Sisk Speaks

My bishop, Mark Sisk, writes an excellent letter.  Note a few things you will never find in a reasserting essay.  First, he acknowledges he might be wrong.  He also points out that hatred of homosexuals is wrong also.  Here it is....

Dear People of the Episcopal Diocese of New York,

I write these reflections following our recent General Convention in Columbus, Ohio.  This was an exceptionally important Convention for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the Reflection, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, on our work.  It seemed, therefore, worthy of some extended commentary.

The Convention itself did three things: (1) it elected a new Presiding Bishop; (2) it wrestled with the requests of the Windsor report and associated requests from The Anglican Consultative Counsel and the Primates of the Anglican Communion, and (3) everything else.

Everything else

The third of these achievements “everything else” is easily over-looked in all the energy over the first two, but this third was extraordinarily important.  Found here is a new focus on our faithful participation in the Millennium Development Goals (something this Diocese has been working on for some years),  a commitment to our continuing focus on youth and young adult ministries (again something quite familiar here in New York), and a renewed attempt to help this Nation wrestle, in a constructive way, with the burden of the sin of slavery (once again something that the Diocese of New York took the initiative on in presenting before General Convention – it having been dropped in 2003). We approved interim Eucharistic sharing with the United Methodist Church. There were as well a plethora of liturgical measures considered, including the adoption of The Revised Common Lectionary (though a proposal to begin preparation for a new revision of The Book of Common Prayer was rejected – happily from my personal view). A number of additional commemorations for Lesser Feasts and Fasts were moved forward or authorized, notably including Thurgood Marshall. As an indication of the actual importance of these items, as appropriate, they each found an appropriate place in the National Church budget for the next triennium.

 

The Election of the XXVI Presiding Bishop

The second major achievement of the Convention was the election of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori from among a strong field of well qualified nominees.  Though much attention in the popular press has been devoted to the fact that Bishop Jefferts Schori will be the first woman to serve as Presiding Bishop and the first woman Primate in the Anglican Communion, it needs to be said that she was nominated and elected based upon her capacities for that demanding office.  She brings to it a brilliant mind, a centered personality, and her gifts as an evocative speaker.  I believe that our Church will pleased with this election.

more...

The Windsor Report, etc.

The third matter before Convention, and a dominant one, was the Convention’s response to the requests of the Windsor Report, the ACC and the Primates Meeting.  These requests were both subtle and complex, despite the efforts by some to suggest otherwise.  Perhaps the most egregious example of this pattern of distortion and disinformation is that neither the Windsor Report nor any attendant document requested that the Episcopal Church apologize for, or renounce Bishop Robinson’s ordination.  It did ask that we apologize for inadequately consulting with our brothers and sisters in the Communion before taking that action and, as a consequence, straining the bonds that hold us in Communion.   Because the questions we were asked to address were themselves nuanced our discussions were complex, and time consuming — in my view made more so by the concerted efforts of some, who for their own reasons, worked determinedly to ensnare the Convention in a parliamentary tangle to prevent its reaching any decision whatsoever. 

Such an obstructive effort would not be hard to implement when dealing with a legislative body of more than 800, many of whom have never attended a General Convention previously, and all of whom work under very strict and limited time constraints.  After many hours of hearings and much editing in committee, the various resolutions were presented piecemeal over several days of legislation.

Among the most controversial of the items considered was a response to the request of the Windsor report for “a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.”  This statement, clear as it is in some respects, is decidedly less clear in others, for example: what constitutes a new consensus, exactly, and how would we know when it is reached?  Claims and counter claims abounded.  Each perspective fed by a deep commitment to profoundly held conceptions of the truth: what does the Bible demand about morality? What does the Bible teach about justice?  What does the Bible teach about the nature of community and authority within that community?  How do all these factors find expression in the polity of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion?  Consequently, the precise wording of the resolutions to be presented to Convention was important.  The terms and even the advisability of accepting whatever was presented, was a matter of deep, extended and passionate debate.  Initially, a rather comprehensive resolution was defeated by the House of Deputies.  On the following day (the last of Convention) the Presiding Bishop called a joint session of both Houses of Convention to present a simplified resolution (B033) calling 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.”    Bishop Griswold noted that the consideration of this resolution would require the successful passage of a motion to suspend the rules by the House of Deputies.  Subsequently the Presiding Bishop-elect, also asked both Houses to adopt B033.  These two requests grew out of the shared conviction that failure to respond in some way to the request of the Windsor Report would foreclose any future opportunity to express to the larger Communion the grounds of our convictions.  In the end, both Houses adopted the resolution as presented.

In the end I voted in support of this substitute resolution.  I did so being not particularly happy about the exact words (I preferred the wording of the Special Commission of which I was the co-chair).  Nevertheless I voted for the measures as presented because I believe strongly that it is important for us to be at the table when it comes time to discuss these things within our Communion.  To be sure we have much to learn, but equally we have much to share with the rest of Communion as to the richness, the fruitfulness, of the ministry of gay and lesbian people in our community.  Personally I am fully convinced that fruitfulness of the ministry of gay and lesbian Christians, both lay and ordained, would not be possible were it not blessed by the Spirit.  The basis of this conviction grew out of long reflection on Jesus’ teaching as found in Matthew 7:15–20.  There Jesus warns his followers about the traps and temptations that are to come.  He says,

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.  You will know them by their fruits.  Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?  So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.  A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  Thus you will know them by their fruits.

It seems to me abundantly clear when one has the opportunity to look around the life of this Diocese and many others that God has lavished His blessing upon these our lesbian and gay, brothers and sisters, thereby endorsing their ministry by His presence.   Sadly there are places in the world where it is not possible to see this work and to hear these voices.  It is imperative, in my view, that that change.  It is imperative that we take the opportunity I believe that God has afforded us to share those insights to a world that has not yet had the benefit of seeing them.  That is why we need to be at the table.  That is why we need to be a participant in the life of the Anglican Communion.  Doubtless we in the American Church have much to learn, but equally, we have much to share about what God is doing in our common life.

Reflections on the “Reflections”

Six days after General Convention the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams issued a six-page “Reflection.”  The very first thing to note (as the Archbishop does quite carefully) is that this is not a pronouncement, as most of the media, and some in our own Church imagine it to be.  It is, instead, a “reflection” perhaps we might think of it as a “musing,” intended to move the conversation forward.  And he does so admirably. 

I join with our Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold in welcoming the Archbishop’s reflections as a way forward and as an encouragement as to how best we, of the Anglican Communion, can share the particular vision of God with which we have been charged as stewards.  In particular I am encouraged by, in Bishop Griswold’s words, “The Archbishop…has helpfully raised up in his text the constituent elements of classical Anglicanism, namely the priority of the Bible in matters of doctrine, the Catholic sacramental tradition and a ‘habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.’”

I share the Archbishop’s commitment to unity.  I believe it is among our most certain guarantees against the myopia of parochialism, a trap that ensnares all people whenever, and wherever they may live.  Further, his conviction that this is a process of conversation and consultation that will continue for some considerable time is consonant with my sense of the human community’s way of dealing with important matters.

As I mentioned earlier, I join with our Presiding Bishop in welcoming the Archbishop’s affirmation of the foundational role played by the classic Anglican reliance on the threefold order of the Bible (as primary), with tradition, and reason serving as aides in understanding Scripture (my summary, not his). Given that the general topic under discussion is the basis of doctrine, ethics and authority within the Anglican Communion, I was therefore, somewhat surprised to find the essence of this traditional formula relegated to the end of page 5 in a 6 page document.  I had expected it at the very opening of the paper where he refers instead to the Bible and historic teaching without reference to reasoned reflection on the Bible and on historic teaching.

I appreciate the Archbishop’s strong endorsement of the Church’s stance in giving “the strongest support to the defense of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage…” This is the sort of normative statement of acceptance that one would expect from a leader in our Communion.  However, missed was the opportunity to mention that there exists, much less to admonish, those archiepiscopal leaders, and others in our Communion, who quite explicitly do not uphold and support such rights and protections for homosexual persons.  There can be little doubt that the failure to work to assure such rights and protections has cost, and will continue to cost, some of our brothers and sisters, God’s children, dearly.

 
Finally, I found the Archbishop’s reflections on the dynamics and costs of prophesy thoughtful and challenging.  I agree entirely with his analysis of the costliness of prophetic words and deeds.  Those that take such actions need to be prepared to pay a real price.  That is essential to the dynamic of prophetic activity, a term which, in my judgment, is used far too loosely.   It is, however, the potentially prophetic (I use the term advisedly) nature of our action that addresses a major reason why I supported the resolution on “refraining to give consent.”  If an act is to be truly prophetic and not simply self-indulgent, it is an act done essentially for, on behalf of, the “other.”  Therefore, in order for any act to be sacrificially prophetic one must be prepared to take those steps that will assure that the prophetic act is communicated. (When King Jehoiakim burned Jeremiah’s scroll Jeremiah went back and rewrote scroll, adding many words. Jeremiah 36). Every fiber of one’s being must be strained to assure that the message is communicated with clarity and conviction. 

My hesitance with regard to the Archbishop’s reflection on prophecy is that it seems to address only one side of the dynamic: that of the prophet, or the prophetic community.  He seems only to allude to the role of the community to which the prophecy is spoken.  The receiving community also has a responsibility, but more than that it has an opportunity.  Their opportunity is this: if the prophetic voice is correct, and it is listened to then the entire community will move closer to God’s truth. If the community is to be faithful, it will need to listen, for it is in listening that we find help in time of need, and hope for the life that is ours to live.  Failure to listen to the voice of prophecy is, as the prophets teach, a dangerous failing.  Given the fact that calls for Communion-wide conversation on this important topic have been before us for 30 years, the lack of urgency in the Archbishop’s almost passing observation is surprising.  As a leader among the leaders of that larger community, he would seem to have the role, among other things, of issuing a vigorous call to all the faithful to engage in active and rigorous listening.

Having said all this, I feel constrained to conclude by admitting that I may be wrong in all this.  The American Church may have made a mistake.  If so, then, may God help us all.  But I don’t think we are wrong.  I don’t believe we are wrong.  And if we are right, as I believe we are, and if we are speaking a prophetic truth that needs to be heard, as I believe we are, then, may God help us all. 

Faithfully Yours,
+Mark
The Rt. Rev. Mark S. Sisk

Comments

[Art Deco]

An excellent letter?
You need to raise your standards.

[rh]

It's an okay letter as far as something from a bishop goes-- I long ago stopped expecting anything except mediocrity from them. If it seems excellent to you, then good for you.

I do wish someone would point out to Bp. Sisk that revising the BCP is directly linked to ministry with/for youth and young adults-- a point which our youth and young adults went out of their way to point out to the rest of us.