It has now become customary within the Episcopal Church to parse ad infinitum every resolution or statement regarding the ordination of practicing homosexuals or the blessing of same-sex unions. According to the unwritten rules of this game, a document that contains language that can easily be interpreted in different ways is thrown out like a ball for people to knock around. Then, two or three opposing sides hit the document back and forth as each tries to impose its interpretation on the document. The winner of this game is the one whose interpretation becomes the one more generally accepted. In typical Anglican fashion, however, rarely is there an outright winner in this game, and thus one ends up with all sides claiming victory in accordance with their own rules.

A prime example of this is Resolution B033 from the 2006 General Convention. There is no need here to rehearse the rather odd parliamentary procedures that led to its adoption. The purported reason for the quick composition and ratification of this resolution was to bring the Episcopal Church into compliance with the demands of the Primates and the ‘Windsor Report’. That resolution called 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’.

Immediately following the passage of this resolution, the two opponents took to the field. One side argued that although the resolution fell short of an outright moratorium, settling for nothing more than a polite urging of restraint, enough had been done to satisfy the Windsor demands. The opposing side agreed that the resolution fell short of an actual moratorium and thus the Episcopal Church ought to be disciplined. A third player in this game took the middle ground, interpreting the text as a moratorium. Much time and energy then went into playing the game as bloggers, bishops, and organization provided their interpretation of what had been decided in an attempt to knock the opposing teams out of the match.

At this point, the Archbishop of Canterbury stepped in to provide some form of adjudication by writing:

‘It is not yet clear how far the resolutions passed this week and today represent the adoption by the Episcopal Church of all the proposals set out in the Windsor Report. The wider Communion will therefore need to reflect carefully on the significance of what has been decided before we respond more fully’.

In other words, the Anglican Communion itself would interpret the resolution, in a sense declaring the victor. This led ultimately to a meeting between the House of Bishops and the Joint Standing Committee in New Orleans in September 2007. There, the bishops once again pledged to ‘exercise restraint’ and later the Joint Standing Committee interpreted that to mean that the moratorium remained in place, noting that,

‘By requiring that the restraint must be expressed in a particular way – “by not consenting …”…the resolution is calling for a precise response, which complies with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report. The resolution, which was passed by large majorities in both houses, therefore calls upon those charged with the giving of consent to the result of any election to the episcopate to refuse consent to candidates whose “manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion”.

Thus, it would seem that this particular match had come to its end: in the eyes of the Anglican Communion B033 was indeed compliant with Windsor and, therefore, was sufficient to stave off any further disciplinary action against the Episcopal Church. Many conservatives and some liberals, however, cried foul, claiming that the JSC’s interpretation was not widely shared by people within the Episcopal Church. Thus, in a sense, the scrum continued. One team claimed that B033 did not constitute a moratorium and that the Episcopal Church should proceed, after the election of such a candidate, to consecrate an active gay or lesbian bishop. The other team threw up its hands in disgust, professed problems with the game’s referee (Lambeth and JSC) and threatened to leave the game altogether. The final team accepted the official interpretation of B033 and did its best to repair relations with the wider Anglican Communion.

All of which brings us to the present. As General Convention 2009 began the Episcopal Church was defined by the official structures of the Anglican Communion as a church that, although struggling with how to respond to gays and lesbians, had for the time being accepted the moratorium on consecrations by not consenting to the consecration of anyone whose ‘manner of life’ would cause problems for the wider communion. The Episcopal Church’s continued involvement without discipline in the Anglican Communion was and is predicated on this interpretation of the Episcopal Church’s actions.

Earlier this week, however, D025 was officially adopted by General Convention. Supporters of this resolution have been at pains to explain that the resolution is descriptive rather than prescriptive. If we take the supporters at their word then this would mean that according to General Convention, the Episcopal Church officially describes itself as a church in which active gays and lesbians living in faithful relationships minister in all aspects of church life and are mysteriously called by God to all levels of ministry. Interestingly, after the approval of this resolution, several bishops and deputies (for example, Bishop Sauls during that day’s press conference) reiterated their belief that a moratorium never existed.

So, it would seem that D025 effectively nullifies the generous interpretation provided by the Joint Standing Committee. If this is the case, then does it matter whether D025 is prescriptive or descriptive? To put this another way: does D025 clearly and officially describe a church that is not in compliance with Windsor?

I would not be at all surprised if the attempt to answer that question were to become round two of the great Episcopal interpretive match. And people think cricket matches are long!

[Note: Fr Mark Clavier, formerly of the Anglican Province of America, is currently a PhD student at the University of Durham.]