I had an argument with my beloved today. As we were getting close to campus where I usually drop her off, she began to describe the AP wire story about the Episcopal House of Bishops’ statement yesterday in regard to sexual politics. The Post Dispatch had picked it up this morning. Here’s the lead:
NEW ORLEANS — Episcopal leaders, pressured to roll back their support for gays to keep the world Anglican family from crumbling, affirmed Tuesday that they will “exercise restraint” in approving another gay bishop and will not approve prayers to bless same-sex couples.
Since this was not the understanding I had from the Integrity Press Release, or from having read a summary of the talking points the bishops issued, I said, “Hey, wait a minute!” To which my beloved responded with a version of “I only know what I read in the papers,” and I signed off with a surly comment to the effect that most of what we read in the papers isn’t true–something I don’t, in fact, believe.
Because the devil is truly in the details. When I looked at a fuller text of the bishops’ statement, my heart sank. The Episcopal Cafe has published a summary of the press coverage around the world. It appears the bishops’ statement is being widely reported as the AP has reported it, and I think rightly so. I’m hoping that somebody can persuade me not to think the bishops simply caved.
To be fair, there’s a good deal of disagreement about what the statement means. Writers for The New York Times and the BBC have apparently read it in ways that are diametrically opposed. I wish I could agree with the Times and the Integrity Press Release. Changing Attitude Nigeria is also reading the statement more or less positively, and even Bishop Robinson has spoken more or less favorably of it. Part of the difficulty with what the bishops say is hermeneutic: some of the talking points, which apparently circulated in advance of the fuller text, are at odds with the fuller text. The first talking point might be read as a mere nod in the direction of resolution B033 of General Convention 2006, but the amplification makes it clear that the bishops mean to offer no criticism of that very bad piece of legislation–indeed, seem to expand its scope. To wit:
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “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.” (1) The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
I think the crucial statements are contained in 1) the passage in quotation marks referring to persons whose “manner of life present a challenge to the wider church,” and 2) the passage that includes “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons . . . among those to whom B033 pertains.” Here’s the next paragraph on the blessing of same-sex unions. It’s gives a bit more latitude to interpretation than the paragraph on consecrating bishops, but it’s still disappointing:
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action [italics mine]. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty “to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” They further stated, “…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.”
It would have been nice to encounter this paragraph without its first sentence (the one in italics). To be sure, the bishops have only affirmed the truth, as Susan Russell points out, but why did they have to pledge anything? It seems clear that the Global South bishops, whose bigotry and ambition are driving this controversy, and their American allies who are bent on leaving the Episcopal Church (or have already left) are unimpressed. What did the TEC bishops hope to accomplish? I expect to read a pastoral letter soon that will attmpt to persuade me that they have acted to preserve the Anglican Communion. But I’m not sanguine.
In fact, it seems to me that the bishops’ statement does nothing, says nothing, that will in any way soften the hearts of those on the Anglican right. But it does a very great deal to dishearten those of us who have been proud to think we were part of a church that opens its doors and its hierarchy of ministries to all persons. the Post Dispatch story with which I began carries this head in the online version: “Episcopal leaders promise restraint on electing gay bishops in face of Anglican demands.” But my reaction is more in line with the head I first read in the Metro edition that comes to my door: “Episcopal leaders stand down over gays.”