General Convention 2006 #2
General Convention 2006 #2
June 15
The Rev. Brian C. Taylor
This morning I got word of a death in the parish, so I’m heading home. I’ll post one or two more of these journals from Albuquerque as I follow the news, giving some of my thoughts on things. You won’t be getting my “inside scoop,” but you can get up-to-the minute information by going to www.episcopalchurch.org. Click on either the General Convention page or Top Stories from Episcopal News Service.
I do have thoughts from yesterday, the second day of convention. I went to the public hearing for the Special Committee on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Their resolutions are in response to the Windsor Report, and are still very much in formation in terms of the exact language. This is a very nuanced, political thing and specific wording is everything in terms of “message.” Initially, they proposed resolutions that would:
- affirm our interdependence with other Anglicans around the world
- express regret for pain caused by actions of the 2003 General Convention
- exercise caution in consecrating future bishops that might be problematic for other Anglicans
- encourage bishops to not develop or use public rites of same-sex blessing
- encourage the use of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (alternative bishops for congregations at odds with their own)
- encourage support of the U.N. Millennium Development Goals as a way of strengthening relationships with global south Anglicans
- commit to an ongoing dialog with other Anglicans about these matters
- explore the possibility of an Anglican Covenant
- affirm the rights and dignity of homosexuals
Last night’s hearing drew about 1,500 people, and consisted of 2 ½ hours of 3-minute speeches by those who signed up to talk to the Special Committee. In one very ironic moment, they called Bishop Bob Duncan (a central and very vocal conservative) and directly afterwards, Bishop Gene Robinson, explaining that they were only reading the list in the order of sign-ups. It was a “who’s who” of Episcopal leaders, as well as many ordinary layfolk.
The interesting thing to me is that about 2/3 of them asked for resolution and clarity one way or the other. About half of these were conservatives and half were liberals. Their message was the same: “fish or cut bait.” We should either do what the Windsor Report asks of us or say that we can’t and move on. Anything else is dishonest. Neither side within this 2/3 group liked the ambiguity of some of the language.
Another 1/3, again both conservative and liberal, liked the ambiguity, feeling comfortable in the gray zone, even stressing the importance of caution, listening, waiting, engaging in much more dialog.
Finally, both groups appealed to the Windsor Report and some of its authors to support their position. “It’s clear that the WR demands obedience, which we haven’t done! N.T. Wright sent me an email and said so!” Or, “The WR invites us into a process, which we are engaged in. Archbishop Eames, its chair, is satisfied with our response to date.” People read into this document (like scripture) whatever they want to see.
I find myself impatient, leaning towards the 2/3 who want resolution. My concern is the ongoing damage to gay and lesbian people, who have been more than patient with us for centuries – and now 40 years of wrangling and debate about this in modern times. They’ve been shut out of dialog again and again within the Anglican Communion, and there is no evidence that this will turn around.
If we say that we won’t do public same-sex blessings for now because it offends others, but will do private blessings (implied in the current language), then we’ll just be affirming a “don’t-ask-don’t tell” approach to the whole thing, which serves no one and is destructive in its secrecy. And besides, why should we cave in to what I believe to be biblical literalism and cultural taboos, even if held by the majority in the world? These are real human beings we’re talking about. Let’s move on. Sometimes we are called to prophetic action, not consensus.
In this regard, many have called to mind the Letter from Birmingham Jail that Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in 1963 after one of his many arrests. You can read the text online,
at www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html.
It is addressed to fellow clergy (including the then-bishop of the Episcopal Church in Alabama) who urged him to ease up and slow down his demonstrations because they believed that people weren’t yet ready for change. They were concerned about giving offense.
MLK responded by saying, in part:
Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
However, if General Convention does choose to go slow on this issue – which will inevitably and eventually result in blessings for same-sex couples - my prayer is that our delay will serve to build constructive relationships with those who seem so afraid and so opposed.
But I have my doubts. A small, die-hard minority will probably leave the church after General Convention, and in two years at the Lambeth gathering of Anglican bishops some very English arrangement will be worked out that will allow us all to still be Anglican whether or not we are in communion with everyone else and regardless of our willingness or unwillingness to sign a binding Anglican Covenant.
To my gay and lesbian friends who just want to ask for God’s blessing on their relationships of commitment and love, I can only say that I am sorry it is taking so long, and I promise to do whatever I can in the meantime without getting myself deposed.