Response to and Refutation of the Wholly Inadequate Communion Sub-Group Report

Stand Firm ^ | 2/15/2007 | Matt Kennedy

[sionnsar]

The Communion Sub-Committee findings betray a serious lack of study and care. There are gaping inaccuracies and unwarranted assumptions throughout the document. The mistakes are so glaring that the work appears more motivated by apologetic concerns than investigative care.

---

Response to Communion Sub-Group Report Part 1 B033

From the Communion Sub-Group Report on Resolution B033: the selection of Bishops:

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”.

In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion. This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003. It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report.

The group noted that while the Windsor Report restricted its recommendation to candidates for the episcopate who were living in a same gender union, the resolution at General Convention widened this stricture to apply to a range of lifestyles which present a wider challenge. The group welcomed this widening of the principle, which was also recommended by the Windsor Report[4] , and commend it to the Communion.

The Group completely misunderstands the general language employed in B033. The language is lifted directly from Resolution A161 which had been defeated the day before Resolution B033 was introduced.

Resolution A161 stated with regard to bishops:

“Accordingly, we are obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to refrain from the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion…”

The published explanation provided for the language of Resolution A161 is as follows:

“The resolution does not specify what constitutes a "manner of life" that "presents a challenge to the wider church;" we leave this to the prayerful discernment of those involved in nominating, electing, and consecrating bishops. Concerns we discussed were by no means limited to the nature of the family life; for example, the potential of bishops to serve effectively as pastors for all within their diocese, and their level of commitment to respect the dignity of and strive for justice for all people are also relevant.”

Obviously, the “widening” or generalization of the Windsor language is not intended to provide for greater compliance to Communion principles but rather to provide greater space for diocesan nominating committees and conventions to decide for themselves what sort of lifestyle might pose a “challenge” to the wider church.

And at least one diocesan standing commission has already nominated a candidate living in a non-celibate homosexual relationship and it did so without any official consternation from the Executive Committee or the Presiding Bishop. Why? Because the standing commission in question had “prayerfully discerned” that the non-celibate homosexual candidate did not pose a challenge to the wider communion.

And yet at the same time while Resolution B033 has not prevented the nomination of non-celibate homosexual candidates, it has been applied by many bishops and standing committees to object to the election of South Carolina's Bishop-elect Mark Lawrence whose candidacy, they have "prayerfully discerned," poses a challenge to the wider communion.

It is abundantly clear then both from the background of the language employed in Resolution B033 and subsequent application of the same that the “widening” language was not intended as a gesture of compliance with paragraph 131 of the Windsor Report which states:

In our view, all those involved in the processes of episcopal appointment, at whichever level, should in future in the light of all that has happened pay proper regard to the acceptability of the candidate to other provinces in our Communion; the issue should be addressed by those locally concerned at the earliest stages, by those provincially involved in the confirmation of any election, and not least by those who, acting on those decisions, consecrate the individual into the order of bishop. The question of acceptability could be posed in a number of ways. Is there any reason to expect that the appointment or election of a particular candidate might prejudice our relations with other provinces? Would the ministry of this individual be recognised and received if he or she were to visit another province? Would the individual be 'translatable'?

But rather it was intended and has served to provide dioceses the space to nominate non-celibate homosexual candidates for election and consecration to the office of bishop.

On its face Resolution B033 as a whole merely calls standing commissions to "prayerfully discern" for themselves whether a given candidate poses a challenge to the wider communion. And if they discern that he or she will not pose such a challenge, then it is within the purview of the standing commission to nominate that candidate for election and to support his consent.

Within the “space” provided by resolution B033 non-celibate homosexual candidates have already been prayerfully discerned not to represent a “challenge” to the wider communion and, make no mistake, more will be.

The "space" provided by B033 is not a widening of Windsor principles but simply a vehicle for violating them.

In sum: The purpose of the careful specificity of the Windsor Recommendations and the Dromantine Communique was to deny the very space Resolution B033 seeks to create.


Part II: Response to the Communion Sub-Group’s Findings on General Convention and Public Rites for Same Sex Blessings

From the Communion Sub-Group Report:

A separate recommendation in the Windsor Report and adopted by the primates was the proposal for a moratorium on the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions. This issue, as well as others in the Windsor Report, had been addressed in a draft resolution, A161, which was defeated in the House of Deputies. General Convention as a whole did not therefore specifically consider the question of a possible moratorium on same sex unions.

This is simply not true. The above paragraph itself is something of a contradiction because one of the resolve clauses in A161, defeated by the deputies, included a specific call regarding same sex blessings:

Resolved that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same sex unions at this time, thereby concurring with the Windsor Report in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the primates’ (Pastoral Letter of May 2003).

This resolve clause along with the other resolves included in A161 was clearly defeated on the floor of the House of Deputies by the following vote:

LAY: 38 yes 53 no 18 divided: Motion fails
CLERGY: 44 yes 53 no 14 divide Motion fails

It is absolutely incorrect and misleading to suggest, as the Sub-Group does, that the Convention as a whole never considered a moratorium on public rites for same sex blessings.

Such a moratorium was considered on the very floor of the House of Deputies and defeated.

It was not only defeated once (above), but it was defeated twice.

A substitute motion was proposed on the floor which employed the precise language of the Windsor Report. It stated:

Resolved, the house of--------concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church “effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until [and unless] some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (WR134) and be it further

Resolved that the 75th GC effect a moratorium on the authorizing of all public rites of blessing of same sex unions (WR 144), and be it further

Resolved that the 75th GC call upon those bishops who have authorized public rites for blessing same sex unions, “because of the serious repercussions in the Communion…to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization” (WR144)

This resolution was ruled “unconstitutional” by the parliamentarian who claimed that General Convention does not have the constitutional authority to “effect” the moratoria named in the substitute. Thus the entire substitute was also deemed out of order.

However, the ruling of the parliamentarian was challenged. It could have been overturned by a majority vote. But the challenge was defeated by a majority of the Deputies.

Thus, specific language regarding a limit or moratorium on same sex blessings was twice considered by the House of Deputies and twice rejected.

The Sub-Group report continues:

A summary of the current situation was included in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold[5] . While this states the position at national level, the group noted that decisions affecting the use of public rites have more usually been made at diocesan level. The Windsor Report, in recognising that fact, calls upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to abide by the unanimous recommendation of the primates in March 2003 and institute a moratorium on such rites[6] .

In a resolution of the 74th General Convention in 2003, the Episcopal Church recognised that local faith communities within its common life were exploring and experiencing such liturgies[7] .

and while, at provincial level, it has done nothing to authorise such Rites, it has done nothing to check their development. This creates a level of dissonance between the life of the Church at national level and at local level, which makes it hard to discern exactly where the Episcopal Church stands on this issue.

This is another confused and misleading paragraph. Resolution C051 was passed by the 74th General Convention in 2003. Here are the relevant portions of C051:

Resolved, That the 74th General Convention affirm the following:

…

3. That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
…

5. That we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same sex unions.

6. That we commit ourselves, and call our church, in the spirit of Resolution A104 of the 70th General Convention (1991), to continued prayer, study, and discernment on the pastoral care for gay and lesbian persons, to include the compilation and development by a special commission organized and appointed by the Presiding Bishop of resources to facilitate as wide a conversation of discernment as possible throughout the church.

7. That our baptism into Jesus Christ is inseparable from our communion with one another, and we commit ourselves to that communion despite our diversity of opinion and, among dioceses, a diversity of pastoral practice with the gay men and lesbians among us.

C051 was a “provincial” resolution. It was passed at General Convention, the primary provincial legislative body of the Episcopal Church. In fact, it is often stated that dioceses are mere creatures of General Convention. Resolution C051, then, represents a provincial resolution that provides leeway and legitimacy for dioceses to "explore" and "experience" public rites for same sex blessings. C051 provides provincial legitimacy for diocesan action.

Contrary to the assertion of the Sub-Group, it is not at all, “hard to discern” where the Episcopal Church stands on the issue.

Since C051 was not addressed or repealed at GC2006 it remains in effect.

There was, as the Group notes in the paragraph below, an interruption in the legitimacy offered by C051:

While the bishops of the Episcopal Church pledged themselves in March 2005 not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and not to bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006, there is evidence that a variety of practices now apply across the United States in accordance with the acknowledgement given at the 74th General Convention in 2003. (As we have already noted 75th General Convention in 2006 did not speak authoritatively the issue.)

In other words, the moratorium enacted by the House of Bishops in March 2005 has expired and C051 once again provides provincial legitimization for the exploration and experience of public rites for same sex blessings which are occurring throughout the province with the approval of diocesan bishops as the following paragraph grudgingly admits:

While the bishops of the Episcopal Church pledged themselves in March 2005 not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and not to bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006, there is evidence that a variety of practices now apply across the United States in accordance with the acknowledgement given at the 74th General Convention in 2003. (As we have already noted 75th General Convention in 2006 did not speak authoritatively the issue.) There are dioceses in which progress towards the development of a public Rite of Blessing for same sex unions has been initiated[8] ; other dioceses where, while there is no standard rite, guidelines have been issued by the bishop giving circumstances in which it may be permitted for priests of the diocese to offer such blessings[9] . In other dioceses, permission has been given for the development of rites which cover a wide range of circumstances, but which could include circumstances where a same sex couple were seeking a blessing on their relationship[10] . Experimental liturgical resources have been produced in some dioceses which address amongst other matters, the area of pastoral care for same-gender couples[11] . There are also dioceses which have only adopted a process of study around the subject, but which have not moved to the adoption of any kind of rite[12] . Some commentators allege that up to sixteen dioceses out of a total of 108 dioceses and jurisdictions have moved in the direction of the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing which can be used to celebrate same sex unions, but this is probably not demonstrable: the real situation is very limited, but very complex and the wide range of practice and procedures means that it is difficult to establishment exactly what has and has not been approved.

While this paragraph acknowledges that widespread violations continue in accordance with C051, it ends with another rather confusing sentence.

It is not at all “difficult” to tell what has and has not been approved. The Episcopal Church has said, as a province, that same sex blessings may be explored and experienced legitimately within her jurisdictional boundaries and many bishops have acted accordingly.

It may be difficult to sort out the different ways in which bishops with full provincial legitimacy have permitted the exploration and experience of rites, but it is not at all difficult to figure out that they have granted this permission and that they have done so in direct violation of the Windsor Report as accepted by the primates at Dromantine.

The Sub-Group concludes:

It is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, the Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter.

This sentence is so baldly incorrect it is breathtaking. As noted above, and as the Windsor Report clearly indicates in Paragraphs 140-144, the Episcopal Church as a province has provided legitimacy for the exploration and experience of such rites and bishops, on the basis of this provincial legitimization, have granted permission for them to be developed and celebrated.

Moreover, at GC2006 the Windsor requests regarding C051 were considered twice and rejected twice and, as the Group itself admits, the exploration and experience of these rites continues to this day.

To assert, then, that there is even a possibility that the Episcopal Church has complied with Windsor in this regard is to make an assertion utterly impossible to sustain.


Part III: Expression of Regret

The most fascinating aspect of the Group’s discussion of the expression of regret found in General Convention resolution A160 is the fact that the Group recognizes that, standing alone, the expression is inadequate. But, the group argues, when read in the context of B033 (addressed in part 1), Resolution A160 represents a sufficient response to the Windsor Request. Here is the relevant paragraph from the Group report:

The group was unsure how these words should be understood. On the one hand, there does not seem to be any admission of the fact that the action of consenting to the particular election at the centre of this dispute was in itself blameworthy. On the other, there is the use of the strong language of “apology” and the request for “forgiveness”. These words are not lightly offered, and should not be lightly received.

Taken with the apparent promise not to repeat the offence (Resolution B033 discussed above) we believe that the expression of regret is sufficient to meet the request of the primates.

First it should be noted that A160 was passed before, not after, B033 and was not at all intended to provide a contextual framework for it. B033 was created behind closed doors overnight before the last day of General Convention. A160 was passed a day or two before. So reading A160 in light of B033 is at the very least somewhat problematic.

But second and more significantly (as was demonstrated in part 1) B033 does not in fact represent a “promise not to repeat the offense”.

No “offense” is mentioned in B033. B033 is merely a promise not to elect or consecrate “challenging” candidates. It is completely non-specific.

How on earth the Sub-Group can take the very non-specific language of B033 passed on the last day of General Convention and assert that the obvious failure of A160 to admit and express regret that the Episcopal Church had caused offense or breached the proper constraints of the bonds of affection specifically in the events surrounding election and consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire is somehow rectified by a promise not to elect or consecrate challenging episcopal candidates is mystifying to say the least.

The two resolutions taken together do not compliment one another in the slightest. They merely present more fog.

The short history of the Episcopal Church’s response to calls for an “expression” of regret is replete with avoidance, rationalization, and defiance. But it is instructive.

The House of Bishops issued a Covenant Statement on March 15th which stated the following:

“We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions (HOB 2005, para 2)”

This expression of regret was an attempt to answer the invitation articulated in WR paragraphs 134 and 144. But it was inadequate in that it did not publicly recognize and express regret that “the events surrounding the election and consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire” had breached the bonds of affection. Rather, the bishops expressed regret for causing others pain, apologized and even “repented,” for breaching the bonds of affection by “any failure” to adequately consult with their Anglican partners.

This expression of repentance did not specifically acknowledge the actions, identified by the primates, which led to the breach for which the bishops suggested they were truly sorry. The House of Bishops’ expression failed because it was both non-specific and non-committal.

More than a year later the 75th General Convention (2006) passed Resolution A160 which represents the Episcopal Church’s answer to the first Windsor request articulated above: an invitation to express regret:

A160 (Concurred): Expression of Regret
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.

EXPLANATION
This resolution addresses the invitation of the Windsor Report that "the Episcopal Church be invited to express regret" for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection (Windsor Report 134). It concurs with and affirms the language of the House of Bishops' expression of regret, thus signaling our synodical intentions to remain within the Communion.

By contrast, the language of the Windsor request is as follows:

“the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed,” (WR 134)

The language of the Windsor request requires a public admission and expression of regret:

1. that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were “breached” in the events surrounding the election and consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire and

2. for the consequences which followed.

Resolution A160 fails to comply with the Windsor recommendations on several levels.

First, A160 fails to publicly admit that the proper constraints bonds of affection were “breached.” Rather, A160 asserts that they were only “strained” despite the clear warning of the primates in October of 2003 that the consecration of V. Gene Robinson would cause a tear in the fabric of the communion at its deepest level.

Second, A160 fails to specify which events in particular caused the breach. It generally points to the “events surrounding the General Convention of 2003” but does not mention the consent to the election of the bishop of New Hampshire which was given in that venue as specified by the Windsor Request.

Third, by pointing generally to the events surrounding General Convention rather than the events surrounding the election, consent and consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire, resolution A160, significantly, excludes the consecration itself which took place in November 2003, approximately three months after the “events General Convention” were long over. Perhaps the event of the consecration might be identified by implication in the phrase, “and consequences which followed,” but such an implication is impossibly oblique and thus such a reading tenuous at best. The phrase seems far more consistent as a referent to the consequent “strain” in relations.

Fourth, the apology offered in the second half of the resolution “to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion” recognizes that some were offended and, further, recognizes that the Episcopal Church did not accord sufficient importance to the impact of her actions. But the strength and adequacy of this apology is significantly reduced because the nature of the “impact” to which it refers is cast in doubt by the context of the preceding sentences discussed above. Given its context, at best the expression represents an apology for taking actions without due consideration that ended up “straining” the proper constraints of the bonds of affection, not for the action itself.

Finally, the explanation makes it clear that this resolution’s expression of regret “concurs with and affirms the language” of the House of Bishops’ expression of regret which, as we have already seen, is itself inadequate.

Though clearly inadequate, Resolution A160 won approval in both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.

Summary:

The Communion Sub-Committee findings betray a serious lack of study and care. There are gaping inaccuracies and unwarranted assumptions throughout the document. The mistakes are so glaring that the work appears more motivated by apologetic concerns than investigative care.

I pray the Primates reject it.

[sionnsar]

Main Entry: pri'mate
Etymology: Middle English primat, from Old French, from Medieval Latin primat-, primas archbishop, from Latin, leader, from primus
Date: 13th century
1 often capitalized : a bishop who has precedence in a province, group of provinces, or a nation
2 archaic : one first in authority or rank : LEADER
3 [New Latin Primates, from Latin, plural of primat-, primas] : any of an order (Primates) of mammals comprising humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers)
-pri'mate-ship \-*ship\ noun
--pri-ma'tial \pr*-*m*-sh*l\ adjective

[sionnsar]

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[sionnsar]

ping

[walden]

You really understand all of this stuff. Would you care to put in easily understandable language what you think is happening at the current meeting? If you would rather not, I understand.

Thank you.

[SuzyQue]

I don't fully understand it, but I'll take a stab. Sionnsar, please correct me if I get it wrong.

The Bishops decided that they value non-confrontation and cowardice above all else, and waffled and wavered their way out of doing the right thing.

[Huber]

One must not be too hasty in drawing conclusions. The report is obviously an attempt to finesse the issue. However, the lack of a knee-jerk response by the primates does not mean that a strong response isn't coming. There is some stage management at work here

[BelegStrongbow]

I would actually go a bit farther and suggest that the report is an attempt to both obfuscate the facts and to misrepresent the actions and intents of the players. This makes it fundamentally dishonest and sinfully schismatic, tending to insult the intelligence and disgrace the communion. If the bishops accept it then I have to conclude that the issue has become too difficult for them to handle and that they may not suffice as bishops.