On Friday Afternoon, June 16 in the HOB, this resolution came to the floor. We have been tracking this resolution for months as it made its way through various committees.
Resolution A123: Reconciliation: Slavery and Racial Reconciliation
The Episcopal Church (TEC) declares unequivocally that the institution of slavery in the US and anywhere else in the world, based as it is on “ownership” of some persons by other persons, was and is a sin and a fundamental betrayal of the humanity of all persons who were involved, a sin that continues to plague our common life in the Church and our culture;
Resolved: TEC acknowledge its history of participation in this sin and the deep and lasting injury which the institution of slavery and its aftermath have inflicted on society and on the Church and
Resolved: we express our most profound regret that a) TEC lent the institution of slavery its support and justification based on Scripture, and b) after slavery was formally abolished, TEC continued for at least a century to support de jure and de facto segregation and discrimination; and
Resolved: TEC apologize for its complicity in and the injury done by the institution of slavery and its aftermath; we repent of this sin and ask God’s grace and forgiveness; and be it further
Resolved: TEC initiate a program to collect and document during the next triennium detailed information in each community of the institution of slavery and history of segregation and discrimination and economic benefits TEC derived from slavery
Resolved: how the church can be the repairer of the breach both materially and relationally and achieve the spiritual healing and reconciliation that will lead us to a new life in Christ;
Resolved: the PB name a Day of Repentance and on that day hold a service of Repentance in the National Cathedral. With each diocese requested to hold a similar service.
I believe this resolution is the base line for all action today supporting full inclusion for gays and lesbians. The Episcopal Church benefited materially from slavery and from continuing to endorse slavery as a de facto system long after the Civil War. The Episcopal Church used an interpretation of Scripture to declare African-Americas as less intelligent, unworthy of education and equal housing and appropriate for places in the “back of the bus.” Although African Americans were ordained to the priesthood “for work among the colored people” in the late 1800’s, and ordained as bishops in the 1940’s, again for “work among the colored,” they were clearly second-class citizens.
This position in TEC formally changed in the late 1960’s with all of the civil rights demonstrations, when the first anti-racism amendments hit the General Conventions of the late ‘60’s. Never mind that many Episcopalians were part of the Underground Railway; never mind that many of the Union soldiers that fought to free the slaves were Episcopalians. These facts are irrelevant.
The same people who so self-righteously beat their chests and decry our involvement with slavery are now beating their chests and telling the rest of the Anglican Communion that they need to “read a little, talk to a few people and catch up with the rest of the modern world in America.”
Many of the bishops who now champion the gay rights agendas across the country “came of age” during the civil rights movements in the ‘60s and are determined not to repeat the same error with gays and lesbians. Since the gay community has been so successful at drafting their concerns in a “civil rights” format, and have sold their homosexuality as an inborn trait with the “God made me this way, and loves me just as I am” campaign, this behavior can no longer be classified as “sin.” Again, it is irrelevant that no scientific study claims that homosexuality is genetically determined. This Convention accepts God’s complicity in homosexuality. It is really His responsibility. This is the context in which their rights are heard, understood and supported. Anyone who goes against this notion is “homophobic, totally unsophisticated and seriously in need of re-indoctrination.” I have never seen that more clearly demonstrated than the last 2 days.
Additionally, the European countries have all liberalized their laws, including civil unions, inheritance and medical visitation for same-gender partners. This weighs on the decisions all are asked to make here. It matters not which House you are talking about. Probably as many as 80% of the House of Deputies AND Bishops do not see the Scriptures as the inviolate Word of God, written. And, I may have underestimated the percentage.
So, it should come as no surprise that in the House of Bishops today the following resolutions passed easily:
C010 General Convention Site Choices
Suggests [defeated direct] the Joint Standing Committee on Planning and Arrangements shall not propose to General Convention any site or any location in a state that prohibits domestic partnerships or the rights associated there with.
Discussion:
Bishop Cathy Roskam, NY spoke to the selection of gay-friendly places, stating that if a gay deputy or bishop had to be hospitalized in Ohio, it would be ILLEGAL [I wish you could have heard the way she said ILLEGAL. It was almost a shriek. You would have thought we were in some desolate, totally uncivilized place.] for their partner to visit them in the hospital. “It’s just unconscionable. We can’t subject our deputies to that” [as if everyone would be affected by the ruling, not the predicted 100 gay persons out of 1500 at this convention.]
Bishop Duncan Gray, Mississippi, spoke against, recounting the 1991 General Convention held in Phoenix prior to that state’s adoption of Martin Luther King Day as a federal holiday. He recalled how many people thanked him for coming in spite of the lack of designation of the day. He believed that helped move hearts. Arizona subsequently approved Martin Luther King as a federal holiday the very next time it came to ballot.
Vote: voice vote too close to tell; show of hands: too close to tell. Tellers arose to count hands. Aye: 82 Nay 71
This means that if you live in a state that has ratified the Marriage Amendment, citing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, the General Convention will not even consider coming to your state. Neither will any Provincial meetings. What they are going to do about diocesan meetings is a good question.
And then we moved on to:
A095: Civil Rights of gay and lesbian persons.
Resolved, General Convention reaffirm the Episcopal Church’s historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights;
Resolved, reaffirm the 71St General Convention’s action calling upon “municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protections such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples”;
Resolved, General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions.
Discussion: [Speaker not identified] In Europe, civil partnerships and religious marriages are different issues. Most have civil partnerships, not marriage. Civil partnership registered and then blessing by a minister if you elect marriage. This country has not gotten to that advanced point of thought yet and we must adopt this resolution to insure civil rights for Episcopalians. Voice vote: ayes have it. Adopted [The House of Bishops takes every vote as a voice vote first, then a show of hands, and rarely, a signed, paper ballot. I was told this was for brevity. I believe it is so there is no possible record of how the bishops vote on these issues. Roll call votes are very, very rare.]
After this, the 5 bishops-elect were presented to the House and given a chance to speak. Each was then seated at their new Table with the bishop they are either joining as Suffragan or replacing. All 5 were confirmed as the first order of business after lunch. The 6th bishop-elect will be presented for confirmation tomorrow. Even though he has been divorced twice, and therefore would not be eligible for ordination in most dioceses, his marital status is not expected to be a topic of discussion. I asked several bishops today if the new bishops would be allowed to vote on Sunday for the new PB, but no one knew. [I asked in the Presiding Bishops' office. They will be present but no vote until after consecration.]
So, to re-center our thinking, and prove to you that these rascals are not getting away with this outside of their own hallowed halls, I want to share several paragraphs written to the General Convention by the noted English scholar and now Bishop of Durham, the Rev. Dr. N. Tom Wright. It is highly unusual for a Brit to interfere with the General Convention, which makes this 6 page missive all the more significant. He writes as a member of the committee that drafted the Windsor Report and makes it clear that he does not want us to miss – because of the subtlety of diplomatic language used in the paper – the points made.
So, enjoy this! It is a jolly good read. Re: the resolutions crafted by the Special Commission:
To: Deputies and Bishops, General Convention 2006
7. Once more, in para [paragraph] 43, the key question seems to be avoided. The paragraph asks, 'How, then, is the General Convention to express regret and repentance? What counts as an adequate response to the requests of WR?' But, instead of quoting Windsor 134, which would seem to be the obvious answer to this double question, the paragraph refers to 'a number of statements of regret' that have already been made, for instance that 'regret has been expressed that the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire was "out of sequence", given the unresolved question of the blessing of same-sex unions'. Likewise, 'moratoria have been effected, and these have been understood as expressions of repentance for decisions made without time for consultation'. It has to be said that, from a Windsor perspective, both of these sentences are bound to appear as ways of avoiding the issue. At no point in the Commission's report is it even mentioned that the real problem is not that actions are 'out of sequence' or taken 'without time for consultation', but that the actions in question went exactly, explicitly and knowingly against the expressed mind of Lambeth, ACC, the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. There had, in fact, been plenty of consultation at several levels, and ECUSA chose to ignore the results of that consultation.
8. …. It notes (45) that ECUSA 'has been asked to respond to several requests in ways that would express our regret for having breached the bonds of affection', but once more without saying what WR actually asked it to do. It mentions (46) 'five specific requests' that have come from WR, Dromantine, and ACC-13, of which the first two are for moratoria on elections to the episcopate of those living in same-gender unions and on public rites of blessing for such unions, but again doesn't quote the specific request of WR 134. Instead, the report discusses these moratoria in para 48 in terms of the usefulness of such times of waiting in giving time for a new consensus to emerge, and instances gratefully the indications from various parts of the Communion of a 'commitment to diversity and inclusivity with respect to current conversations about human sexuality'. I fear it is not cynical to decode para 48 to mean 'moratoria can be helpful if they give time for the rest of the Communion to catch up with what ECUSA has already decided to do'. In fact, it would be naïve not to read it in that way. That does not give great hope for what is to come.
9. The report then says (51) 'We acknowledge and regret that by action and inaction, we contributed to strains on communion and "caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians" as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union.' This quotes directly from Windsor 127, though it is not yet a statement of what Windsor 134 asked for in response. The paragraph then goes on, 'Accordingly, we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in 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 strain on communion, until a broader consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges'. A footnote to the report states that some members of the Commission had wanted to say 'refrain from' rather than 'exercise very considerable caution in'. Knowing how Commissions work (there is constant give and take about wording, but this doesn't normally show up in footnotes), the fact that this discussion resulted in an explicit statement of dissent indicates that some Commission members insisted on their minority view being expressed. It also shows that the Commission knew very well that its main statement, resulting in the Resolution A161, was not complying with the specific thing that Windsor had asked for…
10. When it comes to public rites of blessing of same-sex unions, the Commission suggests (53) that its previous resolution (2003-C051) has been misunderstood. That resolution recognized 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'; but the Commission denies that this means that such rites were 'authorized', since the only 'authorized rites' are those in the various prayer books. This then clears the hermeneutical space for paragraph 54 to recommend that no 'authorization' (in this rather narrow sense) of such liturgies should happen, which is then reflected in Resolution A162. From a Windsor perspective, this sounds like a straightforward attempt to have one's cake and eat it, using a narrow definition of 'authorized' (= 'printed in an official prayer book') to deny that local liturgies come into that category, while explicitly encouraging their development and use….
15. Instead of expressing regret for breaching the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, the Resolution, following the alternative route already set out by the House of Bishops in March 2005, expresses regret 'for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003', and says that 'we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached the bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking these actions.'… The Commission has specifically declined to recommend to General Convention a Resolution in which ECUSA would comply with Windsor by expressing regret that the bonds of affection were breached by what was done. … To put it bluntly: Resolution A160 is not, as it stands, Windsor-compliant, and the Commission must have known that only too well….
18. … Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor. Only if the crucial Resolutions, especially A160 and A161, are amended in line with Windsor paragraph 134, can there be any claim of compliance. Of course, even then, there are questions already raised about whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the direction already taken. But the Anglican principle of taking people to be in reality what they profess to be, until there is clear evidence to the contrary, must be observed. If these resolutions are amended in line with Windsor, and passed, then the rest of the Communion will be in a position to express its gratitude and relief that ECUSA has complied with what was asked of it. Should that happen, I will be the first to stand up and cheer at such a result, and to speak out against those who are hoping fervently for ECUSA to resist Windsor so that they can justify their anti-ECUSA stance. But if the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has decided, in other words, to 'walk apart' (Windsor 157).
My hope and earnest prayer over the coming week will continue to be that that conclusion may be avoided. May God bless the Bishops and Delegates of ECUSA in their praying, thinking and deciding.
By the Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright June 2006
When you go to church tomorrow, please pray in earnest for this Convention. It is a highly polarized group of people, trying to continue to be civil. As we approach the wrestling over the resolutions that really count, such as Windsor responses, blessing same-sex marriages, electing gay bishops and confirming the election of the next Presiding Bishop, civility becomes in shorter supply. As of this morning, June 17, name calling has begin.
Frustrations are rising as both Houses wait for the Special Commission to agree on resolutions and get them out.
The hoped for work on Windsor prior to the election of the new PB is not going to happen. And the whole mood surrounding that election is one of non-comment. The candidates are not available to press prior to the election. Bishops will not discuss either candidates or the process. There is no “buzz” over any candidate and no apparent front-runner. Orthodox bishops are required to go but will not vote as a block. So, we will all have to wait until the report of the election comes from Trinity church tomorrow.
As a result, tomorrow’s posting will probably be late in the day. There will be a press conference with the newly elected PB tomorrow after the election and the Houses close at 5:00. I will have news for you and photos.
Warmest regards and have a great weekend. Cherie Wetzel for Anglicans United
