To the Reverend Clergy of the Diocese of Maine:
I am deeply grateful for all who have emailed or called me in the past several days to share thoughts about our General Convention. Members of the Diocese of Maine have been reading their newspapers and watching their televisions as General Convention actions have been reported (and mis-reported) in the media. This note is my effort to be helpful as you exercise leadership in our congregations. I offer these comments in a spirit of prayerful reflection, and do not intend them to serve as official pronouncement nor to substitute for the gracious candor of face-to-face dialogue within our branch of the Body of Christ. The two issues which have dominated media coverage of General Convention are:
1. The consent process to the Consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire. It's important for us to be clear about what "consent" means. Every person elected a bishop in any diocese of the Episcopal Church USA must receive consents from a majority of the bishops and dioceses of the Episcopal Church to be consecrated a Bishop. The consent process is not a "second election"; the purpose of the consent process is to verify that a diocese has engaged in an open and prayerful election in accordance with the canons of the Church. Each diocese provides signed testimonials to verify its conformance with canon, and the Diocese of New Hampshire has done so.
The Episcopal Church has a long and honored tradition of living in various tensions about differing issues. This gift of Anglican comprehensiveness has been a major and glorious theme in our life together from the very beginning; the "via media", the middle way, has offered hospitality to earnest and faithful disciples of Jesus Christ in every age. We are not, however, an "anything goes" church.
We embrace the absolute and sacred authority of Holy Scripture. We recognize that the Word of God contains "all things necessary to salvation". Each of us affirmed that in the Oath of Conformity we took when we were ordained. While taking Scripture with the utmost seriousness, we do not take it literally. To do so violates the very exhortations of Scripture itself, which instructs us to discern the Word in prayerful communion with one another, aided by the promised Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth.
If we were to take Scripture literally, our life would look very different. For one thing, a woman would not be your bishop. Nor would churches take out loans for building projects, nor divorced and remarried persons be admitted to full communion; every personal dispute would be publically aired for the community's consideration, every adulterer would be stoned, and members of the church would hold all property in common. It is the sacred task of the Church to study the Scriptures and apply them seriously and prayerfully to every human circumstance. Many faithful students of Scripture, and I include myself in this group, find that the witness of Scripture in matters of human sexuality is complex, internally contradictory, and far from crystal clear. We desperately need more study, more prayer and deeper discernment as we consult the Word of God on many matters, of which human sexuality is one example. A clear gift of this moment of controversy is that it awakens us to our obligation to study the Holy Scriptures. Let us do so. Invite me to help you begin or continue this sacred responsibility. A clear majority of bishops in our church find themselves, as I do, able to acknowledge the discernment of the Diocese of New Hampshire. We find no canonical or other impediment to the process they have undertaken in calling Gene Robinson to be their bishop. There is a vast and wonderful variety of theologies, styles, personal qualities and convictions within the House of Bishops. There is also, let me report first-hand, a remarkable unity in our midst. This unity is about our shared commitment to Christ and Christ's people and far transcends the differences amongst us. Don't believe everything you read about bloody divisions within the House of Bishops; the media are not privy to our private conversations or our executive sessions.
Two further observations: We Episcopalians cherish our freedom and autonomy; most of us tred lightly about imposing our will on another diocese. Even if some of our people might strongly oppose having Gene as their bishop, we might well draw the line about deciding that issue for others. I suspect that no one would take kindly to having others attempt to influence Maine's choice of a bishop. Gene was elected resoundingly by people who have experienced his ministry for over 20 years (far fuller knowledge than most dioceses have about the bishops they elect!).
Let's be sure we have our facts right as we talk about the intimate life of another person. Gene did not "leave his wife for a man"; he and his former wife reached a mutual agreement to divorce (and to share fully in custody of their two daughters). Several years later Gene met Mark, with whom he has lived in a faithful commitment for over 12 years. Gene's daughter Ella, a vibrant and mature young woman, has been present throughout General Convention. Gene's older daughter has just given birth to Gene's first grandchild. They are, understandably, indignant about false information regarding their father.
Finally, one of the things we must all acknowledge is that the church, throughout the ages, has been richly blessed by the ministry of gay and lesbian deacons, priests and bishops, who have lived in both partnered and celibate circumstances. There is nothing new about a bishop who is homosexual. What is new, and has provoked such public attention, is that Gene has chosen to be honest. While this public awareness makes for enormous discomfort for some of us, I believe that the church has taken a significant step into health by honestly discussing what used to be a matter of whispering, secrecy and speculation.
2. The issue of the blessing of committed relationships of persons of the same gender. A gracious compromise resolution, which was strongly supported by bishops and deputies from every point on the spectrum of opinion, acknowledged that we are not of one mind about these blessings. Accordingly, we commit ourselves to continued conversation, while emphasizing the moral and ethical substance of our expectation of monogamous fidelity in all intimate relationships.
Both those who wanted the General Convention to condemn all same-gender relationships AND those who wanted a green light to prepare rites for such blessings came to this compromise mindful of the tenderness of the demanding discussion of the consent for the bishop-elect of New Hampshire. We chose, essentially, to live within the tension of this issue, not deciding it one way or another, but trusting that continued prayer and patience will bring us to clarity on this issue in the days to come. Some truths are not discerned legislatively, nor as fast as some would like. If media reports on this issue seem fuzzy, it's probably because this resolution has a "both/and" quality which can be hard for an "either/or" world to digest. I cannot close without telling you of an experience I had this evening as I walked back to my hotel from the Convention Center. A huge stretch limousine pulled over to the curb at 10th Street and Marquette Avenue. As a couple stepped on to the sidewalk, a young woman with a baby on her hip asked for a handout for baby formula. The well-dressed man hurled racial epithets at the young woman and stalked into a posh restaurant. I approached this young woman, and eventually took her and her baby into Snyder's Drug Store to buy her a six-pack of baby formula. I tell you this reluctantly, because I don't wish to call attention to myself. But what I do wonder is this: which is the REAL scandal, worthy of so much of our attention and energy? The role of gay and lesbian people in our church or the insidiousness of racism and the scandal of poverty?
Let me assure you again of my prayers, my love, my open heart and my readiness for open discussion as we live in the days following this General Convention. I welcome invitations to meet with you and your people for further discussion. The Sexuality Dialogue process which we agreed to undertake at our Diocesan Convention in 1998 may be useful to refresh and promote within our diocese.
You will hear me saying this often, but it bears mention here: The will of God for us is not uniformity or unanimity, but unity. I believe we are called to live together in service to the world, acknowledging and respecting our differences. However you and your people may be viewing the events of the past week, Jesus Christ is still and always the Lord of all, the Head of the Church -- present to us in Sacraments, in the Word proclaimed and lived -- the Savior who called us to find him in those whom the world has neglected. I believe it was Archbishop William Temple who said:
When we decide foolishly, God reigns.
When we decide wisely, God reigns.
Whatever we decide...God reigns.
Always and ever, beloved, God reigns.
Let me hear from you.
With my love to you, in the name of Christ,
+CHILTON