[ASAP] A few questions.

[David Phillippi]

Thank you Ben and Ann for your reply. I'm slowly getting a picture of the
challenge ahead of us.

Given that we are only asking for the option for priests to perform
weddings, I wonder if we could make a strong case that inclusion would
actually help protect established institutions. Now that marriage equality
is a reality, the Episcopal Church is one of the few places that people can
go who want to make such a commitment within a Christian community, or who
want to be in community with those who do. Refusing to allow *any* priest
to perform the ceremony is a drag on growth within the diocese. And those
who are worried about losing members over this, could continue to practice
exclusion...we would welcome those members at our churches :-).

David

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Ben Whitehouse <whitehba at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hadn't seen an answer to David's questions and I was hoping someone with
> more knowledge than what I've been able to gather on this process would
> respond first- so please reorient me if I'm misstating anything
>
> 1. Short of the Bishop changing his mind, what else could effect change? *A
> strong showing of displeasure at the diocesan convention can't hurt.
> Getting the convention to vote for Henry Walker's resolution that was
> circulated here a few days ago is a good way of showing that. Also, getting
> like minded clergy and lay members elected to leadership positions (like
> bishop and council) within the diocese also would be helpful. I would hope
> diocesan convention delegates would inquire of candidate for these diocesan
> leadership positions their position on this issue. *
>
> Could the National Church change its mind and require all dioceses to
> allow priests the option of administering this sacrament? * It can but
> only at the next general convention in 2018. I believe that the 2017
> diocesan convention will elect the deputies for the 2018 general
> convention. Working to elect deputies who support all sacraments for all
> people is important step too. *
>
> 2. Who else needs convincing? How much support is there for the Bishop’s
> decision in the larger Diocese?* I think the consensus is that this is
> very conservative diocese. I've already heard of leaders from one local
> parish declaring that under no circumstances would same sex weddings be
> conducted there. The best we can realistically expect is similar to what
> neighboring dioceses have done which is to call on each parish to go
> through a discernment process to decide if they were going to allow these
> liturgies to be used. I don't think it's realistic to expect even a
> majority of parishes in the diocese would be open to conduct same sex
> weddings. For now we at least need to work to open a path for parishes and
> chapels that want to celebrate all marriages can do so, and equally as
> important, for clergy that are resident or working in this diocese to be
> free to administer the sacrament of marriage to a same sex couple without
> fear of retribution from the bishop. *
>
>
> *The diocese has already lost several parishes (including the one that
> used to occupy the building where the bishop's administrative office now
> sits) who have left as the episcopal church has gotten more progressive.
> We've also had several whole dioceses break off and leave the national
> church. (South Carolina, Fort Worth). I'm sure one of the main arguments in
> opposition is fear that we could lose more parishes and members who no
> longer would want to be a part of this diocese. Perhaps some may be worried
> that if the bishop did allow for these sacraments, the diocesan convention
> could likewise vote to leave the national church. *
>
>
> *That being said - I am also very frustrated because with these kinds of
> controversies- the conversation will quickly turn toward protecting
> established institutions and away from recognizing the people that are
> harmed. At the same time, institutions don't just spring up overnight and
> it's the nature of this church to work together in spite of profound
> disagreement. *
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://episcopallists.com/pipermail/asap/attachments/20151210/11f209a7/attachment-0002.html>