Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14
|
"Be on your guard. Stand firm in the faith. Be brave. Be strong. Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14 |
Christianity Today takes on the 13 most commonly-heard arguments for same-sex marriage. Money:
Let's not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws," since this restriction applies equally to every individual.
I am beginning to think we are just "beating a dead horse" with all this constant back and forth on the sexuality issue. As I said in an earlier post, sexuality is simply the straw that broke the camel's back for all of us orthodox Episcopalians. This whole controversy, at its most fundamental level, is about what we really believe as Episcopalians. Do we believe in the Bible? Do we believe that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ? Do we believe in the creeds? Do we believe in the Aticles of Religion?
Do we believe in our own Book of Common Prayer? One of the most disturbing things that occurred at GC2003 was the rejection of Resolution B001 which simply affirmed our belief in the basic teachings of Episcopal Anglicanism as stated in the BOCP, the Articles of Religion, and the Lambeth Quadrilateral. Those bishops that voted against the resolution would not even vote to uphold their own ordination vows. That is the ultimate hypocrisy and what is the root cause of the outrage and alienation felt by so many Episcopalians.
Michael,
I wasn't there so I obviously don't know. Alot would depend upon how the resolution was worded. But what I DO know, is that when resolutions like B001 come up in my diocesan conventions, they aren't passed because they aren't needed. They get tabled from the floor because a resolution isn't needed to affirm what we already agree upon. Also, the 39 Articles aren't regarded with the same weight throughout--for ex., article 28 stipulates near the end that the "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshiped."
But every Episcopal Church in my area keeps reserved sacrament in a prominent tabernacle or aumbry in the sanctuary. And both the clergy and the LEM "carry it about" to those who are ill.
For what it's worth . . . .
That argument certainly doesn't wash. That's like saying "I believe in God but I don't have to say so because I believe in God." Does that make sense to you? If everyone is in total agreement with the resolution, then why not pass it and go on record with it? The answer is, I think, that the revisionists are afraid to admit that their actions (and beliefs) are not in accordance with the Bible, Anglican tradition, the BOCP or anything else.
# Posted by: Michael Ware at September 1, 2004 01:36 PMCould be. I'm in the unenviable position of being a theological and liturgical moderate, my family situation notwithstanding, in a "progressive" diocese, where in the past, there has been a lot of political gaming. Apart from the 39 Articles exemption above, I too did't see why they wouldn't pass it, as a courtesy if nothing else--to further trust. So maybe you're right. But then you know, people get tired of sitting and listening patiently to resolution after resolution, with supportive comments---until someone comes up with something that seems obvious or as if just trying to make a point ("score"), and you can hear the collective weary groans--and feel the resistance.
# Posted by: Barbara+ at September 1, 2004 04:00 PM