The question of blessing the committed, lifelong relationships of two people of any gender--outside holy matrimony--will surface once again at General Convention this summer. Given its near adoption three years ago by the House of Deputies at the convention in Denver, the question could finally be settled, according to some observers. The question lingering in the minds of many in the church, particularly its bishops, is: at what cost?

The vehicle this time around is a resolution from the Diocese of California directing the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to "prepare a rite or rites" for the Book of Occasional Services that supports "couples living in life-long committed relationships of mutuality and fidelity outside the relationship of marriage." A nearly identical charge, one of eight resolves in a resolution to the 2000 General Convention in Denver, fell short of adoption by the votes of three lay deputations in the House of Deputies.

For many church progressives, including those who have spoken out most strongly for gay and lesbian interests, the church in 2000 showed it was not yet ready to embrace same-sex blessings. Yet the work of groups like the New Commandment Task Force and other reconciliation movements has changed the climate and the time now seems right to take that final step, they say.

"I think it is time," said the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, rector of St. Paul's in Chatham, New Jersey and a deputy from the Diocese of Newark. "What we have been doing with the issue of homosexuality is a sin. I am tired of participating in this corporate sin of avoidance. And the thing we have been avoiding is the deeper, more difficult issues of the Gospel." Not that justice for the church's gay and lesbian members is "not an important gospel project," she added, but that the church has chosen to park itself on the human sexuality debate to avoid more difficult issues.

"I am tired of it. I want to get off the dime. I want to do this," says Kaeton. "I want to move on, and I think other people are there as well."

Caution rankles advocates

Her eagerness is certainly shared by the church's gay and lesbian community, and by various progressive advocacy groups like the Episcopal Urban Caucus, which has endorsed the California resolution. But for the church's governing body with the most influence on liturgical and theological matters, the House of Bishops, the notion of creating rites for blessing same sex unions may yet be premature.

At their spring meeting at the Kanuga Conference Center in North Carolina, the bishops heard, discussed and received--but did not adopt--the House of Bishops Theology Committee's report, "The Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective." The 11-page report--less than a fifth of the length of the bishops' 1994 Pastoral Teaching on Human Sexuality--was commended by conservatives but received stinging criticism from progressives, who faulted it for being thin on theology and short on insight. Besides employing the term "homosexuals" in place of "gays and lesbians"--a choice the committee states it made out of sensitivity to "cross-cultural issues of the Anglican Communion"--the report drew rebukes for its recommendations not only against rites of blessing for same-sex unions, but for urging the church to abstain from legislative action on the issue.

"We believe it is imperative that the Episcopal Church refrain from any attempt to settle the matter legislatively," stated the committee in the report's final section. "For a season at least," they continued, "we must acknowledge and live the great pain and discomfort of our disagreements."

Two months later their reluctance was amplified by the primates of the Anglican Communion's 38 provinces, meeting in Gramado, Southern Brazil. In a pastoral letter released at the end of the meeting, the primates recognized the potential for "divisive controversy" posed by rites for blessing same sex unions. Citing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' observation that Anglican belief is expressed in liturgy, the primates found "no theological consensus about same sex unions," and "therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorization of such rites." Though the primates did not spell out the consequences for dioceses that press forward, they made it clear that the waiting season must continue.

It has been a short season, though, thanks to the Diocese of New Hampshire, which has put an episcopal face on a debate fueled so far by speculation and second-guessing on how the church might react to a move to recognize and bless same-sex relationships. On June 7, the clergy and delegates of New Hampshire's Diocesan Convention elected their diocese's canon to the ordinary, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, as their next diocesan bishop. Robinson, who was a finalist in the Diocese of Rochester election in 1999 and the Diocese of Newark in 1998, is a gay priest living in a 13-year committed relationship with another man, whom he met two years after an amicable divorce.

Reaction was swift. The Rev. Robert Taylor, dean of St. Mark's Cathedral in Seattle and the church's first openly gay man called to serve as a cathedral dean, termed New Hampshire's decision "a Holy Spirit moment" and said Robinson was elected not because of his sexuality, but for his gifts "and the depth of his ministry as a pastor, reconciler, and proclaimer of the good news of Jesus Christ."

For conservative groups like the American Anglican Council (AAC), there was little good news. While not surprised by the election, the AAC said in a statement posted on its website that New Hampshire's action was "yet another unfortunate day for the Episcopal Church," and further evidence of how far the church "has moved out of the thriving mainstream of worldwide Anglicanism."

Whether Robinson advances from bishop-elect to consecrated bishop coadjutor (the title indicates he will eventually succeed the current diocesan, Douglas Theuner) will be decided in Minneapolis this summer. As with nine other priests elected bishop since April, Robinson must have the consent of both houses of General Convention before he can be ordained and consecrated bishop. Under normal circumstances, bishops-elect must receive the consent of the diocesan standing committees, but in General Convention years the results of all elections held within 120 days of the convention go to the deputies and bishops with jurisdiction for approval.

Missing the mark

Forbearance has not won much support lately among advocates for gay and lesbian inclusion. Integrity, the national Episcopal advocacy organization for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons, responded March 22, just days after the bishops meeting, slamming the bishops' report for its "condescending, dismissive, clinical tone," and terming it "a political statement, designed…to build on the fragile foundation of collegiality" that the bishops have nurtured since the clashes at the 1991 General Convention in Phoenix, battles that forced the House of Bishops to meet for five days in executive session and which spawned the annual spring retreat in Kanuga.

"From my perspective I think it continues to sidestep the issue," said Bruce Garner, a lay alternate from the Diocese of Atlanta. "It doesn't address anything…It reflects the fear that a substantial number of the bishops have of taking any action on this."

For Kaeton, "they couldn't have missed the mark more" in the sexuality report. "This was supposed to be a theology statement, and it was not. It has scant theology in it. It is more a political position paper than a theology statement," she said.

A similar tack was taken by the Rev. Susan Russell, executive director of Claiming the Blessing--a recent venture of three longstanding gay and lesbian advocacy groups: Integrity, Oasis, and Beyond Inclusion, focusing on the theology of gay and lesbian committed relationships and sharing the story of gay and lesbian church members. Russell expressed disappointment over the lack of "theological leadership" and the report's political tone.

Given the number of progressives on the committee--including Bishops Robert Ihloff of Maryland and Catherine Roskam, suffragan of New York--Russell said she expected "to see a little more proactive leadership on behalf of moving forward for gay and lesbian people." The committee may well have done the best it could, given its make-up and limitations, she said, "but I don't think we are done with that conversation."

Committee defends 'a good faith' effort

Describing the committee's work as "a good faith contribution as part of the conversation," Roskam acknowledged that the process was hampered by time constraints, lack of resources and the committee's need to address other issues. "We worked in as good faith as we could," going into some issues in great depth but limited at other times, she added--but that does not imply the committee lacked "good will" in its work.

Noting the response of Integrity, Roskam said, "it is very easy to criticize a process in which you have not participated," but doing so in not helpful in the long run. The committee's portfolio is theology, not sexuality, she said. "So it is not that representative of a group, and we know that. And we knew it going into it. That is a shortcoming, and we had to produce it anyway."

Given the scope of its charge and its other tasks, the committee "has done what it was supposed to do," said Ian Douglas, professor of Anglican, global, and ecumenical studies at Episcopal Divinity School in Massachusetts, one of seven academics on the 13-member committee. "It is important to remember that this committee wasn't set up to deal with human sexuality," he noted.

A standing committee of the House of Bishops, the theology committee was revamped in 2000 to include lay members and priests, and given a budget and national church staff support. During the recent triennium the committee worked on three areas in addition to sexuality: the theological calling of the House of Bishops, a theological process for bishops to use on various topics, and the nature of reconciliation.

On human sexuality, said Douglas, the committee was working from an ecclesiastical context and was mindful of provinces and groups in the Anglican Communion intent on making sexuality a dividing issue. By intention, the report "says more about the church than what it says necessarily about gay and lesbian people," he said.

That the committee went in that direction is disappointing but not all that surprising for Russell. Sensing the bishops' committee was reluctant to dig deeply into the issue, her organization met last November to draft a theology statement on same-sex blessings that delved into the nature of spiritually based relationships, and to strategize for General Convention action. "Someone else should have done the work and we think we did," said Russell.

Revisiting the Denver debate

Expectations were heightened on July 13, 2000, when the House of Deputies loudly applauded a delegation bringing news of the bishops' mind of the house resolution charging their theology committee to continue the conversation. Two days earlier the deputies had passed the hotly contested D039 resolution crafted by the convention's special Committee 25.

Echoing many of the provisions of a landmark resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, the Denver resolution tried for a rainbow embrace of church positions on sexuality: endorsing the church's traditional teaching on the sanctity of marriage while recognizing that there are couples in the church who are living in committed relationships outside of marriage; calling for all relationships to be characterized by "fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect," and denouncing "promiscuity, exploitation, and abusiveness" in relationships; and affirming the need for people of different perspectives to engage in conversation while acknowledging that some church members will act in contradiction to the church's traditional teaching.

While the first seven resolves drew minimal opposition, the eighth--calling for rites of blessing in the Book of Occasional Services for relationships of mutuality and fidelity other than marriage--sparked intense debate. Chastened by conservatives' warnings of an exodus of members were the resolve to pass, enough progressive deputies joined with moderates in voting down the call for rites of blessing.

An effort by the House of Bishops to restore the eighth resolve was soundly defeated. In the aftermath of that vote the house directed its theology committee to continue the study and conversation on human sexuality, and in working with the Committee on Pastoral Development prepare a report with the goal being a mind of the house resolution.

Three years later many gay and lesbian advocates find little evidence of new ground being plowed, or seeded, by the committee. "The most disappointing thing about the report was it just seemed to be a rehash of the old argument that has been going around for a couple of decades right now, with the only conclusion being that we can't do anything," observed the Rev. Michael Hopkins, president of Integrity.

If the task demanded more than they were able to give it, then they should have acknowledged that failure and handed the job back to convention, said Hopkins. "The church needed a greater effort here, rather than come up with something that officially adds nothing to the debate."

Conservatives welcome report

The committee found a decidedly warmer reception among the ranks of conservatives. In a press release posted the week following the bishops' Kanuga meeting, David Anderson, president and chief executive officer of the Anglican American Council, described the committee's report as "a constructive launching point" for the work of bridging the rift between the Episcopal Church and other parts of the Anglican Communion.

While not giving the report "a totally uncritical endorsement," Anderson, in a recent interview, said the AAC supports the committee's bottom line conclusions opposing legislation for blessing same-sex unions. "We don't think this is the time. We would go farther and state we don't think it is appropriate period," said Anderson. A major concern for the bishops' committee, and the AAC as well, he said, is the risk of such a move fracturing the Anglican Communion. Two-thirds of the communion, he noted, adheres to traditional teachings and practices, and has difficulty understanding the more liberal attitudes and reforms of the U.S. and Canadian churches.

That the committee was unwilling to put the communion's tolerance to a test was encouraging, said Anderson, and a surprise. "The fact was we were trying to anticipate that they might very well say go forward, it is time to do it," he said. Instead they reached a conclusion that AAC can accept, he added.

Another conservative voice, Diane Knippers, director of the Washington-based Institute for Religion and Democracy, found the committee's report balanced and sensitive to the proponents of "creedal orthodoxy." On studies like this she worries if her concerns and perspective will be taken into account--and they were. "I felt heard," she said.

She was also struck by the committee's diversity of voices and the ability to reach consensus on such a volatile issue. That came as a surprise and affirmation for members of the committee as well.

Seeing Christ in one another

"I think there was a real kind of koinonia that developed among us as we saw Christ in each other, and I value that enormously," said Bishop John Howe of Central Florida. "Somewhere along the way we realized that we were all creedal Christians, that we see ourselves as starting from Nicene orthodoxy."

Their unanimity, said Bishop William Gregg of Eastern Oregon, was reached through conversation that was rooted in their experience of baptism, and not through "political compromise." His hope is that as the bishops engage this issue in Minneapolis, they will focus on cultivating a similar experience and not reach for a legislative solution. "I think the house is in a place where really engaging that spectrum first is more important than rushing into legislation," he said.

The conclusions committee members reached on gauging the church unready for blessing relationships outside of marriage and advising against legislative action evolved naturally from their discussions, said Howe. That they were unanimous on those points was a surprise given the spectrum of views, he added.

As to the claims that the committee ignored or sidestepped its charge, that is "a false reading," said Howe. "Nobody ever said it was our task to try to settle anything. It was to produce a report to the House of Bishops and ultimately to the church as a whole that would further the discussion."

Debate will begin with bishops

Where that discussion goes may ultimately be decided on the floor of the House of Bishops this summer. According to the Rev. Jim Simon, vice-chair of the Committee for the Dispatch of Business, the California resolution on same-sex blessings (C005) will begin its journey to the convention floor in the cognate Committee on Prayer Book and Liturgy.

"The tradition of convention is that matters dealing with prayer book and liturgy have always been first referred to the House of Bishops," said Simon, a reading confirmed by the Rev. Frank Wade, co-chair of the cognate committee. Wade's personal preference, however, is that C005 go first to deputies, since the bishops have had an opportunity this spring at Kanuga to discuss the issues. The decision, he noted, ultimately lies with the presidents of the two houses: President George Werner and Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. He also expects a major hearing on sexuality--similar to the forum held at the 1991 General Convention--to be scheduled for one of the convention open evenings.

If in fact C005 does debut with the bishops, its chances for advancement are questionable given the vote three years ago against restoring the eighth resolve of D039. While reluctant to predict its fate--"I would rather guess lottery numbers"--Simon thinks Episcopalians are now more attuned to the implications of moving ahead with rites for same-sex blessings. "I think we have a clear understanding that this has repercussions for our Anglican brothers and sisters around the world," he said. "I think that has been taken much more seriously."

While encouraged that the bishops chose not to endorse the report at their Kanuga meeting, progressives see the best chances for C005 resting in the hands of the deputies. "If the House of Deputies has a chance to debate the resolution first, I have no doubt that it would pass and relatively handily. But I am not sure they are going to get that chance," said Integrity's Hopkins. On such a volatile issue the bishops could go either way, he noted, if they are the initiating house. If deputies take the lead, however, the bishops would "vote easily for it," he said.

Rift in Anglican Communion?

Hopkins also questions the possibilities of a rift in the Anglican Communion suggested by conservatives. What is being proposed is a discretionary rite, not a canonical mandate, he pointed out. And he argued that the communion, even in the developing world, is not the bastion of conservatism trumpeted by U.S. traditionalists.

"I think the communion is a whole lot more resilient than most people are giving it credit for these days," said Hopkins. "And there is a lot more that holds us together than this particular issue."

His optimism, and caution, is shared by Kaeton who said she is "very, very confident" the deputies will authorize rites for the Book of Occasional Services. "I am not so sure about the House of Bishops," she said. "I pray that they find the courage to provide real leadership for the church. But I have not seen too much evidence of it of late."

Roskam, who joined other theology committee members in supporting the conclusions in "The Gift of Sexuality," is not prepared to write off legislation as a legitimate avenue for addressing and discerning moral and theological issues. "I believe that the Spirit will reveal herself," she said. "I also believe that the Spirit can be revealed in legislation. I don't think it is either/or. Everything is part of the realm of God, and so is our legislation."

Though unwilling to predict the outcome this summer, Roskam has no equivocation around her personal belief. "My heart would like us to bless same-sex unions," she said, with the condition that they meet the criteria in D039 regarding lifelong monogamous relationships. In her diocese, New York, committed gay and lesbian relationships "have proven to be so healthy and so long-lasting and so nourishing of the people engaged in them that I think we have to recognize that the Spirit is at work in them."

Option or mandate?

Howe remains skeptical of a legislative solution to the impasse, given what he believes to be the very real threat of a communion-wide rift, and the reality that Episcopal dioceses are proceeding with unofficial rites now. "They are doing it with impunity, and those who are unwilling are not going to do it even if there is some authorized service in the Book of Occasional Services," he said. "So why the push to make official what would only be divisive?"

Progressives counter that legislation like that proposed by California does not compel anyone to use same-sex blessing rites. The intent, they say, is to provide an optional resource for clergy and congregations inclined to recognize and bless lifelong, monogamous relationships of two persons of any gender who are not or cannot be married.

"Nobody is going to force anybody, but the reality is that it is being done now," said Roskam. "We all know it is being done, and for those who believe that it is being done, let's let the church be the church and do it."

The problem for some in the conservative camp is the feeling that what is once an option can metamorphose into a mandate. Simon, who is also a deputy from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, questions the logic of a discretionary rite that is held up as a matter of justice.

"I think the logical premise that this is a justice issue eventually leads you to the place where you become insistent that it be done everywhere," he said, citing the example of the 1997 General Convention setting up a process to monitor progress for ensuring that women have full access to ordination in the three dioceses--Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin--that do not support the ordination of women to the priesthood.

"You cannot tolerate injustice in these three dioceses. And that is very much the rhetoric we are hearing," said Simon. "And I see no reason that we won't experience the same thing on issues of sexuality."

Unity or identity

The choice being highlighted in the debate on sexuality, by many conservatives, is between church unity and conformity to traditional values on the one hand, and personal identity and social justice on the other. In their eyes, the two are incompatible positions, and thus not amenable to reconciliation. Despite growing interest in mediation and reconciliation work among progressives and some conservatives--beginning with the New Commandment Task Force formed in the wake of the 1997 General Convention--the idea has not won an endorsement from the most active of the Episcopal Church's conservative renewal organizations: the American Anglican Council.

Though an AAC rector, the Rev. Brian Cox of Christ the King parish in Santa Barbara, California and a co-founder with Newark's Dr. Louie Crew of the New Commandment Task Force, is heavily invested in the reconciliation movement, the AAC chose not to participate in a recent national reconciliation conference hosted by Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno.

In addition to certain "premises we weren't willing to start off from," AAC's president, David Anderson, said they elected not to participate because they essentially see the disagreement over sexuality as irreconcilable. Nothing needs further enlightenment, he said. As for repairing torn relationships, he maintains that isn't needed since he bears no animosity towards progressive leaders.

Some progressives also question the utility of reconciliation conferences. Successful dialogue depends on the commitment of its participants, said Garner, a past president of Integrity and veteran deputy of five General Conventions. "Those who want to look for a way to stay together in this rather messy Anglican way of doing things will do so," he said. "Those who want to leave, for whatever excuse they find appropriate, will leave. This is nothing new."

Fallout anticipated

Anderson takes pains to downplay saber-rattling talk of schism and walkouts. His response to people emailing their frustration and despair with the Episcopal Church is to tell them that "this is your church and my church too, and it is important to stay and try to solve what is essentially a family issue." Gays and lesbians, he said, "are our brothers and sisters," and if the vote this summer goes against rites of blessing then conservatives will be sensitive to their pain.

The vote, of course, may well go against the conservative position, and if that happens Anderson expects to see the fallout fairly quickly. "The truth is if this passes some people are going to leave. We wont' be able to stop them. Some people will probably leave within days or a week or so after the convention." Some, he notes, are on the verge of leaving now, and an affirmative vote on C005 could be the nudge that pushes them out the door.

There are hard-line conservatives who say they will remain in the church to continue their campaign if the vote goes against them. The Rev. Don Armstrong, rector of Grace and St. Stephen's in Colorado Springs and a frequent contributor to the General Convention internet discussion, pledges to oppose same sex blessing rites "vocally and actively" within his diocese, and bar the resolution's implementation "in any way I can that remains within the bounds of Christian charity and integrity."

If the bishops and deputies approve the California resolution, he will lobby the church and Anglican Communion to recognize the action as illegitimate and to call for convening another convention. Given the opposition to same sex unions by most Anglican provinces, the Episcopal Church, said Armstrong, "would be either denominationally suicidal, or brazenly arrogant--or both--to go ahead and pursue it."

Knippers also expects to see a backlash, predicting that "there will definitely be parishes and perhaps even dioceses where there are really severe losses," if not immediately, then over the next triennium. Conversely, a vote against rites of blessing may push progressive dioceses and congregations "to do local authorization, having waited long enough," pointed out Hopkins.

Working for change

Given that "there are two languages and two frames of reference" in the debate, Anderson has little hope of a compromise producing a "win-win" situation. Still, he and his board do not have "a plan in the drawer ready to pull out" if the convention authorizes rites for same-sex blessings. He does expect leaders of the 200 plus AAC-affiliated parishes will gather within a month or two after convention to look at a response should C005 or a similar measure pass. "We are committed to trying to reform and renew the Episcopal Church," he said.

Simon, likewise, sees conservatives working harder to change the church, not abandon it. "We are Episcopalians. We love being Episcopalians, and what we want is to be able to participate in the councils of the church."

Until this past triennium that was not the case, Simon acknowledged. But now they know that, if they are going to have a voice, they need to be involved, he said. From his perch on the dispatch of business committee, he is seeing that happen through a more balanced representation on convention committees. "It is not that the committees have gone conservative; it is that the committees have in many cases a conservative voice in a way they didn't have before," he said.

Russell also plays down talk of convention spawning a showdown or ultimatum for conservatives in the church. "We are a challenged people but we are not a dying, defeated people, and there is hope that we can move beyond this," she said. For her diocese, the promising route is through the reconciliation conversations that focus on understanding differences, overcoming fear and promoting healing.

The frustration for her is the reluctance of conservatives to move into the conversation, and away from fomenting fear. "I don't see that as a resurrection response," said Russell. "I see that as getting stuck on Good Friday and not being willing to say that Easter may not look like what we think it is going to, but we trust that it is there and we can find it together."

As much was said by the bishops' theology committee in its closing paragraph where it professes that the church, through "patience, prayer, and continuing study, with forbearance and charity for all," will be guided by God "through this season of conflict to a place of reconciliation and peace for all." A fitting reminder given that when the church gathers in Minneapolis this summer, it will be under the banner of the General Convention sub-themes: "receive, repent, reconcile and restore."

"The Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective"(House of Bishops 2003 Theology Committee Report)

"Continuing the Dialogue " (House of Bishops 1994 teaching on human sexuality)

Resolution C005, Rites for Blessing and Supporting Committed Relationships

(proposed by the Diocese of California)

Resolution B001, Endorse Certain Historic Anglican Doctrines and Polices

(proposed by Bishop Keith Ackerman)

Resolution D039sa, Issues Related to Sexuality and Relationships(73rd General Convention)

ENS article 2003-117 "Seeking reconciliation, LA conversation encompasses many views on blessing same-gender unions"

ENS article 2002-258 "Advocates gather to claim blessing rite for same-sex couples"

The New Commandment Task Force