Trying to make order of liturgical chaos

4 Responses

  1. Jack Zamboni says:

    Scott — re EOW and the authorization for its use without Episcopal permission. I served on the legislative committee that handled this at GC 2018 and the omission of the requirement for Episcopal permission *in distinction from* the previous GC resolutions was intentional. Neil Alexander who I believe is Chair of TFLPBR was the bishop chair of that legislative committee at GC and knows this. TFLPBR is correct in stating that EOW no longer requires Episcopal permission for use. I hope you will amend your blog post accordingly. Check with Neil first if you like, but I feel like I’m on solid ground here.

    • Scott Gunn says:

      Thanks for your comment, Jack. I have every confidence that the legislative committee *intended* this based on your account. However, what matters is the wording in the resolution, and I’m not sure the resolution accomplishes what the committee apparently intended. If the word “continue” were omitted, so that the resolution simply authorized EOW, I think that would a clear way to signal a new approach. If the resolution had said, “continued to be authorized, without the need to request the bishop’s permission…” it would be clear. As written, it appears to me that the plain meaning would tell us that EOW is authorized as it has been, “continues”. I wish this had been clearer in the resolution. But what we have now seems to be yet another instance of needless ambiguity.

  2. Heath says:

    Is “denotations” correct in para 14 or did you intend “denominations”?

%d bloggers like this: