One statement produced four different headlines: “Episcopal Bishops stand their ground” (The Times- Picayune, New Orleans), “Episcopal Bishops reject Anglican Church’s orders” (New York Times), “Episcopal Bishops make concessions for the sake of unity” (USA Today), and “Episcopal leaders pledge ”˜restraint’ on gay support” (Des Moines Register). As one who was there and engaged in the discussion and response, I would write “Episcopal Bishops seek to offer clarity and transparency to the Anglican Communion”.
In our statement in response to the Primates’ Communiqué the House of Bishops reinforced first that we would not consent to any one elected as bishop whose manner of life was a challenge to the Communion, and we clarified that this resolution (General Convention resolution B003) pertained to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons. We underscored how this response from General Convention had been accepted by the ACC’s own Working Sub Group set up to evaluate our responses to the Windsor Report. Second, we upheld that we have never and will not in the current time authorize any official rites for same sex blessings. We added that a majority of bishops do not allow their clergy to offer the local pastoral option for same sex couples of an unofficial or private rite, even though the Primates own statement from 2003 indicates that such offerings are pastorally sensitive. We were also clear that some bishops do permit their clergy to make local pastoral provisions for such couples. All in all it struck me that this statement alone was an indication of a serious roll back from 2003, as I am sure some bishops of that majority have ceased such permissions since that time. The distinction of practice between authorizing rites and local option allowance was something the ACC representatives wanted to know about. It was a clarity that allowed for greater unity across the floor of the House of Bishops.
The third area concerned the refusal in March and then in June by the Executive Council for a pastoral council made up of representatives from beyond this Province to overview the concerns of the dioceses who could not accept the Presiding Bishop’s authority. We upheld our position, but asked the Presiding Bishop to explore ways to create such a sounding board through which the Communion could engage us in regular conversation about things that come up that might be potentially problematic. The Presiding Bishop announced a team of Episcopal visitors ”“ all bishops on the conservative spectrum of the House ”“ including for example the Bishop of Dallas whom it was hoped would be acceptable to a bishop like his neighbor in Fort Worth. The ACC representatives assured us that a pastoral council would not infringe on our autonomous polity but be a source for preliminary conversation for things that might come up of a challenging nature which could then be marked as such. We hoped that such a council might include radar that swings 360 degrees and is not only pointed at The Episcopal Church. The council would be made up of all the ministry orders: lay, non episcopal clergy and bishops.
In these responses, I believe that we did what we were asked, and then went further to speak about jurisdictional boundary crossings, the ongoing listening process for gay and lesbian believers, our ongoing support as a Communion to the rights of gay and lesbians around the world, and a request to explore Gene Robinson’s potential invitation to the Lambeth Conference. The complete statement was accepted by the House of Bishops with only one nay vote, and that from a bishop who was standing by his GC vote against B033. Bishops who had been unable to sign on to our statement from the March House of Bishops, and Bishops who had rose to distance themselves from B033 at its passing at General Convention 2006, and Bishops who had risen to protest the inability simply to pass the Windsor report at that same Convention all declared themselves of one mind in our response to the Primates. One mind did not mean of the same opinion on the matters at hand, but that we had stated our positions as clearly and openly as we could. Only those who had already decided on the outcome and seemed to be there only to be heard by the Archbishop of Canterbury ”“ Pittsburgh, West Kansas and Quincy ”“ leaving when he did, as well as those who did not attend at all”“ Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Springfield ”“ exempted themselves from the response process altogether.
The Bishop of Rio Grande, however, was in a class by himself, as with great emotion and humility he announced his resignation from The Episcopal Church and his desire to enter the Roman Catholic Church. His profound, personal theological statement and his warmth of feeling for his fellow Bishops as he explained his reasons, was a highlight. In one sense it was the Church at its best in a most sorrowful time, and the standing ovation and embraces he received afterwards will never be forgotten. It was a marked contrast to the arrogance that has been a part of our dispute.
As with most historical and critical times, there was drama. An early draft of where we might be, provided by a selected Writing Committee, was rejected from both sides as non representative, unclear and unhelpful. That draft unfortunately was released as “our statement” by an unknown source as we worked on the process in open session. Even the New York Times “bit” early and Bishops had to send out disclaimers through their diocesan communications officers, warning against premature reactivity among their people.
Whether our own statement will be sufficient for the Archbishop and for those who assess it officially is to be seen. Certainly we were left in no doubt about the seriousness of the requests upon us. The Archbishop ended his statements by stating on the one hand that we were not under any deadline or facing an ultimatum, but went on to say, on the other, that “what happens in these next few days will enable growth to go forward or not.”
For me, three things were very clear. There was not a soul in the place that did not with great affection and passion appreciate their fellowship in the Anglican Communion, and we have to a large extent sought to make space for the broader conversation if members of the Communion really want it. The Archbishop and the members of the Joint Standing Committees of the ACC and the Primates indicated by their presence how much they seek that conversation. We are not however as a Church going to embrace a perspective on gay and lesbian believers which excludes them. That is a missional stance for many of us. And finally through our engagement with the city and people of New Orleans and of the Mississippi Coastal communities, and witnessing their efforts to come back from the devastation of Katrina and the breaking of the levees, we received an incredible charge to be restorers of paths to dwell in. In addition we were challenged by Dr Paul Farmer who works in his volunteer time to bring about the eradication of poverty and disease around the world to see that our constituency as bishops is equal to that of the public representatives of our cities and states and our voices and energy need to be displayed in the public arena. I was reminded that this is the conversation that was going on in the House of Bishops as I joined it, and one that caught my imagination then and still does today.
Out of the breaking of our Communion’s levees, I believe that the Holy Spirit is bringing us back around to God’s great and continuous agenda. It is the agenda of God’s mission which we can do in the unique relationships across the globe called the Anglican Communion, and it is an agenda I know we will continue with our partners already made around the globe. In fact it is also really an agenda we need to seek to carry out in an ever expanding communion of all of Christ’s followers regardless of our diverse and particular ecclesiological personalities. For there is never a shortage of opportunity to be united in mission, if we have the will. In fact life is too short to have it any other way, and the need for God’s love and care too great and too urgent.
–(The Rt. Rev.) Alan Scarfe is Bishop of Iowa
I wonder if they ever considered a listening process for those who are conservative and actually believe what is said in the creeds, the Bible, and the 39 Articles.
No, Mathematicus, they don’t. Because however often they lie to us, however often the threaten us, however far from Christ they move–we allow it. The tiny population of homosexuals fights for that agenda and makes progress. We orthodox, many more in number and actually Christians, for decades have failed to stand up for our “agenda.” We wait for the eternal next meeting. We listen to people who call themselves “bishop” but who have no link to the Apostles (listen to them?–we ELECT them). We foolishly believe that Canterbury is anything but a liberal activist appointed by a liberal government in England. Listen to us? Not bloody likely. They bet that in time we will die off, the few true conservatives bishops will be replaced, and the Global South will have all they can handle dealing with their own people. And we sit, waiting for them to listen to us–giving them all they need. And that is time.
Its not just the homosexuals – but every leftist – they ally and usually get round to everyone’s agenda (they have now departed from the boil the frog slowly policy). I wonder if in the listening process there is the posibility to hear the word no and accept it.
Trust me, any statement that can generate 4 totally different headlines like that ain’t clear and ain’t unambiguous.
the snarkster
Excellent point, Snarkster.
“We were also clear that some bishops do permit their clergy to make local pastoral provisions for such couples.”
Houston, we have a problem. It wasn’t clear enough for the JST to interpet it correctly.
The sad thing is, that it is in fact, clear enough for anyone who want to see it.
And, Br. Michael, opaque enough for anyone who doesn’t want to see it.
What is clear from the four headlines is that they failed. Instead the headline should read ‘HOB seek to offer confusion and they succeed!’
enough conversation already. we need to just get on with a split; their endless nattering just prolongs the agony. they want to stay in the communion because they believe that eventually everyone else will view the Bible as irrelevant as they do now, if they just keep talking somehow it will make everything true…
Do you guys actually read the stuff you write?
#10: Litle by little, we are growing in numbers, that is, the people who say, “Enough chatter. Send TEC packing and let’s get on with our mission as a church.” And yet, what we need is a leader, someone important enough to speak out in public and be heard, and we have no such leader. Clearly the ABC is not such. I have encouraged Kendall to actually DO something (See the blog below on Chane) Well, he has declined to lead, and he won’t even address the issue. This is too bad, because he has the presence to speak up in op ed pieces in the important newspapers. If he would speak clearly and plainly (see again my comments on the Chane thing), others would back him – indeed, many would back him. We need a voice, and if he will not speak, who will? MOreover, “to get on with our lives” means that we need a common program, a common goal, and the organization to implements these elements. Without a leader, none of this can be built. What do we do? This is not a rhetorical question, but a request for a practical solution. Larry
Incidentally, I wrote to the Dean of the cathefral in Portland, Me. and the bishop who is the president of the ACA House of Bishops, saying “Why have you said nothing at all in all the TEC mess? Why have youo stood up for nothing? Why act as if it is all business as usual?” Obviously, I got no reply. So there is no point in looking for a leader in my own branch of Anglicanism. Larry
#12 Larry:
Isn’t +Duncan acting in the role you’re looking for?
If one statement produces four irreconciliable headlines have those who produced it been clear?