As the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned, “our bonds of mutual affection” are at risk.
Since 2003, when the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson was consecrated as the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, the conflict within our church over issues of sexuality has threatened to irreparably divide us. Breakaway churches now have a combined membership of more than 100,000. In California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas, entire dioceses have gone separate ways.
Events following the church’s General Convention last summer have exacerbated this worrisome state of affairs. There are increasing protests overthe election of Rev. Mary Glasspool as the church’s first lesbian prelate and the decision by some New Hampshire churches to bless same-sex marriages. Calls for forbearance from church leaders who hope to prevent a permanent break in the fellowship have not been heeded.
Sadly, our period of “gracious restraint” is gravely troubled.
As an Episcopalian who is concerned about the fracturing of our church, and one who desires to hold it together, I fear our dwindling church will continue to shrink unless we find a way to bridge our differences. Further breaking apart of our denomination would be extraordinarily regrettable, but in my view probable if we continue on our present path.
It does not have to be this way. Rather than choosing between the absolutist positions where there is one “winner” and one “loser” with respect to those issues, I believe that there is another more practical approach worthy of consideration.
Before I explain, let me say that I claim no expertise in the polity of the Episcopal Church. Instead, my experience is in the world of national and international politics. Although I write from that perspective, I also write from a deep love of the church.
I make certain assumptions about our church. It is tolerant of differing opinions. It gives great latitude for decision making at the diocesan and parish levels. Further, I believe that most Episcopalians would like to move beyond what they see as constant intra-denominational con?ict over issues of sexuality. Unless I am mistaken, most Episcopalians hope that the day will come when debates about ordination of openly gay clergy and same sex unions will no longer frequent the national news.
In my experience, some issues can be so vigorously contested that resolution of them is unreachable, at least for awhile. In those cases, the most practical approach usually is to address those matters where progress is possible, postpone decisions on irresolvable issues, and mutually respect the differing opinions of each side. To try to force resolution prematurely — so that one side is victorious and the other is defeated—yields no resolution at all. That is a recipe for continuing conflict and increasing anger.
I strongly believe that in the foreseeable future there is no likelihood of resolving within the church the issues of ordination of openly gay clergy and the blessing of same sex unions. Efforts to create winners and losers on these issues has no immediate possibility of creating either. Squabbling over church assets is the wrong way to resolve this impasse. The predictable result of continuing this battle will be public conflict without end in sight, to the utter dismay of most Episcopalians.
Therefore, I suggest that the best approach going forward would be for both sides of the controversy to agree to disagree, with each side expressing respect for the good faith of the other. Such an approach could be called an “all are welcome” or “local option” approach and would promote a church of authentic inclusivity. It would be a reasonable and democratic solution.
Under this approach, each parish would be able to decide by majority vote of its communicants the position it would take on these issues of sexuality. Those votes would be conducted for the ?rst time in 2012 and thereafter only in general convention years when a particular parish was presented with a petition in writing signed by 50% or more of the communicants of that parish requesting another vote on the issue. Parishes that voted in favor of same-sex blessings/ordinations could be referred to by one designation and those voting against by some other designation. All would be deemed to be parishes in good standing in the Episcopal Church of the United States. Bishops in exercising oversight of the parishes in their diocese on issues of sexuality would do so in keeping with that particular parish’s most recent vote.
So how do we get there? We can “agree to disagree” on those contentious issues of sexuality by doing the following two things:
- For the next 2 ½ years, church leaders would repeatedly express in written and oral statements a theme of inclusiveness and respect for advocates of each side of the sexuality issue, and call on each side to do likewise. The statements would be to the effect that the Episcopal Church is broad enough to include within it people who hold divergent views on a variety of issues including the ordination of openly gay clergy and the blessing of same sex unions.
- Church leaders, and indeed all Episcopalians, would support and actively seek to obtain passage of appropriate canonical revisions and/or resolutions at the 2012 General Convention that would implement or give effect to the “all are welcome” or “local option” approach that I have outlined above. Until General Convention 2012, the Presiding Bishop, Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committee would continue to honor the call for a time of gracious restraint.
Those on the extreme sides of the debate may disagree with this approach. But I think most Episcopalians would support it. To have a chance of working, however, there must be strong and compassionate leadership, particularly from our presiding bishop and other national church leaders, but also from other clergy and lay members who agree with this pragmatic view and are willing to promote it.
Anglicans, of course, have differences on theology and practice, and it is healthy for us to debate them. But now is not the time to allow these issues of sexuality to further splinter the church. Amid a steady national decline among protestant churches, our membership has shrunk from a high of 3.7 million Americans in 1965 to a little more than 2 million today. This trend will only worsen if this issue continues to divide us.
We can allow the gales of acrimony to blow us into further disarray. Or, we can accept this difficult challenge, harness those same winds, and charta uni?ed direction for the church that we all love, no matter which side of the debate we take. The choice is ours.
With credence, fortitude, and especially leadership, we can maintain our church as it has historically been—a people united in “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”
James A. Baker III was the nation’s 61st Secretary of State and is a member of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Houston, Texas. This article appeared in the Spring 2010 issue of News from the Hill, the magazine of Virginia Theological Seminary, and is reproduced here with the permission of VTS.
ETF advocates local option in matters of worship, as described in the Canons of the Episcopal Church and reinforced by two separate General Conventions. (See related articles on this website.) Let’s consider Mr. Baker’s approach to achieving true inclusiveness by giving our parishes a choice in which liturgy to use — the 1928 Book of Common Prayer or one of the more recent revisions.
Loading ...