|
A Statement from the Rev’d John
Bauerschmidt to the parish of Christ Church, Covington, on the 74th
General Convention
September, 2003
By now, everyone will know of the controversial
actions of the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which
approved the ordination of Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives with his
partner, to be the Bishop of New Hampshire, a position to which he had
been elected by that diocese. The Convention also, in Resolution C051,
affirmed that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of
our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and
blessing same-sex unions”.
You should at the same time know that I am on record in the
Illuminare (July 29), prior to
this past Convention, in affirming “that I believe the Church’s
traditional teaching on sex and sexual relationships, and that my own
belief is unlikely to change as the result of decisions of the General
Convention”. I told you then that I felt accountable to you for stating my
beliefs because of the controversy that I anticipated from the Convention.
I feel even more accountable now, and therefore am glad to reaffirm my
position. Of course, in discharging my duties as Rector I will act in
accordance with my beliefs.
Please bear in mind some matters of context that color the actions of the
General Convention. First, there is a traditional hesitancy in the
Episcopal Church to nullify the election of a bishop by a particular
diocese. It is not unknown, but it is rare. It is undoubtedly true that
some of the delegates that voted to confirm Bishop Robinson’s election did
so, not out of endorsement of the life he lives, but with this hesitancy
in mind. I do not find this line of reasoning convincing, but it is part
of the context of what happened.
Second, the Resolution C051 is ambiguous. Some delegates and delegations
voted for it because they believed the language to be descriptive rather
than prescriptive; to affirm nothing more than what in fact is true (and
has been for some time), that there are dioceses where such liturgies take
place. Attempts to discipline bishops who no longer uphold the traditional
teaching of the Church have been unsuccessful for the past ten years (and
ineffective for at least another ten years before that). Some delegates
opposed to same-sex blessings, mindful of this, saw themselves as
recognizing nothing more than the status quo in voting for the resolution.
It also ought to be noted that some delegates on the other side were
unhappy that the resolution did not go far enough, in actually authorizing
the creation of such liturgies. An alternative resolution which would have
done so was not approved by the Convention.
Third, the General Convention’s actions were not accompanied by a new
teaching, comparable in scope and scale to the Church’s traditional
teaching, justifying the actions. Elements of such a revised teaching are
present, of course, in resolutions of this Convention and the 2000
Convention (and perhaps even earlier), but it is not true that the
Episcopal Church has articulated a new (or convincing) theological
position to justify same-sex unions, to which members of the Church are
now bound. It is an open question whether such an articulation even could
be made, much less approved, by this or any other General Convention. The
wisdom of acting without justifying may well be doubted. The actions of
the Convention can be seen as signs of an internal incoherence that is
deeply disturbing. Still, there has been no new teaching to which we are
committed.
Finally, sexuality is an enormously complex subject, full of individual
variation on an almost baroque scale. It is too easily simplified by the
media and popular culture, not to mention bodies like the General
Convention. Yet this complex subject has become a critical means for
self-understanding and self-expression in modern society. The issues of
sex and sexuality are “hot button” items for us in a way that they never
were in the past. The ancient Greeks talked about “the soul”, while we
talk about “sexuality”. We can see our fixation all around us in the
subjects that engage us and provoke controversy. Sexuality is a part of us
that bears tremendous weight among modern people, who are increasingly
rootless and committed to an autonomous individualism that works against
community and a sense of proportion. It’s not that sexuality is
unimportant; it’s just being asked to bear a weight it can’t sustain. The
signs of fractured stress we see around us are the result.
Now, some prescriptions. I believe that Christ Church should remain the
place it has been in the past: a community where people are welcomed,
without being pilloried or turned away. I’m committed to this. I believe
Christ Church should remain a community firmly rooted, a “tradition-ed”
community that has confidence in what it has received and a readiness in
answering God’s call. I believe we should concentrate on the great mission
that is before us, and not on the soul-destroying agenda of infighting and
acrimony that has been prepared for us by some in the Church. “Slash and
burn” Christianity is not what we’re called to, yet this is the temptation
before us.
I believe that as Christians we ought to be in this for the long haul.
Anglicans believe that councils of the Church, like the General Convention
“may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God”
(Article XXI, BCP, pg. 872). This bespeaks a compelling modesty about the
councils of the Church, and a robust understanding that God is faithful in
spite of errors that may be committed by the faithful assembled in the
name of God. I believe that we are called to a similar modesty and a like
robustness of faith. At times of controversy about the Christian faith in
the past, in the early centuries where the very nature of the Gospel
seemed at stake, Christians persevered. The faith was not quickly
vindicated. The controversies about the nature of God and the being of
Christ raged for decades, over a course of centuries, without the faithful
“leaving the Church”. Some now have given the Church a mere matter of
weeks (if that) to sort itself out, without taking a long-term view.
I am committed to the Diocese of Louisiana, “one Church, united in
mission”, as our diocesan mission statement puts it. I seek no other
“parallel jurisdiction” while I minister here. Our bishop has modeled a
faithful, orthodox, and non-reactive response to recent events. God has
been good to us in this diocese and in our leadership. I believe that we
should support our diocese. Withholding of financial support to the Church
will not hurt the Diocese of New Hampshire, or any other diocese, at all,
apart from the Diocese of Louisiana. The institution that will be most
hurt will be Christ Church, Covington.
These issues are unresolved in the Episcopal Church, as they are in our
society. I believe that we should not be fooled by the media or by some in
the Church into mistaking the events of the General Convention as an end
to controversy or discussion about this in the Episcopal Church. The
General Convention is not an infallible magisterium for Episcopalians.
Whatever we believe, we need to be self-differentiated enough to know that
no public perception of the Church or the actions of others can define us
and our faith. What is called for now is patience and some trust in God by
all concerned, especially by those who feel alienated by the Convention’s
actions. Richard Meux Benson once observed, “We have not to maintain
truth, but to live in the truth so that it may maintain us”. I take these
words as addressed to myself, as a challenge to live my faith and to know
my dependence on God.
The Rev’d John Bauerschmidt is Rector of Christ Church, Covington.
|