Austin Statement: Communion Partners offer their pastoral care for conservatives in liberal dioceses

Jul 20, 2018 by

by Barbara Gauthier (received by email)

The Communion Partner Bishops have issued a statement responding to General Convention passing Resolution B012, authorizing the use of same-sex blessing/marriage rites upon request in every parish of every diocese, regardless of the bishop’s wishes.  The statement seems carefully crafted to be irenic, conciliatory, and designed not to make waves of any kind, although others might just as easily see it as subservient, obsequious and submissive to whatever General Convention should decide.
The few remaining Communion Partner bishops begin by proclaiming themselves loyal members of The Episcopal Church and declare that they are committed to seeking common ground with ” members of our church who share the same baptismal identity have reached out to one another at this convention in common devotion to our Lord and in mutual affection.”  The bishops are grateful for the establishment of a new Task Force on Communion Across Differences with whom they can together “seek a lasting path forward for mutual flourishing consistent with this Church’s polity.’
Their statement is of course highly reflective of Archbishop Justin Welby’s model of church unity in diversity through good disagreement, mutual flourishing and respectful tolerance.  Thus, the Communion Partner Bishops restate their two-fold priority of “maintaining the communion of our dioceses within the Episcopal Church” and remaining in “communion with Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”  For them, this connection with Canterbury is all-important.
They are thankful that General Convention has preserved the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and guaranteed its continued use, while at the same time “giving space for those who seek to develop new rites and new language under the guidance of their bishop.”  In this way, they say, GC has preserved the authority of the episcopal office and removed liberal pressure for a radical revision of Prayer Book.  it seems clear that they are relieved to have dodged the bullet of having to submit to the doctrinal dictates of a new de-gendered BCP.
The bishops recognize that “other Christians of good will and commitment hold contrasting convictions about marriage which has led to a difference in teaching and practice among dioceses and congregations of our church” and they laud GC for providing a workable structure that “preserves the role of bishops as chief teachers, pastors, and liturgical officers by allowing us to call upon the ministry of other bishops of the Episcopal Church, in exercising supplemental episcopal pastoral care in those congregations of our dioceses that desire to use these liturgies and seek this form of oversight.”  Moreover, they see B012’s provision for supplemental episcopal pastoral care as a great example of the Lambeth Quadrilateral’s “local adaptation of the historic episcopate” as a means toward greater Christian.
So far, so good.  The statement is utterly predictable in its efforts to avoid giving offense and placate any remaining opposition.  It is peaceable, conveying the message that the Communion Partners are committed to find ways of getting along with whatever comes their way —  so long as they’re given a place at the table and permitted to continue doing what they do without too much outside interference.  They seem truly to have mastered the art of representing their cup as half full even when there is naught but a few drops left at the bottom.
Then, near the very end of paragraph 11, the Communion Partner Bishops drop a bombshell of their own, perhaps realizing that the best defense is a good offense and that rules can work both ways.  Their logic is built around §12 and §13 of Resolution B012, which states:
12.  Resolved, That bishops continue the work of leading the Church in comprehensive engagement with these materials and continue to provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; and be it further

13. Resolved, That this Church continue to honor theological diversity in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further (emphases added)

The wording of §12 commits the bishops to providing “generous pastoral response to the meet the needs of members of this Church” and although it is phrased in general terms, the context of the resolution indicates that it is intended to be applied specifically to the needs of progressive members of the Church located in Communion Partner dioceses.  However, by then bringing in the need also “to honor theological diversity in regard to matters of human sexuality,” §13 introduces a larger context, which specifically includes the Communion Partners.  This particular paragraph may have been added for the purpose of appeasing conservatives and assuring them that they still have an honored place in the larger Church — and are thus to be treated equally as “members of the Church.”
Put together the two statements posited in B012 §12 and §13, and logic then dictates that B012 can legitimately be applied within this larger context.  If diversity in matters of human sexuality are to be honored (§13), then those who hold differing views on human sexuality must be honored as “members of the Church” and, if traditionalists are therefore to be considered “members of the Church,” then it follows that conservative Episcopalians in progressive dioceses should also be entitled to a “generous pastoral response” to meet their needs (§12).  Therefore, B012 represents a resolution that can be applied equally to all “members of the Church” — progressive and traditional.
Thus, the Communion Partners found their loophole and proceed to apply §12 of GCB012 to their own specific context:
11.  The convention has also acted to protect clergy and congregations who cannot, for reasons of theological and pastoral conviction, affirm such rites. Resolution B012 clearly underlines the canonical pastoral responsibilities of rectors and priests in charge (§7). Congregations that maintain the traditional teaching on marriage, no matter what their diocese, have an equal claim upon the pastoral care of the church. We offer our own ministry of pastoral care in such congregations as bishops in furtherance of that goal. (emphasis added)
Turnabout is fair play:  if liberal parishes in conservative dioceses may receive supplemental episcopal oversight to meet specific needs that their bishop refuses to supply, then the reverse must also be true for conservative parishes in progressive dioceses, whose needs are not being met by their bishop. In the spirit of collegiality, the Communion Partners indicate their willingness to fully comply with with B012 §12:  “We offer our own ministry of pastoral care in such congregations as bishops in furtherance of that goal.”
The statement then returns abruptly to its placid and peaceable tone by welcoming the opportunity for all bishops “to work together for the mutual flourishing to which the Episcopal Church has committed itself (Resolution A227 §3).”  The Communion Partners further express their appreciation for GC’s resolutions “on ways that will allow us to walk together as closely as possible for the immediate future.”  They admit that although the full implications of B012 have yet to be discerned, they are committed to finding “more lasting means of walking together within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, preserving and deepening our communion in Christ.”
The Austin Statement ends with a flourish of the miter to PB Curry:
Our Presiding Bishop, consistently and with great joy, bids us to turn our hearts to Jesus. We accept that challenge without reservation. We commit ourselves anew to transparency, to mutual affection across difference, and to reaching out and ministering to the LGBT community, who are also our brothers and sisters in Christ. By God’s grace we faithfully take up our cross as we follow our Lord and Savior (Matt. 16:24).
The statement is signed by all eight CP bishops plus two more from Province IX (Latin America) and one retired bishop, who appear to have successfully shown their willingness to play, with equanimity and gratitude, the hand TEC has dealt them.
At least, this is the way the Austin Statement is being received in certain liberal quarters of TEC.  Over at Episcopal Cafe, Rosalind Hughes found the Communion Partners declaration to be “generally positive in tone about the compromise offered by the resolution.”  That is, until he arrived at paragraph 11, where he encountered, as he puts it, “an interesting pivot… to offer their own alternative episcopal pastoral support to congregations and clergy in dioceses of the church,” who are permitted by their bishops to offer same-sex marriage within their parishes, but who by “theological and pastoral conviction” cannot do so.  Hughes wonders: will those parishes also qualify for alternative episcopal oversight  — and who will determine their eligibility?.  Very good questions indeed.

Liberals seem to have been a bit taken aback by the audacious prospect of conservative bishops moving into their turf to provide succor and support for the few remaining conservative parishes in their dioceses.  Rosalind Hughes was particularly concerned by a subsequent letter from Bp. Dan Martin to the Diocese of Springfield, in which he adamantly insists on creating an absolute separation in his diocese from any progressive elements: “there must be a robust firewall between a community that receives same-sex marriage into its life, along with its clergy, and the rest of the diocese, including and especially the Bishop.”  +Martin’s proposal sounds distressingly reminiscent of building a wall around the ghetto as a means of enforcing separation.

In his letter, entitled “Towards Generous Faithfulness in Marriage,” Bp. Dan Martins tries to explain to his clergy and laity exactly what happened in Austin at the 79th General Convention.  He admits that the traditional position of their diocese is “clearly a minority one within the Episcopal Church and also runs against the cultural and legal tide in North America and Europe.”  But he also reminds them that they are also part of the substantial majority in the larger Anglican Communion.  +Martin’s advice to them is to live and let live by following the Golden Rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  We need, he says, to “behave well in both contexts—as the majority treating those who are the minority with the same grace and charity as we would, as the minority, hope those who are in the majority would treat us.”  As a Communion Partner, he is committed to living within the tension of good disagreement in the hope that “we may ‘walk in love, as Christ loved us’.”

It is “deeply lamentable,” +Martins adds, “that this most recent General Convention has constrained the authority of bishops to simply prohibit same-sex marriage within the diocese.”  GC has undermined and eroded office of bishop as the chief pastor, teacher, and liturgical officer of his diocese.  Moreover, GC has worked to obscure the sacramentality of the Bishop’s identity and role in that “all liturgical and teaching ministry in the diocese is an extension of the Bishop’s own liturgical and teaching ministry.”  This is a grievous error, he says, and “in need of repentance.”
There are practical considerations as well.  The provisions of B012 apply only to full parishes with rectors, who will then decide for themselves whether or not to allow same-sex blessings in their congregations.  Under canon law, however, mission status congregations are led by a priest-in-charge as a sacramental extension of the Bishop, who also serves as Rector for these “Unincorporated Eucharistic Communities.  Therefore, as their Rector, Bp. Martins serves notice to these mission congregations that he will not permit them to allow same-sex blessings. End of discussion.
As for incorporated parishes, +Martins says that he will abide by the agreement to get them a progressive bishop to provide them with appropriate episcopal oversight for a season to be determined, if they so request.  However, he writes that it will be a matter of deep personal sorrow if any of his parishes chose to avail themselves of that opportunity.  For that would create a rupture within the diocese, the harsh reality of parishes being in a state of impaired communion with their bishop and with other parishes.  It would fracture the diocese.
The Bishop of Springfield concludes with an apology: “It brings me no joy to exercise the authority of my office in a way that brings consternation or grief to anyone, as I suspect this letter will to some… Go in peace, and pray for me, a sinner.”
Below you will find the full text of B012 as passed by General Convention along with an excellent commentary by Mary Ann Mueller, which is well worth reading for its perspective on the Communion Partners contribution to the debate in the House of Bishops and its discussion of the practical implications of B012 that are yet to be worked out.
After that you will find the full texts of the Austin Statement of the Communion Partner Bishops and Bp. Dan Martins’ explanation to the clergy and laity of the Diocese of Springfield of what happened in Austin.
It will be interesting indeed to see how B012 gets played out in real time over the next three years. There will undoubtedly be a number of twists and turns along the way as it gets reinterpreted to accommodate the actual needs of all those involved.  We shall see if the Communion Partner Bishops are actually invited into the process and have their colleagues take them up on their offer to provide for the pastoral needs of traditional parishes located in progressive dioceses.  If they do call the Communion Partners in to give pastoral oversight to those in need, we will know for sure whether TEC truly is committed to mutual flourishing for all, as they have promised, or if “flourishing” in TEC is really only goes one way.
Read also: It’s a Done Deal: SSM Spreads to All Dioceses by Mary Ann Mueller, Virtueonline

Related Posts

Tags

Share This