The Most Rev. Henry Orombi, Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, nails it in his comments concerning the recent House of Bishops statement (emphasis my own in the following paragraphs):
(Church of Uganda News)
The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) has clarified its commitment to continue on their path to abandon the Biblical and historic faith of Anglicanism. They, in fact, have decided to walk apart, and we are distressed that they are trying to take the rest of the Anglican Communion with them.
We cannot take seriously a statement from TEC that merely pledges “as a body” to not do something. TEC betrayed the Anglican Communion when it elected and confirmed as bishop a divorced man living in a same-sex relationship. We were further betrayed when its Presiding Bishop agreed to the Communiqué from the 2003 emergency Primates’ Meeting that he deeply regretted the “actions of the…Episcopal Church (USA),” and immediately proceeded to assert at a press conference that he would preside at that consecration. He then explained that the Primates believed their statement “as a body,” but individual primates were free to disagree.
Now, TEC has told us that they pledge “as a body” not to “authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.” We have every reason to believe that individual bishops will feel free to disagree and continue to permit blessings of same-sex unions in their dioceses, rationalizing it as part of the breadth of their pastoral response, and all the while denying their complicity. This is unacceptable.
TEC has lost the right to give assurances of their direction as a church through more words and statements. They write one thing and do another. We, therefore, cannot know what they mean by their words until we see their meaning demonstrated by their actions.
Archbishop Orombi, meet the Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison, Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, who voted "no" to the final House of Bishops statement:
When, on September 25, the House of Bishops ... affirmed that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom [General Convention 2006 resolution] B033 pertains, knowing that resolutions are recommendatory, not canonically mandatory, and that therefore compliance is voluntary, I honestly could not promise I would not consent to the election of a gay or lesbian priest to the episcopate.
As I said in one of my House of Bishops posts, "whenever you read formal Anglican communications, it's time to put on your analytical hat and remember this guiding principle: every word counts." Bishop Orombi has analyzed the House of Bishops' statement well.
Because whether we're talking about consent to the consecration of a priest living in a gay or lesbian relationship or same-sex blessings, given its track record, how can the Episcopal Church be trusted? How many other bishops might leave open the option of going against the House of Bishops statement, using the argument that "resolutions are recommendatory, not canonically mandatory, and that therefore compliance is voluntary"?
Hat tip: Kendall Harmon
Friday, October 5, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
What's at the "Epicentre of Tensions" in the Anglican Communion Today?
The Joint Standing Committee's report to the Archbishop of Canterbury has just been released. There are many problems with the report, not the least of which is, as Kendall Harmon and others have pointed out, that not everyone on the committee signed off on it.
But one fundamental error stands out to me at this time: the committee's evaluation of what it calls "the epicentre of tensions in the [Anglican] Communion."
"At the epicentre of tensions in the Communion over the last five years has been the fact that the Episcopal Church elected and consecrated as a Bishop a person publicly acknowledged to be living in a committed same-sex relationship" (emphasis my own).
No, no, a thousand times no. The issue is not, and never has been, "[public] acknowledg[ment]" of such a relationship. The issue always has been the actual relationship -- or, as the House of Bishops itself put it, "[n]on-celibate gay and lesbian persons."
Ironically, the quotes that follow in the report from the primates and the Windsor Report emphasize this very fact (all emphasis my own):
"[Gene Robinson's] chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop" -- the primates, October 2003
"... any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union" -- the Windsor Report
Yes, everyone knows the standard progressive rejoinder: "We've had gay and lesbian clergy for centuries; they just haven't been open about it." That argument can be applied to clergy with a myriad of issues and sins, however. Is it the "[public] acknowledg[ment]" that's divisive, or the actual relationship? If a single bishop living in a relationship with a man or woman outside of marriage caused similar tensions, would the issue be the public acknowledgment of the relationship, or the actual relationship?
Because at heart this is still fundamentally an issue of what the church is to teach regarding marriage and holiness in sexual relationships. As the committee itself noted, Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10, which upheld the traditional definition of marriage as a "lifelong union" of one man and one woman and encouraged sexual abstinence outside of marriage, "expresses the understanding on Christian marriage and sexual relationships actually taught and held by the vast majority of Anglican churches and bishops across the globe - indeed, by the vast majority of Christian denominations and their leadership."
It's possible that the committee did not intend to stress the "[public] acknowledg[ment]" over the actual relationship. If so, we have here a case of poor wording choices. Otherwise, we have at best shortsightedness. No doubt everyone could agree with the committee if it had said only that the consecration of a bishop living in a same-sex relationship was "[a]t the epicentre of tensions" -- at least on a surface level. (The roots of the tensions, of course, extend to much deeper issues.) But let's not forget here that public knowledge of a gay bishop is not causing the "tear in the fabric" of the Anglican Communion garment. It's the fact that the Episcopal Church goes against standard Anglican Communion, and Christian, teaching that's important here.
But one fundamental error stands out to me at this time: the committee's evaluation of what it calls "the epicentre of tensions in the [Anglican] Communion."
"At the epicentre of tensions in the Communion over the last five years has been the fact that the Episcopal Church elected and consecrated as a Bishop a person publicly acknowledged to be living in a committed same-sex relationship" (emphasis my own).
No, no, a thousand times no. The issue is not, and never has been, "[public] acknowledg[ment]" of such a relationship. The issue always has been the actual relationship -- or, as the House of Bishops itself put it, "[n]on-celibate gay and lesbian persons."
Ironically, the quotes that follow in the report from the primates and the Windsor Report emphasize this very fact (all emphasis my own):
"[Gene Robinson's] chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop" -- the primates, October 2003
"... any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union" -- the Windsor Report
Yes, everyone knows the standard progressive rejoinder: "We've had gay and lesbian clergy for centuries; they just haven't been open about it." That argument can be applied to clergy with a myriad of issues and sins, however. Is it the "[public] acknowledg[ment]" that's divisive, or the actual relationship? If a single bishop living in a relationship with a man or woman outside of marriage caused similar tensions, would the issue be the public acknowledgment of the relationship, or the actual relationship?
Because at heart this is still fundamentally an issue of what the church is to teach regarding marriage and holiness in sexual relationships. As the committee itself noted, Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10, which upheld the traditional definition of marriage as a "lifelong union" of one man and one woman and encouraged sexual abstinence outside of marriage, "expresses the understanding on Christian marriage and sexual relationships actually taught and held by the vast majority of Anglican churches and bishops across the globe - indeed, by the vast majority of Christian denominations and their leadership."
It's possible that the committee did not intend to stress the "[public] acknowledg[ment]" over the actual relationship. If so, we have here a case of poor wording choices. Otherwise, we have at best shortsightedness. No doubt everyone could agree with the committee if it had said only that the consecration of a bishop living in a same-sex relationship was "[a]t the epicentre of tensions" -- at least on a surface level. (The roots of the tensions, of course, extend to much deeper issues.) But let's not forget here that public knowledge of a gay bishop is not causing the "tear in the fabric" of the Anglican Communion garment. It's the fact that the Episcopal Church goes against standard Anglican Communion, and Christian, teaching that's important here.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Possibly the Most Significant Detail of the Mind of the House Statement
I already covered this in my previous report on the second Tuesday afternoon press conference, but I reprint it here and expand upon it because it is, in my mind, probably the most important feature of the mind of the house statement.
I asked Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori why the mind of the house statement said:
"We ... pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of same-sex blessings until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action" (emphasis my own)
instead of: "unless a broader consensus ... unless General Convention ..."
as the primates' communique said.
The presiding bishop responded that "until" was Windsor language. I concurred and asked if any bishop objected to the use of "until" as opposed to "unless," and she replied, "no." She could not recall any opposition to this major shift in wording.
That's incredible. Let's remember that while the Windsor Report said "until," the primates deliberately changed that word to "unless."
There's a huge difference here. The primates asked the House of Bishops for assurances that they would stop same-sex blessings and stop consenting to the consecration of bishops in a same-sex relationship unless the mind of the Communion ever changed on these matters.
Now the Episcopal Church is saying, essentially, that the mind of the Communion inevitably will change -- or, at absolute minimum, that's a strong hope. Any moratoria -- a word intentionally left out of the statement -- will only be temporary. And the Episcopal Church is only concerned about stopping the "authorization" of "public rites" that currently do not exist. Local same-sex blessings will continue.
Apparently part of the Episcopal Church's mission is now to witness to the Anglican Communion of the rightness of the "full inclusion" of gays and lesbians. This mind of the house statement only maintains the status quo for as long as the mind of the Episcopal Church does not change -- and there's no doubt that there will be a major push in 2009 to reverse the current state of affairs.
I asked Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori why the mind of the house statement said:
"We ... pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of same-sex blessings until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action" (emphasis my own)
instead of: "unless a broader consensus ... unless General Convention ..."
as the primates' communique said.
The presiding bishop responded that "until" was Windsor language. I concurred and asked if any bishop objected to the use of "until" as opposed to "unless," and she replied, "no." She could not recall any opposition to this major shift in wording.
That's incredible. Let's remember that while the Windsor Report said "until," the primates deliberately changed that word to "unless."
There's a huge difference here. The primates asked the House of Bishops for assurances that they would stop same-sex blessings and stop consenting to the consecration of bishops in a same-sex relationship unless the mind of the Communion ever changed on these matters.
Now the Episcopal Church is saying, essentially, that the mind of the Communion inevitably will change -- or, at absolute minimum, that's a strong hope. Any moratoria -- a word intentionally left out of the statement -- will only be temporary. And the Episcopal Church is only concerned about stopping the "authorization" of "public rites" that currently do not exist. Local same-sex blessings will continue.
Apparently part of the Episcopal Church's mission is now to witness to the Anglican Communion of the rightness of the "full inclusion" of gays and lesbians. This mind of the house statement only maintains the status quo for as long as the mind of the Episcopal Church does not change -- and there's no doubt that there will be a major push in 2009 to reverse the current state of affairs.
Report on the Second Tuesday Afternoon Press Conference
The second Tuesday press conference contained the most illuminating conversations of the entire week. Many statements revealed just how far the Episcopal Church has departed from the Anglican Communion. In order in which the topics and comments occurred:
*When questioned about how the wording of the final mind of the house statement is not likely to satisfy other primates of the Anglican Communion, Bishop Thomas Shaw of the Diocese of Massachusetts said that to take that angle would be to miss the spirit of the document. He said that the two purposes of the statement were 1) "to respect the integrity of the Episcopal Church," and 2) "to embrace the Anglican Communion."
*Shaw further noted, "I personally ... am disappointed ... that the gay and lesbian gifts for ministry are not going to be recognized in the near future in the Episcopal Church."
*Bishop Nathan Baxter of the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, when asked why there was nothing in the statement about the covenant, said "That's still in process ... we're not a creedal church ... [we have] less of a rationally-defined life" than other Christian denominations with more defined creeds. "We are watching to make sure a covenant helps us to be in conversation with our Anglican partners rather than to define what that conversation should be like."
*I asked Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori why the mind of the house statement said:
"We ... pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of same-sex blessings until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action" (emphasis my own).
instead of:
"unless a broader consensus ... unless General Convention ..."
as the primates' communique said.
The presiding bishop responded that "until" was Windsor language. I concurred and asked if any bishop objected to the use of "until" as opposed to "unless," and she replied, "no." She could not recall any opposition to this major shift in wording.
*When asked whether she saw any hope for gays and lesbians relating to the repeal of resolution B033, Bishop Jefferts Schori responded that the Episcopal Church's General Convention would have to act to change the resolution and, hence, the status quo. She said that she had no doubt the 2009 General Convention would work to address this issue.
*When questioned about whether the House had ignored the requests of the primates for moratoria on consents to the consecrations of bishops living in a same-sex relationship and same-sex blessings, the bishops assembled were quick to correct what they said was a misunderstanding. For more information, see my previous post.
*When questioned about how the wording of the final mind of the house statement is not likely to satisfy other primates of the Anglican Communion, Bishop Thomas Shaw of the Diocese of Massachusetts said that to take that angle would be to miss the spirit of the document. He said that the two purposes of the statement were 1) "to respect the integrity of the Episcopal Church," and 2) "to embrace the Anglican Communion."
*Shaw further noted, "I personally ... am disappointed ... that the gay and lesbian gifts for ministry are not going to be recognized in the near future in the Episcopal Church."
*Bishop Nathan Baxter of the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, when asked why there was nothing in the statement about the covenant, said "That's still in process ... we're not a creedal church ... [we have] less of a rationally-defined life" than other Christian denominations with more defined creeds. "We are watching to make sure a covenant helps us to be in conversation with our Anglican partners rather than to define what that conversation should be like."
*I asked Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori why the mind of the house statement said:
"We ... pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of same-sex blessings until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action" (emphasis my own).
instead of:
"unless a broader consensus ... unless General Convention ..."
as the primates' communique said.
The presiding bishop responded that "until" was Windsor language. I concurred and asked if any bishop objected to the use of "until" as opposed to "unless," and she replied, "no." She could not recall any opposition to this major shift in wording.
*When asked whether she saw any hope for gays and lesbians relating to the repeal of resolution B033, Bishop Jefferts Schori responded that the Episcopal Church's General Convention would have to act to change the resolution and, hence, the status quo. She said that she had no doubt the 2009 General Convention would work to address this issue.
*When questioned about whether the House had ignored the requests of the primates for moratoria on consents to the consecrations of bishops living in a same-sex relationship and same-sex blessings, the bishops assembled were quick to correct what they said was a misunderstanding. For more information, see my previous post.
"Moratoria" Deliberately Not Used in Mind of the House Statement, according to Presiding Bishop
At a second press conference following the bishops' Eucharist on Tuesday afternoon, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and other members of the House of Bishops clarified that the term "moratoria" intentionally was not present in today's final mind of the house communique.
When questioned about whether the House had ignored the requests of the primates for moratoria on consents to the consecrations of bishops living in a same-sex relationship and same-sex blessings, the bishops assembled were quick to correct what they said was a misunderstanding.
It is "not accurate to talk about moratoria," said Bishop Thomas Ely of the Diocese of Vermont. "This House is committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians in the life of the church. We have ... work to do" to bring the rest of the Communion along, he said.
Bishop Nathan Baxter of the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, responding to the same question, said, "We're on a journey, and the journey has not changed." He cited John 13:35-36 as a theme verse, apparently in connection with the Episcopal Church's struggle for the "full inclusion" of gays and lesbians.
At the end of the press conference, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, who clarified that "Moratoria is not the word we used," made the most revealing comment. She said that one member of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates of the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Consultative Council had told them that they had a role to play in demonstrating the gifts of gays and lesbians to the wider Anglican Communion.
When questioned about whether the House had ignored the requests of the primates for moratoria on consents to the consecrations of bishops living in a same-sex relationship and same-sex blessings, the bishops assembled were quick to correct what they said was a misunderstanding.
It is "not accurate to talk about moratoria," said Bishop Thomas Ely of the Diocese of Vermont. "This House is committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians in the life of the church. We have ... work to do" to bring the rest of the Communion along, he said.
Bishop Nathan Baxter of the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, responding to the same question, said, "We're on a journey, and the journey has not changed." He cited John 13:35-36 as a theme verse, apparently in connection with the Episcopal Church's struggle for the "full inclusion" of gays and lesbians.
At the end of the press conference, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, who clarified that "Moratoria is not the word we used," made the most revealing comment. She said that one member of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates of the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Consultative Council had told them that they had a role to play in demonstrating the gifts of gays and lesbians to the wider Anglican Communion.
Is Only 5 Percent of the Episcopal Church Experiencing Conflict?
This morning, after listening to tales from over 20 dioceses of congregations splitting and foreign "incursions" (evidently the new preferred term for the formerly popular "border crossings") around the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori made this astonishing statement:
"The conflict that you read about in the headlines is not reality for 95 percent" of the church.
Really? But then what do we make of the Episcopal Church's own summary of its 2005 congregational research?
The most frequent source of confl ict mentioned, however, was "actions of General Convention 2003 regarding the Bishop of New Hampshire." Overall, 78% of Episcopal congregations reported experiencing some confl ict over this issue, with almost half (47%) of all congregations reporting that they had moderately serious or very serious conflict.
And according to the denomination's 2005 FAST Facts, only 35 percent of parishes with conflict over General Convention issues had their conflict resolved.
Two years have passed, but for the presiding bishop's (admittedly possibly loose, intended just to give a general impression) statistic to be anywhere near accurate, a vast change must have taken place thanks to the departures of so many parishioners.
Once again, we see the Episcopal Church's denial of the reality facing the church. Couple these statistics with the comment this morning that the denomination could lose half of its "active clergy" (later clarified as meaning full-time priests) in tne next 10 years, and it's clear that the church faces very serious challenges.
"The conflict that you read about in the headlines is not reality for 95 percent" of the church.
Really? But then what do we make of the Episcopal Church's own summary of its 2005 congregational research?
The most frequent source of confl ict mentioned, however, was "actions of General Convention 2003 regarding the Bishop of New Hampshire." Overall, 78% of Episcopal congregations reported experiencing some confl ict over this issue, with almost half (47%) of all congregations reporting that they had moderately serious or very serious conflict.
And according to the denomination's 2005 FAST Facts, only 35 percent of parishes with conflict over General Convention issues had their conflict resolved.
Two years have passed, but for the presiding bishop's (admittedly possibly loose, intended just to give a general impression) statistic to be anywhere near accurate, a vast change must have taken place thanks to the departures of so many parishioners.
Once again, we see the Episcopal Church's denial of the reality facing the church. Couple these statistics with the comment this morning that the denomination could lose half of its "active clergy" (later clarified as meaning full-time priests) in tne next 10 years, and it's clear that the church faces very serious challenges.
Monday, September 24, 2007
So You Don't Have Your Diocese's Permission to Conduct Local Same-Sex Blessings?
No problem! It doesn't appear to matter:
"The fact of life is that [the Episcopal Church has] never authorized same-sex blessings .. It does not happen in my diocese with my permission."
Bishop Jon J. Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles, at the House of Bishops Monday afternoon press conference
But a same-sex "wedding" occurred just Saturday. From the Sunday, September 23 New York Times (All Saints Episcopal Church in Beverly Hills is part of the Diocese of Los Angeles):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/fashion/weddings/23stanley.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
And as far back as 2003, when the Episcopal Church allowed for local same-sex blessings in resolution C051 at General Convention 2003, this comment was made, according to the Episcopal News Service:
While the resolution will not make a big difference in her diocese of Los Angeles, where blessings already occur, convention’s action will be welcomed by bishops who were seeking national authorization to respond to pastoral needs of gays and lesbians, said the Rev. Susan Russell, executive director of Claiming the Blessing, an organization that supports gay and lesbian concerns.
"The fact of life is that [the Episcopal Church has] never authorized same-sex blessings .. It does not happen in my diocese with my permission."
Bishop Jon J. Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles, at the House of Bishops Monday afternoon press conference
But a same-sex "wedding" occurred just Saturday. From the Sunday, September 23 New York Times (All Saints Episcopal Church in Beverly Hills is part of the Diocese of Los Angeles):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/fashion/weddings/23stanley.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
And as far back as 2003, when the Episcopal Church allowed for local same-sex blessings in resolution C051 at General Convention 2003, this comment was made, according to the Episcopal News Service:
While the resolution will not make a big difference in her diocese of Los Angeles, where blessings already occur, convention’s action will be welcomed by bishops who were seeking national authorization to respond to pastoral needs of gays and lesbians, said the Rev. Susan Russell, executive director of Claiming the Blessing, an organization that supports gay and lesbian concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)