Another bishop acknowledges that blessings freely occur, even if they’re not “authorized:”
With regard to the question of same-sex blessings, we also reiterated what has already been said many times before, that most bishops/dioceses do not provide for these. The fact is, no bishop can “authorize” rites in any institutional sense apart from the action of General Convention. That such blessings do occur in some places and at some times is a pastoral reality. These blessings are “outside” the official umbrella of the authorization of General Convention. However, they are within the provisions of the resolution of General Convention 2003 which affirmed that such pastoral actions are “within the bounds of our common life.”
[via e-mail]
A Brief Reflection on the Recent Statement from the House of Bishops
The Rt. Rev. Joe G. Burnett
[Note: the full text of the Bishops’ Statement follows this reflection.]
At the conclusion of our recent meeting in New Orleans, some one hundred and fifty bishops approved a document entitled Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners. This approval came on a voice vote with only one audible dissenting vote. Anytime such a document receives this level of support in our diverse community of bishops, you can be sure that it either represents a wide consensus, or that it reflects the fact that most, if not all, of those present and voting are not completely happy with the results, but have chosen to compromise on one or more elements. My own sense is that the latter reality is in play here. And my guess is that individual members of our own diocese will find themselves in a similar place, i.e., in agreement with some parts of the statement, but not with others.
As I think about what we said in New Orleans, I am reminded of an old saw about preaching: “Tell them what you’re going to tell them. Tell them. And then tell them what you told them.” In many ways, our statement was part three of that homiletic counsel. We told them (our Anglican Communion partners) what we have already told them twice before.
Our statement of Response is in three parts: (1) an introduction and preamble; (2) a “bullet point” summary; and (3) an elaboration and explanation of the bullet points. Also, this statement is carefully worded and nuanced. An accurate interpretation of any one part must be undertaken in terms of the overall content of the whole.
In short, here is my interpretation, followed by a couple of closing comments.
First, we said nothing new in terms of our strong desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion, or in terms of our responses to requests that have been made of us by our Anglican Communion partners.
Our description of General Convention resolution B033 was just that””a description””along with a word about what we believe the resolution means to most bishops. I say “most,” because some of the bishops feel bound by this resolution, and some do not. I count myself in the latter group, as I believe it is canonically and constitutionally inconsistent for bishops and/or standing committees to surrender, categorically and in advance, the sacred duty to give or to withhold consent to any Episcopal consecration.
With regard to the question of same-sex blessings, we also reiterated what has already been said many times before, that most bishops/dioceses do not provide for these. The fact is, no bishop can “authorize” rites in any institutional sense apart from the action of General Convention. That such blessings do occur in some places and at some times is a pastoral reality. These blessings are “outside” the official umbrella of the authorization of General Convention. However, they are within the provisions of the resolution of General Convention 2003 which affirmed that such pastoral actions are “within the bounds of our common life.”
In keeping with this theme we also reaffirmed our message to the church from our Spring 2007 meeting in which we called for justice and dignity for gay and lesbian persons throughout the world, and, in particular, across the Anglican Communion.
Second, we reaffirmed our intention to live within the constitutional and canonical framework of The Episcopal Church. We did this not only by affirming our Presiding Bishop’s plan for “Episcopal Visitors,” but also by acknowledging that changes of policy on various issues could only occur by action of General Convention””and quite apart from any “consensus” in the wider Communion.
Third, we strongly urged an end to extra-provincial incursions by uninvited bishops. We insisted on fulfillment of the promise to implement a “listening process” around the Communion on matters of human sexuality. And we encouraged the Archbishop of Canterbury in his “expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.”
Finally, I offer two thoughts””one hopeful and one not so.
Here is the hopeful thought: Since our meeting I have been heartened by the generally positive response to our statement by the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates””many of whom, by the way, share our frustration that we have been prodded by a few (who do not have the authority to do so) to go through these machinations. I hope this process will lead to a more productive unity with those who really do cherish the broad traditions of Anglicanism. We shall see.
My not so hopeful thought, however, has to do with my nagging sense that in our fervor to preserve the institutional ties within our Communion, in some cases with provinces and persons who have already declared themselves out of communion with us, we have yet again postponed our full commitment to a truly inclusive church. If that is the case, then I seriously doubt that what we have said and done in New Orleans will either preserve the Anglican Communion as we have known it, or promote the gospel of Jesus as we have received it.
As always, I stand ready to visit and discuss these issues with clergy groups and or parish groups across our diocese.
Grace and peace,
+Joe
Typical. What a pathetic statement.
Truly pathetic. Can not these Bishops take responsibility for what they allow?
Makes you wonder what else can be gotten away with on the grounds of it being “pastoral.”
Of course “blessings happen.” Help me understand what the point is, Kendall, of these “breaking news: blessings are still happening in the Episcopal Church” posts. The House of Bishops in their statement from New Orleans noted that the majority of bishops do not have blessings happening in their dioceses — an implicit recognition that a minority do. C051 still stands as an articulation of the position of the Episcopal Church: we acknowledge that such blessings fall within our common faith and life. This is not news to anyone anymore … even the Archbishop of Canterbury … and the question on the table was can the rest of the Communion live IN communion with this church given that reality. It looks as though the majority of them can — at least according to the JSC and the ACO.
I’m really not trying to be argumentative here … I’ve got great sympathy for the deep wounds you sustained in the recent baseball playoffs — being a Cubs fan is a challenging vocation and not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly. But I really don’t get why the fact that we’re not turning back is “news.”
One would think that this guy does not reflect the religious beliefs of most Nebraskans – probably not even Nebraskan Episcopalians.
#4: I would suggest that such posts are news for those of us who continue to feel that TEC is officially driving more nails into Jesus’ hands and feet. There is a false idea that theology becomes valid (or invalid) by majority vote and that our Biblical concerns will just fade away because of official denial. Repetition of a perceived wrong does not make it right because it somehow becomes “time-honored.” And I remember taking a vow to persevere in resisting evil (even that which I create).
I want to point out something odd about the postings of the HOB statement from New Orleans on official international websites. On the site of the Anglican Communion News Service, the ++Mouneer Anis “minority report” is NOT attached to this document although it was claimed that it would be included as an addition or addendum. Shouldn’t we complain about this? On the website of the Global South, ++Anis’ statement is attached in full.
No doubt there are all sorts of things going on in our parishes which are extra-canonical if not direct violations of our Canons, the rubrics of the BCP, and the doctrine discipline and worship of the church. Certainly there is nothing new in this. Before the adoption of the 79BCP liturgical lawlessness was perhaps more the rule than the exception. However our bishops have stated that they will not authroize public rites of same-sex blessings. ALL rites performed by a priest except for the sacrament of penance are public rites, that is there are no grounds for excluding the baptized from participation. True there may be “membership” rites, that is public services for guilds or organizations, designed for designated groups of people, but at such services the bishops have stated they will not authorize same-sex blessings.
I am amazed at the casuistry now refined by those who are seeking to suggest that the bishops were adopting in their statement a Nelsonian blind-eye policy and openly announcing such a policy to the Primates and the Anglican Communion.
#8. We know that “blessing” rites go on…they are in the newspaper, for goodness’ sake. If the bishops were serious as you suggest and all “blessing” rites are by nature public as you suggest, why aren’t offending priests punished?
Susan,
I suppose one question is whether the HoB actually understands their pledge in the same way as the JSC, when the latter wrote: “It needs to be made clear however that we believe that the celebration of a public liturgy which includes a blessing on a same-sex union is not within the breadth of private pastoral response envisaged by the Primates in their Pastoral Letter of 2003, and that the undertaking made by the bishops in New Orleans is understood to mean that the use of any such rites or liturgies will not in future have the bishop’s authority”.
It does not seem consistent with this understanding for even a minority of the House, especially one that may easily be at least one-fifth of our diocesan bishops, to announce, soon after their agreement, that they will continue permitting blessings, of one kind or another, despite their purportedly common agreement. Gene Robinson has publicly said that the JSC “misunderstood” the HoB’s pledge. Certainly, this explanation seems seems make sense of the the apparent inconsistency.
It may well be that there are diverse understandings of “permit” at work; as well as diverse understandings of “private” and “public” (although the JSC seems to have tried to limit that); and diverse understandings of the relationship of a priest’s pastoral and liturgical functions and his or her bishop’s. (I tend to agree with WVParson above on these matters.) But I do think it is useful, and indeed a certain kind of “news” to highlight these differences, especially where they appear to be glaring (to me and others), so that we can better understand what did and what did not happen in New Orleans. If, in fact, the judgment is that the “clarity” that the Primates sought regarding the performance of same-sex blessings within TEC lies in the direction of saying “we are continuing to do what we have quite openly been doing and affirmed ourselves as doing for many years”, then it would appear that the decision in New Orleans is not at all what the JSC claims it was. That, I think, is “news” — at least to the members of the JSC and to the Anglican Commumion Office which is coordinating the publishing of their opinion. If it is not “news” to them, then their own report was a sham.
#4: Of course the AC cannot live in communion with TEC. This is is not simply that TEC itself has broken the communion by what is manifestly spiritual malfeasance. The issue is rather straightforwardly whether scripture will be regarded is compelling guidance in issues wherein its speaks plainly. In the case of homosexuality, it speaks plainly. You and your kin choose to deny this. You have put yourselves outside the doors and must be left there.
Nor is this a case of inclusiveness, which has been misleadingly used in this debate, as so much else has been misused in the matter of language and what words mean. For the AC, inclusiveness is applicable as long as the differences are differences in degree. BUt you and TEC have made the difference differences in kind. Under those circumstances, one can includes such differences only by extirpating the standards by which one lives and from which one draws one’s identity. Accordingly, on e may apply adiophora to differences in degree – but again, this is another cant word that has been distorted beyond all denotative recognition. It may not be applied to differences in kind.
At the present moment, homosexuality has enormous momentum pushing it, but the generation tht created it is now going into retirement homes and a younger generation will arise in the new century, one not motivated by the fin de siecle decadence so charactistic of all dying centuries. These will value traditional marriage structures, but for different reasons than that they are traditional. Indeed, one can see the movement now, as research demonstrates the benefits to both children and adults to a social structure in which a man and a woman commit themselves deeply to supplying the needs and necessities of the other.
If homosexuality is genetic – and it may be – one may hope that genetic research will open a path to the remedition of this severe handicap. LM
I do get confused as to whether these are authorized unofficial blessings, or are official unauthorized blessings.
I also fail to understand why “no doubt there are all sorts of things going on in our parishes which are extra-canonical if not direct violations of our Canons, the rubrics of the BCP, and the doctrine discipline and worship of the church”, and yet the canons are only enforced against the orthodox.
#4: Because the bishops are clearly playing word games that wouldn’t pass muster for a 14-year old, much less an adult leader of a church. These statements frame that the reality is, despite the linguistic contortions, that the bishops are in fact authorizing SSBs, even though they pretend that they are not. The statements also highlight that nothing has changed after the HOB statement. The primates were seeking change, and yet no change whatsoever has occurred. Your post further acknowledges that fact.
This bishop at least admits what he is doing–though he pretends to justify it to the rest of us. He is known to mistreat his clergy if they step out of line, in his view. Too bad there isn’t some authority to do the same to bishops who violate the Creed and canon law.
[i]That such blessings do occur in some places and at some times is a pastoral reality. [/i]
But is it a pastoral reality the way that Benediction is, or the way that doing the assistant youth director is?
#14 wrote: “He is known to mistreat his clergy if they step out of line, in his view.”
I may have missed an earlier reference to some other bishop, but I can speak personally that this is not true of Bp. Burnett. If anyone has stepped “out of line” (in the eyes of TEC) it would be me. And yet the bishop has offered the option of “inactive status” rather than deposition to this “out of line” priest and has always been most charitable in our discussions.
I have one other comment. I give the bishop credit for his honesty in the penultimate paragraph. He makes it very clear what kind of church TEC intends to be – despite the beliefs and wishes of the rest of the Communion. Haven’t we all asked for clarity? Here it is.
Robert +