From the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.

At its recently concluded General Convention, The Episcopal Church passed resolutions that are widely regarded as repudiations of prior commitments to the Windsor moratoria that have been officially implemented by the Anglican Communion. Apparently reacting to the swift denunciation of these actions by many in the Communion, various constituencies in TEC are now scrambling to re-interpret General Convention’s actions. ENS withdrew and revised its story about a key vote and Convention participants have produced wildly inconsistent, if equally far-fetched, interpretations of what took place. Integrity continues to claim, however, that this Convention was a “virtual clean sweep” for their side.

Bishops

There are now multiple conflicting interpretations of the relationship of Resolution D025 to Resolution B033 and the Windsor moratorium on episcopal elections. During the debate on D025 in the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop stated (in response to a leading question from Bishop Gulick) that the moratorium would remain in effect until another gay bishop was consecrated. Bishop Gulick has since repeated this claim himself. In any sense in which this is true at all, it is merely a trivial tautology and therefore of no empirical significance or interest. The Windsor Report was not asking TEC to refrain from consecrating another gay bishop only until such time as they consecrate another gay bishop. It was asking TEC to commit not to do so.

A few days later, in their joint letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies stated that “Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033.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 This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033.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 and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.”
http://ecusa.anglican.org/documents/D025_letter_to_Archbishop.pdf

Note that this letter makes no mention at all of a moratorium. It neither claims that one is still in place or even that one was ever in place. It only refers to the relationship between D025 and B033, and in that context makes the claim that B033 will be interpreted in light of the later D025, not vice versa. The joint letter thus gives D025 priority over B033. Time will tell, they say, whether B033 will either be re-interpreted or treated as repealed. But it is the status of B033 that is up for grabs, not D025.

The Presiding Bishop’s assistant for ecumenical matters, Bishop Epting is among those taking the tack of re-interpreting B033:
The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ passage of resolution D025 does not overturn last General Convention’s call for care and “restraint.” That last resolution (B033) was never a “moratorium” on the ordination and consecration of gay and lesbian persons. It counseled care in approving any bishops whose “manner of life” would cause additional strain on the Anglican Communion.

Quite apart from the press’s (including Episcopal News Service) usual misunderstanding of such things, D025 simply re-asserts what has always been true — the ordination process in The Episcopal Church is governed by the Constitution and Canons of this church.
It would be perfectly possible for a bishop to have voted for D025 and still withhold consent for the election of any bishop-elect. http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/do25-does-not-overturn-b033

In other words, the Epting defense is that B033 is not repealed because it was never a moratorium to begin with. This points out the flaw in the D025/B033 shell game that is now the party line of TEC progressives. It “preserves” B033 by acknowledging that TEC was never in compliance with the Windsor request anyway. It thereby constitutes a stunning betrayal of the Communion bodies that bent over backwards at the cost of their own credibility to find in B033 the moratorium that the Windsor Report and consecutive Primates’ Meetings requested.

Note that the Windsor Report requested in paragraph 134 that:

the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_d/p2.cfm

The Primates’ Meeting at Dromantine formalized this request and asked that TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada) “respond through their relevant constitutional bodies.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/communique _english.pdf Neither the Windsor Report nor the Primates specified that the moratorium needed to be incorporated into canon law; only that the commitment to “effect” the moratorium be given by the relevant constitutional body.

In TEC’s case, a moratorium could have been effected by passing a canon at General Convention, but that was not done. Indeed, it was never proposed. Instead, B033 was merely a resolution requesting restraint. But in TEC’s case, a moratorium could also be effected by a commitment by the constitutional bodies responsible for giving consents to episcopal elections, bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees. The Communion bodies did TEC a great favor by interpreting B033 in precisely this fashion. B033 complied with the Windsor request, they said, because it was a commitment by a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to withhold consent. Thus, the widely-criticized “Sub-Group Report” issued before the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam found TEC in compliance on this front based on its conclusion that:

In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion. This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003. It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report…. The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates. (Emphasis added.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf

The compliance with the Windsor request was found therefore not in the canonical enforceability of B033 but in the commitment of a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to a moratorium. And that commitment was manifested by their vote on B033.

In New Orleans in September 2007, the House of Bishops confirmed this interpretation of B033 by endorsing the Sub-group Report:

The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “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.”[1] The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains. (Emphasis added.)
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm

In evaluating the House of Bishops’ response after New Orleans, the Communion’s Joint Standing Committee concluded TEC had complied with the Windsor request solely on the basis that it had endorsed the Sub-Group’s conclusions:

By confirming the interpretation of the Communion Sub-Group and quoting it explicitly, as well as making the explicit acknowledgement in the last sentence of their text that Resolution B033 does refer to “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”, the Episcopal House of Bishops is answering the question of the Primates positively. They confirm the understanding of the sub-group that restraint is exercised in a precise way “by not consenting”, and that this specifically includes “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”. They have therefore clearly affirmed that the Communion Sub-Group were correct in interpreting Resolution B033 as meeting the request of the Windsor Report. http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC Report on New Orleans 071003.pdf

As this review shows, the significance to the communion of B033 was the “commitment” manifested by bishops with jurisdiction by their votes to “effect a moratorium” by withholding consent. One can readily see that this was the most favorable interpretation one could possibly give to TEC’s actions in 2006 in passing B033.

Those who gave TEC this benefit of the doubt have now been rewarded with D025 and the claim that no harm has been done because B033 never was a moratorium anyway. Yet those same bishops (including Bp. Epting) concurred in the HOB statement at New Orleans that B033 complied with Windsor and effected a moratorium. We now have the Presiding Bishop (among others) saying the moratorium is still in effect, her ecumenical assistant saying (contrary to what he said at New Orleans) that it was never in effect, the two presiding officers jointly saying only time will tell, but D025 takes precedence and virtually everyone lauding themselves for their “honesty.”

In fact, B033 never was a de jure moratorium, but it could be construed (as the Communion bodies graciously did) as a commitment by bishops with jurisdiction to effect a moratorium. But under this most favorable possible interpretation, that commitment by bishops has now been repudiated by D025. In that resolution, an overwhelming majority of bishops, including bishops with jurisdiction, committed to opening all orders of ministry to partnered homosexuals and accepted a resolution that was explicitly based in its own official Explanation on the claim that homosexual relationships reflect “holy love” and that these “standards” should provide “guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate.” The only conclusion that can be drawn from this vote is that the commitment to effect a moratorium manifested only by the votes for B033 has been repudiated by the very different commitment manifested by the votes for D025. A vote endorsing D025 and the standards articulated in its Explanation is not a commitment to effect a moratorium. It quite obviously is the contrary and is why Integrity regards this convention as a “virtual clean sweep.” A minority of bishops remain committed to B033, but they no longer are the majority the Sub-Group and Joint Standing Committee concluded was sufficient to effect the Windsor moratorium.

Blessings

Similar efforts are underway to obscure the effect of Resolution C056, which approved dioceses’ blessings of same sex unions and began the development of church-wide liturgies. This is a subject with a lengthy history and public record.

In 2003, General Convention by resolution C051 acknowledged that liturgies blessing same sex unions were in use in TEC: “we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=2003-C051

The Sub-Group Report found that such public liturgies were in use in several TEC dioceses and concluded: “We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf
In New Orleans, the House of Bishops acknowledged that some, but not a majority, of bishops “make allowance for the blessing of same sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm

In light of this record over several years of acknowledgement of public liturgies of blessing, the language in C056 encouraging bishops to offer “generous pastoral response”—not “private [pastoral] response” as contemplated by the Primates—can only be construed as endorsement by the General Convention of the well-known public liturgies of blessing that have long been acknowledged to be in use in TEC dioceses. That this endorsement was given with obvious cunning and craft is not a point in its favor.

In other words, C056 is the endorsement by TEC as a whole of those bishops who act in violation of the second of the Windsor moratoria. The Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that it is public liturgies of blessing, not just approval of rites, that are implicated by the second Windsor moratorium. The post-New Orleans Joint Standing Committee report, which was accepted by TEC’s Presiding Bishop, a member of that committee, made this explicit:

It needs to be made clear however that we believe that the celebration of a public liturgy which includes a blessing on a same-sex union is not within the breadth of private pastoral response envisaged by the Primates in their Pastoral Letter of 2003, and that the undertaking made by the bishops in New Orleans is understood to mean that the use of any such rites or liturgies will not in future have the bishop’s authority “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action”, a qualification which is in line with the limits that the Constitution of The Episcopal Church places upon the bishops (emphasis added).”http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC Report on New Orleans 071003.pdf “] http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC Report on New Orleans 071003.pdf [/url]

The Windsor Continuation Group Report released earlier this year concluded that those dioceses that were “actively pursuing” public rites of blessing had “only the passive consent of General Convention, which has until now refused to take positive steps toward the recognition of such Rites.” The WCG was willing to conclude the second moratorium was “significantly” holding because it found that the public blessings could not “be characterized as a determined movement by the whole Church to see such Rites firmly established in the life of the Church.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/windsor_continuation/WCG_Report.cfm
C056 quite obviously is a repudiation of the New Orleans undertaking as understood by the Joint Standing Committee and is the “determined movement” by the whole church the WCG did not find earlier this year. C056 made no effort to discourage the long-acknowledged and ongoing public blessings, and no one suggested for a minute that they were not what was being encouraged as a “generous pastoral response.”

Whatever one makes of the resolutions of the last two General Conventions, it is clear that TEC has now charted its own course and no longer considers itself bound by previous undertakings and Communion moratoria.

View the original post

1)  As one who never believed the “Communion” had any authority to impose such moratoria I am saddened that TEC was not more bold and direct.  Dr. Radner’s response exemplifies TEC’s problem with any nuanced response: the opposition will never respect it anyway.

2) Since the moratorium on jurisdiction jumping was never “enforced” and not even a nuanced effort was made to ignore it, it remains hypocrisy to pretend that we had any obligation to respect the first two.  Those who tout a body as having authority should themselves respect the authority they tout. Windsor died with the first illegal incursion.

3) We never had nor have yet proposed public rites so this was always with respect to TEC irrelevant.  Not so for Canada.

4) Until we in fact vote to confirm the election of a partnered gay bishop we have not violated the moratorium on it.  In fact the action of TEC to send ALL elections to Standing Committees and the HoB for confirmation actually makes it more likely partnered gays will not get confirmation.  +Gene was, after all, confirmed by GC 03.  So as yet, despite D025, we have not broken the moratorium, nor have we changed the part of the non-discrimination canon to establish any specific “right” to ordination for anyone.  In short, Bishops and Standing Committees are the places where the meaningful violation of that Windsor moratorium can happen. But perhaps not.

Dr. Radner,as usual, whips up hysteria about things that are not and were not in the moratoria:

  1) the nomination to the Episcopate of glbt folk;
  2) their election to the Episcopate;
  3) the pastoral discretion of a bishop to allow for some for of pastoral outreach to glbt as permitted even in Lambeth I.10.

  Claims that we must refrain from those things were not made by Windsor. Neither moderates nor conservatives introduced resolutions to alter the canons in a more conservative direction.  Pastoral discretion is acknowledged, not public rites for SSBs. Nor does Windsor or any other place demand we give up the “snapshot” D025 presents, whatever people might spin it to be.

  It is a shame that the emerging WWAC seems unable to tolerate more than one opinion of how Scripture or tradition are to be interpreted, and sadder still that Reason is being abandoned in documents like the Ridley draft (which TEC agreed to study carefully, btw.)  But that is how it seems to be going, the shrill voices of bible based intolerance are surging to the fore.

  Now I write this as one who does not care if we are in or out of the Anglican Communion.  And in fact should the tyranny of the FCA expand I will be delighted to be expelled. I find it odd that the hypocrisy of the homodox with respect to obeying authorities like Windsor, Lambeth, Dromantine etc. will end up in making them the authorities! The ++ABC richly deserves their company.

  I am sorry that we in TEC are not willing to be more blunt and direct.  D025 and C056 are way to fudgey for me. While he gets nearly everything else twisted in h is vendetta against TEC at least Dr. Radner and I agree, I think, that those resolutions were fudge.

  I prefer Horton, “I meant what I said, and I said what I meant, an elephants faithful one hundred percent.”

1)  As one who never believed the “Communion” had any authority to impose such moratoria I am saddened that TEC was not more bold and direct.  Dr. Radner’s response exemplifies TEC’s problem with any nuanced response: the opposition will never respect it anyway.

This is exactly mirrored by conservatives who feel that there is no point in dialog with TEC, because the decisions about sexuality are already made.

2) Since the moratorium on jurisdiction jumping was never “enforced” and not even a nuanced effort was made to ignore it, it remains hypocrisy to pretend that we had any obligation to respect the first two.  Those who tout a body as having authority should themselves respect the authority they tout. Windsor died with the first illegal incursion.

Ironic, at least on the point of SSB, that both sides justify their action by an appeal to “pastoral necessity.”

3) We never had nor have yet proposed public rites so this was always with respect to TEC irrelevant.  Not so for Canada.

Bringing up Canada is a red herring. We don’t live in Canada, didn’t just particpate in a Canadian GC, nor do we have any say in what happens there.

4) Until we in fact vote to confirm the election of a partnered gay bishop we have not violated the moratorium on it.

As much as conservatives rail against this, it is true. As the hobbits would say, “handsome is as handsome does.”

  It is a shame that the emerging WWAC seems unable to tolerate more than one opinion of how Scripture or tradition are to be interpreted, and sadder still that Reason is being abandoned in documents like the Ridley draft (which TEC agreed to study carefully, btw.)  But that is how it seems to be going, the shrill voices of bible based intolerance are surging to the fore.

Aside from a view of Reason that is somewhat idiosyncratic, I too bemoan the swing of the pendulum towards a narrow approach to what is tolerable. But this is exactly what happens when the pendulum has been pushed so far in the other, more open, anything-goes, no limits way that TEC has been going (from a conservative point of view).

  I prefer Horton, “I meant what I said, and I said what I meant, an elephants faithful one hundred percent.”

I agree. But conservatives will claim the we live under the dominion of the Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

FYI, Michael:  my name is listed with this item because it comes through my posting, not because I am the actual author (this is the way it works with this site—just so you know).  Not this it matters:  ACI wrote this, and I am a part of ACI, and I am happy to have my name a part of it.  So, I suppose your personalizing of the piece is at least relatively appropriate.  I just wish you could calm down a bit, and ratchet down the hostility.

As the piece argues, a moratorium has to do with certain commitments made, as interpreted last time round, by the House of Bishops.  The point is that this commitment has been rescinded.  It is a rather normal way that the language of “moratorium” and of the recent vote itself is used.  A moratorium is not constituted by something not happening;  it is constituted by the deliberate agreement and active effort to the end that something not happen. The resolution on ordinations contradicts such a deliberate agreement and active effort, and thus is reasonably understood to be a repudiation of the earlier B033, as publicly interpreted by the House of Bishops.  I don’t think there is anything “hysterical” about this reading of what has happened. 

As for the scholastic parsing of “public rites” vs. “pastoral response”, I turn to the Archbishop of Canterbury (yes, I know you don’t respect him much, but he does represent a kind of common lens, for better or worse). At the post-Lambeth Conference Press Briefing last year, he said this:

Question:  “On the issue of same-sex blessings is it your sense that it is good enough, far enough, for Churches to go to say they won’t legitimise public rights of blessing – or is it your sense that Anglicans need to go further to prevent the sorts of blessings we’ve seen in the Church of England and elsewhere in recent weeks.”

Answer:  “One of the problems around this is that people in different parts of the world clearly define ‘public’ and ‘rites’ and ‘blessing’ in rather different ways. I’d refer I think to what I said in the address this afternoon. As soon as there is a liturgical form it gives the impression: this has the Church’s stamp on it. As soon as that happens I think you’ve moved to another level of apparent commitment, and that I think is nowhere near where the Anglican Communion generally is. In the meeting of Primates at Gramado in Brazil some years ago, the phrase ‘A variety of pastoral response’ was used as an attempt to recognise that there were places where private prayers were said and, although there’s a lot of unease about that, there wasn’t quite the same strength of feeling about that as about public liturgies. But again ‘pastoral response’ has been interpreted very differently and there are those in the USA who would say: ‘Well, pastoral response means rites of blessing’, and I’m not very happy about that.”

Take this along with the details listed in the piece ACI posted, and at least one can get a sense why the notion of “nuance” in the GC resolution is taken rather as “fudge”  (your description, not mine). Of course, I don’t know what Abp. Williams or anybody else is going to do with GC’s resolution on blessings. I hope that they agree with you, however, that the resolution is both unclear and masks more forthright active commitments that indeed go against the broader desires behind the requests for a moratorium here.  Then the kind of clarity both of us wish people would own up to could be laid upon the table, and reasonable and faithful responses could be made to these realities. 

Charlie Clauss’ observations regarding the rather silly and destructive realities of “tit for tat” in the progressive/conservative interchange, including in your own arguments, seem apt to me.

God’s peace to you, Michael.

Charlie Clauss - 21 July 2009 04:45 PM

4) Until we in fact vote to confirm the election of a partnered gay bishop we have not violated the moratorium on it.

As much as conservatives rail against this, it is true. As the hobbits would say, “handsome is as handsome does.”

Charlie - here I disagree with you.  A moratorium is more then just “not actually doing something” but also includes the specific intention not to do it.  For example, if the UN agrees to a moratorium on importing goods from North Korea, and Country A responds by saying “we have every right to import goods from North Korea and fully intend to proceed as if we do” yet for whatever reasons doesn’t actually import goods from North Korea, then there is simply no moratorium in place on the part of Country A.

What Michael also neglects to mention is that there is nowhere stated in the Windsor Report or various documents and statements dealing with the moratoria, that ONLY SSB’s authorized by GENERAL CONVENTION were prohibited.  They simply refer to the “authorization” (i.e. permitting to be done) of public (i.e. where the public can attend) rites (i.e. any liturgical service) of SSB’s.  This has been going on in many TEC dioceses.

So the reality is that nobody was adhering to any moratoria, except that TEC hadn’t consecrated any more GLBT bishops.

I would also point out that it is clear from the various statements and documents that deal with the moratoria, that the consecration of GLBT bishops and SSB’s were considered to be FIRST ORDER issues, while the “border crossing” was considered to be a SECOND ORDER issue.  The latter was in response to the former.  While I do prefer the approach taken by the Communion Partners, I nevertheless think we need to be clear when discussing the moratoria.

Share on Facebook

Michael, I must join Ephraim in complaining about your tone here, all the more since you keep accusing the “ultraconservatives” of whipping up opposition through hysteria. It seems to me that, seeing how you’ve won this round, you could be more than a bit more gracious, not to mention ceasing your offensive crowing over the outcome.

As far as the future is concerned, I do not see D025 preventing any diocese from putting forward or electing a homosexual person to fill a bishopric. I do not see it being invoked by many dioceses to deny consent; I think that most who might would already act on the same principles they acted upon in 2003. And I not only do not see C056 leading to any restraint concerning same-sex marriage rites, it seems to me to be essentially a promise that such rites will eventually be performed.

So I don’t see any strong reason for other churches to wait until these transgressions are accomplished, particularly in the case of C056. ECUSA intends to officially conduct same-sex marriages, so what is the need to wait until they do it?

For Charles W and Dr. Radner

  Ok let me ratchet it down.

  I am truly sad that the various “we"s in this conflict have come to an impasse.  The gulf on how we read and interpret scripture is unlikely to ever be bridged, except by a deliberate decision to live together despite deeply different points of view.

  Apparently we can’t because it would require one side or the other to capitulate on fundamental values.  Both sides see the other as entrenched and both sides are correct.  Even the large middle is squeezing towards the ends now.

  We’ll just see how things develop.  Best of luck.

How about we just let everyone be bluntly honest in what they want to do; recognize that this will mean that the various and sundry institutions will split; work towards a mutually agreeable split in which Christian charity and generosity abound; let each body ally with who they choose; and then let the groups get on with their mission?  Let those who wish to covenant do so, and those who do not wish to covenant not do so.  No lawsuits, no anger, no accusations, no power politics.  Just honesty, relational consequences and generosity.

Charlie - here I disagree with you.  A moratorium is more then just “not actually doing something” but also includes the specific intention not to do it.

“A certain man had two sons. He said to the first son, go work in the field. The son said, yes, but did not go. The father said to the second son “go” but the son replied, “No.” Later he changed his mind, and went to the field. Which one did the will of his father?”

Charlie:  Nice quote, but it doesn’t address the issue.  A moratorium is like a wedding vow to be faithful to your wife.  If your vow was “I will be faithful to you until I am not faithful” that wouldn’t be much of a vow, now would it?  Sure, you might never be unfaithful, but that wouldn’t translate into a vow.  On the flip side, a vow can be made in bad faith and broken.  A good faith vow is neither of these.

So is a moratorium.  A good faith moratorium is represented by neither son in the story you mention.  A good faith moratorium is NOT the vow to say “we won’t do that” followed by doing the thing you say you won’t.  But neither is a moratorium a statement that you have every right to do a thing, that you very well might do the thing if you desire to, but don’t in the end ever do it.

A good faith moratorium is the vow not to do the thing, and then not doing it.

James: I am beginning to see the wisdom in your post above (#7). The more I hear from groups like the ACI, the more I have to re-consider my own desire to remain connected to such people. Besides, they always seem to make it abundantly clear they have no desire for communion unless on their own terms (and those terms certainly do not include gay folks). That being the current reality, I am now slowly coming to the realization that your idea about a “mutually agreeable split” might be the best way forward.

I do have a question about what you wrote in #9: Do you think a “good faith moratorium” is to vow not to do something, and then turn right around and do it? That happened early in the wake of the moratoria by the “border crossers”.

David:  as one of the “ACI folk”, let me try to clarify some things for you.  Everybody in ACI is a member of TEC.  We are all “still in communion” with TEC and its members, including gay people.  We have not left because we did not get “communion on our own terms”.  You may not like or agree with our views, but please don’t project this into a distortion of our actual motives and actions. 

Having said that, the issue for us has always been the nature of Christian communion itself.  We have always firmly believed and also tried to provide arguments for the fact that communion requires mutual discipline among members.  Without it, everything falls apart.  (The consequence seems pretty obvious at this point.)  And, although I for one have strong theological reasons for upholding the traditional Christian views regarding human sexuality, the ecclesial point as it touches upon gay Christians is “to what degree can we remake our churches in our own image and still maintain communion with other Christians?”.  We think that degree has long been passed with respect to TEC as a whole.  Again, I would argue that events have demonstrated this.

Finally, the issue of border-crossing keeps coming up, as if this fact both gives the lie to arguments like ACI’s regarding communion, and justifies the actions of TEC.  With respect to the former, I do not need to defend ACI on this front—our arguments have been clear enough in opposition to border-crossing for a number of reasons.  But with respect to the latter element—if some conservative primates have done “x” that gives TEC the right to do “y”—I think you can see that this is hardly a Christian line of reasoning, let alone one that will to much constructive fruit. 

Do we need to “just call for an amicable split”?  Let’s be clear:  the “split” has been happening perforce, and continues apace.  Is it a good idea?  No.  But the horse is out of the barn on this one.  So the question is “amicable”.  That would be important.  Why?  Because at least it would mitigate the destructive wake that is already piling up, so that future attempts to heal the rift already in place could be made with fewer obstacles in the way. 

God’s peace.

Thank you, Dr. Radner.

As a gay Episcopalian who tries to stay aware of what is happening in the church, I have had many years of experience “reading between the lines” when it comes to statements from special interest groups. I may be wrong about a great many things, but I am not foolish enough to believe the ACI approves or appreciates the contribution of gay and lesbian Christians to TEC or the Anglican Communion.

To clarify, I want to state that I do not feel that “border crossing” (in and of itself) offers justification for any action TEC has taken. I applaud the fact that the ACI has opposed the border crossings, but certainly nowhere near the extent that they have publicly opposed certain actions of TEC. While I agree that the arguements provided by the ACI against border crossings have been “clear enough”, the fact is those arguements have been far too few in number and are seen by many people as being far too hesitant in comparison with the bold and strongly worded anti-TEC statements. ACI statements condemning TEC have been plentiful, ACI statements condemning border crossings have been far less plentiful, and (to my knowledge) ACI statements calling for an end to violence against gay people in parts of the communion have been non-existant. Where was the ACI statement that offered condemnation for +Akinola and his support of legislation that sought to imprison gay people? Forgive me if I am reaching a false conclusion here, but I feel that simply reading the numerous statements from the ACI give a fair idea of what their “actual motives” are.

And while we are on the subject of ‘motives’ I would like to say that I do not feel the progressive element is working from the foundation of “remaking the church in our own image”. I would hope that we could agree that most people on both sides of this issue feel that they are doing what God is genuinely calling them to do.

What does “amicable” mean in the concrete?  As the child of divorce, I can tell you:  it all comes down to money and control.  The same is true with TEC and its breakaway parishes and dioceses:  as long as you have money, property, and “custody” issues (pensions, transferability of clergy back and forth between “denominations,” etc.) any “amicable” split is impossible.

My best-case schism goes like this:  Everyone gets free title to their property and assets to do with as the local governing body decides.  Result:  we see who the real haves and have-nots are.  Buildings and assets go to those who are currently authorized to use them, not to those who want to use them for some other purpose.

The Church Pension Fund becomes pan-Anglican, or at least pan-North American Anglican, including participants regardless of Episcopal/Anglican affiliation.  Perhaps communion with Canterbury would be the lowest common denominator, but why be stingy and leave out all those poor Continuum clergy?  In fact, I would like to see all the provinces of the Anglican Communion pool their pension resources…But I’m no economist.  I’d just like to see the spouses and children and retirees not get caught in the cross-fire of ideology and conscience.

With property intact and pensions intact, and free transferability back and forth (provided one promises to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of whatever body you are in, whether as a lay person or ordained), then I could see an “amicable” split.

But then that would take all the fun out of schism and Satan would get bored.

Or, we could take the “evangelical counsels,” as our Roman brethren call them, to heart, and be content with absolute poverty.  You don’t need a building, a bank account, or a pension plan to carry out the mission of the Church.  But as someone whose wife just gave birth to a second child, such stabilizing items are helpful in a recession economy.

NH+

David:  I think that when speaking of “border crossings” a number of things need to be said, in addition to Dr. Radner’s wise comments.  One of the differences is that after the Windsor Report was issued, the primates responded to it.  In that response, the Global South did not commit to no border crossings.  They only committed not to “initiate” border crossings.

So the Global South primates did not fully agree to the moratorium that was requested of them, but rather set out what they would agree to and (I think) have pretty much stuck to that, given that subsequent border crossings have always been initiated by the American groups and not the GS primates.  We can debate why the Communion Instruments seem to have tacitly allowed the border crossings despite the requests to cease them, and whether the border crossing moratoria was considered a second order request versus the sexuality moratoria made to TEC were considered a first order request, and thus much more important.  But the point is that the GS primates never agreed NOT to do border crossing if a parish or diocese requested oversight.

In contrast, TEC did claim to comply with the moratoria requests until now.

As to the mutual parting of ways, I would consider that to be a sad and tragic event, but if the splitting is happening anyway, why not do it with Christian charity and generosity.  The fighting over AC membership and property is doing no good to either side.

Ok, two points:

Fr. N.J.A. Humphrey - 22 July 2009 12:37 PM

...why be stingy and leave out all those poor Continuum clergy?  In fact, I would like to see all the provinces of the Anglican Communion pool their pension resources…

I absolutely, 110% agree.  I hope that those who have had their pensions deprived for leaving might have them restored.  And, like you, I firmly believe that an economic centralization - and, therefore, an economic redistribution - of resources would be a very, very good thing.  It would, of course, require a greater level of centralization in the Communion, but that could be a good thing, no?

David Thomas - 22 July 2009 12:34 PM

...I am not foolish enough to believe the ACI approves or appreciates the contribution of gay and lesbian Christians to TEC or the Anglican Communion…

If I may ask - and I do so sincerely - why should the contribution of any group be something to affirm?  What I mean is, can one show that homosexuality (in this case) operates with some sort of agency, such that the contribution of gays and lesbians is worth recognizing not just because of the gifts themselves, but because of some facet of the identity of the giver?  I have no problem affirming “the contribution of gay and lesbian Christians to TEC or the Anglican Communion”, but I do have a problem with affirming that contributions because of the fact that they are homosexual.  Rather - or, at least, I hope - we affirm contributions because they are given with good intent for the upbuilding of the Body.

I would like to see, amidst the present arguments, a renegotiation of identity politics in which particular identities are subsumed to the universal identity given in baptism.  I hope that no one would affirm my gifts because I am heterosexual, or male, or of Cuban, Irish, and German descent, etc.  I can’t help but think that there is something of an idolatrous glorification of particular identities in our church at present, which detracts from the whole.  And yet, it is the whole - the katholicos - that we are called to.  The point of Paul’s statement that “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female” is to point out that “all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).  The parts must be subsumed to the whole, because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  The refusal to grant this seems to me to be a clear violation of the apostolic kerygma.