After several years of conversation with straight and gay Anglicans of various stripes, I'm convinced that the key issue here is the blessing of same sex unions. This issue impacts a hell of a lot more faithful Episcopalians than gay bishops and, to my mind, sends a far stronger message about acknowledging the place of queer Episcopalians in the mainstream of our common life.

Those against inclusion and +Robinson are exactly right on one point--it is a great scandal to have a bishop living within a sexual relationship not sanctioned by the canons of the church.

So let's make sure that scandal gets cleared away first...

Those against inclusion and +Robinson are exactly right on one point--it is a great scandal to have a bishop living within a sexual relationship not sanctioned by the canons of the church. So let's make sure that scandal gets cleared away first...

Derek, I'm concerned that your point above, while technically correct in a sense, characterizes +Gene's relationship w/ Mark Andrew in a way ("scandal") which is MOST UNFAIR.

Gene and Mark had their shared home together blessed many years ago (such was the rite available---and I think it highly inappropriate to speak of their relationship beyond than their life together as a couple. How intimacy is expressed between them is none of our business!).

When civil unions became available in New Hampshire last year, they availed themselves of it---and then, afterwards, had their union blessed in church.

The SCANDAL, au contraire, is on the part of the Church, which forces LGBT couples to the canonical margins. By all means, FIX that---but don't put the onus on Episcopalians (+Gene and Mark included), who have lived as faithfully as they could, given the circumstances of their discrimination.

JC Fisher

...it is a great scandal to have a bishop living within a sexual relationship not sanctioned by the canons of the church.

Pondering this on Valentine's Day, methinks that, like beauty, scandal is often in the eye of the beholder.

June Butler

JC Fisher, I don't think I'm being unfair; I'm certainly not trying to be. No, I'm not reducing their relationship to just sex but a proper understanding of human sexuality is what is at the root of this argument, isn't it?

Yes, the church does need to correct this--but not only for +Gene and Mark but for T and M, priest friends of mine, for C and C, L and F, D and J, lay friends and a whole host of other folks out there.

The emphasis on bishops obscures what I see as the larger and more important issue because it effects the day to day lives of so many more people that I know.

The issue here is one of fairness and equality. TEC, despite its dreary discernment process of the past thirty years, continues to discriminate against LGBTs in the orders and sacraments of the denomination. This longstanding and invidious discrimination contradicts both the baptismal covenant and Canons 3.1.2 (open access to discernment for all orders), among others. Either the baptismal covenant and Canon 3.1.2 should be struck or all orders of ministry and all the sacraments should be open to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

To be logically and hence ethically consistent, the denomination should move to strike all discriminatory practices. It would be illogical to equalize marriage without abolishing B033.

Formal justice looks at how laws come together or contradict each other, whereas substantive justice with its particular issues comes later.

Gary

I have to say, that like previous comments on a Cafe piece a week of so back, I agree with Derek on several points.

1) Whether we like it or not, we are still in a discernment process even in TEC, not to mention the other Churches in the Anglican Communion;

2) It may be true that in a minority of dioceses and parishes, some form of ritual regularization of our relationships is occurring, and it is true that nationally, this has been recognized by GC as something that is happening, but an official rite(s) and the canons going with this have not yet been promulgated. Most same-sex couples in our Church are not even afforded prayers in the Prayers of the Church, much less a full-on blessing--and yet, we're hung up on who gets to be bishop!?.

3) Personally, as much as that pains me, I'm willing to allow for more spaciousness and generosity for the many in the middle to engage with the reality of gay Christians. Look at the traditionally centrist Diocese of Virginia's affirmation. A few more years, and instead of a legislative victory, we are more likely to see generous fruits of unfolding discernment, and far fewer folks will be put out by thus. Not to mention, we are finally beginning to engage with ascetical theological thought in response to fruitful same-sex relationships, and this is the ground for adopting rites and changing canons.

4) Until that regularization occurs in our canons, which by the way, are meant to support ritual and pastoral care, we find our selves in a liminal space. It's an uncomfortable and sometimes painful space, and as someone who has high regard for the law, a sometimes deeply ambiguous space. To live out gospel freedom under such circumstances needs humility and grace because it's all very messy. To contain that mess and not scandalize further both our sister Churches in discernment and many in our own Church who do not understand how we can have a bishop, the office of the Oecumene, in a same-sex relationship without first regularization of rites and canons, I don't think it wrong to suggest that until such time as we are first willing to regularize same-sex unions, we hold off on any more gay bishops in sexual relationships. Being elected bishop is not firstly about fairness, after all the Anglo-catholic eminent James DeKoven was never finally confirmed in his election due to his Anglo-catholicism and that was really unfair, but his example as a person opened way for a far more tolerant and flexible TEC. So, holding off is for me about the possibility of enough space for folks to catch up without being bludgeoned legislatively. In the mean time, we have many faithful gay lay persons and many presbyters and one bishop as models for the upcoming generations. Let's build these up rather than demand the episcopate in such secular terms.

5) I have to say as a gay layman partnered to a Lutheran pastor, that I'm really sick of the emphasis being placed on bishops and who gets to be bishop. In my partner's tradition it's all about who gets to be pastor. Most gay folk are lay folk with vocations other than to the presbyterate or to the episcopate (though it might be a thought to elect a bishop directly out of the laity once in a while). We need to be focused first on regularization of same-sex unions.

6) Can I point out that the way we are going about this is very generational to my mind. There seems to be a tendency to think lightly of our institutions and laws when they don't suit us. Again, sometimes laws and institutions are wrong, and sometimes they need to be challenged, even resisted, but we seem to be willing to ignore any sense of order at all if it will get our way. And I don't give a flying pig about becoming bishop myself, so it all becomes very pedantic. I start wondering about the most of us who are lay persons.

Even with the potential action of GC lifting ordination restrictions for GLBT partnered folks, how will that impact situations such as ours where the ordinary refuses anyone to process toward ordination if they are in a same gender partnered relationship. The applicant signs a declaration that they will uphold the standard of heterosexual marriage or celibacy when applying for postulancy leading toward either priestly or diaconal ordination. The logic of that stance would seem to require us to say partnered glbt folks do not qualify for baptism either. In fact, perhaps their baptism, under those standards, ought to be revoked. How can we escape this situation? I wonder if some bishops suffering homophobia might follow the process the Diocese of Chicago engaged in 25+ years ago when its ordinary refused to ordain women, but did let candidates process through a diocese such as Indianapolis and, once ordained, they were allowed to serve in Chicagoland. At any rate, parishioners at our little church who are same-gender partnered and who promise giftedness for ordination are very discouraged, and I would sympathize with them writing off the Episcopal Church as a home in our diocese.

It's interesting to me that the focus in most of the comments above continues to be on ordination - when, as Derek and Christopher point out, ordination is not even a remote concern for most Episcopal laypeople.

I couldn't agree more with Christopher. Why are we continually talking about issues like "who gets to be bishop," when it's so irrelevant to most peoples' lives on the ground? Why are we so invested in the clerical - and so little in the pastoral?

B Snyder, I ackowledge that to most Episcopalians ordination is not the issue, but it sure is here. When we as congregation discern certain of our folks who happen to be partnered same sex as folks we want able to enter the process, it discourages all of us here when they are denied simply for being gay and partnered. We feel that the ministry of all the baptized is not being honored or encouraged when this kind of discrimiination continues.

Except, Bruce MacDuffie, that the ordinary gay pew-sitter can't partake in a more basic sacrament open to all Episcopalians: marriage. And that's true everywhere - whereas your prospective priests can always move to a friendlier diocese.

In any case, the ordination question being raised here is about bishops, not priests. And about getting the cart before the horse. (And anyway, aren't there already far too many priests in TEC given the number of job openings? Just curious....)