The past Wednesday, the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church adjourned at the end of 10 intense days and nights. In these days since Wednesday, I’ve been sorting out my own thoughts and impressions about the results of the work that was done by people of good faith gathered in Columbus, Ohio.
One thing is very clear to me: the Holy Spirit showed up for the party. I am told that the announcement of the election of the new presiding bishop will be forever etched in the memory of those who were in attendance. First came word that the House of Bishops had elected someone. The results of the ballots and the election were given to a special committee for review, as required by canon law. That piece of business took 30 minutes. Finally, the results were handed to the president of the House of Deputies. He announced, very slowly: “The new presiding bishop is the Right Reverend” – and I’m told you could hear everyone thinking, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know it’s a bishop! Tell us the name! Tell us the name!” When he said “Katharine”, there was a gasp as over 1,000 people took in the news and then the building rocked with an explosion of applause and cheers that went on and on and on.
When I heard that The Right Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori will be the leader of the Episcopal Church for the next 9 years, I knew that the Holy Spirit had been active in her election. There is no other way it could have happened. It took me a bit longer to see the hand of the Spirit in some of the other outcomes of the General Convention.
I was especially struck by the juxtaposition of two resolutions. The first resolution of this pair was one of six in response to the Windsor Report, specifically to the request that the Episcopal Church “effect a moratorium on the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same-gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.” Resolution B033, which was passed at almost the last hour of the convention, directs bishops 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.”
The second resolution (A123) concerns slavery and racism and grew in part out of a call “for the church to live more fully into its mission of reconciling all people to God and to one another. As it acknowledged the past involvement of the church in slavery, expressing regret for supporting and justifying slavery.” Do you sense a disconnect between these two resolutions? As I read the text of this resolution, I wondered if there would be another resolution, perhaps at the 95th meeting of the General Convention, expressing regret for failure to support our homosexual brothers and sisters in full inclusion in the Church.
My first thought on hearing the resolution regarding restraint in the consecration of bishops whose manner of life might be a challenge to the wider church should perhaps not really be described as a thought. It was more of a reflexive repugnance and anger in response to what I perceived as yet another act of gradualism – the process of postponing movement deeper into our baptismal promises by claiming the need to bring a large group of people – generally styled as “them”, not “we” – to an understanding that we the enlightened have already achieved. As I said, it was a reflexive response, not a thought. It took a while for me to wrap real thought around my feeling and ask myself what the response of General Convention would have been to a resolution directing restraint in consenting to the consecration of a woman or of a person of color.
To my mind, the exclusion of people from leadership in the church because of their sexual orientation is no different than exclusion for because of gender or race. We are God’s children – all of us – each of us born as we are and each of us precious in God’s sight. Any other position is an offense to the Gospel and to our baptismal promises.
Initially, I thought of this resolution as colluding in gradualism, and I was angry and disappointed. I wanted General Convention to send a clear message that exclusion and gradualism have no place in Christ’s church. I wanted my church to say: “Our consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson was the right thing to do, and that’s it.” Even as I was ranting to myself about that, these words kept coming to my mind: “The mission of the church is the reconciliation of people to God and to each other.” Quite a few people have said that we are caught in a choice between two good things: reconciling with the wider Anglican Communion and standing firm on the inclusion of all people as potential leaders of the Episcopal Church. Over the days, as I have thought about the impact of this resolution – and our other responses to the Windsor Report, of which I am very proud – I have come to believe that assuming we must make such a choice is inaccurate, short-sighted and unfaithful.
Bishop Katharine, in her homily at the closing Eucharist of the General Convention, exhorted the bishops and deputies – and therefore us! – not to fear. I read her words as encouraging us to stand firm in our understanding of our baptismal promise to respect all people, and I had hoped – as did many others – that the work of the General Convention would give some closure to the whole question of the Episcopal Church’s position regarding sexual orientation, to close the question so that we could get on with the real work of the Church – the care of people. I now see her words as also inviting us to stand without fear in the very Anglican spot we find ourselves in: holding two divergent points of view and trying to meet at the table while doing so. Many people, myself included, have been offended by the attitude of some who opposed Robinson’s consecration. They have seemed to say that we must conform to their theology – to their understanding of the world and our relationship with God – or leave the Anglican Communion. This “our way or the highway” stance is not a productive, useful or Christian way to approach individuals with whom we disagree. Despite the strength of my convictions, I hope never to see us act in the way we have seen others act in this conflict among Christians.
Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold reminded us that conversation is necessary
to conversion.
If we close off conversation with those who disagree with us, we are closing
off the possibility that they will learn from us, we are closing off the possibility
that we might just possibly learn from them, and we are closing off the possibility
that the Holy Spirit might just stir us all up in some way that would cause
our utmost astonishment. Learning from each other does not mean that we abdicate
our values. Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori told the bishops
that she could only support the resolution “if we understand that it's
not slamming the door. It has to leave the door open for further conversation
and consideration in the very near future.”
In her remarks to the House of Deputies, she said that she is “fully committed
to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in this church.” She
went on to say “I think if you do pass this resolution you have to be
willing to keep working with all your might at finding a common mind in this
church. I don't find this an easy thing to say to you, but I think that is the
best we are going to manage at this point in our church's history.”
At this point in our church’s history, I think it’s important to remember that our artificial constraints of time, our schedules and our agendas have nothing to do with God’s time. The Holy Spirit was present at General Convention and is still present with the Episcopal Church and with the wider Anglican Communion, even after the closing prayers of our various meetings. The Holy Spirit is still working to bring justice. The Holy Spirit is still working to bring reconciliation, and I have no doubt that both those things will come to pass.
In the midst of the storm, the disciples cried out to Jesus. He awoke, stilled the storm and asked them, “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” I have asked myself, “Why are you afraid?” and the answer came clearly to me: I am afraid that my will won’t be done. So I cling to my faith in our God who has brought women to the altar. I cling to my faith in our God who has brought people of color not far enough yet but farther than could have been believed 150 years ago. I cling to my faith that God’s Holy Spirit is still working to transform each of us and to transform the world.
Thanks be to God.