Bill Love, TEC and same-sex marriage: implications
Andrew Goddard writes: Following my previous postal service which explored the Hearing Panel ruling on Bishop Bill Love and the background to it, this article seeks to begin exploring some of its implications and possible consequences.
Bishop Love has already written to his diocese and initially appears unlikely to entreatment despite noting the significance of the judgment'south claims in relation to the BCP:
While I am very disappointed and strongly disagree with the Decision of the Hearing Panel, specially their statement that B012 was passed as an authorized revision to the Book of Common Prayer, they accept issued their sentence. Unfortunately, given the nature of this example, I accept no reason to believe that appealing the Hearing Panel's Determination would result in any different upshot.
(Note: all references to the BCP here and in the previous article are to the TEC Book of Common Prayer of 1979, and non the text of 1662 which is the authoritative liturgy in the Church building of England.) The Communion Partner bishops take also issued a statement of back up for Bishop Dear and business organization about the ruling.
And so close to this judgment with its ain unclarities, and before any determination on the course of disciplinary penalty, intendance is needed every bit to drawing out consequences and implications but these—as with earlier actions by TEC—look potentially serious in three spheres: within TEC; inside the wider Communion; within the Church of England.
The Episcopal Church
Conspicuously the commencement requirement here is in relation to Bishop Love and his diocese. As Bishop Love has written,
A separate Hearing will be scheduled inside the calendar month to hash out the terms of field of study to be carried out. Until then, we don't know what actions will be taken. Whatever the final issue, it will severely impact not only me and the ministry entrusted to me equally Bishop of Albany, but it will as well seriously touch on the life and ministry of the Diocese. I continue to pray that somehow God will apply all of this for His purposes.
I want to thank all of you lot who have been belongings me, my family, and the Diocese of Albany up in your thoughts and prayers these past many months. I would ask that you please continue to practise so. Nosotros appreciate and demand those prayers.
The Communion Partner bishops in their statement commit to "continue to uphold him and his diocese in prayer in a very difficult time" but they also all need prayer and back up equally they seek to interpret and respond to this ruling and its possible consequences for all of them.
Information technology is of import to note that this case does not gear up bounden precedents because, as the ruling itself states in relation to TEC appealing to the Righter case (p36),
hearing panels are not bound past whatever prior decision of a old Title IV console or Ecclesiastical Courtroom. This is because the polity of the Church is structured so that our main source of canon law is legislative action.
Information technology is therefore, in principle, open up to Full general Convention side by side year to correct this ruling's interpretation of B012 and reaffirm a more limited and generous reading of its scope. In addition, were future hearing panels to be brought against conservative bishops in relation to union liturgy and doctrine these panels are not required to follow this judgment. Still, the ruling clearly represents a major cause for concern, especially as information technology gives encouragement to those within TEC whose approach towards those belongings traditional doctrine appears to be summed upwardly in the annotate allegedly made to a conservative member of Full general Convention in the before years of these debates: "why can't you but leave and so we can get fully inclusive".
Secondly, serious questions therefore now need to be asked about how committed TEC actually is to giving space to those conservative Anglicans who wish to remain within it. It is articulate that there is now a majority for aforementioned-sexual activity spousal relationship but within that there are both those determined to impose this and extinguish any witness to traditional didactics and those who are willing to follow through the 2022 "Communion Across Difference" Heed of the Firm of Bishops Statement. This statement affirmed of the Communion Partner bishops that "despite our differences they are an indispensable part of who nosotros are as the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. Our church needs their witness".
It is difficult to encounter how this example and this ruling embodies that commitment and it remains unclear which of these two contrasting approaches to conservatives is in the clout inside TEC and its governing structures. There are real concerns that a quite different direction to that of the 2022 Argument could be pursued. This could lead (mayhap by highly-seasoned to non-bigotry canons every bit in the ruling's reference at p33 to Catechism 1.17.5) to same-sexual practice marriage liturgies having to exist made bachelor in every parish, whatsoever the teaching and discipline of the bishop, even if clergy in the parish are not personally required to participate.
Thirdly, the ruling'southward arguments apropos the Worship and Doctrine of the Church announced to undermine the traditional understanding of these:
- trial rites are taken to be authorized revisions to the BCP,
- fifty-fifty trial rites and "proposed revisions to the BCP" which may have terms and conditions fastened are seemingly treated every bit equivalent to the BCP as elective elements of the Worship of the Church,
- clear doctrinal statements in the BCP are held to be irrelevant past appealing to trial rites whose doctrine appears to have the power to negate the established doctrine of the BCP and perhaps even determine new church doctrine.
Fourthly, unless the serious implications of this example are urgently addressed there could well be farther departures of bourgeois bishops and dioceses from TEC, despite the desire of those conservatives to notice a way to walk together. As the 2022 Austin Statement from Communion Partners made clear apropos Province Ix (Latin American dioceses):
The witness at this General Convention of our brothers and sisters in Province Nine powerfully challenged the Episcopal Church building to preserve a place for traditional theological witness. In the absenteeism of such identify, several dioceses of Province IX have made it clear that they will demand to walk autonomously. There can exist no clearer reminder of the importance of our efforts now to maintain the communion in Christ that we possess, and to walk together as closely as possible (para 5).
Finally, the ruling highlights the urgent necessity of pursuing the theological and legal piece of work required to enable some more structured and secure form of visible differentiation which tin can ensure protection of the minority bourgeois witness in TEC dioceses and parishes. This could build upon and develop the sort of provisions that B012 were understood to have provided for those supporting same-sexual activity marriage within conservative dioceses and was part of the remit of the Task Force for Communion Across Difference. The Task Strength was set up by Resolution A227 of 2022 General Convention which required:
That the Task Force seek a lasting path forward for common flourishing consistent with this Church's polity and the 2022 "Communion across Departure" statement of the Business firm of Bishops, affirming (1) the clear conclusion of Full general Convention that Christian marriage is a covenant open to 2 people of the same sexual practice or of the opposite sex, (2) General Convention's business firm commitment to make provision for all couples asking to be married in this Church to take admission to authorized liturgies; and also affirming (iii) the indispensable identify that the minority who concur to this Church's historic educational activity on matrimony have in our common life, whose witness our Church needs.
Its most recent work can be found online in relation to March, May and June of this twelvemonth and a written report will be produced and should appear shortly in the Bluish Book Reports for General Convention next year. Even without this ruling, Resolution B012 was a stop-gap, unstable and insufficient means of securing the place of conservatives such that they could government minister with integrity and even flourish in a church which has embraced same-sex spousal relationship. With this ruling, the need for a long-lasting settlement becomes fifty-fifty more urgent.
The Anglican Communion
Over recent decades it has often been the instance that TEC has pursued its agreement of "inclusion" within its own life in such a way as to marginalise and exclude those who hold to Communion teaching, as at present risks recurring in relation to Bishop Love. Alongside this, TEC has resisted, in the proper name of "inclusion", any attempts past the Communion to review its own life in such a style every bit (a) to counterbalance TEC's agreement and practise of provincial autonomy by reference to Communion interdependence, (b) to give concrete back up to those holding to Communion educational activity within TEC, or (c) to implement any form of Communion measures against TEC that might corporeality to something like the subject field TEC has taken against Bishop Love. In short, TEC accept appeared to exist strict legalists at home, pursuing conservative Anglicans like Bishop Beloved and many before him through the courts, while being radical antinomians abroad, arguing their actions should have no consequences for their place in the Anglican Communion. The decisions of the Primates in 2022 introduced some consequences just there has been controversy as to how thoroughly these were implemented and they strictly expired in 2022 and practise non announced to have been renewed.
This new ruling of a TEC-initiated disciplinary hearing against a serving conservative bishop holding to Communion education represents a further significant stride which, in the words of that 2022 Primates' argument, must surely "further impair our communion and create a deeper mistrust between usa". This ruling holds that the discipline and worship (and perhaps doctrine) of TEC, which all TEC bishops demand to conform to and uphold, and violations of which will likely result in disciplinary action, have been changed to include aforementioned-sex marriage. In their treatment of Bishop Love and in this ruling, regime within TEC appear to take effectively declared that the overwhelming majority of bishops within the Communion—including the Archbishop of Canterbury and many Church of England bishops—would now be unable to serve every bit bishops in the province of TEC because of their beliefs about marriage. At the very least they would not take a identify with any security or integrity within TEC'due south episcopate. This development raises a new major question as to the extent of the impairment of communion that at present exists betwixt TEC and the rest of the Communion.
Unless a ameliorate way forward can be institute to safeguard conservative witness within TEC this situation must reopen questions nearly invitations to the 2022 Lambeth Conference. For example, if, equally is non impossible given the seriousness of the offence (violating ordination promises relating to the Field of study and Worship of the Church), Bishop Beloved is at present formally removed from office so will his invitation to the 2022 Lambeth Conference be withdrawn by the Archbishop of Canterbury while the invitation to those removing him from office remains unchanged?
In summary, this judgment challenge same-sexual activity union is enshrined in the BCP makes even more than pressing the question of how recognisably TEC now is, equally information technology claims to exist in the Preamble of its Constitution, a constituent member of the Communion which it describes as a "Fellowship of the I, Holy, Catholic, and Churchly Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order equally prepare forth in the Book of Common Prayer".
The Church building of England
Archbishop Justin has to consider how to respond to this in relation to Communion structures, the earlier "consequences" for TEC of their move to allow same-sex marriage within their canons, and his previously very positive partnership with TEC's Presiding Bishop. How he does and then—whether past silence, voicing disapproval but doing goose egg, or by irresolute his opinion as an Musical instrument of Communion in relation to TEC—volition inevitably have its own consequences in relation to how he is viewed within the Church building of England. It is clear that many inside the Church of England cannot understand how TEC'due south actions confronting Bishop Love, and now this judgment, can be ignored by him as Archbishop of Canterbury.
The upshot is, however, now also coming closer to home. This side by side step inside TEC's long journey highlights the challenges that the Church of England must now face as it comes to term with its ain divisions during its discernment procedure using the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) resources to be launched in early Nov. Those resources focus more on issues of identity, sexuality, relationships and union just—equally the TEC experience and this judgment show—these problems also raise major and circuitous questions of ecclesiology. These volition have to be a particular business organisation of the bishops and wider church building over the next few years.
It is not articulate where we will discern God leading us as a church building and LLF makes no recommendations and sets no trajectory. Although information technology faces significant challenges, including legally and doctrinally, clearly one possible determination in 2022 could be for the Church of England to begin to walk the path TEC started several years agone and which has now led them to this latest ruling. This would hateful the Church of England introducing, in some class, its own liturgical changes in relation to same-sex couples, as many within it are seeking. It appears unlikely this will involve the sort of rites for marriage that TEC has authorised for trial employ. More than plausibly the bishops might (as proposed by the Pilling Written report) grant permission and perhaps publish guidance or liturgies for some form of public liturgical celebration, thanksgiving, or approving of same-sex activity unions, including probably civil marriages.
Information technology is of import to consider the lessons of the Bishop Love case and its preceding history every bit very few, if whatsoever, are actively seeking such outcomes here. At that place is, however, a very powerful, perhaps inexorable, dynamic at play once any changes are made to liturgy. The Church building of England as the national, established church usually authorises new liturgies for use across the whole church. This is in contrast to TEC where, until recently, diocesan bishops demand not allow services for apply in their diocese which are not in the BCP and dioceses have canons defining marriage. As in TEC, there volition be undoubtedly by a conscience clause in any liturgical changes introduced here to ensure clergy demand not employ new liturgies in their ministries if they object to them. In denominations such as the URC or The Baptist Spousal relationship with a congregational polity such an approach may be sufficient to enable change without serious divisions. For whatever church with episcopal structures, yet, this becomes much more complex as the Bishop Beloved example and different interpretations of Resolution B012 show.
Once an episcopally-ordered denomination authorises liturgies for same-sex unions, and the claim is made, by entreatment to justice and full inclusion, that all must have access to these, and so major problems logically arise for a church construction in which there are non-overlapping geographical dioceses where one bishop has jurisdiction. Either bishops take the right to forbid clergy under their say-so to use such services (in a manner similar to Bishop Dear) or they practise not. If they dohave the correct then there will need to be clarity about how this is exercised and some alternative episcopal provision will probable need to be fabricated for any parishes wishing to utilise such rites confronting the wishes of their bishop (every bit attempted by B019 in TEC). At that place will also need to be some provision for those bourgeois parishes whose communion with their bishop is impaired because the bishop does let such rites inside their diocese.
If each bishop does not take the right to prohibit employ of any authorised service (every bit is the usual practice in the Church of England, although the initial legislation for women priests allowed a diocesan bishop to prevent their ministry building in their diocese) and then all such conservative parishes will notice their communion impaired with their bishop. In add-on, bishops will be required, whatever their beliefs, to accept such services existence authorised in those places where they are "chief pastor" and take "jurisdiction every bit Ordinary", despite having "the right, save in places and over persons exempt past law or custom…of conducting, ordering, controlling, and authorizing all services in churches, chapels, churchyards and consecrated burial grounds" and the duty to "banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions" (Canon C18). This outcome will go far very difficult, perhaps impossible, for many nowadays and hereafter bishops who are committed to exercising their ministry in a manner faithful to their understanding of Scripture and the educational activity of the Anglican Communion.
Conclusion
Through the last two decades TEC has moved to become a church whose majority culture is overwhelmingly affirming of same-sex unions and of marriage as a way of life open to same-sex couples whose marriages should be solemnized as holy wedlock within church. This has been a painful and divisive procedure inside its ain life and for the wider Anglican Communion. TEC had appeared in recent years to be more willing to find a manner of still incorporating within its common life those committed to traditional and Communion teaching on spousal relationship and sexual ethics who wished to witness to that teaching and to uphold it with integrity while ministering within TEC. In the light of the treatment of Bishop Love and the recent judgment against him that commitment now hangs past a thread. This ruling appears, to those who concord his views, to push button TEC to the very brink of confirming Richard Neuhaus's Law that "Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy volition sooner or later on be proscribed".
This is not, nevertheless, inevitable. It may be that realising this danger will enable u.s.a.—in TEC, the Communion, and peradventure shortly in the Church building of England—to pull back from that cliff edge. The challenge now is whether there are enough people truly committed to working out what information technology ways to seek "Communion Across Deviation". Can we find, across those differences, creative ways which encourage the highest possible degree of communion betwixt us as securely divided Christians? Tin we re-envision our life together—in our provinces and in our Communion—by creating shared structures that also express the realities of our impaired communion in varying degrees of visible differentiation?
The Bishop Love ruling warns us afresh that we cannot only appeal to the importance of unity and conserve existing structures in the face of our very different understandings of the doctrine, subject area and worship of Christ's Church. We need instead to commit to the difficult intellectual, spiritual, and political task of seeking together new ways to acknowledge structurally the impairment of communion which is inevitably created by our very different understandings. But by doing this, in recognition that "the entire police force is fulfilled in keeping this one control: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'", are we likely to avert the stark alternative: "If you seize with teeth and devour each other, sentry out or you will be destroyed past each other" (Galatians 5:14-fifteen).
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Banana Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, and Tutor in Christian Ethics at Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.
If you enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, can add together real value. Seek first to sympathise, and then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/bill-love-tec-and-same-sex-marriage-implications/
0 Response to "Bill Love, TEC and same-sex marriage: implications"
Post a Comment