As most of you know, the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church met this past
June 13-21 in Columbus, Ohio. Because of the controversies generated by the last General
Convention in 2003, many looked to this year’s triennial gathering with an uncomfortable
mixture of hopefulness and anxiety.

For those who closely followed the news releases and various blogs coming out of
Columbus, on both these counts, the Convention did not disappoint. One bishop described the nine days there as a “roller-coaster,” while another characterized it as the wildest in his thirty-three years of attending these events.

While it would be both unwieldy and confusing for me to recount here all of the twists
and turns of the Convention, I would like to summarize the outcome of a few of the major
decisions, as well as comment upon their likely impact upon the Anglican Communion and
Pohick’s place within it.

The Election of a New Presiding Bishop

One of the more sensational outcomes of the Convention, quickly trumpeted by the
media, was the election of the first female Presiding Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts
Schori, Bp. of Nevada.

The election of Bp. Jefferts Schori came as somewhat of a surprise even to most of the
Bishops and Deputies in attendance, not so much because of her gender, but because of her
relative inexperience within the Church. Among the seven nominees, she had been ordained the shortest period (priest in 1994, bishop in 2001) and had the smallest diocese (thirty-five
congregations, diocesan budget about the size of Pohick’s). Moreover, her total parish experience consisted of one year as an Assistant in a medium-sized parish in Oregon, and she had never overseen a staff larger than two persons.

Despite her inexperience, Bp. Jefferts Schori’s personal qualities clearly impressed many
of the bishops who voted for her. She is well-educated, having earned not only a MDiv, but also a PhD in Oceanography. By all accounts, she is poised and well-spoken. She is fluent in Spanish. She has also tended to work collegially within both her diocese and the House of Bishops.

Following her Institution in November, she will need to draw upon all of these qualities
to face the challenges ahead, especially because in several areas of recent controversy, her
personal theology stands in contrast to that of the larger Anglican Communion. For example,
while the Primates called upon the Episcopal Church to refrain from blessing same-sex relations, Bp. Jefforts Schori asked for and received permission from her diocese to conduct such rites in 2003.

In addition, three dioceses within the Episcopal Church do not even permit the ordination
of women to the priesthood. Bp. Jefferts Schori’s election obviously creates a difficult tension for these dioceses and their bishops. Indeed, one diocese asked the Archbishop of Canterbury for alternate oversight even before the Convention ended; three more followed in the Convention’s immediate aftermath.

Likewise, while women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference in 1998, only a handful of the thirty-eight Provinces currently permit women to serve in this office. It remains to be seen whether Bp. Jefferts Schori’s election will inspire changes in this regard—or evoke even greater opposition because of her embrace of a more liberal theology.

The Windsor Resolutions

In the aftermath of the 2003 General Convention, the Archbishop of Canterbury created a
Commission to craft a recommended course of action for the Anglican Communion in response to that Convention’s dealings with matters of human sexuality (as well as those of the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada). Their findings, dubbed “The Windsor Report,” were subsequently adopted by the Primates (including our own Presiding Bishop) in February of 2005.

Although the Report is lengthy, theologically nuanced, and diplomatically worded, at its
bottom line, it asked the 75th General Convention to do three things:

1. “Express its 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” (par. 134).
   
2. “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” (ibid).
   
3. “Call for a moratorium on all . . . public Rites [of blessing same sex unions]” (par.
   144).

As I reported in the May 2006 Pohick Post, a Special Commission was formed to advise
General Convention in its response to the Windsor Report. While the resolutions in the Special Commission’s Report fell short of adopting the above language, they were seen by many to be moving in that direction.

At the Convention itself, yet another Special Committee was organized to take up this
Report and craft the language of the final resolutions. Bishop Lee served on this Committee, as did one of Virginia’s deputies, Russell Palmore. For those who were disappointed with Bishop Lee’s actions at the 74th General Convention, I would observe that he fought valiantly on this Committee to have the Windsor language incorporated into the resolutions—and he partially succeeded.

When sent out of Committee, Resolution A160 (which dealt with item 1, above) largely
incorporated the Windsor wording. Subsequently, the House of Deputies slightly modified the
resolution, changing the word “breached” to “straining.” The final version (later passed by the
House of Bishops as well) reads:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that the 75th General Convention of
The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation
enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for
straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask
forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.

While the final resolution has been criticized as watering down the Windsor wording, I
think a generous reading of the resolution would view it as an adequate response to the first of the Primates’ requests.

The same cannot be said with regard to the handling of items 2 and 3, above. When
Bishop Lee sought to preserve the Windsor language in the resolution addressing these two
matters (A161), the Committee voted him down. As a result, the meandering, inelegant
resolution that emerged from the Committee pleased no one. On the next-to-last day of
Convention, the House of Deputies defeated it roundly.

Because there was no pending resolution addressing either of the above items 2 or 3, it
looked to many as though the General Convention would conclude without having made a
sufficient response to the Primates.

Alarmed, Bp. Griswold called for a joint meeting of the two Houses for the next morning.
A hastily crafted resolution (B033) was introduced at the session, with strong endorsements from both the Presiding Bishop and Presiding Bishop-elect. Owing largely to their emotional pleas, both houses adopted the resolution overwhelmingly. It reads:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further

Resolved, that this Convention therefore call 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.

Although Bp. Lee (a co-sponsor of B033) heralded the adoption of this resolution as an
indication that “the center has held,” it is clear that there are some severe fault-lines running
down the middle.

To begin with, because the thrust and even the wording of B033 are similar to those
found in the defeated Resolution A161, it is quite evident that the deputies adopted it, not
because they agreed with it, but because they did not want to put the Presiding Bishop-elect in an impossible situation at the start of her new ministry. Some of the deputies stated as much on the floor of Convention. Thus not a few bishops and deputies have viewed the adoption of B033 as disingenuous.

This is further seen in the quick promulgation of “A Statement of Conscience,” signed by
twenty bishops, including Bp. Chane of Washington, D.C. In this document, the signatories
stated that they would not abide by the moratorium implicitly called for in B033. Because these do not constitute the majority of bishops needed for consent, however, it appears that any episcopal candidate who presented “a challenge to the wider church” (such as one of the
nominees for bishop put forth by the Diocese of Newark just after convention) would not receive the votes necessary for confirmation.

Despite this, neither B033 nor any other adopted resolution addressed the above item 3
from the Windsor Report. And while it is true that there is no nationally adopted Rite of blessing for same sex unions (as the Windsor Report recognizes), individual dioceses, including Nevada and Washington D.C., have developed and/or condoned the use of such Rites.

And so, because B033 did not call for a moratorium on the use of these Rites locally, and
because it does not incorporate the Windsor language, I believe that when the Primates meet in early 2007, they will judge the Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report to be
inadequate. Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself has already made this call.

Response from the Archbishop of Canterbury

In the week following General Convention, the Archbishop of Canterbury issued an open
reflection on General Convention entitled, “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican
Today.” Not only is it a model of theological clarity, but it also offers a constructive way forward for the Anglican Communion.

First, Archbishop Williams rightly takes issue with how the debate on human sexuality
was often framed at General Convention: “to make clear something that can get very much
obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the
contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people.”

Nor does he view this as a debate about human rights: “it is possible – indeed, it is
imperative – to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn’t settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God’s will.”

What then is the central issue? “It is a question,” writes the Archbishop, “agonisingly
difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against – and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.”

With regard to whether Christians should bless same-sex unions or promote same-sex sexual behavior, the Archbishop states, “as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority [of Christians] would answer yes to the question.”

As a whole, Anglicans have joined the vast majority of Christendom in saying “no” to
this question. It was only with the actions of 2003 that the Episcopal Church unilaterally and
unreflectively disregarded this position: “the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a
practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has
had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it
thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.”

This is what precipitated the crisis within the Communion, leading to the adoption of the
Windsor Report, as well as the Primates’ call on General Convention to adopt its
recommendations, as I have outlined in the preceding section.

How then did General Convention fare, in the Archbishop’s view? “The recent
resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report,” he writes, “but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.” In other words, while the Archbishop appreciates the hard efforts of many bishops and deputies, in his view, the final outcome fell short.

In light of General Convention’s inadequate response, how then does the Archbishop
believe the Anglican Communion can move forward? While he rightly states that the solution is ultimately up to the Primates and the other councils of the church, he nevertheless recommends the Windsor Report’s notion of a Covenant, where national provinces, as well as local dioceses and even local congregations can “opt-in” as constituent members.

The specific contents of this Covenant would have to be developed, of course. But on matters of human sexuality, it would seem unlikely that these teachings would change from those adopted at the 1998 Lambeth Conference—particularly in light of the recent statements from the Primates.

Those Provinces (or constituent parts) that chose not to opt-in would be viewed as
“‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed
from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental
communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures.” Archbishop Williams cites the relationship between the Church of England and the Methodist Church as an example of such a denominational relationship.

Implications for our Diocese and Congregation

And so, where does this leave our own diocese and congregation? As the result of Bp.
Lee’s pledge in his 2005 Pastoral Address, as well as resolutions passed at our last two Diocesan Councils (which incorporate the Windsor Language), I believe Bishop Lee and the Diocese of Virginia have favorably responded to the Primates’ requests. Had our Presiding Bishop-elect and General Convention acted similarly, I think the pathway ahead would have been much smoother.

As it stands, there remains a great deal of tension between dioceses and congregations
holding different views on matters of human sexuality. If the Archbishop’s suggestion of an
Anglican Covenant is developed—as I think it will be—national provinces, dioceses and even
congregations will need to decide whether they want to remain constituent members of the
Anglican Communion—or splinter off to form a new denomination.

I for one am hopeful that most if not all dioceses and congregations will decide to remain
within the fold of the Anglican Communion. In his reflection, Archbishop Williams spoke
approvingly of the unattributed quote, “Only the whole church knows the whole truth.” By
remaining a part of that world body of the church known as the Anglican Communion, I believe
our national province, our diocese, and our congregation can most faithfully walk in the
pathways of truth as we corporately and prayerfully reflect upon Holy Scripture, ever seeking the mind of Christ in all that we say and do.