no more bedhead

Last night, Keke lost another tooth. She put it under her pillow, and the tooth fairy brought her fifty cents. Unbeknownst to me, she brought that money to school and made a purchase. What did she buy?

Candy.

It's been a strange week. The Episcopal House of Bishops met this week in New Orleans to "craft a response" to the demands of the Primates of the Anglican Communion who met in Dar es Salaam in March. Basically the primates said, "Say you won't have any more gay bishops, or we'll kick you out of our club. Oh, and while we're at it, we want to have the final word over what you do." Fortunately to the latter request, the executive council of the Episcopal Church said at their meeting in June, "Uh...no. We will not have a group of primates peeking over Katherine's shoulder at every turn."

Some background: At General Convention in 2006, on the last day, in an attempt to make some sort of response as requested by the Windsor Report, the Presiding Bishop and the PB-elect went before the deputies and asked for their support on resolution B033. B033 says :

"...this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."

There was some fierce debate, but also a sense of urgency to make some sort of statement before the close of convention. Ultimately, the resolution was approved (Lay: 72 yes, 21 no, 7 divided; Clerical: 75 yes, 24 no, 4 divided). Since then there has been some debate about what B033 actually says.

On one hand, some say that it means that standing committees and bishops will not consent to the election of a gay or lesbian person as bishop.

On the other hand, some say that it is up to the standing committees and bishops to discern for themselves, mentioning the "exercise restraint" wording as being flexible.

On the third hand, some question what exactly is meant by "manner of life presents a challenge".

So, at the Primate's meeting in Dar es Salaam they decided to ask the bishops for clarification. Then there was the implied threat. I guess it wasn't so implied. Here's what was asked for(read the whole document here):

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

So, that's where we stood going into this week.

And, here's what came out of this week (full text here):

We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." (...The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.)

We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.

and then, a couple of paragraphs later:

We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church.

So, which is it? Full and equal, or not?

I'm not really sure where that leaves us. I guess Susan Russell said it best:

...while they[the bishops] "stood firm" against turning the clock back they utterly failed to move the church forward.

But, then (and in keeping with the Susan Russell references), I cried to read these comments.

I guess I was hoping for a strong statement, and I didn't get it. This is causing a sense of turmoil inside me. Saturday Mark will be at our Mission Summit, and hopefully he will have a chance to address some of these issues. He will also be doing an episcopal visit at our parish on Sunday, so again there's the chance to hear what he has to say.

After B033 passed, I felt the same way I do now, perhaps not as strongly. Mark was able to address the issues around its passage and I was able to trust in the process again. I hope that he can do the same this time, although I'm beginning to believe that General Convention may have to step in and take the bold move on these issues. We'll see.

Why am I so worked up about this? My friend Tracey is one of the candidates to be the next Bishop of Chicago. She is actively gay and partnered and very open about her sexuality. She is also a tremendous leader. The church will be worse off if she is not elected bishop (whether or not Chicago is the best fit, I don't know, but she should be a bishop somewhere).

Now Tracey is faced with a dilemma. The bishops have all but stated outright that if you are gay or lesbian, and you are elected bishop, we will not consent to your election. Assuming that Chicago elects Tracey, it would appear that she wouldn't receive consent, thus making her a scapegoat to the demands of the overseas bishops. If she withdraws her name, she capitulates voluntarily to those demands, and admits defeat. If she remains in the process, she risks accusations of "shoving it in the face" of the House of Bishops. And her election is too far away from GC2009 to have the convention consent. It seems like a no win situation.

But, if it's a no-win situation for Tracey, it's even more of a no-win for the Church. And I think that is what has me more upset than anything.

Ahoy, me scurvy dogs! Here be more treasure pilfered from the good ship Internet.

Pirate Joke:

A pirate walks into a bar wearing a paper towel on his head. He sits down at the bar and orders some dirty rum.

The bartender asks, "Why are you wearing a paper towel?"

"Arrr..." says the pirate. "I've got a bounty on me head!"

Wil Wheaton be in the piratin' spirit here.

When ye be havin' 'nuff o'the seas, an' be lookin' for a way to be refreshed (arr... not like that...of the spirit'l type) get yer mates together and cel'brate wi' th' Pirate Eucharist.

All ye scurvy dogs be known that Scowlin' Seamus Jones be me new pirate name. You be findin' your'n here.

Until the next time we be seein' ye on the high seas, be keepin' yer hat on, yer hook sharrrp, and yer leg free o' the termites.

Scowlin' Seamus Jones

Avast, today be International Talk Like a Pirate Day. We be celebratin' every September 19th. So, grab your grog an' your favorite wench, an' party wi' all the lubbers that be in your sights.

That be an order, from Cap'n Bill.