Bishop Bill Love, TEC, and same-sex marriage in the church

Andrew Goddard writes: The recent negative judgment past The Episcopal Church'southward Hearing Console on Bishop Bill Love'southward pastoral direction most two years ago to the clergy of his diocese (Albany) is justifiably leading to widespread comment and concern. Just what has happened and what is really at stake? This article explains the groundwork and some of the key elements and unclarities in the judgment; a second article tomorrow volition explore some of its possible implications and consequences.

The Background

The Episcopal Church in the The states (TEC) has, for several decades, been authorising various forms of service to affirm same-sex couples. This is one of the major causes of the divisions within the Anglican Communion and was addressed in the 2004 Windsor Report which sought, amid other things, a moratorium on such rites. Initially, the services took the form of blessing for same-sex activity unions. In 2015, all the same, the further significant footstep was taken by General Convention of authorising experimental liturgies for same-sex activity marriage. Because of TEC'southward polity, however, each diocesan bishop had to authorise such rites if they were to be used in their dioceses.

Every bit a result of this trajectory, a number of diocesan bishops left TEC, often with many of their clergy and leading to legal disputes. Well-nigh helped form or joined the Anglican Church in Northward America (ACNA). Notwithstanding, a meaning number of bishops, such as Pecker Dear (consecrated every bit Bishop Coadjutor in 2006) have felt chosen by God to remain within TEC, to go on to minister to the flock entrusted to their intendance at their induction, and to uphold traditional Anglican educational activity, as expressed past the Communion, in their education and ministry building. They have therefore refused to authorise liturgies blessing same-sex activity unions or rites for same-sexual activity wedlock. They take supported each other in this witness through the piece of work of Communion Partners.

In the run-up to the 2022 General Convention a entrada was launched to enable same-sex activity marriage to be bachelor in every diocese of TEC as it was felt to be unjust that gay and lesbian Episcopalians in some parts of the country could non ally in church. One fashion of doing this which was proposed was to incorporate the liturgies into the Book of Common Prayer. This would have made the already difficult position of Communion Partner bishops almost certainly untenable every bit it would have decisively redefined the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC which bishops hope to suit to in their episcopal oaths.

Thankfully, a significant number of those supporting aforementioned-sex marriage, including Presiding Bishop Michael Back-scratch, were not willing to follow such a path which seriously risked excluding those property to traditional Anglican educational activity. As a result, an alternative arroyo was able to exist constitute which became Resolution B012 from the 2022 General Convention. This sought to grant the desire of many to ensure aforementioned-sex marriages could occur in any diocese while enabling those bishops opposed to aforementioned-sex activity union to continue to minister with integrity. This was done by again authorizing the controversial liturgies for "continued trial apply" along with two new liturgies but creating a process by which Communion Partner bishops would be able to make arrangements for another bishop to have the necessary oversight if i of their parishes wished to celebrate aforementioned-sexual activity marriages:

That in dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicative, ecclesiastical supervision) holds a theological position that does non encompass wedlock for same-sexual activity couples, and there is a desire to apply such rites by same-sex couples in a congregation or worshipping community, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) shall invite, as necessary, another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral back up to the couple, the Member of the Clergy involved and the congregation or worshipping community in guild to fulfill the intention of this resolution that all couples have convenient and reasonable local congregational access to these rites (para eight).

The questions and challenges raised by this attempt to create a secure infinite for the minority conservative position (at to the lowest degree every bit nifty as those in the Church building of England in relation to differences over women priests and bishops) were to be addressed past a Task Forcefulness on Communion Beyond Departure (Resolution A227) which is currently preparing a report for next year's General Convention.

In their Austin Statement following the passing of the resolution, and in their detailed FAQs near information technology, the Communion Partners made clear how important it was that this fashion forwards preserved the Book of Common Prayer:

Nosotros are grateful to God that the 79^thursday General Convention has preserved the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, guaranteeing its connected use. While giving infinite for those who seek to develop new rites and new linguistic communication under the guidance of their bishop, the Convention "memorialize[d] the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a Prayer Book of the church preserving the psalter, liturgies, The Lambeth Quadrilateral, Historic Documents, and Trinitarian formularies ensuring its continued apply" (Resolution A068). In adopting this resolution, the General Convention ensured that we may go along to design our communities after the historic Faith and Order of the Book of Common Prayer as authorized in the Episcopal Church, and that clergy and bishops volition be able to vow obedience to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this church building equally set along in its historic prayer book (Austin, para 7).

Bishops may continue to lead their dioceses in accordance with the traditional pedagogy on marriage equally found in Scripture and the 1979 Book of Mutual Prayer, which is also the consensus position of the Lambeth Conference (Resolution 1.ten, 1998), ofttimes reiterated by all the Anglican Instruments of Communion. Congregations that seek to perform same-sexual practice marriages in such dioceses do so under the pastoral intendance of some other bishop. The "Austin Argument" of the Communion Partner bishops recorded merely this intention for their dioceses (FAQs).

The FAQs, however, besides accepted that a bishop could non prohibit the use of the Trial Utilize spousal relationship rites in his or her diocese in the light of the resolution:

As of Advent 1 of 2018, in all dioceses where the marriage of aforementioned-sex activity couples is legal under civil police, no bishop of the Episcopal Church may prohibit the use of the Trial Use marriage rites. This was the clear intent of Resolution 2018-B012, which fix specific "terms and conditions" for how the authorized Trial Apply marriage rites were to exist used.

Although every other Communion Partner bishop established certain (and varied) "terms and weather" for the small number of their parishes wishing to use the new same-sexual activity marriage rites, Bishop Beak Dear in Albany refused to do this. He institute that in conscience he could not do and then given his understanding of Scripture, the doctrine and worship of the BCP which he sought to uphold, and his diocesan canons and the didactics of the Anglican Communion which were also clear that marriage was between a human being and a woman. His November 2022 Pastoral Letter clearly and graciously fix out his reasons and ended with the direction:

Until further notice, the trial rites authorized past Resolution B012of the 79^th Full general Convention of the Episcopal Church shall not be used anywhere in the Diocese of Albany by diocesan clergy (canonically resident or licensed), and Diocesan Catechism sixteen shall exist fully complied with by all diocesan clergy and parishes.

It is this direction which somewhen led to charges beingness brought against him.

The Verdict

Given the statement quoted above from the Communion Partner FAQs, many of u.s.a. who shared Bishop Love's theological stance were concerned that TEC seeking to resolve the problem by judicial process was inevitably going to end with a negative verdict confronting Bishop Love for violation of the discipline of the Church. The hope was therefore that other approaches could be found to resolve the deadlock. The quite dissimilar approach of the current Presiding Bishop compared to that of his predecessor, his constant appeal to Christian beloved, the desire to work at "Communion Across Difference" inside TEC (and the wider Communion), and the delay in bringing charges gave some hope for this. Although complex, could it not, for example, be made possible to find a way to transfer the few diocesan clergy of Albany wishing to exercise their rights under B012 to another bishop so they were not bound past the directive and in marrying a same-sex activity couple were no longer acting under the authority of Bishop Honey and and then implicating him and the whole diocese in their actions?

Sadly, the decision was taken by TEC to pursue the matter legally and in September 2022 the Communion Partner bishops issued a statement ("The Minneapolis Argument") expressing their great concern about this. Although a potent case was put by Bishop Beloved that he was not in violation of the Subject field and Worship of the Church, it looked inevitable that following this track would not stop well but few expected information technology to terminate as badly as it now appears to have done.

The virtually serious aspect of the verdict are the extent of the violations and the grounds on which the judgment is reached which are more than merely technical. The ruling is that resolution B012, rather than preventing the revision of the BCP, with all its consistent problems for all Communion Partner bishops, really effected this alter.

In primal phrases (italics added) from the Summary of Opinion against Bishop Love:

This Panel unanimously concludes that TEC has met its brunt of showing, by articulate and disarming bear witness, that Bishop Honey has violated Canon 4.4.i(c) in that his November x, 2022 Pastoral Directive violated the Field of study of the Church, every bit Resolution B012 was properly constituted and passed equally an authorized revision to the BCP…..TEC has also met its burden of establishing that the Direction violated the Worship of the Church in that Resolution B012 added canonically-authorized same-sexual activity marriage rites to the Worship of the Church building pursuant to the BCP. Therefore, Bishop Love'south argument that abiding by Resolution B012 would put him in violation of the Field of study, Doctrine and Worship of the Church fails in each assertion. Resolution B012 effectively added rites of worship to which paragraph ane of "Concerning the Service" regarding "The Celebration and Blessing of a Union" and "The Blessing of a Civil Marriage"("commentary to Apropos the Service") at 422 of the BCP, describing wedlock "as between a man and a adult female," does not utilise…. Finally, Resolution B012 was properly constituted to render spousal relationship rites as canonically authorized revisions to the BCP.

This summary and the wider judgment will require some fourth dimension to digest and evaluate simply among the nigh pregnant elements are

1. Despite being explicitly authorized "for trial use" the rites are now being judged to be "authorized revision(south)" to the BCP itself. In the judgment itself, however, the language that is used is simply "proposed revisions" and this was what was stated by those bishops who proposed it at General Convention:

Q: Are you proposing that these rites go part of the Book of Common Prayer?

A: No, at least not at present. Our proposal differs in this way from that of the Chore Strength on the Study of Marriage, which does advise moving toward prayer book revision (Resolution A085). They propose to present the Trial Use rites at present equally prayer book amendments. This would need to pass again in 2022 earlier attaining Prayer Book condition.

Just authorizing Trial Use rites is non the same thing as proposing Prayer Book revision. In order to become part of the Book of Mutual Prayer, a resolution would demand to propose that they be adopted as a prayer volume amendment, exist sent to diocesan conventions for word, and then laissez passer once again on a second reading at the next General Convention. Our resolution does non propose any of that, but instead simply extends the period of Trial Utilize.

It is unclear on what footing the Bishop of Rhode Island (who as a proposer of B012 issued the explanation quoted above prior to its passing) is now, as President of this Hearing Panel, ruling the exact opposite such that "proposed revisions" are in fact "authorized revisions".

two. The claim that "if Resolution B012 was properly constituted as a canonical proposed revision to the BCP, it constitutes the Worship of the Church building" (p41). Information technology thus appears to state that even if information technology is accepted that the same-sex activity marriage rites are only a "proposed revision to the BCP" and fifty-fifty though they are only for "trial employ" under B012 they are withal to be put on a par with the BCP every bit elements of "the Worship of the Church" which bishops are to uphold. Thus information technology is held that Bishop Love'due south activeness "constituted a violation of his vows to adhere to the Worship of the Church building" (p42) and not just a violation of its Discipline.

iii. Although it is not explicitly stated that Bishop Love also violated the Doctrine of the Church, the question it asks (p31) and appears to answer in the affirmative is "Did Bishop Honey'due south Pastoral Management Violate the Bailiwick and Doctrine of the Church?" (p31). While rejecting 1 of TEC's arguments in relation to doctrine the ruling seems to accept TEC's claim that "approved changes to Canon I.18 that authorized same-sex marriage and Resolution 2022 B045 assuasive for the conditional utilize of same-sex rites, had the outcome of modernizing Doctrine to include same-sex spousal relationship" (p35) and states (p36) that the definition of Doctrine in Canon Iv.two "would evidently include whatever marriage rite authorized by Full general Convention as a revision to the BCP" (which is how it interprets B012).

4. The argument of Bishop Love that the Doctrine of the Church building in relation to spousal relationship is clearly stated in the BCP (in its commentary on the Marriage Service and in its Canon) and is what he is upholding in his stance is dismissed on the footing that these statements "should be read in a style to limit their awarding just those Marriage rites offered to cisgender couples" (p34), a peculiar utilise of "cisgender" plainly to hateful "opposite sexual activity" or "opposite gender" every bit near same-sex activity couples who marry are cisgender.

In summary, the ruling claims that Resolution B012 non only has canonical forcefulness pregnant he has violated "the Discipline of the Church building" just likewise that

• The resolution has in fact authorized revisions to the BCP,
• The liturgies B012 authorizes for "trial use" are now part of "the Worship of the Church building"
• The marriage doctrine stated in the BCP is non "the Doctrine of the Church building",
• By implication, that same-sex marriage is now function of "the Doctrine of the Church building".

Bishop Love in refusing to permit same-sex marriages in his diocese has therefore been found to have violated his oaths to uphold the Discipline of the Church building, the Worship of the Church, and (possibly) the Doctrine of the Church.

There are clearly some meaning implications for TEC as a result of this. But, given the importance of the issue in the wider Anglican Communion, and with the postponement of the Lambeth Briefing to 2022, there volition exist implications for Communion relations. More than that, with the impending launch of theLiving in Love and Faith project, there will inevitably be implications for the Church of England besides. I will explore all these in tomorrow'due south post.

---

Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, and Tutor in Christian Ideals at Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.

If you enjoyed this, do 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: Proficient comments that appoint with the content of the mail, and share in respectful fence, tin can add real value. Seek kickoff to understand, then to be understood. Brand the virtually charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.

ferrieare1936.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/bishop-bill-love-tec-and-same-sex-marriage-in-the-church/

Share this post