Secret Committees and Deja Vu in Reverse

Much is being made at present by some of my good friends about how bad it is that the House of Bishops has a committee exploring sexuality and theology -- but whose members are not yet publically known. Other blogs have begun 'outing' the membership -- and thus far we find the names Ellen Charry (PTS) and Daniel Westberg (Nashotah). Perhaps, it would have been better had the House of Bishops simply identified the panel by name, and then requested that they be left to do their work in privacy. That seems perfectly reasonable, and indeed preferable to me.

However, in a way, we have been here before.

At the 1991 General Convention a compromise resolution was passed, A104sa, which formed a committee to produce a large-scale questionnaire and pastoral response on questions of human sexuality. The report, entitled Continuing the Dialogue, was released at the 1994 General Convention. However, before it was released, an early draft was leaked and then widely condemned by a number of conservative critics -- including several who have left The Episcopal Church altogether. Notably, Stephen Noll and Terrence Kelshaw (now with Uganda), and Mike McManus (now of Evangelical Presbyterian Church), along with the Episcopalians United group, condemned the report, the process, and the direction they pointed toward. Chief among the points of criticism was the alleged secrecy under which the group operated. Notably, the left (and P.B. Ed Browning) launched a counter-attack against the conservative critics. The following article from the Integrity archives tells the story:

THE CASE OF THE PURLOINED PASTORAL

by Kim Byham

By now, most Episcopalians know that the 4th Draft of the House of Bishops' Pastoral Teaching on Sexuality, which had been under an embargo, was first leaked to the press by person or persons unknown, and then widely distributed by Episcopalians United for Revelation, Renewal and Reformation ("EURRR"). After an extensive investigation, this journal is able to reveal the story behind the story.

At the 1991 General Convention, Resolution A104sa affirmed the church's teaching that sexual expression was appropriate only within the context of heterosexual marriage, but also recognized the 'discontinuity' that exists between the church's teaching and the experience of many of its members. The resolution called for "all congregations ... [to] enter into dialogue and deepen their understanding of these complex issues." More than 30,000 persons have participated in the dialogue. The resolution also called on the House of Bishops to develop a pastoral teaching on the subject of sexuality informed by the churchwide dialogue, as well as from "insight as is necessary from theologians, theological ethicists, social scientists, and gay and lesbian persons." During the past three years a 15-member committee that included nine bishops, three clergy deputies and three lay deputies submitted four drafts of a pastoral teaching to the House of Bishops for refinement.

Since the convention in Phoenix, the bishops have met twice a year in closed meetings with most discussion limited to small table groups of about ten bishops each. The stated purpose was to develop consensus on pastorals regarding racism and sexuality. Bishops agreed not to publish either statement, not comment on the content of either, until they had built consensus. [The Racism Pastoral was a "Letter," which meant that unlike the Sexuality "Teaching," it was required to be read in all congregations -- which it was in June.]

The first press account of the leak came June 1, when conservative Scripps Howard columnist Terry Mattingly fired a broadside at the pastoral. Mattingly has written fairly extensively for "The United Voice," the EURRR newsletter, but he claims he "didn't get [the draft pastoral] from EU[RRR] or any other logical place." In his column he stated:

"The complete 42-page text has not been officially released, but many of its critics and defenders are circulating detailed commentaries that dissect the early drafts. It is impossible to keep church debates behind closed doors in the age of photocopy and fax machines, not to mention electronic mail."

Mr. Mattingly, of course, was being disingenuous because it was only the "critics," not the "defenders," who circulated copies. Indeed, Mattingly confirmed in his June 1 article that he had spoken with "a number of bishops" who were "moderate and conservative critics" of the document. These were chiefly bishops in Province 7, all of whom with the exception of Bishop Sam Hulsey of Northwest Texas, had written a strong statement condemning the 4th draft.

Mattingly's points of criticism were, of course, in the eyes of the beholder:

"It's hard to discuss what the Bible says about sex without mentioning marriage. Nevertheless, the Episcopal House of Bishops is studying eight guidelines for sexual morality that call for lifelong relationships between 'mature adults' without making a single reference to marriages between husbands and wives. This latest modernized sex creed also embraces same-sex unions.

"The sixth guideline proclaims: 'We believe sexual relationships reach their fullest potential as healthy relationships and minimize their capacity for ill when in the context of chaste, faithful, and committed lifelong union between mature adults. We believe that this is as true for homosexual as for heterosexual relationships and that such relationships need and should receive the pastoral care of the Church.'"

A review of the document [which was sent to this reporter and all deputies and alternates by EURRR shortly before we went to press in July] indicates that pointing to this guideline gives a distorted view of the document.

But as of June 1, no one in the leadership of Integrity had seen Draft 4 of the pastoral. Louie Crew immediately posted his concerns about the breach of confidentiality. Mattingly responded electronically on June 3:

"Quite frankly, there are so many copies of the 4th draft floating around that you can get it all over the place. A question for you: Honestly, you DON'T have the 4th draft? I will be stunned if you don't have it."

When Crew did not answer his query by June 6, Mattingly wrote:

"So I will assume ('Man For All Seasons' is one of my favorite movies) that your silence is the same as an affirmative answer to my question: Do you have a copy of the 4th draft? The follow-up question, of course, might be: What role did you plan in helping with the research of the 4th draft?"

This time Crew responded:

"How dare you bully me by sending me unsolicited material and then presuming all manner of things by my silence! How do you expect anyone to trust you? I have not seen the 4th draft. I have had no role in helping with the research for any of the pastoral.

"Both of my bishops have much too much integrity to share with me any material they are not supposed to share, and I would never violate material shared with me in the manner that you have done. You have taken it upon yourself to tell the whole world only those parts that you want the world to see. As a deputy I am appalled that you have so little concern for the processes set in place by General Convention. I would have preferred a more open discussion myself, but that is not what we as a church chose to put in place."

Mattingly apologized to Crew that day, but said:

"My point was that I have had trouble finding many people in the Episcopal Church who have not seen all or various chunks of the pastoral dialogue, or whatever the document is called at the moment. I'm amazed that many writers and columnists in the press haven't already aired this thing out. It's probably hard to justify making much of an effort to probe the views of such a small denomination."

The final installment of this dialogue came from Dr. Crew:

"If you genuinely want to find Episcopalians who have not seen a single one of the drafts, I can point to 99.99+ percent of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark.

"Far be it from me as a writer myself to applaud excessive secrecy, especially in a House that has abused secrecy on numerous occasions in the past. But it was your conservative bishops who fought so hard to force secrecy. Why are you -- a reporter as clearly identified as 'conservative' as I am identified as 'liberal' -- now leaking the report in chunks of your own choosing to the press?

"Are your sources leaking the material through you because they have lost confidence that they can win in any other way besides whipping up the homophobes?"

Mattingly never responded, but the next day, June 10, another even more conservative syndicated Episcopal columnist, Mike McManus, also wrote a column condemning the pastoral by grossly distorting its contents:

"In a still secret fourth draft of a Pastoral Teaching on 'Human Sexuality,' America's Episcopal bishops have abandoned marriage as the norm for sexual behavior, endorsed homosexuality and said they would 'respond pastorally to those persons whose sexual behavior does not conform to the traditional standards and norms of the Church.'"

McManus, undoubtedly unknowingly, makes an interesting observation about the weakness of the conservative position:

"How do the bishops view homosexuality biblically? Who knows? The First Interpretation citing Romans 1:26-7, is traditional: 'Scripture forbids homosexual behavior.' But a Second Interpretation written by Los Angeles Bishop Frederick Borsch says: 'The complete lack of reference to homosexuality in Jesus' words and in the Gospels ... may mean that it was not considered particularly threatening.' Conservative bishops fought to have the traditional point of view included, and it was, but placed next to Borsch's more polished advocacy that 'homosexual orientation was unknown to biblical authors.' Thus, the conservatives have been co-opted -- and even misled. For the document's guidelines have gotten more libertarian."

McManus then quotes the only bishop to speak publicly about the document before its release by EURRR:

"It's horrendous" says Rio Grande Bishop Terence Kelshaw. "It's a minority report for the affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle that 80% of church members don't want. We give no guidance to young people who are not homosexual for their personal development."

Even before McManus' article appeared, Kelshaw was widely viewed as the most likely source for the "leak" of the document. Before being elected bishop, Kelshaw was a member of the faculty of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, the conservative seminary in Ambridge, Penn., and has been rabidly anti-lesgay in his pronouncements in the House of Bishops.

McManus' article also was the first public acknowledgement by EURRR that they had copies of the draft.

"The Rev. Todd Wetzel, director of Episcopalians United, a conservative coalition, sights: 'It undercuts the authority of Scripture. ... It substitutes in its place the paramount value of human experience.'"

A few other newspapers picked up the story in the next few days, but usually in only summary fashion. Just as the story seemed to be dying down, EURRR announced on June 23 that it was making copies available to anyone who wanted them. The July issue of "The United Voice," issued on that day, included very selective excerpts and the entire pastoral guidelines section. EURRR justified this, in a lead editorial, entitled "Breaking the Silence."

"The 15-member committee charged with preparing a Pastoral Teaching on sexuality for the House of Bishops has declared its work embargoed since the first draft. The committee's *unilateral* decision has made the process needlessly furtive and anything but a true dialogue about the Church's teachings on sexual morality."

The justification continued in Todd Wetzel's signed editorial, "Publish Sad Tidings: The Fourth Draft is a Disaster."

"EU has chosen to publish the fourth draft for several reasons:

"- The mass media began reporting on the Pastoral Guidelines in early June. It's time somebody in the Church offered a comprehensive picture of the Pastoral Teaching.

"- *The embargo on all drafts was an arbitrary decision of the A104sa Committee.* Resolution A104sa neither required nor recommended a secretive process for preparing the Pastoral Teaching.

"- This secretive process has been unhealthy in the life of the Church, leading to distrust and gossip, and excluding nearly all lay people and clergy from a crucial discussion.

"- The fourth draft of 'Continuing the Dialogue' is every bit the theological travesty as suggested by rumors circulating throughout the Church.

Of course, as with all EURRR reporting, there was considerable untruth and half-truth in this justification. While A104sa did not call for secrecy, the embargo was a decision of the House of Bishops, not the A104sa Committee. This was confirmed in an interview with the Rt. Rev. Sam Hulsey who heads the Kanuga Planning Team for the House of Bishops, whose committee recommended the embargo. Moreover, EURRR may have been using its own selective release of the draft and the subsequent coverage to justify its broadscale release. EURRR's admitted purpose is to derail the pastoral:

"'Continuing the Dialogue' attempts to codify the local option, in which bishops are free to ordain noncelibate homosexuals and priests are free -- in the name of pastoral care -- to bless same-sex unions. The revisionist theology reflected in 'Continuing the Dialogue,' and the false peace offered by the local option, merely increases the pressure to reject the Church's traditional teachings on sexual morality.

"The committee, however, has shown a repeated willingness to ignore the concerns of orthodox bishops and to move the document further into heterodoxy.

"... Finally, we encourage you to let your bishop know what you think about 'Continuing the Dialogue.' The future of the Episcopal Church is far too important to be shaped by a purported dialogue held behind closed doors and resulting in heterodoxy by pronouncement."

One of the articles in "The United Voice" is by Stephen F. Noll, Professor of Biblical Studies and Academic Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, who apparent has had access to all of the drafts:

"I have followed the drafts of the House of Bishops' pastoral teaching on sexuality since Fall 1993. The committee appointed by the House of Bishops to produce this new teaching has maintained a consistency of purpose throughout -- to legitimate homosexual practice -- muddled only enough in its wording of earlier versions to appear 'inclusive' of all views.

"... In conclusion, it seems clear from reading the drafts sequentially that the drafting committee is intent on advocating a sea change in the moral teaching of the Christian faith. We may be thankful the latest draft is even more clear-cut than the earlier ones, as it becomes obvious that conservative objections cannot be incorporated into this document without leading to theological chaos."

Apparently the drafts of this pastoral were confidential only from Integrity and the lesgay community, while they were widely available in Ambridge.

In another low blow, and a foretaste of tactics to come in Indianapolis, EURRR also condemned the composition of the A104sa Committee, particularly the Rev. Jane Garrett, who is openly lesbian. This, they suggest, automatically invalidates the document, while the presence of Bishop Harry Shipps, who recently called for the excommunication of all "open" lesbians and gay men ["Voice," Summer, 1993], is necessary to represent the true feelings of the Church.

By now, the 4th draft was widely available, and on June 23, Associated Press writer David Briggs did an extensive article. He interviewed numerous people:

"The document doesn't take a stand one way or the other, basically," said the Rev. Jane N. Garrett, a member of the drafting committee. "It leaves everything open for a continuation of the dialogue.

"But Bishop William Frey, dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, said presenting different points of view is not pastoral teaching, but a reflection of the chaos in the church on these issues today. 'The nicest thing I can say is that parts of it remind me of theology by Oprah and Donahue,' he said. 'In its present form, it would be the most embarrassing document the bishops have every produced.'

"Committee members would not comment on the contents of the final draft, but said it would not shake up the church. 'It's not going to be a particularly radical document,' said Bishop Frank Allan of Atlanta. 'if people want to get titillated by it, they can get titillated by something else.'

"Garrett said given the tensions in the church the drafting committee deliberately avoided taking a stand on issues such as the ordination of homosexuals. 'There's no way at this moment to reconcile those differences,' she said.

"Wetzel disagrees. He said the document is a sophisticated attempt to place homosexual relations on a par with heterosexual relations. 'I think the real intent of the document is pretty clear: to legitimate homosexual practice,' he said.

"But a leader of an Episcopal gay rights group said that is already happening -- with or without a statement from the bishops. E. Kim Byham, publisher of 'the Voice of Integrity,' said blessings of same-sex unions have occurred in churches throughout the country, and homosexuals have been ordained in some 35 dioceses. 'It's really a done deal,' he said."

PRESIDING BISHOP CONDEMNS EURRR

The following day, the Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning broke his silence on the purloined draft in a letter to all bishops:

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

I write to make you aware that, in defiance of the careful process established by the House of Bishops, Episcopalians United has released draft four of the pastoral teaching on human sexuality. They have issued a press release urging Episcopalians to request a copy of the report from Episcopalians United headquarters.

Further, the pre-Convention issue of their publication, under the guise of "critiquing" the report, is devoted to discrediting the report, the House of Bishops process, and the committee. I find this action utterly reprehensible and unworthy behavior for those who declare themselves to be part of our household of faith.

Careful reading of their newspaper and press reports, as well as exposure to their disgraceful fund-raising materials over the years, seems to indicate that they assume they hold the truth on all of the difficult issues before us, based on their unambiguous interpretation of scripture, which they categorize as "orthodox." They have determined that the fourth draft does not adhere to their position, and apparently believe they are therefore justified in using whatever means to derail the process the bishops have established.

They have characterized the House of Bishops process as "clandestine" and erroneously stated that it was the "unilateral" decision of the committee which made the process "needlessly furtive." As you are aware, the process reflects the House of Bishops efforts to respond to General Convention resolution A104sa.

Episcopalians United charged that there has not been a dialogue. In actual fact, we know that the teaching was not meant to be a dialogue but rather the work of the bishops in consultation with ethicists and biblical scholars. In addition, the teaching was informed by churchwide dialogue involving an estimated 30,000 persons, as reported on by Bishop O'Kelley Whitaker's committee.

Contrary to the substance and spirit of the Episcopalians United coverage, we know that the report reflects the faithful effort of the bishops to help the church continue together in dialogue as we seek to discover God's will. We know that our report will not be an end, but a beginning.

What I find the most difficult about the Episcopalians United action is that their organization has supporters in most of our dioceses, many of whom are unaware of the decidedly un-Christian tactics of Episcopalians United, and of its highly one-sided point of view. These supporters give credence to Episcopalians United claims, regardless of how misleading, incorrect, or totally disingenuous they might be.

It is very important that you know that I spoke yesterday in a conference call to all of the members of the A104sa committee who could be reached, including Bishops Frank Allan, Steven Charleston, Mark Dyer, Rogers Harris, Richard Shimpfky and Vincent Warner and also the Rev. Barnum McCarty and Mary Meader. They are extremely pleased with their efforts on the fifth draft, which is significantly different from the fourth, based on the comments of the House. I regret that the debate around the church provoked by the Episcopalians United action will be about a document that is no longer relevant. I hope that energy will be maintained for a good discussion about the actual report itself.

I believe the most appropriate response to the action of Episcopalians United is first to be aware of it, which is the purpose of this letter, and then be prepared to provide, and to help your clergy provide, accurate information. More important, I believe we, the House of Bishops, must stay on the course we have been following over these last years, and continue to be guided by the Covenant that informs our life together. We must honor our process, which has been open and consultative, and we must honor our sense of what it means to serve as bishops.

-- Edmond L. Browning, Presiding Bishop and Primate

EURRR'S RESPONSE

In response to Bishop Browning, Todd Wetzel wrote a letter defending himself to the House of Bishops, closing with, "[P]lease know that we are deeply saddened by and take exception to both the tone and inaccuracies of the Presiding Bishop's recent comments regarding Episcopalians United and the progress of the dialogue." Nowhere, however, does Wetzel indicate what the inaccuracies are.

Not one to miss an opportunity, Bishop John Howe of Central Florida, also wrote to the Presiding Bishop giving a unique defense of EURRR, in a letter which was circulated by them.

"First, your accusation that EU[RRR] has done something 'in defiance of the careful process established by the House of Bishops' is itself disingenuous. Episcopalians United never agreed to the process by which this 'Pastoral Teaching' has been prepared. ... It is true that the House agreed to the Committee's decision, but obviously one or more of our members broke faith with that agreement. That is not the fault of EU[RRR]. ... I am saddened to say that your letter seems strangely shrill, defensive and antagonistic toward a constituency within this Church that is simply trying to bear allegiance to the 'faith once delivered to the saints' -- at least as they understand it."

This journal is going to press before "The Living Church" has commented on the "leak," but it is safe to assume that that magazine will consider the distribution of an embargoed paper by EURRR to be much less troubling than Integrity's fully authorized reception at the House of Bishops' meeting in Panama.