California's Choices "selection of a bishop is never simply an internal matter for a single diocese"

California’s Choices @ The Living Church

The decision by the bishop search committee of the Diocese of California to include two partnered homosexual priests — a lesbian and a gay man — among its slate of five nominees to become the next bishop of the diocese has significantly raised the already high level of tension within the Church.

Despite many warnings that relationships at all levels of the Anglican Communion would be fractured, the leadership of the Church chose to move forward with the consent to the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson’s election at the 2003 General Convention. No one could possibly be surprised by further repercussions if this action is repeated in June. The Episcopal Church has been asked to refrain from electing or consecrating any non-celibate homosexual persons as bishop until the Communion as a whole approves these consecrations as being consistent with Christian teaching. The election of a partnered homosexual bishop now will be seen as irrefutable evidence that the Episcopal Church has chosen to ignore the primates’ recommendations, including the recent warnings of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and walk apart from the rest of the Communion.

Representatives of some advocacy groups have commended the search committee for its “inclusiveness” in the process. If inclusiveness is truly an objective of the Diocese of California, those who will elect the next bishop should carefully consider which candidate will be acceptable to the largest number of believers. In a diocese with one of the highest concentrations of Asians and Pacific Islanders, for example, the election of a homosexual bishop could compromise the diocese’s ability to effectively evangelize within these communities.

Advocacy groups have also hailed the search committee’s willingness to face what they have characterized as undue negative pressure from outside the diocese — which presumably includes the primates. But if the election of Bishop Robinson has taught us anything, it is that the selection of a bishop is never simply an internal matter for a single diocese. Bishops serve the whole Church, and what the Church teaches and models has a profound effect on all faithful Christians.

Both of the nominees in question have enjoyed successful ministries at the parish level. St. Mark’s Cathedral in Seattle, where the Very Rev. Robert Taylor serves as dean, has reportedly enjoyed considerable growth since his arrival in 1999. The Rev. Bonnie Perry has led a remarkable revival at Chicago’s All Saints’ Church. A struggling mission when she arrived in 1992, it has grown from 35 attendees to an average Sunday attendance of 220. But in spite of their admirable works, their choice to live in non-marital sexual relationships with presumed physical expression is clearly at odds with Lambeth Resolution 1.10. Disobedience of the Church’s plain teaching would, logically, preclude a candidate from a position of magisterial authority.

Then there is the question of how General Convention might respond to such an election. It would, of course, be a contradiction for convention to agree to faithfully comply with the Windsor Report’s requirements while giving consent to the election of a persons in a partnered homosexual relationship. Yet such a result is not outside the realm of possibility.

In some ways, the announcement of California’s slate feels like 2003 all over again. The secular press is once again bandying words like “split” and “firestorm.” The news media are ready for what might happen in Columbus. Is the Church ready?