In a letter dated July 16 and hand-delivered to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, and Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, sought to explain the significance of the passage of Resolution D025 by the General Convention.

The resolution states in part “that the 76th General Convention affirm[s] that God has called and may call [gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual] 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.” Resolution B033 approved on the final day of convention three years ago urged restraint in consenting to partnered homosexual persons to the episcopate.

“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,” the two presiding officers said. “Nothing in the Resolution goes beyond what has already been provided under our Constitution and Canons for many years.”

Bishop Jefferts Schori and deputy Anderson said “Some were concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood in light of Resolution D025.

“Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction with more latitude in consenting to episcopal elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not. In either case, we trust that the Bishops and Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church will continue to exercise prayerful discernment in making such decisions, mindful and appreciative of our relationship in the Anglican Communion.

“In adopting this Resolution, it is not our desire to give offense. We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other Churches across the Communion. We believe also that the honesty reflected in this resolution is essential if indeed we are to live into the deep communion that we all profess and earnestly desire.”
View the original post

Integrity’s news release contradicts the PB’s letter.

Integrity may contradict all they want. ACNA may contradict all they want. So?

From my reading of 2009-D025, there was no mention of 2006-B033. Therefore both resolutions are still in force.

Even if B033 is no longer in force, there is no requirement under D025 to give consent to the election to the episcopate of anyone. The appropriate canon says there is no right to ordination.

All D025 says that there is admission to discernment for ministry in the church.

Let’s just read the resolutions for what they actually say.

Bob - it would be impossible to actually repeal B033.  B033 was a recommendation made by a specific General Convention.  It said that restraint would be shown in the consecration of bishops.  D025 was passed by a later General Convention and so becomes the current position.  It states that there is NO BARRIER to partnered GLBT folks from being made bishop.  Therefore, it doesn’t matter at all that B033 is not mentioned, D025 effectively nullifies it.  That doesn’t mean that some bishops and SC’s in TEC might wish to honor B033, but that is a private choice, not anything recommended by General Convention anymore.

Bob Chapman - 17 July 2009 08:42 PM

Integrity may contradict all they want. ACNA may contradict all they want. So?

From my reading of 2009-D025, there was no mention of 2006-B033. Therefore both resolutions are still in force.

Even if B033 is no longer in force, there is no requirement under D025 to give consent to the election to the episcopate of anyone. The appropriate canon says there is no right to ordination.

All D025 says that there is admission to discernment for ministry in the church.

Let’s just read the resolutions for what they actually say.

You are right. D025 makes it clear that there is admission to discernment, and so does our C&C. It has said so for years.

You are also right about there being no “right to ordination”, and D025 also reminds us that God is the one that does the calling….not us. This holds true no matter how many people prefer to dictate to God who he may or may not call.

@James Wirrell

To say that three years later a resolution from a General Convention of the Episcopal Church is no longer valid is just as logical as a book by Bishop Spong.

The proceedings are archived. You may search in online archives for all resolutions from 1976.

If 2009-D025 touched on anything found in 2006-B033, you could have a point there was a change. D025 didn’t. These resolutions are talking about opposite ends of the process, and different audiences.

* D025 pertains to discernment for any ministry within the Episcopal Church (licensed or ordained).

* B033 only deals with consents given to episcopal elections.

It doesn’t surprise me there are claims the D025 superseded B033. There are people that claim Spong is good theologian.

If the Episcopal Church really is being honest—which is supposed to be what D025 is about—then it will need to be honest about B033. Otherwise, the Episcopal Church will lower itself to the level of its detractors. That may happen, but I don’t look forward to it.

Integrity may contradict all they want. ACNA may contradict all they want. So?

Who gets to say what was really decided in Ca - that is the “so.” It appears that those on the ends of the spectrum agree with a “going forward” interpretation. Then there is a collection of voices claiming that these actions don’t mean what the first group claim. Their claims is the descriptive, not proscriptive argument.

The left (like Integrity) are claiming a kind of victory. I would say their motives are the clearest. They have worked for this for a long time.

The right has mixed motives. For example, Fr Martin has grudgingly admitted that the interpretation on the left is the correct one, and he has said this because he believes it is true (I think his sadness is the best indicator of the pureness of his heart). I detect in others on the right the hope that this interpretation will win because it provides the best chance of the AC stepping in an active way (their glee is a dead give-a-way).

I must admit I am in the first grouping. The two pieces (D025 and C056), especially taken together, sure looks like a “going forward” for the folks fighting for total inclusion of GLBT folk in TEC. So the arguments from the PB look very odd - a denial of the obvious. I also admit that I hope this will cause the AC to step in - and especially help those parishes like mine that are CP in diocese that are not CP.

So it sure does look like the PB is trying to forestall any action by the AC that would help us. Why is this?

When Integrity, the New York Times and Rowan Williams all understand the import of DO25 the same way why would we take an obvious attempt at damage control by the PB as the authoritative word on the subject?  You don’t have to take any ACNA statements on this, just look at how these others are reading it.

The 29 signatories to the “Anaheim Declaration”, or most of them, are just blowing smoke.  Now they are returning home where they will do nothing to remove either themselves or their flocks from TEC.  They label themselves as “communion minded” merely to deflect criticism coming from their orthodox remnant.  Now they wait contentedly for the time when they can retire in comfort, knowing that they have once again appeased both the left and the right.

Hudson, you may be right about the signers doing nothing to remove themselves or their flocks from TEC,  After all, the whole design of Covenant Partners is to remain in TEC.  I don’t think that you’re right to say that they label themselves as “communion minded” merely to deflect criticism coming from their orthodox remnant.”  I think the CP folks are generally orthodox but believe that they are called by God to remain in pecusa.  I don’t believe that “they wait contentedly for the time when they can retire in comfort,” although I suspect that for at least some of them their pension benefits is a consideration.  No, I don’t believe that anyone with any significant level of orthodox faith can be content with the current situation.

I am a CANA priest, which puts me in the ACNA.  I write as a fellow traveler with you I suspect and a critic of the CP. but I think that you go too far in your assessment of motives.  None of us are in position to judge the motives of the 29 signers.

This letter reveals our top Episcopal leaders in their true light: as masters of equivocation and obfuscation. I believe ABC will easily see through this “fog,” but whether he will act decisively is another matter.

Dick Wire

My main concern is how D025 plays out on the ground here in our Diocese.  Our Diocesan’s understanding is quite clear (from here: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_112575_ENG_HTM.htm)

Bishop James Jelinek of Minnesota, however, said he supported D025 because the new resolution deftly moves the church beyond B033.
“B033 was the absolutely right thing to do at the time,” he said. “Would we want to do it now? No. But do we want to speak to that? No, because that’s the past. We’re looking to go forward.”

Tony Seel - 18 July 2009 08:54 AM

None of us are in position to judge the motives of the 29 signers.

That is very true, but I never said all 29 (now 32?) signers were in that boat.  Some of them clearly are.  There were telecasted interviews during GC that document their motivations.  Moreover, even where motivation is pure, the letter to ABC is still a fool’s errand.  The fact is that it will prove useful to Schori.  It doesn’t hurt her a bit, and she will use it to hurt others who serve the cause of orthodoxy.

There is no longer any Biblical justification for a conservative TEC bishop thinking that he/she is “called” to remain “in” TEC (with no intention to leave).  What happened at GC 2009 was not just more of the same.  People (conservative people) keep saying that TEC has just kicked the can down the road once again, but that is clearly untrue.  This was not just ‘a’ watershed event, it was ‘the’ watershed event that defines TEC’s future… and it comes packaged with the not insignificant event of ACNA’s inauguration as alternative.  How much clearer can it get?

I must say that Bp Schori is coming out of this a very happy woman with the satisfaction that everything in her path is now clear.  She sacrificed much to achieve it and she was very effective.  No my friends, the contingent of “conservative” bishops (and there’s nothing in that statement that Schori herself could not have signed) are the ones with clouded eyes and weak knees.  The “sign of Jonah” can be unread and/or misread only by those who refuse to see it.

Nobody said would be easy.  They perceive it rightly that the alternative to TEC is just Anglican Wilderness (even with ACNA). But that’s no excuse, and nobody is fooled by protestations that they can be likened to strong heros dwelling among the enemy.  On the contrary, they are remaining “in” TEC because they are weak.

Again, there may be exceptions.  One cannot peer into the heart of a man or know everything about his circumstances.  Nonetheless, GC 2009 was a clarifying event and we would be fools not to this instrument to separate wheat from chaff in the days to come.  Three years ago, our chant at General Convention (I was there) was “Choose This Day”.  The 32 have been given another chance to be “in communion” as they claim to wish for.  It remains to be seen how many are just blowing smoke.

There is no longer any Biblical justification for a conservative TEC bishop thinking that he/she is “called” to remain “in” TEC (with no intention to leave).

That would be your opinion. If one has a protestant eccesiology, then maybe you are right. But an eccesiology that sees catholic unity as just as much a part of the Gospel as truth regarding human sexuality sees plenty of justification for staying.

Ecclesiology is a matter of first principles.  Ecclesiology within Anglicanism has always been historically high; it is sad that today’s “evangelicals” bear so little resemblance to the evangelical churchmen of the 18th century, who held the same high ecclesiology as the “high” churchmen they descended from, were nurtured by, and agreed with on the vast majority of issues.  Of course, the evangelicals of the 18th century were also aristocratic, which means that they did not believe that lay persons had any right to write things such as “Choose this day” - that right belonged to the bishops and to the king.  It belongs to the bishops still.

Charlie Clauss - 18 July 2009 02:04 PM

An eccesiology that sees catholic unity as just as much a part of the Gospel as truth regarding human sexuality sees plenty of justification for staying.

Yes, the world sees the outward manifestations of our disease (sex and ecclesiastical bickering) rather than the root cause (that we left our founding principles & liturgies many years ago).  Deep breath!

Is it really true that ecclesiology is the #1 reason these bishops would offer for not leaving?  I’ve never seen one standing heroically and believably for the principles of episcopal government.  I have of course seen liberals use ecclesiology to beat conservatives into submission, but that goes to my point.  Also, when you consider the great strides made by ACNA already in terms of bonds to the “church catholic”, and the rapid dissolution of such bonds that is evident in TEC, doesn’t the argument concerning ecclesiology begin to fall flat on its face?

It isn’t Schori kicking the can down the road.  It’s these 32 bishops.