General Convention 2000 was supposed to be the Jubilee General Convention.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold had made it clear he didn't want any controversy and he sure didn't want anyone walking out. Many feared the "Frank Effect" would allow only a ratification of the status quo. The House of Bishops came perilously close to doing just that on the subject of enforcement of the canon on ordination in those dioceses that still refuse to ordain women or license female priests.

But you know they say be careful what you ask for, because you might get it. The Presiding Bishop got most of what he asked for, but I'm not sure it was what he wanted.

There is no question Denver was more irenic than recent General Conventions, especially in the debate on human sexuality. In fact, by the time Convention was over, those giant MMs emblazoned on banners, crosses, stoles, etc. could as easily have stood for the Mild Middle as for the Roman numeral 2000. It was quintessentially Episcopalian -- and it left the conservatives fuming.

Why? Because it is clear that "the middle" has moved, and it has moved to the left.

The evidence of this was most visible in the vote on resolve 8 of D036. In the three years since Philadelphia, the vote on developing a liturgy for same sex blessings remained almost exactly the same in the House of Deputies -- it won in the clergy order and failed by only a tiny bit in the lay order. The first seven resolves, spelling out an astonishingly lovely and loving theology of relationships, both straight and gay, passed handily with very little debate. The first seven resolves also passed handily in the House of Bishops, while resolve 8 got caught in the Frank Effect.

This is remarkable evidence of progress, for this positive vote happened in spite of Lambeth, in spite of Singapore, in spite of an intensive anti-gay and lesbian campaign, in spite of numerous threats of conservatives to leave if any action was taken on same-sex unions.

On human sexuality as well as on implementation of the canon on ordination, both those asking that nothing be done and those asking for action claimed to be speaking in the Jubilee spirit. And indeed they were, for some used Jubilee as meaning to lie fallow while the others used Jubilee as meaning release for the captives and justice for the oppressed, even for the "resident alien in the village."

It was the Jubilee spirit of liberation that prevailed, especially with the passage of the first seven resolves of D036 and in the passage of A045, dealing with implementation of Canon III.8.1 as it pertains to the ordination of women.

A045 began as a wimpy resolution out of the Executive Council. To the outrage of supporters of women's ordination, the original resolution practically simpered its approval of the "progress" made by the three non-complying dioceses and urged continued "monitoring" of their moves toward implementation.

A new resolution with tougher language was quickly proposed and put before the Commission on Ministry. Hearings were held, appropriately enough, in the Molly Brown Room at the Westin Hotel.

Deputies from Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin made heroic efforts to persuade the Commission that they were in compliance and, since in their view no further action was required, they would be pleased as punch to live with the original language of the resolution.

San Joaquin announced it had a female priest functioning in the diocese. Quincy announced it had four ordained women functioning in their diocese. And Fort Worth deputies pronounced Bishop Jack Iker's "Dallas Plan" a roaring success. To hear them tell it, things were looking pretty rosy.

However, questions by the committee soon elicited the information that the woman functioning in San Joaquin was not licensed; the four ordained women functioning in Quincy are deacons, not priests; and Fort Worth's Dallas Plan simply continues the practice of shipping women seeking ordination off to another diocese and does nothing to help lay people in the diocese who might seek the ministry of a female priest.

The Commission quickly folded the substitute resolution with tougher language into the old to create an A045 with some teeth -- pretty blunt teeth, but some teeth. They were contained in the third resolve, which states that a task force shall be appointed by Sept. 1, 2001, to "visit, interview, assess and assist" the bishops, standings committees, committees on ministry and "the people of" the three dioceses in coming up with a plan to fully implement the canon by Sept. 1, 2002.

The vote in the House of Deputies was swift and sure. The resolution was divided, with resolves one and two being voted on separately from resolve three, which established the task force. The vote was by orders. On resolves one and two, with 105 dioceses voting and 53 needed for passage, the lay order voted 90 yes, 10 no, and five divided. The clergy voted 95 yes, seven no, and three divided. On resolve three, the lay order voted 73 yes, 22 no, and 10 divided. The clergy voted 73 yes, 18 no, and 14 divided.

Afterwards, the three deputations arranged for a hastily called press conference at which no one from the Commission on Ministry was present. This resulted in each noncomplying diocese being allowed to present their point of view to the secular press unchallenged by any official voice from the prevailing side. Finally, the imbalance got so blatant that members of the church press, including this writer, stood to offer accurate statements of fact, such as how many provinces of the Anglican Communion ordain women. (More than half.)

The main themes the three spokespeople shared was that they are now being persecuted for their faith; that they will not leave the Episcopal Church, they will have to be thrown out; and that sending in "thugs" is not the way to treat one another in a spirit of Jubilee.

The next day the House of Bishops began its discussion of A045 with Presiding Bishop Griswold being asked to describe the situation in each non-complying diocese. He proceeded to give a description that was inaccurate, not just in some parts, but in EVERY detail.

So it was not reassuring when a substitute resolution, offered by John B. Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, "affirmed that there should be a non-adversarial conversation" about implementing the canons, and that "the Presiding Bishop sponsor and oversee this intended dialogue ... with the bishops of Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Quincy."

The Presiding Bishop didn't bother with the usual alternating of those for with those against the motion on the floor. He simply called on bishop after bishop who opposed to the original and favored of the substitute. These bishops included Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island, Catherine Waynick of Indianapolis, and Caroline Irish of Utah.

The low point of the discussion was marked by the retired bishop of Quincy, Donald Parsons, who thundered that, "If this is carried out, the diocese will be destroyed and the bishop will be in his coffin."

While neither of the bishops of the non-complying dioceses spoke on the floor [John David Schofield of San Joaquin was not present as he is recovering from heart surgery], they clearly had been talking with their fellow bishops. It reveals much about their mindset that the debate revolved around the issue of outsiders coming into their dioceses to "force" them into compliance. The assumption that the task force would be hostile was clear.

Finally, however, Catherine Roskam of New York challenged the bishops to show her one piece of theology opposing the ordination of women which is not based in the belief that women are not fully human.

Then Peter Lee of Virginia offered the bishops a graceful way out. He suggested that they pass the original, and then pass the substitute as a mind-of-the-house resolution. His suggestion was followed. In voice votes, the substitute failed, the original passed, and then the substitute was adopted as a mind-of-the-house resolution.

This resolution essentially gives the three non-complying dioceses three more years. The task force that is to be established has no enforcement powers. The most positive aspect of the resolution is that its language includes "the people of" the dioceses. This means that even if the bishops, the standing committees and committees on ministry refuse to meet with the task force - as Canon Charles Hough announced would be the case in Fort Worth - the members could still meet with individual parishes and individuals to discuss a plan for implementation.

What will happen next? This vote further marginalizes the three dioceses from the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. This could mean they will just dig in deeper.

But the firm action taken by General Convention might also serve to persuade the diocesan bishops to engage in more open dialogue in their respective dioceses than has been the case in the past. Perhaps such conversations will open up creative ways for them to live into implementing the canon without anyone threatening anyone else. Why not? The Holy Spirit has been showing up in pretty unlikely places lately.

-- Katie Sherrod is Vice President of the Episcopal Women's Caucus and attends church in the Diocese of Fort Worth

Holy Spirit strikes again

While the positive vote on the first seven resolves of D036 was amazing, coming in the wake of Lambeth, Singapore, an intensive anti-gay and lesbian campaign, and numerous threats of conservatives to leave, this in no way lessened the pain felt by gay and lesbian Episcopalians at the rejection of resolve 8. Once again, their request for a rite to bless their committed unions failed.

Integrity held a Eucharist the evening of the vote in the House of Deputies. Even though the hastily arranged event was in a meeting room stuck in a back hallway at the Marriott, a surprisingly large number of people, straight and gay, found their way there. And even more tried but failed to find it.

As people began gathering, the pain in the room was palpable. An exhausted Michael Hopkins, Integrity president, sat wearily in a chair, fingering his stole like a tired child seeking comfort. He spoke of his sorrow over the vote on resolve 8, and then fell silent. Others began to speak, and as they did tears flowed, anger flared, and hearts broke.

Then someone spoke of hope, another spoke of loving one's opponents, and yet another told of a gentle encounter. Soon someone began to sing, softly at first, and then louder, prouder. Someone else began to "dance in the light of God" and soon where there had been pain, there was laughter, where there had been sorrow, there was joy.

By the time people began leaving, healing had happened and hope was renewed. Once again, the Holy Spirit demonstrated the transforming power of grace.

-- K.S.