I’ve written before about key distinctions between GC 2003 and GC 2006, one of those being the level and quality of Internet and informed media attention. Those who endured the 2003 convention relied on one or two web sites and ENS.
My how things have changed.
Another difference—striking for those who were there—was the near obliteration of the “center”. Let us take a trip down memory lane for the past 14 days, since certain parties seem to be allowing the events of the past two weeks to fade into a nice hazy rosy glow.
You may recall back around June 16th—somewhere near the “middle” of the convention—that Bishop Lee had a somewhat dramatic moment in the Special Legislative Committee in which he recommended clear Windsor language for the resolutions that the committee was struggling to write. He had even written one for the committee to consider. A number of those on the committee agreed, and it was thought at the time that “the center was speaking” and that something close to Windsor language would come out of the committee.
It was a clear and public and firm stance by “the center” which Bishop Lee represents, despite his progressive stances.
And yet, barely two days later, the mood shifted—and the committee eventually came out with the somewhat contorted language of resolution A161, which was also nowhere near Windsor compliant. Strike One for The Center.
On Tuesday morning, A161—*the centerpiece* of what ECUSA wished to spin to the world as “Windsor compliant”—was soundly defeated in the House of Deputies. Strike Two for The Center.
It is at this point that what became clear to me and others at the convention also no doubt became clear to the House of Bishops—hence the note of desperation in their afternoon meeting that Tuesday. That clarity was that the middle—once a majority in the HOD at about 60%—was now at about 40%. In other words, there was NO RESOLUTION that would pass the HOD based solely on the center.
And yet, even as little as 10 years ago, such a resolution would have passed the HOD. The “center” could be relied upon to foil the hopes of both traditionalists and progressives.
What “shrank” the middle? My own belief is that two trends “shrank” the middle. For one thing, the “traditional” segment, though small, was fairly well unified. We wanted a resolution that used the language of Windsor, to be voted on up or down. We didn’t want a lie, we didn’t want fudge, we wanted honesty and clarity, and we were willing to take our lumps either way.
There were certainly *some* traditionalists who were willing to “take what they could get”—practically *any* resolution with the word “Windsor” in it would have been joyfully received by them. Honestly, if we had simply stated in a resolution that we have always loved Windsor Castle and we loved it so much that we were going to add a special liturgical feast day for Windsor Castle, the “center” would have voted for it as their “Windsor compliant” resolution.
The only problem was—those kinds of traditionalists were in that now shrinking “center” amongst the 40%. And that 40% was simply not enough to pass, anymore, a “center” resolution.
The second and larger reason why the center is now so small and steadily eroding away is that the “progressive” side at General Convention is now grown so much larger. I put their strength—and here I mean by “their” the “Susan Russell” sort of progressive—at about 30%.
30%.
Let me say it again. The number of deputies to General Convention that are similar in theology and practice to Susan Russell, Louie Crew, and the rest of the crew is at about 30%.
That being the case, there was literally no way.that a resolution could pass the HOD without, in fact, writing something so vague that it would appeal to a huge chunk of that 30%, as well as pull some of the “traditionalists” on the other end into the mix.
With resolution B033, they succeeded in doing that. B033 succeeded *because* it appealed to *other than* the “center”—and because the bishops staged a full court press on the House of Deputies.
I think the question that many in the center need to be asking about their distressing situation is this. Given that they are being superceded by the radical progressives in numbers at General Conventions—and that is what is happening—and given that the traditionalists are peeling away from the national structures, what are they going to do for the future?
Do they feel uneasy?
Have they noticed, yet, that the center is not all that large anymore—certainly not enough to maintain the institution, which is their great priority?
I don’t know. I’d love to be in the mind of an insightful moderate right now.
But today—and over the next few weeks—we shall hear much of how “the center has held”. And how—“the center is finding its voice”. My suspicion is that those centrists who were at General Convention and who are now proclaiming the center holding know the truth but can’t admit it, at least publicly.
We live in interesting times.
4 Comments •
Why, Sarah! You must not have gotten the letter from Bishop Lee that we here in the Diocese of Virginia did….Didn’t you know the Center is strong??? (Ok, I confess to being facetious here…) Bless his heart, I guess he is trying to make himself believe it, but he has grossly underestimated the hundreds and thousands of people in his Diocese who are familiar with the forced vote on Wednesday, and what it truly means. In case you are wondering about the center
.....read his letter carefully, because he mentions those of us who participate in these blogs (“the far right”). Perhaps Greg should send +Lee the number of viewings standfirm and t19 received, so he will be more aware of how informed people really are in the year 2006!
The Center has Held
A Letter from Bishop Lee to the Diocese of Virginia
On the last day of the General Convention, Wednesday, June 21, with effective leadership exercised both by the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Griswold, and the Presiding Bishop-elect, Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Convention adopted several resolutions that together represent a substantive response to the Windsor Report and demonstrated that the Episcopal Church is committed to its life in the Anglican Communion, listens to the concerns of Anglicans worldwide who have been critical of our former decisions that have been perceived as unilateral and desires unity in mission, especially in partnership with Anglicans worldwide.
On Tuesday, June 20, the House of Deputies defeated a resolution that committed the church to specific restraints on the consecration of candidates for the episcopate in same-gender partnerships. The bishops adopted a new resolution on the next day committing the church to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of “any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life is a challenge to the wider church.” The bishops, after considerable discussion and interventions by Bishops Griswold and Jefferts Schori in favor of the resolution and opposed to attempts to amend it, adopted the resolution unchanged. Wednesday afternoon, after much debate and a courageous intervention by Bishop Jefferts Schori, the deputies voted for the bishops’ resolution by a wide margin. The Virginia deputation was unanimous in its support for the resolution.
The far right of the church already is filling blogs with statements of disassociation and repudiation. The fact is the General Convention has responded substantially and seriously to the Windsor Report. But some did not get their way: gay and lesbian people and their supporters who feel we have stepped back, and the extreme right, who find it so difficult to work with those with whom they disagree.
The vital center of the church is intact. Much of what Convention accomplished is in the budget and in unheralded resolutions that strengthened the mission of the church.
This Convention demonstrated the pain of our differences but even more the promise of commitment to the mission of the Church.
Faithfully,
Peter James Lee
Bishop of Virginia