General Convention 2003
Brian Taylor’s Journal from General Convention 2003
Sunday August 3
Having arrived this afternoon at General Convention, there were no legislative meetings in session. Instead, I've been to the Cowley Publications luncheon for authors, cruised the exhibit hall, and attended the reception for my seminary, the Church Divinity School of the Pacific.
Everywhere I'm seeing old friends and wider church connections: bishops - including the first of my classmates to be made one, Gayle Harris, now an assistant bishop in Massachussetts - seminary deans, people who have read my books, monks, fellow clergy I've been in contact with over the years. I am buoyed up by the good will, diversity and wonderful strength of our church. It is immediately refreshing and inspiring - especially in contrast to life in the Diocese of the Rio Grande - knowing how many creative and inspired things are going on all around, and how much we are connected and mutually supported.
As you probably know, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an openly gay man, was approved by a legislative committee after open hearings the other day. Tomorrow the debate and vote regarding his confirmation takes place in the House of Deputies. If he is approved, it then goes to the House of Bishops on Monday afternoon. I plan to attend both debates.
The talk here is that the convention will approve Robinson, partly because the House of Deputies is more progressive and risk-taking, and partly because his role as bishop of NH won't be perceived as having an immediate impact on the rest of the church.
Same sex unions, on the other hand, could be felt, potentially, everywhere. Added to that is the fact that (assuming they will have approved Robinson already) the bishops could see a rejection of same-sex unions as a compromise that would "even the score." Finally, the debate and vote on it will begin in the more cautious House of Bishops (some of whom have made threats to leave, including Kelshaw, putting their peers on notice). All of this could very well mean that it will die in the House of Bishops and never make it to the House of Deputies. We'll see.
Before all this heats up, tomorrow morning is the big Sunday Eucharist with a cast of thousands. I fantasized Bishop Griswold walking out alone and doing a simple said Eucharist, no dancers or digital projections or orchestras, just the sacrament and a 5-minute homily. Fat chance.
Monday August 4
This morning began with a wonderful Eucharist, the main one of the convention. 10,000 people, with a choir that looked like at least a hundred. Gorgeous singing. Presiding Bishop Griswold very simply and naturally threw in several Spanish phrases, including the absolution, blessing, and just saying "Oremos" (Let us pray) before then praying in English. Reminds me to get back to some of that at St. Michael's.
A very funny moment happened in the Eucharist, kind of summing up how different it is for me to be here (or anywhere in the Episcopal Church outside of my diocese). A seminarian sat next to me, and after a little conversation, she asked me my name, and when I told her she gasped and said "Oh my God! You're Brian Taylor?!!! I've read your books, and just finished your second one while on retreat!!!" Kind of the same treatment I got at the Cowley Publication authors' luncheon yesterday and with the Holy Cross monks, who just invited me to be one of the speakers at their centenary celebration next May in NY with the Presiding Bishop and another author, Esther de Waal. I'm a little star. Nice for a change, but I know that when I get home you'll all bring me back down to earth where I belong.
You've probably heard that today the House of Deputies voted to confirm Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire. It has to now go to the House of Bishops, whose agreement on this is required for it to be final. That should happen tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest.
The vote was about 64 diocesan deputations for, 31 against, and 13 divided. Arguments in favor of Robinson ran like this: fear is the absence of faith; the Ecclesiastical Court already said there is no doctrinal hindrance to ordination of gays in the Bishop Righter trial; if we let the Bible tell us that homosexuality is a sin, then we must also accept slavery and the subjugation of women as still a good thing for us; we need to include everyone in ordained ministry; affirmation of gays and lesbians would strengthen morality and commitment in faith, not promote immorality; accepting the ordination of homosexuals won't tear apart the church any more than the ordination of women did - instead, like with women, it will draw people in and enrich the church with their gifts; respect New Hampshire's right to elect the person they know so much better than we do; let's confirm him and get on to feeding the hungry.
The arguments against were: this threatens the unity of the Church; how can I explain to the laity back home why we've abandoned the Bible; by this action the General Convention would separate itself from the Body of Christ; our kids need fixed, eternal truth; this is producing confusion and disorder in the church, which are not fruits of the Holy Spirit; there is a lack of consensus, so we're not ready; we'll lose money and parishioners and maybe get sued; homosexual actions have always been understood as sinful; don't be swayed by your feelings, by warm fuzzies such as "inclusion" and "justice," instead, decide with your reason and obedience to God.
I could see how it would go when 4 times as many people lined up to speak at the pro microphone as at the con one. In spite of the hundreds who wanted to speak, it was limited to 45 minutes debate, two minutes each person, going back and forth between the two microphones. They voted down two attempts to extend the debate by 15 more minutes. It's all been said.
I'm still disappointed that in this debate, the liberals just forfeit the Bible to the conservatives. Why don't more people stand up and say "you anti-homosexual folks don't own the Bible, revelation, tradition, and obedience. We care just as much as you do about these things, only differently. We're committed to the authority of the Bible, as it is understood in its historical contexts; we look for God's revelation, understanding that we have to be cautious about filtering out temporal human/cultural influences from eternal truth; we believe in a tradition that must evolve as humans evolve according to the prompting of the Spirit through history; we're obedient to God, too, according to these principles." Well, that's what I would have said, anyway. Instead, we've got warm fuzzies on one side, and hard reason on the other. Grrrr......
On to the House of Bishops, which is the place to be in the next couple of days. They take up this debate and vote tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest, then they will deal first with the resolutions on same-sex blessings
Tuesday August 5
What a day. I'm exhausted. The media is crawling all over the place here, so I assume you've heard. The scheduled debate and vote on the confirmation of Gene Robinson in the House of Bishops was delayed, after an hour of breathless waiting by those in an auxiliary auditorium with video connection. The Presiding Bishop finally came on the screen, announcing that two charges had been levelled against bishop-elect Robinson, and that an investigation would have to ensue before debate and voting could continue:
1. An organization to support health and safety for gay and lesbian youth which Robinson helped found some years ago, called Outright, now supposedly has internet links to links that link to "pornographic sites." [Look for yourself: www.outright.org]. This charge was made by one infamous David Virtue, an Episcopal attorney and "reporter" known for his muckracking journalism. His wild accusations are found on his website, www.orthodoxanglican.org/virtuosity. Look for the link to General Convention and Gene Robinson.
[Most people here already know the snake-belly-low level of Virtue's virtue, and also know that one can find a three-link distance on the internet between anyone and something awful.]
2. Someone sent an email to all the bishops (immediately after the House of Deputies approved Robinson) and claimed to have been touched by Robinson during conversations in a way that felt uncomfortable.
[This must be investigated seriously, but one must be suspicious of the 11th hour nature of this accusation, after all this: Robinson's several-month candidacy in NH, his election there (with opportunity for objection), and yesterday's debate and vote on confirming his election in the House of Deputies yesterday. All of a sudden, one email goes to all the bishops and to the media, right before their vote, grinding the entire convention to a halt.]
The bishop of Western Massachussetts, known to be a left-brain no-nonsense, non-political type, was assigned to head the investigation. They are, no doubt, combing both the internet and the deep woods of New Hampshire as I write.
The voices of both left and right are saying the right thing: we have a transparent process that deals with such accusations, and that process will be conducted thoroughly and a report made to the House of Bishops. But the word in the hallways is that this is a last-ditch, scurrilous, mudslinging attempt to derail the consent for his election, or at least to forever sully the name of Gene Robinson in the national media as a perverted GAY bishop.
Meanwhile, Gene Robinson has had two hefty bodyguards who accompany him wherever he or his partner go during this convention, and plainclothes police are everywhere else. A scuffle in the hallway today involving an intruder running in the hall brought several police and media down upon him. Protesters have included the infamous family that carry signs to such events: "God Hates Fags," and "Matthew Shepherd is burning in Hell." What is all this fear, violence, and anger really about? This is where the politics of the church gets nasty. And yet, it is a political process, and one should expect and be able to withstand this sort of thing.
The sense is here that these accusations will be cleared up in a day or two, and the vote on consent will go forward either tomorrow late afternoon or Wednesday, and certainly by Friday when Convention concludes. Perhaps the vote for his consent will be strengthened by this desperate ploy.
High drama in the hallways. Cellphones, emails, media, reports on CNN and the other networks in the bars after hours. Oh my.
Meanwhile, the House of Bishops will soon be dealing with another bombshell, the subtitute resolution for same-sex blessings offered by the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music. It is their conclusive final edit from the various resolutions on the subject which have been brought to this convention. This resolution calls for the development of blessing rites for inclusion in Enriching our Worship, if approved next convention in three years. EOW is a resource whose use is dependent upon the local bishop's permission. This is seen as a compromise, which would allow "orthodox" bishops to keep their dioceses "pure." [I think of dry counties. But at least it might allow diversity of practice within the church.] The word is that it has a good chance of passage.
In the sources here, we are told that in response to all this, conservatives will meet this fall to align themselves into a new "network" outside the Episcopal Church, recognized - they hope - by the Archbishop of Canterbury, convening diocesan conventions for that purpose. But we are also told that bishops and dioceses will not attempt to actually leave the canonical authority of the Episcopal Church, because of money: clergy pension and church property. [The difference between dioceses deciding to align alternatively and actually leaving the Episcopal Church is fuzzy to me and to everyone here.] They will also encourage individual parishes to leave liberal dioceses and put themselves under the oversight of non-geographical conservative bishops (which has been going on for years already).
After this soap-opera day, the deputation from the diocese of the Rio Grande met in the bishop's hotel suite this evening. The conversation with some 20 of us came around to the fallout of all this. I had to speak up when the bishop repeated the accusations of "pornography," asking him if he'd visited the website in question, as I had. The bishop claimed that as soon as the allegations were raised, the website cleaned up their act and certain links disappeared.
I also pressed the issue of diocesan alignment, saying that as long as he and the diocese remains under the authority and canons of the Episcopal Church, he will be St. Michael's bishop. I added that if he or the diocese were to make a break with this authority, that would be another matter that would involve diocesan restructuring, an election of a new bishop, possible lawsuits over property, etc.
Everyone, including the bishop, seemed to acknowlege that this was not a desirable direction. But he said that if individual parishes chose to leave the Episcopal Church, he'd help them. In view of possible lawsuits by "continuing members" over their parish property, the suggestion was made that "orthodox" members of congregations should leave their property behind, an idea that Bishop Kelshaw didn't contradict.
The Bishop's assistant assured me afterwards that Bishop Kelshaw has absolutely no intention of trying to take the diocese out of the Episcopal Church; he is instead concerned with a "retirement strategy," and we should expect something along these lines this fall.
Some other much more pleasant news. A woman that attends St. Michael's with her family when staying at their home in Albuquerque, about two months a year, was elected today as Vice President of the House of Deputies. Bonnie Anderson is from Detroit, on the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church (our governing body between Conventions), has been chair of the Program, Budget and Finance Commiteee for several years, and was the Canon to the Ordinary (bishop's assistant) in Michigan. Today I had lunch with her husband Glen and daughter Devon. I hope we'll see them again soon, worshiping at St. Michael's.
Finally, there continue to be people who approach me about having read my books or having heard of St. Michael and All Angels, holding fast in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, creating interesting ministries such as the Contemplative Center. Their enthusiastic praise and encouragement for me and all of you gives me a great feeling of support that is nation-wide in the Episcopal Church. We are surrounded "by a great cloud of witnesses."
Wednesday August 6
Unless you've been on retreat in Siberia, you've heard already about the final consent given to the election of Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire.
Sorry for the length of this one, but I wanted you to get a feeling of the events of the day. Go to the General Convention website for a fuller picture of what is going on here (there is more work and ministry being done than just on homosexuality, by the way).
At 1:00 it became known around the halls that the investigation on allegations against Robinson was concluded and would be reported to the bishops this afternoon, and that a vote would then go forward. At 1:30 I joined a group of about two hundred others who waited in a holding area for two hours in order to get a seat in the House of Bishops for the debate.
At 3:30 they ushered us in, where the bishops had already spent a half hour in silent prayer, confession and anointing with oil in order to "free ourselves from the affectivity that hovers over us so that we might enter into the discussion with a greater degree of interior freedom."
The Presiding Bishop led all this, then announced that there would be a report on the investigation. Regarding the website with "pornographic links", this was an organization to support gay and lesbian youth that Robinson helped to found in 1995; his role was to establish guidelines for appropriate boundaries between gay youth and adults in various programs. In 1998 he left the organization, and they didn't put together a website until 2002. So much for that accusation.
The other allegation turned out to be a man whom the investigating bishops telephoned, who told them that Robinson had twice touched his arm and back when responding to questions of his during a public church meeting in 1999. He felt uncomfortable about it at the time but didn't tell anyone until after the House of Deputies vote Sunday, when he thought "someone should know." Once the House of Bishops (and the media) had descended upon him and explained to him the grounds for harassment charges and the process for seeing them through, he backed way off and didn't want to take it any further, apologizing for the fuss he caused, thanking the church for taking him seriously, regretting his use of the term "harassment" and declining the offer to file charges. Obviously he was in way over his head. The investigators concluded that there was no need to pursue the investigation about either allegation any further.
The Presiding Bishop then introduced an Ignatian process of discernment: prayer for interior freedom and deliverance from bias; consider the statement "confirm the election of Gene Robinson" in prayer; go around each small table of bishops for 15 minutes, each bishop giving reaons why it might not be a good idea to confirm; then do the same for reasons why it might be a good idea; everyone making notes about what was said on both sides of the issue. Then they spent time in silent prayer, asking God what the nature of the spirit was behind each list of reasons.
Then they had an hour of open debate. Their discussion was much more leisurely, reasoned, intelligent, respectful and subtle that those that took place in the House of Deputies. I remember this from Denver in 2000.
It seemed to me that the (relatively few) arguments against confirmation were grounded in fear: of schism, loss of moral moorings, fracturing the Episcopal Church and Anglicanism, chaos, what will we tell the folks back home...
I found the arguments in favor of consent much more eloquent and compelling and hopeful:
* Just as with the ordination of women as priests and then bishops (Barbara Harris pointing this out) - which also brought dire predictions of disaster - this too would result in growth, enrichment of the church, evangelism.
* when the Episcopal Church has taken a risk, the Anglican Communion has eventually followed: on Darwinian evolution theory, divorce, birth control, the ordination of women.
* Robinson's election is bringing younger people into the Episcopal Church, because they're impressed with us being the only church that is dealing with this up front, in a positive way, and they don't seem to have much of a problem with the issue, as their parents' generation does.
* Gene Robinson is a wholesome example, well known in New Hampshire.
* The biblical passages that condemn homosexual behavior are not speaking to healthy, loving relationships between people who identify themselves as homosexual, but rather, to heterosexuals (as everyone understood themselves to be then) who had violated their own human (heterosexual) nature.
* Reasons not to confirm are tinged with fear, reasons to confirm are tinged with hope.
* Baptism is the foundation of all ministry; if we're not going to excommunicate gays and lesbians, we should be willing to ordain them.
* Keeping people scared out of their wits is becoming a political fine art, which has nothing to do with faith.
* Jesus said that there was truth that his disciples could not yet bear, but that the Holy Spirit would be given to lead them into all truth: God is now leading us into further truth through continuing revelation
* Just because an action may be costly (people leaving), that is no reason not to do the right thing.
I took notes all the way through, and in spite of my own obvious bias, I don't think I've over-emphasized the high number and variety of pro-arguments or the much smaller number and simpler message of the con-arguments. That's how it went. By the difference between the arguments, I expected a pro-consent landslide, but when the votes were counted, it was 62 for, 45 against.
Tonight many of the conservatives looked crushed, very sad. But I couldn't see any triumphalism on the other side. Bishop Griswold kept it very quiet and prayerful, leading everyone at the end in a gentle singing of the Taize chant Ubi Caritas (where love is found, God himself is there). We all filed out soberly, without much to say, mindful of this moment in history and the various positive and negative consequences that may now ensue.
Tomorrow I will go to the daily lunchtime legislative briefing of the American Anglican Congress, a consortium of conservative groups. I want to hear what they have to say about their next steps, and I think I need to witness and take in their shock, fear, sadness and loss, feelings that are much more apparent now in them than anger. I saw this clearly in our bishop's eyes yesterday, and it stopped me dead in my tracks. We all need to be sensitive to those members of our church who feel this way, even as we move ahead.
Next on the bishops' agenda, tomorrow or Thursday: same sex blessings. Conversations here say that either they will:
1. pass it easily, now that they've already argued out all the issues on this subject and came out positively on it, and also now that they have a compromise resolution, offering bishops authority over whether it is to be used in their dioceses; or
2. vote it down as a peace (or guilt) offering to those who were wounded by today's vote, giving the appearance of compromise, also because it is more controversial in that it could potentially affect every congregation of the church.
This last point is why, I am told by someone in the higher circles, they put the Robinson issue first on the agenda and kept delaying the vote on rites for same-sex blessings. For if they had denied same-sex blessings, it would have been very awkward to say yes to Robinson, who lives in the very kind of relationship they would have just declined to bless.
Instead, now those who voted for Robinson and argued for him might feel it would be hypocritical to back out on the blessings, which everyone knows is really the very same issue, supported or condemned by the same arguments they used today.
This morning the day began with a wonderful Eucharist commemorating the late 19thC Minnesota Ojibwe Episcopal priest Enmegahbowh. Four Native American bishops presided (including Steven Plummer, Navajo). The service began and was interspersed with a drumming/singing circle, a loud pounding rhythm with high wailing voices that is so familiar to us in New Mexico, but which when done here in this convention center had an electrifying effect, especially as the lone dancer with eagle feathers, beadwork, leather fringe and ankle bells slowly circled down the center aisle. The liturgy moved between English, Navajo, Objibwe, and Dakota, with many beautiful new prayers offered in Native style, to the four directions, acknowledging buffalo, moose, water, wind, moon, sun, and the seasons of the earth. Beautiful.
It is trite to say it, but the overall impression of true diversity here is amazing. Rather than the PC buzz- word kind of diversity, this is simply a delightful and moving display of the wondrous variety of humankind and our passions. Stroll through the gigantic exhibit hall, or just open your eyes in the hallways and see prison ministers, Haitians, pro-life activists, Puerto Ricans, ecology stewards, Africans, artists, intellectuals, peace activists, young adult internet ministry maniacs, musicians, evangelicals, ladies' needlepoint guilds, liturgists, military chaplains, monks and nuns of every kind, South Americans, and my personal favorite, British animal welfare advocates, complete with liturgical vigils for suffering pets and burial rites.
Tonight I'm proud of our church, for our celebration of human diversity, and also for having the courage to do what absolutely no other traditional sacramental mainline church is ready or willing to do: step out in public and face, head-on, a controversial issue that deeply affects the lives of millions of our children and neighbors and friends, argue it out thoroughly in front of everyone for the last 27 years that we've been dealing with this, and then finally come out on this day saying "this may be difficult for some to hear, but as a church we don't have a moral or biblical or theological problem with homosexuality. In fact, we see it as just one more arena of human life that God blesses and makes sacred. Welcome, gay and lesbian people, finally without shame, out into the open, into every level of our common church life."
Thursday August 7
Things are beginning to wind down. Everyone is exhausted in this emotional and legislative marathon. This morning I slept in, and arrived in time for a visit to the House of Bishops, where they spent an hour voicing their thoughts and feelings about the decision that was made yesterday on consent for Gene Robinson.
I am told that before that, this morning there was an alternate Eucharist publicly offered by the American Anglican Congress (AAC), a conservative coalition that has been behind most of the resistance to Robinson and same-gender blessings. I am also told that our bishop was there, vested at the altar with the other participating bishops. This was a clear signal that they consider themselves to be out of communion. This is nothing new for Bishop Kelshaw, who hasn't received communion with Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold or the other bishops in years. Kelshaw also didn't attend today's House of Bishop meetings; other bishops sat outside the bishops' enclosure in the visitors' gallery. A few deputies were said to have left the gathering. And last night, right after the vote, a group of bishops, including our own, stood up in front of the House, repudiating the action that had just been taken. All this is a sign of what is to come: bishops disassociating themselves from the Episcopal Church, yet most of them, presumably, not repudiating the canonical authority of the church (or their pensions).
Mid-morning I was interviewed on the telephone by Paul Logan of the Albuquerque Journal, for an article by him focusing on local reactions to Robinson's consent. It should be appear on Thursday or Friday morning.
I went to lunch at the AAC gathering, and I was surprised to see not anger or even grief, but a sort of buoyant resolve to keep the fight going, by meeting next in October in Plano, Texas to determine next steps, and by asking Anglican primates (heads of national church bodies), including the Archbishop of Canterbury, to have an extraordinary meeting in response. At the lunch I sat next to Canon Jeffrey Steenson, our bishop's assistant, (who is not of the AAC mindset) and who has continually assured me that the bishop has neither the desire nor the energy to join this fight of the AAC against the Episcopal Church. My sense is that our bishop will simply allow and even encourage disaffected parishes to leave and align themselves with whatever new provincial alignment within Anglicanism that they come up with. I also believe that Bishop Kelshaw will retire before too long.
To accompany their statements of denunciation, at the end of lunch some of the AAC had ashes put on their foreheads, which they wore around the convention halls for the rest of the day. No sackcloth or tearing-out of hair, however.
After lunch, I was taped by the Episcopal Church television people who are covering this convention with news programs every day on monitors in the hallways and lobbies of the convention center, and on one of the channels in the convention hotel rooms as well. My segment was a 2-minute "pastoral moment" that they're airing with different speakers every night before they sign off, a kind of beddie-bye thought to help people sleep. I did a shortened version of my sermon a week ago Sunday, on how Jesus walks on the waters of the church's storms, calming the seas as we focus on his presence in our lives.
The church budget was presented at a joint session by Bonnie Anderson, St. Michael's occasional parishioner, newly elected as vice president of the House of Deputies. She ended it by loudly playing the Beatles' "Can't buy me Love" and "Hard Day's Night" [and I been workin' like a dog]. What was interesting was that many, including bishops, jumped up and danced and clapped joyously, with the deaf interpreter signing the whole song, including playing air guitar during the guitar lead, projected there up on the big screen. It was a spontaneous eruption through the suppression of emotion in their otherwise subdued response to the events here. Unless they're partying the nights away in their hotel rooms.
Back to business in the afternoon, in the House of Bishops. A two-hour debate and action on same-sex blessings. It had the feeling of a long tie-breaker set in a tennis match, tacked on to six long sets already played. Coming back to something they had already put to bed only last night, once more into the breach! The same arguments were offered, only this time more emphasis went towards living with our differences, offering a way forward that would not condemn those who are already doing same-gender blessings and also not add insult to injury to those who were alienated by the Robinson vote. The moderates were convincing, asking for sensitivity to the conservatives: "Let's not rub their noses in it."
So here's what they did. They re-worked a proposed resolution to include:
1. reaffirmation of homosexual persons as children of God with a claim on the love, acceptance, and pastoral care of the Church (1976 General Convention)
2. acknowledgment of differences between us about how best to offer that care and about what is or should be permitted regarding same-gender blessings
3. reaffirmation of the 2002 General Convention statement that we expect such relationships to be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, etc., and that such relationships do exist throughout the church
4. recognition that faith communities are already exploring same-gender unions
5. a commitment to continue prayer and study on this issue, including a plan to develop resources, under the direction of the Presiding Bishop, to facilitate a conversation of discernment on it
6. a commitment to one another in communion despite our differences and common discipline under the authority of our canons
[If this now passes the House of Deputies tomorrow, as is required for adoption, a copy of the text of this resolution will soon be made available in the parish hall]
The one thing that was removed from the original proposed resolution was a clause calling for the development of liturgical rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, to be considered for inclusion in Enriching our Worship (a resource dependent upon the local bishop's permission) at the next General Convention in 3 years.
Instead, they ended up saying that we're in disagreement, relationships of union already exist, blessing of unions is already happening where they are permitted by bishops (and presumably won't be punished by the church for doing so), and that we need to continue to pray and study and hang together canonically despite our differences. A tiny, cautious step forward.
So the bishops didn't feel ready for the really controversial thing, not yet. They will. It was just too much for one convention to pass both Robinson and this. My high-level source tells me that they knew they'd get one of them, not two, and that it would be easier, and a more powerful public statement, to approve the election of a real-live human being who is gay, someone who can put a face on the issue right now for the church and the world, someone who will begin to participate and be an ambassador for the cause inside the House of Bishops over the next three years and beyond, instead of giving that up and slogging through three years of crafting liturgical rites with conservative criticism undermining them all along, as they attempt to make progress. Obviously the press agreed, since they seemed to have left the convention entirely as soon as they got their story on Robinson and the reaction from the AAC guys. It was weird. Here we were debating the possibility of doing same-gender blessings and the spotlights had been turned off. It felt like an afterthought.
Tomorrow night, a wrap-up.
Friday, August 8
I returned to Albuquerque today, and probably like you, have checked my email for news from General Convention. It is winding down, and tomorrow will be finishing up its business.
Today the House of Deputies concurred with the House of Bishops on the same-sex blessing resolution - the one which left intact its acknowledgment that blessings are taking place and the need for further discernment, but which removed the authorization to begin developing rites of blessing. This was just not the convention to do it, after the Gene Robinson business. I could feel it in the air.
I returned to a pastoral letter to all congregations from Bishop Kelshaw, to be distributed on Sunday, in which he promises to assist clergy and congregations who want to leave the Episcopal Church; to provide for congregations "faithful and godly preachers and teachers" who have already left the Episcopal Church; and he also advises congregations who are embarrassed to be Episcopalians to remove the word "Episcopal" from their church name.
I'm already drained, and now this. I just can't find words to express my feelings about this, or I just don't want to put them into print.
What I can say is that in this diocese we have to get organized so that we prevent canons from being broken. I'm concerned that the bishop will take it upon himself to give away diocesan property to breakaway congregations, or that he will appoint or approve clergy who are not subject to Episcopal canons to be in charge of diocesan congregations. It's not enough to say "he can't do this;" it must be stopped, perhaps even preventively, now that he's communicated his intentions. The Standing Committee is key.
This Sunday I will preach on the subject, and I'm going to just lay out the situation as I see it, trying to inform everyone of what has taken place, how I feel about it, and what might lie ahead of us, without criticizing anyone else's point of view.
I've always felt that the real story would begin - for Anglicanism, for the Episcopal Church, for our diocese - in response to the confirmation of Robinson or the approval of same-sex blessings. Now it begins.