The House of Bishops of General Convention of The Episcopal Church last night, 13 July 2009 - note the date for future reference - passed a slightly amended resolution (D025) which in effect has rescinded the General Convention resolution B033. This now goes back to the House of Deputies who passed the original motion by a large majority and looks set to pass this amended motion.

B033, as I wrote in both ‘Between the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC’ and in ‘Glacial Gravity or Opportunist Autonomy’, was the key resolution in 2006 and General Convention’s attitude to it was crucial in 2009 concerning its standing in the Anglican Communion.

Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction 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 House of Bishops of TEC, in September 2007 in New Orleans, clarified that resolution:  ‘The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.’

With the House of Bishops passing D025 (and the likely passing in the House of Deputies), TEC has clearly signalled, against the specific plea of the Archbishop of Canterbury on this very issue, its choice of autonomy over interdependence in the Anglican Communion. Questions will now have to be asked about the full continued participation of TEC representatives in Anglican Communion meetings.

The way forward is not by mirroring such autonomy, but through the strengthening of the interdependent Covenant process, including section 4 - which is likely to be clarified but substantially unchanged.
View the original post

Bishop Kings,
I think that Fr. Dan Martins is right to point out the distinction between “discernment” and “consent”.  I voted against D025 primarily because I believed that too many of my orthodox brothers and sisters would react to it and interpret it as you have.  However, I don’t dispute what D025 says about the current reality of the Episcopal Church.  I see it as heavily descriptive rather than prescriptive.  To be clear, I think it’s obvious that the tide of this Convention is rising and about to flow over 2006-B033.  D025 raises the water level but comes shy of spilling over.

Bennett:  Why would you or any other delegate buy into the descriptive vs. prescriptive nonsense?  When ever does a legislature pass legislation and say that it is simply “descriptive”?  There is simply no point in passing legislation that is merely “descriptive”.  There is ALWAYS something prescriptive about it.  Legislation may have a descriptive part to it, but there is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS a prescriptive part.  And I think it pretty clear which is which in D025.

I’ll try to communicate my point from another angle first by repeating Fr. Dan Martins’ analysis that D025 walks up to and shakes hands with turning over B033 but doesn’t actually do so.  We can choose to communicate the opinion (or “fact” if that helps) that D025 overturns B033 or we can communicate how it falls short of doing so.  Certainly both cases can be made.  The liberal are much more conversant with spin than the conservatives are in this regard.  I’d like to see conservatives attempt to take the wind out of the sails by declaring “victory” that D025 is a resolution that addresses discernment not consent.  From that point of view, D025 is descriptive.  It’s all about what you want to emphasize.

Ben,
This means a lot to me coming from you specifically because I know your B.S. meter is finely tuned and you are a straight shooter.  I confess that my own reaction was similar to Graham’s, and I can’t wait to talk to Fr. Dan about this nuance he sees in depth at some point.

I fear the average person will read this just as Graham and I (and James, too) have read it.  I find the nuance quite elusive.  It seems to me that Graham has it right.  I am quite disappointed, though I am thrilled to see the numbers of bishops who seemingly have identified themselves as communion-minded in their losing votes.

To be clear, I think it’s obvious that the tide of this Convention is rising and about to flow over 2006-B033.  D025 raises the water level but comes shy of spilling over.

C056 will add enough water to wash much away.

Bennett:  I understand your point and I understand (and agree with) the argument that D025 doesn’t technically “overturn” B033.  B033 was always a “request” made by a specific GenCon and never had the force of law.  A.S. Haley has argued that it is not even possible to “overturn” B033 because of this.  It was intended to convey to the world that TEC would exercise some degree of restraint in deference to the wider Communion. 

D025 conveys something quite different - there is nothing about restraint in it.  It says “we see homosexual partnerships as good” and that persons involved in homosexual partnerships can be called to be bishops in TEC.  So to this extent, D025 certainly does supersede B033 in the only way that it is possible to supersede it - that is, in terms of expressing TEC’s willingness to be restrained in deference to the wider Communion.

B033 expressed that TEC was willing to be restrained, while D025 expresses that it is no longer willing to be so restrained.

Craig,

I can see what Fr Dan and others are arguing, and I suspect that they are technically correct.  But if the past 6 years has proved anything, its that the TEC operates as a clear expression of the postmodern axiom: meaning lies not in the text but in the interpretation of the text by the majority.  No matter what D025 really says, that both reasserters and reappraisers generally agree that it repudiates B033 suggests to me that this is the interpretation that will win the day.  So, once again, the interpretation won’t be derived but rather imposed on the document.

Having said that, I also think that inertia will also win out for reasserters: the response will be to say that the moratoria remain in effect until an action occurs to repudiate them. 

Thus, I think that while TEC will slide towards the precipice, nothing dramatic will happen until a practicing homosexual is elected and consecrated bishop.

Of course, I don’t know what else is coming down the legislative pipeline, so the coming days might very well provide further clarity.

Mark

I think James is reading this correctly, Bennett.  I know ya’ll did the best you could but I have already run this by a few parishioners who did not see any nuance.  I think TEC has made quite clear what its position is with respect to the Anglican Communion with regard to ordination of gay persons and that this nuance of which you and Fr. Dan speak will mean very little to anyone outside of Anaheim.

This clarity, however, may well be good news for Communion Partners in the long run….

James,

Yes, I too can’t see the point of passing legislation that simply “describes” matters that are already the case.  To describe a state of affairs is always inherently prescriptive, anyhow.  You can’t describe something without interpreting it, and how you interpret has to do with how you see things and how you think things ought to be.  Which is all a way of saying that language matters. 

And here’s what, on my reading, this resolution prescribes by its description. 

1) Same-sex relationships characterized by monogomay, fidelity, and etc. are instances of “holy love.”  As such,
2) God has called and may in the future call gay and lesbian persons in such relationships to any ordained ministry in ECUSA.  We discern whether in the future they are called to such ministries
3) By the discernment processes as set forth in the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA. 

It’s quite significant, I think, that the resolution holds that persons in same-sex partnerships have been called by God to all of the ordained ministries of ECUSA.  That’s a theological claim; it goes all the way to the bottom.  And it is further significance that the resolution states that future ordinations and consecrations of such persons should be discerned in the “mystery” of the Episcopal Church’s own canonical discernment processes.  This is to say: God may well call another bishop like Gene Robinson in our midst; this is a mystery, and we cannot say when it will happen.  What we can say is that God has called such people before and may well call them again, and that we need to prayerfully discern in each new case whether the Spirit has called another person in a same-sex relationship to any of the church’s ordained ministries, including the episcopacy.

This is a move from B033.  The emphasis now is no longer on restraint—it is on prayerful discernment about God’s mysterious calling within the Episcopal Church.  And it is placed firmly in the context of saying that committed same-sex partnerships are characterized by “holy love”, that God has called gay and lesbian persons in such relationships to all of the ordained ministries of the church before, and that God may call them again.

Only read this way can I make sense of the claims made by many at present that this does indeed represent a step forward on the issue.  Of course it’s a step forward!  What are the celebrations about if it changed nothing?  Folks say that this resolution states “where we are” as the church right now, and by any reading of the text that must mean that we have affirmed God’s call of partnered homosexual persons to all of the ordained ministries of the church, and that we will prayerfully discern each future calling.

That’s the heart of it, I think.  We’ve moved from an emphasis on “restraint” to emphasis on “discernment” within the context of clear affirmation.  That’s why someone like Bishop Sauls can say that the “moratorium” on the consecration of partnered homosexual persons to the episcopate will be over when it’s over.  We’ll discern the calling of each new person, and when the Spirit moves, then the Spirit moves.  Clearly, this resolution pushes toward this sort of open discernment rather than restraint.

I’d be glad to be convinced otherwise, but I’m afraid I just can’t see how to read this resolution otherwise without evacuating it of any effective meaning and content.

Yes, to both Fr. Mark’s and Jordan’ comments above. #7 and #9).

I think our Fulcrum press statement has it right.

I fear the average person will read this just as Graham and I (and James, too) have read it.  I find the nuance quite elusive.  It seems to me that Graham has it right.  I am quite disappointed, though I am thrilled to see the numbers of bishops who seemingly have identified themselves as communion-minded in their losing votes.

In my experience, when a legislative body passes a resolution stating (so-called) ‘facts’ in a (so-called) ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘prescriptive’ mode, it is to provide nuance and cover to various sides of a dispute.  Yes, legislative bodies can acknowledge ‘mere facts’ (e.g., the Mississippi is east of the Rockies), but when it is a matter of contested social or moral policy, it is usually rather an attempt to take a stance without appearing quite so boldly to take a stance.  The hope is that by not prescribing but describing the (so-called) ‘facts on the ground,’ a body might not appear to condone morally, but accept realistically the situation, just as it is.  But then one must look at what the situation the legislature is accepting as a reality—then you know what the principled stance really, truly is.

In other words, in acknowledging certain things as ‘facts,’ ‘describing’ them as such without renouncing them, the legislature in question accepts and condones them, just as they are.  It leaves them unchanged, and ratifies their ‘ought’-claim to exist, just as they are.  In that regard, D025 goes much further by indeed commending such facts.  It affirms the lifestyle of non-celibate gays and lesbians and “affirm[s] that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.”  This is a statement of principle, not of facts.  That it describes said principles and does not explicitly teach them is its special rhetorical stance.  But do not be fooled, it does not fundamentally alter the fact that the leadership of TEC now acknowledges that this is a settled principle for this church.  That is what the descriptive rhetoric acknowledges as a fait accompli.

I am afraid that anyone who really take the ‘descriptive vs. prescriptive’ stance are not seeing this resolution for what it is: it uses the rhetoric of description to ratify a matter of principle.  That, I think, is what +Graham Kings is wisely detecting and rightly denouncing today.  I applaud his courage in stepping forward so soon, because it is clear that some coming out of General Convention (even now) will wish to obfuscate what D025 really accomplishes by appealing to its descriptive rhetorical stance.

He who has ears, let him hear. . .

I just read some quick comments (hat tip: Kendall Harmon) by Bishop Kirk Smith of Arizona that essentially affirm my reading of this:

“This afternoon we had our first controversial action. Deputies passed resolution DO25 which essentially reaffirmed that the ordination process (including that of bishop) was open to all people. This was a movement away from the “restraint” of last convention’s famous B033. Although BO33 was not exactly overturned (it will take an election of an openly gay person to make that happen, which frankly is not likely to happen anytime soon), this resolution was a defacto repudiation of that stance. When it came time for House of Bishop’s to act, we concurred with the House of Deputies 99 to 45. I voted yes on this, in spite of what some inaccurate earlier reports said. It is time for us to be clear about who we are as a church in spite of the fact that it may make things harder for us in the Anglican Communion.”

I would also note that Bishop Sauls stated, in the press conference last night, that B033 had never actually constituted a “moratorium” on partnered gay bishops anyhow, and that D025 should clear up the misunderstanding that had led people to interpret it that way.  (I leave, without comment, the fact that the HoB’s prior statement to that effect probably had something to do with it…)

I am afraid that D025, coupled with C056 and the PB’s opening address, will reignite the conflagration that raged in many parishes (including my own) after 2003.

In Washington politics, there is often talked about the view “inside the beltline.” I suggest that the effort to nuance D025, etc, to soften them, looks like “inside the beltline” thinking. People in my parish were outraged by the PB’s address. D025 is too fuzzy to create the same amount of energy, but C056 will cause an even bigger reaction than did Bp Robinson in 2003.

Can you tell I am nervous?

For what it’s worth, Episcopal Life Online headlines its article of this (7/14) a.m. as, “Bishops approve resolution opening ordination to gays, lesbians”.  See http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_112523_ENG_HTM.htm for this Episcopal News Service report…

-Bob

First off, many thanks Stephen Lake for answering my descriptive/prescriptive question.

Second, Episcopal Life Online has already changed that “inaccurate” headline.  Remember folks, we did nothing new by passing D025, nothing at all.