"An inch at a time"

And with this, I'd say the Diocese of Texas has moved several inches, at least. (I read the entire document last night).

I welcome this innovation and appreciate the hard work and consideration of varying views, but I pause to reflect on what the reaction would be if Bishop Doyle had released such a plan on race, instead of sexuality.

Christopher Cooper

It depends on if a person views race and sexuality the same. I don't.

There was a time, probably 20-30 years ago, when I would have thought that this was very bold and progressive. At this point, seeing that he has been planning this for some time with a diplomat, it is pretty clear that the first priority here is not to increase access to the sacraments/blessings of the church to LGBT people but to "manage the damage" before it can get out of hand. In the world today, this is pretty "weak sauce" I think.

Although we can applaud the "statesmanship" I wonder about the genuineness of making it clear that there is no room to consider an alternative in +Doyle's views? I suppose that the conservatives will "admire" his "firm stance." He has already "decided" that he is opposed to SSBs but that nevertheless it will pass. If that's the case, and it may be that it is a reasonable prediction, why bother even to have the discussion?
On a second point, conservatives clearly to the contrary, of course and by all means welcome to express their views, the parallels to race came immediately to my mind as well. I wonder how we would read this, for example, if it were about "mixed gender" marriages and segregation? We may not think of race issues as "the same" today, but that simply reinforces the point. Attitudes about what is "wrong" have changed dramatically. I wonder if how I feel about this is even a faint reflection of how persons of color in the post-war south felt after "emancipation" only to find out that it was mostly "in name only" and how they might have felt had they known that a prominent politician could proclaim "segregation forever" and be cheered by crowds of admiring fans? It is a "note of warning" to "battle weary" persons in the church that this struggle is far from over, in spite of what some progressives would like to believe. It may, in fact, be centuries before we can finally lay it to rest. Although some conservatives just want to get on with the "gospel mission," I want no part of a mission that is exclusive rather than inclusive, as I cannot ever see that as being anything other than "good news for the select few" and not for all. Sorry in advance for conservatives who will disagree, but there you have it. My opinion.

Finally, I wonder how much good it will do to create more conservative "ghettos" in the church? To make it absolutely clear that no one will be asked to even consider the possibility of SSBs pretty much guarantees that change will be as slow and painful and uneven as possible. If this is to be the model for how the American church will continue, then I think that we need to create the equivalent of the "green book" guide for black travelers in the segregated south. We need for LGBT people to be able to know where it might be safe to land/visit in the segregated landscape of the Episcopal church and where they really should steer clear.

As we in the Episcopal Church are fond of saying: context is everything. We use that phrase to say to the rest of the Anglican Communion that we have the right to press for full GLBT inclusion in TEC, and it applies on a diocesan level as well.

We're Bishop Doyle to advance a bold inclusive agenda in his diocese, he would likely look back over his shoulder as he was "leading the flock" and find himself alone, or nearly so. I'd be reluctant to cast stones unless I was in shoes similar to his.

Note also that if blessing of same-sex unions follows the canonical pattern of marriage, any priest may decline to perform the rite for any couple and for any (or no) reason. That's the reality, and it isn't likely to be subject to diocesan control any time soon. Naming that reality in a policy just seems to make good sense.

@ Tom

I don't want to come across as overwhelmingly negative here. As they say "things could always be worse" and some progress is better than none. +Doyle could clearly have forbidden SSBs period, and that would, unfortunately, be that unless someone should decide to boldly dissent.

I would ask one clarification, however. I understand that a priest might decline to perform any _particular_ marriage for whatever reason, but I would ask what would be the law/response to a priest that, for reasons of conscience, decided that it was morally wrong to perform _any_ marriage for any person, no matter what the circumstance. Would this be "tolerated" as within his/her right as a priest, or not? What if a priest decided never to administer or perform some other sacrament? Is that also "OK?" I think that there is a logical concern there when we compare the right of a priest to not perform any _particular_ marriage (or perhaps someone in a specialized ministry such as hospital chaplaincy or prison ministry where that was not part of their particular calling or charism) as opposed to not performing any marriage under any circumstance based on a belief that it would be immoral to do so.

@Jeffrey: Your point is well taken, though that sort of situation is more likely a pastoral issue between the priest and his/her bishop or the priest and his/her congregation than a canonical one. In some ways, we're already in the "test phase" of this, as I recall there are some priests who have declined to do ANY marriages at all until they are able to officiate at same-sex marriages. To my knowledge, none has been disciplined.

I also think we might well differentiate between the two Great Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist and what the Episcopal Church defines as "sacramental rites" (i.e., confirmation, ordination, holy matrimony, reconciliation of a penitent, and unction). Refusing to baptize and celebrate the Eucharist, rites that are key to the priestly office, would certainly raise pastoral, if not canonical, flags. There may well be priests who refuse to hear confessions or administer unction. It gets a little more complicated for bishops, since clearly confirmation and ordination are key functions of that office. A bishop who refused to confirm, much less ordain, wouldn't likely last long in that role, for good reason.

In any case, my point is that the conservative fear that priests will be forced to preside at same-sex unions against their will is, in my estimation, baseless. Allaying that fear is essentially what Bishop Doyle is articulating.

This is too little, too late. Unity bought at the price of discriminating against one category of person is unacceptable.

http://www.epicenter.org/mediafiles/unity-in-mission.pdf is the url.

or

http://tinyurl.com/7tcynhd

Jeffrey, We don't even have a national list of Episcopal congregations which have voted to support LGBT equality, whereas the American Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans (ELCA), the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarians do.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary Paul,

I get where you're coming from, but this 'too little, too late' is likely how change will look as it comes to Africa and even Rome.

I wish we'd seen comparable politically savvy compromise from Rowan Williams as it was becoming clear that the American Church was going to confirm Gene Robinson's election.

What Andy is doing in Texas acknowledges the possibility that possibly unprecedented change in the life of the church just might be the Spirit of Truth at work AND he does it while manifesting his determination to continue to acknowledge and respect people who haven't seen it yet or see change otherwise. As we've seen, Rowan's version seems to have cancelled his own conscience by attempting to stop, silence, and even censure those he actually agreed with. Andy exercises leadership by respectfully making space at the same time as he's saying the bishop's job is to hold and serve the whole community.

I can see how the question of how we failed (repeatedly) to address the question of racial justice is relevant, and that's the real question, not 'what if we did something like this with race. We did a lot worse. Positive change initially looked like ordaining black clergy for a separate but equal church. But, more like recent 'leadership' from Canterbury, we kept the church 'together' after the Civil War by deliberately and explicitly refusing to speak to slavery or emancipation at all.

Texas's solution to this one is a very pragmatic, patchwork pastoral compromise that old style (LBJ) Texas politics can appreciate.

Thank you, Donald, I hope you are right about the Diocese of Texas. I am from Maine and went to a college founded by abolitionists. And I live in a state which has civil marriage equality. Reading through the text the Bishop of Texas wrote, I felt uncomfortable when I saw him citing the Windsor Report. This sounded like more Rowan Williams nonsense.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was pragmatic but he could also be bold as when he pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1954 and said, "Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway." Whatever we do the Episcopal Church may lose certain states. I think standing for equality is better than pandering to the worst in people.

Treating same-sex couples like all other couples does not harm anyone. Making it seem as if they are hot potatoes does.

Gary Paul Gilbert

It may seem a small point semantically, but it's meaningful in application. The Episcopal Church is not 'standing for equality;' it is standing against discrimination. Until the Church adopts an authentic non-discrimination policy for clergy and lay employees, equality still does not exist. The only non-discrimination canon even somewhat related to clergy is the one related to persons seeking admission to the process of discernment for Holy Orders.

There continues to exist in this Church the power for a diocese or a bishop ordinary to prohibit the employment in said dioces of non-celibate and partnered gay clergy. This power is being used.

This is the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation, yet there is exactly nothing in the national canons to stop this practice. The Church's move forward and the progress in the Diocese of Texas, of which I am a member priest, is real indeed. Thanks be to God. This is mighty step forward, and I commend my bishop for taking it. It almost without precedent. But this merely one step on the way that remains before us to genuine inclusion and that holy destination where we will celebrate our differences as much as we appreciate all that we have in common.

Jim Stockton +

Individual parishes should always remain free to call only the clergy that they believe should serve,period.