Statement of Kendall Harmon on Resolution D025

Very well said, Canon Harmon.

Who wants to put money on it that TEC will take that very argument to the Instruments of Communion?  We didn’t overturn B033.  This just merely states where we are at the moment.

This will only get much clearer in time, especially if we end up with another GLBT bishop candidate.  Which resolution will take precedent, D025 or B033?  Time will tell, and with the rapidity that TEC is moving, it may come sooner rather than later.

Aside from how D025 is ‘spun,’ isn’t the proposed development of “theological resources and liturgies of blessing for same-gender holy unions” in C056 (to be debated in HOB today) as much a communion-breaker?

D025 is the proud assertion of a church of self-authentication and radical autonomy.

But then how can it be otherwise?  Radical autonomy is the essence of liberal religion, and self-authentication is the natural outcome of radical autonomy.  TEC is simply displaying its authentic self for all to see.

carl

Update from the elves on T19 status.  It looks like the main blog is back online.  But the SF Crew are conspiring to keep Kendall silent.  They have not shared with us the new link to get into the admin section of the blog to post articles.
But we are not cowed or defeated.  Kendall is posting at T19’s backup:  http://t19backup.blogspot.com/

His voice WILL be heard! 

In all seriousness, we’re thankful for Greg’s incredible efforts.  It looks like the server move is complete and all should be well.  Hopefully we will be able to log into blog admin soon and Kendall can once again post freely.  Stay tuned.

It is particularly interesting to me that among the few who are interested in parsing D025 to NOT be a “repeal” of B033 are Covenant-type conservatives.  Fr. Dan Martins has attempted such a spin

My own personal assessment is that it walks right up to abrogating B033 and shakes hands with doing that but then fails to embrace it.  It’s like it just almost touches but doesn’t quite touch.  The important distinction to keep in mind is the distinction between discernment and consent because D025 says that we are going to use our constitutional and canonical processes for the discernment of candidates for the episcopal office but it doesn’t touch on giving consent.  It just leaves that unsaid.  B033 of course doesn’t deal with discernment, it only deals with consent. That’s why I say they don’t really overlap and that’s why I think you can make a good case that D025 brushes with overturning B033 but doesn’t actually do it.

Fr. Bruce Robison has also opined it is plausible D025 hasn’t overturned B033

The silence of 2009 D-025 on the matter of 2006 B-033 will be and is already being interpreted variously. Some will point out, truthfully, that there was in D-025 at least no explicit repudiation of B-033—which means, in a sense, that bishops and standing committees still have in the universe of their consideration a reminder that at least several years ago the General Convention urged them to pause and consider with seriousness the impact of ordinations in the wider life of the Communion… Communion-minded leaders may in the season ahead, even if D-025 is approved by the Bishops, find ways to shift some emphasis away from the most extreme interpretation of the Resolution, and say that by not explicitly overturning B-033, it still has some moral force.

Of course these were very early assessments before the HOB had passed D025 and I’m sure they now realize it is now futile to attempt such interpretations…

Phil (#2)

Nah… all they’ve done is agree to develop such liturgies and report back three years from now (when they will no doubt approve one of them).

Until that happens, they will continue to claim that they have approved no such liturgies and remain Windsor compliant.

Well, Elves.Your loss is the HoB/D’s gain Kendall has made numerous entries to this listserv which, I believe, have been important.  His voice there has been long overdue.  Be patient.

The Elves (#4)

It looks like the server move is complete and all should be well.

Sorry… I’ve been condiitoned to understand “all is well” to be synonymous with “things are coming apart at the seams.”

#5 I’ve noticed that.  It’s a particularly dishonorable showing on their part.

I “slept in” this morning until 6:30. I’m going to get some breakfast, then back to the lair to get Kendall’s site configured.

I have been baptized.

RE: “I have been baptized.”

And your voice is sacred!

“Those involved in pastoral care know that when a relationship is deeply frayed when one or other party insists “this is who I am” the outcome will be disastrous.”

This is particular true in marriage counseling, when one of the parties announces, “Honey.  I love you.  But I’m gay.  It’s who I am.”

After several hundred years of Episcopal Church marriage to the Church of England, it may be hard for the COE to hear.  Even though it’s been obvious to many for so long.  “How can she not see that about him?” they say.  “How can she turn a blind eye to the affairs, the galavanting, and the betrayal?  How can she be so naive?  Is she just sticking around for the money?  For the comfort?  Maybe this it is just a marriage of convenience?  But if not, when will she wake up, and realize she has been made to look like a fool?”

These are all questions people have been asking of the Church of England.  And it just got a lot harder for her to keeping feigning ignorance, after such a public pronouncement.

Obfuscation is the ‘modus operendi’ of TEC; only they call it “clever”

Prescriptive and Descriptive Resolutions

The distinction between a Resolution that is descriptive and one that is prescriptive is not only artificial but rather amusing. Any parent knows that example is more powerful than mere words. In the Book of Proverbs, both prescriptive and descriptive modes of speech are of a whole cloth in God’s moral ordering of the world. Compare, for instance,

My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in. Prov 3:11-12).

and

He who heeds discipline shows the way to life, but whoever ignores correction leads others astray. (Prov 7:11)

Do these proverbs not convey the same message, one by exhortation, the other by observation?

So in one sense, I think those are correct who say that D025 describes the way things are in TEC. Would that many around the Communion believed them! I have sometimes suggested that the best way to alert the wider church to the reality on the ground in TEC is simply to circulate the diocesan clergy photo directories.

But it is also true that descriptions are based on moral presuppositions, whether stated or unstated. In the case of same-sex partnership, those who practice it have determined that the opposite-sex character of humanity as described throughout the Bible does not apply in their case nor the biblical injunctions that sexual act

It is great that the English - who invented and speak and write the language - the BBC, the TIMES, the General Synod, actually understand the meaning of the resolution to be what it is -plain and simple.  The attempts at “dysclarity” only serve to identify THE UGLY AMERICANs quite clearly.  (I mean, how often can you say, “what it means is…” to the originators of English and expect to be treated as other than the ignorami you thereby show yourselves to be ever so clearly?  Apparently, in the minds of certain bishops of the American organization known as ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC/the gay church, infinitely.  But there is the old saw about being thought a fool and opening the mouth to establish the fact!)

Obviously the remaining “conservatives” are desperately trying to put lipstick on a pig.

While it may be the case that B033 was “honored” in that no diocese actually elected a partnered homosexual as bishop, it is equally clear that ordinations of partnered homosexuals and the blessings/marriages of same sex partners has proceeded with the full knowledge, encouragement and even participation of some bishops. In other words, the “moratorium” requested by the Communion was never honored.

And B025 legitimatizes that defiance of the Communion. The green light to the SCML to proceed with the development of same sex blessings/marriages, the “pastoral provision” even in states where such unions are not recognized and/or are illegal makes it absolutely clear where General Convention is taking the sect.

It is also absolutely clear from “Integrity”, Susan Russell and the rest of Crew’s crew, that B025 does “repeal” B033.

Septuagenarian, what’s up with the snarky quotation marks around the word conservative? The conservatives like Kendall+, +Lawrence, etc., certainly aren’t trying to portray this as anything but a major flipping off of the Anglican communion. Now, some of the “moderates” might be -  “moderates” like Bp Shaw of Massachusetts or Tom Woodfin .

#4. Brave elves, do not let Sarah catch you.

Bravo Canon Harmon for calling a spade a spade.

Nothing about TEC is clever, they function as an abuser, who seeks to blame others for their own bad and violent behavior. They will never change, or stop this behavior if they are coddled and enabled by the ABoC and others. They need to be shown real, Christian tough love and shown the door from the worldwide Anglican communion, at the very least put on an involuntary, unrecognized status until they repent and deal with their many, many problems. To do otherwise is to further enable their abusive and unChristian behavior, it’s also a sign that the ABoC is not capable of dealing with the responsibilities of his position, in fact his foot dragging has allowed this to occur.

There are now some participants in the 76th General Convention who are trying to pretend that a yes to D025 is NOT a no to B033.

I believe KJS answered this question in discussions in the HOB vote:

Gulick, KY and Ft Worth: I have a question. Will passing this resolution really end the moratorium? Won’t we be ending the moratorium at the time of the consecration of a gay partnered person, not by passing this resolution? Presiding Bishop: The moratorium ends with this passage. We were asked to exercise restraint and we have done that.

I don’t really see why anyone would attempt to claim otherwise.

Bishop Bauerschmidt of TN has the most honest comment I have come upon:

I think it is fair to say that the Episcopal Church will exercise restraint in the ordination of a partnered gay or lesbian person to the episcopate until that moment when such a person is elected by a diocese and receives the necessary number of consents from bishops and Standing Committees in the rest of the Church.  Neither Resolution B033 nor D025 make any difference to the process, except in as much as they reflect the mind and intention of the Church.

(Bolding my addition.  APB)

There is too much drinking of Kool-Aid by all sides of the argument.
1.  B033 never fufilled the Windsor, Dar, primates’ requests for a moratorium on consecrations of gay/lesbiian bishops.  It urged restraint by Standing Committees called on to consent but did not bar nominations or elections or even consecrations of such candidates.
2.  As a Resolution, it was neither binding on anyone nor could it bind future Conventions.  Without any action at all, B033 would have “died” by its own terms with the current Convention.
3.  D025 really says no more than that access to all ordained ministies will be in accordane with the canons and constitution.  How could it be anything else?
    The real problem is that institutionalists engaged in wishful thinking and served Kool-Aid to the AC, suggesting that B033 preserved a status quo that never really existed.  I for one applaud the bishops and delegates for at least putting an end to the subterfuge.  Kendall and the rest who remain in TEC have to stop pretending that TEC cares a fig about the Communion, the Global South, Scripture or the rest of Christendom.  No one is coming to your rescue.  Acknowledge the facts.  You are isolated, marginalized and ignored.  You serve in an apostate church whose episcopacy is rife with heretics.

Gee, thanks, DaveG

Kendall has summed it up admirably.  GenCon 2009 is engaging in a wholesale repudiation of the whole Windsor/Covenant process.  But more important is that TEC is repudiating the authority of Holy Scriputre as the primary norm by which the Church lives.  It wants unlimited autonomy, with no real accountability or mutual interdependence at all.  In a word, TEC is rejecting the Lordship of Jesus Christ and stubbornly refusing to follow in his ways.

Rocks is right (#20), the PB doesn’t even pretend otherwise, and she feels no guilt or shame over it whatsoever.  And the amazing thing is that she has the gall to remind the ABoC that “Schism is not a Christian act.”  Even while leading TEC directly into a schismatic rebellion against the whole classic Christian worldview and moral tradition.

Kendall’s succinct summary is well suited for wide distribution to pewsitters who remain stuck in denial.  Bravo, Kendall.  I wish you’d share your own opinions more often on your blog.

David Handy|

B033 represented the mind of the 2006 General Convention only and was phrased as a request.  Accordingly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually “repeal” B033, just as it would be impossible to “repeal” your saying yesterday “I have a craving for ice cream, let’s go get some.”

What we need to look at is what B033 communicated versus what D025 communicates.  B033 communicated that TEC would exercise restraint (one may argue about what exactly that meant, but that was the sense of the resolution).  D025 communicates that TEC will NOT exercise restraint and proclaims that TEC fundamentally disagrees with Communion teaching and that it will act in accordance with its own understanding.  There is NOTHING in D025 about restraint.

And this nonsense that a moratorium on gay bishops will continue until a gay bishop is elected is simply mind-numbing.  That’s like saying a thief who intends to rob and steal is just fine and dandy until he actually steals something.

Numerous times over the past few years I have heard many of my fellow TEC “conservatives” take the position that until TEC is officially apostate in its liturgy and/or canons it is not yet an apostate church, and therefore it is not proper to view continued membership in TEC as being “unequally yoked” with unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6:14.
My prediction is that when the emotions wane, and the dust settles we are going to be treated once again to the argument that until heresy is hard wired into the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, it is not doctrine and therefore TEC is still just another Christian denomination, or even better, still part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.  Hope I am wrong, but as one of my colleagues used to say, “That’s just my opinion, but I am very, very right about it.”
I predict that before long, we will once again be serenaded by the cheerful liturgical chirping of select conservative frogs in the TEC kettle.
Here’s the rest of the above referenced passage offered for context.
2 Corinthians 6 (English Standard Version)
2 Corinthians 6
1Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2For he says,

  “In a favorable time I listened to you,
  and in a day of salvation I have helped you.”
 
  Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 3We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, 4but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; 6by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; 7by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 8through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 9as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.
11We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open. 12You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. 13 In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also.
The Temple of the Living God
14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

  “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
  and I will be their God,
  and they shall be my people.
17Therefore go out from their midst,
  and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
  then I will welcome you,
18 and I will be a father to you,
  and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”

JamesW (#25),

You’re absolutely right.  The Curmudgeon, A. S. Haley, has made the meaning of such GenCon resolutions abundantly clear, although many people still don’t seem to get it.  But everyone can tell that D025 repressents the repudiation of any restraint, much less any authentic repentance.

And what is needed is not mere “restraint.”  What is needed is nothing less than true repentance, i.e., a complete reversal of behavior, a total U-turn, based on a genuine change of mind, realizing that the promotion of the “gay is OK” notion has been a disastrous mistake because it’s totally unwarranted, unbiblical, and contrary to the revealed will of God.  Nothing less will do.

And that would require not only deciding not to ordain any more gay bishops, but imposing strict discipline on the gay clergy already found in TEC.  And in the ACoC.  And in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and yes, in the mother church of England itself. That alone would be true and acceptable as a sign of real repentance.  We shouldn’t settle for anything less.

David Handy+

As is often the case, #25, jamesw, gets it. And, #26 point is clearly challenging to ComCons.

D025 spits in the face of Lambeth 110, the Windsor Report and the Dar Communique.  With D025 the TEC in GC assembled has now acted.  The inevitability C056 adds another peg.  (Fr. Matt is bang on in his video assessment) The ever so narrow wiggle room is gone.  Fr. Martins and Canon Harris may not quite get it, but the AoC, Bp. Wright, the ACI and Kendall all do.

Eventhough TEC wants the Anglican Communion to be an ‘open marriage’, with this GC and the recent shenanigans in Jamaica, and the prior exit by the GafConites it is beyond broken and possibly just an historic artifact. 

With sadness but hope in Christ,
-miserable sinner

#25 James W
I would go further - the meaning attached to B033 and the effect of D025 in overturning it are not in doubt.  The TEC HOB clarified B033 in New Orleans giving the assurance to the Primates that:
‘The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.’

As the Bishop of Sherborne pointed out in this comment.

B033, as I wrote in both ‘Between the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC’ and in ‘Glacial Gravity or Opportunist Autonomy’, was the key resolution in 2006 and General Convention’s attitude to it was crucial in 2009 concerning its standing in the Anglican Communion.

Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

The House of Bishops of TEC, in September 2007 in New Orleans, clarified that resolution:  ‘The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.’

With the House of Bishops passing D025 (and the likely passing in the House of Deputies), TEC has clearly signalled, against the specific plea of the Archbishop of Canterbury on this very issue, its choice of autonomy over interdependence in the Anglican Communion. Questions will now have to be asked about the full continued participation of TEC representatives in Anglican Communion meetings.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?page=3&thread=12019&sort=creatdesc

There is no question, the HOB have reneged on the assurances given to the Communion: the parsing of Ian Douglas, Mark Harris and Dan Martins miss the point - it is not about what you do - it is about what you promised to do.

And yet another Bishop weighs in on the meaning of all this:
http://dsvgc.blogspot.com/2009/07/bishop-hollerith-reports-from-general.html

All may find this a bit “interesting”

In a message dated 07/15/09 05:24:38 Mountain Daylight Time, (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) writes:
The reaction to D025 is understandable given its repudiation of Scripture as
the church has received it ecumencially in the East and West, and its
repudiation of the mutual responsibility and interdepedence to which we are
called as anglicans.  That it is also a snub to the Archbishop of Canterbury
this week while General Synod is occurring in York only adds insult to
injury.

Kendall, “repudiation” is surely an inappropriate characterization here. As you are aware, our understanding of Scripture has rarely been a static thing, with advances being made through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, better texts, more advanced linguistic and textual tools and on and on. Surely when the faithful use of new information and better texts yields a different perspective than what “the church has received. .ecumenically,” there is no repudiation involved.

Likewise, given the many ways we are involved in MRI through our many CCABs, companion dioceses, ERD, and informal relationships, it is an unreasonable stretch to use the words “repudiation,” “snub” and “insult.”

When we respond prayerfully to experience and information that is not common to other Provinces, surely that is not repudiation of their response to their experience and information. Isn’t it the other way around, viz., when one Primate says to another “I have no respect for your informed conscience, only for those whose conscience is similar to my own,” isn’t he repudiating a basic tenet of our understanding of the role of conscience?  Isn’t it truer to our tradition that while we may differ in matters of informed conscience, no Primate has the authority to declare another’s to be insulting?
Tom Woodward

I wonder if TLDillon obtained permission from Tom Woodward on HoBD list. I will, however, give my response which I sent privately to Tom and Kendall.

<blockquote>Kendall, “repudiation” is surely an inappropriate characterization here. As you are aware, our understanding of Scripture has rarely been a static thing, with advances being made through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, better texts, more advanced linguistic and textual tools and on and on. Surely when the faithful use of new information and better texts yields a different perspective than what “the church has received. ecumenically,” there is no repudiation involved.

I’m sure that Kendall is quite aware of “advances being made through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, better texts, more advanced linguistic and textual tools and on and on”.

I’m also sure that he is quite aware, as apparently you are not, that none of these things require a change of the understanding of the Christian Church regarding sexual morality.

It is interesting how some apologists for B025 are in denial.

Isn’t is rather remarkable that Susan Russell, Integrity and others of the GLBT crowd regard B025 as an “end of the era of B033” are in total agreement with Drs. Wright and Harmon on precisely this point?

When we respond prayerfully to experience and information that is not common to other Provinces,

Yes, I know. Your “experience and information” is so, so superior to those primitives in other Provinces.

Isn’t it the other way around, viz., when one Primate says to another “I have no respect for your informed conscience, only for those whose conscience is similar to my own,” isn’t he repudiating a basic tenet of our understanding of the role of conscience?  Isn’t it truer to our tradition that while we may differ in matters of informed conscience, no Primate has the authority to declare another’s to be insulting?

BTW, isn’t this the heresy of individualism which the Presiding Bishop addressed in her opening address?

Shouldn’t we be listening the the universal Christian Church speaking by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages instead?

After such a massive amount of words out of this and myriad other outlets describing General Cluelessness ‘09’s hideous outcomes, I must ask THE question: 

Now What?