My prayers (for what they are worth) will be with my Episcopal brethren in California this weekend, as they vote on a new bishop Saturday — from a slate that includes, of its seven candidates, three openly gay individuals.
The sad thing is that so much attention is being paid to the question of sexual orientation — and, beyond that, the “message” and “problems” and “implications” of electing (or not electing) a gay bishop that no matter what happens, it will be seen as some sort of referendum on homosexuality, the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, etc. Some people will crow, or rant, that the choice was made solely or primarily on the basis of orientation, and that the sex life of the elected bishop will be the primary thing that he or she is known for.
That the election will then need to be confirmed at the General Convention this summer will no doubt lead to still more angst and anger.
My own thinking on this has evolved over the past several months, especially as I’ve watched the shenanigans of the conservative movement — at home and abroad — over this issue, and over who should be calling the shots as to what parishes, dioceses, and provinces do within the Communion. If, as one bishop in the NY Times article suggests, “schism is a greater sin than heresy” (a sentiment I can generally agree with), then I would put the onus on the conservatives, not on the liberals, here. It is they who are breaking fellowship — not being driven out, but choosing to leave, or threatening over and over to do so as a form of religious blackmail. I hope that the delegates to the electing convention in California make their decision based on the best pastoral leader for them, not over how it will play in the national or international church, or based on who (left or right) may leave if a gay person is (or isn’t) elected.
And if a gay person is elected, and that’s the only thing that the conservatives choose to see about him or her, and some of them leave — that’s their decision, not the fault of California diocese or the Episcopal Church.
I was at a diocesan meeting today – not a very exciting one, either, as it was about strategies for running a good stewardship campaign. Yawn, I know. The big news was whether anyone could get election news from California on our cell phone browsers (no wireless Internet available, alas).
We weren’t all that surprised at the outcome, but pretty disappointed for Bonnie Perry, who many of us know. She barely got a vote, as did the other two candidates whose sexual orientation was the reason the election got so much press coverage.
There were a lot of gay people, lay and clergy, in the room. They’ll go on being committed and doing a lot of the nuts-and-bolts work, but they were a little shocked today when someone wrote down the numbers for the first ballot and brought them in.
No idea what the original likelihood was of any of those individuals, if orientation had not been an issue, getting elected. Hopefully they were neither voted for, or against, because of that.
Though it’s hard when you have headlines like “Heterosexual Elected Bishop of California.”