One Baptism, One Hope in God's Call

Note: This is a commentary on a technical ecclesiological document within the Episcopal Church.  If you are looking for something more general on AskThePriest, you might scroll down to the next post...

---

The Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has released its report, "One Baptism, One Hope in God's Call" which can be downloaded here.  The SCECAC was appointed by the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies to draft a document pointing towards General Convention 2006, which includes a lot of theology and 11 draft resolutions.  I've finished an initial reading, and several commentaries are already posted on the web - a good list of them being here.  There have been critiques from both the extreme left and right, but generally a grudging sort of admiration for the kind of work that is being done.

The theology section is rather good, using the same scriptural basis as found in the Windsor Report.  Some of my favorite quotes:

"Too often, however, Christians behave as if we were baptized into a faction rather than into the full Body of Christ, taking our differences from one another as a basis for dissension or division" (p, 5)

"What would it mean for the Episcopal Church to accept WR's vision of interdependent life?  In a sentence, it means recognizing and affirming that the Church's unity and God's mission are inextricable, so that it is impossible simply to get on with the practical work of life-in-communion, for the sake of the world, if we do not first and continually love one another." (p. 11)

"The actions of the 2003 General Convention have been seen by some critics as the ecclesial parallel of the unbridled arrogance of Western imperialism ... We will not judge the accuracy of such interpretations, but we do note the potentially helpful nature of a developing call to repentance by the churches in the West for the arrogance of our relationships with the younger churches of the Communion." (p. 15)

"As the Christian Tradition recognizes, discerning the mind of Christ is not simply a matter of political process;  the appeal to existing consensus has often been confused, both in the Episcopal Church and in Anglican deliberative bodies, with the reality of majority vote." (p. 16)

This report strikes me as an offering from the middle, that seeks to continue conversation and maintain communion.  I think it's a great starting point.  The draft resolutions, which might come as is or amended from either house, are:

A159 - Commitment to Interdependence in the Anglican Communion.  This reaffirms our wish to stay in the Anglican Communion.  The surprise here is a resolution to "make provision for persons from other provinces of the Anglican Communion to serve with voice but not vote on each of the Standing Commissions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church." (p. 24)  An interesting way to make sure voices other than our own are heard in our own deliberations. 

A160 - Expression of Regret.  This expresses a "deep" regret for the pain that others have experienced due to the actions of GC 2003, and in addition offers "our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached the bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion."  I've read several "conservative" commentators that point out that this is only for the failure to consult, and not the action itself.  However, that would appear to be what the Windsor Report is asking for.  This is more that I thought we would offer, and I have to say, I'm really impressed.  An expression of sincere regret and reference to repentance will probably do a lot for the "Anglican Middle," which I believe is a large but quiet group.

A161 - Election of Bishops.  This resolution urges all in the process of "creating" a bishop to "exercise very considerable caution" in regards to candidates "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church."  We all know what we are talking about here, despite the circumlocutory language.  This is the answer to the WR call for a moratorium on the election of persons in same-sex relationships to the Episcopate.  While being derided by several conservative commentators, I suspect this thing would have teeth.  If California comes up with a candidate in a same-sex relationship that the GC has to confirm, my guess is it might not go like Robinson.  Likewise, if this were done in-between conventions, I'm not sure standing committees or bishops would give consents.  Earlier in the report, it states that the language of a moratorium, "intends a time of waiting, in order to afford time for another activity, such as prayer or study.  We believe that moratoria can only be useful and effective if that other activity leads to a different degree of consensus, whether a renewed consensus or consensus at a different locus, or an understanding that we cannot reach consensus at present."  I believe that many of us in the middle would be willing to consider a temporary moratorium, but only if it is to continue a process rather than sweep something under the rug.  This is pretty subtle, but I suspect it might if passed, function as an "under the table" moratorium.

A162 - Public Rites of Same-Sex Blessing.  The report expresses, properly in my opinion, that GC 2003 did not authorize public rites of same-sex blessing.  Public rites are those found in the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Occasional Worship and Enriching Our Worship.  No such rites were authorized.  Bishops, as the ordinary (the liturgical authority in a diocese), always have the power to develop diocesan liturgies for a wide variety of purposes.  GC 2003 recognized that reality and stated that bishops were within their rights to do so.  This resolution does not authorize any development of public rites, as noted above, while affirming the "need to maintain a breadth of private responses to situations of individual pastoral care of gay and lesbian Christians in this Church."  Some liberal commentators have decried this, saying that the distinction between public and private is disingenuous - that we either need to choose one way or the other.  I don't buy that.  Pastors have always been allowed some liturgical leeway in dealing with pastoral situations.  In the current climate, we should "live in that leeway."  Insisting that it needs to be one way or the other RIGHT NOW is asking that a conversation be stopped.

A163 - Pastoral Care and Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight.  Seeks the approval of the GC on the DEPO plan of the House of Bishops.  There would appear to be some time issues in implementing DEPO.   DEPO favors the diocesan so much that I think you'd have to have some real control issues to not want to implement it, but that does seem to be a problem in some dioceses.  (But what bishop has control issues?  Come on!!! )

A164 - Continued Attention to the Millennium Development Goals.  This reaffirms ECUSA's commitment to the goals, which is important in the context.  One of the exciting things about this report is that it seems to be written from a missional standpoint, rather than a functional standpoint. This probably has a lot to do with Ian Douglas being on the committee.  The MDGs are a response to our colonialist past (and some would say present) , which is a big part of what adds fuel to the fire in our current situation.

A165 - Commitment to Windsor and Listening Process - Commits us to both the "Windsor Process" and the listening process in the Anglican Communion to the voices of GLBT Christians.

A166 - Anglican Covenant Development Process - Commits us to the process of developing (not necessarily adopting) the idea of an Anglican Covenant as put forward in the WR and Dromatine statement.  While some are wary of this, I think it's a good idea.  We have a large document and body of work that describes exactly how our relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America works (Called to Common Mission), but nothing to describe how we interact with the Anglican Communion.  It seems evident we need something, however vague, that describes that relationship.  This only commits us to being part of the development process.  A future General Convention would have to ratify anything that was developed.

A167 - "Full and Equal Claim" for All the Baptized.  This resolution reaffirms that gay and lesbian persons are by Baptism full members of the Body of Christ.  It also reiterates an earlier apology for years of rejection and maltreatment by the church.  This reaffirmation is critical, considering the context.  If we are asking for a period of waiting so that discussion and prayer can be done, we need to make it clear that we have not stepped back one bit in our basic affirmation of gays and lesbians as full brothers and sisters in Christ.  I have a sneaking suspicion that some on the extreme right still are not here - it needs to be made plain that this is really the position of the church, even if there are still questions about same-sex blessings and ordinations.

A168 - Human Rights for "Homosexual Persons."  A reaffirmation of an earlier GC resolution that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the law.

A169 - Amend Canon III.1: Quadrilateral and Exercise of Ministry.  This is very interesting.  It revises the ordination canons so that no one can be denied access to the discernment process on the basis of personal belief if they hold to the basics of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.  This is a "conscience clause" and would preserve diversity, as I suspect it could be utilized both on the left and the right. 

All in all, I'm very pleased with this document.  I think most of the resolutions will make it to GC at least in some amended form.  One of the most important things it may do is convince some on the extreme right that many, if not most of those, who supported (or at least didn't oppose) Robinson's election and consecration do have a concern for scripture, tradition, mission, catholicity and unity.  I've seen a lot of material from the right lately that lumps everyone who doesn't oppose the Robinson decision with The Rt. Rev. James Pike, who was an Episcopal Bishop who denied the doctrine of the Trinity.  (He was censured by General Convention for his heterodoxy and later developed clinical insanity during the course of his bishopric, but that's not usually noted by people frothing at the mouth.)  Likewise, I hope that people on the extreme left will be able to read this document, especially the portions on colonialism and understand how the "Global South" sees our actions vis a vis Gene Robinson in the same exact light as the war in Iraq and the aggressive western capitalism and cultural decay that accompanies globalization. 

Of course, those with narrow agendas on either side will not accept the ideas in this report,  but we will NEVER get resolutions that will make everyone happy.  I think these resolutions step back from a war, and foster conversation with the vast majority of the members of the Anglican Communion, who may not be happy with our decisions, but are willing to stay engaged.

I think it is time to act with humility and make space for real conversation, while still claiming that the base actions we took reflected views based in scripture, tradition and reason.  For the sake of the mission and unity of the church we can take these actions, but only if it leads to real conversations that have not materialized so far.

For the first time, I'm hopeful about what we might accomplish at General Convention 2006.

David+

 

Comments

[Sarah Dylan Breuer]

David,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I started leaving a very long comment in response, but then decided that: a) it was too long; and b) others would probably be interested in it; so I posted my response here instead:

http://tinyurl.com/opnax

Blessings,

Dylan

[the-methotaku]

From my Methodist perspective, I would have considered A162 to mean a complete ban on all same-sex unions conducted publicly in a church building, while allowing prists to 'say a few words' in the privacy of their offices or in the homes of queer couples. This is certainly what Integrity thinks. http://www.integrityusa.org/press/2006-04-21.pdf

This is also why I don't think that the gay issue by itself is worth changing churches over. Too much is in flux.

[Glenn Gould]

David,

Was unaware of your site until today - glad to know you're here.

Homophobia is the nail we're not hitting on the head - we're even afraid as a church to use the word.

It's so much easier to discuss "Anglican Unity" than to face the age old sin of the hatred, revulsion, fear, discomfort - and resulting persecution and discrimination agains gay and lesbian persons.

I'm aware that I'm painting with too broad a brush - not everyone opposed to Gene Robinson's consecration is homophobic - but I believe that it is not a stretch at all to call the Windsor Report and all the highly polished and theologically sound blithering that has ensued - avoidance. Sinful.

We should not be calling our church to deep repentence for having done the right thing in the right way. We should have been consecrating people like Gene Robinson long ago. His consecration was long overdue.

Blessings ...