October 7, 2003

Presentation for Panel on Public Policy, Private Belief

The Rev. Linda C. Johnson+

My remarks will focus upon the history and polity of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. I shall conclude with some theological comments.

How does one bring clarity to recent actions by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America? In August, this church moved forward the episcopal ordering of a gay man living in a covenanted relationship with another man; that, is, Canon Robinson will become a bishop of the church. The church also gave bishops permission to develop local liturgies for the blessing of same sex unions.

ECUSA is one province - or geographical area - of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide group of Christians who are in relationship to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Canterbury is to Anglicans what Rome is to Roman Catholics - with two important distinctions. The Archbishop of Canterbury does not have the authority to intervene in the affairs of any province – of which the United States is but one. Nor does he have the power to set doctrine or discipline for the worldwide communion.

The formation of the Church of England in the 1500s was the basis from which, several centuries later, the Anglican Communion was birthed. The Communion is rooted in communal prayer, collegial relationships among the provinces, consultation, and being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the spiritual leader of 77 million Anglicans and their 37 primates. The primate, or presiding bishop, for the oversight of the ECUSA, is the Rt. Rev. Frank Griswold. He is elected to serve in this capacity for a term of nine years.

The American Church traces its roots back to 1607 when the English came to this land. Following the American Revolution, the loyalist clergy fled to Canada and those who remained forged a new structure similar to that of the fledgling nation. Hence, this church is a bicameral body. It is both democratic and episcopal - ordered by bishops.

In the 1780's, following the American Revolution, three things were decided at once:

This national church is ordered by bishops, who have oversight and authority for the work of the church in specific geographical areas. They gather regularly for deliberation and action through the House of Bishops.

Lay people and clergy have comparable authority for the affairs of the church - but different areas of responsibility. As the House of Deputies, they meet simultaneously with the House of Bishops. Binding resolutions about the work of the church must pass both houses by a simple majority vote.

The United States developed its own Book of Common Prayer, which incorporated usages from Scotland and England.

Theologically, ECUSA continues to honor the Anglican approach to faith. It is anchored in scripture, tradition, and reason. These three things form and inform the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church. Depending upon one’s perspective, these three things – the House of Bishops, the House of Deputies, and the Prayer Book – have been considered to be political compromises or ecclesiological masterpieces - you choose.

This structure has cohered for over 200 years.. The church grew. It survived a split during the Civil War. It survived the fire storm surrounding the ordination of women in the 1970s and then the objections to the ordination of the Rt. Rev. Barbara Harris in 1989. An African American, she was the first female bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

And now, we are in the midst of another controversy which has two prongs – one is church polity, the other is theology and its practice. This controversy has been brewing since the early 1970s; hence, it is not new to the Episcopal Church.

The polity issue: Did the Diocese of New Hampshire conduct a duly constituted, canonical election for its new bishop? And, is its nominee, the Canon Gene Robinson, a priest in good standing? The answer to both these questions is yes.

Because the New Hampshire election occurred within 120 days of the General Convention, these questions were forwarded to Milwaukee for a vote, rather than having individual dioceses mail in a ballot. More than a simple majority of the House of Bishops voted in the affirmative.

The House of Deputies voted in the affirmative by more than a 2-1 margin. Both houses concurred that this was a duly constituted election and confirmed the episcopal ordering of Canon Robinson. He will be consecrated next month.

It is important to note that this vote on episcopal orders was not, in a technical sense, a referendum on sexuality. And indeed, there is nothing in canon law to preclude this election. The canons of the church state: No one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age. (Title III, 4:1)

The vote of General Convention to confirm Canon Robinson was an affirmation of the polity and structure of the church. We adhere to what we have agreed upon in terms of structure and process – even when we disagree with a particular outcome.

The other vote of General Convention was a reflection upon where this church is in relation to sexuality, especially homosexuality. A resolution, passed by both houses, provides a local option for developing liturgies to bless same-sex unions. Bishops may or may not give permission in their diocese to use such liturgies.

This use of local option is not new to the Episcopal Church. Indeed, it has been used for years in relation to the ordination of women. Even now, after nearly 30 years of opening the door to women in holy orders, there are still several bishops who decline to ordain us. This is a tension with which we live.

The theological issue: Canon Robinson is not the first gay priest in the church. Nor will he be the first gay bishop. He will, however, be the first bishop to model for the church an openness about his full humanity, a way of integrating his inner life with his public life. He is a human being. He is an outstanding priest. He lives in a covenanted relationship with another man.

The people of New Hampshire knew this. Knowing this, the people elected him to be their bishop and called him to live among them. Canon Robinson has agreed to serve. And yes, even though we are not of one mind about this, the national church has assented to his consecration, thereby upholding the church structure and process.

For me, the core issue in this swirl of conflict is not church polity. It is theological and revolves around our doctrine of humanity. Why is it so difficult for one human being to believe that another human being is fully a human being? How do we understand our humanness? How do we live with the tension that all people are made in the image of God, but not all people are a reflection of ourselves?

At a recent gathering of the diocesan clergy, our bishop, the Rt. Rev. Catherine Waynick, reminded us that Christ calls us not to agree with one another, but to love one another. There are good people, faithful people, who agree and disagree with the actions of General Convention. How do I, as a priest, hold the circle so that all people belong? That is a particular challenge to parish clergy. Let us not underestimate the toll this has taken upon our clergy.

In closing, I want to share three theological and ethical issues with you:

When we disagree with a policy or the polity of the church, we honor it or work to change it - we do not subvert it or ignore it. There is a local option which can be exercised, so let’s engage it.

Our unity as a church - and for that matter, as human beings – does not demand uniformity. We are not the same, you and I, but we are alike. As human beings, all people deserve honor and respect, as well as acknowledgment of their dignity and worth.

Let us remember that the community of the faithful and the community of scholars will outlive all of us. Knowledge and revelation are ongoing processes – in science, medicine, law, education, and theology.

Therefore, let us not rush to tack down the truth in fear of tripping over it.