The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in its 9/25/07 statement in response to concerns expressed by representatives of the Anglican Communion, clearly stated the following:
Agreed not to consent to the consecration of any bishop who would upset the harmony of the World Wide Anglican Communion. Agreed not to formally adopt rites for public blessings of same-sex unions. [Note: these statements are copied verbatim from a number of emails posted on the HoBD list for Bishops, Deputies, and Alternates). True or False?
Needless to say there is widespread disagreement on this question. The basic difficulty, I believe, is rooted in our inability to listen. The 1998 recommendation of the Lambeth Conference (that a “listening process” be initiated) presumed that most Anglicans had developed basic listening skills. This was and continues to be a seriously erroneous assumption. For proof one need look no further than the confusion over the meaning of the HoB 9/25/07 statement. So let us consider these two issues.
“We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees ‘to exercise restraint by not consenting …'” (and the 9/25/07 statement continues with the rest of B033).
Well, if it will help anybody who may be confused, I will join with our Bishops and reconfirm that B033 as passed by General Convention 2006 says what B033 passed by General Convention 2006 said it said.
Have I given you any assurance that I will honor this request? Have I told you that I support this decision of GC? Indeed, have I pledged “not to consent?” While I stand ready to be corrected by one whose listening skills are more developed than mine, in my opinion the House of Bishops made no such commitment in its 9/25/07 statement. It simply reconfirmed the text of B033.
Now to the second issue: did the HoB agree “not to formally adopt rites for public blessings of same-sex unions?” Well, here is what the Bishops actually said (see if you can spot the difference); “We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.” Did you get it? One says “rites for public blessings” and the other says “public rites for the blessing …”. There is no end to the word games being played here.
But the key phrase in my view is “we pledge as a body …”. I don’t recall anyone worrying about the possibility that the HoB might act unilaterally on the issue of same-sex blessings. Indeed, our Bishops have maintained for years that only General Convention could authorize such rites and it has not acted. The real point here is that individual Bishops may (and will) continue to do as they please.
Compare the above with what our HoB stated in their “Covenant Statement” issued on March 15, 2005 in response to the Windsor Report:
“Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly. … [We also] pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.”
Whatever happened to the clear, unambiguous phrase “we pledge”? Two and one half years is a pretty short life span.
In its 10/8/07 issue Newsweek magazine described the most recent HoB statement as “a shift to the middle so slight and nuanced it’s almost imperceptible.” Actually, when compared to the 3/15/05 statement, the 9/25/07 statement strikes me as an unmistakable step away from the middle. But then people of good will can and will disagree over a change “so slight and nuanced [that] it’s almost imperceptible.”
Oh, and by the way, my answer to my opening question is that both statements are indeed false.
–The Rev. Nathaniel W. Pierce lives in Trappe, Maryland
It is worth remembering that what we are watching is the working out of the so-called “Windsor Process”, i.e. a process based on the Windsor Report. One of the chief architects of this was Lord Eames, who brought to it (as do other British protagonists) his experience of the astonishing success of the “peace process” in Northern Ireland which brought two implacably opposed and inconsistent parties who had literally been killing each other and others into a peace which, please God, has held. It is one of the most amazing political achievements of the last 20 years in the British Isles. Until it happened, it would have seemed impossible.
How was it done? It was not done by seeking “clarity” at every step, because clarity meant division, hatred, yes, even death (in that instance). It was done by holding together sides which were not together. And, miraculously, the bond between them knit until the pretence became reality. Assurances of peace were NOT given, but the parties were treated as if they had been given. And over time, they started to act as if they had been given, although they had not.
Badman apparently has not read ABp Jensen’s essay:
[blockquote]‘Crisis’, ‘schism’, ‘division’, ‘break-up’ – this has been the language of the last five years in the Anglican Communion. Again and again we have reached ‘defining moments’, ‘crucial meetings’ and ‘turning points’, only to discover that they simply lead into another period of uncertainty.
Uncertainty is now over. The decisive moments have passed. Irreversible actions have occurred. The time has come for sustained thought about a different future. The Anglican Communion will never be the same again. [b]The Windsor process has failed, largely because it refused to grapple with the key issue of the truth.[/b] [/blockquote]
Actually, I would say that the Windsor process has failed because it is assumed that the TEC would act with integrity rather than with Integrity. “That depends on your definition of ‘is’.”, could have the motto of the TEC. Windsor is dead.
As I understand it almost all the voting members of the House of Bishops have agreed to tell the rest of the Anglican Communion that no person in a same-sex relationship who is elected bishop will be approved for consecration until the General Convention of 2009. In other words, a de facto moratorium is in effect. So far as I know no one in a same-sex relationship has been elected since 2003, though some have been nominated. Whether the bishops and Standing Committees approve the election of Fr. Lawrence for South Carolina remains to be seen. If they do I’ll begin to think that there is a real desire for diversity.
The bishops also have reminded the rest of the communion that there are no nationally approved forms of service for public blessings of same-sex relationships now, and none can be approved until General Convention 2009. They have also said that a majority of the bishops have not approved local rites for such services.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
You’re right, Tom . . . but the requests of Dar were that bishops agree not to engage in the “pastoral acts” that Dar refers to. Dar was quite clear that they understand that ECUSA has not come up with a “formal rite” — they asked that pastoral acts cease.
Obviously . . . they have not ceased, nor was it pledged that they would. In fact, the communique from the HOB was clear that they would continue.
The rest of the communion did not need to be “reminded . . . that there are no nationally approved forms of service . . . ”
From Dar: “We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.”
#3 Tom, on the first point I think what the HoB has agreed to is “to exercise restraint.” The text is:[blockquote]The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains. [/blockquote]
Admittedly this would be a pedantic quibble if TEC had not continually displayed its mastery of the art of legalistic pettifoggery over the last few years. Remember also that a GC resolution “calling upon bishops to do thus-and-so” is purely advisory, as we learned from The Koinonia Statement, and this portion of the current HoB statement does not alter that precedent.
By the same token, they pledged “as a body” not to authorize any etc. First, “as a body” makes the pledge meaningless, as we learned in 2003 from Griswold. Second, does anyone on the planet seriously believe that what the Primates were concerned with had to do solely with what appeared in the official Book of Common Prayer?
Really, now.
[blockquote]In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134). [/blockquote]
“Pledge as a body” is not “unequivocal common covenant.” Not even close.
Tom, what was at issue in the Primates’ mind were the numerous dioceses where Bishops back the practice of same sex blessings in various very public settings.