Usual committee meeting from 7:30-9:00. That time slot this morning was devoted solely to hearings on three categories of resolution. The first was the one that originated within the committee itself: start the process of Prayer Book revision. There was a handful of strong, articulate advocates. No one testified in opposition, so I have no doubt that we will in due course report this resolution out to the House of Bishops. Proponents did not offer compelling arguments so much as forceful rhetoric. ("Let's bring our Prayer Book into our own century.") I've already been pretty clear on what I think about this, so I won't repeat myself.
Then there was the resolution about appointing a task force to study the question of offering Holy Communion to the unbaptized. Didn't we send this one packing in 2012, you might ask? Why, yes, we did. By a near-unanimous margin in the House of Bishops, I might add. Yet, the issue is like the Terminator--it keeps coming back. No arguments on either side of which everyone is not already familiar. It is, of course, ludicrous on its face, and betrays a culpable lack of understanding of what either the Eucharist or Baptism actually are. Jeepers.
And then there was a request for the SCLM, as it works on the next revision of the Book of Occasional Services, to include a rite for celebrating the taking of a new name, for any of a number of reasons, one of which is becoming transgendered. Several individuals who so identify were there to testify.
Because a friend of mine was presiding, and because the bishops were to be bussed straight from there to elect the next Presiding Bishop, I attended the daily Eucharist for the first time this convention. It was Rite 2, Eucharistic Prayer C ... more or less. There was some strange material at the Fraction, and the post-communion prayer was not from the Prayer Book. Sadly, the cantor apparently took it upon herself to emend the very language of Holy Scripture itself as she sang the verse for the Gospel Acclamation, substituting "my God" for "the Father." Twice. We continue our slide into liturgical antinomianism.
I was not surprised that we elected Michael Curry as our next Presiding Bishop. But I was surprised that it happened in one ballot, and by such a lopsided margin. Bishop Curry is a devoted disciple of Jesus (whose name he is not bashful about mentioning), a creedal believer, a compelling preacher, and charismatic leader. That will all be refreshing, and I look forward to working with him. I hope he is also a reconciler and healer, because the Episcopal Church is a bleeding church that is largely in denial about its own woundedness.
The afternoon legislative session consisted of mostly pretty minor items, most of which included on the consent calendar. But we did manage to get ourselves pretty gloriously bogged down in the resolution that we passed in Committee 11 yesterday dealing with providing Holy Communion for people in remote places for whom obtaining the services of priest is not very easy on a frequent or routine basis. After a whole bunch of parlaimentary maneuvering, we ended up passing it as presented--that is, the substitute for the original motion that we passed in committee yesterday.
10 comments:
As the person who submitted C023 (permitting Commmunion without Baptism) for approval in the Diocese of El Camino Real, I wanted to let you know that the reason I did so is because many congregations routinely invite anyone who is "drawn to Christ" or otherwise on a spiritual journey, to take communion. It is common practice. If we're going to keep it as common practice, then let us at least put some boundaries around it so that those who take communion will be moved towards baptism. If we're not going to enforce the canon, why have it?
Or better yet, clergy could actually follow their ordination vows to "solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine,discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church". And if they can't, they should find another occupation. It's a common practice that shouldn't be happening and those that do it should be brought up on Title IV charges and deposed. Follow your vows or leave.
Bishop Curry may be a devoted disciple of Jesus (I have a retired priest friend who would agree) but he is also a Social Justice progressive of the Episcoleft. How these two attributes will work out as a Presiding Bishop remains to be seen. I do share you hope that he may be a reconciler (but am more wary as I know stories from this friend and some are not in align with that hope).
Agree with Nick, TEC needs to discipline its wayward clergy rather than just quietly letting them do their heresy in their parishes. Now that TEc has moved beyond the "don't ask don't tell" hush hush maneuvers of a decade or so ago, it moves straight on to lets go ahead and change the canon and be in more internal conflict (as the BCP won't be changed for awhile as that is a longer process). Sigh......
I think in TEC, "Inclusivity" is a kind of wildcard that allows the priest the discretion to bypass the rubrics. It is folly to believe that a priest would ever be brought up on charges for a "generous pastoral response" for 'seekers', even if they are non Christians. Is there a failure to discern the body? Yes.
I agree with Bishop Martins when he states, "We continue our slide into liturgical antinomianism.".
I do agree with SC Blu Cat Lady's comments regarding Bishop Curry. I also pray that he will end the deposition of priests and bishops and the legislation against those parishes and dioceses who departed ECUSA due to TEC's innovations and unfounded charges against clergy over the past 12 years.
I am in agreement with Nick. The vows include the following: "I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church." If it is common practice that the unbaptized are permitted to receive communion, the practice should be ended. This practice, I understand, was dealt with and defeated at GC 2012. It's a simple solution. Either have it stated in the worship bulletin or include it when welcoming visitors. This may also be a rubric.
You all DO know that the "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church" language has been cited in actions against those who, in clear defiance of such, attempted to remove their parishes and dioceses from The Episcopal Church, do you not? Seems like if you are going to bring someone up on Title IV charges for giving the unbaptized communion, you should have no problem with what TEC did against those who departed. The sword cuts both ways.
Tom, we DO know that several court decisions have established that there is *no* bar to removing dioceses from TEC - nothing in the Constitution, Canons, or BCP that mentions it either way. However, offering communion to the unbaptized is indeed "against the rules". If you have some different information, you should contact David Booth Beers - he'd be interested in your input.
In my Diocese, the Bishop has ENCOURAGED his clergy to offer Communion to the unbaptized, and my rector agrees, and we have language every Sunday in the bulletin that tells visitors that they do not need to be baptized in order to receive Communion. The National Cathedral, every weekday, offers communion to the unbaptized, defined as "open communion," in which anyone wishing a stronger connection to Christ is welcome to receive.
My interpretation of this is that the Episcopal Church is essentially a lawless body, enforcing certain canons against conservatives (I still do not understand what Bishop Lawrence was charged with), but giving a pass to any progressive who can justify his/her violation of canon law as a "prophetic act" or such. Dick Mitchell
Communicating the unbaptized is another one of those things the Church has tried to make itself more open and diversified, thereby bringing more people into the Church, etc. And yet our numbers continue to decline. (And, no, it's not all because of an aging population and a drop in the birth rate.) We...do...not...learn.
Post a Comment