What +Missouri Said

Last night, I could merely post my bishop's statement. I was too weary to offer much commentary. Tonight, I will try to be a little more evaluative about what the Bishop of Missouri – my bishop – said to the people of this diocese.

The bishop of Missouri says:
Some few of these visitors took the trouble, as friends will do, to show, point-by-point, what clarification might look like.
As I understand it, the chief attack came from the Archbishop of the Middle East, who excoriated our church, pronouncing us barely – if at all – Christian. If this is Bishop Smith's view of "friends" who offered clarification, then God save us from our enemies. And now, after the bishops' meeting, he has gone even further – claiming that our church has done nothing to seek a closer walk with the Anglican Communion.

My bishop notes that the House of Bishops resolution passed with only one dissenting vote. I keep wanting to know: Were the dissidents like Duncan, Iker, et al in that meeting? I have heard conflicting reports. Matt Kennedy's live-blogging in the final session attributed some comments to Duncan. Others declare that the Duncan crowd left New Orleans when Archbishop Rowan Williams. So … were they there or not? Did they, too, vote for the "compromise" that passed the House of Bishops with only Bishop Bennison voting no?

My bishop wrote: "More important for me is the fact that the House of Bishops, a place of rather sharp division, even fractiousness, in the recent past, has worked to find ways to move toward one another. This is no small miracle."
I would like to hear a bit more explanation. The "liberal" bishops agreed that they would not consent to any gay/lesbian candidates to the episcopate. The "liberals" agreed not to authorize any liturgies for the blessing of same-sex covenants. The liberals claimed that gay men and lesbians are "full and equal members" of the Body of Christ, deserving of civil – but not ecclesial – rights, while moving us no further toward that equality.

So, it looks to me like the liberals gave, and gave, and gave, and caved. Was there any principle – aside from a call for civil [not ecclesial] rights for gay men and lesbians – that the "liberals" upheld? And would somebody please tell me anything – any point – on which the conservatives ceded any ground at all? Maybe there was some, but I can't see it in the bishops' statement from New Orleans.

My bishop wrote: "I cannot envision the work ahead as a choice, either gays and lesbians or Communion." But isn't that precisely what he and the other bishops did? They caved in to the U.S. neocons and the Global South rather than saying that we gay/lesbian Episcopalians are truly beloved members of the church. Oh, sure, they called that we get the same kind of human rights that the U.N. urges all people should have. But what right to pastoral care within the church did our bishops defend with any vigor? I cannot find a single one.

My bishop wrote: "I write you as one filled with hope, in the aftermath of this recent meeting. My desire, in writing to you, is that I convey some small measure of that hope to you." For the life of me, I still do not understand what hope he found in the New Orleans statement. What hope does he think I can glean from that statement? What hope is he offering to the gay men and lesbians in this diocese? Yes, I hear this loud and clear: He now has the hope of getting to Lambeth. But what hope is he offering to the gay men and lesbians in this diocese?

Finally, I cannot help observing this: By the time my bishop got around to writing to our diocese, the dissidents had already met in Pittsburgh, seeking to forge their Church of the Common Cause Partners [CCCP]. Thus, my bishop surely knew by October 2 that everything the bishops did in New Orleans had been rejected by the dissidents. How can he miss the fact that everything he and his colleagues accomplished in New Orleans has been dismissed by the neocons? How can he not grieve over how he betrayed us in his ill-conceived effort to placate the schismatics? In his shoes, I do not know how I would be able to hold my head up.

Many Episcopalians in our church (in the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Quincy) are going to be sacrificed … or so it seems to me. My bishop claims that he is "filled with hope." Exactly what hope is he – or our national leadership – offering to the loyal Episcopalians in those schismatic dioceses?

Ya know what? I have a hunch that we bloggers have a much better picture of what's really happening in our church than do the bishops who sit in their cathedrals and diocesan offices. And that makes me profoundly sad.