|
 |
 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
[Back to index of April 2008 articles] Bishops Prepare for Lambeth at Spring Meeting
Washington Window I am writing at the close of the Spring Meeting of the House of Bishops, (March 6-13) at Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas. Much of our time spent outside the business session of our meeting was spent on presentations and discussions in preparation for our participation at the Lambeth Conference this summer. Time was spent addressing what might be offered by the Archbishop of Canterbury that would allow Bishop Gene Robinson's participation in some formal way at the Conference. We spent almost a full day learning more about the "process" of personal and institutional reconciliation, examining successful models that can help individuals, churches and denominations get beyond the "behavioral violence" that too often has defined disagreements. We also worked hard to understand more fully Millennium Development Goal No. 3: "promote gender equality and empower women." This section was blessed with a presentation by Nomfundo Walaza from South Africa, a member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council. Reports were received from the Theology Committee, Racism and the Multicultural Church, Bishops Working for A Just World, the College of Bishops and a report back from American Bishops who attended the July Consultation in Spain with their counterparts from Africa, and a detailed presentation on the reorganization of the Episcopal Church and its regional offices. Representatives of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a team of three Episcopal bishops selected by the Presiding Bishop to seek reasonable ways in which Bishop Robinson could participate in the Lambeth Conference were unable to come to a place of agreement. What was offered to Bishop Robinson by Lambeth was unacceptable to him and to our House of Bishops. The report back by the bishops tasked with seeking a place for Bishop Robinson at Lambeth was received by the House of Bishops with great sadness. I don't believe one bishop was happy with the news, and in many ways it does compromise our own consecrations and the authority that we have been given by our election as bishops to be present at the table whenever the larger church gathers for fellowship and deliberation. Bishop Robinson's response to the Archbishop and our House of Bishop's response can be found at http://tinyurl.com/373tlo. Likewise, the House in its business session dealt with the painful voting to approve the depositions of the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, and the Rt. Rev. William Jackson Cox, resigned Suffragan Bishop of Maryland. The resolutions can be read at http://tinyurl.com/2h7ja8. A final resolution passed by the House expresses the bishops' dismay at President George W. Bush's recent veto of the Congressional bill banning torturous interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding," and called upon the members of Congress to override the veto. The resolution can be read at http://tinyurl.com/ysrrln. This was a fairly long and tiring meeting of the House and a very painful one as well; painful in that Bishop Robinson has now officially been denied his right as a duly consecrated bishop in the Episcopal Church to attend as a participant at the Lambeth Conference. The pain was amplified on the day of our business session when the House of Bishops voted to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox thus removing them as bishops in the Episcopal Church. In the case of Bishop Schofield, he was also removed as the diocesan bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Our worship together each day, Morning Prayer, the Eucharist and Evening Prayer along with significant time set aside for daily Bible study and prayer were a blessing and helped us all deal with the pain of the deliberations we were engaged in and the decisions that we had to make. These two events helped us all realize what the late Presiding Bishop John Hines referred to as the sometimes "exquisite pain" of being bishop. I really need to share with you my perception of the integrity, collegiality and respectful conversations that were a part of the deposition proceedings. Not everyone in the House agreed on the best way to deal with Bishops Schofield and Cox, and yet we were able to share our feelings and perceptions in an environment that was not hostile, nor judgmental, but truly an environment where we called upon the Holy Spirit in prayer to guide our decision making. What this says to me is that the House of Bishops is truly becoming healthier, more respectful and more open to holding up its diversity as a sign of God's presence in our corporate life. We are working hard at seeking reconciliation within our church and working with one another to that end. As painful as this spring meeting was, it was probably one of the most encouraging that I have attended. Much of that credit is due to the leadership of our Presiding Bishop, the leadership in worship and reflection by our two chaplains, one of whom is our own Canon Carol Wade of Washington National Cathedral, and a willingness of bishops from a broad theological spectrum to find ways in which to work together for the common good of the common mission that we share in Jesus Christ. [Back to index of April 2008 articles]
|
|
||||||||||
