{"id":6443,"date":"2004-09-01T11:03:36","date_gmt":"2004-09-01T18:03:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/2004\/09\/01\/theological-bits-and-pieces.html"},"modified":"2004-09-01T11:03:36","modified_gmt":"2004-09-01T18:03:36","slug":"theological_bit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/09\/01\/theological_bit.html","title":{"rendered":"Theological bits and pieces"},"content":{"rendered":"

My impressions and thoughts, on first reading, of the report of Bishop’s Task Force<\/a>. Those who have no interest in religion, Christianity, the Episcopal Church, its Colorado Diocese, or other such metaphysical stuff, can and should skip on to the next post, ’cause there’s a lot of material to wade through here and I’m thinking as I’m writing …<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I’ve objected to the naming of the “Bishop’s Task Force” as such, since it was my understanding (and, indeed, the understanding of most folks) that its goal was to address issues of sexuality in the church, and how those issues staked out both common ground and areas of division. To that end, I though it should be the “Task Force on<\/em>” something.<\/p>\n

On reading the report, though, it makes quite a bit more sense. The goal of the Task Force was a lot broader than all of that, and its final outcome broader still. This will dissatisfy folks who were looking for The Answer (which they could then either parade around on their shoulders or else decry from the pulpit), and some will consider it a dodge. But in some ways it’s both a more important and more Anglican document for all of that, trying to establish broad principles from which more narrow judgments can then be drawn.<\/p>\n

As Bp. O’Neill puts it in the charge to the TF, the objective was not to “produce a definitive theological statement regarding human sexuality and the Christian faith,” nor to “resolve” the issues raised by the General Convention. Instead, it was to identify those issues, the “basic, but differing, assumptions” folks the diocese bring to the matter, define our common “core values and beliefs,” and to establish norms, policies, and mechanisms to “facilitate our living together in disagreement.”<\/p>\n

This is, at the outset, going to upset some folks, who think that the issue is that there is <\/em>an issue — that the matters of human sexuality in question are so self-evident in their resolution that anyone on the Other Side is clearly deluded, apostate, bigoted, or all three. Again, either the bishop has side-stepped a defining moment, or else has recognized it as something bigger than that (I’m still undecided myself, and it may not be an either-or proposition).<\/p>\n

The report’s introduction lays the foundation for what follows, in that it finds that its review of the “landscape” of the diocese and broader church revealed “a breakdown in a commonly articulated and understood set of foundational commitments that could guide us and mark us as Anglican Christians.” These commitments led the TF to developing a “Diocesan Rule of Life,” similar to a religious community’s rule of life. Quoting one TF member, such a rule is …<\/p>\n

… not so much a code of legislation but a means of regulating and regularizing. A rule sustains identity by mandating the rhythms of worship, spiritual discipline, prayer and rest, work and ministry. It sets out the patterns by which authority is distributed and where accountability is expected. It delineates the bounds of the community and describes the processes of initiation, and it connects the practices and ideals of the particular community … with the Gospel and the Christian mystery.<\/p>\n

What then follows is something one might expect from a Church Council: a redefinition of what being an Episcopalian, particularly in our diocese, should mean in terms of church relationships, with a goal of “a Diocese where gracious (even if difficult) disagreement about issues of sexuality — not an enforced adherence to a particular stand — is the norm.”<\/p>\n

The nine principles of the Diocesan Rule of Life, as described, are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Christian doctrine<\/strong>: As codified in the Councils of the Church, in particular the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Not too much controversial here (unless you’re Bp. Spong). The commentary that derives from this principle (p. 11) does include some noodges as to the geographical and structural unity of the Church, which won’t make the conservatives (seeking alternative oversight, if not alliance with other provinces) happy.
    \nA recommendation stemming from this is that the Diocesan Rule of life be part of an (articulated) preparatory course material for folks going through various initiatory rites, which course material needs to be further articulated and include Episcopal and Anglican information.<\/p>\n
  2. Corporate liturgy and worship<\/strong>: Founded on #1, and as contained in the BCP and other formally approved worship materials. That’s the “Sunday” aspect of a church, and isn’t likely to raise any eyebrows, except as it calls into question un<\/em>authorized liturgical materials.\n

    The recommendations stemming from this include a full articulation of the authorized worship materials for the diocese, limitations of communion only to the baptized, and a policy on how special liturgies are (publicly) authorized.<\/p>\n

    More importantly, it includes the recommendation regarding same-sex blessings, etc., further detailed below.<\/p>\n

  3. Bishops<\/strong>: The “apostolic successor, guardian of the faith, chief pastor, priest, and teacher,” the “visible manifestation of our unity as the Body of Christ in this Diocese.” That’s pretty straight Episcopal theology (hence the name), but I can imagine a number of folks inserting internal caveats over the worthiness of the individual serving as bishop to hold that role.\n

    Recommendations from this principle include renewing of baptismal and ordination vows at the diocesan convention, setting up a trained media spokesperson for the diocese (and both encouraging clergy to refer questions to same, and to receive media training themselves), and increased time spent between the bishop and the clergy.<\/p>\n

  4. Communion<\/strong>: The Communion with Canterbury and “mutual interdependence” with other provinces of the Anglican communion. Again, nothing controversial on the face of it here, though liberals might be less eager to embrace those “other provinces” that reject same-sex relationships, and conservatives might think there’s a trap in the idea that “this communion is lived out most authentically in a diocese, under a bishop, through local congregations that embody the mission and ministry of the diocese as they are the center of life and faith for individual Christians.”\n

    Recommendations include the bishop publicly restating “his intention to remain in unimpaired communion” with Canterbury, greater education and communication in the diocese regarding the Communion, and clearer policy and goals as to what ministries are best handled at what level (congregational, diocesan, provincial, communion).<\/p>\n

    Also in the recommendations is recognition and provision for restricted giving in the diocese, where parishioners are restricting their donations from the diocese or national church, or to only certain programs there. Such restricted giving ought to be auditable (per church canon), and ought to lead to increased dialog between those congregations and the bishop.<\/p>\n

  5. Diversity<\/strong>: Both theological and ideological, “is a strength and necessity of our life together … and cannot justify refusal of the sacramental ministry of any member of the clergy in good standing in this Diocese.” In other words, no night of long knives for priests on the Left or the Right — and, a clear statement that to refuse to consider valid (or to receive) a sacrament from a member of the clergy (because, as an example, s\/he is gay, or to protest their political stand) is, in fact, heretical (Donatist), which is kind of interesting in a splash-of-cold-water way. “One fundamental Christian value we are called to share is humility, by which we recognize the integrity of each person and value our differences. The only hope of authentically living out the Gospel is to recognize the Gospel being lived out by one another.”\n

    Recommendations under this principle include a commitment by Bp. O’Neill that there will be no “theological litmus test” for ordination or deployment, that the bishop make a scheduling priority diocesan gatherings of clergy and laity, and that “diocesan clergy who will not receive sacramental ministry from the Bishop or his authorized clergy representative as a form of protest be subject to a process of reconciliation and discipline.” <\/p>\n

  6. Discipline<\/strong>: You gotta walk the walk, in order to create “a climate of mutual accountability, trust, collegiality, and transparency.” Pointed looks at both ends of the spectrum.<\/p>\n
  7. Bishop stuff, redux<\/strong>: Given the above, the diocese needs “gracious submission to the authority of the Bishop” — and, in turn, “gracious exercise of episcopal authority” by the Bishop. Yeah, <\/em>I can hear the cries, but he was ungracious first!<\/em>\n

    Recommendations include the bishop seeking “every reasonable pastoral alternative to canonical process when confronted with conflict within the diocesan family,” and his getting a mentor and a chaplain.<\/p>\n

  8. Decision-making<\/strong>: Given the above, “decisions to change policy and practice within this Diocese are to be conducted in and guided by a spirit of gracious charity and prayerful attentiveness.” That cuts both ways, too: folk need to have that “charity and attentiveness in our congregations and diocesan gatherings,” but it also requires that policies and practices “are articulated in a clear, consistent, unified, and transparent manner.” Be nice, be open, be honest. Hard to argue over that, though I expect lots of finger-pointing excuse-making over that, too.\n

    The commentary on this principle notes that “Gracious conduct begins most effectively in the local church and continues globally. Ungracious conduct such as deceit, gossip, slander, innuendo, and other uncharitable behavior hinders our corporate ability to discern clearly and faithfully the mind of Christ. Gracious conduct in disagreement always includes both civility and truthfulness; charity does not preclude rigorous dialogue.”<\/p>\n

    Recommendations include providing resources for clergy and congregations “to facilitate difficult conversations of different kinds,” and consultation with other dioceses (and denominations) on “the impact and potential global ramifications of proposed changes to diocesan policy and practice.”<\/p>\n

  9. Change<\/strong>: This is, in some ways, the biggy, since some folks expect change in doctrine to be adopted instantaneously, and others think all such doctrine are already clearly and fully laid out and cannot be changed. It’s also the fuzziest of the principles, in terms of language, which deserves (reluctantly) quotation in full: “Growing into the mind of Christ is a dynamic process of spiritual transformation over time. This process assumes a constant creedal core of doctrine translated through a consistent process of strategic and structural change. Mechanisms already exist to facilitate discernment about particular changes for our common life.” I read that to mean, Understanding what God wants from us is an ongoing matter, subject to well-founded change. We have a process for doing so, and if we approach these matters with discipline and good-will, we can work it out.<\/em> Optimistic, perhaps, and unsatisfactory no doubt for folks on either polarized side of this particular debate.\n

    Recommendations include clarification and teaching on how “the diocesan decision-making process” works, “pastoral teaching on the appropriate role of conscience and of prophetic ministry in our common life.”<\/p>\n

    Further, the bishop should form a working group of “qualified diocesan theologians and scholars … representing the full current range of diocesan perspectives” to make a “sustained reflective study of the theological issues surrounding pastoral care to members of the Diocese in varied circumstances of human sexuality.” The group would produce materials regarding “the best thinking of the Anglican tradition … concerning an Anglican ethic of human sexuality” that could be used to inform “youth, single young adults, young married and unmarried couples, parents, divorced persons, older single adults, and gay and lesbian persons.” In other words, let’s figure out what the teaching is (or teachings are), and teach it (them). A no-brainer, one would think, but it’s something that few folks have been willing to step up to the bat regarding, at least on a diocesan level.<\/ol>\n<\/p>\n

    The “headline” bits from the report are the recommendations from Principle #2, which deserve more spelling-out. <\/p>\n

    The report calls for a “time of restraint” in the diocese, “recognizing that in our current lack of collegial trust the possibility for real collegiality and truly rigorous dialogue is undermined by anathematizing and lobbying behaviors stemming from a variety of theological perspectives,” i.e., by folks yelling at each other. The restraint would include:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • “The intentional and faithful setting aside of uncharitable and polarizing behaviors and the holding accountable of people who engage in these sorts of behaviors.” Yes, Rev. Armstrong, I’m looking at you.\n
    • “No implementation of the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO),” which lets parishes look to other bishops instead of the diocesan one. As many conservatives consider this essential, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.<\/p>\n
    • “The cessation, in any form, of the blessing of same-gender unions, irrespective of prior agreements, practices, or policies, whether stated, written, or perceived.” This is a biggy, and will not be well-received by some (just as it will be dismissed by others as insufficient). <\/p>\n
    • “No deployment of partnered gay or lesbian clergy persons not already in the Diocese.” I suppose I understand this, although, again, some will consider this discriminatory and others will think it not nearly sufficient.<\/ul>\n

      The “time of restraint” is to “rebuild trust,” to allow what the Archbishop of Canterbury has called “passionate patience,” and to prepare for further discernment from the next General Convention (and the Lambeth Commission). Is it all a sham, a way to delay? As I read it (in detail, not in newspaper summary form), no. It, and this time, is needful. And pooh-poohing of these items aside, adherence to them would indeed entail significant sacrifice from both sides of this particular debate — “sacrifice in the sense of freely and generously giving for the greater good, not in the sense of woefully giving up” — while the diocese prepares for what the GC will come up with.<\/p>\n

      That preparation, also recommended by the TF, includes:<\/p>\n

        \n
      • Considering parallel processes to, if the GC allows same-sex unions, allow parishes to either authorize such unions (as Bp. O’Neill would likely do) or request DEPO.\n
      • Pursuing “rigorous dialogue” about same-sex blessings and DEPO in a “theologically divergent” working group.\n
      • Convening a special diocesan convention to respond, if needed, to this fall’s Lambeth Commission report (the LC is considering whether ECUSA did a bad thing at GC, and, if so, what to do about it).\n
      • Assurances from Bp. O’Neill that, “as far as it lies in his authority, he will not require clergy to bless same-gender unions.” That’s a key item, and in keeping with the church’s policies regarding female clergy (policies in effect to this day, and to this day there are bishops who will not ordain female priests).<\/ul>\n

        When all is said and done, what does it mean?<\/p>\n

        In part, that there are no easy answers. If the unity of the church is to be considered of value (and, up to a point, it’s of tremendous value), then seeking a way through such heart-felt opposing beliefs is incredibly difficult, and requires a true unity to even hope to accomplish. This report outlines how such a community could be (re)formed.<\/p>\n

        But that all depends on folks taking a “leap of faith” to make it happen — willingness to set aside grievances and outrage and desire to have it all happen right now<\/em>, and their <\/em>way, and reach out, be one, and then tackle it again with patience and love. Can the more active voices on either side of the debate make that happen? It’s difficult to say, particularly given some the rhetoric already splashed across the newspapers, which rhetoric (and, granted, it’s just what the newspaper chooses to highlight) seems more focused on who wins <\/em>and who loses<\/em> — not exactly what Christians ought to be focusing on.<\/p>\n

        I confess to a certain skepticism when I first read the “headline points” of the report, but having now read it as a whole and attempting to understand what it’s driving at (both of which anyone interested in this matter ought to do first), I’m much more impressed. It doesn’t downplay the very real debate that exists over matters of human sexuality and God’s will regarding them, but it puts first things first — attempting to establish a church framework in which such matters can be discussed and, perhaps, resolved. Frankly, I think we could do far worse than see the principles and recommendations of this report adopted by the diocese. I do indeed hope that is what happens, and hope that the attempt to heal the rifts that have occurred does not come too late.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        My impressions and thoughts, on first reading, of the report of Bishop’s Task Force. Those who have no interest in religion, Christianity, the Episcopal Church, its Colorado Diocese, or other…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religion"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6050,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/06\/02\/formal_communic.html","url_meta":{"origin":6443,"position":0},"title":"Formal communications","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 2-Jun-04 9:18am","format":false,"excerpt":"The formal letter from Bishop O'Neill to the clergy of Colorado has been transcribed by someone and put online. It provides the best \"official\" explanation of what happened, what the...","rel":"","context":"In "Religion"","block_context":{"text":"Religion","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/religion"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6461,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/08\/31\/it_must_be_a_co.html","url_meta":{"origin":6443,"position":1},"title":"It must be a compromise, since it won’t satisfy anyone","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 31-Aug-04 6:39am","format":false,"excerpt":"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,...","rel":"","context":"In "Religion"","block_context":{"text":"Religion","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/religion"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6312,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/09\/23\/red_and_blue.html","url_meta":{"origin":6443,"position":2},"title":"Red and Blue","author":"***Dave","date":"Thu 23-Sep-04 10:03am","format":false,"excerpt":"Lengthy rambling \"Can't we all just get along\" diatribe follows. Feel free to skip to the next post....","rel":"","context":"In "Politics & Law"","block_context":{"text":"Politics & Law","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6067,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/05\/31\/why_yes_this_is-3.html","url_meta":{"origin":6443,"position":3},"title":"Why, yes, this is my church, Part III","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 31-May-04 7:17am","format":false,"excerpt":"This story about the hopeful final (or at least climactic) chapter the brouhaha at our parish is relatively accurate, if still in error in a couple of particulars. Colorado Episcopal...","rel":"","context":"In "LGBTQ &c"","block_context":{"text":"LGBTQ &c","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/gay-stuff"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6352,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/09\/16\/light_posting_w.html","url_meta":{"origin":6443,"position":4},"title":"Light posting, with occasional thunderstorms","author":"***Dave","date":"Thu 16-Sep-04 6:31am","format":false,"excerpt":"The CIO is in town, so I'm pretty booked until this afternoon -- at which time, of course, I'll have to get done all the work-related stuff I didn't get...","rel":"","context":"In "Blogging & Internet"","block_context":{"text":"Blogging & Internet","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6448,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/09\/01\/diocesan_task_f.html","url_meta":{"origin":6443,"position":5},"title":"Diocesan task force report","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 1-Sep-04 6:50am","format":false,"excerpt":"More details, and commentary from Bp. O'Neill (et al.) here. The report itself is available here. More commentary once I've read it .......","rel":"","context":"In "Religion"","block_context":{"text":"Religion","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/religion"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6443","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6443\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}