The Episcopal

Diocese of Lexington

Bishop's Pastoral Letter: Reflection on the 75th General Convention and moving forward in the Diocese of Lexington

July 5, 2006

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

     Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

     Several months ago we entered the cloud and fog of not knowing together when I allowed my name to be considered as a candidate for Presiding Bishop.  Now that the General Convention has concluded, some of the cloud and fog has dissipated.  That, for me at least, is a great relief.  But some of the cloud and fog remains for this church we love, which reminds us that God will reveal Godself when and how God chooses, not as we choose.  For now, just as surely as God has revealed some things to us, God also asks us to continue to bear the uncertainty as to other things.

     The part of the cloud and fog that has evaporated in the warm light of God’s new day is the election of the next Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori.  I want you to know that for myself I consider that election an occasion of God’s great blessing in several ways.  One of the things that I have learned in this experience of living in the cloud and fog of not knowing is that God’s blessing is not only in winning.

     For me, part of that blessing is in coming home to you, the people I have come to love so much as the Diocese of Lexington.  I have never been so happy to see anyone as I was to see Ginger, Andrew, and Matthew who met the bus of bishops returning from the election.  I wish I could describe the joy of seeing my sons’ smiling faces as the bus pulled into the convention center, seeing Ginger for the first time as I walked in the door, and going with the three of them to watch and listen as the new Presiding Bishop addressed the convention for the first time.  And after that, I have never been so happy as to see anyone as I was to see those of you who had come to Columbus to be with us after the election, whatever came, back in our hotel room that evening.  And after that, I have never been so happy to see anyone as I was the young people at our Senior Conference, to which I went directly from Columbus.  And after that, I have never been so happy as to see so many of you back here at home who took me up on my stated desire to “hug your necks.”  You have given us a wonderful welcome home.  Thank you.

     One of the blessings of emerging from the cloud and fog of the election for me is the ability to turn my full attention back again to the mission of the Diocese of Lexington.  Indeed, even as I sat waiting for the House of Deputies to confirm the election my thoughts were turning to the work that had been put on hold here in the Diocese until we knew what was going to happen.  Since the election, I have already had conversations with individuals interested in coming here to be the Hispanic Missioner and the College Missioner.  I have worked on our on-going study of our youth ministry and camping program and arranged visits from our consultants over the summer.  I have had a very hopeful conversation with a lay leader in our Diocese about the South Africa Reading Camp.  I have asked four people to take on leadership of the camp for children whose parents are in prison.  I have scheduled a meeting with lay and clergy leadership in Northern Kentucky to make plans for a new congregation there.  It is time to get on with our work.

     Another part of the blessing for me has come in allowing myself to take what felt like a significant risk.  Allowing my name to be considered did indeed feel risky to me for many reasons, not the least of which was the vulnerability it entailed.  Still, as has always been true for me when I am willing to enter the cloud and fog, I learned something about myself as well as about my ultimate dependence on God.  It is difficult for me to see my experience as a nominee as anything but an encounter with the God of grace.

     And finally, I feel very blessed to be a Bishop in a Church that would do something so bold and creative and faithful as elect Katharine to be its Presiding Bishop.  I have now known Katharine for almost six years.  She is a deeply prayerful woman who loves God, seeks to be a disciple of Jesus, strives for justice and peace, and gives of herself for the upbuilding of God’s Church.  I respect her judgment.  I admire her intelligence.  I have confidence in her integrity.  I trust her leadership.  The election of Katharine to be our Presiding Bishop makes me deeply proud to be an Episcopalian.

     One other personal note.  As many of you know, I will begin my seventh year as your Bishop on September 30 and will be taking a period of sabbatical.  My sabbatical plan, which will not surprise you, is a bit unorthodox.  It is my intention to work on a Master of Laws Degree in Canon Law at Cardiff University in Wales.  Rather than taking the sabbatical in one large segment, I will be pursuing part-time work on this degree in Wales over the next two years with longer periods of residence in the summers of 2007 and 2008.  That will allow me to keep a regular visitation schedule and will mean I will never be away so long that assistance from another Bishop is necessary.

     These things, at least, have become known as we have all emerged from the period of unknowing.  Other things, in the aftermath of General Convention, are still unknown.  Of the greatest concern to many are the Convention’s responses to the Windsor Report, which addressed the actions of our 2003 General Convention, particularly the consecration of a gay man living in a lifelong and exclusive same sex relationship marked by mutual love and respect, and the damage done to the Anglican Communion following that consecration.

     First, let me say a word about what the Windsor Report is in the context of a Communion of 38 independent and autonomous Churches which has never before failed to respect the individual member Churches for their own self-government even as to issues directly analogous to the ones we face now.  No Church of the Anglican Communion, none, has ever before been said to be subject to any of the others for its own internal affairs.  To the extent the Windsor Report is a voice in the conversation, it is helpful, because it raises some valid questions about how the identity of the family of churches we call the Anglican Communion is continuing to emerge in its characteristically untidy way.  To the extent it is an ultimatum, a threat, or a laying down of the law by some autonomous Provinces to others, though, it represents a serious departure from what we have understood our relationship to be up to this point and one that no Province has agreed to.

     In that context, it is important to examine what the Windsor Report invited (not demanded and not required) and how our General Convention responded.

1. The Report invited The Episcopal Church to “express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of The Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion” (para. 134).  General Convention did exactly what the Windsor Report invited in the exact language requested by the Report and went further in that it apologized and asked forgiveness (Resolution A-159) and in that we explicitly stated our very firm desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion (Resolution A-160).     

2. The Report invited us to enact a moratorium on the authorization of rites for the blessing of same sex relationships (para. 144) based on an erroneous understanding that our 2003 General Convention had authorized such rites.  Complications of the legislative process kept the resolution agreeing not to authorize such rites from coming to the floor.  However, it is also important to note that The Episcopal Church has not in fact authorized such rites and the Bishops are on record as being opposed to the authorization of such rites at this time.  We did fail to give what the Windsor Report invited as a matter of form, but we have complied with the spirit of the invitation.  No such rites have been authorized nor will they be authorized in the foreseeable future.

3. The Report invited us to “effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (para. 134).  To be honest, the General Convention has no way to control elections or consents to the consecration of Bishops except by amending the Church’s Constitution, a process that would require two General Conventions to accomplish.  Without an amendment, the invited moratorium would be unconstitutional and meaningless.  Unable to effect the invited moratorium, the General Convention did the best that it could by calling “upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion” (Resolution B-033).  What was invited was simply not possible in our system.  What we gave was the substantive equivalent of the requested moratorium.  I am quite confident that, again for the foreseeable future, there will be no additional gay bishops in partnered relationships, even should one be elected by a Diocese.  I have pledged myself many times to be governed by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church, and I will not consent to such consecrations while the call of Resolution B-033 is in effect.  I believe the same is true for the overwhelming majority of my colleagues.

     I supported all of these actions, but I cannot say I did so without great difficulty.  As you know, I gave my consent to the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.  I respect with all my heart those of you who disagree, but the fact is that I believed then and I continue to believe that was what God would have me do.  This may come as a shock to some, but I believe that because of, and not in spite of, a commitment to the Bible, its authority as the standard of our faith, and what it reveals about God, a desire to be obedient to tradition of the Church Catholic, and devotion to Jesus as my Lord and Savior.  Again, I respect those of you who see that differently than I do, but I believe I am entitled to ask for your respect as well.

     I believe what is really at stake is whether we will continue to be a Church that can be a broadly comprehensive home for Christians who care deeply about theological truth but believe the best way to discern God’s will enduringly is by living for a time in the tension of conversation within a community of faith comprised of those who hold inconsistent views on some things.  That, I believe is what Anglicans have always found will lead to a broad and lasting consensus, which is the best protection against doctrinal error.  What is at stake is whether The Episcopal Church will continue to be a Church that encourages freedom of expression and inquiry as the best way to seek truth or whether we will stray from our Reformation roots by submitting to a system like that of the Roman Catholic Church with its resort to Papal infallibility or to a system like radical Protestantism with its resort to the infallibility of each individual believer reading his or her Bible.  Nor is the Anglican way simply to rely on majority rule of individual beliefs.  Majorities, after all, have repeatedly proven themselves decidedly opposed to the will of God, usually on the basis of a particular reading of Scripture.  The Anglican way of allowing broad consensus to emerge in a community both hieratical and respecting the ministry of all the baptized through freedom of thought and expression, to be sure, is more difficult and more than a little unsettling.  It is in the end, I am convinced, a more reliable way to seek God and has served us well through the many similar controversies of our past.

     Finally, the Windsor Report called upon (not “invited”):

“those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

• to express regret for the consequences of their actions
• to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
• to effect a moratorium on any further intervention.

We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care (para. 155).”

     This call of the Windsor Report is profoundly important in the local Church because the interference of foreign bishops renders the work of reconciliation in the local Church unnecessary.  The call of the Gospel is to work our problems out among brothers and sisters in Christ with both love and Christ’s own heartfelt prayer for unity in mind.  I fully realize that the work before us is difficult and may at times seem impossible.  In God, of course, all things are possible.  Anything less than that commitment strikes me as profoundly unfaithful.

     Regrettably, none of the archbishops and bishops who have taken such steps has taken any step whatsoever to heed with the call of the Windsor Report.  It leads one to wonder if the Windsor Report and the good of the Anglican Communion is what is really in their hearts.  Indeed, these archbishops and bishops have continued to interfere in the work of reconciliation and, since General Convention, have become even more strident in their insistence on interfering.  As for myself, upon my return from General Convention, I received a reply to my letter to Bishop Nathan Kyamanyua of Uganda in which he declined to honor my request to cease interfering in the Diocese of Lexington.  Such interference hampers far more than it helps the work of the Gospel that we have to do in this country both evangelization and the care of the poor.

     I am committed in this Diocese and through my office as a Bishop in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, to seeing that the traditional Anglican approach to seeking God’s truth is not lost, however uncomfortable it might be in the short run.  That means striving to preserve the voices of those who disagree with me in The Episcopal Church, even though my views may represent the majority in our Church.  That means striving to protect, and more than that, to listen to, the voices of those who disagree with me, including the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, the Archbishop of Nigeria, and the Archbishop of Uganda even when those same voices work to remove my voice and that of our Church from the conversation altogether.  I am charged, after all, to do to others as I would have them do to me, not as they actually would do to me.

     In that regard, I do fully recognize that because of the profoundness of disagreement, there may be some in the Diocese of Lexington who are unable to receive ministry from me as their Bishop at this particular time.  I have many times stated my willingness to provide a Bishop acceptable to them and to delegate pastoral oversight where that would be helpful to their consciences because to do so would further the cause of reconciliation in a way that uninvited interference cannot.

     Among the voices that must be listened to, and which are so often unheard, are the voices of our gay brothers and sisters.  Since 1978 the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops has been calling for serious dialogue to be entered throughout the Communion on the civil rights of gay persons, on the place of gay persons in the life of the Church, and on the experience of Christian persons who are gay.  That call was renewed in 1988, 1998, and most recently in the Windsor Report.  To date, almost 30 years later, and despite all the criticism of The Episcopal Church for having acted without consulting the Anglican Communion, that conversation has hardly occurred at all and has not even been allowed to begin in almost all Provinces of the Anglican Communion, and certainly not in those most critical of us.  Instead, some prominent Church leaders in the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Nigeria in particular, have spoken of homosexual people as less than animals and supported laws in their countries to imprison homosexual persons.  Until we listen with sincerity to our gay brothers and sisters with the dignity and respect they are due as human beings, moral indignation directed at them is, to say the least, misplaced.

     I have no doubt that the actions of our recent General Convention, which were very painful and exceedingly difficult for many, including myself, were taken at great cost for two reasons.  One is to give the so-frequently promised conversation a chance finally to begin.  Until we listen to each other with open ears and minds and hearts, God cannot be working fully in us.  Surely this is part of what it means for two or three to gather in Christ’s name.

     The other reason is to attempt to free the needs of the real poor—people who don’t begin to have the luxury of debating issues of human sexuality, people who are hungry, people who are suffering from AIDS, children without parents, people who are living with the constant threat of violence—to come back to the front of the Christian agenda, particularly in the Anglican Communion.  And, I am convinced that the actions we took were only possible because of the many voices of gay and lesbian persons at our Convention, and those who support them, who sacrificially took on a burden for the good of the whole and for the good of the poor in particular.

     As to our future in the Anglican Communion, I cannot begin to make a prediction. What I can tell you in all certainty is that anyone who is telling you that they can is being less than forthright.  No one knows how this is going to turn out.  The Archbishop of Canterbury offered a lengthy reflection on our future this week.  The first half of one sentence can be spun one way:  “It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements.”  The second half of the same sentence could be spun another way:  “but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God’s gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that ‘waiting for each other’ that St. Paul commends to the Corinthians.”  His later reference to our habit of “cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly” might be spun yet another way.

     Like it or not, the future of the Anglican Communion and our role in it are just part of the cloud and fog we are still in.  We should not lose the opportunity that it presents us to be aware that God’s creation turns on God and not on us.  In addition to that, I am just about as confident that, when all is said and done, there will be an Episcopal Church and a Diocese of Lexington and that both will be about doing ministry as best as they are able for a very long time to come.  And, if I have anything to do with it, both The Episcopal Church and The Diocese of Lexington will go about doing ministry with a broadly comprehensive welcome to Christians who believe a number of things on what is not essential but who can proclaim with hope and conviction that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God is Love.