Houston clergy identified as conservatives join with original supporters
This is an update to the entry immediately below, which commented on a then-proposed Annual Council resolution according honor to same-sex relationships and stating that God is made known in and through such relationships. The resolution, modified in some details from the version proposed by the diocese’s resolutions committee but still to the same effect, was approved by vote of the Council on February 13.[1] Somewhat surprisingly, it passed with the support of several clergy generally identified as having a conservative view, who signed on as named proponents of the resolution alongside the five proponents (three clergy and two lay) of the original resolutions submitted to the committee. All five of these new proponents are clergy from Houston, two of them being rectors of the Diocese’s largest two parishes. Four of the five are listed on the Communion Partners web site as Communion Partner Rectors[2]and one of these four is listed as a member of the Communion Partner Clergy Steering Committee. These new named proponents of the resolution do not include any laypersons, and accounts of the Council meeting published on the diocese’s web site do not indicate that any laypersons identified with the conservative side spoke from the Council floor in support of the resolution. The text of the resolution, the names and parish identifications of the proponents and a summary of statements made from the floor appear at http://161council.blogspot.com/2010/02/final-council-actions-and-elections_16.html(scroll down to Resolutions).[3]
In some pre-council dialog, claims were made that the conservative clergy proponents had negotiated significant changes to the resolution endorsed by the resolutions committee as it existed prior to their involvement. This turned out not to be the case. Although the final resolution includes several changes put forward by the conservative proponents, the most significant one seems to be the change from a listing of the sexual identity categories gay, lesbian and transgendered to a reference to various sexual orientations. That change doesn’t alter the fact that the resolution expresses a legitimization of different forms of relationship without making any distinction between same-sex relationships and other relationships such as marital ones.
One clergy proponent of the resolution who is identified with the conservative side provided insight into the rationale for conservative support. The view he expressed does not assume that there exists any clear understanding of how the resolution does or doesn’t apply to same-sex relationships, but is premised instead on the possibility of different interpretations. The key language is the passage stating that all people and their relationships are to receive “the pastoral care, time, attention and honor they are due as God is revealed in and through them.” The clergy proponent related to me his view that this can be read to admit of the possibilities both that same-sex relationships should be honored and that they should not, depending on whether or not God is revealed in and through them. Therefore, he said, both sides can claim a "win" for now and the conservatives will gain needed time. According to this proponent, there was a great deal of discussion about the “as God is revealed in and through them” phrasing, resulting in a decision to leave it in the resolution agreed to by the group indentified with the conservative side.
As an initial matter, the language itself is not easily read to convey the degree of conditionality this explanation implies. And even if the language could be regarded as a unity gesture of this nature, it was not something negotiated by the conservative group, the language at issue being essentially the same as that which had been produced by the resolutions committee. Moreover, it seems odd to characterize as a “resolution of unity” a resolution as to which agreement depends on completely opposite understandings about what we all know to be the issue in dispute. Put another way, is it a good thing or a troubling thing for a diocesan council to adopt a resolution premised on an assumption that there is unity when there isn’t? What would be the theological basis for a conception of Christian unity underlying this understanding of the resolution? And if the conservative proponents did think they were making a gesture of unity, might not they have had reason to know it would not be reciprocated, in light of information circulating that the Standing Committee of the Diocese (including one of the principal proponents of the original resolutions) either had consented or was expected to consent to the consecration of the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool as suffragan bishop of Los Angeles?
That a plausible reading of the final resolution is hard to square with a “unity created by ambiguity” approach is also demonstrated by the resolutions committee’s statement (made in putting forth its own resolution in substitution for the two original resolutions that had been submitted to it) that it intended to preserve the spirit of the two original resolutions. Later on the floor of Council, in moving the substitution of the so-called compromise amendment, one of the new proponents, according to the account on the Diocese’s web site, articulated the belief that the revised resolution expresses the spirit of the original resolution. Even if by “original resolution” he meant the committee’s substitute rather than the two originals, the successive articulations of the intention to preserve the spirit have sufficient transitivity to establish a linkage of the passed resolution back to the two originals, at least one of which was decidedly unambiguous.
Finally, if the conservative rationale for the resolution was premised on ambiguity that allows it to be understood a different way, what is one to make of the fact that, at least in the record of the statements from the floor on the diocese’s web site, none of the proponents identified with the conservative view stated or even hinted at this rationale? The statements from the non-conservative supporters of the resolution were clear enough as to how they thought it applied to same-sex relationships. The two statements from the floor made by those identified with the conservative side appear not to have implied any contrary view, but were cast in the broadest generalities.
As noted in the entry below, none of what is being pointed out here is an argument that persons in same-sex relationships are not loved by God or that they are not entitled to pastoral care. Rather, what is noted is that appropriate pastoral care will resist actions to legitimate same-sex relationships. Nor is it argued that a relationship between members of the same sex, like any human relationship, cannot have elements of good such as mutual caring (see, e.g., True Union in the Body? (a study commissioned by Archbishop Drexel Gomez), paragraph 4.27).
The historical parallels, discussed in the entry below, between the adopted resolution and TEC General Convention D039 (2000) and the subsequent use of the adoption of D039 to further the arguments for rites of blessings for same-sex unions and ordination of persons in such relationships remain. Just as former Bishops of Texas Claude Payne and Don Wimberly voted in 2000 in favor of resolution D039 (perhaps even thinking of it as a resolution promoting unity) and can see D039 today deployed as it has been, supporters of this year’s resolution in the Diocese of Texas will likely see similar results.
As I understand it, one of the emphases of Communion Partners clergy, in addition to substantive identification with, and advancement of, the principles reflected in the Anglican Covenant, has been a willingness when appropriate to position themselves so as to achieve meaningful differentiation from the national leadership structure of The Episcopal Church which is proceeding down another path. At a minimum it seems that the approach taken in this instance by the new proponents of the resolution is a step away from an emphasis on meaningful differentiation.
[1] The question of the canonical appropriateness of the committee’s resolution noted in the entry below was addressed by not bringing the committee’s substitute to the floor as the pre-council edition of the Journal had indicated would be done, but instead bringing one of the two original resolutions to the floor and moving substitution of the new resolution endorsed by the new proponents. The fact that the original resolutions had been withdrawn was apparently not considered an impediment to doing this.
[2] The understanding of the author is that one of these four is no longer rector of a parish as a result of assuming a new position.
[3] Accounts of the action by Council are based on the record appearing on the Diocese’s website. The author was not present at the meeting.
Much of Mr. Watson's criticism of my diocese's recent actions at council are based upon the "assumption that there is unity when there isn’t." I would argue that there can (and should) be unity in spite of disagreement. As an orthodox, traditional member of the clergy in the Diocese of Texas who is dedicated to defending and promoting the faith as the Church has classically received it, I voted for the resolution for very basic, Christian reasons.
Disagreement on an issue does not preclude unity. Even though there was disagreement between the disciples as to whether or not the Gentiles should receive a Gospel mission, those disciples were still unified through Christ and their baptisms. Orthodox Anglicans have a duty and responsibility to emulate this same model of unity in the face of disagreement.
The Christ-like response to disagreement is to strive for relationship. The conflict arising from the attempt by some to elevate the status of same-sex unions (and ultimately, to redefine the sacrament of marriage) is due in large part to unbiblical, "new" understandings of many theological concepts: the covenant of marriage as a symbol of Christ and the Church, the purpose of sexuality and marriage, and, most importantly, how humanity negotiates the tension between the Christ-like ideal and our fallen existence. It is our job to bridge that gap, to negotiate that tension by reaching out to the "other."
Make no mistake- Ecclesiastes is absolutely true, for there is nothing new under the sun. We are not encountering anything different today. From the Emperor Nero in 64 AD and forward, homosexuality has never NOT been a part of our fallen, modern culture. The Patristics and history have much to teach us on these concepts. Yet without relationship, it is nearly impossible to reach out to others and foster change. I cannot plead my case with one whom will not break bread with me. I am convinced that this relationship is possible without holding up homosexuality as a cultural ideal, or compromising on the basic tenets of the faith.
Traditional Anglicans must fight the urge to respond to our shared conflict in a selfish, safe, judgmental (and very human) manner. We must resist the temptation to characterize the opposing view as the enemy, to denigrate them as the "other," and in the process elevate ourselves to a false and self-inflated status of "defender of the faith," a mindset which does nothing but widen the divide that Satan so dearly wants to affect.
We must reach out in relationship until the very bitter, ugly end. It is for this reason that I am part of an orthodox group of clergy who is vigorously opposed to schism and stridently for relationship, while still holding firmly onto grace in Christ AND the traditional faith as received by our Church. It is for this reason that I voted for the resolution.
The Diocese of Texas and its bishop are resoundingly against the blessing of same-sex unions and the admission of non-cellibate gay and lesbian clergy to its diocese (an irritating and mystifying Standing Committee decision for Glasspool notwithstanding). The line of demarcation for clergy and laity with regard to this current conflict is a very personal decision. For me, that line is being watched very closely but has not yet been crossed.
Mr. Watson, you said something that causes me distress: "...if the conservative proponents did think they were making a gesture of unity, might not they have had reason to know it would not be reciprocated?" An attempt to reach out in unity and relationship only so that it is "reciprocated" is no attempt at relationship at all. That expectation merely reduces the attempt to what it really is- a political move and nothing more. This is the mindset that we as traditional Anglicans must avoid at all costs. We are to be wise as snakes and innocent as doves, but our motives must be filled and laced with grace and love and the honest desire to reach out to those who may bite our hands, but deserve our love in spite of their actions. For this is what Christ did for us.
Posted by: Howard Castleberry | February 25, 2010 at 10:31 AM
The striking thing to me about Fr. Castleberry’s comment is the absence of an effort to grapple with the actual text of the resolution and what it means. The only references in the resolution to unity are the title and a bare claim to unity in the first resolve. The substance is about the kinds of relationships that are to be honored in the Church and through which it may be said God is revealed. It seems almost that so long as the resolution bears a unity label of some kind, it does not matter what it says; people should be expected to salute and vote for it.
Pace Fr. Castleberry, I did not argue here in favor of conditioning appeals to unity on an expectation of reciprocity. I disagreed that the resolution could properly be understood as a genuine appeal to unity at all, and went on to observe that if it was so regarded, it fails, for want of any reciprocity, to satisfy the claim by some proponents that it was somehow the product of a meaningful negotiation.
Fr. Castleberry says that we must stay in relationship in order for him to be able to plead his case. As far as I am aware, the occasion of Diocesan Council was not attended by widespread threats to end relationships. Why then was it not appropriate to respond to the resolution by “pleading the case” for a different understanding than advanced by Fr. Boyd, Dean Reynolds, et al. as set out in the resolutions originally submitted (and, as I believe I have shown, substantially preserved in what was passed)? As it is, the question seems to be whether by the Council’s action one side is seen to have capitulated or instead that the disagreement has been (ineffectually) papered over. I think the Rev’d Professor Seitz’s comments on the corresponding TitusOneNine thread are apt. http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28491/#408817
Posted by: Mike Watson | March 01, 2010 at 12:34 PM