The next General Convention of the Episcopal Church is still over a year away, but questions are being raised already by clergy, vestries and congregations as to what might happen IF this or that is decided. I am being asked to meet with various groups to discuss my own commitments, and to address how the diocese as a whole - or individual parishes within it - might respond to a variety of possible decisions.

The same discussion is going on via the internet, with various groups drawing lines in the sand.

I have had vestries tell me they are wary of starting a building campaign when they think the future of the Episcopal Church is so uncertain. Some of our clergy have declared, "If General Convention should do thus and so I'm out of here." I was even asked in one parish gathering, "If we should decide to leave the Episcopal Church, what will you do about our building?"

For nearly everyone the major concern continues to be human sexuality. Two issues in particular dominate the discussion:

a) Will the Episcopal Church authorize some kind of service for the blessing of "same sex unions"?

b) Will it in some way regularize or legitimize the ordination of non-celibate gay and lesbian persons?

At least 18 dioceses of the Episcopal Church have repudiated Resolution I.10 that was voted so overwhelmingly by the Lambeth Conference last summer (at least the part that declared homosexual practice "incompatible with holy scripture.") Openly non-celibate homosexual clergy serve in an increasing number of dioceses. And the great majority of new bishops being elected are expressing their sympathy toward the "gay agenda."

To many it is a matter of simple justice. They believe homosexuality is inborn, fixed and unchanging, and they argue that gays and lesbians should have the same opportunity to enjoy intimate relationships as do their heterosexual counterparts. If such relationships are monogamous and permanent, and if they are centered in Christ, they should have the blessing of the Church, and they should pose no impediment to ministry, lay or ordained.

Others dispute every point of that position, and for them it is an unthinkable self-contradiction for the Church to "bless" - or to hold up as a "wholesome example" - a lifestyle that is so clearly proscribed by scripture and the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

"But the Church has been wrong about women, and minorities, and slavery, and eating pork, and charging interest, and so on; and it has used the Bible to back its arguments in the past," argue the "liberals." "Yes, but all that was a matter of interpretation," counter the "conservatives." "This one strikes to the very heart of what it means to be created 'male and female in God's image;' both Old and New Testaments are unambiguous that heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate context for physical intimacy."

Exactly twenty years ago the 66th General Convention adopted a resolution that said in part:

"[T]he traditional teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity, and sexual chastity [is] the standard of Christian sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are expected to conform to this standard. Therefore^Ċit is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage."

In spite of the millions of words that have been spoken and written since then this remains the official position of the Episcopal Church to this day. It is widely ignored - with impunity - but it is still the official teaching of the Church.

The question being asked with increasing urgency is: what if the General Convention were to change that position by its actions next summer?

Whenever I am asked this question I try to make at least these six points:

1. We need to remember that this is an argument "within the family." Christian people who love the Lord and read the same Bible find themselves on different sides of this question. Admittedly, they often have vastly different understandings of both the nature and the authority of the Bible, but let's remind ourselves we are dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ.

2. The dispute is not confined to the Episcopal Church. It is society-wide, and virtually every denomination is engaged in its own version of the debate. Further, it is being considered in nearly every corner of the globe.

3. My sense of the House of Bishops - at least at this moment - is that we have learned we are not going to "settle" this one by legislation. If the General Convention were to be held today I think that a majority of even those of the "liberal" persuasion would be reluctant to cast votes that would change the Church's doctrine and discipline in so radical a fashion. (I may be wrong about that, and of course, that may change. But that's where I think we are just now.)

4. The Presiding Bishop is doing everything he can to help this Church deal with issues of sexuality in a reflective way rather than by votes that could provoke schism. My sense is that he knows the potential this issue has for fracturing the Church, and he is committed to preventing that happening on his watch. Bishop Griswold is a man of deep personal commitment to Jesus Christ, and while he and I are on opposite sides of this particular set of issues, I thank God for his leadership in the House of Bishops and the larger Church.

5. The rest of the Anglican Communion is watching the American Church with a very high level of interest and concern. The overwhelming majority of the bishops (526 to 70) voted last year at Lambeth to affirm the Church's historic understanding of sexual morality. The rest of the Communion does not want to see the Episcopal Church USA go its own way in this matter, and many of the bishops and primates are increasingly willing to become involved with us in new ways. Don't leave the rest of the Communion out of the equation!

6. Most especially, don't leave God out of the equation! This is still his Church, and there are still a couple million of us saying our prayers and seeking his face. Let's dare to believe that he has better things in store for us than an unavoidable schism.

"Yes, but 'WHAT IF'?"

A particularly thoughtful piece, written by Robert Morris, was circulated early in May. He said, "Let's be really, really clear about this. The parties to this conflict don't agree. We're at a stalemate about that, for the time being at least, and into the foreseeable future." Morris outlines four "options" as follows:

• War

  (Or Sheer, Unadulterated Secular Politics, which is the non-military form of War.) Both sides decide to "duke it out to the finish" at enormous cost to ourselves and to our witness.

• Separation and Cold War.

  Morris comments, "This is the usual state of Christian division - 'Well, they (almost) might be real Christians, but 'Let me tell you how wrong they are'"

• Living Together in Disagreement while Practicing Charity.

  "Why not try something the New Testament actually encourages? Some are 'of Paul' and some 'of Cephas.' But Christ cannot be divided. Is it imaginable that the Anglican Church could model something almost unprecedented in history, and hold together WITH an increasingly sharp division of interpretation and practice? Could we have open and out gay-welcoming parishes and 'recovering' gay-welcoming parishes and 'abstinent' gay-welcoming parishes? Could we do that with all our unhappy divisions, even down to allowing Prayer Book parishes? We would have to 'forbear' one another in love, as Paul insists. He should know. Look at James sending emissaries after him at every point, tidying up his message with their footnotes. Yet, thunderclaps, expostulations, and all, Paul stayed 'in communion' with James and the Jerusalem Church, and (apparently) they with him."

• Separation Without Recrimination.

  "And if, in the end, that doesn't work to hold the family together, then what will we do? Something new, I hope. Some of us, at least. Part amicably. Part with sorrowing love, rather than self-righteous recrimination. Commend each other to God, and pray God's blessing to work through each other to do good, even if our ways seem alien and strange to each other. Pray for God to correct each of us in God's own good time as God sees best."

  "That," Morris concludes, "would be a refreshing new chapter in the Struggles of Christ with his people. They'd talk about it for centuries to come. And maybe, in their own time of trial, follow our example."

  Where am I personally in the midst of all this?

  Exactly where I've been all along. Let me repeat something I said at our 1998 Diocesan Convention:

  "I think there is little question that for the last nine years, if you put [the two principal responsibilities of a bishop] on a set of scales, for me "guarding the faith" would have been more important than "maintaining the unity" [of the Church]. Not that either one could ever be unimportant! But if I had to choose, I would have leaned toward "guarding the faith" as we have received it from apostles and martyrs and the whole catholic tradition.

  "But what I believe the Lord is saying to me - and I have been seeking his face as intensely as I have ever done previously! - is that at this particular moment in our history, I've got to somehow tip the scales just a bit in the other direction.

  "Does that mean I am 'changing my position on the issues?' No, it means 'the issues' are not the only issue!

  "If the very unity of the Church is at stake - and it is - we've got to do whatever we can, all of us, to prevent our flying apart, breaking communion with each other, and allowing high emotions and intemperate comments to polarize us and push us into a place where none of us wants to be, and a place that cannot be pleasing to God. And as your Bishop and pastor - an incredible privilege, for which I thank God every day; and an awesome responsibility, for which I need your prayers every day - I've got to do all I can to help maintain our unity, even in the midst of disagreement, while we go on bearing witness to the truth, as best we understand it, and as best we can. That is my commitment to you."

  I have told everyone who has asked that:

  1. ) The same discussion is taking place in many of the congregations of the diocese, and I very much hope we will be thinking and praying about these things with each other, rather than making decisions individually and unilaterally.

  2. ) I will not try to pre-judge what General Convention might or might not do, nor will I make my decisions unilaterally regarding this or that possible scenario.

  3. ) Should the General Convention act to change the doctrine and discipline of the Church in any significant way, I would call our own Diocesan Convention into special session, and we would take counsel together, and decide together what the implications of any such actions by the General Convention might be.

  Somewhere I read that we are not to be anxious about tomorrow! Let's keep saying our prayers, and trusting the Lord to lead us in ways that are pleasing to him. And should the "What if?" scenarios develop, let's believe him for the wisdom and courage to do as he directs.

  Love to you in Christ,

  +John W. Howe

  ---

  In my view, the decision in the Righter trial replaced the 1979 decision as the definitive position on ECUSA. --Lutibelle/Louie
  • The Series: 'Assays toward General Convention 2000': http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/assays.html
  • Louie Crew's Anglican pages: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/rel.html
  • Louie Crew's home page: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew
  • Send mail to: lcrew@newark.rutgers.edu

  

  Please sign my guestbook and view it.

  ---

  My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

  Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.