Deconstructing Rowan

When I read Rowan Williams’ “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” (CCAF) at the beginning of the week—it is now Friday—it pushed a lot of my hot buttons. I have been working fitfully all week trying to tease apart the content of the archbishop’s reflection and to express some of the thoughts it has inspired. By now, of course, everyone may be weary of reading analyses of CCAF.

Weary or not, I now offer my own deconstruction of CCAF and thoughts about what the Archbishop has said and where his thinking is tending. You can read my essay, “Reflecting on the Archbishop’s Reflection” on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. Although my own analysis comes late to the party, I hope it will be found worth reading. It is, of course, written by an unabashed Episcopalian who admittedly is finding both the archbishop and the Anglican Communion a bit tiresome.

Here are a few random thoughts from “Reflecting on the Archbishop’s Reflection” that are discussed at greater length there:

1. The archbishop is showing signs of flexibility, probably because he is afraid of how things will play out. He needs to expand his horizons even more.
2. Rowan Williams and others promoting an Anglican covenant are revolutionaries, not preservers of the Anglican Communion. They have portrayed the Communion as being the way they would like it to be, not as it has been.
3. The archbishop has conflated the issues of same-sex unions and gay bishops. The issues are separable and should be dealt with individually.
4. Heterosexual marriage isn’t threatened by same-sex unions. The Church has invested more significance in marriage than it deserves.
5. The archbishop apparently knows nothing about risk assessment or change management.

Somewhat arrogantly, perhaps, I have placed my latest essay in the Church Resources section of my Web site. I considered placing in under Commentary, but I am hoping that it may have some enduring value as a “resource.” Time will tell. In any case, let me make a special invitation to readers to comment on my essay. If appropriate, I will discuss any comments I receive here. Click on “Send comments here,” at the left to offer your thoughts.

What D025 Has Done

Ann Rodgers wrote a story a couple of days ago for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette headlined “Episcopal gay bishops decision confounds activists.” The story, of course, was about General Convention Resolution D025, which has now been passed in its final form by both houses. (The margin of victory was approximately 2–1 among bishops, clergy, and laity.) The resolution reads as follows:

Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further

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

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of “listening to the experience of homosexual persons,” as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships “characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God” (2000-D039); and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God’s call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.

I’m not sure this resolution has “confounded” any church “activists.” I do not feel confounded personally. Certainly, people are spinning the passage of D025 to see what they want to see, but I doubt that many are missing, in their heart of hearts, the real message of D025.

No doubt I will be accused of spin as well, but I want to take a crack at evaluating the significance of D025.

Moratorium

The big concern about D025 on both sides of the Atlantic seems to be with The Episcopal Church’s moratorium on gay bishops. Analysis here is best begun with a few questions and answers.

Q. Is there now a moratorium in The Episcopal Church on the consecration of gay bishops?

A. No.

Q. Was there ever such a moratorium?

A. No.

Q. Were the canons regarding the ordination of gays changed in 2006?

A. No.

Q. Were the canons regarding the ordination of gays changed in 2009?

A. No.

Q. Has anything changed?

A. Yes, definitely.

Q. Will there soon be more gay bishops in The Episcopal Church?

A. Maybe, maybe not. There surely will be eventually.

Resolution B033, passed at the end of the 2006 General Convention—see my 2006 essay “Is the Episcopal Church About to Surrender?”—“call[ed] upon” those responsible for approving the consecration of a new bishop 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.” The resolution did not demand restraint, nor could it, as the constitution and canons of the church prescribe how bishops are chosen. Those regulations cannot be overridden by a General Convention resolution. In particular, Canon III.1.2 applies to the selection of bishops:

No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.

One can quibble about the relation of this canon to B033, but many considered the General Convention resolution to have either violated Canon III.1.2 directly (and to therefore have been of no legal effect) or to have encouraged its violation. In practice, no gay bishop has been selected since B033 was enacted. We cannot know if the resolution prevented a gay bishop from being selected; gay candidates for the episcopate were certainly considered during this period, even though none was actually elected.

The legislative committee out of which D025 emerged in nearly its final state chose to follow the advice of the Presiding Bishop in choosing how to deal with B033:

“I've been very clear in my public communications for the last few months that my hope is that we not attempt to repeal past legislation at General Convention—it’s a bad legislative practice,” said Jefferts Schori. “I would far more prefer us to say where we are today, in 2009, to make a positive statement about our desire to include all people fully in this church and that we be clear about who we are as the Episcopal Church.[”] (From “Episcopal Church leaders give webcast preview of General Convention .”)

The resulting legislation has three parts:

1. A declaration of support for the Anglican Communion.
2. A description of the church’s view of long-term, monogamous, same-sex couples and the access to ordained positions in the church afforded persons in such relationships.
3. An acknowledgment that neither The Episcopal Church nor the Anglican Communion is of one mind with respect to the matters dealt with in the second part of the resolution.

One gets the feeling that parts (1) and (3) are sweeteners for, what for many, is the bitter pill of (2), the heart of the resolution. What the general convention did was to reiterate what the church has already said about gays, on one hand, and to call attention to the non-discriminatory canons by which people attain ordained positions, including bishop, in The Episcopal Church. The church has no problems with long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships, and persons in such relationships are perfectly acceptable as bishops, all things being equal.

B033, of course, is not mentioned in the resolution. What of it? Technically, B033 has been neither repealed nor modified, and it is therefore still in effect. On the other hand, as a later resolution, it is D025, not B033 that represents the General Convention’s current thinking on the matter of gay bishops. Is the church really saying now that anyone, including a gay person in a monogamous same-sex relationship, is as eligible to be considered for elevation to bishop as anyone else, but don’t dare vote for such a person? I think not. B033 is essentially dead. Some who must consent to the consecration of any future episcopal candidate may think about B033 in making their decision. Certainly, a responsible decision maker must consider the possible consequences of his or her vote, but D025 will make a vote for a gay candidate much easier, as the “advice” the General Convention gave in 2006 is rescinded, de facto, if not de jure, by D025.

Other Matters

I believe The Episcopal Church generally, and the 2006 General Convention particularly, has been disingenuous in its dealings with the Anglican Communion. Had it been asked directly if it wanted to declare an indefinitely long moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops, the 2006 General Convention would almost assuredly have voted no. Bishops were afraid they might not be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference unless they did something that at least looked like a moratorium, however, so they came up with the ambiguous—some would say duplicitous—B033. Deputies were given insufficient time to consider the legislation fully and, at the urging the Presiding Bishop and his elected successor, probably acted against their collective better judgment.

What is refreshing about D025, despite a certain obliqueness I would have preferred to have seen eliminated, is that it represents The Episcopal Church as it is, rather than how we would like others to perceive it is in order to get them off our backs. After repeatedly playing games with the bigots and despots among the Anglican primates, our church has declared that it has no essential problem with homosexual sex and maintains no institutional barriers to the consecration of future gay bishops.

The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas, in a video explaining D025 posted on the General Convention’s Media Hub Web site, described the resolution as being “honest,” “clear,” and “transparent.” That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but his point is well taken. Relating D025 to the Anglican Communion, Douglas said, “Communion is about being genuine with each other. There is no real communion if we don't speak the truth in love.” Someone should have told this to The Episcopal Church six years ago.

President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Shori have now written a letter to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to offer their perspective on the passage of D025. “We understand Resolution D025 to be more descriptive than prescriptive in nature—a statement that reaffirms commitments already made by The Episcopal Church and that acknowledges certain realities of our common life,” they wrote. D025 was passed “with the hope that such authenticity would contribute to deeper conversation in these matters.” Anderson and Jefferts Schori assert that B033 has not been repealed, while acknowledging that, for many, at least, it effectively has been.

I strongly take issue with Jefferts Schori’s view that repealing past legislation is “bad legislative practice.” I think she made up this ludicrous assertion in order to be able to say to the Anglican Communion—to the Archbishop of Canterbury in this case—that B033 is still in effect. Practically, it is not.

I was disappointed in my own assisting bishop’s statement in Ann Rodgers’ story. The Rt. Rev. Robert H. Johnson apparently said that the General Convention did not repeal B033. “I don’t see that there would be any threat to the moratorium unless we get presented with another partnered lesbian or gay bishop. That would be the test. But [D025] was a clarification, reminding us of where we are in the Episcopal Church. That is the way the bishops saw it,” Rodgers quotes Johnson as saying. I’m sure that Johnson is concerned about retaining the conservatives who have remained in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and about not unnecessarily alienated those who have left the diocese but might conceivably come back.

My own view is that anyone who has been paying attention could not have been surprised by the position taken in D025, though he or she might have been surprised that General Convention had the courage actually to articulate it. Anyone who cannot live with a church that can pass a D025 might be happier in some other church.

I note that D025 contains a number of grammatical flaws and is rather more effusive than absolutely necessarily in its support of the Anglican Communion, which, in the past six years, can best be characterized as the instrument of our church’s persecution. (See my post “D025.”) Predictably, the Archbishop of Canterbury has criticized The Episcopal Church for abandoning the mythical moratorium, while taking no notice of our support offered the Anglican Communion in the General Convention resolution. We are, of course, used to this kind of treatment. Perhaps we are finally getting fed up with it, however.

Finally, D025 is gratifying to Episcopalians like me who have seen our church tie itself into knots trying to reconcile the irreconcilable and placate those who want nothing more than to cast us into the outer darkness. D025 should also provide some hope to GLBT people in Africa and elsewhere who have been the hidden victims of the ignorance and prejudice of all too many Anglican leaders. There is reason to hope that a new day is dawning for authentic Anglicanism. May its light shine in the most benighted corners of the Anglican universe.

In Support of Judge Sotomayor (maybe)

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to a seat on the Supreme Court seems most threatened (though perhaps not seriously) by her remarks to students at U.C. Berkeley School of Law in 2001. In a lecture, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” Sotomayor said, “Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

People—Republicans, actually, which is not the same thing—have asked if this remark means that Sotomayor believes that a judge’s ethnicity or life experience should influence his or her decisions, irrespective of applicable law. Sotomayor has been slow to respond to this question. Prior to yesterday, she seemed to minimize the significance of her remark and emphasized her commitment to following written law and judicial precedent. I have found Sotomayor’s responses unsatisfactory, as I thought there was a point to what she said at Berkeley, and I could not understand her reluctance to make it.

Following the troublesome sentence, Sotomayor said the following:

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I find this very close to an acceptable explanation of the troublesome remark. Unfortunately, it contains a couple of additional problematic elements, elements present, no doubt, because the speaker was not thinking of her future Senate hearing to become a Supreme Court justice.

Critics have picked up on this sentence: “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.” This ill-phrased statement gives critics reason to ask if Sotomayor believes that judges pick and choose among facts before them based on their life experience or, in the least favorable interpretation, based on their prejudices. A more sympathetic view is that our experiences in life sensitize us to some issues but fail to sensitize us to others. Sotomayor’s use of “choose” was unfortunate. The point she should have been making is that our life experience constrains our vision in ways that we do not explicitly choose.

Also distressing is the final sentence of the passage: “But I accept there will be some [difference in my judging] based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” At yesterday’s hearing, Sotomayor offered an explanation aimed, I assume, at countering this statement. Her background, she suggested, would affect her judging process, not her actual judgments. I understand what she was getting at, but this explanation is nonsensical. If her background affects how she works as a judge, it necessarily will influence her work products. That is the whole point of the last several decades of work in process improvement.

Since Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t seem too good at helping herself—the goal of a Supreme Court nominee these days is to talk at length, saying as little as possible—let me offer a broader defense of her 2001 remarks.

If an intelligent Martian landed on Earth tomorrow who knew our language but had no experience with our culture, that Martian might make an adequate judge in traffic court, at least some of the time. You wouldn’t want this beast on the Supreme Court, however. Why not? Because the law exists within the context of a complex society, a Supreme Court justice needs to understand how the law relates to that society—legal arguments often involve analogies requiring a deep understanding of the culture for their understanding and evaluation—and how a particular judgment might affect society going forward. The Supreme Court hears the tough cases for which the law, as written and heretofore interpreted, is somehow inadequate. Having extensive life experience is therefore invaluable to a Supreme Court justice, where the insights gained therefrom are especially needed. We’re not talking about indulging prejudices, but about have as good a grasp as possible of the nuances of society at all levels that might be relevant.

How does this relate to the “Latina woman” of Sotomayor’s speech? Surely picking such a person off the street and making her a Supreme Court justice would put no more insight on the bench than would plucking a white male from Harvard Law School. Sonia Sotomayor, however, is living an upper middle class life in the American mainstream. As such, she could be expected to appreciate (and, to some extent, share) the perspective of the Harvard Law candidate. Additionally, however, she possesses an understanding of a completely different slice of American society that the typical white lawyer would not be expected to appreciate in the same way. That understanding is a resource she brings to the judicial process, both to help her understand the issues before the court and the likely consequences of its decisions. This is what could make the judgment of the Latina women better than that of the white male.

Sonia Sotomayor should have said something like the foregoing. I find the argument compelling, inclining me to support her nomination. I am slightly less impressed than I might otherwise be, however, because she has not clearly articulated this obvious argument herself.

Nice try, but

For its 76th General Convention in Anaheim, which is going on now, The Episcopal Church touted its “Media Hub” as an effective tool to follow the proceedings. This Web site (at http://gchub.episcopalchurch.org/), was supposed to provide live video, video on demand, and links to other information related to the General Convention. As an Episcopalian who attended much of the 2006 General Convention but who was unable to go to Anaheim this year, I had looked forward to having a virtual seat for General Convention 2009 events.

It is perhaps an overstatement to say that the Media Hub is a colossal flop, but, at least for me, it has been a source of much exasperation and disappointment.

It must be said, of course, that the idea of the Media Hub was terrific. Collecting information about the complex, nearly two-week-long event all in one place was surely a good plan. I looked forward to seeing streaming video of live events, as well as video on demand of events I had to miss or wanted to see again. The links to ENS stories are helpful, and legislation tracking is helpful to a point. (The Media Hub provides a different view of the legislative process than does the site at http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/, which is probably the ultimate source for what appears on the Media Hub.) Some other features are less obviously useful.

Today, however, I have had it with the Media Hub, and I’ve learned that others have experienced the same problems I have. The video provides good quality picture and sound, but there seem to be more annoying freezes than from other sites. Perhaps the server and bandwidth resources devoted to the Media Hub are inadequate.

More annoying is the less-than-systematic posting of on-demand video. I caught the end of the evening media briefing on Monday, and I have been trying to see the entire event ever since. It was not quickly made available, and I wrote to the e-mail address provided for support. I have received no reply. Since then, more video has been posted, including, apparently, the event I wanted to see. Alas, when I try to view it, Internet Explorer suggests the file is loading, but nothing ever happens. Firefox behaves the same way. More helpfully, Safari quickly tells me that the file, whose path it displays, could not be found. Several other video clips are advertised as available but seemingly are not. Moreover, the listing of on-demand video clips is only approximately in chronological order and includes duplicates.

Most annoying, however, is the fact that there seem to be problems with the code behind the Media Hub front page. Internet Explorer indicates that the page loads, but with errors, the nature of which is unclear. Both Internet Explorer and Firefox display error messages related to scripts running on the page. These messages (or the underlying errors) can make it difficult to close (or use) a window displaying the Media Hub.

Even with its faults, I have continued to visit the Media Hub. It is, after all, the only game in town, for video, anyway. Unfortunately, what I must say to The Episcopal Church is, “Nice try, but you didn’t quite deliver what was promised.” Perhaps the church can do better in 2012.

Postscript. I have been reminded that much of what Episcopalians want to know about the General Convention can be found in its accustomed place, Episcopal Life Online. Episcopal Life Online even has some video and picture galleries. You may not find everything there, but what you do find works.

D025

NOTE: Apparently, I posted this essay after the House of Deputies passed the resolution in question. (The Web site tracking legislation apparently is not always updated in a timely fashion.) Since the resolution was not amended by the deputies, my comments about the resolution itself are still appropriate.

The Episcopal Church’s 2009 General Convention has a lot on its plate, not all of which is of great interest to the world (or even the Anglican Communion) at large. The world will certainly be watching how the convention deals with the 2006 convention’s eleventh-hour Resolution B033, however. (See my earlier post, “Kudos for Bonnie.”) The World Mission Legislative Committee (WMLC) has now reported out resolution D025 for consideration by the House of Deputies, making this a good time to look at how the convention might deal with what many now consider its mistake of three years ago.

Resolution D025 was proposed by D. Rebecca Snow, an attorney and deputy from the Diocese of Alaska. The original text can be found here. The WMLC was assigned a number of resolutions dealing with B033 and chose to rework D025 to produce a proposal on the subject for forwarding to the House of Deputies. The committee vote on the revised resolution was 24–2 among deputies but 2–3 among bishops. (More details are available in the ENS story “B033-related legislation to move to House of Deputies.”) The difference in the vote among deputies and bishops is striking, but it is not clear how significant it is. The bishops may want a stronger or a weaker resolution, or simply a better one, and the votes of five bishops may not be representative of the House of Bishops generally. We may never know, of course, as the resolution may not even reach the junior house in its current form.

I find it interesting (and unhelpful) that the WMLC, while editing D025 a good deal, did not at all modify the Explanation of the resolution. (I assume this is standard practice.) As I have complained before, the General Convention is not always clear about why it is doing what it does. Whereas members of the two legislative houses may cast identical votes for quite diverse reasons, legislative committees could be more helpful by explaining why they have done what they have done. In this case, however, although many words have been changed, the thrust and spirit of the original resolution seem to have come through the committee process intact. Actually, if the committee had to agree on a statement explaining what it just did, its work might take twice as long! Sigh!

I want to offer my own commentary on the current version of the resolution, which I will do paragraph by paragraph. In what follows, the original resolution appears on the left, and the current resolution appears on the right.

D025 as of July 12

The resolution begins:

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That this 76th General Convention reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further

Although the current resolution is not particularly objectionable, one wonders why the committee chose to tinker with the original. This paragraph has lost focus, which should be on our commitment to the Anglican Communion and to maintaining the highest degree of communion possible. (Am I the only person sick of this phrase?) Anyway, if we reaffirm our commitment, why do we need to reaffirm our participation? It seems to me that we reaffirm our participation—whatever that means—by participating. No doubt, the bishops on the committee were responsible for inserting the gratuitous thanks for the work of the Lambeth Conference. (Would bishops have the same fondness for the Anglican Communion if they didn’t get a junket to England every 10 years? Did I really say that? Sorry.) The committee avoided serious irony by not also expressing gratitude for the work of the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council, or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Reference to the Lambeth Conference calls attention unnecessarily to these omissions. Both the original and current texts omit a needed semicolon before “and seek.”

The resolution continues:

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, parishes, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion, including but not limited to networks involving youth, women, and indigenous people; networks and ministries concerned with ecumenical and interfaith work, peace and justice, liturgy, environmental issues, health, and education; and companion diocese relationships; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Mercifully, the committee shortened this provision. Sadly, it did not eliminate it. Participation of the church at all levels should be contingent on its facilitating mission; it should not be an end in itself. The lack of a needed comma after “networks” is clearly an artifact of a faulty editing process.

The next paragraph is the following:

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to maintain its full asking for the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further

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

I think the revised wording is less specific, and may therefore express a slightly weaker commitment than does the original resolution. Personally, I would like to see this resolve dropped. The first paragraph of the resolution implies that we will do our part financially. We should stop at that implication. (Arguably, we are paying more than our fair share. If Nigeria can make demands on the Communion by virtue of its containing such a large share of the world’s Anglicans, let it pay as though that fact means something.) Anyway, this resolve brings to mind our government’s reluctance ever to rule out using nuclear weapons, the purpose of which is to avoid giving our enemies the confidence that they are safe from our nuclear stockpile no matter what they do. Likewise, we should not give the Anglican Communion reason to think that our commitment to paying about a third of the Communion’s expenses is absolute, no matter how much our church is abused by the Communion.

The resolution continues:

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention affirm the value of “listening to the experience of homosexual persons,” as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of “listening to the experience of homosexual persons,” as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships “characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God” (2000-D039); and be it further

This resolve survived without any significant change. (Note, however, that the addition of “(2000-D039)” is not clearly marked as such on the legislation tracking site.) This resolve, of course, is getting to the heart of what the resolution is all about. The text makes its point powerfully and succinctly. The quotation from 2000-D039 is correct, although one might have wished that semicolons had been employed to clarify the syntax. I would also like to see commas around “through our own listening.”

Next, we have the following:

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention recognize that individuals who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church over the centuries and are currently doing so in our midst, often without the church’s recognition of their lifelong committed relationships and the blessings bestowed by such relationships, and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further

It is certainly positive that this resolve identifies specifically the people about whom it is talking, rather than using the phrase “individuals who are part of such relationships,” referring to the previous resolve. On the other hand, it pleads its case somewhat less passionately. I would place a comma after “Apostolic Church.”

Moving right along, we have:

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention affirm that God may call such individuals, like any other baptized members, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, which call is tested in our polity through our discernment processes carried out under Canon III of The Episcopal Church and the canons of its dioceses, and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, which call is tested through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further

This resolve might be clarified by not having to refer to the previous resolve. I like the addition of “has called and” to the current text. One can quibble about other changes, but I have no strong feelings about them. Another comma fault is present as a result of careless editing. The comma after “individuals” is needed in the original, but it is misplaced in the revised paragraph. Then, there is the matter that our discernment process does not act. There are more serious problems here, however. (See below.)

And now, the last resolve:

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention acknowledge that, while the members of The Episcopal Church, like those in our sister Provinces of the Anglican Communion, are not all of one mind on this issue, and that Christians of good conscience, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, may disagree about this issue, the validity of the Church’s sacraments comes from the action of the Holy Spirit in and through them, not from the frail humans celebrating them in God’s name.

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.

This final paragraph acknowledges, quite properly, of course, that all Christians are not of one mind concerning LGBT persons, even if The Episcopal Church can agree on matters relating to such persons in a manner specified by its governing documents. The WMLC wisely threw out the reference to the Donatist heresy, which, though relevant, is too complicated to explain adequately here. Alas, the current text is not felicitously phrased. First, there should be a comma after “The Episcopal Church.” But the real problem is that the various elements of the sentence simply do not come in the most logical order. The original phrasing was much better, but it lead to the Donatist business that the committee decided to scrap. There are more serious problems, however, as the resolution refers to members of The Episcopal Church and members of the Anglican Communion. But members of The Episcopal Church are humans, and members of the Anglican Communion are provinces (churches). Oops! Something like the following should be substituted:

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention acknowledge that, whereas the members of The Episcopal Church, like those in our sister Provinces of the Anglican Communion, are not all of one mind about these matters, Christians of good conscience, based even on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, may disagree about them.

I still find myself uncomfortable about the use of “these matters,” as it is not completely clear what matters are being referenced.

Further Thoughts

On the whole, the revised D025 is not a bad effort, even though it needs another copyediting pass. I cannot help but feel that, although the resolution seems to mean to undo the effect of the infamous B033, it doesn’t quite do the job. The draft asserts that the call of “such individuals”—I hate the indirection here—to ordained ministry in our church “is tested through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.” The implication is that the nondiscrimination provisions of our governing documents will cause us to ordain LGBT persons and even consecrate them as bishops. Why don’t we just say that? Those reading this may not know our canons well enough to get the implication. As Richard E. Helmer recently said of this moment in the life of The Episcopal Church,

So it seems to me certain in this moment, as General Convention meets and considers next steps in the aftermath of B033, our primary call is to speak the truth about who and where we are as a Church—perhaps with gusto, perhaps with some humility, or offered with the spice of both.

But it must be the truth. Period.

I could not agree more.

There will be consequences, of course, to passing a resolution such as this one, and not all of the consequences involve the churches of Nigeria, Uganda, or the Southern Cone. In my own diocese, the many conservatives who broke with Bishop Robert Duncan to remain with The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh will clearly be unhappy with the passage of D025 or anything like it that weakens the virtual moratorium of B033. (See “Diocesan Deputies Help Shape Sexuality Debate” on the diocese’s Web site.) On the other hand, those folks had to know that the trajectory of The Episcopal Church was targeted at the eventual approval of same-sex unions and the selection of bishops without regard to sexual orientation. A failure to abrogate B033 would trouble the more liberal members of the diocese, myself included. We have feelings and passions, too. There is concern that passage of something like D025 will discourage those who have left The Episcopal Church from returning to it. So be it. Non-passage will surely not encourage their return. Property lawsuits might.

As for the Anglican Communion, I believe that we, as a church, have prolonged the agony of the Communion by repeatedly suggesting that we may not go where we know we want to go, where we sincerely believe God is calling us to go, and where we know we are going soon, if not in 2009. We are not willing, and we should not be willing, to wait for consensus about LGBT persons within the Anglican Communion because we know that, effectively, that will happen when hell freezes over. We actually have a better chance of preserving the Anglican Communion by making it clear now where we stand, thereby telling the Communion that it can accept the decision of an autonomous member of the fellowship, or it can change the nature of the Communion and go its own way without us. One way or another, as our conservative brothers and sisters have advised us, the Anglican Communion is going to change. If we are to be a part of the Anglican Communion, we must ensure that we are part of a Communion we can live with. If a divorce in our fellowship is in our future, we will not stand alone, and we will be better off once that painful divorce is final.