Wise Detours: Thoughts on General Convention 78

Borderline-obsessive church nerd that I am, I spent a recent unplanned hiatus from genre fiction to watch the live feed of the Episcopal Church’s triennial General Convention in Salt Lake City. It wasn’t as crazy as when I glued myself to the feed of Star Wars Celebration (which is still available, by the way), but the few hours I’d spend watching the House of Deputies certainly felt like a momentous occasion to fixate on.

So by way of a detour from the usual fare on this blog, I thought I’d share some impressions and thoughts. Three major things happened at this Convention: the momentous election of Michael Curry as the next Presiding Bishop, an increased investment in evangelism (primarily through church planting and improving TEC’s online presence), and a final decision on the canonical (legal) and liturgical aspects of the “marriage question.” Lots of other stuff was debated, decided and otherwise done, but these three stand out both in church media and secular media.

The biggest thing that struck me in my own experience of watching Convention was the alteration between familiarity and unfamiliarity I felt watching the proceedings. Much of this Convention felt familiar, or even comfortable and confident. As a Wycliffe grad, I was heartened that the American Church was investing so much more energy and finances into evangelism. I was both encouraged by and interested in the way structural reform of Convention and other bodies was geared to serve that mission. I was deeply impressed with the precision, formality and overall smoothness of the proceedings, none of which served to dull Deputies President Jennings’ sense of humour and prayerfulness. And Curry’s riveting election! The buzz around this man was enough to light up half of Utah! Through all of this, the Episcopal Church reoriented itself to more clearly and confidently know Christ and make Him known.

Things felt less familiar when I was made aware of how TEC is now a solidly liberal Church, and how much of a mixed bag the Anglican Church of Canada is compared to its neighbours to the south. I was similarly made aware of how the “Wycliffian perspective” is a minority position in TEC, particularly with regards to the Anglican Communion. The sense was that the American Church largely regards itself as its own thing, without much investment in relations with Communion Partners. Mentions of the Communion, such as in TEC's effective rejection of the Anglican Covenant, were taken more as afterthoughts and requirements to play nice rather than opportunities for global partnerships and global horizons.

A concrete example of the clearly liberal direction of TEC is how a proposal to drop the Baptism requirement to receive Communion got some decent airplay in the House of Bishops and almost passed. Most evidently, a surplus of new and ad hoc liturgies were approved, including new Propers commemorating deceased saints and witnesses—some of them never claiming to be Christian! While all of this is being talked about in Canada, they have no where near enough support to be given serious consideration. They are unfamiliar to me because I generally don’t consider them worth thinking much about, so I don’t really think about them.

The biggest indicator of TEC’s liberal bent is something I do think a lot about, namely the equality of same-sex and heterosexual marriage. Prior to Convention, the canonical and liturgical approval of same-sex marriage was not in doubt (another difference from the mixed bag that is Canada). No one was surprised when both Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori and President Jennings responded favourably to the Obergefell ruling, which was decided on the eve of the Church’s own debate on the matter. (The extent to which it is in fact the same matter is itself in dispute.) One thing this indicates is that the dust of Anglican realignment in the U.S. has basically settled (for now): traditionalists who could not live in a Church open to same-sex marriage had already given up the fight and left, and those willing to coexist amidst disagreement are committed to staying and contributing to the health of the Church. At least I hope they’re willing to coexist, and I hope progressives are also willing to coexist: otherwise the Mind of the House and Salt Lake City Statement are empty niceties that mask the continuing mire of polemic.

I hope the Episcopal Church will be better for its actions at GC78, and begin a new chapter in the way it works through the “marriage question” by becoming clearer about precisely what this question is. The fact is that this task of clarity is only now beginning, but hopefully better late than never. While the Episcopal Church has committed to the act of same-sex marriage, it has not fully committed to any particular positive meaning of marriage. Pittsburgh Bishop Dorsey McConnell expressed concern that the preambles to the newly-approved liturgies “do not make a coherent or compelling theological case for same-sex marriage," and that “the overwhelming majority of those present at Convention” framed the debate “as a matter of ‘marriage equality,’ of simple justice, making irrelevant any serious discussion of sacramental theology.”

For those of us in the “activist middle,” this situation also presents an opportunity: more serious theological dialogue regarding homosexuality and the Christian Tradition is hopefully better late than never. Now that the polemics and politics are finally dying down, the opportunity for a deeper and more wide-spread discussion of same-sex marriage as Christian marriage can emerge. What does it mean for marriage, same-sex or heterosexual, to be for "mutual joy,...help and comfort...in prosperity and adversity, and, when it is God's will, for the gift and heritage of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of God?" More to the point, what do the terms "unconditional, mutual, exclusive, faithful, and lifelong" mean in the positive, life-affirming and communal context of the Christian Gospel? Similarly, how can ministers of Christ’s Gospel better guide and help form the couples who will make a Declaration of Intent with these words, in a culture in which such ideas are often misunderstood or dismissed?

I acknowledge that this may require activist proponents of equal marriage to explicitly describe how they take these Traditional questions seriously, even when they feel like they have nothing to prove, and even when these questions are often posed with less-than-charitable intentions and in less-than-charitable ways. (For better and for worse, I have Romans 12:21 and Matthew 5:38-48 running laps in my head, calling for the transformative power of dialogue and even solidarity with opponents.) I also acknowledge that I am not the best voice to call for this explicit affirmation of Traditional concerns, nor am I the best person to respond. An awareness of my straight male privilege is a concern I take seriously as well. However if the Episcopal Church prides itself on being a "thinking Church," of requiring that its members do not leave their brains at the church door, then I hope it is appropriate for me to draw attention to the need for deeper reflection in this case.

The most important acknowledgement to me made is that this conversation can never leave the deeply personal and sensitive realities of concrete couples: we need to continue resisting the temptation to seal ourselves off in abstractions or isolate ourselves in partisan camps now that the dust is settling. To close with McConnell’s own words to his flock, “this is a conversation that very much needs to happen, on the ground, in the pastoral context of people's lives and hopes; perhaps as our pastors and people consider the use of these rites, we can find ways to have such a discussion together.” Love wins indeed, and if we have a sense of what that means then we have a critical opportunity to share it.