From stayin' Anglican (blog) via TitusOneNine:
February 04, 2010
There are more developments than just one that raise questions about the future of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas. The one singled out for discussion here relates to the 161st annual Council of the Diocese, to be held on February 12 and 13 in Killeen, Texas. According to the material presented in The Texas Episcopalian and in the Journal (Volume I) and other material published on the Diocese’s website, one of the items on the agenda is a resolution that, among other things, accords honor to gay and lesbian relationships and states that God is made known in and through such relationships.
It is not so surprising that such a resolution would be proposed, but it is seems quite irregular that the resolution would originate from, and be recommended by, a majority of the Diocese’s committee on resolutions. Under the canons, the resolutions committee, appointed for each year by the bishop at the preceding Council meeting, has the duties of receiving and processing resolutions, conforming them to proper usage, ranking them by importance, and making recommendations if they so determine. The canons do not assign to the resolutions committee any role of drafting and presenting resolutions on behalf of itself.
In this case, the action taken by the committee was apparently in response to two resolutions received from a group of five individuals, including the Very Rev. Joe Reynolds, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral and the Rev. David Boyd, Rector of St. David’s, Austin. One of the resolutions put forward by this group upholds same-gender couples living in committed relationships, saying the relationships are characterized by “the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.” The commentary accompanying the resolution affirms the integrity of such relationships and that some persons in these relationships are “in all ways faithfully participating in Diocesan life.” In putting forth its own resolution, the resolutions committee stated (as published in Volume I of the Journal) that it intended to preserve the spirit of the two resolutions that had been submitted by the group, while doing so in “a true and complete statement of unity and inclusion.” According to material on the Diocese’s website, in response to the committee’s resolution, Dean Reynolds, Fr. Boyd and the other proposers have withdrawn their original resolutions.
Apparently the committee’s objective of putting forward a resolution that is a true and complete statement of inclusion is thought to be achieved by making the resolution applicable not only to same gender couples but also to relationships involving heterosexuals, Anglos, persons of color or diverse languages, rich and poor, young and old, healthy and infirmed, etc. Not to be outdone in inclusiveness when it comes to sexual identity categories, the resolutions committee adds “transgendered,” which was not included in the two submitted resolutions. The various additions, however, don’t keep the Committee’s resolution from according honor to gay and lesbian relationships and saying that these relationships are means of making God known. One wonders if the Committee’s thinking is that by adding in all the other identity groupings, this will no longer be noticed?
It is true that the Committee’s resolution correctly states that persons who identify as gay or lesbian are loved by God. But if this were the only point it would have been sufficient to use the language to that effect in Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998). The point of the Committee’s resolution is not to support Lambeth 1.10, which according to the Archbishop of Canterbury still reflects Communion teaching. Its effect is instead to place the Diocese in opposition to Lambeth 1.10 by upholding a category of relationship that Communion teaching considers inappropriate.
The Diocesan committee’s resolution calls for pastoral care to be extended to these relationships. While the Anglican Primates have called for a “breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care,” (Pastoral Letter of May 2003) the source they cite for this is the paper True Union in the Body, which states:
“Pastoral care that is shaped by this costly grace will resist actions to legitimate same-sex unions and seek to show that, because they are in theological error, such actions by the Church do not contain within them the promised seed of freedom.”
(True Union in the Body, paragraph 5.15) It is hard to argue that the committee’s resolution does not seek to legitimate same-sex unions. The text itself does so, as does the Committee’s own acknowledgement that its resolution encompasses the spirit of the resolutions submitted by Dean Reynolds and Fr. Boyd. In a way the committee’s resolution goes further, by placing homosexual relationships on a par with marriage between a man and a woman, drawing no distinction between the treatment to be accorded one versus the other.
Is what the resolutions committee has produced a statement of unity? Obviously it is not if words are to be given their ordinary meanings. And here again the provenance of the resolution is instructive. Dean Reynolds, a deputy to the 2009 General Convention, wrote during it, “if the cost of unity and the absence of conflict is the denial of people and relationships that I have come to believe are holy and life-giving, then the cost is just too high.” In the original resolutions submitted by his group, disagreement on the subject matter was even acknowledged. Dean Reynolds seems to know, if the majority of the resolutions committee do not, that what is being put forward is not a proposal for unity.
It might be argued that the resolution is relatively innocuous because it doesn’t really have any operative effect. History shows, however, that resolutions such as this, once passed, are deployed as arguments in favor of more substantive measures. For example, the first paragraph of one of the resolutions proposed by the Reynolds, et al., group contains language taken verbatim from Resolution D039 of the 2000 ECUSA General Convention, recognizing committed relationships “characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God." This language has been used in support of subsequent action by General Convention, most recently by incorporation into Resolution D025 (2009) supporting persons in same-sex relationships being called to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church. The approval of Resolution D025 laid groundwork for the subsequent election and likely consent to the consecration to the episcopate of the Rev. Mary Glasspool. Dean Reynolds, as a deputy to the 2009 General Convention who voted in favor of D025, would have been aware of the potential future uses of language such as that included in the resolution he proposed (the spirit of which, please recall, the resolution committee intends to preserve).
We see this pattern also in the Diocese of Virginia, where at the 2009 annual council a resolution (R-4a) was adopted that affirmed the integrity of committed relationships characterized by the same words quoted above from Resolution D039. At present, there are two mind-of-the-council resolutions proposed to be acted on in February that cite the same language, and the fact of its passage a year ago, in support of further determinations by council. The first (R-3) is to the effect that ordination and selection to serve in ordained ministry in any parish or other capacity should not be precluded by living in a committed same-sex relationship and the second (R-4) would urge the bishop to authorize clergy to preside over the public blessing of same-sex unions.
Finally, it must be asked where is Bishop Doyle in all this? Perhaps it is really the case that the resolutions committee undertook activity beyond its canonical warrant without consulting anyone, and that the young and/or non-parochial clergy on the committee were comfortable negotiating an outcome with senior clergy, but it seems natural to ask whether this was so. The question also occurs whether the committee’s proposed substitute resolution was finalized before the November 15 deadline. If not, then (even assuming introduction of the committee’s resolution is otherwise proper) it could be introduced only with the bishop’s consent and would require a two-thirds vote for adoption.
Much more is at stake for the Diocese of Texas in the outcome of the consideration of this resolution than the committee indicates.
Mike Watson
REFERENCES
Journal of 161st Annual Council (Volume I), https://www.epicenter.org/images/edot/161thCouncil/2010Volume1_Final.pdf (resolutions published at pp. 11-12)
Committee resolution with revised commentary indicating withdrawal of original resolutions, https://www.epicenter.org/images/edot/161thCouncil/resolutions2010final.pdf
Diocesan Canon 2.1(j) on the Committee on Resolutions, http://www.epicenter.org/images/edot/160thCouncil/2008%20Constitution%20and%20Canons.pdf(pp. 16-17).
Statement of Dean Reynolds that the cost of unity may be too high, http://edotnews.blogspot.com/2009/07/from-deputy-joe-reynolds-dean-of-christ.html(penultimate paragraph of post dated July 16, 2009).
General Convention Resolution D039 (2000), http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=2000-D039
General Convention Resolution D025 (2009), http://www.gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final
2009 Resolutions adopted by Diocese of Virginia, http://www.thediocese.net/Councils/214Council/resolutions_results.html#R4 (resolution R-4a)
2010 Resolutions under consideration in Diocese of Virginia, http://www.thediocese.net/Councils/215Council/resolutions_submitted.html(resolutions R-3 and R4)
February 04, 2010 at 09:46 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment