General Convention 2006  |  Anglican/Episcopal News

A Personal Reflection on the Special Commission's Report
 By Sarah Dylan Breuer
Sunday, April 9, 2006
 

The report of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is out; it can be downloaded here.

I was a member of that commission, and I fully support our collective report. I thought a few people might be curious about why that is, so I offer these personal reflections (in no way am I speaking for the commission, or for any other body) so some might understand how someone with my values might find something of value in the report.

... true communion is based not on a superficial papering-over of differences, and most certainly doesn't require any of us to deny who we are, but rather requires us to respect the very real differences we have with one another as gifts ...
I'm an openly gay and partnered Christian who is passionately progressive. I've got a photo on my refrigerator of the moment when then-Canon Gene Robinson heard the news that General Convention had given consent to his election; that photo reminds me of what's best in our life together in the church, and that's why I keep it in a place where I'll see it several times a day. I am gladdened, not grieved, when I see that photo and when I think of that moment.

I'm also a person who first encountered and fell in love with the Anglican tradition in Africa. I'd gone to Kenya for a summer with InterVarsity's Overseas Training Camp program as a young evangelical who'd thought about being a missionary. But when I was there, I saw up close just how much harm can be done by a theology that is centered so much about going to heaven after death that it's almost exclusively about the afterlife. I lived with an African pastor in Dagoretti, a shantytown outside Nairobi, and listened to many American missionaries who drove in from the wealthy suburbs to tell families in Dagoretti that it didn't matter that their children had no clean water to drink and no decent health care, as those who accepted Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior would live in a mansion in heaven. I remember vividly one sermon along that theme that literally made me sick -- I had to go outside to throw up. But I did find a gospel that was actually Good News in the preaching and, more importantly, in the lives of Anglican clergy in Kenya who put their bodies literally on the line in protests for human rights. Seeing that made me want to check out this Anglican church, and that's what brought me here.

... the "very considerable caution" it encourages with respect to nominating, electing, and consecrating bishops is across the board -- not about a potential bishop's sexual orientation, but about her or his manner of life in a holistic sense.
All that's to say that I'm a person who values the communion we share as Anglicans not despite my desire for justice, but because of it. I believe that we Americans need to hear the voices of others around the world. Without that, we run the risk of becoming "McChristians," preaching a "gospel" co-opting Jesus' name for an agenda that, however unintentionally, is far too much about American hegemony. We need the voices of other Anglicans so that we preach a Christian rather than simply American gospel.

But I think we can go too far in the other direction in a way that shows just how much all extremes tend to look alike in practice. I've also seen Americans cook up such a brew of romanticism and exoticism in the way they "listen" to those abroad that the result is patronizing at best and oppressive at worst. Taking our sisters and brothers from across the Communion seriously as conversation partners means that we'll push back at times. I believe that Desmond Tutu is right: oppression dehumanizes the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Serious international listening should challenge not only Americans to think seriously about American hegemony, but also homophobes and heterosexists to think seriously about heterosexism, and those in power to think seriously about how they can empower those with less.

[The report] says a gentle but firm "NO" to the ecclesiology both implicit and assumed in the Windsor Report that presents bishops as the final word on church teaching or discipline, or worse yet as "princes of the church"
The charge to the special commission was to prepare General Convention to seek the highest degree of communion possible as we respond to the Windsor Report in particular, and also to some of the major responses to the Windsor Report that have already come out of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting. That charge to seek the highest degree of communion possible is one I embraced whole-heartedly and still do. I also believe that true communion is based not on a superficial papering-over of differences, and most certainly doesn't require any of us to deny who we are, but rather requires us to respect the very real differences we have with one another as gifts that may build up the Body of Christ and further our participation in God's mission of healing, justice, and reconciliation.

Throughout my time on the special commission, I kept something very intentionally in mind: namely the way Jesus taught his followers to respond when someone struck them in the face, or sued for their cloak, or when Roman soldiers forced them to carry their pack a mile. As Walter Wink has pointed out, Jesus' response was in each of these cases to do MORE than what was asked (or demanded), and yet to do so in a way that reclaims agency and reframes the situation in a way that transforms it utterly. My goal as I participated in the special commission's deliberations was to follow Jesus' way of relating to others, looking for a creative "third way" that called out the gifts and dignity of all concerned rather than getting drawn into the kind of "tit for tat" response that perpetuates conflict.

... our canons specifically disallow discrimination in access to discernment for any ministry or order of ministry in the church on the basis of sexual orientation, and I see not the faintest suggestion in the report that our canons ought to be amended on this point.
With this in mind, I wanted to ask (and often did so aloud), "Where is there room for grace here? What can I give to encourage and support conservatives? What will the rest of you give to support and encourage me and LGBT people affected by our words and decisions?" Other members of the commission responded to those questions, and often brought them up when I didn't. The report is not what it would have been had I been the sole author; in most ways, I believe it's better than that. It's far from perfect, but I believe it's a contribution to the conversation that could prove fruitful at convention, and here are some of the reasons I think so:

The report is even-handed. It asks Americans to consult with and listen deeply to our sisters and brothers around the world before making a decision that might affect them; it also invites our fellow Anglicans internationally to witness our life and discernment together. And it challenges all -- especially those reluctant thus far to do so -- to listen deeply to the crucial witness of lesbian and gay Anglicans, and recommends that General Convention instruct relevant bodies to seek ways the Anglican Communion Office can work internationally for the human rights of gay and lesbian people.

... our life together ought to be a visible sign to the world of the healing and reconciliation we believe God is about in the world.
The report opposes scapegoating of lesbian and gay people. It notes descriptively as a matter of historical fact that controversy and pain followed some of the decisions of General Convention 2003, but the "very considerable caution" it encourages with respect to nominating, electing, and consecrating bishops is across the board -- not about a potential bishop's sexual orientation, but about her or his manner of life in a holistic sense. Furthermore, the report presents homophobia (which would prevent a bishop's serving as a pastoral leader to lesbian and gay people) or heterosexism (which would compromise a potential bishop's ability to strive for justice for and respect the dignity of all) as a manner of life that could be grounds for denying consent to an election.

The report provides clarity about our polity and ecclesiology. It says a gentle but firm "NO" to the ecclesiology in the Windsor Report that presents bishops as the final word on church teaching or discipline, or worse yet as "princes of the church" (or, in jargony terms, the "monarchical episcopate"). It echoes Paul Marshall's excellent article in The Witness to correct the Windsor Report's mistaken language about our having "appointed" a bishop and "authorized" rites for same-sex blessings. It sets forth clearly that we hold the ordering of the church's ministry to flow from Baptism, that the gifts of the Spirit (including those for apostolic ministry) are poured out over all of God's people, and that we believe that lay people, deacons, and priests as well as bishops must have a voice in church councils (as surely the principle of "what touches all should be decided by all" should imply!). And for this reason, the report expresses appropriate wariness toward proposals such as adding the Primates as members of the Anglican Consultative Council when doing so threatens to drown out the voices of women.

If the legislative committee's proposals are less gracious toward LGBT people than our report was, it will be difficult for people not to think that someone took advantage of the lack of LGBT voices on the committee
The report recommends repentance for failures to live out our Baptismal Covenant, but affirms the good work of prior conventions. Here it is on page 27: "the Episcopal Church is not backing away from its prior commitments against discrimination, and for the dignity of and justice for all people." What does the report recommend we repent of, then? Of treating fellow members of the Body of Christ as if we had no need of them (S6), for breaching the "bonds of affection" in communion (para. 33, Resolution A160), for arrogance (para. 39, 40), for any failure to consult with our sisters and brothers in Christ on decisions affecting them (para. 43), and for insufficient attention to global poverty (para. 42, 60). In this sense, the report recommends that we do more than what the Windsor Report requests. In specific requests made of the Episcopal Church, the Windsor Report asks for "regret" rather than "repentance." The report's offering repentance -- concrete steps taken in amendment of life -- is "going the extra mile" in a way that I hope will be received as an indication of the depth of our desire to be in healthy, life-giving relationship or communion with our sisters and brothers around the world. The report doesn't crow about actions that some find painful to recount (something that would in any case have gone far beyond the commission's charge to examine how we might maintain the deepest level of communion possible across our differences), but neither does it suggest that we regret (let alone repent of) consecrating Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire or allowing priests to bless (a function they are specifically ordained to do) the commitment of couples whose lives bear witness to God's blessing, justice, and love. And finally, I can say personally that in the commission's discussions, I raised the point that our canons specifically disallow discrimination in access to discernment for any ministry or order of ministry in the church on the basis of sexual orientation, and I see not the faintest suggestion in the report that our canons ought to be amended on this point.

The report signals our desire as a church to remain in the Via Media that welcomes evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, progressives and conservatives of every sexual orientation, seeking reconciliation with and alongside every province of the Anglican Communion. I felt it of inestimable importance to make clear in the report that the Episcopal Church has and will continue to strive for full inclusion of all the Baptized in the life of the church and full justice for everyone God has made and loves. I believe that the church ought to make clear at General Convention that we need and welcome enthusiastically the gifts of lesbian and gay Christians for ministry. And I believe too that our life together ought to be a visible sign to the world of the healing and reconciliation we believe God is about in the world. Our witness in that regard is poorer for every way in which our congregations, our conventions, and our communion leave out people whom God has called, and for that reason I feel personally called to look for opportunities for grace not only for LGBT people, but for those who are still struggling with our full membership in the Body of Christ. And we North Americans need the witness of sisters and brothers in other parts of the world to experience the fullness of God's call to the church. For that reason, I believe the report's encouragement to engage in international consultation is healthy and helpful -- all the more so for including listening to lesbian and gay Anglicans and the kind of dialogue we witnessed among the Anglican delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

I'm counting on the whole church to provide support and accountability to leaders, to keep asking, "what way is most just?" "what way is most compassionate?" and, to paraphrase the great rabbi Hillel, "if not we, then who?" and "if not now, then when?"
All of this is not to say that the report is perfect. For example, it adopts the Windsor Report's language of "private pastoral response" to include Eucharists with blessings for same-sex couples with a text devised or adopted for the occasion, as opposed to authorized rites, which the report clearly defines in paragraph 53 as those appearing in the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Occasional Services, and Enriching Our Worship 1 and 2. It's language that I take was sufficiently clear for the authors of the Windsor Report, and I understand why some might feel that Windsor's most enthusiastic readers will better receive our response if it uses the Windsor Report's language when possible, but I continue to think that we could find language that is clearer internationally and also would work better in our own context. Perhaps the special legislative committee that will deal with the resolutions recommended in the report will find that better language. Unfortunately, the legislative committee is working under a major handicap in that (to my knowledge, though I would welcome correction) its membership includes no openly LGBT people at all, despite the many deputies and at least one bishop who are openly LGBT and would have been very well-qualified to serve. In that sense, while the legislative committee may be geographically and theologically comprehensive, it will have to be far more conscientious about seeking out and honoring the voices of LGBT people -- and, on a personal note to Ian Douglas, Sandye Wilson, Frank Wade, Charlie Osberger, Katherine Tyler Scott, Christopher Wells, and Dorsey Henderson, with whom I served on the special commission and who will be on the special legislative committee as well, I'm counting on you to raise the kinds of questions and make the kinds of points in discussion that you heard coming from my experience as an openly gay person. And I'm counting on the rest of the legislative committee, those I know well and those I haven't had a chance to meet yet, to help remind one another about the need to listen to LGBT people. If the legislative committee's proposals are less gracious toward LGBT people than our report was, it will be difficult for people not to think that someone took advantage of the lack of LGBT voices on the committee, and I value our work together too much to want that.

At the same time, I'm aware that neither the special commission's report nor the legislative committee's work will be the final word. It's one contribution to a conversation that began long before the Windsor Report and will continue far beyond General Convention 2006. I'm counting on the bishops and deputies at convention to continue to look for opportunities for grace and for clarity, for compassion and justice. And I'm counting on the whole church to provide support and accountability to leaders, to keep asking, "what way is most just?," "what way is most compassionate?," and, to paraphrase the great rabbi Hillel, "if not we, then who?" and "if not now, then when?" These are questions we need to ask in every moment as we prepare for and journey through General Convention 2006 and beyond.


Sarah Dylan Breuer is editor of The Witness. In her spare time, she maintains a website with a lectionary commentary series and a blog, and works throughout the church on issues of liturgy and faith. Dylan may be reached by email at editor@thewitness.org.