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:<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“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).<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Compare the above with what our HoB stated in their “Covenant Statement” issued on March 15, 2005 in response to the Windsor Report:<\/p>\n
“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.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Whatever happened to the clear, unambiguous phrase “we pledge”? Two and one half years is a pretty short life span.<\/p>\n
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.”<\/p>\n
Oh, and by the way, my answer to my opening question is that both statements are indeed false.<\/p>\n
–The Rev. Nathaniel W. Pierce lives in Trappe, Maryland<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/span><\/p>\n