My impressions and thoughts, on first reading, of the report of Bishop's Task Force. Those who have no interest in religion, Christianity, the Episcopal Church, its Colorado Diocese, or other such metaphysical stuff, can and should skip on to the next post, 'cause there's a lot of material to wade through here and I'm thinking as I'm writing ...

I've objected to the naming of the "Bishop's Task Force" as such, since it was my understanding (and, indeed, the understanding of most folks) that its goal was to address issues of sexuality in the church, and how those issues staked out both common ground and areas of division. To that end, I though it should be the "Task Force on" something.

On reading the report, though, it makes quite a bit more sense. The goal of the Task Force was a lot broader than all of that, and its final outcome broader still. This will dissatisfy folks who were looking for The Answer (which they could then either parade around on their shoulders or else decry from the pulpit), and some will consider it a dodge. But in some ways it's both a more important and more Anglican document for all of that, trying to establish broad principles from which more narrow judgments can then be drawn.

As Bp. O'Neill puts it in the charge to the TF, the objective was not to "produce a definitive theological statement regarding human sexuality and the Christian faith," nor to "resolve" the issues raised by the General Convention. Instead, it was to identify those issues, the "basic, but differing, assumptions" folks the diocese bring to the matter, define our common "core values and beliefs," and to establish norms, policies, and mechanisms to "facilitate our living together in disagreement."

This is, at the outset, going to upset some folks, who think that the issue is that there is an issue -- that the matters of human sexuality in question are so self-evident in their resolution that anyone on the Other Side is clearly deluded, apostate, bigoted, or all three. Again, either the bishop has side-stepped a defining moment, or else has recognized it as something bigger than that (I'm still undecided myself, and it may not be an either-or proposition).

The report's introduction lays the foundation for what follows, in that it finds that its review of the "landscape" of the diocese and broader church revealed "a breakdown in a commonly articulated and understood set of foundational commitments that could guide us and mark us as Anglican Christians." These commitments led the TF to developing a "Diocesan Rule of Life," similar to a religious community's rule of life. Quoting one TF member, such a rule is ...

... not so much a code of legislation but a means of regulating and regularizing. A rule sustains identity by mandating the rhythms of worship, spiritual discipline, prayer and rest, work and ministry. It sets out the patterns by which authority is distributed and where accountability is expected. It delineates the bounds of the community and describes the processes of initiation, and it connects the practices and ideals of the particular community ... with the Gospel and the Christian mystery.

What then follows is something one might expect from a Church Council: a redefinition of what being an Episcopalian, particularly in our diocese, should mean in terms of church relationships, with a goal of "a Diocese where gracious (even if difficult) disagreement about issues of sexuality -- not an enforced adherence to a particular stand -- is the norm."

The nine principles of the Diocesan Rule of Life, as described, are:

1. Christian doctrine: As codified in the Councils of the Church, in particular the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Not too much controversial here (unless you're Bp. Spong). The commentary that derives from this principle (p. 11) does include some noodges as to the geographical and structural unity of the Church, which won't make the conservatives (seeking alternative oversight, if not alliance with other provinces) happy.
   A recommendation stemming from this is that the Diocesan Rule of life be part of an (articulated) preparatory course material for folks going through various initiatory rites, which course material needs to be further articulated and include Episcopal and Anglican information.

2. Corporate liturgy and worship: Founded on #1, and as contained in the BCP and other formally approved worship materials. That's the "Sunday" aspect of a church, and isn't likely to raise any eyebrows, except as it calls into question unauthorized liturgical materials.
   
   The recommendations stemming from this include a full articulation of the authorized worship materials for the diocese, limitations of communion only to the baptized, and a policy on how special liturgies are (publicly) authorized.
   
   More importantly, it includes the recommendation regarding same-sex blessings, etc., further detailed below.

3. Bishops: The "apostolic successor, guardian of the faith, chief pastor, priest, and teacher," the "visible manifestation of our unity as the Body of Christ in this Diocese." That's pretty straight Episcopal theology (hence the name), but I can imagine a number of folks inserting internal caveats over the worthiness of the individual serving as bishop to hold that role.
   
   Recommendations from this principle include renewing of baptismal and ordination vows at the diocesan convention, setting up a trained media spokesperson for the diocese (and both encouraging clergy to refer questions to same, and to receive media training themselves), and increased time spent between the bishop and the clergy.

4. Communion: The Communion with Canterbury and "mutual interdependence" with other provinces of the Anglican communion. Again, nothing controversial on the face of it here, though liberals might be less eager to embrace those "other provinces" that reject same-sex relationships, and conservatives might think there's a trap in the idea that "this communion is lived out most authentically in a diocese, under a bishop, through local congregations that embody the mission and ministry of the diocese as they are the center of life and faith for individual Christians."
   
   Recommendations include the bishop publicly restating "his intention to remain in unimpaired communion" with Canterbury, greater education and communication in the diocese regarding the Communion, and clearer policy and goals as to what ministries are best handled at what level (congregational, diocesan, provincial, communion).
   
   Also in the recommendations is recognition and provision for restricted giving in the diocese, where parishioners are restricting their donations from the diocese or national church, or to only certain programs there. Such restricted giving ought to be auditable (per church canon), and ought to lead to increased dialog between those congregations and the bishop.

5. Diversity: Both theological and ideological, "is a strength and necessity of our life together ... and cannot justify refusal of the sacramental ministry of any member of the clergy in good standing in this Diocese." In other words, no night of long knives for priests on the Left or the Right -- and, a clear statement that to refuse to consider valid (or to receive) a sacrament from a member of the clergy (because, as an example, s/he is gay, or to protest their political stand) is, in fact, heretical (Donatist), which is kind of interesting in a splash-of-cold-water way. "One fundamental Christian value we are called to share is humility, by which we recognize the integrity of each person and value our differences. The only hope of authentically living out the Gospel is to recognize the Gospel being lived out by one another."
   
   Recommendations under this principle include a commitment by Bp. O'Neill that there will be no "theological litmus test" for ordination or deployment, that the bishop make a scheduling priority diocesan gatherings of clergy and laity, and that "diocesan clergy who will not receive sacramental ministry from the Bishop or his authorized clergy representative as a form of protest be subject to a process of reconciliation and discipline."

6. Discipline: You gotta walk the walk, in order to create "a climate of mutual accountability, trust, collegiality, and transparency." Pointed looks at both ends of the spectrum.

7. Bishop stuff, redux: Given the above, the diocese needs "gracious submission to the authority of the Bishop" -- and, in turn, "gracious exercise of episcopal authority" by the Bishop. Yeah, I can hear the cries, but he was ungracious first!
   
   Recommendations include the bishop seeking "every reasonable pastoral alternative to canonical process when confronted with conflict within the diocesan family," and his getting a mentor and a chaplain.

8. Decision-making: Given the above, "decisions to change policy and practice within this Diocese are to be conducted in and guided by a spirit of gracious charity and prayerful attentiveness." That cuts both ways, too: folk need to have that "charity and attentiveness in our congregations and diocesan gatherings," but it also requires that policies and practices "are articulated in a clear, consistent, unified, and transparent manner." Be nice, be open, be honest. Hard to argue over that, though I expect lots of finger-pointing excuse-making over that, too.
   
   The commentary on this principle notes that "Gracious conduct begins most effectively in the local church and continues globally. Ungracious conduct such as deceit, gossip, slander, innuendo, and other uncharitable behavior hinders our corporate ability to discern clearly and faithfully the mind of Christ. Gracious conduct in disagreement always includes both civility and truthfulness; charity does not preclude rigorous dialogue."
   
   Recommendations include providing resources for clergy and congregations "to facilitate difficult conversations of different kinds," and consultation with other dioceses (and denominations) on "the impact and potential global ramifications of proposed changes to diocesan policy and practice."

9. Change: This is, in some ways, the biggy, since some folks expect change in doctrine to be adopted instantaneously, and others think all such doctrine are already clearly and fully laid out and cannot be changed. It's also the fuzziest of the principles, in terms of language, which deserves (reluctantly) quotation in full: "Growing into the mind of Christ is a dynamic process of spiritual transformation over time. This process assumes a constant creedal core of doctrine translated through a consistent process of strategic and structural change. Mechanisms already exist to facilitate discernment about particular changes for our common life." I read that to mean, Understanding what God wants from us is an ongoing matter, subject to well-founded change. We have a process for doing so, and if we approach these matters with discipline and good-will, we can work it out. Optimistic, perhaps, and unsatisfactory no doubt for folks on either polarized side of this particular debate.
   
   Recommendations include clarification and teaching on how "the diocesan decision-making process" works, "pastoral teaching on the appropriate role of conscience and of prophetic ministry in our common life."
   
   Further, the bishop should form a working group of "qualified diocesan theologians and scholars ... representing the full current range of diocesan perspectives" to make a "sustained reflective study of the theological issues surrounding pastoral care to members of the Diocese in varied circumstances of human sexuality." The group would produce materials regarding "the best thinking of the Anglican tradition ... concerning an Anglican ethic of human sexuality" that could be used to inform "youth, single young adults, young married and unmarried couples, parents, divorced persons, older single adults, and gay and lesbian persons." In other words, let's figure out what the teaching is (or teachings are), and teach it (them). A no-brainer, one would think, but it's something that few folks have been willing to step up to the bat regarding, at least on a diocesan level.

The "headline" bits from the report are the recommendations from Principle #2, which deserve more spelling-out.

The report calls for a "time of restraint" in the diocese, "recognizing that in our current lack of collegial trust the possibility for real collegiality and truly rigorous dialogue is undermined by anathematizing and lobbying behaviors stemming from a variety of theological perspectives," i.e., by folks yelling at each other. The restraint would include:

• "The intentional and faithful setting aside of uncharitable and polarizing behaviors and the holding accountable of people who engage in these sorts of behaviors." Yes, Rev. Armstrong, I'm looking at you.

• "No implementation of the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO)," which lets parishes look to other bishops instead of the diocesan one. As many conservatives consider this essential, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

• "The cessation, in any form, of the blessing of same-gender unions, irrespective of prior agreements, practices, or policies, whether stated, written, or perceived." This is a biggy, and will not be well-received by some (just as it will be dismissed by others as insufficient).

• "No deployment of partnered gay or lesbian clergy persons not already in the Diocese." I suppose I understand this, although, again, some will consider this discriminatory and others will think it not nearly sufficient.

The "time of restraint" is to "rebuild trust," to allow what the Archbishop of Canterbury has called "passionate patience," and to prepare for further discernment from the next General Convention (and the Lambeth Commission). Is it all a sham, a way to delay? As I read it (in detail, not in newspaper summary form), no. It, and this time, is needful. And pooh-poohing of these items aside, adherence to them would indeed entail significant sacrifice from both sides of this particular debate -- "sacrifice in the sense of freely and generously giving for the greater good, not in the sense of woefully giving up" -- while the diocese prepares for what the GC will come up with.

That preparation, also recommended by the TF, includes:

• Considering parallel processes to, if the GC allows same-sex unions, allow parishes to either authorize such unions (as Bp. O'Neill would likely do) or request DEPO.
• Pursuing "rigorous dialogue" about same-sex blessings and DEPO in a "theologically divergent" working group.
• Convening a special diocesan convention to respond, if needed, to this fall's Lambeth Commission report (the LC is considering whether ECUSA did a bad thing at GC, and, if so, what to do about it).
• Assurances from Bp. O'Neill that, "as far as it lies in his authority, he will not require clergy to bless same-gender unions." That's a key item, and in keeping with the church's policies regarding female clergy (policies in effect to this day, and to this day there are bishops who will not ordain female priests).

When all is said and done, what does it mean?

In part, that there are no easy answers. If the unity of the church is to be considered of value (and, up to a point, it's of tremendous value), then seeking a way through such heart-felt opposing beliefs is incredibly difficult, and requires a true unity to even hope to accomplish. This report outlines how such a community could be (re)formed.

But that all depends on folks taking a "leap of faith" to make it happen -- willingness to set aside grievances and outrage and desire to have it all happen right now, and their way, and reach out, be one, and then tackle it again with patience and love. Can the more active voices on either side of the debate make that happen? It's difficult to say, particularly given some the rhetoric already splashed across the newspapers, which rhetoric (and, granted, it's just what the newspaper chooses to highlight) seems more focused on who wins and who loses -- not exactly what Christians ought to be focusing on.

I confess to a certain skepticism when I first read the "headline points" of the report, but having now read it as a whole and attempting to understand what it's driving at (both of which anyone interested in this matter ought to do first), I'm much more impressed. It doesn't downplay the very real debate that exists over matters of human sexuality and God's will regarding them, but it puts first things first -- attempting to establish a church framework in which such matters can be discussed and, perhaps, resolved. Frankly, I think we could do far worse than see the principles and recommendations of this report adopted by the diocese. I do indeed hope that is what happens, and hope that the attempt to heal the rifts that have occurred does not come too late.

Filed under :: Religion

"Mechanisms already exist to facilitate discernment about particular changes for our common life."

The mechanisms here are the mechanisms that modify the explicit confession of the church. I am afraid the cart came before the horse where an implicit rather than explicit change was made. This is not the Roman Catholic church with semper idem. Even the conservatives agree that there can be change, but change must be agreed to by the church prior to implementing the change.

By shutting out people who are playing by the explicit doctrinal rules, rebuking dissent, and cutting off the DEPO relief valve, you pretty much guarantee schism. “The intentional and faithful setting aside of uncharitable and polarizing behaviors and the holding accountable of people who engage in these sorts of behaviors.” directly contradicts “rigorous dialogue”. So, only the in crowd in the working group get a voice. All others are marginalized and rebuked. In my mind, this is a recipe for disaster.

The "mechanisms" that exist are detialed in the Commentary on Principle 9, on p. 22, ranging from vestries at the local level to provincial synods such as the General Convention to groups such as the Lambeth Conference on the communal level. Clarity in these processes, as well as consideration and consultation beyond the decision-making body as to how a change will have an impact, are intended help keep bring the opinions and belief of all the church to the table.

I do not believe that "rigorous dialogue" requires "uncharitable and polarizing behaviors." I would offer up Dr. Rev. Radner as an example of someone whose opinions I sometimes find myself in disagreement with, but always respect as both rigorous *and* charitably expressed. Dissent is not what is rejected, but the manner by which that dissent is pursued.

I am less certain as to the DEPO provisions. That feels more like a shell game that only ultimately drives broader divisions within the church, and also removes the need for further dialog. Such provisions may well be necessary in some instances, but I'm not convinced that the Diocese of Colorado is yet in that boat. (But, then, I'm not one of the folks seeking such an option.)

Though it has been a while since we have had a deeply held issue create a schism that brought about a new denomination, might it not be time for such a thing? (Not necessarily supposing it would occur in the Episcopalian church.) I can understand the need to speak calmly and with measured voices, something this document does seem to ask for, but what if the best that can be achieved is 'agree to disagree' theologically? And what will the theologians base their decision on - the words of Jesus or the tomes of dusty church doctrine?

What will the theologians base their decision on - the words of Jesus or the tomes of dusty church doctrine?

Well, there are those who would say that the two are one and the same, and other who would say that perception is part of the problem, and still others who would call on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ...

It may very well be that this will turn out to be a major schism. If I had to guess, I'd put that at about 40% likely, give or take. I think it can be averted, but I doubt that it can be averted without some folks leaving regardless. And that may, yes, be appropriate.

The question becomes, since it's unlikely that many folk's theological opinion is going to be signifiantly swayed by further study, *can* we "agree to disagree"? Or is a separate denomination necessary?

I dunno.

My concerns are more about the people than about either Rev. Radner or Armstrong. They are both big boys and can take care of themselves. When you put the words polarizing and uncharitable together you create a problem. Ezekiel was instructed that the faithful shepherd warns the flock and the unfaithful one does not. In this case, the so-called polarizing behavior is charitable because it indicates the shepherd's love for his sheep. When the Pharisees were attacking the flock, Jesus, the Good Shepherd, used the most strident of language against them. The style of the language whether irenic or polemic does not indicate one way or another about the underlying heart condition. The charitable thing to do is not (to ride again my hobby horse) impute motives, but to allow for a whole range of styles of discourse. The irenic communicator is not necessarily a "peace monger" nor is the polemic communicator necessarily uncharitable.

The overall context needs to be understood. Given the fact that a number of other bishops have been playing hardball politics where obedience to the bishop trumps obedience to conscience or Scripture, I have witnessed a number of people expressing extreme dismay concerning this report. They see this as more of the same. That's why there are so many churches in this diocese who are seeking alternative oversight. Hopefully, Bishop O'Neill will address this by not playing hardball and being pastoral. This includes in my opinion going against the recommendations and allowing for alternative oversight. If he goes the condescending and false accusation route, however, the results could get ugly.

Given the fact that a number of other bishops have been playing hardball politics where obedience to the bishop trumps obedience to conscience or Scripture, I have witnessed a number of people expressing extreme dismay concerning this report.

I've read of that happening as well, and understand that as a potential concern. My impression of Bp. O'Neill from my encounters with him is that he will not play that sort of hardball -- but I'm still not sure that DEPO is the appropriate answer.

I can both appreciate and respect zeal in protection of one's belief and faith (and that goes for folks on both ends of this particular debate). I think it's a tool that is very easty to lose control of, however, and the reaction to it can also flare in the undesired direction. It seems to me that some of the rhetoric I've heard already regarding the TF report from Rev. Armstrong (understanding that it's not a complete statement by him, but selective quotes in the paper) both imputes motives and continues to draw lines, and I just cannot see that as something respectible or tolerable.

Like you I prefer the approach of the Rev. Dr. Radner. But you will recall his dismay in June over the utter lack of transparency in the decision-making process. When the reasonable get shut out, the bomb-throwers and demagogues enter. When there is excess secrecy conspiracy theories abound. So, I recommend three things here:

1. Hold on lightly to power. A wise presbyter once told me if you have to say you are in charge, you are not in charge. This is why I think DEPO is a good idea. Making it clear that you will allow it will actually make it less likely that such avenues are explored. Many people feel trapped now and may look to extreme solutions because of it.

2. Sunshine. Colorado's open meeting law is a good place to start for first principles here. There are very few reasons for doing things behind closed doors. It is also Biblical, cf. 1 Thess. 5:

5You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. 7For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. 11Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

3. The Listerine Principle. Mean what you say and say what you mean. Post-modern deconstruction of terms only breeds suspicion.

But you will recall his dismay in June over the utter lack of transparency in the decision-making process. When the reasonable get shut out, the bomb-throwers and demagogues enter. When there is excess secrecy conspiracy theories abound.

I agree completely, which is one reason why I found the report's call for clarity and transparency of both policies and policy-making very refreshing and positive.

There are cases where secrecy, or confidentiality, are necessary, from an employment and pastoral and confession standpoint. Too often, though, secrecy is used, if not to conspire maliciously, then to avoid (for today) controversy. That sort of thing almost always backfires in the long run.

My concern with the DEPO stuff is not so much how it affect rightful exercise of authority (though there is that), but how it increases polarization, by making it easier for like to flock to like, reducing the diversity of opinions a particular bishop represents or must deal with. Your observation that the option being available may reduce its exercise is well-taken, though.

Aside from that, I agree with your three points.

A response from Rev Dr Ephraim Radner regarding the task force report. His primary critique is what he sees as a dearth of reference to Scripture (which he seems to attribute to concerns about that being a double-edged sword for those accepting of gays in the church). I don't know that I, as yet, agree with him (I need to reread both the report and the critique again), but, as always from Radner, it seems to be a courteous, heart-felt, and reasoned analysis.

Dave, just read in today's Rocky that our Bishop is so pleased with the state of affairs he has created during his tenure that he is poised to spend Diocesan money (and I thought we had a shortfall?) on a PR firm, headed up by a recent Planned Parenthood spokesperson, to "communicate" better with his flock. Have you offered to simply tune up the empty Diocesan website that suddenly went radio silent just when things controversial cropped up? I would bet the house that your services could save him buckets-o-money, and would not send traditional, orthodox Episcopalians spinning into orbit nearly as quickly as will the peculiar strategem he has chosen.........! There is a fine harumph on the subject at http://mcj.bloghorn.com/ entitled "Revenge of the Episco....." Well, anyways, my best to Margie, the youngest lady of your manor, and all my pals at Good Shep--Bob

One of the recommendations of the task force was to bring in a professional to handle media communications (as well as media training for the clergy and other diocesan employees). Given that everyone and their father seem more than willing to chit-chat in public or on the web about diocesan problems, I don't think hiring someone as the designated go-to for Jean Torkelson, et al., is that bad an idea.

If it also assists in facilitating communication within the diocese, and getting it out to the trenches in a clearer and swifter fashion, I also have no problem with that. And, yes, beefing up the diocesan web page (which has been content-light and rarely timely for quite some time) would be a part of that. (And if I had the time to do it, yes, I'd volunteer my services.)

The previous employment of the spokesperson in question is irrelevant.

Many companies with 35k employees hire professionals to deal with communication, internal and external. I see no reason why the diocese should not, if it does actually improve communication.

"The previous employment of the spokesperson in question is irrelevant." This is still a small state (small town?) in some ways. Many of us have heard and seen Ms. Brilliant. In politics, there is such a thing as reaching across the aisle. This would not be an example. This bishop desperately needs credibility with those who have felt alienated since and by his election and ensuing events (recall he was the most liberal choice available to those electing the new Bishop of Colorado). For many, this Bishop's election was the first warning (or first public warning for most of us anyway) signalling a sharp theological shift away from traditional understandings of scripture for the Diocese of Colorado. If fears of such a shift are groundless, as I am so often assured, why on earth would this Bishop want his own spokesperson to be someone who already has so antagonized the very people he most needs to reach (broadsides leveled fairly recently and right here in River City, not on some dimly-recalled tour of duty with the National Guard or a Swift Boat)? A little crossing of the aisle might go a long way, and his choice seems most incendiary (but then I thought that about this Bishop himself when he was elected, and I have before and since been assured otherwise). Only time will tell if Ms. Brilliant can do better than the Bishop himself in preventing upset, turmoil and controversy among the more traditional and orthodox among his flock. Dave, you may be right that the change will be good--after all, it would be hard for the diocese to do worse in reaching theological traditionalists. Best to all, my brother--Bob

If Ms. Brilliant has a previous adversarial relationship with various groups in the diocese, I would agree her selection was ill-advised.

Okay, Uncle. I have no idea what this report is saying and the article above doesn't help. What _real_ leverage does the Anglican Communion have over the ECUSA? If it has any, how will it (if at all) use that leverage? It seems to me that that's the bottom line. I can't see the ECUSA giving an inch unless there is leverage applied. The status quo is a de facto 'victory' for the ECUSA. So, does this report demonstrate any real movement against the status quo?

Apologies, I thought this was the Communion's Report. But I suppose at least part of my question could still be addressed here?

I'm not a canon lawyer, just a slightly educated layman, so bear that in mind in the folllowing answer ...

As the Anglican Communion is structured, the only "leverage" that the AC has (assuming that the AC can be considered to speak with one voice) is that of moral suasion and playing upon what weight the average Episcopalian gives to being "in communion" with the rest of the AC.

Actually, the lynchpin to the AC is not who's in communion with whom, but whether folks are in communion with Canterbury. Those in ECUSA who are interested in brinksmanship won't be swayed by whether the Province of the Anglican Church of Somewhere In The Southern Hemisphere is in communion with ECUSA -- they're only interested in whether they are in communion with Canterbury. And, in turn, it seems very unlikely to me, given the bent of both the Anglican Church and the ABC, that Canterbury is likely to threaten impairment or break with ECUSA.

Indeed, I suspect that, from the perspective of Anglican unity, the threat is not that Africa will break with the US, but that it will break with the UK in the face of Canterbury being unwilling to crack the whip.

Regardless, the basic structure of the AC is that, UN-like, nobody has any legislative control over what goes on in another province (which is why more conservative provinces have been able to not ordain women without being declared as evil apostates by more progressive provinces). If the conservative provinces want to change how that works, they need to realize it's a double-edged sword. If they don't, but can't tolerate what's going on in the North, then it mayu spell the end of the AC -- but that's the very weakness (and strength) of a non-controlling/coercive ecclesiastical structure.