My purpose in this essay is to briefly sketch the policies and practices of diocese of Colorado since the advent of bishop O’Neill, culminating in this policy change that came into effect on January 10, 2009, with the ordination of an individual living in a non-chaste same-sex partnership.
In 2003, the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado elected Robert O’Neill as its bishop. During his campaign, he was very clear about his commitments to the gay cause. In Massachusetts, besides spearheading the new diocesan camp, he led his parish into accepting his associate rector’s new lesbian “partnership.” Since there is no provision in the Episcopal Church for these things, her ceremony happened in another denomination.
A lot has happened between his election and now. O’Neill convened a task force in 2004 to examine the issues. “How will we choose to live together given our differences? What is our common ground? What are the limits? What is the highest degree of communion possible?” The end result was a recommendation from the Task Force for restraint, which has been followed till this new turn of events.
In Colorado, there already were partnered homosexuals and lesbians in orders. Also, provision had been made for some sort of thanksgiving in a liturgical context, but it wasn’t supposed to look like a wedding: no vows, no rings, no invitations, etc… According to O’Neill, great license had been taken with his predecessor’s pastoral permissiveness. The modest thanksgivings looked like weddings.
So, upon his election, O’Neill suspended the pastoral provisions for liturgical recognition of homosexual relationships. He also suspended the ordination process of at least one partnered lesbian. He did not let partnered clergy into the diocese, even though certain parishes wanted it. There were three basic reasons: 1) O’Neill hoped to find some way to keep the diocese together. 2) The Anglican Communion’s value to us was of utmost importance. 3) The Episcopal Church had not yet authorized same sex blessings through its General Convention, being the proper, ordered place, where such changes happened. We in Colorado were called, on the left and the right, to restraint for the sake of unity.
That was then, this is now. What changed? A second task force was convened, but reached a different conclusion. It reached no consensus, and had no recommendations. The diocese is split deeply, it said, but we had to find a way to stay together, to not act out on the left or the right. That report has been on the shelf for eighteen months. The bishop tipped us off, obliquely, during diocesan convention in October, and during clergy conference in November, that it was time to have conversation about the new report.
On December 14, the bishop invited the active clergy of the diocese to mandatory regional meetings, held between January 6 and 13. Events in the diocese and communion had made things urgent, what with the lawsuit, and the upcoming general convention. Given the tenor of the letter, I fully expected to talk about things. I had heard that a partnered lesbian was coming into the diocese, and expected an explanation. It promised to be an interesting day!
January 6, the Feast of the Epiphany, I attended the first of the bishop’s meetings. The day began with some lectio divina on John 17. Unity is mandatory; it’s not an option. The operative premise, then, as stated by the Primates back in October of 2003, “That which binds us together is greater than that which divides us.” The basis for all that follows is this indivisible unity, a unity that must be discovered, not made. We must, the bishop sermonized, accept a posture of receptivity and trust toward one another.
Next, he laid down the principles the Task Force followed. #1: Biblical Principles: we must (1) keep God’s Mission in the center of everything, (2) Primacy of the Unity of the Body (unity is not an option—it is mission), (3) Resist Conventional Wisdom (political factions, division, painting one’s opponents in the worst possible light). Here, the bishop invoked the concept of “adaptive change,” (4) Have a willingness to discover a more transcendent way. With this, he cited Archbishop Ramsey’s idea that the church should be the model for the culture on how to live life, especially on how to work through times of trial.
#2: Ecclesiological Principles: Our decisions together must (1) be consistent with the decisions of General Convention; (2) be consistent with the statements and actions of the House of Bishops; (3) fit the polity and ecclesiology of the Episcopal Church. We must, in short, “work within the structure.”
#3: Desired Outcomes: Since we are in a time of adaptive change, it is desirable to handle things provisionally and pastorally. The aim is negotiated engagement, not settlement, not mere agreement to disagree. We need practical ways so we don’t need to act out or split off. Our future lies not in a path of détente or toleration, but in complimentary diversity. In order to stay together, we must create space so all can exercise their ministry with integrity. We must create missional space for one another.
#4: Task Force II Report: Bishop O’Neill began his comments on this section acknowledging that the new practices going on in TEC are innovations. Still, the report laid down our common bonds: authority of Scripture; Common confession in Creeds, Sacramental life in baptism and Eucharist, a commitment to the Episcopal leadership of our bishop in concert with clergy and laity. Next came our core values: “Intentional Delight” in one-another. The gift of communion is to hold our convictions fully while respecting that of others. In this context, he remarked, a bishop must be a bishop for the whole diocese, he must be, citing Rowan Williams, “An Unreliable Ally.”
Now we come to the changing practices of the diocese under the heading “Pastoral Options.” Bishop reminded us that provisions for allowing same gender blessings, deployment, and ordination were all taken off the table after the first task force. The second task force agreed that the bishop should have pastoral flexibility, but no agreement was reached on what that meant. So, here’s where the rubber meets the road:
1. Deployment: After the Task Force 1, no partnered gays and lesbians were deployed in the diocese, or came into the diocese from another one. Several congregations had questioned him on this, repeatedly. Could they even consider such a person? And here’s the money quote, bishop said, “I always knew I wouldn’t do this [practice restraint] forever.” So, in the spirit of respecting local communities, both liberal and conservative, now he is saying “yes.” St. Paul’s, Fort Collins has called a partnered lesbian, the Rev. Bonnie Spencer. Bishop was very clear; this was his decision, and his alone. When his reasoning on this was questioned, he responded by saying this choice is his as the ordinary, that it’s a choice open to him within the constitution and canons of the church.
2. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight: Some may feel a need for space from the bishop, i.e., “DEPO.” He is more than willing to do it if it will help, but there must be a mutual conversation about it.
3. Same Sex Blessings: The Book of Common Prayer is clear about marriage; it’s doctrine (if not core doctrine, its still doctrine). TEC has not approved a new rite. Many bishops are saying it’s a matter of local option. He disagrees. Therefore, there still will not be same sex blessings in this diocese. However, there can be things done to recognize and affirm such relationships. But the guidelines must be followed—not a marriage rite, no vows, no rings, etc…
4. Restricted giving: This practice currently costs the diocese $290,000 annually. This practice will be respected because we must respect individual consciences. However, the money should stay in the diocese and regions. So, the practice should be rethought, but it will be essentially left alone.
5. Ordination: The Task Force was deeply divided. Essentially, because we baptize lesbians and gays, if they live a life that exhibits a calling to ministry, and the community recognizes that calling, they should be ordained. So, he has chosen to open the ordination process to all. This should not happen under the old “don’t ask, don’t tell” system. It should be, and now is “out.” Thus, the ordination of January 10, and the upcoming ordination of another partnered lesbian in June.
Funny how not following the news in the church for a few days can hollow out one's peace and comfort. Thank you, Fr. Theron, for outlining in a fair way from a more traditional point of view what the Bishop has been saying and doing.
A few observations:
One, the judgments and interests that seem to motivate so much of TEC's elites today are personal, internal, and emotional. Why is the effect of policy and doctrine and practice on society, the next generation, other communions and unbelievers ignored? In short, why is it all about me (my sexuality, my life, my needs, my love, my relationships)? Are we not called, from the Ten Commands to the Sermon on the Mount, to live our lives for others and for the common good? The point is clear with homosexual service to the church. All of us who service the public ministries of the church sacrifice something of our personal desires and interests for the sake of the common good and the needs of the whole church, not just our parish or diocese. So is it too much to ask for celebacy outside of a lawful marriage? The state of Colorado issues licenses to marry only to one man and one woman at a time. Until that changes (God help us!), I would ask that homosexuals follow the same rules that heterosexuals do: lawful marriage or celebacy. That does not mean one slip and you are out (as long as there is repentance!). But it does mean that we owe everyone alive today and everyone born tomorrow the witness of true love, which is NOT whatever we want it to be, but rather what our God wants it to be.
Two, why is it that I, who long to return to the priesthood, am having such a hard time with the red tape but others find ordination possible?
Three, why is it that our parish is trembling at the thought that our building will be taken from us but those who reject the tradition are confident in their safety?
Four, what a stick it in your face way to do this. Could not we find an outed gay person who remains celebate to ordain? No, we have to begin with the most radical case. This seems needlessly arrogant.
Five, why is that no doctrine of the church is sacred in the TEC except the episcopal authority?
Ops, I have been at this too long. I have work to do.
Charles Johnsen, the Faithful Heretic
Posted by: Charles Johnsen | January 14, 2009 at 08:21 AM
Charles:
On point four: I am actually friends with a priest in the diocese who is a gay man, and is celibate. The problem here is "outed." Do you mean, equates "gay" with "created gay", or "gay" and continually seeking the grace and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit so he may remain obedient to the God and Father of Jesus Christ? My friend does not believe God "created" him gay. He accepts the concept from Genesis, reinterated by Jesus in his statements on marriage, "male and female God created them". (If one really follows the "created" logic, if one really goes Politically Correct, one has to deal with all the sub-sexualities claiming "god made me this way"--including transgendered and bisexuals. So, we move from "created" male and female (complementary difference of two), to at least six different phylum of "created". In which case, one of these modern bible translations should just change Genesis, and the Gospel of Mark where Jesus says "male and female."
Where this is headed is, to paraphrase Locke, "every person's sexuality is orthodox to one's self." It all becomes a matter of private opinion, over which no public or ecclesial discernment can take place. This just highlights the inherent problem with classical liberalism. When dealing in generalities, its really great. But when things get specific, it falls apart. (For example, we as a society don't "tolerate" religious practices/traditions that involve female genital mutilation; we don't tolerate peyote use; we didn't let Utah into the union until the Mormons accepted marriage as One man and One woman).
On point five: Episcopal authority isn't the only doctrine that is sacred. The doctrine that the diocese and national organization holds ultimate ownership to the property is also immutable.
Posted by: Theron Walker | January 16, 2009 at 07:47 AM
Thanks, Theron+, for allowing us to peek into the back smoke filled rooms.
The diocese lost 10% of its ASA last year alone. The budget...well, who knows about the real budget, because it contains a small footnote: "This budget does not contain legal expenses." Yet, Rob O'Neill decides that this is a good time to press on with a course that has only had disastrous consequences wherever it has been tried. Diocese of Colorado: meet the definition of insanity.
Posted by: robroy | January 19, 2009 at 07:07 AM
Ironic that the text "...one as I and the Father are One..." it used to excuse hierarchy. The episcopal tradition persisted in the West in the church for two thousand years because the bishops were the physical presence of the TEACHING of the Apostles. Teaching of the Apostles first, ecclesiastical authority second. For in the Trinity the separate persons are as important as the single divinity, love proceeds from free will, from personhood, to free will, to another person. The freedom is not to decide what love is but to love and whom to love and who's love to accept. Of course we argue about doctrine and practice. But we do NOT decide, not by vote or dictate or political tactics. For truth is truth, goodness is goodness, and all we can argue about is if we see them clearly. Our freedom is not to decide right and wrong but to inquire by reading, study, discussion, and debate just what is true and right. Who decides? The Holy Breath of the Lord, the Logos, the Living God among us. Bishops and prophets may declare and publish His decisions, but no human agent dare make those decisions.
Charles 3
Posted by: Charles Johnsen | June 04, 2009 at 06:22 PM
I'm agree with your opinion, that's pretty serious case and it needs a huge analysis.
Posted by: buy viagra | July 21, 2010 at 02:36 PM