General Convention Will Deal With Sexuality Issues -- Again
Episcopal News Service. May 25, 2000 [2000-098]
David Skidmore, Director of communications for the Diocese of Chicago and a member of the ENS news team at General Convention
(ENS) The Episcopal Church's efforts to come to terms with the role of gay and lesbian members in church life -- a protracted struggle stretching out over three decades -- hold little promise for resolution any time soon.
Since a 1979 resolution of General Convention said that it was "not appropriate" to ordain non-celibate gays and lesbians, conventions have waded through a long list of position statements, affirmations, resolutions and liturgical actions and not come even close to resolving the underlying issues.
Emboldened by the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution declaring sexual expression by gays and lesbians "to be incompatible with Scripture," staunch conservatives in the Episcopal Church have enlisted the support of other Anglican conservative groups and bishops to press for a more traditional understanding of church doctrine and interpretation of Scripture on sexuality issues. And some have taken direct action to underscore their anger with what they perceive as the liberal drift of the church.
Dissident congregations in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia have either broken ties with the Episcopal Church or sought alternative episcopal oversight from conservative bishops, largely over sexuality issues. The most radical action so far, and one still unfolding, was the consecration last January in Singapore of two Episcopal priests -- the Rev. Charles Murphy of South Carolina, and the Rev. John Rodgers, former dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Pennsylvania -- as missionary bishops to the Episcopal Church.
Despite stinging criticisms from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and a number of his counterparts, and a statement from Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey declaring he could not recognize their ministry as bishops, Murphy and Rodgers are poised to exercise their episcopal ministry among clergy and congregations in dioceses that Murphy contends "have become oppressive, restrictive to those of orthodox faith."
On the other side of the divide, bishops and dioceses that have embraced gay and lesbian participation in the church continue to push for official recognition of committed same-sex relationships and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons.
The Dioceses of El Camino Real, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Newark, New York, Ohio, and others have taken stands affirming the life and witness of gay and lesbian church members, and challenging the 1998 Lambeth resolution
In Vermont, whose state legislature recently granted legal recognition to same-sex couples, Bishop Mary Adelia McLeod has issued an "emancipation proclamation" for gays and lesbians, declaring "heterosexual and homosexual people are equally capable of entering into life-long unions of love, mutual support and fidelity." In her statement, McLeod stressed that "God's great gift of love and the expression of that love cannot and should not be denied to those among us who happen to be homosexual. Let the church be the first to issue an emancipation proclamation."
That call has struck a chord in the Diocese of Minnesota. Last October it guaranteed access for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons to all the church's sacraments, including ordination and the blessing of relationships, and charged its deputies to communicate this stand to the General Convention.
Other dioceses have endorsed the Cambridge Accord, authored by Bishop Steven Charleston, dean of Episcopal Divinity School, which in part declares that "no homosexual person should ever be deprived of liberty, personal property or civil rights because of his or her sexual orientation."
Several dioceses, among them El Camino Real and Michigan, have taken the next step and called for the preparation of rites or curricula for the blessing of same-gender relationships.
While momentum seems to be building towards a resolution of the issue -- at least at the diocesan level -- a number of church leaders, deputies and bishops, are having second thoughts about putting it to a vote. The House of Bishops has made it clear in statements from its last three meetings that an up-or-down vote, similar to the one at Lambeth, may be inappropriate or downright divisive.
Just the opposite seemed to be the case at the 1997 General Convention when the House of Deputies fell a vote short, in both the lay and clerical orders, of calling for the development of rites for blessing same-sex partners living in committed relationships. The same convention did approve measures granting health benefits to domestic partners and apologizing to gays and lesbians for years of discrimination.
The razor-thin rejection of a rite for same-sex blessings was read at the time like a futures market stock quote, convincing many that sheer momentum would push both deputies and bishops at the next convention to adopt measures authorizing such rites.
That optimism has faded. The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM), which had been given the job by the last convention of researching the theological issues around same-sex relationships and suggesting ways to resolve the impasse, found it could not pick the appropriate side of the fence on which to plant the church's flag. Instead of a clear-cut endorsement or rejection of same-sex rites, the commission left the matter up to the conscience of each diocese.
While encouraging the church to continue the conversation, inviting "genuine and respectful" encounters between homosexual and heterosexual church members, the commission in its resolution to General Convention directs each diocese, "under the spiritual and pastoral direction of its bishop," to determine "the resolution of issues related to same sex relationships, including the blessing of such relationships, and the ordination of homosexual Christians."
Bishop Paul Marshall of Bethlehem, a member of the commission, summarized the commission's quandary in a reflection included as part of the commission's report to General Convention.
"When we simply cannot agree that one view compels the allegiance of all faithful people, as is the case today," wrote Marshall, "the reverently ignorant thing to do is either to abstain altogether from making a decision, or else to allow dioceses to find their own way in the matter, and only much later, if ever, to come to some general agreement."
Tagged as an endorsement of "local option," which would open the way for dioceses to act unilaterally on disputed matters of church-wide faith and order, the resolution has sparked criticism from both the left and right -- and opened an awesome can of worms.
Louis Crew, a veteran deputy from the Diocese of Newark and founder of Integrity, the advocacy group for Episcopal gays and lesbians, questions the wisdom of converting an informal process, already allowed in the Book of Common Prayer, to a church policy. As Crew notes, the instructions on page 13 of the prayer book already give bishops the authority to devise forms of liturgy for occasions "for which no service or prayer has been provided in this Book." ("Concerning the Service of the Church")
To enshrine local option as a policy remedy for a single divisive issue raises some very serious questions, say Crew and others. If applied to sexual orientation and access to sacramental ministry, then what prevents this approach from being applied to other disputes, they ask. "It becomes a way of solving everything and in doing that becomes a way of solving nothing," Crew argues.
Contention over controversial issues should be something the church learns to accommodate and live into, rather than shy away from, said Crew. What the church cannot afford to do is the approach it took following the 1976 General Convention vote opening the priesthood to women, he said. A year after that vote the House of Bishops meeting in Port St. Lucie, Florida, fashioned a compromise with conservatives by issuing "A Statement of Conscience" which held that opponents of ordaining women to the priesthood and episcopate should not be subject to coercion or penalties because of their stand.
"I don't want to see a repeat of the Port St. Lucie option when the church makes the mistake of authorizing private consciences that make decisions for the body politic," said Crew.
The commission's proposal also troubles Bishop William Persell of Chicago. Though in favor of the blessing of same-sex partners living in committed relationships, he is opposed to unilateral actions at the diocesan level. At an April 17 meeting of Chicago's clergy, Persell said the SCLM's local option proposal is at odds with the collegial nature of the Anglican Communion. "We are a national and international church and I think it is wrong to make those decisions at the diocesan level," he said.
The SCLM's proposal did not sit well with conservative bishops either. Bishop James Stanton of Dallas saw it as "writing into policy a shift of polity," which would confirm for many the church's growing "drift into congregational polity."
If passed it would be a disruptive force in the church, said Stanton. "It is a very American kind of proposal and really flies in the face of accountability."
Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina also read the SCLM's proposal as a disturbing shift in policy making. "What they came out with is a local option proposition which in effect changes what we teach. What it says is we will play both sides of the fence. By playing both sides you have changed the position," said Salmon.
The SCLM's chair, the Rev. Bruce Jenneker of Trinity Church in Boston, has heard the concerns about local option and dismisses them. What the commission proposes is in concert with the Anglican principle of subsidiarity, said Jenneker -- meaning that the church should act at the provincial or national level only on matters that cannot be addressed at the diocesan level. It is not, he insisted, a sanction for unilateralism or congregationalism. "Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a congregational decision, this is a diocesan decision."
The commission struggled until the eleventh hour to craft a definitive statement, and realized -- well into its final meeting last October -- that the issue was too complicated to resolve satisfactorily at this point, said Jenneker.
"We were very aware that there was a strong call to do something that advances the church from where we seemed to be stuck for the past two conventions," he said. "But that movement forward was not to be at the cost of the life of the church."
A number of bishops and deputies think the commission did all it could to fulfill its mandate. Its report reflects where the church is on these issues, said the Very Rev. George Werner, retired dean of Trinity Cathedral in Pittsburgh and vice president of the House of Deputies. Though the commission may not have fulfilled its charge to resolve the issues, it has "given us the best and most honest picture of where we are at this moment," said Werner, a leading candidate to succeed Pamela Chinnis as president of the House of Deputies.
The resolution, he added, also is consistent with Anglicanism's propensity for living in ambiguity.
For Judge James Bradberry, a member of Executive Council and the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons, Jenneker's commission was given a Gordian knot to unravel and did "an extraordinarily fine job" of balancing competing theological views.
Few observers expect the commission's resolution -- which will be addressed first in the House of Deputies -- to survive unaltered. The chances for more explicit measures, particularly those authorizing blessings for same-sex relationships, are even more questionable.
More hopeful than most, Bradberry thinks there is a reasonable chance that the convention will support a resolution advocating the blessing of same-sex relationships. For him there is no question where the church should stand on rites for blessing same-sex relationships. "In a church that can bless inanimate objects and animals it seems to me that we ought to be able to recognize a commitment between two adults who want to make a life together."
If a measure authorizing same-sex blessing rites were to pass General Convention, it would have "a devastating impact" on both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, said Bishop Stanton, but it probably would not fuel a formal schism. Neither he nor fellow conservative bishops affiliated with the American Anglican Council give that option serious consideration.
"Our commitment has always been to hold the church together," said Stanton. "A split is something we don't either anticipate or think about dealing with, or greet with any kind of joy."
Discernment should not be read as a stalling tactic, cautioned Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania. Though he is in favor of same-sex blessings, he does not see the need to push the matter to a vote and risk further polarizing the church. "It is not that people are afraid to take on hard prophetic work, but that they want to be prophetic and keep the church together," said Bennison. "It is not helpful to leave people behind."
Rather than risk a polarizing vote, Bennison hopes to reframe the issue by looking at how heterosexual persons harbor and project prejudice against non-heterosexuals. His resolution proposing a pastoral teaching and study guide on the sins of heterosexism may be a difficult sell, but it at least switches the moral focus from gays and lesbians to the systemic injustice of an ecclesiastical system.
"I think that is where the conversation can find common ground. By making that move we can reframe the moral arguments," he said.
In the past three meetings Stanton senses that bishops are trying to engage the issues from a spiritual standpoint and not politicize them. If that means taking no action in July, then that may be the best choice.
"I would rather see us take our time to continue to get clarity on this issue than to err in making a decision we would later regret," said Stanton.