OK, so here’s the scoop on General Convention 2006’s response to Windsor

Posted by Sappho on June 21st, 2006 filed in Anglican Communion News, News and Commentary

… for whatever readers haven’t already read it elsewhere.

Where I left you, the GC2006 had voted on two resolutions
in response to Windsor:

A160 was the expression of regret about ordaining the gay bishop.  The sort of expression of regret preferred from the Akinola side of the fence would have been one where the ECUSA said they were really, really sorry because they now understand that it’s wrong to ordain an openly gay bishop.  But, the efforts of the Fort Worth diocese notwithstanding, the ECUSA as a whole doesn’t understand any such thing, so the regret was carefully worded not to say that ordaining gay bishops is in itself a bad thing.  Instead, it expresses:

express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.

Next to come was the “OK, we won’t ordain another gay bishop” resolutuion, A161.  This was rejected.  The resolution that was rejected specifically
referenced the offense caused by “consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union,” called for refraining from ordaining “bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion,” and said that the GC wouldn’t proceed to
authorize rites for same-sex unions.  It was non-binding, and
left it still OK for dioceses to allow rites for same-sex unions
(which are already happening, just without any GC-approved form).  The resolution was defeated by a combination of conservatives who didn’t think it went far enough, and liberals who thought it went too far.

At that point, I thought, with only a day left, that the expression of regret was actually going to be the only response to Windsor.  But I misjudged the situation; evidently there were bishops lobbying strongly for something else, that would be seen as enough of a sign that ECUSA took the Windsor report seriously that they’d be able to go back to Lambeth and make their case.

So we come to the new resolution, B033, which reads, in its entirety,

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further

Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction 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.

Like A161, this is a non-binding resolution, it already having been determined, as a point of order, that a binding resolution could not be made at this convention. Here is Father Jake’s explantion as to why this was so:

The substitute resolution proposed by Fort Worth, which included all the Windsor language; moratorium, etc., was ruled by the Chairs Of Constitution and Canons and the President of the House of Deputies to be out of order.

We need to get the history of this clear, as you will hear it spun other ways in different places.

The moratorium on the elction of bishops was ruled out of order because it mandated critieria for nominees that went beyond the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

The moratorium on same sex blessings was ruled out of order because it was contrary to the Constitution and Canons regarding bishops authorizing special services and the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer; neither of which address this specific situation. Such a resolution would have to be worded in such a way as to amend the Constitution and Canons and the Book of Common Prayer. Such amendments would take two General Conventions before becoming effective.

So, we have a non-binding resolution which basically means “please don’t ordain any gay or lesbian bishops soon.”  It differs from the resolution that was rejected in making no reference at all to same-sex blessings, and, actually, in not saying anything explicit to indicate that it has anything to do with homosexuality at all, which I gather was supposed to sweeten it to the liberal side – it places the emphasis more on making nice with the rest of the world, and doesn’t single glbt people out.

The outgoing Presiding Bishop, Griswold, and the incoming Presiding Bishop, Jefferts Schori, both gave speeches urging that this resolution pass, and it did, in fact, pass by a large margin.  Matt Kennedy of Stand Firm (who comes from the “gay bishops are a really bad idea” side) live blogs this part of the General Convention.

And this resolution promptly drew outrage from both sides (though it passed quite handily).  Father Jake writes:

“..exercise restraint by not consenting…” How else can this possibly be heard except as a slap in the face to Bishop Robinson and all of our faithful glbt brothers and sisters?

The world was watching to see if at least one segment of the Body of Christ would reject the self-righteous bigotry that they have come to expect from those who call themselves Christians. And we have shown them that we’re not any different from the Falwells and Robertsons that regularly make a mockery of our faith.

Meanwhile, at Titus One Nine, Tony Clark complains about the “sinking of Windsor“:

We spent the majority of yesterday and today debating, amending, considering, voting defeating, reconsidering, rewording, representing, debating, amending, and approving this General Convention’s response to the request for moratoria with Resolutions A161 and B033. I believe the final product, B033, falls woefully short of the bar set by TWR. Our reply to the requested and specific moratorium on the election and consecration of those living in same gender relationships to the episcopacy amounted to asking Episcopal leaders to “exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration” of candidates for bishop “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.”

More importantly, the specific request for a moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions was met by a resounding silence. While many rightfully claim the blessing of same sex unions is not officially “authorized” with approved liturgical or canonical permission, a number of diocesan bishops, including our Presiding Bishop-elect Schori, readily allow and permit them in their dioceses. Although not officially “authorized” by canon or liturgy, this “local option” will continue with permission and allowance in many dioceses throughout the country.

The Questioning Christian defends the resolution:

But on reflection, I’m not entirely unhappy with resolution B033, and in fact I think it might have been a very smart move. Here’s why:

1. The requested moratorium is expressly predicated on the Anglican Communion’s engaging in a “process of healing and reconciliation.”

2. My guess is that the radical traditionalists won’t make even a good-faith effort at healing and reconciliation; for most of them, nothing short of unconditional surrender by the liberals will suffice. I agree with Father Jake when he says that B033 “will not be enough for Anglican bigots like Peter Akinola. TEC is going to continue to be treated like a naughty child who must be disciplined.”

3. So, fast-forward to three months from now. A standing committee has to decide whether to consent to the (hypothetical) election of a bishop who happens to be a partnered lesbian. The standing committee is inclined to consent to the election, but it also feels compelled to honor the General Convention’s request in B033. In this situation, the standing committee has a duty to assess for itself whether a genuine process of healing and reconciliation is underway in the Anglican Communion. If not, then for purposes of the standing committee’s decision, B033’s predicate hasn’t been satisfied, and the committee is free to give its consent.

A group of bishops expressed their dissent from the resolution just passed; their statement was read by Bishop Chane of Washington.  Just to be clear on which side this particular
dissent is, here’s the concluding portion:

We intend to challenge the rest of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion to honor the promise to include the voices of gay and lesbian in the conversations about the future of the Communion. We pray for the Church, for our Communion, and for our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters.

Meanwhile, a different group of bishops signed a statement of opposition saying the GC hadn’t done enough to comply with Windsor:

Accordingly, we repudiate the actions of the General Convention of 2003 which have breached the bonds of affection within the Communion. We bishops have committed to withhold consents for any persons living in same gender relationships who may be put forward for consecration as a bishop of the Church. And we have refused to grant authority for the blessing of sexual relationships outside Christian Marriage in our jurisdictions. We intend to go forward in the Communion confidently and unreservedly.

Thinking Anglicans and Titus One Nine both have round ups of reactions to the General Convention’s response to Windsor.

And I still need to blog something on what else the General Convention was up to, and find out more about the new Presiding Bishop, but I’ll leave that for another day.

Update: Adding a link to Crosswalk America, which has a post about the Episcopalian and Presbyterian church actions this week.