Updatefrom the Integrity blog:
So what are we left with –It's certainly something. But don't get carried away.
1) local option – in other words each bishop can decide what is appropriate especially given the different legal situations. This has been the situation informally and unofficially but now it’s out in the open.
2) The collection and development of theological and liturgical resources.
This seems to reflect a sentiment mentioned several times by bishops over the past week, that we need to develop our theological ideas BEFORE we develop liturgies, not the other way round. It also provides some breathing space for the more conservative.
I think it's a little more than that, IT. ;-/
ReplyDeleteThe people who claim that there is no theology haven't bothered to read it.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, Gagnon doesn't count.
Inching towards our goal - yesterday I did not think the bishop would do this - would wimp out - so I am amazed we got this much to date. Now on to Deputies where we hope for concurrence without amendment.
ReplyDeleteI posted resouces for theology recently here (to the immense amusement of my wife)
ReplyDeleteI assume the current marriage ceremony has already dropped the gender specific stuff (new wife is to obey, who gives this woman, etc).
ReplyDeleteI don't know, I haven't been to a wedding (aside from my own) in years
ReplyDeleteErp - the BCP has not had "obey" since the 1928 version and there is no "giving away" of the bride in the 1972 book. Ann
ReplyDeleteThough I have to say the "with this ring I thee wed, with this body I thee worship" thing is pretty fine language....!
ReplyDeleteAnn said the BCP has not had "obey" since the 1928 version
ReplyDeleteAnd that was when TEC started o the road to hell and schism. Women got the mistaken idea that they were people. Imagine that! :)
No, no, no: you're making the same mistake that the PB recently did!
ReplyDeleteIn point of fact, the '28 BCP's Marriage liturgy does NOT have "obey" in it! [It was actually dropped for that edition with---as James previously reminded us---*little* fanfare. It was the '28's new {gasp!} "Prayers for the Dead" which got GC's knickers-in-twist then (the Calvinist's knickers, I suspect. I guess they then up&moved to Sydney! ;-/)]