Reflections on the House of Bishops meeting

by the Right Reverend Thomas Clark Ely, Bishop of Vermont
Mountain Echo
April 2005

Dear people of Vermont:

The recent House of Bishops meeting was a full and very engaging time for me. While most of the focus was on our response to the Windsor Report and the Communiqué from the Primates, our agenda also included a presentation about the response of Episcopal Relief and Development to the tsunami disaster, a discussion of papers from the House of Bishops Theology Committee on Confirmation, presentations and discussions on proposals to amend the Canons of our church governing discipline (Title IV) and ministry (Title III), and a presentation from the Nominating Committee for the next Presiding Bishop. Our time was rich in prayer and worship, as well as in conversation—including some very forthright conversations about the ways we relate to one another across differences and divides in the exercise of our ministries.

The Covenant Statement issued at the end of the meeting represents our best effort at responding to the Windsor Report and the Primates’ Communiqué within the framework of our Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons, and it includes another expression of our “deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003” (Covenant, point 2). The Covenant Statement is about what we as the House of Bishops can and will do in the time between now and General Convention 2006 “to contribute to a time of healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report” (Covenant, point 3). To be sure, these are “provisional measures” but they are not insignificant gestures. They offer a Sabbath space around episcopal elections, a commitment from bishops, like myself, to suspend a dimension of our pastoral ministry with gay and lesbian couples, a commitment from all bishops to respect the integrity of diocesan boundaries, and properly refer the matter of our Episcopal Church involvement in the Anglican Consultative Council to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church.

I am pleased to see that the Archbishop of Canterbury responded quickly by writing that it is “a constructive response” showing “a real willingness to engage with the challenges posed.” It is important to note the spirit of deep listening and generosity that was manifest in our time together. It seems that perhaps the Archbishop intuited a sense of that spirit present among us. Of course, it is in the living out of the Covenant that the fruit of that spirit will be made manifest.
Along the way, many voices were heard. As the Covenant began to take shape, we deliberated in smaller groups as well as in the full house. There were also many frank discussions during break times and at table during meal times. I spent nearly two hours with the drafting group—bishops representing a broad range of theological positions and geographical locations—discussing how the language of point four, dealing with the blessing of couples living in committed same gender relationships, might affect our ministry in Vermont. The final language of the Covenant represents the fruit of that conversation.

At one point in that conversation, several bishops who strongly oppose the Episcopal Church’s action in blessing couples living in committed same gender relationships were listening with great respect and thoughtfulness as I talked about ministry here in Vermont to, with, for and by gay and lesbian persons, including my own personal experience of the ministry of blessing. During that conversation I was put in mind of the way many bishops who voted “no” on the question of giving consent to the election of the Reverend Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire nonetheless worked very hard to remain, and encourage those among whom they serve to remain, in the Episcopal Church.

The final language of the Covenant will not please everyone. In quoting from the Primates’ Communiqué, assuring “homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship,” I think, hope, and believe the House of Bishops was saying that homosexual persons, just like all other persons, are loved by God and that the pastoral ministry of our church extends to them as much as any other person. The reality that many gay and lesbian persons do not experience that love and care in some faith communities is sad indeed. Sadly too, not all in our church are able to recognize and celebrate that pastoral care—as well as a full range of other ministries within and beyond the church—is faithfully exercised by gay and lesbian persons. Perhaps a Covenant yet to be written will one day be able to say that.

The Covenant goes on to acknowledge that some in our church hold such pastoral care to include the blessing of same sex relationships, while others do not. Here in Vermont we do, and we will continue to do so as the clergy of our diocese exercise the pastoral ministry entrusted to them in ways appropriate to their pastoral context. This Covenant does not alter the pastoral ministry of the Diocese of Vermont with regard to the blessing of Holy Unions, except to suspend the Bishop’s pastoral ministry in this regard for a season.

The final “vote” on the Covenant was preceded by a series of votes on the language of certain sections of the document. I had strong reservations with regard to the moratorium on Episcopal elections and would have preferred that we stop short of that, believing as the Covenant states that our polity “does not give us the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria based on matters of suitability beyond the well-articulated criteria of our canons and ordinal.” Nonetheless, when the debate was concluded and the Presiding Bishop asked who could support this Covenant, I joined in indicating my support. I felt strongly that this was a document of and for our community of bishops, as well as for the whole Church to read, and so I will live by it.

At the end of the day, I was persuaded that this Covenant would help more than hinder the healing we long for in the Episcopal Church and with our partners in the Anglican Communion. Of course, time will tell. I also believe it signifies a new spirit of collegiality in the House of Bishops, for which I am most grateful.

More than anything else, the renewed commitment to seeing all that we are doing in service of the Gospel and its mission was a reminder of where we need to keep our focus. I write this on the eve of Palm Sunday, the beginning of Holy Week, when we are invited to walk the way of the cross and participate once more through liturgy and life in the Paschal Mystery of Christ’s dying and rising. Many of you will read this after we have raised our hearts and voices in the acclamation of Easter’s Alleluia. Living into the new life we have been given in Christ is to live into, and for the sake of, Christ’s reconciling mission to the world. None of what happened in Texas last week really matters if it is not in pursuit of that mission. I believe our work was in pursuit of that mission and our partnership in mission with Anglicans around the world.

In the service of Christ’s mission with you,
+Thomas

Go to Episcopal Church Response to Windsor Report index page

Go to Lambeth Commission on Communion index page