Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” (1) The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
Achhhh! SSSSSsssss! B033! We hates it! We hates it forever!
B033 is doing NOTHING to make things right between the conservatives and liberals of the Episcopal Church, except to cause discord between GLTBQ lay and clergy and the rest of the liberals and centrists – while a large number of the folks in the pews have barely heard of it, or understand its import in the context of “the current unpleasantness.” The conservatives dismiss it as not far-reaching enough, and they probably benefit from its divisiveness.
Way to hit the nail on the head, bishops – with a sledgehammer. We get it. No secks for those pervy pipples.
Here in the Diocese of Chicago, this limits our choices, which is annoying, because resume a resume, the candidate with the most bang for the buck for me, as a leader and evangelist, is “the gay one.” There is no outright ban, but consent to consecration is to be “restrained.” So if we elect and consecrate a gay woman in November in the Diocese of Chicago, is consent from the rest of the Episcopal Church required? Not if it’s this far in advance of General Convention, I think, but it would not be within the spirit of the resolution. It would put the national church in a difficult position in its ongoing wrasslin’ match with the more conservative provinces of the Anglican Communion, and give the extremist-conservatives an easy “fall” on points. Which totally irks me.
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty “to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” They further stated, “…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.”
It’s not official, never has been. When a local parish priest assists a couple, in a committed relationship, to make sacred vows before God, it’s because that priest uses his or her own discretion. If it’s not gonna fly in the local parish, it will be handled discreetly. And if the priest should refuse, the couple may find a more welcoming community elsewhere. It’s a local pastoral issue. Everybody else, MYOB.
But personally, I think that everybody should share the joy of committing matrimony and having to suffer the agonies of the receiving line, and introducing your weird relatives to your partner’s weird relatives. Everyone should have to deal with getting “Thank You” notes out, and sending them to the wrong gift givers, and then apologizing profusely when you thanked somebody for the gift in the toaster oven box you never even opened, only to find later that the box actually contained a handmade ceramic bean crock.
Everyone should have to stand before God and everybody else and declare your love for one another, while your pulse hammers in your veins, and you worry about dropping the ring or screwing up the words.
I’ve always believed that the whole “gay marriage! Oh noes!!1!” outcry in various mainline Protestant churches is related to the well-known conservative political ploy to hit the big red “rally base” button when votes are needed. Controversies need soft, easy targets to succeed in the goal of fostering conflict and realignment.
Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop’s plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.
Let’s keep talking with everybody who’s willing to stay and listen, and offer them a way to remain in a way that makes them comfortable with their leadership and their continuing place as valued members of the Body of Christ. And let’s keep this in-house, too. It’s our business to repair our internal bonds of affection, let us get on with it.
Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.
No poaching. No border raids. No sheep-stealing. Got it? You no respect our turf, prepare to be boarded (see below).
Communion-wide Consultation
In their communiqué of February 2007, the Primates proposed a “pastoral scheme.” At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless, we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
Good enough. I like the veiled threat implied in “as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces.” Let’s go there arm in arm, shall we? Some conservatives are pissed that this para contains an injunction to stick to boring old constitutional rules. The church is in need of saving grace, hallelujah bruddah, and not icky old Law.
The Listening Process
The 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a “listening process” designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the Church’s conversation about human sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches, and so is well-placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.
I didn’t hear any listening going on from conservatives this week, did you? A comment on a recent post at a site I don’t usually read on account of my blood pressure said it all in paraphrase: they can sit next to me in a pew and share Communion, but gay clergy? No way, no how, not ever. This doesn’t ring true with the “hate the sin, love the sinner” bromide. Other comments in the same place spouted off thoughts like “don’t call gays and lesbians Christian, because they are not… they are in the Devil” met with no criticism, except from one deceptively modest “hateful troll” named “Tom Collins” who mildly raised well-ordered and rather scholarly objections to various hairy-eyeball-homophobe comments about gay people as, well, people, and was roundly castigated. Far from “listening,” the uber-conservative cognitatively dissonant pileon there seemed to be a whole lot of people hollering “Burn the f*660t” in slightly more polite terms. Don’t call those people Christians, or people neither. Nothing to listen to there.
The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop’s desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
This seems to be allaying the fears of many sympathetic Anglicans who’ve heard the rumors of what would happen if the entire American House of Bishops refused to attend if +Gene is not included in the invitations. I hope that he can attend, too. And it backs up +Gene at a time when he must be feeling terribly lonely.
Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian Persons
It is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: “We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God.”
A good statement, and a worthy one. Of course, the conservative, anti-gay faction (although they tend to decry their position as not being all about “the gay stuff”) was not satisfied, and never will be satisfied until the Episcopal Church boots all gay clergy and, eventually, demotes all female clergy back to “deaconess” status or less. A confab was previously planned for all the most conservative bishops to discuss taking their entire dioceses out of the Episcopal Church, whether individual parishes or parishioners wanted or not.
——
(1) The Communion Sub-Group noted that “the resolution uses the language of ‘restraint’, and the group noted that there has been considerable discussion since General Convention about the exact force of that word. By requiring that the restraint must be expressed in a particular way–‘by not consenting…’, however, the resolution is calling for a precise response, which complies with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report.” The group also noted “that while the Windsor Report restricted its recommendation to candidates for the episcopate who were living in a same gender union, the resolution at General Convention widened this stricture to apply to a range of lifestyles which present a wider challenge. The group welcomed this widening of the principle, which was also recommended by the Windsor Report, and commend it to the Communion.”
Phew. You know, if you’re going to condemn gay clergy, why are you not troubled by divorced clergy? This is the question that conservatives soft-pedal, as at least as many of the leadership on the conservative side are in second marriages as on the liberal side. Only a few decades ago, divorce was unthinkable in the laity, and grounds for sanctions in the clergy.
The reference to slavery is another tricky thrust for the conservative faction to parry. The Bible was used to justify slavery, and also to justify miscegenation and “Jim Crow” laws in this country. Now those concepts are universally condemned (or I hope that they are universally condemned, although I have my doubts). Still, there is actually hope for conservative parishes that align with African bishops – their eyes will be opened in a way that they never have been by the association with those who are very different from them. Contact with The Other will change them for the better, or it will send them running in some new direction that is even harder to justify. If poor people in the Global South benefit more from the association with American Anglican conservatives more than they would if their provinces and dioceses were accepting help from the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Relief and Development fund, I can’t fault that. But if they do not benefit more… if the largesse of American “neo-Reformationists” finds its way into the pockets of accomodating African bishops, then they will be laying themselves open to continuing criticism. And they will be perpetuating a kind of economic servitude that is not pretty, not following in Christ’s footsteps, not answering the call to support the poor.
There really needs to be a better, less confrontational nomenclature for the two wingtips of the body of Christ in the Episcopal church.
“Open” versus “Closed?” As in doors, hearts, welcomes, minds, or interpretation? Descriptive, but the conservatives come off in a negative way.
“Processing” versus “Fixed” might be less confrontational. Processing with the emphasis on the first syllable indicates that details are in a state of being worked out, and processing with the emphasis on the second syllable means going forward with the cross before us toward Christ. Fixed can mean either “immovable, staying in one place, firm” or “repaired, as in that which was broken is now fixed.” However, it can also mean “neutered, emasculated, unable to reproduce.”
Bother.
[tags]Episcopal, Anglican, schism, gay clergy, House of Bishops, bother[/tags]
