Thinking Anglicans

pastoral letter from the Bishop of California

The Bishop of California, Bishop Marc Andrus has issued a pastoral letter to his diocese. Read it in full at Pastoral Letter Regarding Same-sex Marriage.

Naturally, he is responding to the recent California legal judgement, and to subsequent reactions to that. But the most distinctive feature of his recommendations is this:

I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.

This pattern is of course normal (and unavoidable) in many parts of Western Europe (though not the UK) and some other countries. Nevertheless Bishop Andrus has been criticised for proposing it in California.

Some news reports of this:

ENS California bishop urges all couples to seek civil union first, then church blessing

Living Church Bishop Andrus Plans Ad Campaign to Attract Same-Sex Couples

San Jose Mercury Episcopal bishop praises ‘fundamental right of all people to marry’

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe
Joe
12 years ago

Lambeth 1.10: “This Conference: …in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman [and] …cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions…

+Andrus: “I urge you [clergy] to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.”

Now remind me, who are the schismatics? blah, blah, blah…

JCF
JCF
12 years ago

“Nevertheless Bishop Andrus has been criticised for proposing it in California.”

By whom, Simon?

I find Bishop Andrus’s proposal to be an *inspired* effort to WORK FOR EQUALITY, while living in the tension of TEC’s canons (on marriage) as they are. Gracious God, speed the day when the canons are CHANGED, for FULL marital equality, for ALL faithful couples!

God bless ya, +Marc. 🙂

JPM
JPM
12 years ago

Joe, it is certainly interesting that you deleted the phrase “in lifelong union” from your recounting of Lambeth 1.10.

Surely that must be an oversight.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
12 years ago

Joe:

More importantly, which group–schismatic or not–is operating in a Christian manner toward toward one of the most marginalized groups in human society?

I know who I’d choose.

BillyD
BillyD
12 years ago

I remember a priest telling way back in the 70’s that he wished the Church would get out of the marriage business. It had nothing to do with gay marriage or marriage equality – he just didn’t think that priests had any business acting as agents of the State, or that the State had any business telling him what sacraments he could officiate at.

Craig Nelson
12 years ago

With regard to the above reference to Lambeth 1998 and same sex marriage I think things have moved at a remarkable pace since then.

The first country in the world only legalised same sex marriage in 2001,to be followed by Belgium(2003), Canada(2005), Spain(2005), Massachusetts(2004), South Africa (2006), Norway (2008) and now California (2008).

The UK’s Civil Partnerships only came into force in 2005 at a similar time to the debates over Civil Unions (and marriage) in several US States, Australia and New Zealand.

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
12 years ago

“I remember a priest telling way back in the 70’s that he wished the Church would get out of the marriage business.”

But that doesn’t solve the problem. In Germany the State IS out of the marriage business. You have to be legally married before you can have a church wedding, which has no legal force but all the symbolism of a couple uniting before God.

Would you stop that too?

Alan Harrison
Alan Harrison
12 years ago

JRM wrote: “Joe, it is certainly interesting that you deleted the phrase “in lifelong union” from your recounting of Lambeth 1.10. Surely that must be an oversight.” No, it isn’t an oversight. Joe omits the rest of paragraph (b) and the whole of paragraphs (c) and (d), clearly indicating an omission from the full text by a row of dots. This is a perfectly normal convention for indicating an omission, widely used when citing only part of a longer text. So why pick on just those few words, JRM? I think you may be implying that JRM takes a more… Read more »

JCF
JCF
12 years ago

It is a CANARD to compare canons for order *within* a specific Church (and Lambeth 1.10 isn’t a canon anyway, being only *advisory*), w/ the breaking of canons that define the *boundaries* of Church (shopping bishops, or *schism*).

If TEC’s House of Bishops doesn’t like what +Andrus has done, then he’ll pay for it, *there*.

I feel confident in assuring Joe (et al), that +Andrus won’t try to flee to “alternative primatial oversight” [sic], as xJohn-David Schofield (formerly of San Joaquin) did, or ?Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh is attempting to do.

Lord have mercy!

JPM
JPM
12 years ago

Alan, when we modify quotes, we should not do so in a way that changes their essential meaning.

I am sure you would agree that there is a major difference between a union and a lifelong union.

Given how much hypocrisy there is on the matter of remarriage after divorce, particularly among those who shout the loudest over homosexuality, Joe’s omission seems a little fishy.

If I have misjudged him, I will gladly apologize.

BillyD
BillyD
12 years ago

Erika, the priest I referred to was opposed to his acting as an agent of the State. He wasn’t talking about blessing marriages afterwards in church. I think he would find the German model an exercise in sanity.

Göran Koch-Swahne
12 years ago

Joe wrote: “Now remind me, who are the schismatics? blah, blah, blah…””

I acknowledge there is some difference between “cannot advise” and “advice”, but to pretend it amounts to schism?

Surely, that is over the top? (i.e. American “Culture Wars” propaganda).

IMHO the mistake here is the Bishop n o t issuing advice (because of the American inspired Socio-Political “movers” assembled at Gafcon).

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“Would you stop that too?” Erika, I think I would. Honestly, I don’t understand matrimony as a sacrament. I can’t get my head around it. It is different in many ways from the others. They all concern the individual and his/her relationship to the Kingdom manifested as the local ekklesia. Baptism/confirmation: how one is reborn into the community, Eucharist: how one is spiritually nourished in the community, Reconciliation: how one repairs the bonds in the community, broken by one’s own human failure to live the Gospel fully, Unction: how one is strenghthened by God acting through the community to face… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
12 years ago

Ford “Honestly, I don’t understand matrimony as a sacrament” But why should that matter? We do lots of things publicly in church that are not a sacrament. We bless havest goods, we sometimes have pet services where we bless pets, we have renewals of marriage vows, we have thanksgivings for all kinds of things….. even if you don’t see marriage as a sacrament, why can it not be celebrated in church? One of the saddest things for me is that the core of my life is my faith. God is the centre of everything I do. And yet, when I… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Father Ron Smith
12 years ago

Whatever happened to the old adage, which stated:
‘A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’ ?

Is this not what happens when anyone (or any two) call(s) upon God for a Blessing? Surely any valued human relationship of loving faithfulness deserves this particular distinction – especially when they believe in God’s unconditional love and the free gift of grace?

The ring, the stole, the blessing, the kiss -these are all ‘outward and visible signs’.

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“I truly fail to see why this is so contentious.” Because despite all the good beneficial undeniably holy aspects of your relationship, there is an aspect of it, one that is integral to it, that they consider to be sinful. It is not the totality of your relationship. The relationship would still go on, likely, if one or both of you became unable to function sexually. But, as it stands, sex is not just part, but an important part, of that relationship. You don’t have to agree with them, Erika, but to them, whatever else you are giving thanks to… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“Is this not what happens when anyone (or any two) call(s) upon God for a Blessing?”

No. The blessing of a boat is not sacramental, neither is the blessing of a field, a house, or anything else. The Eucharist is not merely the blessing of bread, a baptism isn’t merely the blessing of water, or of a person for that matter. There are blessings and “sacramentals”, then there are sacraments. There’s a difference, but not being a theologian, I’m not sure I can articulate what.

17
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x