Criticism is easy of the recent Covenant Statement from ECUSA’s House of Bishops, their response to the recommendations of the Windsor Report and the ‘requests’ from the February meeting of the Anglican Primates. Simply to criticize is a cheap and easy imitation of true critical thinking; it demeans both the object of criticism and the critic. So, no criticisms here. The House of Bishops have taken a definitive position on the concerns churning the Anglican Communion. And they are to be commended.
In forming the Covenant Statement, the HoB has done something that actually borders on the courageous and wise. Our bishops have responded constructively and with integrity, graciously reminding folks (anyone who cares to pay attention) that they simply lack the authority that some wish them to exercise. They have nevertheless agreed to “withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate…until the General Convention of 2006” and to “encourage the dioceses of [the] church to delay episcopal elections….” Some see this response as petulant. But surely this is a narrow criticism. Simply put, there is nothing more that the bishops can do, constitutionally. And it’s a mark of courage that they have done no less. With regard to the Primates’ request that ECUSA withdraw its members from the Anglican Consultative Council, the HoB’s agreement to “defer to the [ACC] and the Executive Council…” reminds their critics again that the bishops of ECUSA have limits to their authority. The HoB has been both respectful and educative in their reply. They have responded from a renewed sense of the mutual accountability that all of us have in relationship with the wider Communion, and that the wider Communion has in relationship with us.
The HoB has moved here with great speed, in church-time, and with great clarity. In the face of grand-scale criticism from the wider Communion, our bishops have stood up for our polity. They have explicitly repented of our boorish disregard, as a first-world Church, of the plain objections raised by many of our global kindred in Christ prior to Bp. Robinson’s election and the subsequent ratification of his election. They have tried, though largely in vain, to explain the double-speak of General Convention’s ‘recognition’ that same-sex blessings are part of the church’s life in many places in ECUSA. (I continue to contend that such imprecise language has sacrificed some of the progress that the Church had made toward more fully integrating gay and lesbian Christians into the life of the Church. A superficial win of a single battle has lengthened and broadened the real struggle. And further gobbledygook won’t recover the high ground.)
So, rather than criticizing, given the wide diversity of opinions and beliefs personified in the House of Bishops, the rest of us might instead give thanks to God for the clearly miraculous moving of the Holy Spirit in the HoB’s agreement around this Statement. Could it be that the bishops have stumbled upon a way to set an example worthy of the responsibility of leadership with which we have entrusted them?
The chastisement of ECUSA by the Primates, and the HoB’s responses thereto, may signify new spiritual growth for all concerned. We of ECUSA are being called upon to walk our talk about honoring as equal partners the peoples of the developing world. It’s been easy enough to pay lip service and send a check, but now that we’re being called to do more, it hurts. This can be a valuable opportunity to learn more about ourselves from ourselves, and from our neighbors, around the question of just ‘who is my neighbor?’.
At the same time, ECUSA (along with the Church of Canada, if it so chooses) has a tremendous opportunity to enter a theological process that is long overdue. Before we can explain and defend to someone else actions taken at General Convention 2003, we will need to do so to one another and to ourselves. To do real theology is to do far more than simply trying not to hurt anybody’s feelings. Such pseudo-theology has now been proven woefully inadequate. To take a theological position on any issue of any substance is necessarily to risk offending someone, somewhere. Perhaps we’ve learned this, now. It’s past time that we in ECUSA should rediscover our responsibility as theologians.
ECUSA has been given a mandate to describe a theological anthropology and a theology of relationship that will answer the questions that many of the rest of our Communion have about including gay and lesbian Christians more fully in the Church’s life and ministry. Whether ECUSA is prepared and equipped to do so is a big question. But if we can do this in a way that respects the wide diversity present just in our own HoB and in our own Church, then we are well on the way to doing so for the benefit of the wider Communion. ECUSA has a huge burden of responsibility and a great opportunity in this. And the recent Covenant Statement of our House of Bishops indicates that we may just be able to pull it off.
Jim +
No comments:
Post a Comment