Reflections on the September 2007 meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans, Louisiana
From the Rt. Rev. Thomas Clark Ely

September 29, 2007

To the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont

It is good to be home from the House of Bishops. The meeting was both challenging and tiring. However, our work day in the Dioceses of Louisiana and Mississippi was incredibly rewarding. Ann and I worked in Mississippi painting and hanging sheetrock. Our Vermont offering of five thousand dollars together with those of other dioceses contributed nearly one million dollars for the ongoing work of these two dioceses! Thank you to all who contributed.

Of course there were other agenda items at our meeting in New Orleans. We welcomed the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates. I commend to you the full text of our response to the questions and concerns of our Anglican Communion partners.

The Presiding Bishop asked me to serve on the writing committee that drafted the response. Along with seven other bishops, much of my time was devoted to this task. Three versions were presented over the course of two days before the final version was adopted. Beyond what you can read in our final version, I’m writing today to offer some personal commentary on this response.

I want you to know that I voted to support this document, although there are certain aspects of it which trouble me. Time will tell whether our response will be a helpful contribution to the current conversation; I sincerely hope that it will.
Arguably, the two most sensitive matters before us were consents to episcopal elections (Resolution B033 of the General Convention) and the authorization of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions. Addressing both of these matters, the House of Bishops reaffirmed the actions of the 2006 General Convention, and here I remind us all that the General Convention is the primary decision making body of The Episcopal Church.

Regarding episcopal elections (BO33), I believe our statement, “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains,” went too far in the direction of trying to interpret a General Convention resolution, yet I can attest that some wanted an even stronger interpretation. The efforts to seek common ground are clearly evident in our writing on this matter.

The second matter addressed public rites of blessings for same-sex unions. Again, we rehearsed the actions of General Convention, which in 2006 took no action to authorize such rites. We acknowledged as well that “the majority of bishops make no allowance for the blessing of same sex unions.” Of course that means some bishops do. I am one who makes allowance for such blessings, and I intend to continue the current pastoral approach we have in place in the Diocese of Vermont for the blessing of holy unions. This was clearly addressed and understood in the House of Bishops.

We in the Diocese of Vermont have not authorized any public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions. That is the work of General Convention, and I long for the day when the Episcopal Church adopts a public rite for the blessing of same sex unions.  During our discussion in New Orleans I made it clear to my colleagues that our pastoral care of lesbian and gay couples is important to our common life in the Diocese of Vermont.

The response of the House of Bishops to the Primates reaffirms our commitment to the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons. This is a strongly held conviction by the bishops of our church. However, the discontinuity between this expressed commitment and the current circumstance within The Episcopal Church is both glaring and unacceptable to me. I believe we should have stated more clearly our current failure to stand on the side of complete justice and full equality for all persons in our church.

I regret that once again we made our gay and lesbian members the object of our discussion, something that by its very nature is a form of oppression. I ask for more than patience and forbearance from those so oppressed by our words and actions: I ask for forgiveness. I also ask for their continuing faithful and steadfast commitment to the mission and ministry of The Episcopal Church. Finally, I offer my apology to those who disagree and are deeply troubled by recent actions of the Episcopal Church for whom any of my words and actions have contributed to a sense of alienation or oppression. It is never my intention to treat others as objects or to act in anyway that fails to respect the human dignity of another.

I pledge to continue working for both the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons in the life of the Episcopal Church and for the full and dynamic participation of all members of the Episcopal Church in the mission and ministry of the Anglican Communion. Either one without the other would represent to me a failure on our part to live into the fullness of God’s saving grace, glory and hope for the world. I pray that you will join me in this work.

There were other sections of our written response which addressed plainly the subject of delegated episcopal pastoral oversight, the matter of incursions by uninvited bishops into dioceses, the need for appropriate Communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We addressed as well the desire for the Anglican Consultative Council to take the lead in facilitating the “listening process” designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the church’s conversation about human sexuality, and finally our hope that the Bishop of New Hampshire be invited to “full participation” in the Lambeth Conference.

In addition to our response to our Anglican Communion partners, the House of Bishops sent a message to the Church about our meeting, and adopted one resolution calling for a “new vision” in Gulf Coast Recovery and another concerning the War in Iraq. Please take the time to read these messages as well.

My love for the church in Vermont is even stronger than it was before the meeting in New Orleans. I am grateful for the conversations we had in advance of this meeting, for your honesty in challenging me to think and to speak clearly and for your continued partnership in the episcopal ministry which is yours and mine in this great state.  I welcome your correspondence and remain grateful for your prayers.

Faithfully,

+Thomas