What’s happening in the Episcopal Church?
Photo of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, courtesy of Episcopal News Service
I got that question a lot this summer from friends and family who aren’t Episcopalians and who are bemused by the stuff they read about my church in the national press. So here is my brief, idiosyncratic, and much too general take on “what’s happening.”
Every three years the Episcopal Church gathers for General Convention. General Convention is our governing body; we don’t have an archbishop or pope who decides things for us, but instead work in a complicated, messy, democratic way to get the business of the church done, and even to decide what our business really is. Our bicameral legislative body is noticeably similar in structure to the U.S. Congress, which is no surprise because it developed alongside it, under the guidance of some of the same “founding fathers.” It’s big, though, with over 800 people (lay and ordained) in the House of Deputes and as many as a couple hundred more in the House of Bishops. Then there are the 22 legislative committees. Not a simple system.
The most recent General Convention met from July 8 to 17. There were an enormous number of blogs and Twitter accounts and facebook pages devoted to updating the world on its minute-by-minute activities, and it was a little overwhelming to try to stay on top of it. Episcopal Life has even run a story about the media coverage and how a record number of people tuned in for it through a record number of avenues.
Now that the dust is settling, it is clear that certain big issues dominated the Convention. Money, for one. Stewardship and budgeting issues in the context of our country’s current economic woes were necessarily a major focus. Just as in our larger national dialogue, health insurance and employee benefits were hot topics, as was immigration reform. Many would say that evangelism, mission and outreach stayed firmly at the center of the Convention’s agenda, as was right and proper. The issue that most excited me is one that certainly doesn’t grab headlines–the passing of the Charter for Lifelong Christian Formation. Maybe I’ll get a chance to write more about that another time.
Meanwhile, most of the media reports are about two resolutions that were passed: one that resolved to gather resources toward developing liturgies for same-gender blessings, and the other, D025 as it’s known in official parlance, that is commonly being described as a resolution to “end the ban on gay bishops.” It is actually about quite a bit more than gay bishops, as its title, “Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion” indicates. Anyway, this Episcopal Life online piece is a pretty good place to start if you want a basic sense of what’s been going on without all the hysteria and hyperbole that is generally clouding the discussion on the internet.
The most interesting aspect of this story for me is that beneath D025 is a very specific theological framework, one that depends on an understanding of baptism as full and complete membership in the church. If the question of the place of gay and lesbian people is framed as an issue of “rights,” it can easily be trumped by other critical concerns, such as the importance of our place within the Anglican Communion or the competing claims of certain Scripture passages and the various ways we read them. However, once the framing of the argument moved from “equal rights” to “full inclusion in the body of Christ” it seems to me it was inevitable that General Convention would take the position it did.
My own sense is that nobody has a “right” to become a deacon or priest, let alone a bishop, but anyone can enter into a conversation with the church about exploring a sense of vocation, or of being called by God into a particular office. Our baptism is what empowers us to have this conversation, and it can only be an authentic one if the outcome is truly not known by either side before it begins. There are no levels to church membership once a person is baptized, so there should be no office from which a baptized person is automatically excluded, at least not by virtue of gender, race, sexual orientation, or the like.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Presiding Bishop have both issued responses to General Convention. I suppose I am generally in “wait and see” mode and do not sense the need at this moment either for great celebration or for outright panic. Reconciliation is always the work of the church, reconciliation with those close to us and those far apart, both geographically and ideologically, and reconciliation has never been more necessary than it is today. While I believe that we are moving in the right direction, I also firmly contend that we are going to need to be more vigilant than ever to respect minority opinions and to not turn away from the sense of “via media” that is and always has been the best of our Anglican heritage.
Pamela Dolan is on staff at Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Webster Groves and is a Candidate for Holy Orders. After high school in Hawaii and college in California, she earned a master's degree in theology from Harvard before spending several years in New York studying medieval religion and literature. Pamela is married with two children. 
nice and succinct there Pamela. I love that our church has finally took the stand that full membership by baptism, means just that. FULL membership.
The one thing that I see us falling down on, is that we do not let that be our rallying cry. We can so easily be drawn into the arguments of each individual point, you are right membership in the body through our baptism is the defining moment for us as Christians.
Well done.
I have read much about the current situation.
Many observers believe the Episcopalian church will be marginalized within the Anglican Communion based upon their actions.
Furthermore, it seems that the recent actions will encourage more members to leave the church, rather than attract new adherents.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
has no inheritance in the kingdom of God yet you wish to grant, inheritance to those who choice to rebell against God in a most disgracful and abomination, this is revolting to God and you may read of yourselves in rom 1 17-35 and yet they now the price of such sin is worthy of death and they approve of such things.
I’m not Episcopalian, I’m Presbyterian…and the same battle has dominated our church for at least 30 years. Personally, I’m tired of it. I see the battle as being ultimately destructive to the Church. The choosing up of sides, the refusal to sit and study and break bread with those on “the other side”, the behaving as if that is the only pressing concern of the Church, are all very serious and seemingly intractable problems.
It is my opinion that schism is probably inevitable. The church will split, yet again, and the Witness of the church will be damaged. People will leave or be thrown out, those who have great gifts of leadership, teaching, and insight will be marginalized, and the Church will suffer.
Disclaimer: I have a gay daughter, so my opinions on this subject are colored by that fact. She has found a spiritual home with the Society of Friends, and that is a good thing. However, the knowledge that people who knew her as a child growing up would now reject her pains me greatly.
I, too, am presbyterian. Our church is having this conversation. While I agree with the present minority, I wait patiently for the church to complete the conversation, and have faith in the outcome.
Acceptance is the access to love, in Jesus, in every one.
Thanks to all who have commented so far. hs, I’m especially struck by what you’re saying here. I have moments of feeling weary of this whole debate myself. And I think that schism is always regrettable, as you suggest, because Christian unity is damaged. Call me conflict-averse, but I would love it if we could all just kind of agree to disagree, and go about our business. And yet that no longer seems a viable option, if it ever was.
The problem is, I don’t see what choice we have other than to keep engaging in debate and dialogue, even if the issue isn’t “the only pressing concern of the Church” (and, again, you’re certainly right on target there). There are voices on both sides who are going to keep the issue alive until it is resolved. The Episcopal Church, right or wrong, has gone a long way toward an internal resolution of the issue. I don’t think the debate is over, by any means, but it seems much clearer than it was 3 years ago that the church has taken a position. How people will respond to that position is now the issue.
But, to respond to Wowee’s question a little, I don’t actually know what will happen now, and I’m not sure that anyone else does either. I believe Christians are always free to choose hope as an option, even if faith is not a license to stick our heads in the sand. I read recently (in a completely different context) that the work of Christians in this era is not to be effective but to be faithful. That seems to me something worth thinking about.
The towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were not good towns Gen13:13 and they sinned greatly against God. Why do you wish to do the same thing over and over again. Wrong will only be considered right in the end times. God said homosexuailty is wrong, men can never ever make it right, nor should they. Why lead people into a sinful nature, this is not of God.
Pam, I never ever try to debate with God, He is God. God is the light of the world. Why walk in darkness away from God. All good things come from God. Christian are not called to walk on the wild side because they want to, and other Chistian are called to call sinners from sin and to Christ, to become a new creation in Christ, for the love of God, not the love of men. Jesus is the way, to eternal life, sin leads men away from God. Do not lead the flock away from God. The word of God will bring you home, and it is not up to interpretation.
Pamela-
I do not wish to come across as snide, but how do you reconcile your quote “Schism is always regrettable”, with being an Episcopalian?
In a Telegraph article, it ends with bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori stating, “Schism is not a Christian act”. Again, it is odd to hear such words from a leader of a schismatic church.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5820952/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-concerned-at-US-approval-of-more-gay-bishops.html
I do not wish to insult anyone, but the Anglican church was founded by schism. Is schism truly regrettable, or un-Christian, or is it sometimes appropriate?
The Episcopal Church is not alone in dealing with acceptance/approval of homosexual behavior. The Church Universal has been forced to confront sexual behavior from the very beginning, which is why the clearest teaching on the subject is the moral law in the Old Testament (please note I did not say ritual law)and the continued teachings in the New Testament Gospels and epistles. Just as fornication or adultery were not acceptable under the old covenant, they are not acceptable under the new covenant. Just as homosexual acts, incest, or bestiality were not acceptable under the old covenant, neither are they acceptable under the new covenant. This does not refer to penchants or proclivities, which we all battle.
God’s character relating to purity and holiness remain the same as well as His demands on those who worship and adore Him. The road is not easy for any of us because we are all touched by our imperfection and living as those who battle unceasingly the “world, the flesh, and the devil.” None of us can boast, but we all must seek to please God by word, thought, and deed, and that means our sexual behavior.
On the bright side, that’s why we have the Holy Spirit to empower us to do what we are called to do and the Scriptures to be our guide.