Oasis California Prepares Open Letter to Bishop

This is the original text of an email message distributed on the Integrity ListServ. I've highlighted in yellow a few key phrases I thought we might discuss. - Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Porcupine1944@aol.com [mailto:Porcupine1944@aol.com]
Sent: 15 May, 2004 11:17
To: INTEGNEWS-L@listserv.american.edu; INTEGRITY-L@listserv.american.edu
Subject: A memorandum to +California <>

For information on subscribing, unsubscribing, using the digest feature,
posting messages, or getting help, please visit http://www.integrityusa.org/integnews-l.htm

***************************************

I have been asked to distribute this open letter to the Bishop of California. If you wish to be a signatory, contact the Rev. John Kirkley at "rectorsje@sbcglobal.net" and let him know. Also, feel free to pass this on to anyone who might be interested in signing.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A Time for Clarity:
An Open Letter to the Bishop of California from the Advisory Board of Oasis/California and other concerned clergy and laity

Dear Bishop Swing,

On April 29, 2004, an article appeared in The San Francisco Chronicle reporting on the recent "marriage" of Bishop Otis Charles, retired Utah. Nothing unusual about that: the marriage of a bishop is normally society page news in any community. Except, of course, when the bishop in question is a gay man and the occasion is the blessing of his union with another gay man. Given your response to this article, it appears that what can be taken for granted as a public event for a straight bishop must be done "under the radar" by a gay bishop.

By your own account, after reading the article in the Chronicle that morning, you informed Bishop Charles within the hour that his license to officiate in the Diocese of California was being revoked. He is no longer an assisting bishop in this diocese. Why? Because, according to your letter to diocesan clergy, "The San Francisco Chronicle and Otis made this an altogether more public event than I had wanted."

Note that the "problem" wasn't the event itself. You have authorized the blessing of same-sex unions on a case-by-case basis for some time now. The unofficial policy under which we have operated, as we understand it, is as follows:

1. There must be consensus within the parish to support the blessing of same-sex unions.
2. The rite must be a one-time, experimental liturgy distinctly different from the marriage rite and approved in advance by the bishop.
3. The liturgy must not attract media attention.

In short, the message is this: "Blessing same-sex unions is fine, just don't let anyone know about it!" (And don't presume to think that it is the moral or sacramental equivalent of marriage.) This is, at best, a mixed message. Liturgy by definition is a public activity. It is the work of the people, and that is just as true for marriage and the blessing of same-sex unions as it is for baptism and Eucharist. Heterosexual couples publish engagement and marriage announcements regularly, and the banns are published in church. Must we continue to treat our celebration and blessing of same-sex relationships as a dirty little secret?

It seems that Bishop Charles' refusal to do that cost him his ability to exercise his ordained ministry in this diocese. Our hope is that the price he has paid will not be in vain.

It is time for clarity in this diocese about the blessing of same-sex unions. It is time for us to come out of the closet and offer the Bay Area a public witness to the life-giving holiness we have experienced in the ministries of same-sex couples in our parishes. The time for a double standard is long past. With the passage of resolution CO51 at General Convention 2003, which affirmed local option at the discretion of the diocesan in the matter of blessing same-sex unions, it is time to develop a rite(s) for such blessings and a clear, written policy regarding its use in this diocese.

Such action on the part of the Diocese, under your leadership, would go a long way toward healing the pain and ending the confusion felt by many Episcopalians in the aftermath of the disciplinary action taken against Bishop Charles. We doubt, however, that it will be enough to rectify the public relations debacle surrounding that action. What could have been a wonderful opportunity for evangelism, witnessing to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the sacramental life of the Church, became instead an embarrassing fiasco that undermined the Church's credibility in the Bay Area and beyond.

We need an honest, transparent witness to what we have been doing, and will continue to do, in this Diocese with respect to our pastoral and sacramental ministry with same-sex couples. There is no need to hide our light underneath a bushel any longer. In your Easter Sermon of this year, you commended Mayor Gavin Newsom for honoring the vows of same-sex couples and treating them with dignity as full human beings. You suggested that what happened at City Hall in San Francisco raised us into a more full humanity, rolling away the stone of centuries of discrimination. If you so publicly honored same-sex marriages at City Hall, how much more should we proclaim the sanctity of same-sex unions blessed in our churches? Shouldn't we feel more than a little shame that our civic leaders have displayed greater courage in this matter than our spiritual leaders?

As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of your episcopate, we recall with gratitude how far our diocese has come in supporting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals and families. We honor that achievement and the gift it has been to us, our families, and our Church. At the same time, we will continue to challenge you, and one another, to boldly declare that there will be no second-class Christians in our Church. The time for clarity around the blessing of same-sex unions is now.

Yours in Christ,
Signature........

Posted by Greg Griffith at May 15, 2004 07:00 PM (GMT -6:00)