Letters from Our
Bishops Regarding General Convention
July 22, 2009
A Letter from Bishop Lee
Dear Friends,
The most lasting impact of the 76th General Convention is likely to
be an increase of initiative and energy in local congregations and
dioceses. The sharp budget cuts in the three-year budget of the
General Church will have a painful impact on some faithful staff
members, but will shift the focus for mission to the local church,
rather than the local church waiting for initiatives from the
General Church.
The emphasis on local ministry is a proper expression of the
principle of subsidiarity, whereby mission should occur at the level
closest to the people who are called to engage in that mission.
Local mission is also enhanced by resolutions which the secular
press has incorrectly interpreted as necessarily damaging our
worldwide relationship and as following the agenda of a gay and
lesbian lobby. Instead, what the Convention did is to reaffirm that
the ordination process is under the control of local bishops and
dioceses, while stressing that access to that process is open to all
baptized persons.
The Convention also invited local churches and dioceses (as well as
churches elsewhere in the Communion) to collect liturgical and
theological resources regarding same-gender blessings. Recognizing
the unique pastoral needs of those dioceses in jurisdictions where
same-gender marriage or civil partnerships are legal, the Convention
affirmed that a generous pastoral response is needed.
The emphasis on the local did not deter the Convention from adopting
both a denominational health plan for the whole Church and a
mandatory lay employee pension plan, both of which, in the long run,
will strengthen the local church.
Faithfully yours,
The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee
Bishop
A Letter from
Bishop Johnston
Dear Diocesan Family,
With the conclusion of General Convention, the beginning of my time
as your diocesan bishop fast approaches. Having just returned to
the Diocese from the Convention, I want to express to you my
thoughts on the two resolutions from the Convention which are
garnering the most attention in the media. The first speaks to the
current state of our Church's relationship to the Anglican Communion
(D025) and the second addresses same-gender unions (C056
substitute).
Resolution D025 strongly affirms not only the Episcopal Church's
commitment to its relationship with the Anglican Communion but also
our Church's appreciation and support of the roles that gay and
lesbian people have in the ministry of our Church-including all
levels of ordination. This resolution passed with a 2-1 majority.
I voted against it. As I said during the floor debate, I absolutely
agree with every word of the resolution itself. Even so, I was
convinced that the actual effect of D025 across the Anglican world
would be to weaken the bonds of our worldwide Church and, more
importantly, to compromise our international mission and ministry in
the very places that need us so very badly--and we so need them.
The problem for me with D025 was how it would be seen in its
implications rather than being understood for what it actually
says. Such is the nature of legislative reality, and this is the
very reason why I do not believe the legislative process is the best
process to address these issues. Still, I have great hopes that the
Communion will recognize the resolution as it stands--a statement of
where we really are as a Church at this time, all the while hoping
to build upon and strengthen our ties with the larger Communion.
Resolution C056 calls for gathering theological and liturgical
resources with respect to offering the Church's blessing for
same-gender unions, which will be brought to the next General
Convention in 2012 for study and consideration. The fact is that
several states have legalized gay and lesbian unions, and others
will likely follow suit. This resolution responds to that reality.
It also allows bishops the exercise of personal discretion in
providing for a "generous pastoral response" for gay and lesbian
persons in the Church. I voted in favor of this resolution because
I am convinced that it is both realistic and right. Monogamous
same-gender unions are now a reality, and we should provide for the
Church's response, with blessing or without. The resolution allows
for either. Bishops must also have the ability to respond to what
is actually true in all the various locales and contexts in which
this Church ministers. It is important to remember, however, that no
official rites of blessing that wholly sanction same-gender unions
have been approved for the Church. In fact, it would take years to
develop such rites.
It is not so much the actual content of these two resolutions that
may be problematic. The potential for difficulty follows from
interpretation of the resolutions. The plain reality is that very
little is actually changed by either one of the resolutions in
themselves. Both statements address what is already true in the
life and witness of the Episcopal Church. The Convention is
overwhelmingly of the mind that the Episcopal Church will be the
stronger for the realistic and clear perspective of these
resolutions.
Just how that will be so is now put to each diocese. Together, you
and I will explore what these resolutions mean more precisely for
the Diocese of Virginia. I look forward to the way ahead, and I
welcome your input. Most importantly, I treasure your company in
the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ. I remain,
Faithfully yours,
The Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston
Bishop Coadjutor
A Letter from
Bishop Jones
Dear Friends,
It might appear that the Episcopal Church has radically changed
course with various interpretations of General Convention actions.
I do not think so.
From my perspective, the Episcopal Church has remained on the same
course it has followed for at least 40 years - one that has
"stretched every nerve" as we have sought to live into the Baptismal
Covenant.
What has not changed is a significant commitment to making the
Church a safe place for all people all of the time. A major shift
in our disciplinary canons (Title IV) was adopted by a voice vote in
the House of Bishops with little or no debate. This new canon
significantly raises the bar of conduct expected of clergy.
What has not changed is a genuine desire to live into the meaning of
our baptism. Throughout my ministry in the Episcopal Church, I have
seen the Church push the edges at Convention regarding who is to be
included. The General Convention of 1970 opened reception of Holy
Communion to all baptized persons. In 1973, a significant change in
the marriage canon made possible, with the bishop's permission, the
remarriage of divorced persons. In 1976, we approved the ordination
of women to the priesthood and episcopate and then in 1979, we
adopted a new Book of Common Prayer with the Baptismal Covenant.
Through all this time, we have addressed issues of racism and
encouraged racism training. And from the 1970s until the present
day, we have been hearing the call of our own members who are gay
and lesbian to recognize committed relationships and to fully
include them in the life of the Church.
What has not changed is a passion for mission. In fact, our world
view has significantly expanded over these 40 years. Our eyes have
been opened to human need at home and abroad and our congregations
have responded in significant ways. Convention approved a strategic
plan for Latino/Hispanic ministry that focuses on opportunities for
mission in changing neighborhoods with declining populations. The
Millennium Development Goals were emphasized as goals for mission.
And the presence of primates from around the Communion reminded us
of our worldwide connections. The mission of Christ was at the
heart of Convention.
Another aspect of Convention that was central to who we are as a
Church was the gracious and generous concern I witnessed during a
conversation with fellow bishops to discuss C056, which initially
called for the development of liturgies for the blessing of same
gender unions to be included in the Book of Occasional Services. The
House of Bishops postponed consideration of that resolution to allow
for a period of voluntary conversation, in which I participated.
Twenty-seven bishops, including myself, gathered using the
Indaba process of discussion
and sharing learned at Lambeth. Together, we drafted a substitute
resolution that could enjoy broad acceptance. I participated in the
writing group. The substitute did not call for rites to be presented
for approval or for use. It did request the collection and
development of liturgical resources.
In the House of Bishops discussion on the substitute, we recognized
constitutional problems with approval of liturgical rites of
blessing. The rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer have the force
of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church and they clearly say
that marriage is intended for a man and a woman. We did not reject
B033 (2006 Convention) which called for restraint in the
confirmation as bishops of individuals whose manner of life would be
problematic to the wider Church.
In light of all this, have we changed or are we trying to be
faithful to a changing landscape in a rapidly changing world?
Having fully participated in this process, I sense that we are
striving to be faithful.
Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Jones
Bishop Suffragan
|