The House of Bishops on Wednesday adopted a substitute version of Resolution C056, calling for the church to collect and develop “theological resources and liturgies for the blessing of same gender relationships.”

 

The resolution permits bishops in states where same-sex marriage or civil unions are legal to “provide a generous pastoral response” to same-sex couples, which could include pastoral rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, effectively compounding the repudiation of the Windsor Report process and the proposed Anglican Covenant by repudiating Resolution B033 of the 76th General Convention.

 

After two postponed sessions, debate resumed on C056 during the bishops’ Wednesday afternoon session. An ad hoc working group of 26 bishops presented a substitute for C056. It was led by Bishop Pierre Whalon of the American Convocation of Churches in Europe and Bishop Thomas Ely of Vermont, and included a cross section of the house, from Bishop Edward Little of Northern Indiana to Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

 

The substitute sought to assuage fears from conservatives by substituting language calling for the “design” of liturgies with that of “collecting and developing” them. Bishop Robinson contended that “to design liturgies was different” from studying them. “If at some point we were to have liturgies,” he said, this resolution would help the church see “what they would look like.”

 

Bishop Stephen Charleston, Assistant Bishop of California, spoke of his discomfort with the language of collecting, arguing that “to collect implies no movement.” However, he understood the resolution sought to walk the “fine line between pushing toward doing something and standing still.”

 

Bishop Steven Miller of Milwaukee said that the working group believed the language put forward meant to say “see, here is what it might look like.”

 

Bishop Sean Rowe of Northwestern Pennsylvania rose and moved an amendment to discharge the resolution. “I believe this is exactly what we don’t want to do, he said. “It continues to legislate matters that require discernment.”

 

The church should “allow people the personal generosity” to engage in study in this area, he said, “without legislation.” The Rt. Rev. Kirk Smith of Arizona concurred, saying the House of Bishops needed to “find a way out of the box” of finding a legislative solution to a theological problem. “I would prefer a pastoral letter” to the church on this question, he noted.

 

Bishop Robert Fitzpatrick of Hawaii suggested perhaps “it is better to be silent” on these things and “allow the conversation to continue.” And Bishop Andrew Doyle of Texas observed that “discharge is a legislative act,” and would be useful way forward in the circumstances.

 

But Bishop Robinson objected, saying “we don’t need to demonize the legislative process.” Bishop John Chane of Washington added that “we are a legislative body. To discharge this dishonors the process of calling us together.” Bishop M Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts agreed that it was a “misunderstanding to say discernment doesn’t happen through the legislative process.”

 

A roll call vote on Bishop Rowe’s motion to discharge was taken and it failed 94 to 42, with 1 abstention. The resolution as a whole was put to a vote and it was adopted 104 to 30, with 2 abstentions.