I am writing this in Anaheim, California, on what is known here as “Legislative Day 8.”
That means we are in the eighth day of official actions of the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church. Activities began a day or two before legislative sessions began. I have been here now for ten days, and we have two more days to go. It seems like a long time.
It is impossible to report in a few sound bites the actions taken over such an extended period of time, much less capture any of the mood or nuances that can mean as much as the words of a resolution. The media will report with sensation that which has the potential of being sensational. All the world loves a fight, especially if it involves sex. The media doesn’t usually get it right—it didn’t this time—but that really doesn’t matter; perception can be more persuasive than reality.
General Convention meets every three years. Its work is accomplished through resolutions which come from various sources to one of the two houses of the convention—the House of Bishops or the House of Deputies. To be adopted as an action of General Convention a resolution must be approved by both houses.
In 2003 General Convention passed a resolution known as B033. It called for restraint in granting consent for the election of a bishop in any diocese whose “manner of life” be a cause of offense to other member churches in the Anglican Communion. Such “manner of life” was generally interpreted to refer to gay and lesbian persons living in partnered relationships. It also called for a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions.
In the months leading up to this General Convention there has been considerable buzz about repealing B033. There have been several resolutions submitted to do just that. What happened instead was that a different resolution was adopted. The resolution came out of the Committee on World Mission and is titled: Anglican Communion: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion.
The resolution is too long to be reproduced here, but it begins with an affirmation of our commitment to full participation in the Anglican Communion. It goes on to say: “The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationship ‘characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.’
“[T]he 76th General Convention recognizes that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst.
“The 76th General Convention affirms that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God’s call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”
Finally the resolution acknowledges that “members of The Episcopal Church, as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.”
The resolution passed in the House of Bishops with ninety-nine bishops, including the
Presiding Bishop, voting yes, forty-five no, and two abstaining. It passed in the House of Deputies with more than 70% of the clergy and lay deputations voting in favor of it.
Bishop Doyle, Bishop Harrison and Bishop High all voted no. The Texas clergy deputies
were divided two-two, as were the lay deputies. Because of the rules of the House of Bishop’s, a divided vote is not counted as a partial vote in the affirmative, so it is for all practical purposes a vote of no. I voted in favor of the resolution. I was not aware of any smugness or sense of victory on the part of the prevailing side.
The debate was courteous and respectful. In our own deputation I continue to have a
sense of the mutual affection and trust we feel for each other.
So what does it mean? It was not a repeal of B033, though it has already been interpreted as such and will continue to be. The resolution makes no mention of B033 and does not prevent any bishop, Standing Committee, or parish priest from exercising restraint in the canonical processes of discernment. Bishop Doyle has already said that it will not change anything in the Diocese of Texas in terms of our ordination processes.
It will cause further strain in our relationship with some of the member churches in the Anglican Communion. There is the possibility that it will bring things to a breaking point. and it will likely cause more distress in dioceses, parishes, and in the hearts of individual Episcopalians who love our church and believe its direction is wrong.
General Convention is a political process, and that involves votes being taken on opposite sides of issues. The inevitable result of voting is that there is a “winning side” and a losing side.” In some ways that is a good thing. It is the way we make hard decisions with something approaching fairness. It is also always divisive, or, perhaps more accurately, it always brings into clear focus the divisions that are already there.
At one level, the resolution does little more than state clearly the way things really are in The Episcopal Church. Resolution B033 did little to create restraint throughout the church. It is true that no openly gay person has been elected and approved for ordination as a bishop since the resolution was passed. But there have been gay candidates in several elections, and it is only a matter of time before the issue is brought once again to a vote.
In the meantime, the blessing of same-sex unions—and the marriage of same-sex couples in states where legal—have continued. As is true with any resolution or vote, minds and hearts are not changed by the political process.
There is a potential tension between unity and justice. One of the bishops who voted against the resolution was quoted as saying, “I want an inclusive church; I just don’t want a polarized church.” The truth is that the poles exist whether we like it or not. The issue is not going to go away, nor should it. There are those who say that if the full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons comes at the cost of division in Episcopal churches and dioceses—and in the Anglican Communion itself—the cost is too high.
My head and my heart, as well as my prayer life, lead me to a different decision. I love the Anglican Communion. The departure of people as well as dioceses from The Episcopal Church is a tragedy that brings me no joy. I know there are people leaving with broken hearts. I am concerned about the future of the church that I love—the church that has nurtured my faith for most of my life. But if the cost of unity and the absence of conflict is the denial of people and relationships that I have come to believe are holy and life-giving, then the cost is just too high. For me it is a matter of justice central to the Christian gospel.
At the end of the day, the real question is, “What does it mean for us at Christ Church Cathedral?” In most ways, very little. We will continue to welcome all God’s children into our community. I will continue to honor and respect—bless through acceptance, if not liturgy,—relationships of love and fidelity that bring hope and joy into people’s lives. And we will continue to do the mission that God calls us to. We will continue to proclaim the love of God in Christ Jesus to any and all who respond.
God bless.
Joe Reynolds
Dean, Christ Church Cathedral
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nicely put, Joe. Except that I do hope and pray that the ministry of the Cathedral community does in fact change dramatically and joyfully, knowing that its manner of life is not a challenge or offense to the majority of the wider Episcopal Church and can perhaps more openly help to bring the rest of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas into harmony with the wider Church and the Spirit of God, as well.
ReplyDeleteDean Reynolds says that D025 was not a repeal of B033 but has been interpreted as such and will continue to be. He argues that it “does not prevent any bishop, Standing Committee, or parish priest from exercising restraint in the canonical processes of discernment.”
ReplyDeleteRecall that the purpose of B033 was to address the request to TEC made in the Windsor Report relating to consecration of bishops, as evidenced by a reference to the Windsor Report in the resolution itself. Viewed with reference to its purpose, B033 certainly was repudiated by D025 if not technically repealed. Dean Reynolds is basing his argument here on a technical definition of “repeal” rather than examination of purpose, substance and effect. (Dean Reynolds says that B033 “also called for a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions,” which is incorrect.)
Although it could have been argued that the moratorium on consecration of bishops as originally requested in the Windsor Report envisioned a response from TEC that would have canonical effect, it was clear almost from the outset that the Windsor request wouldn’t be interpreted that strictly. B033 called upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of candidates for bishop who are noncelibate homosexuals. TEC sought and took credit for B033 in the councils of the Communion as an adequate response to Windsor’s request for a moratorium. As the 2008 report of the Windsor Continuation Group indicated, both the strongest supporters and opponents of B033 interpreted it to result in a de facto moratorium, presumably on the basis that General Convention’s “call,” viewed in the light of requests by the Instruments of Communion, wouldn’t be disregarded.
D025 asserts that God has called and may call individuals living in same-sex relationships to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church, including that of bishop. Is Dean Reynolds saying that B033 still stands as General Convention’s call to deny what it now says may be God’s call?
Bishop Greg Rickel says of D025, which he voted for and supports, “this resolution does in fact, open up access once again to gay and lesbian people, to the discernment process for the episcopate. To interpret this any other way would be dishonest.” The Anglican Communion Institute observes, “This is a categorical repudiation of the communion-wide moratorium on the election to the episcopate of anyone living in a same sex partnership. Bishops and dioceses are neither asked nor expected to observe such a moratorium. They are encouraged instead to observe ‘standards’ recognizing same-sex partnerships as reflecting ‘holy love.’” The Archbishop of Canterbury responding to a question following initial approval by the House of Deputies indicated a clear awareness that D025 would end the de facto moratorium.
Finally, Dean Reynolds’ argument that individual bishops, Standing Committees and priests could still exercise restraint is a complete red herring as far as compliance with the Communion’s requests is concerned. Those requests were never subject to being satisfied by some kind of local option.
Mike Watson