FINALLY!! A Statement from the ECUSA

Just yesterday, the Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA) issued a statement in response to the communique by the Anglican Primates just a couple of weeks ago, in which they address the requests made by the Primates regarding the current issues within the ECUSA and the Anglican Communion as a whole. You can find the entire statement here. Please read it for a moment before continuing, if you can.

At first, this statement might seem encouraging, because it would seem that the ECUSA bishops are knuckling under a bit. They "reaffirm" their commitment to remaining in the Anglican Communion and its previous decisions. They FINALLY apologize for the mess they've made. Up to this point, we hadn't seen a full measure of contrition or repentence of any kind for their decision, which they obviously made without any kind of consultation or discussion, not only with other leaders in the Anglican Communion, but even with many members within their own dioceses and parishes! So it appears we're off to a good start.

However, as the statement continues, some strange language comes in. In Sections 3, 4, and 5 of their statement, they talk about the requests actually made by the Primates regarding the consecration of Gene Robinson and the blessing of same-gender unions. Here's an example of some of that strange language, in this case regarding the consecration of openly-homomsexual clergy:

Our polity, as affirmed both in the Windsor Report and the Primates' Communiqué, does not give us the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria based on matters of suitability beyond the well-articulated criteria of our canons and ordinal. Nevertheless, this extraordinary moment in our common life offers the opportunity for extraordinary action. In order to make the fullest possible response to the larger communion and to re-claim and strengthen our common bonds of affection, this House of Bishops takes the following provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report. Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly.

In other words, "we don't really have the authority to do this, because each diocese within the ECUSA is independent and we can't control everyone, but we'll pledge this, anyway". I was at first confused by this language, until I realized what lay behind it, if you look a bit harder. What they're really saying is, "we really don't have this kind of control over our clergy, and so, if some diocese still gets a gay bishop, so be it."

Then, regarding the blessing of same-gender unions, they have this to say:

In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué "assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates' Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such "pastoral care" to include the blessing of same sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.

Again, this is odd language, as though they're making excuses. "Well, of course we're not blessing same-gender unions...there's no rite for it and we're not looking to create a rite for it." Why even make this statement? Priests and bishops amend and alter the words of the liturgies all the time. During the mass where my wife was confirmed, the Bishop of Oklahoma, the Rt. Rev. Robert Moody, was presiding, and he was having a very difficult time with his back that day. So during his reading of the service out of the prayer book, he omitted about a third of the liturgy, in the interest of speeding it up and getting him out of there quicker (understandably so). If that's possible for a bishop to do, why isn't it possible for another bishop or priest to simply alter or edit as he sees fit, so that the liturgy performs the function he wants it to perform?

The final point of concern for me is the "we pledge not to authorize any public rites" part. There has been much discussion in the church regarding priests who have been blessing same-gender unions IN PRIVATE for some time. So in other words, they've left an out for priests who are already performing these blessings privately, to continue to do so.

So with everything we have in this statement, it would appear to be a step forward, but ends up as just more stalling for time with conciliatory language. Perhaps they're hoping that we'll be "led by the Holy Spirit" to finally acknowledge the rightness of their position, as they have been.

Thanks for reading along.