IS this my church?

Today was a very distressing day in our house.  The house of Deputies defeated A161, which called for a moratoria on the "making of bishops" whose manner of life would pose a challenge to the greater communion.  This is an essential part of the response to the Anglican Communion that would indicate that we wish to remain at the table.  What it would have meant in effect would have been a pause in the ordination of GLBT Clergy to the episcopate until the next General Convention in 2009 after the Lambeth Conference in 2008.  None of this debate has anything to do with priests or deacons - there is a subtext that this is a diocesan option.

So in short, not a lot is being asked practially (there are not GLBT candidates currently up for ordination to the episcopate), although a lot in principle.  One deputy who served on the special committee got up and "outed herself" as a lesbian, then asked the convention to vote for the resolution even knowing what the cost was.  One of our representatives from the Anglican Consultative Council asked us to vote for it.  Ian Douglas, who teaches mission at one of our most liberal seminaries asked us to do it.  Visiting Anglicans who supported our actions in 2003 but were hurt by our failure to consult asked us (not directly, mind you) to vote for it.  We defeated it in a vote by orders.

What was more disturbing was how people voted. Both the extreme left and the extreme right voted "no" in a rather unusual alliance.  The only way I can interpret that is that they are both disinterested in a Via Media or middle way.  The right would like to see these defeated so they can then claim we "failed to honor Windsor."  The left is unwilling to compromise their perception of justice even a bit.  Both sides would rather maintain the purity of their position than enter into a costly relationship that means compromise for the sake of Christ. 

IS there a place left for me as a moderate in the Episcopal Church, or do you now have to choose between two dichotomies?  If so, it simply means that the modern American Political culture has overtaken the diverse church I love and we are unable to act with prayerful compromise like our forbears have done at General Convention for a couple of centuries.  Some of this may have to do with generational theory, but I'm not going into that here.

Luckily, the deputies are not the entire General Convention.  The Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, has called for a joint session of the houses tomorrow.  I believe he will gently tell us how much is at stake and how we need to give our new female presiding bishop SOMETHING to take to the Anglican Communion since she's already at a disadvantage.

Stay tuned.....

David+

Comments

[Ches]

How much was the measure defeated by? Was it close at all?

I'm sure that there are levels of this that I'm missing simply because I'm ignorant of internal Church discussion and factionism, but I can't help but wonder if the extremists on both ends of the spectrum are simply afraid of what precedent a measure like this would set. To the conservatives, this compromise must seem a "soft option" that dares to acknowledge that the matter is still open to discussion. To the liberals, this must seem a temporary halt that they fear will be made permanent unless they unyieldingly strain against it. In either case, it's plain that neither camp is interested in talking reasonably about options that have the interests of both institution and individual practitioners in mind. Sad, that.

Yeah, this is the part where I reflect on my own individualist, non-institutional spirituality and heave a sigh of relief that I don't have to fight about things like this anymore.

We'll be watching...

[Maggie]

:-/ I hope that you don't have to leave convention on this much of a down note.

[Rev. Tammy Wooliver]

I'm always fascinated by the way we use language such as refering to an "issue" or "dichotomy." The choice boils down to relationships. It is easier to use language to objectify others when relationships become difficult - not that that was your intention David. Really the question I hear you asking is who do I choose? Those on the left? Those on the right? Those across the world? It's a hard question and I have a nagging question myself about who the real "mother" is in this situation. In other words when Solomon threatened to cut the baby in half and give a half to both claiming to be the true mother, the real mother came forwarded and said no - let her have the baby. Maybe I'm overdramatizing, but it does make me wonder.

[Rev. Tammy Wooliver]

PS: Perhaps a follow up question to ask is "Just who is the vulnerable infant in this situation?" What can I say - I'm truly wrestling with this. Holy God have mercy on us all.