Where Do We Go From Here?

by Eric Von Salzen

The Lambeth Conference is over. It seems to have done no harm, and perhaps it did some good. Certainly it was a great success compared to the disaster of the previous Lambeth Conference 10 years ago.

But as Greg Jones pointed out in a post a few days ago (Lambeth Thoughts, Aug. 9, 2008), Lambeth renewed “calls for moratoria on the consecration of non-celibate gay persons to the episcopate, same-sex unions, and boundary crossing/poaching/intervening by prelates against the wishes/permission of a local bishop who is in communion with Canterbury.” We have our General Convention coming up next year; what are we to do about this? Frankly, I had been hopeful that the controversies in the Anglican Communion over inclusion of gays and lesbians would have been overtaken by events before 2009. I thought that the radicals would have pulled out by now and formed their own “Anglican Communion”, and that those who were left in the “old Anglican Communion” would be able to politely agree to disagree about sexual orientation issues, and that would be the end of it. The Episcopal Church could, I hoped, quietly terminate the moratoria and get back to business.

Part of what I had expected has happened. The radicals who held the GAFCON meeting in Jerusalem and skipped the Lambeth Conference certainly seem to think that they represent the “true” Anglican Communion. Those bishops who skipped Jerusalem and went to Lambeth instead, certainly seem to have reached the opposite conclusion. A split in the Communion seems to have happened (we can’t call it a “schism”, because the Anglican Communion isn’t a church, so let’s use “split”). But what I hoped for hasn’t happened. The “old” Anglican Communion is still insisting on the same anti-inclusion agenda. We’re right back at the Windsor Report.

It looks as though the Episcopal Church is going to have to decide next year whether or not to continue the moratoria we have been observing. I doubt that any of us look forward to that decision.

So what do we do? At the end of this post, I’m going to ask the readers of Anglican Centrist to offer their suggestions on this important issue. First, though, I’ll bore you with some of my thoughts about it.

General Convention 2009 has three choices, it seems to me: (1) continue the moratoria, or what the Presiding Bishop calls our “gracious restraint”, indefinitely, (2) end the moratoria, either immediately or at some specified time, or (3) do something else.

The first option, continuing the moratoria indefinitely, has several drawbacks, not the least of which is that it probably won’t work. Even if a majority of both Houses at General Convention 2009 were to vote this way, some dissenters would refuse to honor what they would regard as a capitulation to bigotry and ignorance. Frankly, it’s remarkable (and commendable, in my opinion) that the moratorium on electing any openly gay person as a bishop has worked as long as it has. Supporters of inclusion in our church have been willing to tolerate what they regard as improper discrimination, in the hope that doing so would help promote unity in the Anglican Communion. Their willingness to do this must have been importantly affected by the understanding that the moratorium is only temporary, “a season” of gracious restraint as the Presiding Bishop put it. Seasons are temporary, but by next General Convention the Episcopal Church will have observed the moratorium on gay bishops (de facto and de jure) for six years. Attempting to continue this moratorium indefinitely would invite defiance, and that would not further the cause of unity, either within the Anglican Communion or within the Episcopal Church. (The same is true, perhaps somewhat less dramatically, of the moratorium on even considering the adoption of a rite for blessing same-sex unions.)

An indefinite moratorium probably won’t work internationally, either. A five-year moratorium certainly didn’t satisfy the Anglican churches that chose the GAFCON meeting in Jerusalem over the Lambeth Conference. I’m not even sure that we can say that those who resisted the siren sing of GAFCON and went to Lambeth were influenced by the Episcopal Church’s “gracious restraint”. According to Bishop Mark Sisk of New York (on the Presiding Bishop’s webcast following the return from Lambeth), some of the bishops at Lambeth weren’t even aware that the Episcopal Church had been observing the requested moratoria for the past five years. What have we been beating ourselves up for?

The fact is that the moratoria were instituted as part of the “Windsor process”, and the “Windsor process” has failed. The Windsor Report attempted to foster unity in the Anglican Communion by chastising both sides, the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada on the one hand, and the (mostly) “Global South” churches that were violating provincial boundaries on the other. It didn’t work. The Episcopal Church has observed the moratoria as requested (I don’t know what’s been going on in Canada; perhaps someone will enlighten me), but the boundary violations have continued and expanded, and the GAFCON meeting looks like the beginning of a new “Anglican Communion”. I think we need to face facts. We can applaud the objective of the Windsor Report to strengthen the Communion, but it doesn’t offer any real hope of achieving that objective.

To me, though, the most serious drawback to continuing the moratoria is that it sends the message that the Episcopal Church really doesn’t mean it when we say that gays and lesbians should be fully included in our church. It would be as though, back in the 1950’s, the U.S. Supreme Court had responded to segregationists’ objections to Brown v. Board of Education by announcing an indefinite moratorium on integration, instead of proceeding “with all deliberate speed”. A temporary moratorium, “a season of gracious restraint”, may be justified as an effort to preserve unity without surrendering principle, but we may have carried that as far as we can. Gays and lesbians in the United States have been victimized, slandered, marginalized, beaten up, and killed in the United States for generations. That long dark age has begun to end in this country, and the actions of the Episcopal Church have contributed to that process. Are we now to say, “Get back in the closet”?

Bishop Sisk reminded us in his remarks on the webcast that ”There are places where . . to be associated with homosexuality is to be associated with evil. Lives are quite literally in danger.” The Episcopal Church’s actions in 2003 challenged those views and, I hope, gave hope or at least comfort to endangered gays in those places that Bishop Sisk described. Yes, it’s certainly true that our actions made things more difficult for Anglican churches in countries with strong anti-gay cultures. We can and should regret that, but we don’t change the reality by abandoning our principles. If anything, we would make it worse if we said to those churches, “Oh well, we never really meant what we said about inclusion, that was just a passing fashion, we’re over it now, sorry about all the inconvenience.”

Well, what about ending the moratoria? Is that a good idea? The concern is that doing that would drive some fence-sitting Anglican provinces, whose Bishops chose Lambeth over Jerusalem, into the arms of GAFCON. I think that’s a legitimate concern. I don’t think that we can assume that the Lambeth-Jerusalem split has reached its final dimensions. Although some foreign bishops may have decided to go to Lambeth even though they didn’t know that the Episcopal Church was exercising “gracious constraint”, if they hear that we announce that we have elected a second “gay bishop” or adopted a rite to bless same-sex unions, they may feel they just have to change sides. If extending the moratoria for a specified period of time would prevent that, it might be worth it. But I just don’t see how these problems are going to change any time soon; I think it will take generations. That means that we’re back to the stark choice between ending the moratoria at General Convention 2009 or shortly thereafter, or extending it indefinitely.

Is there a way forward, a third course of action we could adopt, an alternative that neither ends nor extends the moratoria? I’m not really optimistic that there is such a way, but here’s a thought.

I was struck by something that Bishop Sisk said in the Presiding Bishop’s webcast. He commented that in some cultures just talking about homosexuality is “offensive and shocking, even.” Under those circumstances, he said, continuing the conversation is going to be a serious challenge. This shouldn’t be that much of a surprise (maybe it’s a surprise to Bishop Sisk because he lives in New York). In this country, too, there are a lot of people who aren’t comfortable talking about sex – any kind of sex! – and particularly talking about it in church. “Sexual orientation”, “sexual ethics”, “sexual preference” – sex, sex, sex! It sounds like junior high school.

Perhaps we should take a lesson from great grandma and just stop talking about it. I’m not recommending “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I’m just saying there doesn’t have to be a next "gay bishop”. Why not just announce that from now on sexual orientation will not be a consideration in the election of bishops, priests, or deacons? And then really do it, really shut up about sex. Elect the best man or woman as bishop, and don't say anything about his or her sexual orientation. I don’t think this would require any change in the Canons; nothing in the Canons regarding qualifications for ordination as deacon, priest, or bishop says anything about sexual orientation, and I propose we simply leave it at that.

If people in other provinces decide that a new bishop of the Episcopal Church is gay and want to be offended about it, well that’s their right. On the other hand, they may decide just not to talk about, or think about, who the bishop sleeps with, and they may find that they are a lot more comfortable that way.

As far as same-sex unions are concerned, why can’t the blessing be given without regard to the gender of the parties? We bless houses, boats, pets. Surely we can figure out a way to bless two people without reference to their sex lives. (And, of course, in states that allow members of the same sex to marry, I don’t know why the church should refuse to bless a relationship sanctioned by law.)

This “no sex please” approach is not a perfect solution, of course. Even I can see that it doesn’t solve all the problems we face. If I had a better suggestion, I’d offer it, but I don’t. Do you? If so, please provide it in the Comments. Smart, committed people read this blog. Let’s put that brain power to work for our church.