Friday, March 16, 2007

A Good Question



Thanks to Jim Naughton on Daily Episcopalian for this "good question" ... which I just posted over at Walking With Integrity, but I figure a REALLY good question is worth asking more than once:

The Mad Priest and our mutual friend Goran have a scoop over at "Of Course I Could be Wrong." They point out that:
.
1. The Church of Sweden's leaders have said that they are willing to allow gay people to marry in church on the same basis as heterosexual couples, although bishops are unsure whether to call the unions marriage. The decision will make the church the first major denomination in the world to allow full gay church marriage in practice.
.
and
.
2. Under the Porvoo Agreement, The Church Of England is in full communion with the Church of Sweden and allow each other's clergy to work in each other's parishes in either country. Now the Church of Sweden is not a member of the Anglican Communion, so it's relationship to Canterbury is not precisely analogous to ours.
.
[Here comes the "good question":]

Still, it seems to me that Rowan Williams needs to explain why the Episcopal Church's decision to allow the blessing of same-sex relationships is, in his eyes, a Communion-breaking offense, while the Church of Sweden's decision to allow same-sex marriage is not.

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:02 PM

    I doubt that poor Rowan can figure that one out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:43 AM

    and our sisters and brothers in Washington ask our bishops to ask the same question, framed in a different way

    General Convention Deputation, Episcopal Diocese of Olympia Seattle,
    Washington, March 16, 2007

    To the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church, gathered at Camp Allen,
    Texas.

    Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    The elected Deputation of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia has, after
    reflecting on the recent Anglican Communion Primates meeting in
    Dar-es-Salaam, the following comments to make to you, our brothers and
    sisters in Christ.

    We are very troubled that the requests made of you come from only "some of"
    the Primates of our Communion. We fully understand how difficult it will be
    for you to respond when there is clearly not unanimity within the Primates
    as a group.

    We are concerned that the requests made of you, and the modified proposal
    for a “Primatial Vicar”, threaten our polity.

    We see significant parts of the proposed “Anglican Covenant” – which is
    also of deep concern to us – as reflecting the same segment of Primates, and
    as, likewise, threatening our polity.

    We are shocked that a province of the Anglican Communion - Nigeria - is
    supporting state legislation targeting a sexual minority with severe and
    punitive actions that violate the U.N. Charter on Human Rights. We see the
    failure of the Primates to address this situation in Dar-es-Salaam as a
    linked polity-related issue.

    1. The Primates Requests.
    With regard to the Primates’ specific requests and proposed actions
    our most significant concern is that in each case the Primates appear to be
    asking for a province of the Communion (our own) to violate its polity in
    order to respond to Primatial concerns.

    The Primates’ requests directed to you, our House of Bishops, and
    their modified proposal for a “Primatial Vicar”, will, in seeking to solve
    one problem, create another, deeper problem, calling into question the
    polity on which both The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion had
    heretofore been based. Since in each case a precedent would be established
    we believe that any response must be very carefully crafted.

    Recommended Action: We urge you not to respond to the Primates’ requests
    in a way that violates the baptismal nature of our polity, and to reject any
    “Primatial Vicar” structure that likewise places any authority outside of
    our constitutional and canonical boundaries.

    2. Biased nature of requests.
    We are also very concerned that the Episcopal Church has been
    unjustly singled out. Blessings of same sex unions in the English province
    have, reportedly, taken place for a much longer period than in our own
    province and in greater volume. In addition, only one diocese in the
    Communion has authorized such blessings, and this diocese is in the Anglican
    Church of Canada, not The Episcopal Church. Yet neither of the other two
    Provinces are mentioned by the Primates' Communiqué.

    The Episcopal Church, gathered in General Convention in 2003,
    declined to authorize the blessing of same sex unions.

    Recommended Action We urge you to ask for clarification from the
    Primates as to why the Episcopal Church has been singled out. We further
    urge you to ask the Primates to include in their request regarding the
    blessing of same sex unions the Church of England and the Anglican Church of
    Canada.

    3. Primates failure to address human rights violations
    Related to #2 we are disturbed that the Primates also chose to
    overlook the actions of the Anglican Church of Nigeria and its Primate, Rt.
    Rev. Peter J. Akinola in supporting State legislation against a minority of
    its citizens that violates the U.N. Charter on Human Rights.

    Recommended action: We urge you to speak out on this issue. In
    particular we suggest that you ask the Archbishop of Canterbury why he and
    the other Primates have not condemned this action and failed to ask for an
    explanation from the primate of Nigeria, Rt. Rev. Peter Akinola, when given
    the opportunity in Dar-es-Salaam

    4. Proposed “Anglican Covenant”
    With regard to the Proposed “Anglican Covenant” we believe that some
    of its contents pose similar “polity problems”. The Anglican Communion would
    be so dramatically changed that it would no longer be the Anglican
    Communion. In addition, the content of this Covenant and the nature of the
    Primates requests of you together reveal a consistent pattern toward a more
    hierarchical, law-bound Communion relationship that we believe is
    antithetical to the identity of our Communion and our own province.

    Recommended Action: We are not a Confessional Church. We urge you to
    reject the proposed Covenant.

    Clergy Lay
    Sabeth Fitzgibbons (GC ’06 Lay) Duncan Bayne
    Jeffrey Lee Hisako Beasley
    Stephen Moore (Chair) James Church
    Peter Strimer Elizabeth Clark
    Andrea McMillin Stockburger Ian Thompson
    Nigel Taber-Hamilton.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And the same question should be posed to the Scottish Episcopal Church, as I suggested last weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous10:42 PM

    Bruno, you rock brother, you worked it...........Ditto

    ReplyDelete

SOME COMMENTS ABOUT COMMENTS: •Feel free to disagree, but if you disagree, give a reason. • Please stay with the thread -- the place to post long articles on other topics is your own blog. • Challenging ideas will get a conversation going; attacking individuals will get a comment deleted.•

FINALLY: If you comment, your words are yours to do with as you please, but I reserve the right to cite them in other contexts.