wfn.org | Episcopalians: Sexuality issues still high on agenda of General Convention

[dmack@episcopalchurch.org]

June 12, 2003

2003-132

Episcopalians: Sexuality issues still high on agenda of General 
Convention

by David Skidmore

(ENS) After three decades of discerning, dialoguing, and 
debating, the Episcopal Church is inching closer to a decision 
that could end years of frustration on the part of gays and 
lesbians and their supporters, while stoking the anxiety and 
anger of traditionalists and conservatives.

The question of blessing committed, lifelong relationships of 
two people of any gender--outside of Holy Matrimony--will 
surface once again at General Convention this summer. Given its 
near adoption three years ago by the House of Deputies at the 
convention in Denver, the question could finally be settled, 
according to some observers. The question lingering in the minds 
of many in the church, particularly its bishops, is: at what 
cost?

The vehicle this time around is a resolution from the Diocese of 
California directing the Standing Commission on Liturgy and 
Music to "prepare a rite or rites" for the Book of Occasional 
Services that support "couples living in life-long committed 
relationships of mutuality and fidelity outside the relationship 
of marriage."  A nearly identical charge, one of eight resolves 
in a resolution to the 2000 General Convention in Denver, fell 
short of adoption by just three lay votes in the House of 
Deputies.

For many church progressives, including those who have spoken 
out most strongly for gay and lesbian interests, the church in 
2000 showed it was not yet ready to embrace same-sex blessings. 
Yet the work of groups like the New Commandment Task Force and 
other reconciliation movements have changed the climate and the 
time now seems right to take that final step, they say.

"I think it is time," said the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, vicar of 
St. Paul's in Chatham, New Jersey and a deputy from the Diocese 
of Newark. "What we have been doing with the issue of 
homosexuality is a sin and I am tired of participating in this 
corporate sin of avoidance. And the thing we have been avoiding 
is the deeper, more difficult issues of the Gospel." Not that 
justice for the church's gay and lesbian members is "not an 
important gospel project," she added, but that the church has 
chosen to park itself on the human sexuality debate to avoid 
more difficult issues.	"I want to move on, and I think other 
people are there as well."

Caution rankles advocates

Her eagerness is certainly shared by the church's gay and 
lesbian community, and by various progressive advocacy groups 
like the Episcopal Urban Caucus, which has endorsed the 
California resolution. But for the church's governing body with 
the most influence on liturgical and theological matters, the 
House of Bishops, the notion of creating rites for blessing same 
sex unions may yet be premature. 

At their spring meeting at the Kanuga Conference Center in North 
Carolina, the bishops heard, discussed and received--but did not 
adopt--the House of Bishops Theology Committee's report, "The 
Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective." The 11-page 
report, barely a quarter of the length of the bishops' 1994 
Pastoral Teaching on Human Sexuality, was commended by 
conservatives but received stinging criticism from progressives, 
who faulted it for being thin on theology and short on insight. 
Besides employing the term "homosexuals" in place of "gays and 
lesbians" -- a choice the committee states it made out of 
sensitivity to "cross-cultural issues of the Anglican Communion" 
-- the report drew rebukes for its recommendations not only 
against rites of blessing for same-sex unions, but for urging 
the church to abstain from legislative action on the issue.

"We believe it is imperative that the Episcopal Church refrain 
from any attempt to settle the matter legislatively," stated the 
committee in the report's final section. "For a season at 
least," they continued, "we must acknowledge and live the great 
pain and discomfort of our disagreements."

That level of forbearance has not won much support among 
advocates for gay and lesbian inclusion. Integrity, the national 
Episcopal advocacy organization for gays, lesbians, bisexuals 
and transgendered persons, responded March 22, just days after 
the bishops meeting, slamming the report for its "condescending, 
dismissive, clinical tone," and terming it "a political 
statement, designed . . . to build on the fragile foundation of 
collegiality" that the bishops have nurtured since the clashes 
at the 1991 General Convention in Phoenix, battles that forced 
the House of Bishops to meet for five days in executive session 
and which spawned the annual spring retreat in Kanuga.

"From my perspective I think it continues to sidestep the 
issue," said Bruce Garner, a lay alternate from the Diocese of 
Atlanta. "It doesn't address anything.It reflects the fear that 
a substantial number of the bishops have of taking any action on 
this."

A similar tack was taken by the Rev. Susan Russell, executive 
director of Claiming the Blessing--a recent venture of three 
longstanding gay and lesbian advocacy groups: Integrity, Oasis, 
and Beyond Inclusion, focusing on the theology of gay and 
lesbian committed relationships and sharing the story of gay and 
lesbian church members. Russell expressed disappointment over 
the lack of "theological leadership" and the report's political 
tone. 

Given the number of progressives on the committee--including 
Bishops Robert Ihloff of Maryland and Catherine Roskam, 
suffragan of New York--Russell said she expected "to see a 
little more proactive leadership on behalf of moving forward for 
gay and lesbian people." The committee may well have done the 
best it could given its make-up and limitations, she said, "but 
I don't think we are done with that conversation."

Committee defends 'good faith' effort

Describing the committee's work as "a good faith contribution as 
part of the conversation," Roskam acknowledged that the process 
was hampered by time constraints, lack of resources and the 
committee's need to address other issues. "We worked in as good 
faith as we could," going into some issues in great depth but 
limited at other times," she added--but that but that does not 
imply the committee lacked "good will" in its work. 

Noting the response of Integrity, Roskam said "it is very easy 
to criticize a process in which you have not participated," but 
doing so in not helpful in the long run. The committee's 
portfolio is theology, not sexuality, she said. "So it is not 
that representative of a group, and we know that. And we knew it 
going into it. That is a shortcoming, and we had to produce it 
anyway."

Given the scope of its charge and its other tasks, the committee 
"has done what it was supposed to do," said Ian Douglas, 
professor of Anglican, global, and ecumenical studies at 
Episcopal Divinity School in Massachusetts, one of seven 
academics on the 13-member committee. "It is important to 
remember that this committee wasn't set up to deal with human 
sexuality," he noted.

A standing committee of the House of Bishops, the theology 
committee was revamped in 2000 to include lay members and 
priests, and given a budget and national church staff support. 
During the recent triennium the committee worked on three areas 
in addition to sexuality: the theological calling of the House 
of Bishops, a theological process for bishops to use on various 
topics, and the nature of reconciliation.

On human sexuality, said Douglas, the committee was working from 
an ecclesiastical context and was mindful of provinces and 
groups in the Anglican Communion intent on making sexuality a 
dividing issue. By intention, the report "says more about the 
church than what it says necessarily about gay and lesbian 
people," he said.

That the committee went in that direction is disappointing but 
not all that surprising for Russell. Sensing the bishops' 
committee was reluctant to dig deeply into the issue, her 
organization met last November to draft a theology statement on 
same-sex blessings that delved into the nature of spiritually 
based relationships, and to strategize for General Convention 
action. "Someone else should have done the work and we think we 
did," said Russell.

Revisiting the Denver debate

Expectations were focused closer to the homefront on July 13, 
2000, when the House of Deputies loudly applauded a delegation 
bringing news of the bishops' mind of the house resolution 
charging their theology committee to continue the conversation. 
Two days earlier the deputies had passed the hotly contested 
D039 resolution crafted by the convention's special Committee 
25. 

Echoing many of the provisions of a landmark resolution of the 
1998 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, the Denver 
resolution tried for a rainbow embrace of church positions on 
sexuality: endorsing the church's traditional teaching on the 
sanctity of marriage while recognizing that there are couples in 
the church who are living in committed relationships outside of 
marriage; calling for all relationships to be characterized by 
"fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect," and 
denouncing "promiscuity, exploitation, and abusiveness" in 
relationships; and affirming the need for people of different 
perspectives to engage in conversation while acknowledging that 
some church members will act in contradiction to the church's 
traditional teaching. 

While the first seven resolves drew minimal opposition, the 
eighth--calling for rites of blessing in the Book of Occasional 
Services for relationships of mutuality and fidelity other than 
marriage--sparked intense debate. Chastened by conservatives' 
warnings of an exodus of members were the resolve to pass, 
enough progressive deputies joined with moderates in voting down 
the call for rites of blessing. 

An effort by the House of Bishops to restore the eighth resolve 
was soundly defeated. In the aftermath of that vote the house 
directed its theology committee to continue the study and 
conversation on human sexuality, and in working with the 
Committee on Pastoral Development prepare a report with the goal 
being a mind of the house resolution.

Three years later many gay and lesbian advocates find little 
evidence of new ground being plowed, or seeded, by the 
committee. "The most disappointing thing about the report was it 
just seemed to be a rehash of the old argument that has been 
going around for a couple of decades right now, with the only 
conclusion being that we can't do anything," observed the Rev. 
Michael Hopkins, president of Integrity.

If the task demanded more than they were able to give it, then 
they should have acknowledged that failure and handed the job 
back to convention, said Hopkins. "The church needed a greater 
effort here, rather than come up with something that officially 
adds nothing to the debate."

Conservatives welcome report

The committee found a decidedly warmer reception among the ranks 
of conservatives. In a press release posted the week following 
the Kanuga meeting, David Anderson, president and chief 
executive officer of the Anglican American Council, described 
the committee's report as "a constructive launching point" for 
the work of bridging the rift between the Episcopal Church and 
other parts of the Anglican Communion. 

While not giving the report "a totally uncritical endorsement," 
Anderson, in a recent interview, said the AAC supports the 
committee's bottom line conclusions opposing legislation for 
blessing same-sex unions. "We don't think this is the time. We 
would go farther and state we don't think it is appropriate 
period," said Anderson. A major concern for the bishops' 
committee, and the AAC as well, he said, is the risk of such a 
move fracturing the Anglican Communion. Two-thirds of the 
communion, he noted, adheres to traditional teachings and 
practices, and has difficulty understanding the more liberal 
attitudes and reforms of the U.S. and Canadian churches. 

That the committee was unwilling to put the communion's 
tolerance to a test was encouraging, said Anderson, and a 
surprise. "The fact was we were trying to anticipate that they 
might very well say go forward, it is time to do it," he said. 
Instead they reached a conclusion that ACC can accept, he added.

Another conservative voice, Diane Knippers, director of the 
Washington-based Institute for Religion and Democracy, found the 
committee's report balanced and sensitive to the proponents of 
"creedal orthodoxy." On studies like this she worries if her 
concerns and perspective will be taken into account--and they 
were. "I felt heard," she said. 

She was also struck by the committee's diversity of voices and 
the ability to reach consensus on such a volatile issue. That 
came as a surprise and affirmation for members of the committee 
as well. 

Seeing Christ in one another

"I think there was a real kind of koinonia that developed among 
us as we saw Christ in each other, and I value that enormously," 
said Bishop John Howe of Central Florida. "Somewhere along the 
way we realized that we were all creedal Christians, that we see 
ourselves as starting from Nicene orthodoxy."

Their unanimity, said Bishop Willliam Gregg of Eastern Oregon, 
was reached through conversation that was rooted in their 
experience of baptism, and not through "political compromise." 
His hope is that as the bishops engage this issue in Minneapolis 
they will focus on cultivating a similar experience and not 
reach for a legislative solution. "I think the house is in a 
place where really engaging that spectrum first is more 
important than rushing into legislation," he said.

The conclusions committee members reached on gauging the church 
unready for blessing relationships outside of marriage and 
advising against legislative action evolved naturally from their 
discussions, said Howe. That they were unanimous on those points 
was a surprise given the spectrum of views, he added.

As to the claims that the committee ignored or sidestepped its 
charge, that is "a false reading," said Howe. "Nobody ever said 
it was our task to try to settle anything. It was to produce a 
report to the House of Bishops and ultimately to the church as a 
whole that would further the discussion."

Debate will begin with bishops

Where that discussion goes may ultimately be decided on the 
floor of the House of Bishops this summer. According to the Rev. 
Jim Simon, vice-chair of the Committee for the Dispatch of 
Business, the California resolution on same-sex blessings (C005) 
will begin its journey to the convention floor in the cognate 
Committee on Prayer Book and Liturgy

"The tradition of convention is that matters dealing with prayer 
book and liturgy have always been first referred to the House of 
Bishops," said Simon, a reading confirmed by the Rev. Frank 
Wade, co-chair of the cognate committee. Wade's personal 
preference, however, is that C005 go first to deputies, since 
the bishops have had an opportunity this spring at Kanuga to 
discuss the issues. The decision, he noted, ultimately lies with 
the presidents of the two houses: President George Werner and 
Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. He also expects a major hearing 
on sexuality--similar to the forum held at the 1991 General 
Convention -- to be scheduled for one of the convention open 
evenings.

If in fact C005 does debut with the bishops, its chances for 
advancement are questionable given the vote three years ago 
against restoring the eighth resolve of D039. While reluctant to 
predict its fate--"I would rather guess lottery numbers"--Simon 
thinks Episcopalians are now more attuned to the implications of 
moving ahead with rites for same-sex blessings. "I think we have 
a clear understanding that this has repercussions for our 
Anglican brothers and sisters around the world," he said. "I 
think that has been taken much more seriously."

While encouraged that the bishops chose not to endorse the 
report at their Kanuga meeting, progressives see the best 
chances for C005 resting in the hands of the deputies. "If the 
House of Deputies has a chance to debate the resolution first, I 
have no doubt that it would pass and relatively handily. But I 
am not sure they are going to get that chance," said Integrity's 
Hopkins. On such a volatile issue the bishops could go either 
way, he noted, if they are the initiating house. If deputies 
take the lead, however, the bishops would "vote easily for it," 
he said.

Rift in Anglican Communion?

Hopkins also questions the possibilities of a rift in the 
Anglican Communion suggested by conservatives. What is being 
proposed is a discretionary rite, not a canonical mandate, he 
pointed out. And he argued that the communion, even in the 
developing world, is not the bastion of conservatism trumpeted 
by U.S. traditionalists.

"I think the communion is a whole lot more resilient than most 
people are giving it credit for these days," said Hopkins. "And 
there is a lot more that holds us together than this particular 
issue."

His optimism, and caution, is shared by Kaeton who said she is 
"very, very confident" the deputies will authorize rites for the 
Book of Occasional Services. "I am not so sure about the House 
of Bishops," she said. "I pray that they find the courage to 
provide real leadership for the church. But I have not seen too 
much evidence of it of late."

Roskam, who joined other theology committee members in 
supporting the conclusions in "The Gift of Sexuality," is not 
prepared to write off legislation as a legitimate avenue for 
addressing and discerning moral and theological issues. "I 
believe that the Spirit will reveal herself," she said. "I also 
believe that the Spirit can be revealed in legislation. I don't 
think it is either/or. Everything is part of the realm of God, 
and so is our legislation."

Though unwilling to predict the outcome this summer, Roskam has 
no equivocation around her personal belief. "My heart would like 
us to bless same-sex unions," she said, with the condition that 
they meet the criteria in D039 regarding lifelong monogamous 
relationships. In her diocese, New York, committed gay and 
lesbian relationships "have proven to be so healthy and so 
long-lasting and so nourishing of the people engaged in them 
that I think we have to recognize that the Spirit is at work in 
them."

Option or mandate?

Howe remains skeptical of a legislative solution to the impasse, 
given what he believes to be the very real threat of a 
communion-wide rift, and the reality that Episcopal dioceses are 
proceeding with unofficial rites now. "They are doing it with 
impunity, and those who are unwilling are not going to do it 
even if there is some authorized service in the Book of 
Occasional Services," he said. "So why the push to make official 
what would only be divisive?"

Progressives counter that legislation like that proposed by 
California does not compel anyone to use same-sex blessing 
rites. The intent, they say, is to provide an optional resource 
for clergy and congregations inclined to recognize and bless 
lifelong, monogamous relationships of two persons of any gender 
who are not or cannot be married. 

"Nobody is going to force anybody, but the reality is that it is 
being done now," said Roskam. "We all know it is being done, and 
for those who believe that it is being done, let's let the 
church be the church and do it."

The problem for some in the conservative camp is the feeling 
that what is once an option can metamorphose into a mandate. 
Simon, who is also a deputy from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, 
questions the logic of a discretionary rite that is held up as a 
matter of justice. 

"I think the logical premise that this is a justice issue 
eventually leads you to the place where you become insistent 
that it be done everywhere," he said, citing the example of the 
1997 General Convention setting up a process to monitor progress 
for ensuring that women have full access to ordination in the 
three dioceses--Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin--that do not 
support the ordination of women to the priesthood. 

"You cannot tolerate injustice in these three dioceses. And that 
is very much the rhetoric we are hearing," said Simon. "And I 
see no reason that we won't experience the same thing on issues 
of sexuality."

Unity or identity

The choice being highlighted in the debate on sexuality, by many 
conservatives, is between church unity and conformity to 
traditional values on the one hand, and personal identity and 
social justice on the other. In their eyes, the two are 
incompatible positions, and thus not amenable to reconciliation. 
Despite growing interest in mediation and reconciliation work 
among progressives and some conservatives--beginning with the 
New Commandment Task Force formed in the wake of the 1997 
General Convention--the idea has not won an endorsement from the 
most active of the Episcopal Church's conservative renewal 
organizations: the American Anglican Council.

Though an AAC rector, the Rev. Brian Cox of Christ the King 
parish in Santa Barbara, California and a co-founder with 
Newark's Dr. Louie Crew of the New Commandment Task Force, is 
heavily invested in the reconciliation movement, the AAC chose 
not to participate in a recent national reconciliation 
conference hosted by Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno.

In addition to certain "premises we weren't willing to start off 
from," AAC's president, David Anderson, said they elected not to 
participate because they essentially see the disagreement over 
sexuality as irreconcilable. Nothing needs further 
enlightenment, he said. As for repairing torn relationships, he 
maintains that isn't needed since he bears no animosity towards 
progressive leaders. 

Some progressives also question the utility of reconciliation 
conferences. Successful dialogue depends on the commitment of 
its participants, said Garner, a past president of Integrity and 
veteran deputy of five General Conventions. "Those who want to 
look for a way to stay together in this rather messy Anglican 
way of doing things will do so," he said. "Those who want to 
leave, for whatever excuse they find appropriate, will leave. 
This is nothing new."

Fallout anticipated

Anderson takes pains to downplay saber-rattling talk of schism 
and walkouts. His response to people emailing their frustration 
and despair with the Episcopal Church is to tell them that "this 
is your church and my church too, and it is important to stay 
and try to solve what is essentially a family issue." Gays and 
lesbians, he said, "are our brothers and sisters," and if the 
vote this summer goes against rites of blessing then 
conservatives will be sensitive to their pain. 

The vote, of course, may well go against the conservative 
position, and if that happens Anderson expects to see the 
fallout fairly quickly. "The truth is if this passes some people 
are going to leave. We wont' be able to stop them. Some people 
will probably leave within days or a week or so after the 
convention." Some, he notes, are on the verge of leaving now, 
and an affirmative vote on C005 could be the nudge that pushes 
them out the door.

There are hard-line conservatives who say they will remain in 
the church to continue their campaign if the vote goes against 
them. The Rev. Don Armstrong, rector of Grace and St. Stephen's 
in Colorado Springs and a frequent contributor to the General 
Convention internet discussion, pledges to oppose same sex 
blessing rites "vocally and actively" within his diocese, and 
bar the resolution's implementation "in any way I can that 
remains within the bounds of Christian charity and integrity."

If the bishops and deputies approve the California resolution, 
he will lobby the church and Anglican Communion to recognize the 
action as illegitimate and to call for convening another 
convention. Given the opposition to same sex unions by most 
Anglican provinces, the Episcopal Church, said Armstrong, "would 
be either denominationally suicidal, or brazenly arrogant--or 
both--to go ahead and pursue it."

Knippers also expects to see a backlash, predicting that "there 
will definitely be parishes and perhaps even dioceses where 
there are really severe losses," if not immediately, then over 
the next triennium. Conversely, a vote against rites of blessing 
may push progressive dioceses and congregations "to do local 
authorization, having waited long enough," pointed out Hopkins.

Working for change

Given that "there are two languages and two frames of reference" 
in the debate, Anderson has little hope of a compromise 
producing a "win-win" situation. Still, he and his board do not 
have "a plan in the drawer ready to pull out" if the convention 
authorizes rites for same-sex blessings. He does expect leaders 
of the 200 plus AAC-affiliated parishes will gather within a 
month or two after convention to look at a response should C005 
or a similar measure pass. "We are committed to trying to reform 
and renew the Episcopal Church," he said.

Simon, likewise, sees conservatives working harder to change the 
church, not abandon it. "We are Episcopalians. We love being 
Episcopalians, and what we want is to be able to participate in 
the councils of the church."

Until this past triennium that was not the case, Simon 
acknowledged. But now they know that, if they are going to have 
a voice, they need to be involved, he said. From his perch on 
the dispatch of business committee, he is seeing that happen 
through a more balanced representation on convention committees. 
"It is not that the committees have gone conservative; it is 
that the committees have in many cases a conservative voice in a 
way they didn't have before," he said.

Russell also plays down talk of convention spawning a showdown 
or ultimatum for conservatives in the church. "We are a 
challenged people but we are not a dying, defeated people, and 
there is hope that we can move beyond this," she said. For her 
diocese, the promising route is through the reconciliation 
conversations which focus on understanding differences, 
overcoming fear and promoting healing. 

The frustration for her is the reluctance of conservatives to 
move into the conversation, and away from fomenting fear. "I 
don't see that as a resurrection response," said Russell. "I see 
that as getting stuck on Good Friday and not being willing to 
say that Easter may not look like what we think it is going to, 
but we trust that it is there and we can find it together."

As much was said by the bishops' theology committee in its 
closing paragraph where it professes that the church, through 
"patience, prayer, and continuing study, with forbearance and 
charity for all," will be guided by God "through this season of 
conflict to a place of reconciliation and peace for all." A 
fitting reminder given that when the church gathers in 
Minneapolis this summer, it will be under the banner of the 
General Convention sub-themes: "receive, repent, reconcile and 
restore."

------

"The Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective"(House of 
Bishops 2003 Theology Committee Report)

"Continuing the Dialogue " (House of Bishops 1994 teaching on 
human sexuality)

Resolution C005, Rites for Blessing and Supporting Committed 
Relationships

(proposed by the Diocese of California)

Resolution B001, Endorse Certain Historic Anglican Doctrines and 
Polices

(proposed by Bishop Keith Ackerman)

Resolution D039sa, Issues Related to Sexuality and 
Relationships(73rd General Convention)

ENS article 2003-117 "Seeking reconciliation, LA conversation 
encompasses many views on blessing same-gender unions"

ENS article 2002-258 "Advocates gather to claim blessing rite 
for same-sex couples"

The New Commandment Task Force

--David Skidmore is director of communications for the Diocese 
of Chicago and will be a member of the ENS news team at General 
Convention.