The Prayer Book, Memorialization, and Communion Across Difference, Part II

EDITORIAL

This second part of my three-part essay on these matters begins the conversation about the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer. Yesterday’s article explored the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference, which were considered Louisville. Tomorrow’s Part III will look at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and proposes some ways to think about the future.

Same-sex Marriage

The action that most directly concerns Communion Across Difference was the adoption of a first reading of Resolution A116, the addition of same-sex marriage rites to the prayer book. It was clear from the 80th General Convention that this would happen in Louisville, so this was no surprise. The 2027 convention will need to pass this revision on a second reading in order for it to become part of the prayer book, the same two-convention action that is required for revisions to the church’s Constitution.

But the manner of the addition raises important considerations about some of the resolutions that I just discussed and with the amendment of Article X, which I’ll discuss shortly.

The version of Resolution A116 that was proposed by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) was much simpler than what ultimately passed. The original version was just two sentences:

That the Rites for The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, as authorized for trial use by the 79th General Convention, be included in the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further

Resolved, That the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, having been memorialized as the Prayer Book of this church, (2018–A068), shall remain accessible to our members and our mission.

This was revised for two reasons by the Legislative Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy, and Music. First, the second resolve was removed for the same reason that Resolution A090 from the task force did not make it to the floor, namely, that it was deemed redundant since the 1979 prayer book is already authorized.

The second reason was that the original resolution left it unclear whether it was replacing the current marriage rite. If not, would the new rite be appended to the end of the prayer book as it now stands, or incorporated? The final version of Resolution A116 is much more specific and answers these questions definitively. The new marriages rites will be added to the prayer book in addition to the rite that is already present and will be inserted just after the current rite. A sibling resolution, A160, revises the brief section, “What is Holy Matrimony?” in the Catechism of the 1979 prayer book as follows, replacing “the woman and the man” with “two people” and then adding a second question:

There are a couple of items to note. First, this is the most surgical revision of the prayer book since 1979. The previous revisions were to add or remove persons from the Calendar or to revise the lessons in the Holy Week liturgies so that they conformed to the Revised Common Lectionary, which replaced the prayer book lectionary in 2006 (though the 2012 convention added permission to allow the use of the older lectionary with ecclesiastical permission). Here, many small revisions are made at various points and a whole new rite is added into the prayer book such that the rest of the prayer book will be repaginated (unless some other solution is found).

Second, one of the revisions that was not made was to the theological definition of marriage in the current marriage rite. This sentence remains: “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God” (1979 BCP, p. 422). Even more interesting is that the new marriages rites, now titled “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage II,” have no parallel sentence. Thus, the catechism would articulate the teaching expressed in the second marriage rite, while the above-quoted sentence in “Concerning the Service” of the first marriage rite articulates a traditional teaching on marriage.

Two Teachings on Marriage

The language used in the resolutions authorizing the task forces on Communion Across Difference speaks of “the indispensable place that the minority who hold to this Church’s historic teaching on marriage have in our common life, whose witness our Church needs.” The word “teaching” is quite important. In many and various ways, the 81st General Convention made it clear, not only in resolutions, but for the first time in the canons and the prayer book, that this church has two teachings on marriage, which leads to:

• The protection in Canon III.1 of those who hold to a traditional view on marriage is protected in the discernment process and in “any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained” enabled by Resolution A092.
• The protection of the consciences of bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage that were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012 inserted into Canons I.19.3 and III.12.3.a enable by Resolution A093.
• The retention of the current marriage rite, including its traditional definition of Christian marriage as “a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God,” in the Book of Common Prayer.

What this means for those who identify with the Communion Partner movement is this: the Episcopal Church has said there is a place for those who hold to the traditional teaching on marriage. Such views on marriage should play no role in discernment about ordination or deployment. Bishops with this view are required to delegate episcopal oversight for all actions related to same-sex marriage in order to protect their conscience in the exercise of their specifically episcopal ministry.

I have no doubt that this may not be enough for some who hold the traditional view — though I would say that if you are still in the Episcopal Church, this a big step toward inclusion of this minority position. This is why, in addition to some of the experiences that I recounted that were not limited to me, many who hold these traditional views “whispered to each other that they had never left a Convention feeling this heartened or this welcome” (as TLC said in its recent editorial).

Tomorrow’s Part III will look at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and propose some ways to think about the future.