Cathedral Debriefing - The 76th General Convention

The 76th General Convention has come and gone.  In some ways it was exactly like all of the previous six General Conventions I have been to as your Bishop.  Issues of human sexuality, and specifically homosexuality, were once again front and center and I will get to them in a moment. But first let me say how totally proud I am of our deputation.  Whether in the open hearings or in the legislative sessions - or, in the case of our Canon to the Ordinary, in the daily media briefings - they were engaged, faithful, active, and persistent. In many of the hearings it seemed as if our people were virtually the only ones testifying for what I understand to be the orthodox position.  (That is a slight overstatement, but not much of one.) All of which underscores the one huge way in which this Convention differed from previous ones. In previous years the polarization was enormous. Back in 1991 I was literally under a death threat and I had a bodyguard provided by The Episcopal Church.  The hostility among the Bishops was so great that Presiding Bishop Ed Browning shut down the legislative process entirely and led us into six closed door executive sessions to try to deal with it.  Successive General Conventions have been political battlegrounds. This one was not.  Issues were debated respectfully and without rancor.  And, in my opinion, in several areas a number of good decisions were made, which the deputation will tell you about in a few minutes. But with regard to sexuality the "conservative" side has been greatly diminished.  Many people have left The Episcopal Church altogether, and the "progressive" or "liberal" majority now dominates by more than a two to one margin.  Debate was polite, but the outcome was never in doubt.  I wrote to one person that our voices have become irrelevant.  "Irrelevant?  Don't you mean hated?" she replied. No, not at all.  We presented ourselves charitably, and we were heard charitably.  But it just didn't matter when the votes were taken.  We were certainly not irrelevant to God or to his Church, but we were irrelevant in terms of changing any of the voting outcomes. As far as sexuality is concerned, it all came down to two major Resolutions, which are now being interpreted in a variety of ways, but which I believe signal a clear intention on the part of The Episcopal Church to move even more boldly than it has thus far in the areas of same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate gay and lesbian persons. C056 called "for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships."  It directed the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to "collect and develop theological and liturgical resources" regarding such blessings, and to report to the 77th General Convention.  It invited "provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals" to share in this work.  And it said that Bishops, "particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church." C056 did not authorize same-sex blessings.  But in the context of the discussion what it said was that Bishops may do so within their dioceses.  And, of course, many of them have been doing that for years.  But now some who have not done this previously say they will begin to do so.  And the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music is to "collect and develop" such liturgies, and report to the next General Convention. Does that commit the 77th General Convention to authorizing such rites?"  No, but in all honesty, I can envision no scenario in which it will refuse to do so. The Resolution went on to say that the Convention honors "the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality," which is to say that for now at least such blessings will not be mandatory.  But that is what General Convention initially said about women's ordination.  And then it became mandatory. D025 had seven Resolve clauses.  The first three reaffirmed The Episcopal Church's  desire to remain a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, to support it financially, and to participate "to the fullest extent possible" in its life and ministry. The fourth Resolve reiterated the recognition, first officially stated by Convention in 2000, that among the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church there are couples living in committed same-sex relationships. The fifth Resolve said that some of the gay and lesbian persons involved in such relationships "have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries" within the Church. The sixth Resolve is the critical one.  It said that God "has called and may call such individuals to any ordained ministry" in the Church, and that our discernment process for ordination is open to everyone, "in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church."  If God "has called and may call" gay and lesbian persons to ordained ministry the implication is inescapable that the Church can call and should call them as well. The seventh Resolve said we "are not of one mind"¦about some of these matters." The Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies immediately sent an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a similar letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, arguing that D025 did not repeal the Resolution from the last General Convention, which called upon Bishops and Standing Committees "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 believe that statement is technically correct.  D025 did not mention any Resolution from the 2006 Convention.  But it clearly says we no longer consider ourselves under any obligation to exercise the "restraint" that it called for. (Some would argue we never really were.) Interestingly, the morning after the Bishops voted on D025 the headline on The Episcopal Life Daily was "Bishops approve opening ordination to gays." (The editor of the Daily was apparently called on the carpet for publishing that interpretation of D025, and that afternoon she appeared before the House of Bishops to offer her abject apology for doing so; and the headline the next day was a much-subdued "Convention passes Resolution D025.") "Integrity," the gay and lesbian advocacy organization, released a statement at the end of Convention that said, "We came to this Convention committed to moving the Church beyond B033 [the 2006 Resolution] and forward on"¦the blessing of same-sex unions - and we"¦have realized both of these goals." I want to say to you that I am deeply saddened that these two Resolutions have been passed, though I am not at all surprised. But, please hear me clearly: neither of them will have any direct effect on the Diocese of Central Florida.  By the unanimous action of our Diocesan Convention back in 1992, we have a canon - a law of the Diocese - that says this: "All members of the clergy of this Diocese, having subscribed to the Declaration required by Article VIII of the National Constitution, shall be under the obligation to model in their own lives the received teaching of the church that all its members are to abstain from sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony." In 2004 the following paragraph was added: "All members of the clergy of this Diocese may allow to take place in their cures, officiate at, bless or participate in, only those unions prescribed by Holy Scripture: the wedding of one woman and one man.  Said clergy are forbidden to allow to take place in their cures, officiate at, bless or participate in any other unions, as proscribed by Holy Scripture." So, we simply are not going to go there.  We understand that the culture is changing, and that many believe differently, but this is where the Diocese of Central Florida is. We are currently in a distinct minority within The Episcopal Church, but as I said in my Pastoral Letter a year ago April, "We believe we are in the mainstream of historic Anglicanism, and the positions we hold are those of the overwhelming majority of the world's Anglicans and other Christians today"¦.We remain committed to making the Great Commandment and the Great Commission the twin priorities of the Diocese of Central Florida.  We strive to encourage each other to remain 'faithful to Jesus, loyal to the Gospel, obedient to God's Word, filled with his Spirit, rejoicing in his love.'" At the end of the General Convention I was one of thirty-five Bishops who signed a Statement that included these five reaffirmations: We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserving these relationships. We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them (BCP 526, 538). We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the Instruments of Communion. We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed. We reaffirm our commitment "to continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship" which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in "interpreting the Gospel" which is essential to our work as Bishops of the Church of God.