Well, the pastoral letter has come. Not from the entire House of Bishops, but from Bishop Kirk Smith of Arizona (thanks to Nick Knisley at Entangled States). I agree with Bishop Smith that a good headline for any story about the House of Bishops’ work in New Orleans might have been, “Bishops Bend Over Backwards to Hold Communion Together,” but I think what actually happened in New Orleans is that the bishops bent over backwards to accomodate the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In this regard I’m sad to read Giles Fraser’s piece in The Guardian today which argues that “The deal that the archbishop has brokered with the Episcopal church in New Orleans protects the unity of the church by persuading US bishops that the church is more important than justice.” I’m not sure the deal even protects the unity of the church, as witness this editorial in the Global South Anglican.

Bishop Smith says that the HOB statement from New Orleans is a compromise. That’s putting the best possible construction on it, in my view. He also says the communiqué “is a confirmation of the actions of the 2006 General Convention, and that “Our polity is such that the House of Bishops could not have changed that position, even had we wanted to.”

Only too true. However, the bishops could have spoken descriptively of the present condition of our church with regard to ordinations and blessings, but they chose rather to speak legalistically in the main in a way that is being widely read as a recantation, and I think justly so (I have quoted the full text of two crucial paragraphs of the communiqué in the previous post). I don’t think these paragraphs are exactly the endorsement of the status quo that some are saying they are (see Fr. Jake, for instance).

Nor do I think the bishops’ communiqué is ambiguous; though I do think the summary (to which I believe some early responders reacted before they digested the whole text) is not a fair précis of the document. A midday post at the Episcopal Cafe argues that disparate responses to the bishops’ language reflect distortions in the media and muses ruefully that “It’s small wonder that some laity have expressed bewilderment.” Isn’t that just a lovely thought? As one of the “laity” I note the various interpretations of the communiqué that are being published by the bishops, themselves (some of them cited by this same author).

I am senior warden of a growing metropolitan Episcopal church in the city of St. Louis. I will go about my work in that capacity in the next weeks and months with a heavy heart. And as a human being and a citizen of the United States of America, my heart is even heavier because I am largely in agreement with Fr. Fraser in The Guardian that “the struggle for the full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the life of the church is a frontline battle in the war against global religious fascism.” And when I read Bishop Smith’s statement that the House of Bishops of my church sought to be sensitive “to the cultural and theological beliefs of our partners of the Global South,” I am reminded of something else Fr. Fraser says.

Robert Mugabe has called homosexuals “worse than dogs and pigs”. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government denies that gay people exist in Iran, and hangs the ones it finds. The Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria thinks homosexuality “evil” and “cancerous”. There can be no compromise with any of this, irrespective of whether it is backed up by dodgy readings of holy texts or not.

I’m glad the bishops endorsed the “civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons,” and I suppose they didn’t really mean to leave out bisexual and transgendered “persons.” But the bishops could have done, should have done, more. I think the New Orleans communiqué is an exercise in Episcopolitics (a wonderful word I have just learned from Tobias Haller). The bishops had a huge audience all over the world. If ever there was an opportunity for prophetic utterance, this was it. Instead, they labored like a mountain and brought forth a mouse. It’s a damn shame.