Whew! Now that was a long day! We started with a Legislative Session at 8 am (and I was busy until 9:30 at night). Before all that, I visited for a few minutes with old friend Lewis Powell (above). We knew each other in New Mexico, before I headed east to Tennessee and he went west to California.
One of the first orders of business was for us in the House of Deputies to send folks to the House of Bishops to inform them we were organized and ready to begin our work. House of Deputies President Gay Jennings sent to Presiding Bishop Michael Curry every deputy named "Michael," all wearing hats bearing that name. Protocol was observed yet in a fun even whimsical way. How would the bishops respond? They sent one of the newer bishops and one of their, um, more experienced bishops, our own Don Johnson. Both bishops brought greetings and told us the Bishops were organized and ready to work. And, in a nod to Bishop Curry's sermon at the royal wedding, they did so wearing tiaras. Wish I had taken a better photo than one off the big screen!
The morning continued with the Opening Eucharist which featured a fiery and inspiring sermon from Bishop Curry urging us, among other things, to keep our focus and attention on Jesus to know and find our way through sometimes perilous waters.
The committee I'm on finalized a resolution to begin a process to revise the Book of Common Prayer. (The photo above, by Brian Winter, is actually from yesterday). Working from materials drafted by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music we also considered other resolutions and testimony we received yesterday in crafting our resolution. In a weird wrinkle, deputies in the committee approved a slightly different version of the resolution than did the bishops' committee. The deputies' version will be discussed on Friday at the House of Deputies. If passed, it will then go to the House of Bishops, where it will likely be amended. Anyway, there's lots of steps yet to take; I'll keep you posted.
The committee also heard almost four hours of testimony on resolutions regarding marriage. One resolution (A086) provides a liturgy to recognize committed relationships between two people who cannot marry for financial or other reasons. For example, senior citizens who marry may face an impossible reduction in Social Security benefits. That resolution drew little comment.
Two others, however, drew extended and often passionate testimony from numerous witnesses. At issues are two resolutions (A085 and B012, if you're interested) that attempt to clarify how same-sex couples may marry in The Episcopal Church. That such couples may marry was decided three years ago, but there have been some challenges in its implementation. For example, as I understand it, eight bishops do not allow such marriages nor do they allow provisions for those in their care to either receive as communicants nor offer as clergy the already-approved liturgies. (And, yes, that is a very simplistic explanation.)
A085 would allow various liturgies to be used on a trial basis with the expectation that such new rites would appear in the Book of Common Prayer. It also commends a few changes to certain sections of the Prayer Book including changing "a man and a woman" to "two people" in the Prayer Book introduction to the marriage rite. Of the witnesses who testified in favor, many noted that this would finally allow all baptized Episcopalians equal access and status with regard to marriage regardless of gender identity or sexuality. Others opposed the resolution on a variety of grounds, some noting this represents a fundamental change that, in their view, reflects more of man's wisdom than of God's.
We heard from many who preferred B012, titled "Marriage Rites for the Whole Church." While quite similar to A085 in many respects, including making available marriage rites for nontraditional couples, it would not have the expectation that new liturgies and definitions would be included in the Prayer Book. It also calls for the creation of a task force to continue mutual conversation and care with and for those with divergent views on marriage issues.
This has been offered as a reasonable compromise that has the best chance of keeping people with quite different views in conversation and relationship as the church continues to grow in understanding. Meanwhile, all couples would have the promise of easier access to marriage rites. Not all favor this approach, noting that "justice delayed is justice denied," or "separate but equal is not equal." Most who oppose the compromise see it as continuing to relegate LGBTQ+ folks to lesser status.
Tomorrow's conversation in the committee should be quite interesting!
Above, a special guest and visitor from Africa (whose name I should have written down, but didn't) spoke to our committee regarding his work as a scholar on sexuality and marriage issues in Africa.
Anyway, after 13 1/2 hours of meetings, worship, and hearings I'm beat. Hope this posting makes some sense! Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment