Aiya Iluvatar

Missionary Imposition: Idaho Baptists Charged With Kidnapping

Had the inexperienced Idaho missionaries read so much as Haiti’s wikipedia page they would have learned that the nation has a history of slavery, colonialism and missions that warns against attempts to remove Haitian children from their home. 

via www.religiondispatches.org

It still astounds me that people attempt to do mission work without first understanding the local culture and history.  While I applaud the motivation of the SBC missionaries, if you really want to do mission, you go and live WITH the people you wish to serve, not take them home as what amounts to an evangelical trophy.  

Butler's critique is right on target when she speaks of the problem in Evangelical Christianity between "Me" and "We."  All too often in Evangelical rhetoric, it is up to "Me" to convert this person, up to "Me" to save the world. And if "I' don't do it, this person will not be saved.  It is a symptom of the sin of hubris, where God's kingdom revolves around my actions, rather than the action of Christ on the cross. Of course, this comes more from American individualism than the Gospel.  Paul tells us that we are all different parts of the same body, each with different gifts and tasks.   SOME are evangelists, SOME are teachers.  Some, I would submit, are missionaries and some are not.  Those who are called by the Holy Spirit to be missionaries are the people with the gift of discerning what is Christ-like in another culture and finding a way to proclaim the Gospel within it, transforming it from the inside rather than acting out of  a neo-colonialist agenda.  The rest of us who are members of the body of Christ should support those who are called to this task as we best can according to the gifts we have been given.

I hope that the missionaries can be released after due process, as they obviously did not understand on some level that they were kidnapping children, but that is for the Haitian government to decide.  Considering Haiti's history, I would not be surprised to see them treated with very little leniency.  Consider - if this group had decided to work WITHIN Haiti, how much further the resources of their church would have gone.  They could have affected the lives of far more than 33 children.  But they wanted the "safe" option, the option that did not require them to give up their jobs or home or church in Idaho, the option that would allow them to impose their cultural values on the Haitian children rather than bring their values into conversation with them.  It would allow them to be in control rather than the Holy Spirit.  And that, friends, is why these people are being treated as kidnappers rather than missionaries.

David+ 

Thinking Anglicans: ACNA and the Episcopal Church

via www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk

Readers may recall this General Synod motion, which is being debated next Wednesday. And there is this amendment.A paper rebutting the claims made about the Episcopal Church, compiled by me, has been issued to General Synod members.That paper can now be read in full here. 

This is an excellent summary of the inaccuracies in the General Synod motion, much of which relies on information from the American Anglican Council.  The AAC 's publications have all the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer, and usually do about as good a job documenting sources.

David+

Finally! "Nu-Clee-Er!"

 I watched the State of the Union address last night, as I have every state of the union since I was sixteen.  I see it as a patriotic responsibility.  I'm not sure whether President Obama can deliver on what he promises, especially considering that the congress seems unable to move despite the overwhelming Democratic majority, but it was refreshing to hear him speak.  For the first time in nine years, the SOTU did not contain a mispronunciation of the word "Nuclear," sounded like an oration rather than a junior-high composition project, and was not delivered in a condescending, sarcastic tone when referring to those in the opposition (although he did use appropriate humor to rib them.)  Whether or not Obama will be a great president remains to be seen, but it is good to have someone in the White House who can communicate clearly with both his own nation and others.

Corporations are people?

I've been mulling over the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision last week.  The part that I find most worrisome of this whole question is not the issue about campaign advertising, which hopefully can be dealt with by legislation, but the idea that a corporation is a "person."  This is nothing new - this appears to have started in 1886.  The problem, is that as I see it, this really stretches the definition of person in American constitutional law.  Going back to the Declaration of Independence, rights are inalienable - granted by God - to those whom God has created.  (You can equally substitute Nature here if you are atheist.)  A corporation, by definition, is "unnatural," that is, something that does not exist in the natural world, but is a construct of secondary human law.  It is very hard for me to imagine the founders thinking of corporations as persons.  They certainly had those, but did not go out of their way to grant them rights, nor did they to any other organization created by human law, such as marriages or fraternal brotherhoods.  Corporations might (and should) be granted certain rights by legislative process.  But to insist that their rights exist by default, that they are in effect as inalienable as those granted to human beings, seems to me to be a devaluation of the entire achievement of the Enlightenment vis a vis human rights.

Sapphic Suffragan Showdown

What the heck happened in LA last night, folks might want to know? In the seventh Ballot, The Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool (left) was elected as the second bishop suffragan (an assistant bishop who does not automatically succeed a diocesan bishop as a Bishop coadjutor does). Bishop-elect Glasspool is an eminently-qualified candidate. The catch: she is a lesbian in a committed relationship - the first GLBT person elected to the episcopate since Gene Robinson in 2003. So what happens now? Let's review:

1. The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson was elected as the bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, which caused a huge bruhaha in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. The ultimate results were the Windsor Report, several Primates' Meetings, and a lot of angst. The formation of the "Anglican Church in America" was also a tangential result, although that break had been forming over women's ordination and Prayer Book revision for a long time.


2. The 2006 General Convention passed resolution B033, which called "upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise 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." Some of us thought this resolution was too vague, as everybody knew who was being asked to sacrifice, and this wording seemed to paste over that.


3. The 2009 General Convention passed resolution D025, which may or may not have repealed B033, depending on who you talk to. As I reported at the time, the general understanding in the House of Bishops as articulated by the Presiding Bishop was that D025 did not repeal B033.

So now that we're caught up, what happens? The next thing that must happen for Bishop-Elect Glasspool to be consecrated is for a majority of bishops with jurisdiction and a majority of the church's standing committees to consent to her election. Whether or not that will happen is anyone's guess, but seems likely, since uncertainty about the status of B033 will at least loosen resolve among some moderates. What happens then with the Anglican Communion is really up in the air. There is currently no mechanism for removing a member church from the Anglican Communion, as the Anglican Covenant process is still working itself out and will probably still take several years to complete. However, Rowan Williams has already written of his concern:

The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.

The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications.

The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.

So - That's the situation for now - now from news to opinion...

I am at this point moving from befuddlement to anger with Rowan Williams. This is difficult for me, as I respect his work as a scholar and a spiritual man. My anger comes from the apparent and obvious discrepancy over how the differing sides of this conflict are being treated. Until this election, the buzz in the communion was the legislation currently being considered in Uganda that will make homosexual actions punishable by law, in some cases by execution. Where this comes into the story of the communion is that the Anglican Church of Uganda (Which has strong connections to American conservative groups and some member congregations of ACNA) is actively promoting the legislation. This stands in stark opposition to repeated resolutions of the Lambeth Conference and the Primates' Meetings that make it clear that the official communion position is that GLBT persons should not be demonized or persecuted.

Members of the Communion have been asking Lambeth to speak out against the involvement of the Ugandan Church. So far, the response has been deafening silence. Williams' office said several days ago that

"attempts to publicly influence either the local church or political opinion in Uganda would be divisive and counter productive. Our contacts, at both national and diocesan level, with the local church will therefore remain intensive but private”.

So, if a member church is supporting legislation in opposition to Lambeth teachings that will result in imprisonments and executions, it is better if the Communion remains publicly silent. But if a member church is electing a person living in a monogamous, same-sex relationship since 1988 as a bishop, public statements must be issued within twelve hours? The discrepancy and hypocrisy is really hard to swallow on this one.

I am a big believer in the importance of the Communion, but even I have to ask the question, "If the Communion cannot have the moral authority to speak out publicly on such an amazingly egregious violation of human rights, what is the point of a communion?" As Andrew Brown writes in his blog at the Guardian:

What makes his difficulty darkly comic rather than tragic is the speed with which he has reacted to the election of a lesbian assistant bishop in Los Angeles. A statement came out of his office less than 12 hours later urging the Americans not to proceed.

Consider the case of two Anglicans of the same gender who love one another. If they are in the USA, the Anglican church will marry them and may elect one of them to office. If they are in Uganda, the Anglican church will try to have them jailed for life, and ensure that any priest who did not report them to the authorities within 24 hours would be jailed for three years; anyone who spoke out in their defense might be jailed for seven.

Under Williams, the church that marries two women who love each other is to be thrown out of the Anglican Communion. The church that would jail them both for life, and would revile and persecute their defenders, stays snugly in his bosom. Not even the Archbishop’s remarkable gift for obfuscation can conceal these facts forever.

I couldn't articulate it better.

David+

Technorati Tags: Anglican, Christianity, Episcopal, Religion, homosexuality, rowan williams

Roman Revisions Revealed

This morning, the Vatican Released the text of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, which provides for disaffected Anglicans entering into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

The document appears to clear up some questions and leave a few loose ends to be answered. For my commentary on who, where and why this was issued, see my post here. Let's look at some of the questions and how they appear to be answered. A caveat - I'm no expert on Roman canon law, so there could be some nuances I am not catching.

1. Whose authority will these churches be under?
This is a little more Vatican-centered than I had initially understood. It appears that while the national conferences of bishops is consulted, that the authority to establish them lies with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The ordinary (bishop) is chosen by the Pope and answers directly to him. Therefore, the national conferences appear to have very little to do with the regular governance of the ordinariate. Therefore, this looks a little more like Opus Dei than military chaplaincies. I can't imagine this will be very popular with sitting diocesan bishops.

2. Can their priests be married?
The ordinary is to ordain only celibate men to the priesthood. I don't know the references to other documents, but I assume they affirm that bishops must be celibate as well. Married Anglican ministers can be accepted as candidates to Holy Orders on a case-by-case basis. So no, this church within a church will not would not appear to have the ability to raise up and ordain married seminarians, although the Complimentary Norms are a little unclear.

Upon reading the Complimentary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution, it appears that married Anglican bishops are to be re-ordained as priests. They can then be appointed as the ordinary, although not ordained as a bishop. The quasi-bishop then has jurisdictional authority and is seated as a retired bishop in the college of bishops, but does not have the sacramental authority of a bishop (i.e. to ordain).

3. Will Anglican Priests have to be re-ordained?
Yes. This has absolutely no effect on Apostolicae Curae.

4. Can churches in the Ordinariate use the Book of Common Prayer?
Still unclear. The constitution says that

"the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared."

"Which have been approved by the Holy See" is the operative phrase here. In the history of Anglican-Use parishes in America, this has meant the Book of Divine Worship, which has elements of the 1928 and 1979 BCP with altered eucharistic language to reflect RC Dogma. Whether the pope will authorize a BCP wholesale without revision has yet to be seen, but seems unlikely.

5. Will members of the Ordinariate have to accept the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception?
Yes. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate."

From what I can tell, the only difference between this and the Anglican-Use provisions that have been in effect in America since 1980 is at the level of the diocese and bishop. Otherwise, they are just expanding this provision world-wide.

So those who go to Rome will have to be re-ordained, submit to absolute papal authority, accept all Roman Dogma (even the novel ones of the last 200 years), cannot raise up married men to the priesthood, and will most likely have to use a modified version of the Book of Common Prayer. One has to ask the question, What are the "Treasures of the Anglican Tradition" that the Pope seeks to retain within these ordinariates? Evensong? Is that it?

David+

Technorati Tags: Anglican, Christianity, ecclesiology, Episcopal, Religion, roman catholic, vatican

There's no place like Rome

Today the Vatican has announced a new canonical structure that provides for what will be called, "Personal Ordinariates" within the Roman Catholic Church for "Traditionalist" Anglicans who wish to join the church. The best place to get coverage of all the various commentary is probably over at Thinking Anglicans. While this is a wholly new idea within Roman canon law, there are a couple of existing precedents for similar things. The Vatican itself cites military chaplaincies. That comparison is strained, but it is much more politically palatable than the two closer comparisons:

1.Eastern Catholic (Unitate) churches, which are sui iuris (autonomous) in relation to the Latin and other Eastern Catholic churches.
2. Opus Dei, which is a Personal prelature.

The reason for it's creation is not completely clear, but it likely has more to do with the ongoing request of the splinter "Traditional Anglican Communion", which has been asking for this since 1991, than current conflict within the Anglican Communion, although it will certainly have an impact upon that as well. What this does in effect is set up a "Church within a church" in the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

A group of disaffected Anglicans could petition the national conference of bishops, which could, with the approval of the Vatican, create an over-arching diocese that is answerable to the conference, but not the local bishops in the place where the congregations are located. (This is similar to the Uniate and Opus Dei examples, but in those cases, they are under the direct control of the Curia in the case of the Uniates, or the Pope in the case of Opus Dei.)

These new "Flying Dioceses" would be able to:

1. Recruit and educate their own clergy, including their own seminaries. Priests and deacons could be married, although it is unclear whether they could marry after ordination or only before as is current in Uniate churches. Bishops could not be married.

2. Use an "Anglican" liturgy. It remains to be seen whether they could use an unmodified Book of Common Prayer or whether it would need to be some form of the Book of Divine Worship in use by current Anglican Use Catholic parishes.

So what's the likely effect of this? Depends on your viewpoint. I'll speculate on some of these. If you are a(n):

Member of the Traditional Anglican Communion - Oh yeah! This is what we've been asking for over a decade.

Current Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion - Um, this may sound a little picky, but I'm married, and therefore unable to be a bishop. Could we massage that language a little?

Traditionalist Anglo-Catholic in the Church of England - Yes! The CofE will be ordaining women bishops whether I want it or not, so finding a Eucharist on a Sunday morning "untainted" by a celebrant who was not a woman or who did not approve of the ordination of women (You know, cooties) was going to get very hard. Becoming a Uniate Anglican is going to make that a lot easier!

Archbishop of Canterbury - I'm very surprised, having been given very little notice of this development and having to come up with some sort of spin that makes it sound like the logical development of ARCIC and IARCUUM. Unfortunately, this plays into the hands of my Evangelical opponents who have been claiming this would happen all along. I can't decide whether I am happy or sad. On one hand, losing people is bad, but on the other, there are some pretty testy people who are giving me a headache daily. It might not even be bad if some of those rather edgy people in the communion from Africa or in that break-off "province" in America joined up, would it?

Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church - Well, anyone who would have taken this offer has pretty much left the church already. I wonder what Jack Iker and Bob Duncan are doing right now?

Bishop of the former Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, now in the Anglican Church in North America, or in the Province of the Southern Cone, or whatever - Um, Bob. This is Jack. Sorry buddy, but I'm crossing the Tiber. (Edited 11/9 - I forgot to allow for the Rt. Rev. Sir's ego) I know I've been talking about "catholicity" and authority for years, but if I can't be a bishop in the new ordinariate, well... er.... hmm. And none of the parishes under my authority had better think they can go to Rome! Where would they get that idea?

Primate of the Anglican Church in North America - (Takes down his "Braveheart" claymore that hangs behind his desk and starts chopping deep gashes in his desk) I've been leading a movement for schism for several years now. Now people are wanting to break away from MY church. Who would have thought??!!

Member of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity - Umm, don't you think it would have been nice to consult us, as this does have SOMETHING to do with our primary work?

American Roman Catholic Bishop - Oh great. More troublemakers for us. They have authority issues? Sounds like a GREAT fit. What? They'll be working within my diocese but not under my control? Like Opus Dei? And their priests will be married? Wow, That's really awesome....

American Roman Catholic Priest - What the What??!! I was told that celibacy was a difficult but necessary sacrifice in order to maintain the integrity of the priesthood. Now that church down the street is going to have a married priest and get to be Catholic? And the guy who replaces him will be married too? And he doesn't have to answer to the bishop? I feel so affirmed in my exhausting and lonely ministry! Maybe I can transfer to the Personal Ordinariate....

Average Episcopalian - Huh?

Average Roman Catholic - Huh?

David+ Edited 11/9 - and BTW, the thing about +Duncan having a Braveheart claymore in his office is not a joke.

Technorati Tags: Anglican, Christianity, Episcopal, Religion, ecclesiology, roman catholic, vatican

The Big Story no one wanted to notice...

While we've all been trying to unpack the meaning of the General Convention resolutions and what they mean, a Big Story occurred at the end of July that no one seemed to want to notice. You can find it here: Northern Michigan episcopal election fails to receive required consents. To quote:

"Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on July 27 notified the standing committee of the Diocese of Northern Michigan that the necessary consents to the ordination and consecration of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as bishop were not received within the prescribed time period and therefore his election was 'null and void.'"

For those of you not following the story, the objections to Rev. Forrester's consecration went along three lines:

1. He practiced Zen Buddhist meditation techniques.

I wrote on this one here. This was not a real deal killer. The recovery of the Christian Contemplative Prayer tradition through Thomas Keating owes a lot to Zen technique. However, beyond technique, there is Buddhist theology, which led to..

2. His Christology was in question

Many critics, including bishops on the moderate left and even extending into the liberal camp questioned whether Forrester had appropriated too much Buddhist theology, seeing sin as an illusion and Jesus as one who simply taught us to remove the blinders from our eyes. This left no room for Atonement theory, which comes in an astonishingly wide range of flavors, but all insists that Jesus has a unique role in salvation from sin. This was held to be apparent in his..

3. Unauthorized alteration of the Baptismal Covenant

Where in the course of his pastoral ministry, he revised the Baptismal Covenant to remove references to Satan as well as Christ's salvific work. This is probably the big one, as alteration of Prayer Book liturgy can not be authorized by a priest and called into question his understanding of what "Common Prayer" means.

The denial of consents to a bishop-elect is never a good thing. It causes pain and embarrassment to the diocese in question, not to mention the expense of requiring a new electing convention. The last time this happened (other than the South Carolina situation a year ago that had to do with procedure and with questions about the bishop-elect's willingness to stay in the Episcopal Church) was 1934.

We denied consecration of a bishop-elect on theological grounds. So why was this not news-worthy? Considering all that goes on in our church, why did it not get much mention? The reason, in my opinion, is that the special-interest groups on both the right and the left were disappointed with the decision. Why so?

For some of those on the left, any perceived attack on autonomy or anything that smacks of a "litmus test" is unacceptable. A kind of "Meta-Doctrine" of radical inclusion means that no one should be denied anything on any basis (Other than misconduct). But there is already a litmus test inherent in the vows a bishop makes that they will defend and teach the doctrine of the church, which (according to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the results of the Righter Trial) includes Nicene Orthodoxy. We ARE radically inclusive, but we are radically inclusive Christians of the orthodox strain.

For those on the right, it is convenient to ignore this decision. As I have written before, the schismatics are stuck in a myopia of what the church looked like in the 1970s when Bishops Pike and Spong attempted to pull the church away from orthodox teaching. They have not raised their heads since then to look at what the church is actually teaching and doing, other than to point at aberrations and pretend they are normal or to quote people (usually the Presiding Bishop) out of context. The Church that Bps Duncan and Iker describe as a "New Religion" is one that may have been a threat when they were in seminary, but it does not look like reality on the ground in the present Episcopal Church. They need a good theological cover to deal with the reality of their own misogyny and homophobia. No, it is easier just to hold to their carefully-constructed narrative that serves their own ends rather than pay attention to this decision. They needed to move when they did, because with each graduating seminary class, their argument sounds weaker and less relevant.

And what does this decision mean? It means that there are indeed limits on what can be taught as the doctrine of the church. Members or clergy may hold personal views, but the official teaching has to adhere to certain standards of (hopefully generous) orthodoxy. Many bishops who hold otherwise liberal views voted "No" on consent. It is inconceivable that Rev. Forrester would have been denied consent had he been elected in the same era as Pike and Spong, yet he was denied consent in our supposedly "everything goes" and "gnostic" church of today. The logical conclusion, then, is that creedal orthodoxy in The Episcopal Church is not waning, but is actually growing in strength, even among those classified as "liberals" by the right. (As a side note, unitarianism has ALWAYS been a minority opinion in the Episcopal Church. See here. To classify it as something new is a revisionist view of church history.)

Although the battle rages on over parsing the words from General Convention, it may prove in history that the Forrester election is actually more of a watershed moment in Episcopal history, when the church finally gets over its deconstructive phase and remembers its traditional strength of an inclusive, generous orthodoxy.

Technorati Tags: Anglican, Christianity, Episcopal, Religion, Heresy, orthodoxy

Letter to the Primates from The Presiding Officers

A letter has been issued to the Archbishop of Canterbury and copied to the primates of the Anglican Communion regarding D025. It goes pretty much along the lines of what I have written. Being signed by both the President of the House of Deputies and our Presiding Bishop, it should be regarded as the official understanding of General Convention as to what has and has not been done.

---

16 July 2009

The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Rowan Williams

Lambeth Palace

London

Dear Archbishop Williams,

We are writing to you as the Presiding Officers of the two Houses of The General Convention of The Episcopal Church. As your friends in Christ, we remain deeply grateful to you for your gracious presence among us recently during our 76th General Convention in Anaheim.

As you know, The General Convention voted this week to adopt Resolution D025, “Commitment and Witness to the Anglican Communion”—a multilayered resolution that addresses a range of important issues in the life of The Episcopal Church that clearly have implications for our relationships within the Anglican Communion.

Because this action is already being variously interpreted by different individuals and groups, we want to offer our perspective to you with the hope that some background, context, and information will be helpful in understanding this action of our General Convention. If you have not already had an opportunity to read it, a copy of the resolution is attached.

We understand Resolution D025 to be more descriptive than prescriptive in nature—a statement that reaffirms commitments already made by The Episcopal Church and that acknowledges certain realities of our common life. Nothing in the Resolution goes beyond what has already been provided under our Constitution and Canons for many years. In reading the resolution, you will note its key points, that:

• Our Church is deeply and genuinely committed to our relationships in the Anglican Communion;
• We recognize the contributions gay and lesbian Christians, members of our Church both lay and ordained, have made and continue to make to our common life and ministry; Our Church can and does bear witness to the fact that many of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters live in faithful, monogamous, lifelong and life-giving committed relationships;
• While ordination is not a “right” guaranteed to any individual, access to our Church’s discernment and ordination process is open to all baptized members according to our Constitution and Canons; and
• Members of The Episcopal Church do, in fact, disagree faithfully and conscientiously about issues of human sexuality.

It is important to understand the process through which this Resolution came into being.

In 2006, the 75th General Convention adopted Resolution B033 which “called upon Standing Committees and Bishops with jurisdiction to exercise 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.”

While adoption of that resolution was offered with a genuine desire “to embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation” within the Anglican Communion, it has also been a source of strain within the life of our own Church.

This year at least sixteen resolutions were submitted asking the 76th General Convention to take further action regarding B033. These resolutions fell into three categories—those calling for the repeal of B033; those restating or seeking to strengthen our Church’s nondiscrimination Canons; and those stating where The Episcopal Church is today. From these options, our General Convention chose the third—along with reaffirming our commitments to the Anglican Communion—with the hope that such authenticity would contribute to deeper conversation in these matters.

The complex and deliberative nature of our legislative process involving bishops, lay deputies, and clerical deputies prevents the General Convention from acting rashly. However, it does lead eventually to a profound consensus. Sometimes this consensus takes years to achieve. As Resolution D025 itself states, we are still not all of one mind. Passage of this Resolution represents another step in a conversation that began with the 65th General Convention in 1976 which stated that homosexual persons are “children of God and have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.” The discussion of these issues has continued consistently through every General Convention for the past thirty-three years, and we understand it to be an important contribution to the listening process invited by the successive Lambeth Conferences of 1978,1988, and 1998.

Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.

Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to episcopal elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not. In either case, we trust that the Bishops and Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church will continue to exercise prayerful discernment in making such decisions, mindful and appreciative of our relationships in the Anglican Communion.

In adopting this Resolution, it is not our desire to give offense. We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other Churches across the Communion. We believe also that the honesty reflected in this resolution is essential if indeed we are to live into the deep communion that we all profess and earnestly desire.

Please know that we continue to hold you in our prayers even as we invite yours for us.

We remain,

Faithfully,

Your sisters in Christ,

Bonnie Anderson, D.D. The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori

President of The House of Deputies Presiding Bishop and Primate

The Episcopal Church and the Press

The media firestorm has begun on the resolutions passed at General Convention. This always happens - General Convention passes resolutions that are crafted pieces that are very nuanced and usually represent multiple points of view and the secular press distills it down to the sexiest and most provocative headline they can find, such as the New York Times', "Episcopal Vote Reopens a Door to Gay Bishops."

Of course, it doesn't help when the Episcopal News Service's Convention Daily publishes such a headline, which the secular news services pick up. Bishop Ted Gulick of Kentucky and Fort Worth weighs in on the matter:

Statement of the Rt. Rev. Edwin F. (Ted) Gulick Jr, bishop of Kentucky and provisional bishop of Fort Worth, regarding Resolution D025, which addresses the Episcopal Church's stance on the ordination of gay and lesbian persons and includes their consecration as bishops. The resolution was adoptedby General Convention yesterday (July 14).

July 14, 2009

Since The Daily put out by Episcopal Life at Convention online and in the print edition has so misrepresented the reality represented by Resolution D025, I feel the need to make the following statement. I look forward to making a full report on General Convention to both the Diocese of Kentucky and the Diocese of Fort Worth.

I asked the presiding bishop during debate and before the vote on D025, “Would you see the moratorium enjoined upon us by the Windsor Process would not be lifted until a diocese elects a gay or lesbian person to the episcopate and that person is consecrated?”

Her response was definitive that the moment of a lifting of a moratorium would be that act and not this resolution.

I would add on a personal note that given the Episcopal Church's understanding of our commitment to our mission projects in the Anglican Communion and our deep bonds of affection with the Communion that it would be impossible for us not to consider our brothers and sisters in the Communion in a discernment process in an episcopal election. There is nothing in this resolution that would preclude such a consideration in that discernment.

What this resolution does is remind the Church of the reality in our canons that the discernment process toward ordination is by canon open to all the baptized and states that this continues to be our canonical reality.

To say the print issue was a misrepresentation is a bit of an understatement. The Presiding Bishop made a public apology to the bishops the next day and this retraction was printed in The Daily, "Correction: The page one headline in the July 14 issue of The Daily, describing action in the House of Bishops on Resolution D025, was misleading. The headline should have read 'Bishops affirm openness of ordination process.' The Daily regrets the error."

This resolution deals with access to the ordination process, not ordination itself, and does not address B033 (The so-called moratorium) at all.

Of course, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. It's very unlikely that the secular press will reprint the retraction, so we are left with a lot of misinformation out there.

I expect the firestorm will reignite when the deputies (likely) pass the resolution tomorrow that deals with the realities of our church in states that have legalized same-sex marriage. It reaffirms that bishops IN THOSE STATES have pastoral discretion to respond in creative ways. Note that this is not new. While a bishop cannot revise or amend the liturgies in the Book of Common Prayer, they have the canonical authority to devise liturgies for situations not covered in the BCP for local use.

In both these cases involving people in same-sex relationships, the resolutions simply reaffirm the canons that already exist.

Now why, may you ask, do we have to legislate to reaffirm things that are already in canon law when we know it will cause a media firestorm? That is a really good question and will probably be the subject of a post in the not-too-distant future.

David+