Aiya Iluvatar

House of Bishops Meeting Result

So the closing ceremonies of the House of Bishops (HOB) meeting to end all House of Bishops meetings have taken place, a statement has been issued, and the spin (including my rather centrifugal one) begins. So what's up? There are two items I'd like to comment on.

The first is the Presiding Bishop's naming of eight bishops to serve as "Episcopal Visitors." This was, IMHO, a breathtaking, intelligent move. I think Katherine Jefferts Schori (KJS) is the only person I have ever encountered who can be shrewd and gracious at the same time. It is clear that the "Primatial Vicar" scheme suggested by the Primates is dead in the water due to the way that such a council might impact property decisions in the US. Her naming of these visitors and the indication that she is willing to deputize them to handle her canonical visitation requirements shows a lot of graciousness. She has left the details up to those requesting the oversight. The chosen bishops include members who should be acceptable to anyone on the conservative side, including "Frank Brookhart of Montana, Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina (based in Columbia, S.C.), John Howe of Central Florida (based in Orlando), Gary Lillibridge of West Texas (based in San Antonio), Michael Smith of North Dakota, James Stanton of Dallas, and Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island, together with retired Connecticut Bishop Clarence Coleridge." The fact that many of these have serious "Conservative Credentials" is apparent from the outrage on right-leaning blog sites calling these people "Traitors" and "Quislings." This move was shrewd in its timing because it pre-dated the HOB meeting. It was known at that time that the usual schismatic group (Duncan, Iker, et al.) would be leaving the HOB meeting after the departure of Rowan Williams and having their own mini-meeting ("Mini-meeting, you complete me!"). Since there are now names involved, any snarky language on their part talking about the "inadequacy" of alternate primatial provision are personal rather than abstract. KJS has acted graciously, and any negative response from the schismatics will appear to be petulant and impolite. Not mate, but check.

The second is the document generated by the meeting, "House of Bishops response 'to questions and concerns raised by our Anglican Communion partners'." This document is an impressive work of listening and compromise. I guarantee it will make no one on the left or right completely happy, but it points a way forward. The basic points of the document are this:

1. A reconfirmation that B033 calls for 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." In the discussion there is a statement that "The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains." This is the first explicit statement of this understanding of B033, although I think everyone understood this at the time of its passage.
2. A pledge to not authorize public rites for same-sex blessing. However, it acknowledges that bishops may authorize a breadth of pastoral response for the needs of GLBT people and cites the Primates' 2003 communique for support.
3. They commend KJS' plan for Episcopal Visitors (see above)
4. They deplore incursions into the US by foreign bishops, citing the Windsor Report, Lambeth Conference resolutions, and the Ecumenical Councils (Nicea).
5. They commend further communion-wide consultation, as long as it is within the Consitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
6. They call for increased emphasis on the "Listening Process" to the witness of GLBT Christians, and encourage the Anglican Consultative Council to become invovled (as opposed to those Instruments of Unity that are made up exculsively of bishops.)
7. They thank the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Lambeth Invitations and urge him to find a way for +Gene Robinson to paricipate fully.
8. They call, unequivacally (and strongly), for the recommitment of Anglicans to the "civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons."

So what do they hope to accomplish with this document? Contrary to press reports, I don't see this as a "last-ditch effort" to keep the schisimatic dioceses within the Episcopal Church. I fully expect to see Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, et. al, to attempt to leave the Episcopal Church after the September 30th "deadline" passes. The issues for them became more about power than about theology long ago and I think they have travelled too far down that path for their pride to allow them to come back. This document is aimed at the "Windsor Bishops," the moderate Conservatives such as Jenkins and Howe who are loyal to the Episcopal Church but are concerned about the effect of our decisions on relations with the Anglican Communion. It is also addressed to those moderate elements within the Anglican Communion who really want to see the Episcopal Church continue as a full member. It will not make the "Akinolites" happy. I predict a split within the Anglican Communion as well. What this document does is minimize the effects of both Episcopal and Anglican splits by giving moderates something to point to.

The extreme right is not going to be pleased with this document. Anything that continues dialog and shows forbearance on our part draws venom from their statements that we are not listening to anyone else or concerned about mission. They keep saying that we are unilateralists, and we keep proving them (at least partially) wrong. This has to be frustrating for them.

I would appeal directly to those on the left. This may look as a defeat, but think in strategic terms, not tactical ones. There is a larger picture here. Throughout the world GLBT people are not just facing "incomplete inclusion," but death and imprisonment. Our participation in the Anglican Communion allows us to have a "bully pulpit" to work on issues of "civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons." If we can use our position to promote the global civil rights of GLBT people, Is a period of "incomplete inclusion" not worth it? Or are we really unilateralist as the right claims and more concerned about the "rights" of our GLBT clergy to become bishops than people's physical safety in other countries? Our allies in the Anglican Communion on these issues have begged us to do everything in our power to stay in the Communion - otherwise their voices become submerged.

Perhaps in order to "spread the burden," we need to take the call to not consent to any candidate to the episcopate, "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion" much more broadly. Some might argue that we would also need to stop consecrating women, but being a woman is not a "manner of life" and is accepted by all Anglicans theoretically by resolutions of the ACC and Lambeth. Perhaps as a show of unity with our GLBT brothers and sisters, we should heed the call of 1 Timothy 3:2, "Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher," Since a divorced and remarried bishop would be considered every bit as controversial in a "Global South" province as a Gay one, maybe we should show restraint in consecrating remarried priests as bishops until such a time as B033 would be repealed.

Yes, it would exclude many good candidates, but if we take the restraint seriously, we are already doing that among our GLBT brethren (and sistren!) I am uncomfortable with them bearing the entire brunt of this decision.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, Anglican Communion, christianity, ecclesiology, episcopal, house of bishops, Katherine Jefferts Schori, Windsor Report

House of Bishops Meeting this Week

The House of Bishops meets this week with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Standing Committees of both the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. Originally, this was seen as a confrontational meeting, but the issuance of invitations to the Lambeth Conference to all of the American bishops has taken the stakes down quite a bit. As Jim Naughton writes:

"In inviting the bishops of the Episcopal Church (with the significant exception of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire) to the Lambeth Conference next summer, the Archbishop has already signaled that he is not eager to exclude the Episcopal Church from “full participation” in the various quasi-governmental bodies that help hold the Communion together. And in jumping the deadline and ordaining bishops to work in the United States, primates such as Peter Akinola of Nigeria, Henry Orombi of Uganda and Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya have already played their most potent card to much fanfare, but uncertain—and quite possibly minimal—effect."

The invitation of the ACC's Standing Committee finally recognizes the (short but) historically great role the ACC has played in Anglican polity, and puts it back on par with the (even younger) Primates' Meeting. A high level staffer of Rowan WIlliams has also indicated that:

"it was a serious misreading of the primates’ communiqué to say that an ultimatum had been given to the House of Bishops to take certain actions by Sept. 30 or face expulsion from the Anglican Communion. The communiqué had asked for certain clarifications from the House of Bishops, he said, but did not envision a breaching of The Episcopal Church’s constitution."

Other news from the Archbishop of Canterbury also tends to suggest a freshening of the air, namely, "Deep shock" at +Orama remarks

"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has expressed deep shock at remarks said to have been made by the Bishop of Uyo, Nigeria, the Rt Revd Isaac Orama concerning gay and lesbian people.

The Archbishop will be contacting the Archbishop of Nigeria, Dr Peter Akinola, to seek clarification. Dr Williams said "The safety of people of gay and lesbian sexual orientation is a matter of concern for us all. The Anglican Primates, along with all other official bodies in the Anglican Communion, have consistently called for an end to homophobia, violence and hatred. If these reports are correct I would urge the bishop to apologise. Such comments are unacceptable and profoundly shocking on the lips of any Christian"."

Even though the Nigerian article might have been a misrepresentation, Williams' response may indicate that he is running out of patience with the schismatic members of the "Global South" and their failure to acknowledge LGBT people as deserving full human rights. After all, they have consistently called on the Episcopal Church to "live up" to the suggestions in the Windsor Report while conveniently ignoring the suggestions aimed at them. In addition, there has been talk of ordaining a "Global South" bishop for the UK like the six or so that have been ordained for the US. This can't make Williams very happy.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the meeting. A prediction: No matter what happens, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth and some others will attempt to "walk apart" after the meeting. They are too invested in schism at this point to countenance coming back.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, Anglican Communion, christianity, episcopal, religion