Then, the Prayer Book and Litury legislative committee brought to the floor of the House of Bishops (where such legislation originates) a resolution that called for the development of liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender unions, along with a generous flexibility in the use of rites in those civil jurisdictions where marriage equality is already (or may become) a reality. The debate was vigorous and positive. It looked as if we were going to move forward. Then a bishop rose to propose that legislating this issue was counterproductive. It was moved to send this to a small working group to come up with a “better way.” This motion passed, and I feared that this move was an attempt to get us to do nothing, or worse, to make our own statement as bishops, completely sidestepping the fact that we were meeting, not as a lone House of Bishops, but as the General Convention, which includes laity and clergy.
In an effort to forestall this move, I signed up to be a part of the small working group (Presiding Bishop Katharine had invited any who wanted to be a part of the group to volunteer). What followed was perhaps the most signficant “moment” of the Convention for me.
We met late into the night on Wednesday night. Some 25 bishops representing the entire spectrum of opinion, from the most conservative to the most liberal. On Wednesday night, using the style of the African Indaba process from the Lambeth Conference, we each simply spoke about where we were on this issue. NEVER in my six years as a bishop have I experienced the holy speaking and holy listening I experienced that night. Each bishop in turn spoke their truth — the pain and difficulty they’ve experienced in their dioceses as a result of the controversy, the personal burdens they’ve shouldered, the pain of gay and lesbian people in their dioceses who are not sure whether they are valued as full members of this church and their pastoral needs as children of God. Each spoke of what they needed to go home with. Each was honest and vulnerable about what they could give up for the good of the whole. It is hard to describe the vulnerability and honesty with which each bishop contributed.
We took all this to our prayers and to bed, and returned at 7:00 the next morning to decide what all this meant for the resolution before us. The vulnerability and honesty continued in this working session. What resulted was a resolution to bring back to the House that represented that group’s “best way forward,” although there was no attempt to lock anyone into voting for it or to commit to every word.
At our afternoon session, the resolution was presented, along with a brief account of our precious time together. Then we talked about the resolution at our tables of eight, for close to half an hour. Then the debate began. There were a few amendments offered — some passed, some failed. But the resolution we had crafted remained reasonably intact.
Just as we were nearly ready to vote, a bishop rose and proposed “discharging” the resolution (in effect, NOT voting on it and making it “go away”). This move to not deal with the issue failed by a substantial (3 to 1) margin. It seemed clear that the Bishops knew that we could not duck out of this one. A roll call was requested, so no bishop could hide behind a voice vote. The time had come to declare ourselves. When the resolution came to a vote, it passed by a whopping 3.5 to 1 margin. Interestingly, some of the bishops who had voted to make the whole issue go away, when finally having to vote, voted “yes!” There were some bishops who voted “yes” who had NEVER voted “yes” on any gay-affirmative resolution before. This vote was overwhelmingly positive. Everyone seemed stunned.
[blockquote]It looked as if we were going to move forward.[/blockquote]
Somehow, I get the feeling that VGR’s definition of “forward” is a bit deformed.
[blockquote] In addition, the Church decided to move beyond the informal moratoria on gay bishops and the blessing of same sex unions. By this time, you will have read of those actions, but let me tell you about the most significant moment, for me, related to these actions.
The House of Bishops had already concurred, with some minor amendments, that this church will continue to follow our constitution and canons regarding the election of bishops. This resolution basically said, “We have canons, they have served us well in the past, and they will be sufficient for guiding our selection of bishops in the future.” In other words, we will not be constrained by any extra-canonical agreements. That was a positive statement about where we mean to be in the selection of bishops.[/blockquote]
It seems that Bishop Robinson thinks that B033 (“an extra-canonical agreement”), to the extent that it did anything, is now inoperative.
I read VGR’s blog name and my mind couldn’t help but leap to “Beyond the Fringe”. Now that WAS worth paying attention to. E.L. Wisty anyone?
I admit as someone who knows very little of TEC church law that I don’t really know WHAT the canons of TEC permit or prohibit in the election and consecration of a bishop.
Forget about homosexuality for a moment. Suppose there was a fully heterosexual man who was married and he had been put forth as the diocese’s choice for bishop. Suppose also that he was a strong public advocate of group sex, he himself had a number of current sex partners, and that he argued that this was a form of holy love. From a procedural point of view, however, all the correct forms and steps were taken in the process of him being put forth by the diocese. Further, all the correct steps are taken regarding deadlines and such and he gets the requisite number of approvals from standing committees and bishops across TEC.
When this man became a bishop, would it be correct to say that his elevation occured in accordance with “our constitution and canons”? If so, would any reappraisers reading this thread agree that canon law now only means following appropriate paperwork (dotting i’s and crossing t’s) — but is in all other respects powerless to assess a bishop substantive appropriateness for the office?
If not, if such an election would NOT be in accordance with the C and C, can someone specifically indicate EXACTLY what it would be a violation of?
Many thanks,
Jon
This opus of Robinson’s could well be called an ode to modern relativism (or maybe paganism). Each bishop speaking his own truth????–no wonder there is doctrinal anarchy in the Episcopal Church. And considering the results I doubt it was holy speaking and holy listening that was happening. More like diabolical speaking and diabolical listening. It is very sad considering the once noble reputation of this Church among many devout, orthodox Christian believers.
1. I’d say it was seriously [i]skewed and distorted[/i].