Last week, the Episcopal Church in the United States and its larger worldwide Christian body, the Anglican Communion, made news headlines as a result of the leaders of Anglican provinces’ (called “primates�) meeting in Tanzania. “Anglican Leaders Warn U.S. Church on Gay Unions, Bishops,� The Washington Post reported on February 20. “Anglicans Rebuke U.S. Branch on Blessing Same-Sex Unions,� read The New York Times. Several other headlines used the term “ultimatum� to describe the message of the larger Anglican Communion to the Episcopal Church.

The current coverage builds upon the events of August 2003, when the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church voted to consent to the consecration of openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson at the Church’s 75th General Convention. Inevitably, most stories arise as a result of meetings: the General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 and the primates’ meetings since August 2003 have been the sources of the lion’s share of the stories. And as the tensions within the Anglican Communion have continued, the press has discovered that this is not just a tale of divisions within a Christian body over social issues; it’s also about the future of the entire worldwide body.

It’s also a revealing political story. Anglicanism generally makes decisions through church councils. The Episcopal Church, as the official expression of Anglicanism in the United States, takes this approach but with a twist—its political process uses structures similar to that of the United States government. There are two houses, the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops, that meet and make decisions every three years at the Church’s General Conventions. Resolutions are passed only through approval by both houses.

And it’s easy to forget, more than three-and-a-half years later, just how contentious the vote for the consent to Robinson’s consecration really was. In the House of Deputies, which took up the resolution for Robinson’s consent first, both lay and clerical orders had similar results: consent was granted by approximately three-fifths of those voting; about 30 percent voted against the consecration; and roughly 10 percent were divided. (A majority vote by the members of a deputation counts as either a “yes� or “no� vote; a tied vote is “divided.�) The resolution then went to the House of Bishops, where the bishops voted in similar percentages. Arguably the most tense time came between the two votes, when allegations were raised concerning Robinson’s fitness for taking the office.

But a related issue also engendered controversy at the 75th General Convention: the blessing of same-sex unions. No rites for such blessings were authorized then, nor were they authorized at the 2006 General Convention. But one 2003 resolution did “recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.� This resolution fell short of the “progressive� Episcopal goal of rites for either same-sex unions or, ideally to them, marriage. To “conservative� Episcopalians and Anglicans*, however, it approved of same-sex blessings, thanks to the phrase “operating within the bounds of our common life.� Another approximately 60 percent in favor/40 percent against or divided split occurred in the House of Deputies. (The House of Bishops voted by voice, so no tally was taken.)

A 60/40 split clearly is sign of a deeply divided church. At the same time, a 60 percent “yes� vote is substantive. What explains the discrepancy here? The Episcopal Church has become more progressive in theology, politics, and social issues over the decades, and moderates and progressives combined comprise the majority of those in leadership.

Those on the opposite end of the spectrum often have found that their voices have become less influential over time. The media recently reported on how 11 Virginia parishes voted between mid-December 2006 and mid-January 2007 (the number increases to 15 if you go back to the start of 2006) to leave the Diocese of Virginia and, consequently, the Episcopal Church. It’s not as well known that moderate-to-progressive candidates increasingly were elected from the diocese to serve as deputies to the last two General Conventions. While some conservatives still were elected, some well-known conservative leaders with prior General Convention experience were either passed over or, at best, elected as alternates. A diocese traditionally considered “moderate� became viewed by many conservatives as increasingly progressive.

This trend of feeling alienated from the Episcopal Church has been no means been limited to one region of the country and is not new. Bishop James Stanton of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas conducted a “listening process� last summer that included a survey of diocesan clergy and lay leaders. Seventy-one percent of those surveyed said that “the direction of [the Episcopal Church] was not consistent with their Christian beliefs.� The Episcopal Church Foundation’s 1999 report The Zacchaeus Project: Discerning Episcopal Identity at the Dawn of the New Millennium reported that conservative “[s]eminarians and clergy … state that they often feel excluded by the rest of the Church. They sense political barriers and at the same time fear the Church is failing not only them but its divine mandate� (39).

That “divine mandate� translates into the mission of the church, and here again the progressive wing has had a large influence. In general, the mission is defined the Episcopal Church’s catechism as “to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ� and is often summed up in the term “reconciliation.� Practically speaking, the Church’s efforts to fulfill this mission usually are directed toward social or political goals normally identified with liberal politics. The current emphasis that new Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori places on meeting the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals is warmly embraced by many. But while they may or may not support the Millennium Development Goals, many conservative Episcopalians disagree with the level of importance placed upon those goals as opposed to evangelism and discipleship in the Christian faith. They also believe that the Episcopal Church has jettisoned fundamental Christian beliefs. The Episcopal Church Foundation’s 2003 report The Search for Coherence agreed with one of conservatives’ major concerns: it stated that Episcopal leaders’ “spiritual energies [did not] reflect coherent grounding in historic Christian, and more particularly, Anglican, belief and practice� (40).

And the Episcopal Church is heavily engaged at every level—national, diocesan, parish, and individual—in advocating same-sex blessings and opposing any legislation supporting the traditional view of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.**  This last fall, many Episcopal progressives worked hard to defeat the marriage amendments that passed in seven out of eight states. In May 2004, then-Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold spoke against the Federal Marriage Amendment; between then and the bill’s failure in July 2006, the Church’s Washington office, a number of bishops, and Episcopal gay and lesbian lobbying groups stood against it. Progressives’ association of a liberal stance on same-sex blessings and the Episcopal Church’s mission has been so great that Bishop Jon J. Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles reportedly told youth being confirmed in the Episcopal Church that they were “tak[ing] sides in [America’s] culture war.�

All of these activities point to a related focus within the Episcopal Church: what progressives call “the full inclusion of gays and lesbians� within the church or, more generically, “the inclusion of all the baptized.� “Inclusion,� in this case, does not just mean that gays and lesbians are welcome to worship in a parish. Conservative and liberal Episcopalians agree on that issue. Rather, progressives use both variations to claim that no rite of the church should be prohibited on the basis of sexual orientation. To them, this ultimately includes marriage (again, a blessing of same-sex unions is seen by many of them as an acceptable interim measure) and ordination at all levels (i.e., deacon, priest, bishop). Conservative Episcopalians, however, cannot condone activities for which they see clear biblical prohibitions and that run against the tradition of the church. They hold that holy orders are open to those gays and lesbians committed to celibacy, but not to anyone in a same-sex relationship.

The Episcopal Church has been in deep conflict for many years over these issues. The first General Convention resolutions on homosexuality date back to 1976, and additional resolutions have been passed at every convention since then. The Zacchaeus Project identified the “full inclusion� of gays and lesbians as “[t]he most charged issue� (30) in the Episcopal Church in the late 1990s. These tensions increased with the passage of time. A 2005 study revealed that nearly half of all Episcopal parishes had “moderate� (27 percent) or “very serious� (21 percent) conflict over the hot button issues at the 2003 General Convention (namely, the consent to Robinson’s consecration and/or same-sex blessings). It was common in parishes with “very serious� conflict for members to leave the congregation and/or withhold their monetary giving. Additionally, only 35 percent of those parishes were able to resolve their General Convention 2003 conflicts.

And while it’s commonly known that membership in mainline denominations has been decreasing for many decades, the rate of decrease has increased substantially for the Episcopal Church since 2003. In 2005, the number of active baptized members decreased by over 42,000 individuals. Average Sunday attendance fell by approximately 26,000 when expected large Christmas crowds are factored out. Since 2003, large majorities of some Episcopal parishes chose to leave the denomination. There have been substantial losses even in some progressive parishes. The Episcopal Church continues to do well financially overall, but the effect on attendance has been considerable, despite its public stands downplaying recent parish votes to leave the denomination.

It’s only within this larger context that both the Episcopal Church’s larger dealings with the Anglican Communion and what happened last week in Tanzania can be discussed and evaluated. That, however, is the subject for another post.

*Any terminology used to describe the two groups is limited because there are major political, theological, and social issue differences. I have used “progressive�/�liberal� and “conservative� in this piece; however, it’s important to remember that someone who falls into one category on theological and/or social issues may not fall into the same category in terms of political voting. I also use the term “conservative Episcopalians� several times in this piece for simplicity’s sake, but many of them now identify more with the term “Anglican� rather than “Episcopalian.�

**Despite the large focus in this post on same-sex blessings and the sexuality debates within the Episcopal Church, it’s important to bear in mind that these are only presenting issues that point to deeper concerns. Conservative Episcopalians/Anglicans have been lamenting and fighting the denomination’s drift from, in their view, Scripture, tradition, and reason in a variety of forms over the years.  Those other forms, however, are beyond the scope of this post. One discussion of some of them can be found here.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 28th, 2007 at 8:24 am and is filed under Politics .