To Vote or Not to Vote: Correspondence Regarding Lesbigay Issues at General Convention 2000

I wish to belatedly applaud your Lenten letter to the House of Deputies. After serving as a deputy at three conventions, I was defeated for a fourth and am now an alternate and not the first alternate either. It is our custom to send only the first alternate in each order so I expect I will not be at the Convention at Denver. This is particularly frustrating in the light of the press reports about the House of Bishops to which you refer in your letter, Alas, I seem to recall that that house once before determined to entertain no legislation on the issue of sexual orientation and effectively frustrated file will of the House of Deputies since resolutions must pass both houses. General Convention is a legislative body, Efforts to turn it into something else in order not to offend seem to me misguided at best and in this case dangerous. The world does not provide us with too many win, win situations. Even Christians must die width Christ to rise with him. Sometimes we lose, sometimes we must lose in order to win, in order to find a deeper, fuller, mare permanent life.

This issue of sexual orientation has been fought over now for some time. It has been put to a vote and has lost yet it is not those who have lost who want to avoid a vote but those who have won because their margin has shrunken. I cannot blame them for maneuvering to fudge or eliminate such a vote because if they lose that settles it. It is when those who profess to believe in the Cause play into their hands that one feels betrayed. The threat of departing is a form of blackmail. Do not tell the truth or we will leave. We are servants of truth and servants of unity but above all, we are called, I believe, to be the servants of love. Which best serves love when they are set at odds - the truth or unity? That seems to me to call for the so called "Liberals" on this issue. I take comfort in your remarks about the anticipated fracture of the church." I pray it does not happen, but fear of it mustn't negate our responsibilities."

On the eve of the Civil War, when other churches took a stand and were fractured - our church did not. We have boasted that after the war his church reassembled North and South as if nothing had happened. But something did happen and our failure to recognize it meant that the black members of file church left in droves and by comparison we have few American blacks to this day.

I expect feat those gay and lesbian persons close to the center of church life will "understand" the concern to mollify the opposition. But what of those on the fringes and those who might be attracted by the Gospel but who stand outside because we seem to deny their reality as children of God? Is it our task to make the Gospel comfortable for those who have accepted it or to proclaim the good news wife boldness for those who do not know Christ Jesus? We were not told to stay home and eliminate challenge, we were challenged to go make disciples of all.

In the light of file action at Lambeth this is exactly the wrong time to bite our tongue Lambeth has spoken. Gay and lesbian people in and outside the church in this country and elsewhere are watching to see if the most "progressive wing" of this communion will crumple before the opposition or continue to tackle this issue in an open, bold and forthright way.

Such proposals as I have heard proposed in the press give prayer a bad name. It is supposed to be a means to developing a relationship with God, not avoiding engaging the truth.

On Good Friday l preached on the irony, he bitter irony that the Gospel of John, appointed for that day, has given aid and comfort to anti-Semitism by its constant pejorative reference to the Jews. That was not its intention - but that is the fact and unless we fight against that reading, it will continue to do so. Bishop Swing of California was quoted to the effect that the men who killed Matthew Shepherd have Biblical warrant for Leviticus not only condemns the act of man lying with a man as with a woman, but prescribes the penalty of death and finally exonerates their executioners. It this act horrifies us, and its warrant is in our holy book, we cannot pray about it or discuss it merely; we must find a way to disavow it. Refusing to vote on the question gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It can do no other. Speaking against hatred while we assert that its object is an abomination won't persuade anybody. To be welcoming and to undermine this hatred nothing less than the Church's acknowledgment of the appropriateness of gay sex in committed relationships of gays and lesbians will do.

I hope you will do what you can to permit this issue to be debated and voted on in both houses of our General Convention. The world for which Christ Jesus died is watching.

In John Irving's novel 'A Prayer for Own Meany' Owen the protagonist says "I find that Holy Week is draining; no matter how many times I have lived through his crucifixion my anxiety about his resurrection is undiminished. I am terrified that this year the resurrection won't happen." Resurrection is no shoo-in.

If the General Convention of 2000 plays games, for a lot of people in and outside the church, the resurrection won't happen.

St. John's Episcopal Church, Los Angeles
May 10, 1999

I am writing to express my concern regarding reports in the church press indicating that the House of Bishops intends to minimize or avoid votes on difficult issues at General Convention.

I wrote you earlier about your abstention on the Lambeth resolution on sexuality which puzzled and distressed me. I should say, that the report of your response to the primates' letter on this same issue, was, I thought; on the money and you should he congratulated for it. It was I think, the right and charitable thing to say.

As I have indicated I am writing regarding the same issue and the House of Bishops' approach to difficult issues at the Denver Convention.

After serving as a Deputy to three General Conventions, I was not elected for a fourth, hence my letter.

I believe it was William Temple who is reported to have observed that it was a mistake to believe that God was primarily interested in the Church. It is the world for which Christ died.

This seems to me particularly appropriate as I read about the House of Bishops' intention to pray more and legislate less. To discuss and to abandon taking a stand is what comes through. Whether this is a fair estimate or not, it reflects what appears in the press and therefore what most people believe.

Since at at least one General Convention the House of Bishops blocked any action by the House of Deputies on the "hot button" issue of the blessing of same sex unions, ostensibly, for the sake of peace, this interpretation, accurate or not, is all too credible,

I cite Temple's alleged remark because it seems to me that the church has a tendency to revise the divine concern and is doing so now. In order to maintain community, we are prepared to sacrifice truth; to postpone justice; to hobble the Good News.

We seem to be saying, - let the world fend for itself, we must protect the church; the church that is supposed to spend itself for the world.

We seem more concerned with fellow Episcopalians who threaten to leave us if we speak the truth as we see it than with those outside, hungry for the good news that God loves them enough to die for them and loves them gay.

If the latter is true or might be; if the Holy Spirit might lead us to that determination in whatever forum, do we not have the responsibility of seeking her guidance, even in a vote in the legislative forum of General Convention?

I have been proud that in that forum as well as others, this church has not only wrestled with this issue but that while other denominations were stonewalling it, we were moving in the direction of greater inclusion.

While that terrifies some, it is a cause of rejoicing to those of us who have among our acquaintances gay scoffers of Christianity -- who find the gospel attractive but not the performance of Christians. They hear a disingenuous message -- ' you are accepted -so long as you behave like the rest of us.' 'We will welcome you so long as you do not act like who you are. who you are."

Bishop Swing, during file hand wringing over Matthew Shepherd's death, was reported as observing that his murderers were acting on Leviticus where it not only proscribes what Matthew was, it prescribes his punishment - licensing his executioners and finally, it exonerates them. If we are truly outraged by that murder, we had better find a better way to deal with Leviticus.

People understand diplomatic language where everything is understated. When the church says, "Gays are welcome but acting gay is a sin; gay sex is a sin," they hear us applauding Leviticus. There is no way round that. If scripture is right about the crime - why is it not right about the punishment?

I believe Leviticus is wrong. I think the Holy Spirit is leading us to this insight. To side step the issue, to avoid votes or legislation, says we don't trust the spirit, that we have lost our nerve. It says it to those to whom we are sent to preach the gospel.

Lambeth did not lose its nerve. It put the communion on record in favor of Leviticus and the world got the message. Nothing in that message would have restrained the murderers of Matthew Shepherd or Bill Jack Gaither.

From my perspective, this is exactly file wrong time to be silent; to avoid a vote on this issue and with it the opportunity to speak out for what we believe.

To lose the vote is at least to face up to the issue and that would give many outside looking in hope.

To win would for them be a great thing. But to fail to engage it would be to leave Leviticus unchallenged, even unaddressed in any credible and helpful way, Is that what we want to do?

Most Reverend Frank Griswold
Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue, New York, NY 01017

800-334-7626

June 14, 1999

Thank you for your letter of May 10 expressing your concerns about the upcoming General Convention.

We certainly know that the Spirit works through the legislative process and I would not mean to suggest that our legislative life is not important. At the same time I continue to believe that there are some issues about which the community has not reached anything like a consensus. Further conversation is needed, and time is required so we may more deeply understand the truth of one another.

I believe that we have an opportunity to offer to the church a new understanding of how we might be together as a community of discourse. This is not about avoiding issues, it is about entering them more deeply.

I hope that the few thought will be helpful to you in understanding my sense of a way of ordering our common life. This comes with my good wishes and assurance of my prayers for you and your ministry.

Thank you for your letter of June 14 in response to my concerns regarding the issue of homosexuality and the General Convention,

You say, that nothing like a consensus has been reached on this matter and that is certainly true. That may be one reason we need a vote, to see where people stand and to acknowledge at least by means of permissive legislation what is already happening in this church, I think many of those who wish to avoid such a vote fear the formation of a consensus is well advanced and they are in disagreement with it. Others are responding to the threat of some to leave if the vote is affirmative. That is a questionable tactic and in the past has been only modestly implemented when threatened.

If, as you say further conversation is needed and you are unwilling to promote that conversation by permitting this matter to come to a vote how do you propose to promote it? Or do you? If we are to 'more deeply understand the truths of one another' on this manor, how is that to be accomplished?

If we are to have 'a new understanding of how to be together as a community of discourse', how is that understanding to be achieved? Specifically, what do you propose to put in the place of deliberative action and a vote which advances the discussion?

'The efforts made in the past through study guides and the encouragement of parishes and dioceses to react on this matter had some impact, but, limited impact. I served on a committee to design and monitor that effort at the national level. We have done that.

If your proposal is not about 'avoiding issues' but 'entering them more deeply' it is going to have to be pretty specific and very credible not to come off as the avoidance you speak of"

Again, as I said before, it may be possible to sell what is in effect, a vote moratorium on this issue, to some on the side of change within the church, but I believe we must also address those outside the church who might be with us but for the appearance of backtracking or avoiding the issue at this critical time.

The spread of the Gospel needs to be as much a concern of the church as the comfort of the faithful, I believe,

Further, the last time the house of Bishops acted unilaterally there was much hard feeling in the House of Deputies, Ours is a democratically governed church and we have a bicameral Legislature. I trust any determination on this issue will be presented to both houses before it is embarked upon by one

Most Reverend Frank Griswold
Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue, New York, NY 01017

800-334-7626

July 19, 1999

Thank you for your letter of June 28. Please know that I am very aware that our House is a bicameral legislature. Further, we all need the wisdom and insight of one another; certainly no part of our ecclesial body can or should act unilaterally.

I very much appreciate your points of view and believe that ultimately we will address issues in a more faithful manner if we take time to discern. How we will do this is is beginning to unfold, with one step being the House of Bishops interim meeting this fall.

The Planning and Arrangements Committee, the President of the House of Deputies, the Executive Officer and I will be working closely on plans for the 2000 General Convention.