I am thinking in particular of the rather large number of resolutions which pertain to overturning B033 -- a hastily prepared resolution put forward last triennium in order to assure our communion partners that we were responding to calls for moratoria on elections of bishops non-celibate gay persons. I am also thinking of the similarly large number of resolutions coming forward which go to the question of marriage equality.
It is for sure that the parties in the Anglican Communion most adamant that the Episcopal Church be expelled or vanquished or in some other way chastised for the consecration of Bishop Robinson have not prevailed in getting their wishes. The Episcopal Church is still a member in good standing of the Anglican Communion, we named the first women ever as primate, and we continue to be at the table. But, at the same time, in the six years since 2003, we have seen a de facto realignment within the Communion by several provinces, as well as the formation of a self-styled new province for North America. The recent deliberations of the Anglican Consultative Council were frought to say the least - but the decision to continue improving the Anglican Covenant appears to stand.
This General Convention therefore is under no pressure to consider the Anglican Covenant. The only folks who are insistent upon immediate action against the Episcopal Church are largely now themselves self-exiled. At the same time, the only other folks insistent upon immediate and strident action are those who seek, as Integrity states on their website, to "effectively nullify the effects of B033 and to pass a resolution that will significantly advance rites for blessing same-gender relationships."
To be sure, if resolutions are passed which would effectively nullify B033 and amount to the authorization of blessings of same-sex unions, many more member churches of the Anglican Communion will take this as a direct affront. Advocates for immediate action argue that 1) The Communion effects will be minimal; or 2) We shouldn't worry about the Communion consequences; or 3) We will be saddened by negative consequences, but we believe this is absolutely necessary to do this now.
In my view, the only faithful attitude would be the last one. This is the one that says, "Yes, these decisions will have obvious impacts on our partners, and many of them may see them as a sign that we no longer wish to be in a meaningful communion relationship whereby we actually give up a bit of our full autonomy, and believe we are called to walk more alone for the sake of this thing we believe we must now do."
However, while I think it is clear that many faithful actions do require taking this latter attitude -- I question whether or not the actions called for are indeed both just and timely. In other words, there is a range of possible actions which may be taken by General Convention, and I am not sure that taking the one that goes the furthest down a given trajectory is the wisest one.
Specifically, I think that there is no particular urgency to overturn B033 in fact.
The resolution itself is not particularly binding, and it is likewise rather vague in its wording. It is referred to as a de facto moratorium on non-celibate gay bishops, but that is not so. The de facto moratorium -- if there is one -- is in place by virtue of the fact that people know that if we do consent to a non-celibate gay bishop, the global response will be one of increased division, tumult and disharmony. That knowledge alone is what constitutes the boundary, and whether or not B033 is in place makes no meaingful difference.
In line with what the Presiding Bishop has said, I advocate not repealing B033, and simply leaving it where it is.
As well, as one in the midst of a theological task force appointed by my bishop to examine the church's teaching on marriage, I am convinced of only one thing: the average Episcopalian, lay or clerical, cannot yet have a particularly deep theological conversation about what we say marriage is -- and there remains a wide array of arguments among those who know a great deal, but who don't agree. I feel much better about taking a look at the theology of marriage bound up in our Book of Common Prayer, seeing what it is we really uphold and affirm already, see what if anything in depth it has to do with Church/State questions, and also ask how it is we might be called by God to expand the range of who may be married.
Given that in my humble opinion the best short book on the subject of same-sexuality and the church yet to be written has only been published this year -- Tobias Haller's Reasonable and Holy -- and that a great many of the prevailing arguments are not anywhere as deep or well-argued as his -- I simply do not believe that a sufficient portion of the Episcopal Church is prepared theologically to authorize the development of common rites.
As such, I would advocate for acceptance of resolutions which actively promote the deepening of the listening process as called for by the Windsor Report, but also do the hard work of thinking theologically about what we already really uphold about public and solemn covenants between two people in the presence of God. As well, I would advocate for a resolution -- if one is even necessary -- which acknowledges the pastoral latitude of our diocesan bishops to permit the liturgical blessing of relationships between persons for whom the Book of Common prayer's rites of marriage are not an option.
There are two resolutions which go along these lines, the first is Resolution C014, entitled "Theological Study of Christian Marriage," from the Diocese of El Camino Real which says:
Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 76th General Convention authorize a committee of both houses to examine the theological dimensions of Christian marriage, to develop a program for discussion in the dioceses, and to report to the 77th General Convention.And second, C004, entitled Full Participation of LGBTI Community, coming out of the Diocese of Newark in the House of Bishops which says:
Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 76th General Convention affirm that there are no restrictions on a diocesan bishop's authorization of the liturgical blessing of committed relationships between same-sex partners.I think we need to keep moving forward both mindful of those who require our pastoral ministry, but also with regard to how God is speaking to us in deep theological reflection, and in regard to our global sisters and brothers. It is not easy to move forward this way, but it may be more fruitful in the long run.
To this end, I am almost finished with Tobias book, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
13 comments:
What I have been hoping for in our church is a return to "normalcy". For six years, we have been behaving abnormally, trying not to do anything to rock the boat of Anglican "unity".
The resolution to study and discuss marriage, and the resolution regarding the authority of diocesan bishops regarding blessings of same sex relationships both seem to me to be "normal" things for the Episcopal Church to do.
I favored the moratorium on gay and lesbian bishops (not that anyone cared what I thought!) as a way to buy time for the Communion as a whole to come to grips with the fact that some Anglican churches think homosexuals are just folks, like straight people are, and shouldn't be discriminated against.
I don't see any purpose in continuing that moratorium any longer. The Communion has not taken any steps toward agreeing to disagree with us on the position of gays and lesbians in Anglican churches, and I don't see any reason to hope that continuing the moratorium for another three years will change things. If we believe as a matter of principle that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against, and there is no overriding tactical reason to delay acting on our principles, then we should state clearly and respectfully to our sister churches that these are our principles, with which we understand that some of them disagree, and repeal B033.
Greg,
I'm tempted by (2) but probably would see my view as a version of (3). I would regret any divisions that came about. I wouldn't want to give any legitimacy, however, to the claim that division was a consequence of our actions. It is a foreseeable response, but one in which the other side enjoys agency and responsibility. One can imagine a relationship mature enough where we agree to disagree for a season and look for coherence down the road. We could even admit at the outset that we were not sure that we would be able to reconcile but that we were committed to trying. I don't think the Episcopal Church should have ever subscribed to B033 as the precondition for continuing the conversation. We did it, and there's no changing that. But the time to move on was long ago. I think that the other churches of the Anglican Communion need to hear some frank and truthful speech from us. We desire to stay in relationship, but this is who we are. I don't think anyone doubts where we will land. This train has left the station. Postponing honesty exacerbates the situation domestically by missing out on the evangelism opportunity of a century. It does little to salvage the Anglican Communion. If the Anglican Communion holds in some form or other, it will be because people figure out they desire relationship with us as we truly are.
Following on these other comments, especially Bill's: "If the Anglican Communion holds in some form or other, it will be because people figure out they desire relationship with us as we truly are", it strikes me that these comments are very fitting to the entire discussion of marriage and support for same sex relationships. Because any relationship (gay or straight) must be based on each partner being who they truly are in a healthy and sound way. Hiding or denying a part of one's personhood (no matter what it is) is neither healthy nor sound. And certainly we affirm that God knows us to our depths and still loves us; and that is part of the mystery of grace. So from a spiritual perspective and from a systems perspective (think Rabbi Friedman) it probably is best to move ahead clearly and respectfully with where God has led us a Church and trust God with the results.
Vicki+
Thanks for the comments, dad, Bill, and Vicki.
Yes.
I for one was pleased to see the moderated responses of the ACC to the various components of the Covenant. Nothing legislated to-date has undone our Anglican ecclesiological ethos in terms of humility, cautious haste, churches-in-communion, or participation of all orders. The input of all orders at the international level, I think, preserved this modesty in the face of powerful voices and I might hope reduces a tendency to blame sexual/gender minorities for all of the problems of the Communion.
I think haste to overturn B033 does not serve the vast majority of persons in or who might come to be in same-sex relationships, i.e., laypersons. I keep asking myself why it is that "who gets to be bishop" is the most pressing concern when many same-sex couples do not have adequate pastoral care in the form of counseling, rituals, even a house blessing, sometimes even simple hospitality available to them in our parishes.
I would like to see an end to blaming TEC for the entirety of this problem. It ignores some historical issues, like the way 1998 Lambeth was handled quite poorly and the existence of pre-2003 border-crossings, and it ignores that other Churches in the Communion are becoming more open to same-sex relationships as well and struggling with ways to respond humanely, pastorally, and ritually. Blaming TEC for everything has been convenient, but not really very discerning or equitable or honest. Our American rise up spirit hasn't helped either, I might add. I still find the cautious yet pastoral approach of the ACofC most compelling as an Anglican approach. Certainly, it doesn't get what is wanted in the short-term, but the deepening of conversations locally and theologically are necessary.
I don't think we necessarily miss an evangelical opportunity by being deliberative and discerning if at the same time we treat people with hospitality and generosity and humanity. So, far, however, I have not found the Listening Process to be on that level, nor have I seen hospitality, generosity, and humanity modeled at the level of TEC nationally or in the Communion. The one resorts to casting votes, the other to various forms of felt superiority that in virtues actually exercised isn't demonstrably so. Both map more conflict on our persons, rather than recognizing that discernment requires a conversational/conversional stance on the part of the entire Church and Communion.
I think more conversation and education are needed on marriage, but more generally on Christian lifestyles/disciplines and the practices/virtues that these are meant to cultivate over a lifetime. We continue to neglect religious life and the relationship of Christian lifestyles to discipleship to our peril in these conversations as Sarah Coakley's work on the Cappadocians demonstrates (as does Eugene Rogers' work).
More than resolutions, I would like to see a more Human attitude taken toward us. I for one am very tired of having so much conflict mapped onto my person. The pain of this can be numbing at times.
I think there is a way of refusing to dehumanize, a way of saying "no" to unkind speech and actions, and a way of loving and affirming the recipient of such unkind speech and actions, without requiring we stamp away or rise up in clarion calls to reformation. We have not yet rested in that space, and I recommend that as GC approaches, praying the Office opens up this space. Being rooted in the Psalms is a place to stand.
I further think that there is a way of honesty on the part of GC, and especially our bishops, that can say to lgbt faithful, "we are not ready to do xyz, but here is how we will commit to care for you pastorally and ritually (as the ACofC bishops did)." Instead, of this sort of honesty, however, what we have tended to have are nice words that are not connected to practice. Or resolutions that affect a handful of dioceses. The latest secret subcommittee, I might add, reinforces a lack of generous honesty.
My own bishop expressed in an open forum that he thinks that B033 has in some resp0ects served us well and he is not be in favor of repeal. I also as a lay deputy think that we should leave B033 alone and move on. I would favor a resolution calling for full inclusion of GLBTs in the life and ministry of the Church that honors the tradition of Anglican ambiguity, and allows for further conversation within TEC. A floor fight over B033 in the HOD would take up so much time needed for other important resolutions, and, I fear, stir up more division.
I was thinking about this and came up with a possible resolution. It's probably too long and tries to contain too much, but I hope it's a worthy attempt at finding some sort of replacement for B033:
Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 76th General Convention affirms the full and equal dignity of all baptized persons in their Christian ministries regardless of sexual orientation, and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention affirms Christ's call for the church to be one and wishes to foster the growth of unity and reconciliation among all churches, especially those churches within the Anglican Communion, and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention holds that the office of bishop is both a sign of and means to that unity and that the bishop should be a model of loving, committed, monogamous Christian relationship publicly declared and solemnly blessed within the church, and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention calls upon all Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to proceed with careful discernment in consenting to the ordination of any candidate to the episcopate and to take into full account the impact of that candidate upon unity and reconciliation within the Anglican Communion, and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore authorize a committee of both houses to examine the theological dimensions of Christian marriage and its relation to the greater ministry of all persons, to develop a program for discussion in the dioceses, and to report to the 77th General Convention.
Christopher and other friends,
I just posted our parish statement on full and active inclusion, as well as a few notes on the process by which we formulated and adopted it, at
evangeliumobservare.blogspot.com
Doesn't "full and active inclusion" mean embracing everyone who shows up in our churches? Do we really mean that?
If we do, then we have no choice but to embrace anyone and everyone who shows up, even if they happen to be neo-Nazis who spew hatred against Jews and gays.
Is this the vision of "inclusion" we really want to promote?
Seems to me we should be clear about the limits of inclusion.
Clarity about the limits of inclusion at least means that we should not publish categorical statements that we fully and actively embrace everyone, because, as a matter of moral theology, we in fact do not embrace everyone. And rightly so.
Bryan,
I can see your point, to a point.
The only phrase in the resolution that can be read in this way is "welcome all people, without exception." From the context, it is clear enough that we mean to reaffirm and go beyond the nondiscrimination canons and that in particular this refers to an active welcome for LGBT parishioners and a celebration of their ministries and presence.
Even with the neo-Nazi example, we have to contend with the baptismal promise to seek and serve Christ in all persons. I'm reminded of Will Campbell's ministry among the KKK. If anyone needs to hear the Gospel, it's overt white supremicists. Paul says that we are to welcome all but not for disputes about opinions. The table is bounded by normative Christian belief and practice. I would withhold communion from anyone who was actively involved in such a group. As is evident from some of the other discussions going on (re: Fr. Forrester and communion without baptism), I am increasingly skeptical of the abuse of conscience. I've always hedged my bets here, but it does mark a shift in my thinking from the time of my Windsor Report article in the ATR. I remain convinced that conscience must always be followed. That is a basic principle of Anglican and more generally Catholic moral theology. At the same time, conscience must never be abused, and the community has the right to discipline its members. We ought to be prepared to accept discipline as the price for exercising our conscience.
A recent Kairos prison ministry team that I was involved included a man with what seemed to me to be visible white power tattoos. It turned out that he was a former prisoner who had been involved with outlaw biker gangs and then found (was found by) the Lord. Even with the neo-Nazi example, we need to be careful. Every visitor needs to be received as Christ.
Now I am aware that anti-LGBT bigotry could be justified by some with the phrase "normative Christian belief and practice." This is part of the reason that we cited the canons, as an example of what the Episcopal Church takes to be normative.
You make good points, Bill. We do need to make a distinction between acceptance of persons who have God-given dignity and for whom Christ died on the one hand, and acceptance of their behavior, ideas, etc, on the other hand. The apostle Paul was pretty clear about discipline in such cases. And even Jesus calls the scribes and the Pharisees "children of hell" - not exactly the most welcoming and accepting sort of thing to say!
My point is that there are limits to the Gospel of Tolerance/Inclusiveness. We certainly need to be careful about how we draw the lines here. But throwing limits and boundaries out the window is just as contrary to the Gospel as turning boundaries into barriers.
Frs. Bryan and Bill,
I've offered on my blog some initial thoughts to you conversation here.
Post a Comment