Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "An Alarmingly Free God" held at The American Cathedral in Paris, France.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, November 18, 2024
Friday, November 15, 2024
Sermon preached at the American Memorial Cemetery in Normandy.
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon preached at the American Memorial Cemetery in Normandy.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, November 4, 2024
All Saints' Day
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "All Saints' Day" held at Episcopal Church of the Epiphany, Houston, TX
More at www.texasbishop.com
Friday, November 1, 2024
25B A Bartimaeus Theory
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "25B A Bartimaeus Theory" held at Saint Joan of Arc Episcopal Church, Pflugerville, TX
More at www.texasbishop.com
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
It's A Table
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "It's A Table" held at St. Julian of Norwich Episcopal Church, Cedar Park, TX
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Memorial Sermon for the Rev. Carl S. Shannon, Jr.
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon for the Rev. Carl S. Shannon, Jr., held at Emmanuel Episcopal Church, Houston, TX
More at www.texasbishop.com
It Isn't About The Brothers
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "It Isn't About The Brothers" preached at Trinity Episcopal Church, Houston, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, October 28, 2024
Peace
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Peace" preached at St. John's Episcopal Church, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Sunday, October 20, 2024
2B - En español
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "2B - En español" preached at San Francisco de Asis, Episcopal Church, Austin, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Friday, October 18, 2024
20B - The Not-So-Secret Santa
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "The Not-So-Secret Santa" preached at Trinity Episcopal Church, Marble Falls, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, September 9, 2024
A God of Mercy. A People of Mercy
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "A God of Mercy. A People of Mercy" preached at St. Mark's, Bay City, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Friday, September 6, 2024
Unexpected Grief
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Unexpected Grief" preached at St. Christopher's, Fort Worth, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, August 27, 2024
March On
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "March On" preached at St Augustine of Hippo, Houston's 140th Anniversary.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, August 19, 2024
Ruined for Life
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Ruined for Life" preached at Ascension Episcopal Church, Houston, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
13B What Comes From Your Heart Matters
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "13B What Comes From Your Heart Matters" preached at St. Andrew's, Houston, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, August 5, 2024
8B The Great Human Healing
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "8B The Great Human Healing" preached at Faith Episcopal, Wichita Falls, TX. More at www.texasbishop.com
Friday, June 14, 2024
Fall into Shame, Saved by the Shame of the Cross
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Fall into Shame, Saved by the Shame of the Cross' Memorial" preached at St. Thomas, Rockdale, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, May 20, 2024
Sermon for Lois Mogas' Memorial
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Sermon for Lois Mogas' Memorial" preached at St. Martin's, Houston, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Ascension Vessels
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Ascension Vessels" preached at St. Joseph, Salado, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Reflections on what we face given the last week in news...UT protests and Christian Nationalism
I have been thinking a lot about the issues on our front pages and feed for some time now, the interesting parallel with Passover and the campus protests - especially the one most recently in my diocese at the University of Texas. The issues we confront are complex and not easily reconcilable.
We must face the reality that we are seeing a rise in antisemitic behaviour on campuses along with a rise in violence against Jews in the US and in Israel; we are dealing with the reality of mass destruction of Palestinian Christian and Muslim lives in Gaza. As a Christian bishop, neither is acceptable as a global people created by our shared Abrahamic God.
(This rise is happening in the midst of the rise of hate groups and violence against people of colour combined with a deadly mix of xenophobia.)
The above is the most difficult thing for us to grasp. What we as Christians must work towards is realizing that each human being, by God's very creation, is beloved of God. The proper response is grief, sadness, and the ignominy of our human condition to right the wrongs of our forebearers. Moreover, our own citizenship actually benefits from the world as it is and in which we live.
The UT protests today and the blanket call for a violent response recall the complexity of our time and harken to Kent and other generational mistakes. This is often too quickly boiled down into a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine fight - but that is oversimplified.
The real question we face at UT is a rather more disturbing reality. We need to ask why is it that free speech of the Patriot Front and other white supremacist organizations are allowed at UT without a call for police, while a peaceful protest by those who disagree with Christian nationalism’s support of Israel due to their false apocalyptical far Christian right beliefs about the Holy Land deserves the present response by the state? Here is a juxtaposition that we know and remember, but nobody is speaking out loud.
We need to ask more questions about Christian Nationalism in this country. How it affects women, people of colour, and our approach to the wider global community. God has no country but the cosmos, no one people but humanity, no nation-state but the world. Remember the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. This is not about shelter but in our context needs to be read immediately as a revelation of God's ultimate concern for all people of every tribe and nation.
As for Israel and Palestine, we as Christians need to focus our efforts on the security of Israelis and the self-determination of the Palestinian people for a free, enduring and durable state in the future, focusing on the day after the war, where a just and lasting peace may be maintained.
Monday, April 22, 2024
I Got This - Easter 4B
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "I Got This - Easter 4B" preached at St. Christpher's, League City, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
Sometimes We Need More Than Peace
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Sometimes We Need More Than Peace" preached at St. Matthew's, Austin, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Confirmation Sermon
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Confirmation Sermon" preached at St. Mark's, Houston, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, April 15, 2024
Second Sunday of Easter Thomas Sunday
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Second Sunday of Easter Thomas Sunday" preached at St. Paul's, Houston, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Segundo Domingo de Pascua Domingo de Tomás
Escuche el sermón del Obispo Doyle, "Segundo Domingo de Pascua Domingo de Tomás" predicado en St. Paul's, Houston, TX.
Más información en www.texasbishop.com
Saturday, April 6, 2024
A072 The Future of Liturgy And the Opportunity for Constitutional Amendment
By
The Rt. Rev. C. Andrew Doyle
In the season after the General Convention 2022, there has been debate about 2022-A059, which is now returning to the convention as A072. The Anglican Theological Review posted an article by The Rev. Dr Matthew Olver of Nashotah House. As a member of the drafting group for the House of Bishops regarding the 2022-A059 revision, we bring background and clarity into the ongoing dialogue with an eye to the argument made by Olver. He wants to convince the deputies that the actions of the last Convention were not wise. Below, I offer a defence of General Convention actions regarding 2022-A059 and a response to Olver’s argument.
I first offer seven critical contexts operating on the floor of the House of Bishops during the debate and within the group assigned to work on a means forward. These themes of conversation are: a) the 2022-A059 as presented was not going to be approved; b) there were issues raised about what belongs in the Constitution vs what belongs in the canons; c) members of the House did not want the process that has been underway for existing trial rites to be delayed – specifically those regarding marriage; d) bishops who hold a traditional view on marriage, or whose diocese were in their processes of dealing with the change, were concerned that a passage of the new rites would require canonical obedience; e) there was a lot of concern over having an actual paper bound book; f), there were issues about the continued translation of texts; g) and finally, there was concern that bishops had not been attentive to and that rules were changing around those rites permitted by bishops alone as the chief liturgical officer of the diocese. While it may be suggested that 2022-A059 in the form presented was simple, the context in which it arrived upon the floor of the House of Bishops for debate was decidedly not simple, and failure was its immediate apparent outcome.
Another subtext is that the typical member of the General Convention seated in either the House of Deputies or in the House of Bishops do not understand the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, especially regarding those with an effect upon liturgical forms and the use of liturgical terminology. This context means that when different liturgical resolutions come before the two houses, people may very well pass them but not understand if they passed a text for "Experimental Use," "Supplemental Use," or "Trial Use." There is also confusion over which are to be used freely and which are not. Not all of these are oriented towards the revision of The Book of Common Prayer. This fact was admitted by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. These terms were generally used among the liturgists but not understood by the wider church.
This is essential background because the history of how things are changed and the context in which they are changed is essential to the continuing life of the Episcopal Church's constitutional, canonical, and liturgical life. With the above in mind, I turn to the text of 2022-A059, now A072 itself.
Let us begin by saying that we do not agree with all of Olver's constitutional and canonical points about The Episcopal Church's Constitution generally. Part of the work of this proposal was to help TEC navigate the future regarding the nature of a physical book, an online book, and the wide variety of approved BCP liturgies and liturgical forms available to the local priest and churchgoer alike. Many churches today use booklets and projection and even devices to help with the service. Some still use the book itself. This clouds the issue. The reader should remember that the context of the amendment included different understandings of the proposal's intention. These sometimes-conflicting perspectives were and are at the very root of the issue that faced 2022-A059 and our Constitution and Canons. These opposing forces and disagreements might be categorized in this way:
- Those who envision a Book of Common Prayer produced by a printer and those who envision an Ebook of Common Prayer
- Those who envision marriage equality within the Book of Common Prayer and those who are concerned they will be constitutionally forced to bless all marriages for an ever-expanding LGBTQ+ community by placing the marriage rites in the Book of Common Prayer.
- Those who experience the latent reality that translations of liturgical materials are not seen as essential to a multiethnic and multinational church and those who don't understand the issue of flexibility with liturgical texts achieve parody across our diverse church when it comes to liturgy
- Those who want structure and clarity for revision and those who didn't know we were without such clarity and structure
- Those who want to create openness in the process and those who don't want openness
- Those who want to be able to work with others to develop mission-responsive and those who want to slow down the process
- Those who want to build a new prayer book from scratch and those who don't want this at all
The conflict we saw in 2022 regarding 2022-A059 was very much rooted in the same conflict, which has been building for three decades and came to a head in 2018, resulting in B011. I helped author this proposal with the very best liturgical minds of the church, as was my participation in creating the amendment that will surely be before us.
To this end, the great revision underway in the 21st century regarding liturgy hoped to create a constitutional framework that would allow for the existence of these views, not to continue the muddled past which was created as times and contexts have changed, and enable us to move forward, while holding onto one of our greatest assets The Book of Common Prayer as the shared prayer of this church. Olver implies this was slapdashed and needs more consideration. That is just not the reality of the overall history of the proposal, the authors involved, and the bishops and deputies in the last convention.
Unfortunately, The Episcopal Church does not have the time, money, or clarity of intention to produce a single book today. Therefore, we agree with Matthew Olver's perspective that, indeed, "yes", we had to find a way for the Episcopal Church to revise the contents of the Book of Common Prayer in steps. However, as Olver implies, this was not to mimic the ever-expanding books of liturgies as in the Church of England. Instead, it was to make clear that the doctrinal and unity of the BCP must be maintained and that a process for relieving pressure and allowing the work of liturgical formation to move forward also needed to be dealt with constitutionally and canonically.
An astute friend once quipped, ‘The Book of Acts is about the church catching up with a resurrected Jesus and the mission of God.’ The truth is that in our era, the Book of Common Prayer cannot keep pace with the mission underway, and we need time for that mission to bear fruit theologically and liturgically.
Olver also implies that 2022-A059, now A072, as we have it before us, rejects a systematic doctrinal revision and does so piecemeal. That is not true. Olver's argument infers that the modifications to the marriage canon do not come out of deep thought and wrestle with doctrinal theology. Yet, they do, and several texts illustrate the work the Episcopal Church has done through convention over thirty years to build a doctrinal case for the passing of these liturgies. Indeed, those who hold to this church's traditional view of marriage might disagree and side with Olver. We need to remember, though, that the church has made a particular decision about marriage and that those rites are going through a process of liturgical approval for the Prayer Book as outlined in previous texts – it has been approved for trial use. We also suggest that this is not true for other proposed and used texts of material that have come before the General Convention for entrance into The Book of Common Prayer – if we are deliberate in how we proceed. The fear of a crashing plethora of liturgies entering our doctrinal life is a "fear", not one founded in the 2018-B011 or 2022-A059 proposal that is now before the church for a time of consideration. It is instead a fear and an anxiety. Those against the amendment hope to share this unnecessary fear to defeat the text.
Olver and Robert Pritchard’s proposals that will also come before the constitution and canons and possibly liturgy committees will indeed create precisely the problem that they fear – multiple books. You will discover as you read is that all of the other proposals seek competing Books of Common Prayer in one form or another. The proposal I have helped to write and argue for below is the only one that keeps a solo Book of Common Prayer while maintaining the use of 1979 and older books.
It is true that in the end, the church may choose to reject the offer made by 2022-A059, now A072, to engage in careful, theological work, which allows us to overcome our church's liturgical lethargy and offer a both/and solution. This solution would allow the competing desires mentioned above to all be true during this season of revision while we give time for the church to determine if it will have both an ebook and a physical Book of Common Prayer. However, our work here creates an adaptive and doctrinally centred church liturgical life.
It is an approach approved by chancellors and carefully written in the language outlines of the constitutional language.
Please note that both 2022-A059 and Olver’s proposal retain the current and historical requirement that neither an "alteration" (which I understand to mean a change in the existing text) nor an "addition" (which I understand to mean adding text, not just a phrase or two, but a significant addition) may be made to the BCP without the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Convention.
The next concern by Olver is the implication that A072 will get rid of the two-convention rule. Both 2022-A059 and Olver's proposal would add to Article X the requirement that, in addition to the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Conventions, no alteration or addition to the BCP could be made without previously – that is, previous to the first voting General Convention – being authorized for Trial Use. The good news for marriage equality advocates is that the marriage rite has already been set up this way and will not keep it from moving forward. Moreover, under the carefully proposed A072, Article X would speak only to the BCP and its alteration and amendment; it would be silent as to other liturgies that the General Convention might authorize and would leave any discussion of such liturgies to the canons. Why? Because only the liturgies in our BCP are doctrinal.
Moreover, the authors 2022-A059 suggest a canonical amendment that would add text to Title I.1.2.n.2 addressing liturgies authorized for use. Returning to 2018 B011, this canonical change must follow the approved four-part articulation – with careful editing. This suggestion is essential to the success of A072. The order of approval here makes the accountability work. The group of authors and I would not be in favour of approving the new A072 without the amendments to Title I.1.2.n.2. Let me explain. By contrast, under the ATR proposal, Article X would address liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and liturgies permitted for "Supplemental Use." In Olver's words and the words of the authors of the Constitution, amendments need to be precise. Olver writes and quotes from the following:
The function of a constitution is to provide "a concise statement of the most basic and important of the Church's laws," to embody "the organic law or principle of government of an organized society," and to articulate "those laws which are 'constitutive' of the nature and function of a community." (Stevick, Canon Law, 97.) Williams Jones Seabury wrote that a constitution is "a law to lawgivers." (Williams Jones Seabury, Notes on the Constitution of 1901 (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1902), 8; qtd. in Stevick, Canon Law, 97-8.) "It lays down broad powers; details are left to the Canons." (Stevick, Canon Law, 98.) Unlike the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Preamble to TEC's Constitution is not aspirational, which is to say, its purpose does not communicate the intentions of its framers.
As proposed, this is correct, and A072 makes clear what the Book of Common Prayer is and what it is not. This keeps the "Prayer Book for the Episcopal Church is enormously disproportionate compared to other related churches"…regarding the "teachings of the church." It also keeps other liturgies from using doctrinal power as the Constitution prescribes. This is essential. Olver’s proposal would leave such vagueness.
The process and limits for liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and "Supplemental Use" under the canon suggested by 2022-A059 are identical to the process and limitations set out for such liturgies by Olver's proposal, with one important exception. Disregarding the need for missional liturgical application, Olver's submission seeks to slow down the experimental and supplemental use under the direction of a bishop. His proposal actually places more power for mission principles to guide liturgy at the local diocesan level and places them at the General Convention level. Moreover, it potentially places all liturgy at a doctrinal level. The 2022-A059 proposal to amend Title I.1.2.n.2 spells out those processes and limits in the canons where they belong. Instead, Olver's proposal spells them out in Article X of the Constitution, tremendously slowing the operation of any missional adaptation. It is not our opinion that a church as diverse and needing liturgical breadth (not doctrinal breadth) is better served by having experimental and supplemental use in the canons and not the Constitution. The proposers desire a way for the liturgy to be crafted for mission purposes.
The group’s edit of Article X includes the words "is intended to be…" We disagree that it is aspirational but argue instead that it is intentional. It is not "aspirational language", as Olver suggests. Etymologically the word “intended” is to direct and move forward – borrowed from the French in the 14th century. It is to call attention to in Latin. It is a plan and a purpose. It is to direct a course of action. The Constitution offers a course of action for the church and the people of the church to use this doctrinal text in common and private devotions.
The full phrase with which Olver regards imprecise is this: the book’s nature is “intended to be communal and devotional prayer.” The church knows that not everyone uses the Book of Common Prayer as intended, and not every person uses it as a devotional. Yet it has been something that sets the course of action within and without the church. Olver overlooks this in his argument. In this way, the intention is more than aspirational; it is a statement of rootedness in our prayer book tradition. The book is in the language of the people, clergy have been at times constitutionally ordered to say the daily office – daily. Cranmer and the reformers desired that the Book of Common Prayer become all that was needed besides the bible to stir and support reformation. Each American Book of Common Prayer included prayers for saying at home, and the Daily Office itself has become a rule of life for many baptized. Priests and bishops have so many well-worn little Book of Common Prayers given to them that observation alone suggests they were used more than on Sunday.
Olver's stated concern is the addition of the statement in 2022-A059/A072 that reads, "The Book of Common Prayer in this Church is intended to be communal and devotional prayer enriched by our church's cultural, geographical, and linguistic contexts." Olver suggests that this is wholly unnecessary. I have already addressed the nature of the word "intended" above and believe we ought to revise the term.
His second concern with this statement concerns the time "devotional". He states that the Book of Common Prayer was never meant to be devotional. Yet, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is used by church members as a devotional text. The framers of the 1979 Book have included the daily office and compline. They included the prayers for "Daily Devotions for Individuals and Families". Also, there are the collects for all kinds of settings, the psalms, and the prayers for the sick – often prayed by the sick. While it is likely that Thomas Cranmer would not have imagined private devotional use of the Prayer Book, by the 13th century, clergy were using it as a private devotion, which has expanded wherein today, many use the book for private devotion.
Olver's point that Cranmer might not have imagined it does not mean Cranmer didn’t mean for The Book of Common Prayer to be a tool in the hand of the church for the formation of individuals and congregations alike. We know that there are examples of families reading from The Book of Common Prayer and using it for devotion in their habitations. If it is to continue to form us, then attention to both its devotional and worship implications for the church needs to be raised to the level of Constitutional consideration.
Prayer book commentaries have taught the baptized the importance of the liturgy – to pray constantly. And, there was published even the Family Prayer Book; a commentary for the home on the use of the Book of Common Prayer. Marion Hatchett notes in his Commentary on the American Prayer Book that ancient private prayer has always been prevalent and that the 1979 reformer (not unlike Cranmer’s tradition) sought to make the daily offices accessible and even to add simpler offices for individuals and families. Therefore, we would suggest then that both by title, inclusion of prayers, and history it is meant for both communal prayer and individual.
I now take up the issue Olver and others have with the translation requirement. Given the concern over the diversity of context and the awareness of past colonial behaviours, our lack of respect for translation for the wider church and the many unfulfilled resolutions promising translation, the second part of the sentence was added by the group who felt strongly about justice. We as a church cannot shy away from the truth; we have yet to have a Book of Common Prayer in Navajo. A corrected Book of Common Prayer in Spanish has finally come to fruition while printed on cheaper paper than the English version. The Episcopal Church is a multinational and multiethnic church in which many languages are spoken, including Asian and African dialects. The Church's Book of Common Prayer needs to hold before the reality of being a Book of Common Prayer for all the people of our Church. This, like many arguments, seems lost within the current debate.
Matthew Olver suggests that the recent attempts to amend Article X "attempt to shift the Church's awareness that contemporary and future methods of publication may not be restricted to the form of a book. What the General Convention adopts as a Prayer Book is not a form of publication (a book) but rather the content, i.e., the text of the liturgies. This has always been so and, in fact, was not copyrighted until recently. Moreover, even Olver points out that the church has a history of approving liturgies that have not always been readily published in book form.
The writing group and I believe we will have printed Prayer Books for the foreseeable future. If we took creation care more seriously, we would use the book and electronic media more often. The church cannot pretend that even now there is a strong use of liturgies printed in bulletins and online usage. Ebooks of Common Prayer are emerging and in gatherings it is more normal to see people using iphones and other devices. This is true in the House of Bishops. We even have ebinders now at the General Convention, so no future prayer book revisions will be seen in writing until a book is published.
As a church we need be aware that those who are legally blind, or have difficult with paper books because of physical challenges, find the eBook of Common Prayer accessible because they can enlarge the text, or even have it read to them. Inclusivity cannot be limited to ableist understandings of prayer book publishing.
Will ebooks, over decades, replace printed Books of Common Prayer? We do not know. However, the Constitution should not be shortsighted. As a constitution, it resides under the reality of the present and future context it seeks to guide. The design of Article X’s words need make room for such to happen without amending the Constitution at every convention to deal with change.
Therefore, the logic is that the Book of Common Prayer is at once a collection of texts that can always be found in a physical instantiation that one can open and read to the name given to all readers that receive two sequential General Conventions to authorize their presence; and, that it may also be found online. This is a both/and solution that many have a problem reconciling. Yet it is time to reckon with our present reality and provide constitutional and canonical frameworks to do.
Some approved Book of Common Prayer liturgies may exist electronically before the custodian of The Book of Common Prayer issues an entirely new edition. Both liturgists and canonical lawyers have a problem with this latitude and open possibility. However, the church must hold both these ideas simultaneously (a Book of Common Prayer and an eBook of Common Prayer). This is all the more reason to be clear about what is a Book of Common Prayer liturgy and what is not.
Another fear that many remain concerned about and Olver seeks to prevent is a new Book of Common Prayer. I have been in conversation with the liturgical leaders both past and present. There is no urgency of a total rewrite of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
We are at least 4 to 6 General Conventions away from a new Book of Common Prayer being created slowly within the financial means of the Episcopal Church and given the fast-moving tech trends of our culture it could be 2035 or 2040 before we could financially fully underwrite and bring to fruition the task. A conservative estimate places a new Book of Common Prayer out 20 years or more, given convention timelines, finances, and the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music's ability to bring forward the new book written wholesale plus accomplishing all their other tasks.
Olver suggests that we have to do a revison of the Book of Common Prayer as one thing knowing full well that is not possible and placing the ability for change even further.
The final problem that Matthew Olver notes is the importance of clarifying the process of new prayer book liturgies within Article X. He notes that the concern arises from the ability to bring the new marriage rites forward for inclusion. Olver omits this from his argument and reveals in his proposed changes that he would prefer to have the marriage rites defined as Authorized Liturgical Rites. 2018 B011 suggested this, which was itself a suggestion following the past authorization guidelines for the Book of Common Prayer book rites. (I believe it is essential to get such guidelines into the canons.) There was never an intention to locate an approved Book of Common Prayer rites not printed in a new book. 2018-B011 was meant to provide a way to create diversity in liturgical use without building a collection of texts in a new Book of Common Prayer. While memorializing the continued use of the Book of Common Prayer 1979.
Olver's proposal implies relegating the new marriage rites to a new category that is not a Book of Common Prayer rite and has yet to be created by the SCLM and Convention. His suggestion does not exist and actually proposes creating paths for many liturgies that will create the very problem he hopes to avoid regarding the multiplication of rites.
The Church has already decided to set the new marriage rites towards Book of Common Prayer status. We are already in a time of trial usage, and it comes before the convention. Olver’s proposal for the new marriage rite changes the midstream process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the writing group, liturgical leaders, bishops and deputies who passed what is now A072 supported the amendment because it represent a better understanding of our church's expression of common prayer. I continue, as do the authors, to support this amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, to then work and draft the necessary canons to further define our church’s process of liturgical revision. It is true that not amending Article X is in the power of both houses – to do so is also to continue a dangerous course where many do not have clarity about guidelines for liturgical use in this church.
Tuesday, April 2, 2024
Easter Sunday
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Easter Sunday" preached at St. Isidore's, Spring TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Sunday, March 31, 2024
Tuesday, March 26, 2024
Palm Sunday
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Palm Sunday" preached at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Beaumont, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, March 18, 2024
Great High Priest - Lent 5B
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Great High Priest - Lent 5B" preached at Resurrection Episcopal Curch, Austin, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
Second Sunday of Lent
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Second Sunday of Lent, We Have Gone Astray" preached at St. Mary's, Lampasas TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Thursday, February 22, 2024
First Sunday Lent
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "First Sunday Lent" preached at Holy Family, Houston TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, February 20, 2024
Lenten Meditation
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Lenten Meditation" preached at St. Mark's, Beaumont, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2024
Campus Mission Christian Community
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Campus Mission Christian Community" preached at All Saint's, Baylor, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Friday, February 2, 2024
#21 Nicene Creed We Expect the Resurrection
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "#21 Nicene Creed We Expect the Resurrection" preached at St. James the Apostle, Conroe, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Monday, January 29, 2024
#22 Nicene Creed We Expect the World to Come
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "#22 Nicene Creed We Expect the World to Come" preached at Episcopal Church of the Resurrection, Decatur, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, January 16, 2024
Sylvia Bartz Memorial Service Sermon
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Sylvia Bartz Memorial Service Sermon".
More at www.texasbishop.com
Wednesday, January 10, 2024
#19 Nicene Creed Apostolic Church
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "#19 Nicene Creed Apostolic Church" preached at All Saints Episcopal Church, Fort Worth, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
Tuesday, January 9, 2024
Christmas Eve
Listen to Bishop Doyle's sermon, "Christmas Eve" preached at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Wharton, TX.
More at www.texasbishop.com
An Open Letter Regarding The Pseudo-Religious Ideology of Racial Purity: An Episcopal and Theological Exhortation
Bishops Are Not Political Pundits
An Episcopal and Theological Exhortation
Bishops are not political pundits. We are equally the pastors to Republicans, Democrats,
Independents, and others. We would not presume to instruct people how to vote. Immigration
policy is a worry for Americans of various perspectives, and politicians should grapple with the
question. However, bishops are teachers of the faith as well shepherds of the souls of our
parishioners. We speak specifically as such.
Donald Trump, our former President, has recently called immigrants ‘vermin,’ and had said
that they ‘poison the blood of our country.’ A clearer example of racism, in this case with an
eugenic edge, one could not find. When the parallels to Nazi rhetoric were pointed out, Trump
claimed he knew no such thing. But then he repeated the very same statements, when he most
certainly was aware of the parallels.
The idea of racial purity is an idol, something false and harmful to which people bind
themselves. As such it presents a corrupt doctrine of the human person, since it is the human
being per se who is ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26).
Here we do well to note a modern doctrinal tradition which can help to inform us. The fight
against the racialist German Christians led to the insight that acquiescence amounted to allowing
another leader (Fuehrer) over the Church than Christ (see The Barmen Declaration of 1934). Two
generations later, the Alliance of Reformed Churches in 1982 declared at Ottawa that ‘apartheid
is heresy’, for behind it is a ‘pseudo-religious ideology.’ To be sure these examples involve political
movements of greater duration and articulation than we are at present dealing with. But alluding
to these precedents, as we call out such a trend of thought early, is warranted. In the case of the
former President’s repeated statements, the false teaching implied in his statements is the same.
The ancient serpent moves through such words.
And so, in our capacity as bishops, we adjure our flocks to reject this false teaching. We exhort
political leaders to speak up in its condemnation. We invite fellow Christian leaders to cleave to
the Word of God and to separate themselves explicitly from such a thought. Finally, we express
our hope that our nation can, at this juncture, by God’s grace, follow the ‘better angels of our
nature.’
Signed,
The Rt. Rev. Cathleen Bascom, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas
The Rt. Rev. Larry Benfield, Bishop Resigned of the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas
The Rt. Rev. Mark Cowell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev. Andy Doyle, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas
The Rt. Rev. Jeff Fisher, Bishop Suffragan of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas
The Rt. Rev. Michael Hunn, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev. Fraser Lawton, Assistant Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas
The Rt. Rev. Scott Mayer, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northwest Texas
The Rt. Rev. Jacob Owensby, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev. Poulson Reed, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Oklahoma
The Rt. Rev. Kathryn Ryan, Bishop Suffragan of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas
The Rt. Rev. Michael Smith, Assistant Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas
The Rt. Rev. George Sumner, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas
Monday, January 1, 2024
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES FROM THE BISHOP OF TEXAS
AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE BISHOP TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
January 1, 2024
Will Shortz and Robyn Weintraub
C/O New York Times Crossword Puzzle
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Dear Shortz and Weintraub:
My name is C. Andrew “Andy” Doyle, and I am the 9th Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Texas. As an Episcopal Bishop in Texas and a New York Times subscriber, it is not often that I may speak on behalf of all Texans. However, in this matter, I raise a loud shout from Texas on behalf of our people and from whence the term Tex-Mex finds its locus.
Some will assume that Tex-Mex is a mere combination of Texas and Mexico applied to food. They would be mistaken, as the phrase describing our dear state food wasn't originally used to describe food. It first came into use related to the Texas-Mexican Railway, which ran from Southern Texas in the 1870s. The Mexican government purchased the railroad in 1900 and controlled it until 1982. I even rode on the railroad myself at the young age of 8 – but I digress. Over time, the term Tex-Mex was used to describe our Tejano siblings, Texans of Mexican descent.
I refer you to an article in “The New York Times” dated August 11, 1963, when legendary food critic Craig Claiborne discovered the term and wrote, "In the Mexican border district, a dish of chili knows no season." Though not inventing the word, it is here that the Times first recognized its use to describe what we had been eating since the 1800's. Later, Diana Kennedy published the first Mexican cookbook in which the term Tex-Mex gained even more notoriety. Our own Lisa Fain from my diocese and author of The Homesick Texan, reviewed by the Times in 2011, brings life to Tex-Mex for many across the country - even Texans living abroad. I point all of this out because the term “Tex-Mex” was not discovered by the New York Times but is instead lifted from its original country – Texas. In our state, an unlikely clash of Mexican and Texas cuisines rooted in a mestizaje of people brought forth the miraculous gift of Tex-Mex. From this cultural mestizo, we have tasted Barbacoa, nachos, tortillas, and burritos, which rose in popularity.
The Tex-Mex food group does indeed include tacos. Tacos al carbon was simple ranch food eaten by rancheros for many years, handmade tortillas and beef or chicken. This soft taco was eventually brought to widespread consumption by many, including our own Texas queen of Tex-Mex, Mama Maria Ninfa Rodriguez Laurenzo. She became beloved in the hearts of Texans by teaching us how to eat tacos from the early days of her taco stand – a precursor to today's food trucks. May her memory be a blessing.
I bring all of this to your attention because in the “New York Times” Friday Crossword Puzzle (12/29/2023), the hint provided was "Tex-Mex condiment." The answer was: "Taco Sauce." Let me point out the difficulty with your clue and answer.
First, "Taco sauce" in Ireland is called "burger sauce" everywhere else. "Taco sauce" is a mixture of ketchup, Mayo and sometimes mustard, with a few spices. In America, it's like what they put on In-N-Out Burger. It's never put on Tacos. In Ireland, it has no relationship to Tex-Mex. Furthermore, I discovered that "Taco Sauce" was first made in Longford, Ireland, by a company founded by Albert Reynolds's grandfather and originally called This Awesome Condiment Organization. They changed its name to TACO during the dot com bubble, and it has nothing to do with tacos.
Second, the American version of the term "taco sauce" may find its etymology within the savory original recipes of Emilio Carlos Ortega, the eleventh child of Emigdio and Aria Conception Jacinta, who became the founder of the Ortega Chili Company. He was the first person in California to make “Spanish Chili Sauce” and made it right there in his mother's kitchen at the Ortega family adobe home. That happened in 1897, thus creating the Ortega family's legendary “taco sauce”, which B&G Foods has since purchased. I point out that this is not originally Tex-Mex, for it is from California.
Condiments for Tex-Mex tacos may include guacamole, sour cream, and grilled vegetables, lettuce, onion, tomatoes, chiles and SALSA. There is indeed an enchilada sauce or gravy in Tex-Mex dishes, but that is different.
I know that Taco Bell does indeed pass out "taco sauce" packets which are labeled as such. Taco Bell, I remind you, was founded by Glenn Bell in California. (It is important to note it is fake history to believe Glenn Bell also created hard-shell tacos. These were first created in Mexico and made their way to Texas and California.)
Therefore, I suggest the appropriate hint for the puzzle for Friday should be: "Cali-Mex (or Mexicali) condiment." If the desired answer is to be: "Taco Sauce." If the answer you want is "salsa", then the hint needs to be Tex-Mex condiment. For neither is salsa created by Taco Bell or from California.
You both are much wiser than I am. Full disclosure requires that I confess that doing one of your puzzles takes me 30 to 40 minutes. You may indeed point out that salsa is translated into English as sauce. However, by doing so, you have removed the mix of cultural expression that makes Tex-Mex a unique food group. Furthermore, you blend it with a confusing California history of mestizo food, which deserves etymological respect.
Faithfully yours,
C. Andrew Doyle, D.D.,
IX Bishop of Texas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)