Halfway There

Bishop Marc Andrus congratulated Rev. Vicki Gray

Yesterday was an historic day, as theHouse of Bishops voted in favor of all three of the resolutions that take upgender identity and expression.

As yesterday’s blog post left off, we were on the edge ofour seats as the bishops began their afternoon session. 

At the conclusion of the morning session, Rev. StephanieSpellers, a priest from my diocese (though soon to be of the Diocese of LongIsland) and one of the chaplains to the Bishops, had preached on one of the textsassigned for the day: Romans 8:18-27. From the lectern at the front of the room, she read it out deliberately:

I consider that thesufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about tobe revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealingof the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of itsown will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creationitself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedomof the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has beengroaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but weourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while wewait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in hope we were saved. Nowhope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? But if we hopefor what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

She paused for several seconds before continuing:

Likewise the Spirithelps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but thatvery Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches theheart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes forthe saints according to the will of God.

She went on to talk about our groaning as a church.  We should not mistake this groaningsimply for suffering, though it does indeed signal pain. Yet it signalssomething much larger: rebirth.  We should not losehope in the midst of our process, our transition, our rebirth.  As I tweeted:

#GC77 StephanieSpellers 'this groaning that you hear' is church being reborn. 'You would notbe sitting here now unless u believed it.'

We would not have been sitting there, would not still beworking here now, unless we believed it.

And, again:

#GC77 StephanieSpellers: 'we are walking together in the space between.'#TransEpiscopal 

Walking together in the space between—she could not havespoken more directly to my experience as a transperson had she beentrying.  And yet the beauty ofthese words were that they spoke bothto my experience and to that of thechurch in its liminal, in-between location right now.  That’s a connection I tried to name in the panel after Integrity’sshowing of Out of the Box severaldays ago—as a trans person I feel like the place in which the church standspoised, forging its way forward into uncharted terrain, is familiarterritory.  It was so powerful tohear it from my friend Stephanie, and to hear it shared with the bishops I knowshe is so honored to support.

What amazing, nourishing preaching we have heard these lastseveral days.  Truly food for thejourney, for all of us.

So, after posting the “Edge of Our Seats” blog entry, I headedto the House of Bishops and took a seat in the gallery.  It took about a half hour for D002 tocome up.  The text is the same asthe 2009 resolution (C061).  I had told my spouse and a friend I would text them as soonas debate began so they could watch comments on the GC#77 Twitter feed.  So at 3:35pm when Bishop Mary GrayReeves of the Ministry Committee presented D002 with a recommendation ofpassage, I texted a single word: “Now!!”

At 3:36 I then tweeted:  

#GC77 D002 Bp Douglasspeaking re: transgender res

At 3:38:

#GC77 Gene Robinsonspeaking in favor of D002 Trans nondiscrimination res

At 3:39:

#GC77 Mark Andrusspeaking in favor of D002

At 3:41:

#GC77 Chet Talton ofSan Joaquin speaking in favor of D002, referencing ordination of a transwomanthat he recently did

At 3:43:

#GC77 Bishop Love ofAlbany wants to know what 'gender expression' means. PB responds, how gender isexpressed in world. Thank you PB!

And again at 3:43:

#GC77 Texas seeks toend debate

And then:

#GC77 it passed!!!D002

I turned around in my seat and locked eyes with myTransEpiscopal colleagues seated behind me.  Big smiles and weepy eyes.

Several things struck me right off the bat.  First, that those in favor of theresolution were clearly ready to speak. Bishop Ian Douglas referenced the hard educating work he engaged inthree years ago on the World Mission committee, to which C061 was sent lasttime.  He explained what genderidentity and expression meant, and how his daughter’s generation seemed morefamiliar and comfortable with transgender people than perhaps people of oldergenerations knew.  Bishop Robinsonreiterated the strong support for the trans community that I have heard himshare in numerous venues recently. Bishop Andrus spoke of how his diocese has ordained a transwoman to thediaconate who is passionate in her work for peace and justice (Vicki Gray, whohas posted in this space before and is here as an alternate Deputy from DioCal).  Bishop Chet Talton shared how hisdiocese has recently ordained a highly qualified Deacon (Carolyn Woodall, whois also here at GC, volunteering with IntegrityUSA) and how he sees othertransgender people in congregations around the diocese of San Joaquin.  When Bishop Love of Albany spoke, I wasstruck that he asked the same question I recall him asking three years ago,namely what “gender expression” is. There seemed to be some concern that it might be code for sexual activity.  After Bishop Love’s question, the PresidingBishop asked if someone would like to respond.  A long pause ensued. Just as I started to worry that no one would respond, the PresidingBishop herself leaned forward into the mike and explained that genderexpression is simply how your gender is expressed in the world.  I was so grateful that Bishop KatharineJefferts Schori was willing to offer that simple, straightforwarddefinition.  Right afterward, thebishop of Texas called the question and the vote was taken.

Discussion had taken eight minutes, and D002 passed on avoice vote by a large margin—I would put it at 3/4 or perhaps 2/3 in favor.

The D019 debate then followed directly.  Once more, starting at 3:45pm Itweeted:

#GC77 now onto D019.Beckwith speaking of his experience in All Saints Worcester. Bishop Shawspeaking in favor

At 3:46:

#GC77 South Carolinaspeaking against D019. Referencing 'gender expression', says Wikipedia definedgender expression as all over the map

At 3:49:

#GC77 Rochester,Bishop Singh, speaking of experience of living in liminal space; opportunity toengage liminal embodiment as a church

Again, at 3:49:

#GC77 Gene Robinsonspeaking in support if D019; addressing 'gender expression'

At 3:50:

#GC77 Lawrence ofSouth Carolina speaking against

At 3:52:

#GC77 Bishop Andrus'when we have confusion about a group' that is precisely a reason to protectthem

And then at 3:53:

#GC77 bishops passD019!!

Once again, debate and passage had taken eight minutes.

What immediately struck me was how there was more resistanceto this resolution about access of the laity to the life of the church thanthere had been to the resolution about access to the ordination process.  Perhaps that is because there is lessopportunity to regulate the laity, as a colleague here pointed out—people inthe ordination process have to pass through many steps (including psychologicaltesting).  My own sense, however,is that the conversation about D019 was a continuation of the earlier one onD002.  Bishop Lawrence of SouthCarolina, for instance, continued to push on the question about “genderexpression.”  And I didn’t tweetit, but here again the Presiding Bishop intervened when Bishop Lawrence made astatement about gender expression relating to same sex relationships andsexuality more broadly.  “we aren’ttalking about relationships at all,” she said.  “We’re talking about individuals here.” 

Bishop Gene Robinson with TransEpiscopal
members after HoB vote

My bishop, Tom Shaw, spoke in favor, referencing the way inwhich we in the Diocese of Massachusetts have been able to reach out to thetrans community and advocate in favor of transgender nondiscriminationlegislation at the state level.  Itmeant so much to hear him say that, as I’ve been walking with him in this workfor a number of years now.

Bishop Beckwith of Newark spoke of his experience as arector at All Saints in Worcester, in the Diocese of Western Massachusetts,where the transition of a transman was moving not only for him but for thecongregation as a whole.  I knowthe folks to whom he was referring, and I was moved to hear this witness.

Bishop Singh of the Diocese of Rochester made a strongconnection between trans embodiment and his experience of liminality—of beingperceived as an American in India and an Indian in America—of beingbi-cultural.  He asked us toconsider how the church’s own multiple identities, its threshold identity,could be deepened through our conversation about trans embodiment.  This comment spoke so directly to themesclose to my heart, my ministry and teaching, that I was essentially sittingthere in an excited vibrational state.  That this conversation could point toward the deeptheological significance of this vote, and this conversation, not simply fortrans people but for the church more braodly, left me truly excited and full ofhope.

When the vote was taken, once more it passed by asignificant majority.

TransEpiscopal members and our allies gathered outside thegallery after the House went into recess and gave each other huge hugs.  This was a major step.

As we stood in the hallways, we learned that D022, the resolution calling for a Churchwide Response to Bullying, had passed the House of Bishops.  I was surprised that it had come up so quickly, since the hearings had been a day apart. But there it was, another major step forward.

Now we wait for the House of Deputies to take up all three resolutions.  It could happen latetoday, but most likely tomorrow (July 9). We are halfway there.

CP

Edge of Our Seats

We’re now on the edge of our seats waiting for resolutionsD002 and D019 – the transgender nondiscrimination resolutions – to come to thefloor of the House of Bishops (HoB). Since the Ministry Committee passed these two days ago we have beenwaiting for them to turn up in the HoB—they are on the supplemental calendarfor day 2, and since the Bishops are a bit behind in their calendar, theyhaven’t come up quite yet. TransEpiscopalians sat in the HoB gallery last night and this morning,and will be back when the bishops go into open session at about 3:15pm.

Our work here has been buoyed by some wonderfulpreaching.  Yesterday BonnieAnderson, President of the House of Deputies, preached an inspiring sermonbased on the readings for the feast day of the martyred Czeck Reformer JohnHuss (c. 1369 – 6 July 1415).  Youcan watch the video and see the text here (http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2012/07/06/general-convention-july-6-sermon/).  Her theme was courage:

“Courage animates all our virtues-honesty, confidence, humility, compassion, integrity, valor. Without courage,all these virtues lie dormant.

There is no prescription for teachingcourage. You may have noticed that courage 101 is not taught in school, or evenin college, or even in seminary.”

She continued,

“I can vividly remember the first time I stood up forsomething. I bet you can too. That memory becomes the story of a definingmoment that is incorporated into our spiritual selves and becomes a cornerstoneof our morality or our moral courage. If we are to reflect on our life, each ofus can probably name today, events and people who helped to shape our moralcourage. Moral courage defines us at our core and prompts us to act in spite offear.”

I left the service strengthened for the day ahead.  As we did yesterday, several of usreadied ourselves to testify at a committee hearing.  This time it was D022, a “Churchwide Response toBullying.”  I spoke in support ofit in my capacity as an Episcopal Campus Minister.  Before the day was out, the committee had reported it out tothe House of Bishops.

Then this morning Bishop Michael Curry of the Diocese ofNorth Carolina, assigned the lection in celebration of the life of the novelistand abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe, preached a soul-stirring sermon on howbeing a prophetic Christian requires a certain kind of insanity. Watch and/orread it here (http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2012/07/07/north-carolina-bishop-michael-curry-preaches-at-convention-eucharist/).  Citing the gospel passage from June 10^th(Mark 3:20-35) in which Jesus’ family comes to find him and declares him “outof his mind,” Bishop Curry proclaimed,

“forgive me for saying it this way,but Jesus was, and is, crazy! And those who would follow him, those who wouldbe his disciples, those who would live as and be the people of the Way, arecalled and summoned and challenged to be just as crazy as Jesus. So I want tospeak on the subject, ‘We Need Some Crazy Christians.’”

I couldn’t help myself—I just had to tweet, to share, what Iwas hearing.  Over the next severalminutes my twitter account posted:

·     #GC77 nervous re: voting on #Trans people inordained & lay ministry? remember this morning's sermon: 'we need some*crazy* Christians.'

·     #GC77 Rt Rev Curry preaches it in a.m.Eucharist: 'we are called to be *different*'. #TransEpiscopal

·     Bp Michael Curry: 'We need some *crazy*Christians to change this world in the name of Jesus.'... 'Think different.'#GC77

·     'the ones crazy enough to think they can changethe world do.' May this Convention be transfigured by the Bps witness #GC77

And all of this crazy talk made me free associate:

·     As Seal put it, 'cuz we're never gonna surviveunless we get a little crazy' #GC77 #TransEpiscopal

I haven’t been able to get the Seal song out of my headsince (and now it’s in yours… sorry).

After the service I flipped over my name tag and wrote

*Crazy* Christian

As I left the worship space I found myself wondering, willthe bishops make the connection between Bishop Curry’s inspiring message andthe trans nondiscrimination resolutions? Are they willing to be “crazy” enough – as some may well deem themwithin this church and beyond– to embrace the ministries of its transgendermembers, lay and ordained? Are they willing to take that leap?

This morning TransEpiscopal members and supporters sat inthe HoB gallery. The bishops did not quite get to our resolutions, but wereturn to the gallery now with hope in our hearts.

CP

"This is Important"

Yesterday, for the first time in its history, the House of Bishops publicly took up the matter of transgender people in ministry in the Episcopal Church. Resolution C061, which passed the House of Deputies on Monday, July 13th by a wide margin, seeks to change Title III.1.2 which currently forbids discrimination on the basis of the following categories: “race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons.” The resolution would add “gender identity or expression” to that list. The outcome of this debate reflected a diversity of opinion on and experience with transgender people in the House of Bishops. Several bishops spoke in support of the resolution, a couple spoke strongly against it, and a number referred to feeling inadequately educated on the topic.

The resolution, as they initially received it was a follows:

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That Title III, Canon 1, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church is hereby amended to read as follows: all baptized persons shall have full access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained in this church, except as otherwise provided by these canons. No person shall be denied access or have their discernment process terminated because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.

Marc Andrus of the Diocese of California and Gene Robinson of New Hampshire spoke both passionately and authentically about their experience of transgender people in ministry. Bishop Andrus emphasized that in his diocese, where Vicki Gray serves as a vocational deacon, they ordain individuals, not particular classes of people. If someone discerns a call to ministry, the issue for a Commission on Ministry and bishops to attend to is the vocation and the person’s ability to live into it, not their particular gender identity or expression. I entered the room during the tail end of Gene Robinson’s remarks, and so missed the bulk of them, but I heard him speaking strongly in support.

Of those who spoke against, Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi stood out for remarking that adding this language would “cross a line” and that we don’t need it because people are ordaining trans people already without it; to make that reality canonically explicit would be to “wave a red flag” about it.

For the most part, among those who spoke against the resolution, what I heard was not so much outright negativity as a sense of discomfort, of feeling overwhelmed and inadequately informed. A couple bishops argued that Commissions on Ministry need to have access to resources in order to be prepared to receive applications to the ordination process from trans people, and that to change the canon now, before they had such resources, would not be fair.

Bishop Dorsey Henderson of the diocese of Upper South Carolina objected to the longstanding language of the canon “no person shall be denied access”. He expressed a wish that the word “all” might replace “no.”

Bishop Howard of the Diocese of Florida expressed confusion and concern about the term “gender expression,” wondering if it might be a trojan horse for sexual activity outside of marriage. This was not the first time someone took issue with this term; someone on the floor of the House of Deputies also asked about it, and it also came up in the Committee on World Mission.

Bishop Dabney Smith of Southwest Florida then objected to a line that the Committee on World Mission had actually added to the original version of the resolution. The nondiscrimination canon already states that “no person shall be denied access,” but this resolution added the phrase “or have their ordination process terminated.” Had it remained, this line might have been a remarkable achievement in its own right. It would have addressed scenarios in which people come out as LGB or T, or begin a relationship, after entering their ordination process; in a some more conservative dioceses, people’s processes have indeed been terminated in response to just such situations. But the bishops were not in favor of that phrase. Stated reasons ranged from exactly the one just mentioned to concerns about opening themselves to litigation if, for instance, someone attributed the reason for their termination to a particular bias while the bishop or Commission on Ministry might have actually had other reasons.

The bishops then unanimously voted to remove that phrase.

Bishop Catherine Roskam of New York then returned to Bishop Henderson’s critique of the “no person” language. “What is it about ‘all’ that we don’t understand?” she asked. “There’s no adequate list. There will always be someone’s name we’ve left off.” With that, she made an amendment to remove all of lines five and six of the resolution. That motion spoke not simply to the language of “gender identity or expression,” but also to the entire list already enshrined: race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age. The move on Bishop Roskam’s part appeared designed to find a way out of an impasse, a way not to reject the resolution outright.

In the wake of this move, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina made a motion to refer the resolution to the Standing Commission on Ministry Development, so that a study could be done on ordaining transgender people. Notable in his motion was the sentiment, “This is important. It is important. And it’s of such importance that we want to do this properly, we want to do this in the right way. And in order to do so we need to come back with a good, thoughtful report.”

Comments and questions that followed either supported this referral or asked whether it would cause the original resolution to die. A vote was then taken on Bishop Curry’s motion, and was very narrowly defeated: 60 in favor, 66 against.

They then immediately turned to Bishop Roskam’s amendment, passing it, and the resolution as amended:

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That Title III, Canon 1, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church is hereby amended to read as follows: all baptized persons shall have full access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained in this church, except as otherwise provided by these canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.

Because they amended the resolution, it gets sent back to the House of Deputies.

So, where does this resolution leave us? While I believe the amendment to remove the specific demographic language was well intentioned, and while I certainly concur with the notion that “all” should truly mean all, this resolution as amended does not do what it was designed to do. The “all” version appears to have passed specifically because it did not mention “gender identity or expression.” Further, it eradicates the particularity of groups that worked for years to get that language into the canon to begin with. As much as I wanted the universality of “all” to do the job, in the context of this debate as it unfolded, the term was more evasive than inclusive. And so my hope is that the House of Deputies will not concur with it, that we might put our shoulders to this particular wheel again at the 77th General Convention.

But I have much higher hopes than that. The progress we have made at this Convention-- with more to come before it's over-- is absolutely huge. The fact that the House of Deputies passed C061 by a very respectable margin is tremendous. That the House of Bishops got to discuss this resolution, was huge. They made it clear they want to learn more, which is also to me a major victory. I will admit, however, that it was also difficult, indeed painful, to hear the debate as it unfolded. This is my life, my ordination process, my ministry they were talking about. And yet at the same time, in my mind, I keep coming back to Bishop Curry saying “This is important. This is important.” I agree-- it is important, and because of that, we need to do more. We have taken some of the first steps in making the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion aware that trans people are here, in our pews, on our vestries, in our pulpits; that we bring unique insights, gifts of uncommon experience and perception, and often deeply prayerful experiences of transformation; that we love this church.

And while I’ll end this post here, as Michelle and Donna have noted, more trans related activity happened yesterday than just this vote—in the afternoon the House of Deputies took up D012, the transgender civil rights resolution, and passed it in a landslide after several truly beautiful speakers gave testimony. I want to give that story a blog post in its own right, so stay tuned.

CP

Thoughts on the HoB

I haven't posted directly to the blog before, but I feel obligated to offer some reflection on the recently concluded House of Bishops meeting. I believe the meeting was a watershed time especially for trans folk in the Episcopal Church. This assessment has nothing to do with what the bishops did, since the actually did nothing. My categorization has to do with the fact that the same time the bishops were meeting in New Orleans, the Consultation was meeting in Newark. This meeting of the Consultation was the first meeting in which there was an official trans representation. Cameron Partridge and I were both honored and pleased to serve as representatives to this meeting. A friend of mine, another transwoman, asked me what accomplishments I hoped would come out of the Newark meeting. I told her the very fact that our part of the Body was represented was accomplishment enough for me.

 

During our meeting we monitored the House of Bishops, eventually crafting a well worded reminder to them regarding their responsibilities to the rest of us. Cameron has posted that document. I have no idea what kind of response it received in the bishops meeting. We are now three weeks past what Susan Russell has called the "day after". I feel calm enough to offer some thoughts.

 

My partner has assured me that the bishops did the only thing they could. They agreed to that which had already been decided at the most recent General Convention. I have come to see the wisdom in that assessment. However wise the assessment may be, I am left wanting more from those to whom I look to for leadership. What more could they have done?

 

Well, the could have acted like leaders, now couldn't they? They could have stated categorically that, as the House of Bishops, they could neither accede to nor turn down the requests(demands)of the Primates. Our polity requires us to make decisions together, not unilaterally.

 

I believe the bishops wanted to pour oil on the troubled waters of the Anglican communion. They failed in this. Conservatives felt the Bishops response to be inadequate. Those of us in the GLBT community felt scapegoated yet again, if only by reliving the betrayal foisted upon us at the most recent General Convention.

 

So, the bottom line is everyone lost. Everyone but the Bishops that is. They apparently congratulated themselves heartily for their efforts in saving the Anglican Communion for at least another season. Bishop Robinson may get to attend Lambeth, where he should have been invited to begin with.

 

So, we spent a lot of money to get the purple shirts to New Orleans for the great meeting, which is certainly good for the economy of New Orleans, to arrive at the same place we were before the "great meeting". Somewhere I can almost hear a small voice saying, "pay no attention to the man behind the screen, the great and powerful OZ has spoken".

 

 

The Rev. Gari Green

What to Think? Communications Constructions & Pastoral Pathology

Last night the House of Bishops released a statement of where they are as a body. In part the statement responds to the Communiqué issued by Anglican Communion Primates in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania last February. The media and the Anglican Blososphere are weighing in on it left and right. What I would add for now are two observations and one critical comment:

1) Range of Reactions:

It’s striking to observe the range of reactions among progressives (e.g. see comments to posting on Fr. Jake’s blog). Some people are incensed, while others think this was a decent outcome that clarifies what the next steps need to be. Integrity USA, the organization of LGBT Episcopalians, has issued a quite positive statement, saying that the bishops stood firm, resisting the demands of the Anglican Primates. I have also observed question marks about Integrity’s statement from some progressive corners, a sense of ‘are we reading the same document?’ There can be no doubt that the primary work of the next General Convention, which will be held in Anaheim, California in the summer of 2009, is to repeal the resolution known as B033 (which stated “that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion”). Yesterday's bishops statement points to the language from that resolution as ‘where the church is’ right now. It also stated that the immortally ridiculous phrase, “those whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church”, includes gay and lesbian people.

2) Media Constructions

I’ve been part of several conversations recently about what angles on this story the media may be missing. The aspect about which I hear most is the notion that this split within the Episcopal Church is not happening on nearly as big a scale as the media seems to think it is. This morning, Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe remarked, “The Episcopal Church has repeatedly sought to portray the conservatives who would leave as a tiny minority.” He doesn’t come right out and say he doesn’t buy it, but he does make it clear he detects spin. I don’t think he’s mistaken, but I also agree that the numbers aren’t nearly as high as conservative groups spin them to appear. Nevertheless, the global dimension of our conflict may ultimately make the congregational numbers game irrelevant; the story itself is impacting infinitely more people than we can count, in and out of the Anglican Communion, for good and/or ill. We can’t just count those who are leaving the denomination. There’s a fascinating communications war going on in all of this. If, as I believe, the media does not simply report on but also constructs its subjects/objects, then the entity known as the ‘Anglican Communion’ is now inflected by the increasingly global concept of homosexuality, and—fascinatingly, to me-- vice versa. How often now, when reading about homosexuality in Global South contexts, do we find some reference to the Anglican Communion? It’s incredible.

3) Pastoral Pathology

The bishops made a distinction between “authorizing” same sex blessings and “making allowance” for them for pastoral reasons. Translation: no diocese has written or officially authorized any liturgies for the blessing of same sex unions, but in many places services have long been allowed to take place. A resolution from the 2003 General Convention even acknowledged that reality. Yesterday’s statement says that most bishops are not making such “allowances”. But where they are doing so, they do it for reasons of “pastoral care.” By the end of their statement the bishops affirm the need to respect the dignity of LGBT people, speaking in terms of our civil rights.

What we’re seeing here is an affirmation that the church is willing to fight for full inclusion outside the church, but that within the church that same fight can only take place under the rubric of “pastoral care.” Indeed, Bishop Caroline Tanner Irish of the Diocese of Utah commented, “’I think putting [same-gender blessings] in the context of 'pastoral care' is the critical word,’ she said. She praised the House of Bishops for what she called the hard work and compromise offered by all the members.” It’s a sad day when the very term “pastoral” takes on a patronizing and pathologizing hue, but that’s exactly what’s happened. The pastoral gets to respond compassionately to disorder. As long as LGBTI people remain officially relegated to the ‘pastoral’, we remain contained, and a worship service that should be a sacramental vehicle of transformation ends up implicitly framed (by bishops, not necessarily by the priests who conduct them) as a kind of pat-pat, there-there, I’m-praying-for-you-in-all-of-your-challenges kind of way. To add insult to injury, there are those who are speaking of the need to make limits to the pastoral. Great. Well, I’m not interested in waging this fight on pastoral grounds. I’m fighting for the full flourishing of human beings, called by God to ever-increasing authenticity, ever more true and clear reflection of the likeness of that image in which we were created.

We’ve got our work cut out for us in the 2009 General Convention. And when I’m not utterly frustrated, I’ll be curious to see how the communications construction process evolves along the way.

CP

Waiting

This has been a day of tremendous tension in the Anglican Communion. Our House of Bishops are finishing up a six day meeting in New Orleans at the beginning of which they received a visit from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The bishops and the Episcopal Church in general are under enormous international pressure to bow to demands that we unambiguously stop blessing same sex unions and lifting up openly gay people as bishops. The media has been reporting on our denomination to an unprecedented degree because of the intense fear of schism. Everyone Episcopalian I talk to is exasperated by the situation. I too get irritated, particularly regarding coverage of our governance as a denomination. Admittedly, it’s a confusing system with elements of hierarchy and democracy. The most important factor in the present circumstances is that in the Episcopal church bishops don’t actually have authority to declare a national church policy on their own. We include all orders of ministry—bishops, priests, deacons, and baptized laity-- in that sort of decision, and we meet in a kind of congress every three years to do so. In between such meetings the highest level of authority in the Episcopal Church is actually the Executive Council which, again, is composed of all orders, not just bishops. In other parts of the Anglican Communion, governance structure can bestow more authority on bishops than we do. What’s frustrating is when other parts of the Communion expect our bishops to operate as theirs do. I imagine those kinds of expectations can be seductive to our bishops, especially those who instinctively a) want to reign in a chaotic situation and b) keep everyone happy. A situation like this requires strong spines and level heads. Thankfully, this past Spring, our bishops made a clear statement resisting what others would have them take on. As the pressure continues, I pray they’ll do that again.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress gets closer to passage of the Matthew Shepherd Act, legislation that would enable the Justice Department to support the investigation of crimes based on hatred of particular groups, including gay and transgender people. A version of this bill has passed the House of Representatives and now looks as though it will come up for a vote tomorrow in the Senate. I called my senators this afternoon to tell them I support it. This morning I noted a Boston Globe op ed by Cornel West and Sylvia Rhue that calls to task clergy who have been claiming that this bill would infringe on religious freedom in any way. It won’t.

As it so happens, late last week it came out that Marvin Nissin, a man serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 murder of Brandon Teena, as well as Phillip DeVine and Lisa Lambert, now claims that he, not his accomplice John Lotter, did the killings. The case of John Lotter, who is on death row, may now be reopened. Brandon Teena, who inspired the film Boys Don’t Cry, was murdered when his female birth sex was discovered. That kind of discovery also catalyzed the murder of Gwen Araujo in Newark, California ten years later and numerous similar murders have happened between and since. It is for precisely these kinds of cases that this federal legislation was written.

And so on this day, as Anglicans—especially LGBTI ones—look for affirmation of our denomination’s polity and direction, and as LGBTI people of the U.S. await federal protection of our basic human dignity, I pray for an end to the fear on which division and hatred is based.

Rev. Cameron Partridge