Death of a conscience clause?: Episcopal General Convention

It is interesting and significant to note what was "crossed out" of the original resolution presented to the Episcopal Church's General Convention this week.  The original motion had a conscience clause;  the one passed by the Convention does not.  Many Anglican clergy have heard time and again that "no one will require you to do this".  It seems, however, that while the resolution does explicitly require anyone to do this, it does explicitly remove the principle upon which one might decline from doing so.

There you have it.  Here is the text that was removed from the original resolution by the Episcopal Church's General Convention: 

Resolution:    C056
Title:    Liturgies for Blessings
Topic:    Liturgy


Resolved, That in the meantime the Ecclesiastical Authority of each diocese may authorize for use in the diocese liturgies for blessing same-gender committed relationships of enduring love, mutuality, and fidelity; and be it further

Resolved, That, with respect to such blessings, no bishop or clergy of this Church or any other person acting on behalf of this Church shall be required or expected to perform an act contrary to a deeply-held position of conscience.

Go here for the full text of the resolution, with original and the final (passed by the House of Bishops) version.  It has yet (at this time) to be passed by the 'House of Deputies'.

Comments

[anthony]

what if there was a conscious clause for abolitionists, or people who wanted women priests and bishops?

[joseph]

In the first case, I suggest that there essentially was, until the evangelical anglicans (Wilberforce, etc) led the way for complete abolition of the slave trade. And in the second case, I think it already exists de facto.

The new language is a return to pure authoritarianism, much like that against which the Reformers rebelled. It goes against a fairly fundamental principle of reformed catholic thinking and pracice.

It also shows the meaning behind the language of "inclusion", which is supposed to be the hallmark of the Episcopal church.

[anthony]

can you expand a bit with what you mean by de facto in the second case.

i am unsure if the "inclusive" edges of the anglican/episcopalians are really willing to hear what the more conserative's have to say, but i am also pretty sure that the conseratives do not want women or lgbtq folk anywhere near their parishes in a leadership capacity.

this loggerheads prevents the openness and the democratic nature of the church, it shuts everything down.

[joseph]

Presently, within the Anglican Communion, there are bishops who are women, and priests who are women. The equation of female ordination=lgbt is a false one in some 'conservative' circles.

Is there such a thing as "the democratic nature of the church"? At least in the sense of what we understand democracy to be? I think that is part of the difficulty. The Episcopal methodology is in one sense just another form of Christendom, using a political model for the life of a christian community.

[anthony]

i was wary of posting the comment, because i recognize that the narrative is not clear. and no high church can really be democratic.