Wait…, what?

So what exactly has happened here at Anaheim. Truthfully? No one is really completely sure. But some people appear certain.

The Episcopal News Service had what some bishops have described as a very unfortunate headline on Monday that declared confidently that the Episcopal Church had decided to “open ordination to gay and lesbian Christians”. (Or something to that effect… I believe the headline has been pulled and the story spiked.) I’m told that something close to controlled fury errupted in the House of Bishops about that yesterday. Or at least that’s how it was described to me. The Presiding Bishop was not pleased. Not pleased at all. A new version of the story will be issued. Apologies were made to the bishops that the “inaccurate” story had been posted. The ordination process in the Episcopal Church has been open to Gay and Lesbian members for a very long time. There was never any question of backtracking on that question. The issue was over whether or not there would be additional ordinations of priests in same-gender partnerships to the episcopate at this time.

One hears that the phone lines between Anaheim and Lambeth have been burning over the last 24 hours.

Bishop NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham in the UK has written an op-ed, apparently reacting the the Episcopal News Service version of events, that charges the Episcopal Church with willfully deciding to walk apart from the rest of the Anglican Communion.

For my part, I did no such thing, nor to the best of my knowledge did anyone at the deputations around me on the floor. We tried to express our internal conflict as best we could. It’s hard to understand the import of what happened. We believe that there will be more partnered gay and lesbian bishops in the future. We strongly desire to be allowed to remain a part of the Communion. We don’t see those two statements as contradictory, but others do.

The lack of clarity is not meant to be obfuscatory - certainly not on my part. It represents the muddled and confused place the Episcopal Church finds itself right now. It was not meant to, and it does not deliver clarity according to the standards of those demanding it. It struggles to be honest. That’s why I was writing earlier this week that I would certainly be understanding of the anger of people on the left of the Episcopal Church and our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who feel that this action in D025 is pretty-weak sauce.

Bishop Kirk Smith probably has it right. If B033 was in fact a dejure ban on the ordination of additional gay or lesbian partnered bishops (and that’s been debatable for a while), that dejure ban is reasonably read to be ended. If B033 is read to be a defacto ban, then the ban is demonstratably still in effect until another gay or lesbian partnered bishop’s election is confirmed by the larger Episcopal Church. Is that going to happen soon? I don’t know. I’m not thinking it’s terribly likely right now when people are worried about balancing budgets and doing whatever they can to avoid conflict. On the other hand there’s nothing formal in place to stop that election and consent from happening.

I’ve learned at General Convention to not worry about what may happen or what we might do. I’ve learned that we are asked to vote on specifics of the legislation in front of us, not the generalities of the explanations or the rhetoric of the debate. I think this focus on the particulars of each situation is going to be the best thing for us going forward. Anglican Moral Theology has always insisted that “circumstances alter cases”. Focusing on what is rather than on what might be coming right now is probably the best strategy going forward.

We have gay bishops in the Episcopal Church. We have two partnered gay bishops, one retired and one active. That’s a fact on the ground. Will we have more? Yes. When? That’s still not clear. We’ve moved beyond B033 certainly. But honestly, for good or ill, we’ve not moved very far.

Bishop Wright’s op-ed piece seems a little prematurely posted. Americans are very good at being willful and sending clear signals. If we’ve not done so, it wasn’t by mistake.
View the original post

I agree that the characterizations of D025 have been unfortunate. It remains to be seen how its passage will have an effect on the election of bishops. The election process is a lengthy one - 18-24 months - and it may be a while before we even see a partnered gay or lesbian nominee. It has long been my view that the election of Bishop Robinson was possible in a fairly conservative place because he was well-known and respected in the diocese. He had been nominated, but not elected, in Rochester, a place which I would judge to be much less conservative. I think it is unlikley that a partnered gay or lesbian nominee will be elected except when there is a similar degree of familiarity and respect.

Hello Nicholas,

You wrote: “The lack of clarity is not meant to be obfuscatory - certainly not on my part.” Uh, wait, what? Later you mentioned how you’ve learned to stop worrying and love General Convention (my pop culture paraphrase) and “vote on specifics of the legislation in front of” you.  What exactly was the legislative piece of D025?  Others here have asked similiar questions when they receive the party line that D025 was simply “where we are as a Church.”  Asked another way, why did you feel the need to pass this particular resolution?  What was its purpose? 

From my background in the law, it seems to me that if a particular piece of “legislation” is rendered meaningless immediately upon adoption because each person assigns it a different meaning, then it is a pretty bad piece of “legislation.”  Assume for a moment that your take is correct, try this mental exercise:  forget all you know about D025 and try to draft something that in your mind simply states the facts on the ground.  Betcha a nickel you come up with something very very different from D025.  And speaking of nickels, I bet you wouldn’t even mention the part about TEC continuing to pay its pledge to the AC.  I wonder why that part got into D025…Peace.

Nicholas:  I find it interesting that every single journalist who read D025 came to the same conclusion as to its meaning.  That interpretation matched that of Williams, Wright, several TEC bishops, and most other observers.  The ONLY people arguing for your interpretation of D025 are those who have a very strong POLITICAL motivation to SPIN its meaning.

The Episcopal News Service had what some bishops have described as a very unfortunate headline on Monday that declared confidently that the Episcopal Church had decided to “open ordination to gay and lesbian Christians”....I’m told that something close to controlled fury errupted in the House of Bishops about that yesterday….The Presiding Bishop was not pleased. Not pleased at all. A new version of the story will be issued. Apologies were made to the bishops that the “inaccurate” story had been posted.

(this sounds like what one would hear from a two-bit dictatorship!  We don’t like the headline, it doesn’t serve our political interests - change it!)

TEC’s leadership had a political reason to have a different spin on the meaning of D025, and so TEC’s political leadership ordered its mouthpiece, the ENS, to change its headline - NO OTHER media outlet or journalist changed their interpretation.  TEC’s political leadership also began lobbying the Church of England to spin the meaning of D025.  I don’t see how TEC’s spinning of D025 has any credible thing to say as to the correct interpretation of D025.

You yourself state that you want TEC to both have partnered gay bishops AND be a part of the Anglican Communion, and that D025 reflects this view.  No matter which way you slice it, Nicholas, D025 discards the “restraint” which B033 has.  Time for an analogy:  A husband and wife are on the road to a divorce due to the husband having an affair.  A counselor urges them to try to work things out.  The husband initially says “during the time we are working this out, I pledge not to have any more affairs”.  There is room to work there.  But then the husband announces “I have the right to have affairs if I so choose right now.”  That poisons the environment, and it is simply not enough to claim the husband is remaining “faithful” until he actually has his next affair.  The statement itself has expressed his mindset and his attitude towards his marriage.

So D025 has expressed TEC’s attitude towards the Communion, and Bishop Wright has hit the nail on the head when he said that TEC

saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

James Wirrell - 15 July 2009 01:53 PM

(snip) Bishop Wright has hit the nail on the head when he said that TEC saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

Agreed. And the not-so-subtle reminder in the third “Resolved”*, that lots of the Communion’s budget comes out of TEC’s (perhaps rapidly emptying) coffers makes it doubly so.

Karen

*Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget;

The media gets the bulk of it’s information from ENS press releases, James. Naturally, the media reports are going to be very much in line with how the ENS reports the news.

D025 says what it says. It seems to me like there has been some “spinning” on both sides.