by the Rev. Dr. Kendall S. Harmon
As a means of reflecting on Denver, I have chosen five words which may serve as one lens through which to understand the 2000 General Convention.
I appreciated the general tone of respect for one another which pervaded the atmosphere in Denver. I had a number of people with whom I disagree profoundly go out of their way to greet me and be kind to me. I believe that Presiding Bishop Griswold deserves credit for this tone which he helped set.
As is often the case, there were a whole host of resolutions which spoke to the social implications of the gospel. We supported public schools, we made a strong case for greater gun control, we mandated anti-racism training, and, for the first time in General Convention history, we passed a resolution about the dangers of gambling. (Before the Social and Urban affairs committee I testified about the devastating impact of video gambling in our state as a means of supporting the resolution). I am glad to serve in a church where we TRY to articulate a public theology and where the communal calls of Jesus Christ are taken seriously.
I believe the CCM agreement with the Lutherans stands as one of the great ecumenical breakthroughs of the last 100 years, and I spoke strongly in favor of it on the floor of the House of Deputies. I believe the Lutherans have a gift of theological seriousness which will help us. I believe that Jesus' prayer in JOHN 17 is not only a clarion call to be taken seriously, but also one which is evangelistic in its implications ("so that the world may know"). This agreement will aid our witness to the world and for that I give thanks.
For my defense I have been criticized, sometimes severely, by some of our more catholic minded sister and brother Episcopalians. In particular they have focused on the temporary suspension of the preface to the ordinal, which allows those present Lutheran ministers not ordained by a bishop in valid apostolic succession to be recognized as validly so ordained for this time and for this time only. What these critics fail to note, however, is that ALL future Lutheran episcopal ordinations will be done in a way in which traditional catholic sacramental theology would consider "valid."
So both Lutherans and Episcopalians are being asked to give up a lot to gain a great deal more. One of the main reasons that CCM has been controversial among Lutherans is precisely because all future bishops will be consecrated in a different way than up to the present. This is an affirmation that apostolic ministry has not only to do with doctrinal allegiance, but also with sacramental form and ministry. I, for one, honor the sacrifice of the Lutherans amidst some who (wrongly) imply that Episcopalians are the ones making the more difficult sacrifice.
It is by now commonly agreed that the 1990's as a Episcopal Church decade of evangelism was a failure, but it was encouraging that a strongly worded resolution aiming to double the size of Episcopal Church membership by the year 20/20 was passed in Denver. Evangelism and Church growth remain on the front burner where they belong, and all of us need to pray for the Holy Spirit's zeal and the risk taking strategy necessary to achieve this goal.
Once again, our protestations notwithstanding, sex dominated the Convention. The issue on the surface is whether or not non-celibate homosexual and lesbian persons may be ordained: on one side of the church are those who insist it is a gospel matter of justice that they be ordained, on the other those who believe it is a matter of biblical truth and genuine gospel compassion that they not be ordained. Underneath this surface issue of sexuality are the issues of authority and how the church seeks to interpret and understand Scripture.
Already a great deal has been written about the resolution on sexuality which did pass, number D039. I disagree with a majority of what I have seen written so far and so I need to plead with the reader to follow closely at this point.
The first seven resolves of this resolution passed by significant majorities in both houses (one source said about 50 deputies may have voted against it out of over 800, and the bishops cast only 19 votes against it in a role call vote). The eighth resolve of DO39, which spoke of developing rites to bless non marital life-long relationships, was narrowly defeated.
What is the significance of D039 and the defeat of the eighth resolve?
First, it makes clear that we are a church in a desperate crisis. By a mere 3 lay votes in the House of Deputies and about 10 votes in the House of Bishops a split was averted in Denver. This is the closest we have ever been to a split, and the movement toward this eventuality was made more, not less, likely by what happened in Denver.
Second, it makes clear how far the so called "middle" of the Episcopal Church has moved. By far one of the most significant statements coming out of Denver was from Peter Lee, Bishop of Virginia. He called the first seven resolves of D039 which did pass both houses an "essentially conserving" resolution.
But consider the actual language of the resolution. The second resolve reads: "We acknowledge that while the issues of human sexuality are not yet resolved, there are currently couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in marriage and couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in other life-long committed relationships."
The fifth and sixth resolves read in part: "This Church. will provide .the prayerful support, encouragement and pastoral care necessary to live faithfully by.[a certain set of values such as honest communication and non-abusiveness] , and be it further Resolved, We acknowledge that some, acting in good conscience, who disagree with the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality, will act in contradiction to that position."
Now, as ever with resolutions, the central question turns on the matter of their interpretation. Resolution D039 in its passed form says that there are certain unspecified non-marital relationships in which church members are involved. For those members in these relationships, the church will provide "prayerful support, encouragement, and pastoral care." Is this resolution therefore DESCRIPTIVE of the church's ministry to the people IN these relationships, or is this resolution PRESCRIPTIVE in that it is setting forth the church's need to support not only the people but the relationships themselves?
The reality is that either interpretation is possible, and since Denver both have been given, but both are mutually contradictory. The church has traditionally taught that the only appropriate context for the full physical expression of the good gift of human sexuality is between a man and a woman who are married to each other. The Church has always also provided pastoral care and love and prayer for all those, married or unmarried, who struggle with their sexuality.
But consider our own Episcopal context. While OFFICIALLY (de jure) the Episcopal Church says that it is "not appropriate" to ordain a homosexual person or lesbian who is not celibate, precisely these ordinations have been occurring in more and more dioceses UNOFFICIALLY (de facto) over the last ten to fifteen years. This situation is known as "local option" and has never been officially condoned at any Episcopal Convention, yet it is happening more and more often.
One of the OTHER resolutions which was before the Denver convention would have made the now unofficial local option official. Significantly, however, the very committee which had charge of all sexuality resolutions rejected this local option resolution precisely because so many testified against it (including me), and because the resolution was fraught with so many problems.
What this same committee did was to give to the Convention a resolution, D039, which would make the momentum stronger toward the greater exercise of local option. Ask yourself the question , if you were in a diocese in which the blessing of a homosexual "union" was now occurring unofficially, what the effect of D039 would be. You would now be able to say you were doing what you were doing BECAUSE resolution D039 authorized you to do so. You would say you were doing it to provide the "encouragement" and "prayerful support" necessary for the non-marital relationship the persons were in. NEVER before in the history of the Episcopal Church would you have had a resolution which could have been interpreted in this way.
Such a resolution is a lot of things but it is CERTAINLY not essentially conserving. By undermining marriage [see Dr. L. A. Crawford's response, and making it only one option among many, it is not conserving. By furthering the momentum toward local option it is not conserving.
And, one could only add, in a culture as sexually confused as ours, it will only add to our confusion. We remain under God's judgment, all of us, and only by faithfulness in little things (Jeremiah 29) will God begin to heal us from our time of exile.
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.