

[Allaya]

No, they do not. Equal rights equal rites appropriate for the particular situation. It wouldn't be 'equal rights' if two brides were addressed with the words:

The rite must be adapted to the particular circumstances.

 

That was kind of implied? And kinda of silly for you to try to nitpick?

[RecycledBenedict]

That was kind of implied? And kinda of silly for you to try to nitpick?

No, it was not implied, and I do not nitpick. I hope that those Anglican/Episcopal churches who are ready for it will bless civil marriages, but not by using poorly worded liturgies with crude and dysfunctional theology. Anglicans have justified pride over the high stylistic quality of their liturgical texts, and they have been able to gather quite different churchmanships under one umbrella for 450 years. Why let same-sex couples suffer a lower standard of liturgy than hetero couples?