The task force set up by Episcopal Bp. Ron O’Neill to try and determine the “common ground” within the diocese on same-sex issues has come up with a suggested compromise, which, all indications are, will be adopted by the bishop.
What the “liberals” give on this compromise:
- Put the idea of same-sex blessings on hold until the next ECUSA General Convention in 2006, at which time it will doubtless be reexamined.
- Not add any same-sex partnered clergy from outside the diocese until that time as well, though partnered clergy within the diocese could continue their work here.
What the “conservatives” give:
- Stop withholding diocesan pledges, to the tune about about $500k this year.
- Stop seeking “episcopal oversight” from outside the dioceses.
In other words, return to the Spring 2003 status quo, but with, perhaps, clearer rules on what the diocese is doing.
The Usual Suspect is not amused.
But the recommendations outraged the Rev. Don Armstrong of Colorado Springs. He is a member of the standing committee, the bishop’s advisory body, and pastor of one of the largest parishes in Colorado. He called the suggested compromises “a ploy.”
“So Rob (O’Neill) gets his money, conservative clergy fund him and the gay clergy get to do what they want,” Armstrong said Monday. “He’s trying to get us to sit still while everybody gets used to having practicing gay clergy in the diocese. This will push us to redouble our efforts to get others to restrict giving and seek episcopal oversight.”
Ah, Don, you old charmer.
The task force includes other recommendations. Among them, it asks that the concept of same sex blessings be submitted to “solid theological work” by church experts and not be considered only as a “social justice” issue, Huffman said.
He said O’Neill also insisted that the task force include one bedrock principle in its report: that the Colorado diocese would never be “separated from Canterbury,” a reference to the London headquarters of the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church USA is one of 38 provinces.
The outstanding questions are whether the compromise will hold up within the diocese (with or without Rev. Armstrong’s help — and it’s worth noting that Ascension has been notorious for not contributing to the diocese even before this year), and, if it does, then what happens when Canterbury issues its own decisions on the matter in October, or when the GC meets again in 2006.
Heck, what’s going to happen at the diocesan convention here in Colorado in a month or so?
I’m torn over this issue, obviously. Part of me thinks it’s just another delay, another luke-warm neither-fish-nor-fowl moment, wherein the church declines, once more, to take a stand. How far does one compromise on conviction in the name of unity? Or, conversely, how much should one compromise on unity in the name of conviction? In being Christlike (as one would hope a Christian church would be), does one seek to bring all to the Father, or take on the role of a divider of houses?
I know that this particular compromise will hurt a number of people, on both sides of the aisle, so to speak, without actually resolving anything. Is a resolution possible? Or even desirable? Can we remain in a theological limbo indefinitely?
We’ll see.
So, the question remains.
What is the Diocese/O’Neill going to do if Armstrong et al continue to withhold funds. It’s all well and good to say such and such is going to happen, but it doesn’t sound like there is anything to enforce his decision.
Is there a way for O’Niell to defrock/toss/demote Armstrong? Because that might be the only thing that will get his attention, otherwise it would have been better for O’Niell to have gone with one position or the other since the conservatives were going to do whatever they wanted anyway.
Oh….
And I like the Slime and Defend part of the Article.
In Colorado, the controversy was further inflamed in April. That’s when a lesbian pastor, the Rev. Bonnie Spencer, disregarded O’Neill’s call to wait and held a same-sex ceremony – though she insisted it was not a full liturgical blessing – with her partner at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Centennial.
See…Gay people can’t be trusted!
Based on past practice, the diocese isn’t going to do much about Armstrong’s parish not ponying up. They haven’t for quite some time (then loudly protest about not being involved in diocesan decisions, and not getting all the representation they think they should get at the diocesan convention).
As to what O’Neill can do about Armstrong directly, it’s a matter of having very few weapons short of nukes. Any attempt to boot him, even if canonically justified, would be horribly polarizing, much more than leaving him alone (or letting him walk). Even a “Godly Admonition,” assuming one has not been issued (they’re usually private) would be incendiary.
So…
Do I read this as a decision that will force the liberal/pro gay rights churches to tow the line, but the conservitive churches get to ignore and get to continue on as they have been for the past several years?
Why make a ruling then if it really isn’t worth the parer it is written on. Or is this just some political cover to drag this out until 2006?
Arrggg…
The blocker is annoying me. (note to self, copy out text prior to posting just incase it gets poofed).
Ahem…
So, as I read it, this decision really doesn’t do anything but put restrictions on the liberal/pro gay rights churches. The conservatives will continue to withhold money and if they continue to bitch to Torkelson, they may even get the representation they fell they deserve (squeaky wheel and all).
So why even make the ruling in the first place, or is it just political cover to wait things out until 2006?
Far be it from me to speak for the bishop …
As I see it (and I’ll understand better once I go to one of the public meetings they have scheduled), the decision (pending Bp. Rob’s approval as is) means:
Yes, to some degree it’s a putting-off-until-tomorrow sort of thing. As I said, I run both hot and cold on that. I doubt that a magical solution will present itself, but to some degree as a society each day that passes weakens the conservative opinion, IMO (hence Rev. Armstrong’s railing against it).
I find the two other items I quoted from the paper to be noteworthy, though — the recommitment to stay in communion with Canterbury (which may be out of our control, but …), and the need for any changes in the policy to be theologically based. Those are both important, for different reasons, and should be so for both conservatives and liberals.