Category: Gender & Sexuality


Getting on with business

Filed Under: Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, Women by Wayne — 1 Comment
November 19, 2007

Bishop Nichollsthe-rt-rev-d-ralph-spence.jpgdean-snyder-picture.jpgfaith-beyond-resentment-cover.jpg

Progressive Episcopalians in the United States now and again need to be reminded that there are others in the Anglican Communion who not only support our decisions about the full inclusion of women as well as gays and lesbians in the church, but who are getting on with the business of doing just that.

For example, the Diocese of Toronto has elected a woman as the new suffragan bishop in the Diocese of Toronto. Canon Linda Nichols will become the 4th female bishop in the Canadian church. And the southern Ontario Diocese of Niagara this past week approved blessings for gay couples; previously their bishop, The Rt. Rev. D. Ralph Spence had issued guidelines for the reception and blessing of civilly married gay and lesbian couples.

Closer to hand, there are efforts among some United Methodist clergy, such as Rev. Dean Snyder, Senior Minister of Foundry United Methodist Church, Washington, DC, who has just issued a pastoral Letter concerning the way in which he intends to provide liturgical services to recognize and honor lesbian and gay committed relationships, while at the same time trying to live “as a loyal United Methodist pastor … within the covenant of the United Methodist Church as set forth in our Church’s Constitution, General Rules, and Book of Discipline.” While the United Methodist Book of Discipline states that “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches” (Para 341.6), Rev. Snyder says that in not responding to the reality of faithful lesbian and gay couples in his own congregation, “the failure of their Christian community and their pastor to properly recognize and honor their committed relationships formally denies them, at the very least, an encouragement and spiritual support the Church provides to other couples. At the worst, it undermines and dishonors their commitments by withholding recognition and prayerful support.” Significant in its own right, Rev. Snyder’s letter may gain additional attention if Foundry United Methodist Church remains the congregation in which the Clintons worship, if Hilary follows her husband Bill as the President of the United States.

Finally, I encourage you to look at the video presentation by The Rev. James Alison based on his book Faith Beyond Resentment (Video courtesy of Trinity Television and New Media.) that is posted on the Diocese of Washington blog. It is a striking example of the sort of deep theological contribution that is being made to the whole of the Christian community by theologians like Alison reflecting on the impact that his identity as a gay man has on the way he understands the theological tradition we all share.

I am tired of blogging about turmoil; it is so refreshing to be able to share news of those who are “getting on with business” as Christ’s Body on earth, which of course includes the business of living into our commitments to diversity and full inclusiveness of all of God’s people in the business of the Church.

Comment

Go ! Be the Church!! ALL of Us!

Filed Under: Biblical authority, Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, General Convention, Musings by wfloyd — 1 Comment
September 25, 2007

‘Being the Church’ should take our breath away. The very images we use are graphic: we are ‘grafted on’ to the vine that is Jesus — we are the very Body of Christ.

Then, unfortunately, these days, come the asterisks. Yes, but ….

It is a good thing that the House of Bishops affirmed in their final statement from their just-concluded meeting in New Orleans their “commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them,encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God.”

And who can argue with their strong affirmation, saying: “We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church.”

But, then, the asterisks …

They continue to hold to the lamentable last-ditch language of Resolution B033, from the last General Convention, agreeing “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.” And then they now add: “The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B 033 pertains.”

It appears as though the Bishops are ready not only to refuse to consent to the legitimate election of a non-celibate gay or lesbian Bishop – including, potentially, Tracey Lind, Dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Cleveland, OH, who has been nominated to be Bishop of Chicago — but to continue to blame it on her “manner of life” (wink, wink) because it “presents a challenge to the wider church”. People wept openly at General Convention when this language was pushed through at the last moment in the summer of 2006 – don’t the Bishops remember?!

And they “pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action.” Some may feel off the hook by pointing out that no public rites have been authorized for use in any dioceses, and so perhaps use of ‘unauthorized’ rites will pass muster (wink, wink).

As I see it, either all baptized Christians are a full part of the Body of Christ or we aren’t – ANY of us! And if we are, then we’re not just eligible to be called by God to serve the Church as the Church discerns is the most faithful use of our gifts. It’s incumbent up us all that when called we say yes, even if that works out as gay=Bishop.

We can’t be about the business of saying “Welcome to the Body of Christ! But just because you’re a lung, don’t expect to go about breathing around here!” Every part of the Body is essential. Essential, not just ‘eligible’ for participation.

In my parish, our gay asst. rector and straight rector — who happens to be my spouse — made the same promise to their Bishops when they were asked: “Will you do your best to pattern your life in accordance with the teachings of Christ so that you may be a wholesome example to your people?”

What matters most in “the teachings of Christ,” Jesus himself told us, is to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. To do our best to pattern our life on that teaching — not our sexual orientation, which Jesus never talked about at all – is what makes any one of us a wholesome example to anyone else — and fit for any role to which the church legitimately calls us.

It appears to have been Rowan Williams who planted the idea at the House of Bishops meetings that, in his words, “one can say you accept gay and lesbian persons as the Body of Christ and turn right around and raise questions about their eligibility for active roles in the Church.” And so they did. Turn right around.

But in my parish — which happens to be more than 60% gay and lesbian — we are way beyond ‘acceptance’ or ‘tolerance’ or even ‘inclusion’ of gays and lesbians. We actually believe that when God’s table — and as a result, Christ’s Church — is open to all, one can actually get a glimpse here of the Reign of God breaking in. And either we ALL are essential to the Body of Christ, OR NONE OF US ARE!

We really believe we all are called as a community to be Christ’s Body — fully, however God and the Church call us to make that manifest. So the most hopeful thing to say here, despite deep sadness at yet one more exhibition of a willingness to buy unity at the price of love and justice to gays and lesbians, is just this — and I say it to ALL of us Episcopalians, straight and gay. Our Bishops have spoken. Now so should we. “Go! Be the Church!” It’s who we are. All, or none.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Comment

Episcopals Rebuff Demands on Stance on Gays

Filed Under: Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, General Convention, Musings by wfloyd — Leave a comment
March 21, 2007

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
The New York Times

Published: March 21, 2007

Responding to an ultimatum from the leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion, bishops of the Episcopal Church have rejected a key demand to create a parallel leadership structure to serve the conservative minority of Episcopalians who oppose their church’s liberal stand on homosexuality.

The bishops, meeting at a retreat center outside of Houston, said they were aware that their decision could lead to the exclusion of the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion, an international confederation of churches tied to the Church of England.

The bishops have a “deep longing” to remain part of the Communion, they said, but they are unwilling to compromise the Episcopal Church’s autonomy and its commitment to full equality for all people, including gay men and lesbians.

In a strongly worded statement issued Tuesday night, the bishops said the Communion’s attempt to impose a parallel authority structure “violates our founding principles as the Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism.” The bishops inserted a gentle reminder that the Episcopal Church long ago declared itself independent from the Church of England.

“We cannot accept what would be injurious to this church and could well lead to its permanent division,” the bishops said in their statement, a set of three resolutions addressed to the church’s executive council.

They called for an urgent “face to face” meeting in the United States with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the Church of England, and a representative committee of the church’s primates, who head the international provinces. The primates, at their meeting last month in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, are the ones who issued the formal set of demands to the Episcopal Church.

The demands also asked that the Episcopal Church refrain from ordaining openly gay bishops and stop allowing blessings of same-sex couples. The bishops, while not addressing those demands directly in their new statement, did reiterate their commitment to including “all God’s people” including gay men and lesbians in church life.

A spokesman for the Anglican Communion said the Archbishop of Canterbury was still digesting the statement from the American bishops and might issue a response later today.

The United States bishops plan to hold a news conference late this afternoon. Many liberal and moderate Episcopalians immediately applauded the bishops for standing by their principles. Response from conservative Episcopalians ran the gamut from confusion to angry resolve that this, surely, is the last straw.

Reached by telephone as he was leaving the bishops meeting, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who leads a network of conservatives who have been asking for alternative oversight, would only say: “I’m really thinking through what all this means.”

powered by performancing firefox

Comment

Ash Wednesday +1

Filed Under: Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality by wfloyd — 3 Comments
February 22, 2007

I just couldn’t help being struck by the contradiction between what the Primates of the Anglican Communion seem to think about gay and lesbian Christians – especially those chosen by our church as Bishops … or those seeking the blessings of the church on their commitment to relationships of fidelity — and the 134 people kneeling in my parish, St. Thomas at Dupont Circle, on Ash Wednesday night.

  • We prayed, we sang, we repented and put on ashes
  • The rector’s sermon admonished us during our Lenten journeys to “bear the burden of one another … drawing no distinctions” just as God did not choose sides or favorites in loving us.
  • We were black and white, young and old, well-placed and unemployed, suffering grief at the recent loss of loved ones and joys at the newborn children who had just joined our household of faith.
  • We were doctors and lawyers, mothers of newborns, and members of the diplomatic corps; we were graduate students, and aspiring actors, and homemakers, and teachers and church leaders.
  • There was even a group of high school students on their spiritual pilgrimage from Connecticut to see the parish they had chosen because it looked like the most interesting of all the ones they researched on the internet.

From our kneeling for prayer, to the antiphonal chanting of the Psalm during Holy Communion, to the imposition of ashes, to the instructions in the bulletin insert about the church’s expectation that we heed in our lives the call to a holy Lent, you never would have guessed that tens of millions of Anglicans seem to think we are all beyond the pale — that we are not recognizable enough as members of the Body of Christ that they would stay in the same room with someone like us, much less eat at the same table or drink from the same cup. That we are all on the verge, if not over the cliff freefalling into heresy.

  • All because a majority of those in church last night find their primary affections – emotional and physical – toward members of the same sex.
  • All because we believe God loves us all, gay or straight, just as God made us.
  • All because we recognize Bishop Gene Robinson as part of the succession of bishops and would never think of refusing to consider for Bishop another homosexual man or woman who has Bishop Robinson’s track record of service to the church and skill in ministry.
  • All because we will not turn away faithful Christian parishioners who come asking to be counseled and prepared for the blessing and sanctifying of their commitment to one another by their priest and in their church … simply because they are not heterosexual.

It is hard for many beyond our walls to imagine the sense of loss and grief — as deep as the feelings of betrayal and pain — that was worn throughout our gathering. Betrayal at the prospect that the GLBT community might again be offered up by the Episcopal Church as scapegoats and Lenten sacrifices for the illusion of the unity of the Anglican Communion. And grief that any Episcopalians might be denied the opportunity to continue as part of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation precisely as Anglicans solely because any of us choose to live fully as God created us?

  • Some were there bearing the scars of parents who turned their children out into the streets as teenagers, or took down all of a son’s or daughter’s pictures in the family home, or still do not speak to their children after decades — all because their child came out as a lesbian or gay human being.
  • Some were there bearing the fears of losing jobs in the military or government because one still can’t be openly homosexual in many spheres of our nation’s life without risking ridicule or rejection or worse.
  • Some were there with memories of having been turned away from hospital rooms where partners lay, all because they were neither blood relatives nor married to the one who lay ill or dying.

All of us had many reasons not to be there; and yet all of us were there precisely because St. Thomas’ is a place of radical hospitality and safety, as well as a place to be challenged and reminded of the responsibilities towards God and one another that come with our baptismal vows.

No one was there simply because of “a lifestyle choice to be homosexual,” but despite the humiliations heaped on gays and lesbians for being just what God desires. All of us were there because God has called us into community with one another to be part of the Body of Christ.

Last night, 134 of us were there. And today on Ash Wednesday +1, here we still are. We have not gone anywhere, “walking apart” from the rest of our church. And we will be here, even when the last Anglican walks away and chooses the unity of the Church rather than the wonder of the reconciling love of Christ for all persons, even a straight man like me.

powered by performancing firefox

Comment

USATODAY.COM – Even Some Baptists Get It …

Filed Under: Biblical authority, Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, News Reports by wfloyd — 1 Comment
November 21, 2006

When religion loses its credibility

By Oliver “Buzz” Thomas Mon Nov 20, 6:40 AM ET
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:

Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God’s followers.

Based on a few recent headlines, we won’t be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are “disordered” and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina’s Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we’re wrong?

Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

It’s happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo’s challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones or the child’s brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

Answer in Scriptures

So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

As a former “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here’s the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.

For many of gay America’s loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you’ll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody’s standard of ethics. We lawyers call it “selective enforcement,” and in civil affairs it’s illegal.

A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. “And, the Lord saw that it was good.” If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?

Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it’s between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.

What would Jesus do?

For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won’t find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don’t you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?

On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God’s. (“Judge not lest you be judged.” Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn’t visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?

The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you’re powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it’s likely to be.

Oliver “Buzz” Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can’t Because He Needs the Job).

Comment

from Anglican Communion News Service

Filed Under: Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, General Convention by wfloyd — Leave a comment
June 23, 2006

CAPA – An Open Letter to the Episcopal Church USA

We, the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), meeting in Kampala on 21st – 22nd June, have followed with great interest your meeting of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA in Columbus. We have been especially concerned by the development of your response to The Windsor Report, which has been reported to us quite extensively. This is something for which we have earnestly prayed. We are, however, saddened that the reports to date of your elections and actions suggest that you are unable to embrace the essential recommendations of the Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Communiqué necessary for the healing of our divisions. At the same time, we welcome the various expressions of affection for the life and work of the Anglican Communion.

We have been moved by your generosity as you have rededicated yourselves to meet the needs of the poor throughout the world, especially through your commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.

We have observed the commitment shown by your church to the full participation of people in same gender sexual relationships in civic life, church life and leadership. We have noted the many affirmations of this throughout the Convention. As you know, our Churches cannot reconcile this with the teaching on marriage set out in the Holy Scriptures and repeatedly affirmed throughout the Anglican Communion.
All four Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion advised you against taking and continuing these commitments and actions prior to your General Convention in 2003.

At our meeting in Kampala we have committed ourselves to study very carefully all of your various actions and statements. When we meet with other Primates from the Global South in September, we shall present our concerted pastoral and structural response.

We assure all those Scripturally faithful dioceses and congregations alienated and marginalised within your Provincial structure that we have heard their cries.

In Christ,

The Most Rev. Peter Akinola, on behalf of CAPA Chairman, CAPA

Comment

the “manner of life” consistent with faithfulness

Filed Under: Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, General Convention by wfloyd — Leave a comment
June 22, 2006

The whole flight home yesterday, I wrestled with why the language of “manner of life” in B033 just cut me to the bone. I’m realizing that for me it is particularly problematic because of its origin in the quite different usage in the service for The Ordination of a Priest, where at the Presentation of a candidate the Bishop asks: “… do you believe his manner of life to be suitable to the exercise of this ministry?”

We do not ask whether the person’s manner of life “presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion,” but whether this is a person whose manner of life is suitable to the exercise of the ministry to which God and the church have called them. Is their manner of life consistent with faithfulness?

In the consecration of Gene Robinson as a Bishop of the Church we have already declared that being a partnered gay man does not in itself constitute a manner of life that is unsuitable to the ministry of a Bishop. Homosexuality is not inconsistent with faithfulness.

Now, however, Resolution B033 has raised a non-canonical additional requirement, by asking that a candidate for the Episcopacy have a manner of life that while suitable to the exercise of their ministry — while consistent with faithfulness — does not in addition present “a challenge to the wider church” and will not “lead to further strains on communion.”

Would this include a woman who works outside the home? A straight man who vacations in luxury in a Villa in Italy? An intellectual accustomed to consorting with academics asking post-modern questions? A social prophet whose very vocation is in significant part to “afflict the comfortable” and challenge the wider church even if it leads to “further strains on communion”?

This new requirement once might have been used to object to the election of John Walker or Barbara Harris. I even find myself asking whether, had we passed this resolution a week ago as a guiding principle of General Convention, we would have elected our new Presiding Bishop, whose manner of life as a professional woman and proponet of the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the life and rites of the church already is being seen as “a cahllenge to the wider church” and leading “to further strains on communion”.

Right now, however, it is clear that this code language is being used to appease those with prejudices against the supposed “gay lifestyle,” which itself is code language among conservatives for profound unfaithfulness. I fail to see how that is a manifestation of the reconciling love that is Christ’s ministry among us. And shouldn’t that be at the heart of the very Communion we are striving so hard to sustain?

Comment

Statement of Conscience

Filed Under: Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, General Convention, Uncategorized by wfloyd — 1 Comment
June 21, 2006

A Statement of Conscience

We, the undersigned Bishops of this 75th General Convention, in the confidence of the Gospel and out of love for this great Church, must prayerfully dissent from the action of this Convention in Resolution B033 (on Election of Bishops). We do so for the following reasons:

  • The process used to arrive at Resolution B033 raises serious concerns about the integrity of our decision-making process as a Church. In particular we note that we discussed a resolution, A162 , on Tuesday, but were never given an opportunity to act upon it. Instead, we were presented with a different resolution this morning, and were given only 30 minutes for debate and discussion. This resolution bears great consequences both for the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church and unfortunately was not adequately discussed.
  • Our conversation has been framed in a flawed paradigm, forcing us to choose between two goods—the full inclusion in the life of the Church of our brother and sister Christians who happen to be gay or lesbian and our full inclusion in the life of our beloved Communion.
  • The process that brought about the reconsideration of this matter failed to honor the integrity of the House of Deputies by bringing undue pressure to bear on that body.
  • Our witness to justice has been prophetic in this nation and in the wider Anglican Communion on the issues of the full inclusion of people of color and persons who are differently-abled. For more than 30 years women been permitted to be included in the councils of this Church as lay deputies to this Convention and as deacons, priests and bishops. This witness to full inclusion has borne the fruits of the Spirit and is incarnate in the faces and lives around these tables and throughout the Church. The language of this resolution too much echoes past attempts by the Church to limit participation of those perceived to be inadequate for full inclusion in the ordained ministry.
  • Any language that could be perceived as effecting a moratorium that singles out one part of the Body by category is discriminatory.

We are absolutely committed to the future of this Communion and the process of healing the strain that we readily admit and regret exists, and has been exacerbated in our own house by events today. We must participate in this process with our own integrity intact and thus we are obliged to make this dissent. We intend to challenge the rest of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion to honor the promise to include the voices of gay and lesbian in the conversations about the future of the Communion. We pray for the Church, for our Communion, and for our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters.

Comment

beyond comprehension

Filed Under: Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, General Convention by wfloyd — 1 Comment
June 21, 2006

There is no way to talk about this final day of General Convention to anyone who wasn’t there. Even those of us who were there until the bitter end can’t agree on what we saw take place, much less why, or what anyone thought it would actually accomplish.

And yet all of us have to go home to places we love, and people we love even more, and tell them this: We’ve just made a huge wager that hardly anyone seems to believe will pay off very much for very long. And what we bet was the affirmation and goodwill of the very gay and lesbian community that we spent most of the convention celebrating as central to our vision of an inclusive church that welcomes everyone to Christ’s table.
Go figure. It’s not a moment that anyone at all left Columbus this afternoon proud for having participated in. It’s not something I even have much stomach to tell, but here goes.

I’ll start by quoting from Rachel Zoll’s AP wire story from five hours ago:

Episcopal delegates approved a last-ditch attempt by their chief pastor Wednesday to salvage worldwide Anglican unity, voting to adopt a resolution that calls on U.S. church leaders to “exercise restraint” when considering gay candidates for bishop.The nonbinding measure stops far short of the moratorium on gay bishops that Anglican leaders demanded to calm conservative outrage over the 2003 consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who lives with his longtime male partner.But it may leave open the chance for discussion between leaders of the Episcopal Church and other members of the Anglican Communion, who are badly at odds over gay clergy.

… The legislation passed in the final hours of an anguished nine-day General Convention. It asks Episcopal leaders to “exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration” of candidates for bishop “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.” The House of Deputies, comprised of more than 800 lay people and clergy, voted for the compromise resolution, one day after killing stronger legislation that would have urged dioceses to refrain from choosing bishops in same-gender relationships.

The vote came after direct pleas from outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who will become presiding bishop in November, that deputies approve something to signal they understand the anger of Anglican leaders.”Unless there is a clear perception on the part of our Anglican brothers and sisters that they have been taken seriously in their concerns, it will be impossible to have any genuine conversation,” Griswold said Wednesday in a special joint session that he called of both houses.

Still, the resolution is not binding and Bishop John Chane of the Diocese of Washington, D.C., said immediately after it passed that he would not follow it.”My own understanding of my responsibility as a bishop is to live into the integrity of my office,” Chane said in a statement.

Earlier in the day Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold had told the Deputies that in effect the progressive wing of the House of Deputies was allowing the right wing of the House to manipulate it into supporting legislation yesterday that would have the effect of splitting the Anglican Communion. Later, just before the Deputies voted on the Bishops’ resolution, the Presiding Bishop Elect told the Deputies “The resolution which is before you is far from adequate …. The language is exceedingly challenging but it is the best we can do at this convention.”

“Unprecedented” probaby is no exaggeration, although people are trying to put things in some perspective by comparing this to times in the Episcopal Church’s past when we’ve done similar things (you’d think we wouldn’t even want to admit it!). It’s 1973, they say, when General Convention was waffling on the ordination of women; wait a while and we’ll work through this. Personally I think this is 1991, the Convention after Barbara Harris had been consecrated as the first woman bishop. And then I find myself saying: This is 2006, already! We have faithful gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender lay people; we’ve been ordaining some of these sisters and brothers as priests for almost two decades now; and we’ve consecrated an openly gay bishop.

Even the new Canon Vicar at Washington National Cathedral is a gay priest. And now we’ve elected a woman Presiding Bishop. We’re beyond the point of deciding whether women can lead and whether gays and lesbians are full members of the Body of Christ or can be called by the Holy Spirit for ordained ministries. For the Episcopal Church at large gender and sexual orientation should no longer be up for debate … or available as pawns for negotiation.

It may be political reality that — at least until the Episcopal Church is certain that nothing we do whatsoever will appease the demands of Bob Duncan or Peter Akinola or Kendall Harmon or David Anderson — “we are unlikely to muster the political will to consecrate another openly gay bishop any time soon” (Jim Naughton).
But when we pass a resolution asking “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,” I fear that what the world will hear is not the church’s deep desire for conversation and richer communion, but our acquiescence to those who feel that faithful gays and lesbians have ‘a manner of life [that] present a challenge to the wider church’. This tears my heart out. And it should tear all our hearts out.

It evidently felt that way to the Bishop of Washington, John Chane who was one of twenty Bishops who signed a dissent to this resolution in the House of Bishops. I’ll post that as a separate entry, because it deserves attention all on its own. But in case my plane crashes on the way home to Washington, I’m going to post this as my final boarding call sounds at the Columbus airport gate where I’m sitting.

Comment

one wonders what might be next, indeed

Filed Under: Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, General Convention, New Presiding Bishop by wfloyd — Leave a comment
June 19, 2006

A Statement from Bishop Jack Iker
Diocese of Fort Worth
on the Election of the New Presiding Bishop
June 18, 2006

In a rather surprising election today, the House of Bishops chose Katharine Jefferts Schori to become the next Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  When first nominated, she was widely regarded as a “dark horse candidate” and as “the token woman” on the slate.  I for one never expected that she could be elected.

Her election signals a continuation of the policies of the outgoing Presiding Bishop, namely support for the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex unions, practices which have divided the Episcopal Church, impaired our relationship with a majority of other Provinces, and brought the Anglican Communion to the breaking point. The fact that her ordination as a bishop is not recognized or accepted by a large portion of the Communion introduces an additional element of division and impairment. When she becomes the first female primate of the Anglican Communion, it remains to be seen as to how she will be regarded by the other 37 primates, the vast majority of whom come from Provinces where women cannot be elected as bishops.

In one sense, we should not be surprised, at all, for this is The Episcopal Church, which takes pride in being first with every new innovation: women priests and bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions, the election of the first gay bishop in 2003, and now the selection of the first female primate in 2006.  One wonders what might be next.

Comment
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.