Reflections
on General Convention by the Rev. Steve Zimmerman
The General Convention in Minneapolis in August, 2003 has
stirred more controversy than any since the last convention
in Minneapolis, which authorized the ordination of women, in
1976. So much has been written and spoken about the confirmation
of Fr. Gene Robinson to be bishop of New Hampshire both in
the Church, and in the secular media that there is probably
nothing left to say on the issue itself.
I have been involved in two Episcopal elections, one in this
diocese, and one in the diocese of the Central Gulf Coast.
I experienced both to be deeply spiritual processes of discernment
on the part of all who were involved. Candidates, as well as
convention delegates and the wider community of the diocese
prayerfully sought God’s will. I am moreover convinced that
in each election, the man God had chosen to lead the diocese
was elected. I was also nominated to be Bishop of New Hampshire.
I chose not to stand for election in New Hampshire, which makes
it awkward for me to criticize the choice New Hampshire Episcopalians
made in the election of their bishop.
Yet, I can be among the first to say we all owe Bishop Frade
not only our allegiance, but our gratitude. We can be proud
of the prayerful, conscientious manner in which he approached
his choice, and in the openness with which he has shared his
personal struggle in arriving at his decision. We can be grateful
that he initially intended to abstain from the vote, in order
to spare any of us any pain. And we can be proud that when
he became convinced of the need to vote, that he voted his
conscience, in spite of the cost. Such prayerful, conscientious,
and courageous action is exactly the leadership we expect,
but do not always get from our leaders.
Secondly, I would like to address those who are unhappy with
the judgment that Bishop Frade and a majority of bishops and
delegates made. I share many of your concerns, and indeed I
would have voted in the minority. But I freely admit, I may
have been wrong to do so. More than twenty years as a priest,
and several years as a member of the Bishop’s Council on Sexuality
has taught me that when it comes to issues of sex, we see through
a glass, very darkly. I would urge a little humility, as we
face the days ahead.
I am of course saddened when anyone discovers that they can
not be an Episcopalian. My view of the One, Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church is that the Anglican Communion is only one
branch of the Church. I must therefore support anyone who feels
called to another branch, even though I am too much of an Anglican
chauvinist to ever believe that they have made the best choice.
Deep down in my heart, I really believe everyone should be
an Episcopalian.
I wonder though, where will they go? Do they imagine that
the Episcopal Church is the only Church in Christendom that
is struggling with issues of sexuality? Would they exchange
the open debate of Minneapolis for lectures on morality in
the Church by the Bishop of Rome? Or would they really prefer
a Church of like-minded members, even if it claims to be a
‘moral majority’?
Some
have appealed to the Anglican Communion, even to African
bishops to reverse the decision of our convention. Do they
suppose that the African Church is such a pure expression of
faith and orthodoxy that they do not have their own struggles
and temptations? Have they forgotten that a bishop been accused
of complicity in genocide in Rwanda, or that some African
bishops argue for polygamy?
I am most troubled by those Episcopalians who decide to protest
the action of the elected bishops and delegates of the Church
by withholding their pledge of support to the Church. Why would
anyone do this? Whatever may be said about those who voted
with the majority, I am certain that no one of them cast their
vote with the intention of hurting the Church. Can the same
be said of those who would withhold their support?
If on the other hand, the intention of withholding support
is intended to bring pressure on the Church to change its direction,
I believe this is an insult to all of us on both sides of the
issue. For it implies that we hold the views we do out of expediency,
and can be bought off. No one offers another a bribe, unless
they believe the one being bribed is dishonest enough to consider
it.
Or, is
it that some are withholding their support, because they
believe the Convention has departed from the true interpretation
of the scriptures? Certainly, there are laws and passages of
scripture to support every position in this debate. But if
the laws of scripture are to be our only guide, do those who
would withhold their pledge not know that they are robbing
God, according to the Book of Malachi? Do they not know that
to break any law is to break the whole law? The truth is that
our offering of our time, talent and treasure to God, as the
tithe of our life and labor to the Lord, is the way we show
that we accept the New Covenant that is offered to us in the
Body and Blood of Christ. To withhold that offering is to be
cut off from the sacrifice of Christ, and to become strangers
and aliens once more.
Or, can it be only that they intend only to protest the decision
of the Convention, because they did not like the outcome of
the vote? This may be the most immediately serious issue of
all for us, as Episcopalians. The genius of Anglicanism has
never rested in absolutist claims we have made for the infallibility
of the Church. Nor has it been in making authoritarian claims
for the inerrancy of the scriptures in matters of social law
and morality.
The genius of Anglicanism has been our faith that the final
arbiter of moral decision making is the Risen Christ, who is
the “firstborn of all creation, the head of the Church, and
the author of our salvation.” We have always believed that
we are not just people of a book, but of a risen Lord, and
that the Holy Spirit was given not just to the authors of the
scriptures, or to the hierarchy of the Church, but to every
Christian in Baptism. We have believed that the Holy Spirit
confirms the faith of each Christian within the community of
the Church, and that every Christian is called to exercise
the moral choice of conscience within the community of the
Church. We have always believed that the Church, guided by
the Holy Spirit, best discerns the mind of Christ in prayer,
informed by scripture and tradition, as a community. A result
of this faith has been democracy, which emerged in England,
and not in Rome, Germany, Geneva, Salem, or Spain.
For that reason, we meet in conventions to decide important
issues. Our Church has public debates like the one in Minneapolis,
because we can. We do not receive directives from a Pope. Nor
is every individual pastor, or congregation, his own master.
We believe this process is truly scriptural, as can be seen
in the story in Acts 15 of the council of Jerusalem, and we
believe it is in accord with the most ancient and historical
traditions of the Church, as in the great councils of Nicea
and Chalcedon. In Minneapolis, the bishops and delegates were
asked to confirm the election of a duly constituted convention
of the Diocese of New Hampshire.
A corollary of this faith has been the unapologetic acknowledgement
that this side of the Second Coming of Christ, we must walk
by faith, and not by sight. For we see through a glass darkly
within the ambiguity of experience. Our life is a journey of
faith within the Church, in which we must work out our own
salvation, with fear and trembling. For it does not yet appear
what we shall be. We only know that we shall be like Him, who
died and rose again for us.
A cornerstone of our faith in democracy is the social covenant,
by which each member of the community agrees to abide by the
decisions of the majority, or of duly elected delegates. To
refuse to support the Church, because duly elected representatives
of the Church arrived at a decision which displeases us calls
into question our faith that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and
giver of the Life of the Church.
Nor could such doubts arise at a worse time in history. At
just the moment when individual rights and democratic process
are being challenged by absolutist religious zealots around
the world, we need more than ever to demonstrate our faith
in the democratic process as a beacon of faith and hope to
the world.
Finally, can they who acknowledge the grace of Christ, not
forgive? Even if the decision made in Minneapolis is proven
to be in error, those charged with discerning the mind of Christ
acted prayerfully, faithfully, and in accordance with their
sense of God’s calling to the Church at this time. Can we not
forgive them, if they did not see as clearly the mind of Christ
as those who were in the minority might have seen it? Let them
sound a prophetic call. Let them wait upon the Lord for his
judgment. In the meantime, between Minneapolis and the Day
when all shall be revealed, let us walk in love, as Christ
loved us. This, too, is a scriptural commandment of the Lord.
It may be that all God requires of any of us is not that we
are always right, but that we seek to do justice, love kindness,
and walk humbly with God.
(Click
here for PDF Version)