6/21/2006

The Rains Come and Hope Remains

It’s Wednesday Morning, June 21st, the last day of General Convention in Columbus. Unlike the last nine days, today it is raining. There is thunder in the distance, and slick roads reflect the light from the early morning cars. The weather fits the moment.

Yesterday the House of Deputies forced the issue on the matter of A161, a resolution dealing with the election of bishops and same sex blessing. It was so bad that the left and right both could not stand it, and the middle saw it as a botched job. It failed just as I described in my essay yesterday. There I offered two scenarios that became fact. I said,

Someone will propose a substitute on A161 and other resolutions, probably from the realignment side, and these will be so stringent that they will be unacceptable to the House and go down in flames. Then the realignment folk can say, “see, they really don’t care.”

The resolutions will continue to be so abhorrent to people on the right and on the left (for very different reasons) that they fail for want of a majority.”

The substitute was a motion using moratorium language lifted from Windsor. It was declared unconstitutional. The specific resolution A161 was indeed abhorrent.

There is lots of good coverage on this. In particular I recommend The Witness and Father Jake Stops the World.

I have been writing these blogs in the early morning, reflecting on the day before and anticipating the day to come. I predicted that yesterday would be a day with blood on the floor and a crying need for lawyers, guns and money. Well that was partially true. We did indeed need canon lawyers to get us out of the substitute resolution that was proposed. And, in a separate order of business we needed more money than the Church could guarantee to do all that the budgetary asking had requested. But we passed the budget and sent it along to the Bishops for concurrence.

On the matter of guns: the big guns of the debate on various resolutions concerning the Windsor Report were really Deputy Frank Wade and several committee members, representing the proposing body; Deputy Kendall Harmon and a small group of conservatives; and the Integrity leadership, represented on the floor by Elizabeth Kaeton. What was interesting was to see that with all their firepower the real shot heard ‘round the world was a volley of shots fired by deputies nearer the middle who had just had enough.
Democracy is not a pretty thing in action, but its results are amazing. A161, the creation of the Special Committee and a real mish-mash of material, was soundly defeated on the floor because it was awful. The realignment crowd may have voted against it because it didn’t go far enough and the progressive crowd because it was a bad piece of legislation lamenting its discount of Gay and Lesbian persons. But a large majority of the deputies saw it as bad indeed and not worthy of consideration.

Deputies worked their way thru a giant pile of legislation and worked until 9:30 at night. In the middle of the evening session the President announced that the Presiding Bishop had called a joint session for Wednesday morning (today) to present a way forward on legislation related to Windsor. This was certainly a strange development.

On the way back to my room I stopped at the bar / gathering place and ran into a bishop who immediately asked, “what’s going on with the House of Deputies? When are you going to give us something we can work with?” And, when I came in and began reading comments and blogs on the Net, it became clear that the House of Bishops, and the Presiding Bishop in particular, believe that the House of Deputies needed rescue and guidance. Some of the comments were fairly blunt: that the House of Deputies needed to be more mature and less abrasive, that we were not flexible, or that we needed help.

Well, we will see. The big guns will be in the house today. What I do know is that if the big guns get paternalistic there will be hell to pay. It may not be a good thing to insult the maturity or integrity of this large body of people who have been working hard for a long time with resolutions that concern our work in the Anglican Communion. That work, unlike the resolutions regarding mission and program, concerns high level interchange, not local contextual realities. Most deputies have little connection to the wide range of people and organizations that are central to the Communion. Most will never meet or see the Archbishop of Canterbury, most will never go to a Lambeth Conference, almost none will participate in any of the “instruments of unity.” And yet these people are asked to bear the brunt of the struggle to maintain a way forward in Anglican Communion processes. These Deputies are asked to surrender some vague edges of autonomy to some not too clearly understood or seen “higher” power.

The House of Bishops would do well to remember that Lambeth may be a fine time for them, but it is not nearly as important as money for local ministry or canons for ministry, or a budget for missionaries. The Archbishop of Canterbury would do well to understand that emissaries that seem to come from the monarch or the patriarch bearing messages of caution and dictates for action are not well received by this rag-tag body of deputies who got sent here to be the Episcopal Church assembled to empower mission, not the local branch of the Anglican Communion convened to receive marching orders.

Today promises to be a day when the streets get washed down, and hope is renewed.

My hope is that the joint session will be conducted without anxiety or paternalism, and that we do indeed find a way forward in responding to the Windsor Report, and that following that we can breeze through the remaining legislation. But we can do so only if we sweep out the corners where the power brokers have left their webs to snare the unawares.

We broke through the stained glass ceiling on Sunday. Perhaps today we can break through the walls of fear.

No matter what we do today, no one can say we are not taking the Windsor Report seriously or that we somehow have not attended to the concerns of the Primates, the Lambeth Conference or the Anglican Consultative Council. We will do what we can do, and that’s that. Everything else is for another time.

The threat that we might not make it to Lambeth, or that we will be no longer part of the Anglican Communion is a real one, but it is not as great as the promise that loving kindness will prevail if we do not loose hope, and if we do not abandon one another.

Off to work.

9 comments:

  1. If we and the rest of the Anglican Communion cannot manage to hold together, how can we tell the rest of the world that we can bring them to reconciliation?

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jon, my answer to that would be: by modeling the process -- the painful, slow, difficult process -- that leads to reconciliation.

    Even if the Episcopal Church becomes severed from the rest of the Anglican Communion -- if, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not invite Bishop Schori to the next Lambeth Conference -- that doesn't have to mean that we will walk apart forever. What was broken can sometimes be repaired; especially if both sides allow God to act to bring that about.

    God is the only eternal; of everything else, just remember: This, too, shall pass.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David Huff21/6/06 2:03 PM

    I just saw on Fr. Jake's site that B033 passed the HoD with approx 70% of both orders :/

    GC06 to GLBT Episcopalians: "Hey you! pick up your cross and bear it!" But hey, as long as the rest of us are comfortable...

    ReplyDelete
  4. david,

    If it's any comfort at all, I'm standing with you and will help GLBT Episcopalians bear this cross in whatever way I can.

    My grandfather used to say, especially after a disappointing fishing trip, "Tomorrow is another day."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lucky for Bishop-elect Beisner that his approval came before this resolution was passed.

    "Resolved, that this Convention therefore call 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."

    I would think that two divorces/three marriages should present as much a problem as homosexuality. So, since we've done this, let us hope for an even-handed application across the board.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Presiding Bishop Elect Schori dropped the ball and the reasserters snapped it up but continue to run backwards in the wrong direction...

    Thank you Mark Harris for all that you do to help me and people like me to become more responsible human beings.

    Leonardo Ricardo

    ReplyDelete
  7. Reverend Ref+ says "I would think that two divorces/three marriages should present as much a problem as homosexuality. So, since we've done this, let us hope for an even-handed application across the board." Finally something we can agree on!

    Peace,
    JB

    ReplyDelete
  8. I left this morning since we had a noon checkout time. I told every bishop that I met (surprisingly, I know a good few bishops) that the Deputies were right to reject the version of A-161 that was presented to them.

    I am sorry that the House of Bishops chose ecclesiastical power politics over the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am even more sorry that the Deputies buckled to the tremendous pressure that the Bishops put on them (probably illegally).

    Certainly B033 has no legal standing (it is, in fact, in conflict with Title III on access to the ordination process & should be challenged as soon as possible -- perhaps as soon as Rowan buckles to pressure from the neo-Donatists).

    The resolution being promulgated during a sever thunderstorm cannot help but remind the historically aware of the final session of Vatican I & the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility (another church position that has been regretted & parsed every which way ever since) -- at least we have the integrity to be able to revisit this decision & admit that it is nonsense (& we will -- because it is).

    ReplyDelete
  9. (Dave) How pray tell can someone challenge the resolution? I say the resolution is meaningless and was designed to feign compliance with the rest of the Communion but there is nothing to challenge. Can anyone honestly say that it is not the duty of bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees to scrutinize the manner of life of a propsective bishop? Nothing in ths resolution requires anyone to do anything more thatn they should always be doing. If it was a ruse to trick the Global South, it won't have that effect. If it means what some on the left fear, why didn't the supporters say it and earn their places in the Councils of the Church? I will tell you why - because that is not what was intended. It was an attempt at face saving - at giving the new PB some breathing room to manuever and avoid getting kicked out of the Communion. It ain't gonna work. We know it doesn't mean what you fear and will never be applied in that way.

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.