Positions on the Election of V. Gene Robinson
Page updated
05/16/2010 04:27 PM EDT
|
|
| The Rev. V. Gene Robinson was
elected bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire on June 7, 2003. He is the
first openly gay man to be elected to the office of bishop in the
Episcopal Church. (Photo courtesy Diocese of New Hampshire) |
TABULATION
On June 7, 2003, the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, gathered in
convention in Concord, N.H., elected The Rev. V. Gene Robinson
bishop coadjutor. As bishop coadjutor, he will succeed
current diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Theuner, upon his retirement. What
made the event
remarkable was the fact that Robinson, now divorced, is living in a
long-term homosexual relationship. As explained in the ENS story about the election, because the election occurred within 120
days of the triennial General Convention (July 30, 2003 – August 8,
2003), the House of Deputies and House of Bishops each had to
consent to the election. (Procedures are set forth in Canon 22 of Title
III. Only current diocesan bishops—bishops
“exercising jurisdiction”—are allowed to vote on newly elected
bishops.) It was widely assumed that the House of
Deputies, which comprises lay and clergy members, would approve the
election. The outcome in the House of Bishops was less clear. As explained
in an ENS story,
however, elected bishops have rarely been rejected by the wider church.
Like other American churches, the Episcopal Church has been beset by
disputes over human sexuality, and, for many Episcopalians, the election
of a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopate was, as Bishop Robert
Duncan of Pittsburgh characterized it, a “grievous wound to the
Episcopal Church.” Other bishops emphasized Robinson’s pastoral
gifts and argued that voting to affirm his election would not make a
doctrinal statement on homosexuality. (Some, of course, wanted to make a
doctrinal statement.)
As soon as the New Hampshire election was completed,
bishops began commenting upon it. The first table below lists public
(and, in some cases, not-so-public) statements made by bishops or
standing committees prior to
and just after Gene Robinson’s confirmation by General Convention. The
second table focuses on
reactions to the election by Episcopal organizations or
by their leaders. (Note that Presiding Bishop
Frank T. Griswold declined to take a position on the election before
General Convention, although he addressed the issue in a letter
to all bishops.) Many other pronouncements were made, of course,
including notable ones by foreign church leaders, but I did not try to
track these. Opinion within the Anglican Communion was and remains a
major issue for the Episcopal Church.
Some Personal Thoughts
When I designed this page, I did not quite know
what I was getting myself into. With General Convention over, there
is a little time—though probably not much—to reflect on the
experience.
It has certainly been both interesting and
edifying to read what bishops have had to say about the New
Hampshire election. I was impressed with the thoughtfulness
with which most bishops seem to approach their vote on Canon
Robinson, and I enjoyed my (mostly unanticipated) conversations and
e-mail exchanges with bishops, communications directors, webmasters, editors, and
reporters.
Were I to do this over again, I would probably
add a mechanism to help people find what material is new or changed.
(I have often updated the page three or more times a day.) No one
complained about the lack of such a mechanism, but I wonder if it
didn’t diminish the usefulness of the page somewhat. It is not too
late to e-mail comments about
what you liked or did not like, by the way; I will keep your
suggestions in mind the next time I take on such a project.
My thanks to Louie Crew, who encouraged this
project, and to Kendall Harmon, who usually knew about statements
before I did. Many others help me track what often seemed a flood of
commentary. I now have a new appreciation for the work of
journalists, who have harder jobs than we usually imagine.
I hope that, in some small way, I have been
useful to General Convention 2003, to Episcopalians concerned about
their church, and to the wider Anglican and secular communities.
I do not expect to do many more updates
of this page, even though the reaction to Gene Robinson’s
approval is still unfolding. Some links may have to be
updated, and I’ll do my best to keep up with them. Some
statements may disappear from the Web altogether, and I have
not yet decided if I should try to rescue such material.
In closing, I should add that I sincerely
hope that I have not witnessed the event that will cause a
major schism in the Episcopal Church, but that remains to be
seen.
— LED, 8/13/2003
|
|
Some explanation of the tables is in order. The first
table lists all dioceses and diocesan bishops, and the second table lists
organizations that issued statements of which I became aware.
Where a diocesan bishop issued a joint statement with other bishops, those joining in
the statement are indicated. This may be a little confusing (or even
confused), in cases were a bishop signed on to several statements. Any
date shown is the date, as best I could determine, of the
statement in question. If such a statement or news story about it is available
on the Web, a link is provided to it in the Date field. The Pro and Con
fields are intended to indicate that the bishop or organization in
question clearly took a position on consenting to the election. In
the case of bishops, this means that the bishop actually announced an
intention to vote one way or the other. I
have been cautious in my interpretation here, showing no position in
cases where a position might reasonably, though not irrefutably, be
inferred. I have not attempted to quantify degrees of support or
opposition. The Comments/Excerpts field provides additional explanations
or quotations that, I hope, capture significant aspects of public
statements. I make no warranty as to the correctness of
this information, but, as mentioned earlier, I would appreciate
corrections of errors, including omissions. Some bishops signed on to
multiple statements, and links to statements other than the first one made
are found in the Comments/Excerpts field.
Poem for Whatever Comes Next
I
suggested that my poem “Christian
Unity” was especially appropriate for General
Convention. After an eventful meeting
in Minneapolis, the poem seems even more relevant.
— LED, 8/13/2003
|
Bishops who made statements in advance of General
Convention did not change their minds when it came time to vote. We can
only speculate about what bishops were thinking who did not announce their
intentions in advance. One should not, I think, make any assumptions about
a bishop’s ultimate opinion without explicit evidence of it, as issues
other than the fitness of Gene Robinson may have influenced votes.
In the first table, “x” generally means that the
sitting diocesan bishop indicated an intention to vote one way or
another. In some case, I avoided marking a column, even if a
statement was made if that statement seemed ambiguous. No mark is shown
for bishops (such as retired bishops) who do not vote. Final votes are marked with
"“Y” for a consent vote and “N” for a no consent vote.
Abstentions are marked with “A.”
Background on Canon Robinson and his election can
be found on the Diocese
of New Hampshire Web site. He offered his own take on his
election in The
Dallas Morning News. A CNN
interview is also available on the Web. An AP
story provides additional biographical details. A
2000
interview with Anglican Voice offers an ironic historical
perspective. A two-part profile in the Concord
Monitor offers a useful view of Robinson’s personal life, though
it touches only briefly on his professional life. An extended
audio interview with Canon Robinson by Terry Gross from July 24, 2003,
can be heard at NPR’s Fresh
Air site. (Terry Gross again
interviewed Robinson a year after his consecration, on December 9,
2004.)
As General Convention approached, activity with regard
to the vote in the House of Bishops intensified. The
statement by 24 bishops seemingly threatening schism was followed by a two-day meeting in Fairfax, Va.,
that produced a similar statement promising church
“realignment” (a term also used in a declaration
by Forward in Faith North America). The Virginia meeting is also described
in an Episcopal News Service story.
Meanwhile, the Presiding Bishop wrote a letter
to all primates that seemed to be designed to cool emotions. In a July
29, 2003, story,
The Daily Telegraph reported that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
wrote a private letter to primates intended, among other things, to
discourage confirmation of Robinson’s election, though without
mentioning Canon Robinson by name. (Viewing this latter story requires
site registration, which is free. The substance of the story can also be
found on RainbowNeworkwork.com.)
Once Robinson's election was ratified by the House of Deputies, the
American Anglican Council renewed a plea
to bishops to reject it.
It should surprise no one that many bishops have issued
statements subsequent to Robinson’s election. Parishioners will, I
suspect, want their bishops to justify their votes. In general, these
statements are not tallied here. Jason Green, however, is making a list
of such statements. (The list includes statements made before General
Convention.)
Quite worrisome now is the question of what the most vocal
bishops (and like-thinking clergy and parishioners) in opposition to the
Gene Robinson’s election will do. Led by Bishop
Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh and the American Anglican Council, a
meeting is planned for October 7-9 in Plano, Texas. (The meeting is
mentioned in advice from the AAC to the
conservative faithful. The AAC is also promoting a statement
for parishes repudiating the 74th General Convention.) Dissident bishops
expect to discuss strategy for dealing with the “crisis” in the
Episcopal Church just prior to the extraordinary meeting
that has been called for October 15-16 in London by Archbishop of
Canterbury Rowan Williams. Williams, in his letter
announcing the meeting, does not really suggest what he expects from it,
although the AAC seems to view the meeting as a vindication
of its stand. The Archbishop of Canterbury, of course, may be primarily
interested in cooling overheated rhetoric.
— LED, 8/23/2003
On the day of the vote in the House
of Bishops, 107 bishops were eligible to vote on Canon Robinson’s election. Mechanics of the House of
Bishops vote are described in a letter
from the Secretary of the House of Bishops. On 7/31/2003,
bishops approved the voting procedures. The final vote was 62 for consent,
43 opposed, with 2 abstentions.
Episcopal Statements and Votes
| Diocese |
Bishop |
Date |
Pro |
Con |
Comments/Excerpts |
| Alabama |
Parsley |
(date uncertain) |
|
x
N |
Bp. Parsley has written a letter
for the July-August (?) diocesan newsletter, The Apostle.
As chair of the House of Bishops Theology Committee that
cautioned a go-slow approach to the homosexual issue in its
recent report
(“we believe it is imperative that the
Episcopal Church refrain from any attempt
to ‘settle’ the matter legislatively”), Bp. Parsley calls
it “untenable” to effectively approve a “manner of life”
by a vote for Robinson.
In an article
in the August 3 issue of The Living Church, Bp. Parsley
reiterates points made in The Apostle and proposes
seeking consensus in the broader Anglican Communion
by referring issues of human sexuality to the next Lambeth
Conference.
|
| Alaska |
MacDonald |
|
Y |
|
|
| Albany |
Herzog (diocesan); Bena
(assisting), 7/23/2003 statement and 8/5/2003 protest |
6/13/2003
(date shown on AAC site is date of post to that site |
|
x
N |
In a reply to the Presiding
Bishop’s letter, Bp. Herzog disputes the suggestion that
consenting to Robinson’s election is not taking a
church position on homosexuality. “It would be disingenuous to
suggest that we can vote for/against this consent and not be
simultaneously voting on the issue.”
Bp. Herzog joined Bp. Robert Duncan in the
press release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Herzog and Bp. Bena also signed the
Fairfax statement of 7/23/2003.
Bp. Herzog and Bp. Bena protested the vote on
Robinson, along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Arizona |
Shahan |
|
Y |
|
|
| Arkansas |
Maze |
6/20/2003 |
x
Y |
|
Bp. Maze has written an essay on how
his life experience has brought him to support this election and
the blessing of homosexual relationships. The essay should be
thought-provoking to all sides of these issues. |
| Atlanta |
Alexander |
6/13/2003 |
Y |
|
Without taking a position on the
election, Bp. Alexander is quoted as saying, “He has served
the church there with great distinction and creativity … and
has played a significant role in keeping the church focused on
our primary mission—bringing people into a faith relationship
with Jesus Christ.”
Bp.
Alexander has offered some “Thoughts on General Convention”
in the July-August issue of the diocesan newsletter Dialog
(available here).
He declares that he is going to General Convention as an
undecided, and he provides a good discussion of issues involved
in confirming Robinson and proceeding along the path of approve
for same-sex blessings.
|
| Bethlehem |
Marshall |
|
Y |
|
|
| California |
Swing |
|
Y |
|
|
| Central Florida |
J. Howe (diocesan); Pina-Lopez
(assisting), 7/18/2003 press release only |
7/18/2003 |
|
x
N |
Bp. Howe joined Bp. Duncan in this
press release.
Bp. Howe also signed the Fairfax statement
of 7/23/2003.
Bp. Howe protested the vote on Robinson, along
with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Central Gulf Coast |
P. Duncan |
(date
uncertain) |
|
N |
Bp. Duncan offers his thoughts on
General Convention in the diocesan newsletter, The Coastline:
“I believe that this is a no-win situation for all sides and I
am personally saddened that we find ourselves at this juncture and
in this place. ... I believe we as a church will emerge stronger
because of the struggle and our faith and trust in God who leads
us, even if the Convention does not ‘do it my way.’” |
| Central
New York |
G Adams |
|
Y |
|
|
| Central Pennsylvania |
Creighton |
|
Y |
|
|
| Chicago |
Persell (diocesan), Scantlebury
(assisting), Standing
Committee |
6/11/2003 |
x
Y |
|
“... it would be a shame to deny
the right of the clergy and people of New Hampshire to have Gene
Robinson, their overwhelming choice, to serve as their
bishop.” |
| Colombia |
Duque-Gomez |
|
|
N |
|
| Colorado |
Winterrowd |
|
Y |
|
|
| Connecticut |
A. Smith |
|
Y |
|
|
| Dallas |
Stanton |
6/14/2003 |
|
x
N |
“The confirmation of Canon Robinson
would in effect change church teaching.”
Bp. Stanton joined Bp. Robert Duncan in the
press release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Stanton also signed
the Fairfax statement of 7/23/2003.
Bp. Stanton protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Delaware |
Wright |
|
Y |
|
|
| Domican Republic |
Holguin |
|
|
N |
|
| East Carolina |
Daniel |
6/12/2003 |
Y |
|
Bp. Daniel has been noncomittal
in the press. According to a report on the diocese’s Web site
of an Executive Council meeting, Daniel, when asked how he would
vote, likewise declined to say, though he described Robinson as
“a fine priest and very well thought of,” and he defended
Robinson against charges that he abandoned his family.
[Quotations here are from the report and may or may not capture
the bishop’s exact words.] He went on to say that Robinson “was overwhelmingly elected by the people of New Hampshire,” but
that “bishops serve not only their diocese but also the larger church and that had to be taken into consideration.”
Also on the diocesan Web site is a resolution
“unanimously adopted by the House of Bishops of our Province
[IV, comprising the southeast U.S.]” to be presented to
General Convention. The resolution acknowledges the diversity of
opinion regarding homosexuality and urges a
“non-legislative” approach to dealing with it until a
consensus develops. The resolution was passed the day before
Robinson’s election (on 6/6/2003).
|
| East Tennessee |
vonRosenberg |
|
|
N |
|
| Eastern Michigan |
Leidel |
|
Y |
|
|
| Eastern Oregon |
Gregg |
|
Y |
|
|
| Easton |
Shand |
|
Y |
|
|
| Eau Claire |
Whitmore (diocesan); Wantland
(retired diocesan) |
|
|
N |
Bp. Whitmore is not known to have
made any statement.
Bp Wantland joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Wantland protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Ecuador Central |
Larrea |
|
A |
A |
|
| Ecuador Litoral |
Morante |
|
|
N |
|
| El Camino Real |
Shimpfky |
6/13/2003 |
x
Y |
|
In a letter to clergy, Bp.
Shimpfky expresses his joy at Robinson’s election and states
his belief that it will be confirmed by General Convention.
“To say that all homosexual relationships are bad is like
saying all heterosexual relationships are good.” |
| Europe |
Whalon (Bishop in Charge—does
not vote); Presiding Bishop Griswold exercises jurisdiction and
can vote) |
6/29/2003 |
Y |
|
Many bishops are troubled by the
uncertainty of what individual dioceses can or cannot do on
their own. Bp. Whalon has given a clear presentation of the
issues involved and hints at possible resolutions. He does not
directly deal with what should be done about Robinson’s
election. |
| Florida |
Jecko |
6/12/2003 |
|
x
N |
Citing Lambeth
resolution I.10, Bp.
Jecko rejects “non-scriptural, pseudo-theological approval of
homosexual behavior” and hopes for the Archbishop of
Canterbury to become involved.
Bp. Jecko joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Jecko also signed the Fairfax statement of
7/23/2003.
Bp. Jecko protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Fond du Lac |
Jacobus |
|
|
N |
|
| Fort Worth |
Iker (diocesan); Pope (retired
diocesan), press release of 7/18/20003 only |
6/10/2003 |
|
x
N |
“If he is ... consecrated, he will
not be permitted to exercise any ministry in this Diocese.” On
6/16/2003, the Standing Committee endorsed Bp. Iker’s
statement.
“We do not commend to our General Convention Deputation the
confirmation of V. Gene Robinson.”
Bp. Iker joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Iker also signed the Fairfax statement of 7/23/2003.
In an 8/1/2003
News Hour story on PBS,
Bp. Iker denied that inclusion of homosexuals and inclusion of
women are comparable issues, and he attacked Robinson's personal
history: “But to divorce his wife and leave his children and
take up with another man and then purport to be a leader of the
Christian church is very upsetting.”
Bp. Iker protested the vote on Robinson, along
with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Georgia |
Louttit |
|
|
N |
|
| Haiti |
Duracin |
|
|
N |
|
| Hawaii |
Chang |
|
Y |
|
|
| Honduras |
Allen |
|
|
N |
|
| Idaho |
Bainbridge |
|
Y |
|
|
| Indianapolis |
Waynick |
6/9/2003 |
Y |
|
Without explicitly declaring a
position, Bp. Waynick calls us to be loving toward one another,
even when we disagree. While declaring her faithfulness to
scripture, she says, “What I do not believe scripture
addresses at all is the experience of many of our members, who
have committed themselves to monogamous, life-long partnerships
which are neither promiscuous nor exploitative, but have,
rather, proven to be enduring and life-giving to them and those
around them.” |
| Iowa |
Scarfe |
|
Y |
|
|
| Kansas |
Smalley |
|
Y |
|
|
| Kentucky |
Gulick |
|
Y |
|
|
| Lexington |
Sauls |
|
Y |
|
|
| Long Island |
Walker |
|
Y |
|
|
| Los Angeles |
Bruno |
|
Y |
|
|
| Louisiana |
Jenkins |
|
|
N |
|
| Maine |
Knudsen |
6/7/2003 |
Y |
|
“Reconciliation happens when Gene
is present; the movement of grace is apparent in every dimension
of his ministry.” Bp. Knudsen’s statement is as president of
Province One; it is not clear if she speaks for all the bishops
of the province. |
| Maryland |
Ihloff |
|
Y |
|
|
| Massachusetts |
Shaw |
6/19/2003 |
x
Y |
|
Bay Windows, “New
England’s Largest Gay & Lesbian Newspaper,” reports Bp.
Shaw as saying: “We see this as a wonderful time of growth for
the Episcopal Church and very much in line with the kind of
inclusion that’s been part of the tradition of the Diocese of
Massachusetts in electing the first African-American diocesan
bishop and the first woman bishop in the world.”
Bp. Shaw was interviewed by WBUR
on 8/4/2003,
the morning before the vote in the House of Bishops. When asked
about the significance of a favorable vote, Bp. Shaw said, “[I]t’s
a step forward in the full inclusion of all people in the life
of the church.
|
| Michigan |
Gibbs |
|
Y |
|
|
| Micronesia |
Packard (Bishop in Charge—does
not vote) |
|
|
|
|
| Milwaukee |
(vacant) |
|
|
|
|
| Minnesota |
Jelinek |
7/23/2003 |
x
Y |
|
In a letter to deputies, clergy,
and people of the Diocese of Minnesota, Bp. Jelinek explains his
notion of preserving the faith: “When we promise ‘to
continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship,’ we do
not promise to hold onto a certain collection of truths,
we promise to be true to the living Christ and to the
Spirit they knew as dynamic energy, forever calling them beyond
the confines of culture and custom into the whirlwind of God’s
continual creating.” Bp. Jelinek goes on to say that he
believes Robinson’s election “is,” not merely “might
be” of the Holy Spirit. |
| Mississippi |
Gray |
|
|
N |
|
| Missouri |
G. Smith |
|
Y |
|
|
| Montana |
(vacant) |
|
|
|
|
| Navajoland Area Mission |
Plummer |
|
Y |
|
|
| Nebraska |
Krotz |
|
|
N |
|
|
Nevada |
Jefferts Schori |
(undated) |
Y |
|
Bp. Jefferts Schori addresses both the
question of authorizing same-sex rites and of confirming
Robinson’s election in her June/July letter on the Nevada
diocese Web site. She does not reveal how she intends to vote,
but she says, in part, “The Holy Spirit continues to shake us up, whether we are ready or not. When we are confronted with an issue of inclusion, it seems to be an invitation to remember that the Body of Christ does not look just like any one of us, and that this Body is far more complex than we can imagine.” |
| New Hampshire |
Theuner |
(date
uncertain) |
x
Y |
|
Bp. Theuner, under whom Robinson
has worked for many years, has been quoted as having said many
positive things about Robinson. He seems not to have made an
explicit on-the-record statement that he will vote for the
person selected to replace him, but the Concord
Monitor reports that “he has indicated he supports
Robinson.”
Bp. Theuner spoke on Robinson's behalf in the 8/1/2003
meeting of the Committee on the Consecration of Bishops.
|
| New Jersey |
(vacant) |
|
|
|
|
| New York |
Sisk |
7/21/2003
(date uncertain) |
x
Y |
|
In response to a letter from a
congregation, Bp. Sisk wrote back expressing his support for
Robinson. “While I have no doubt as to the propriety of the
larger Church’s responsibility to confirm the election of
bishops—the selection of a bishop is not a private
matter—the thoroughness and transparency of their [people of
the Diocese of New Hampshire] process make it abundantly clear,
however, that the people have worked hard to select a man, not
an issue, and I believe that the election should be confirmed.” |
| Newark |
Croneberger |
(date
uncertain) |
x
Y |
|
The Standing Committee endorsed
Robinson on or before 6/19/2003.
North Jersey Media group reports in a 7/27/2003
story that Bp. Croneberger “enthusiastically supports Robinson
and thinks there are more than enough votes to confirm him.”
|
| North Carolina |
Curry |
6/9/2003 |
x
Y |
|
“It is important to remember that
we are now talking about a specific person rather than a generic
issue.” |
| North Dakota |
Fairfield |
7/18/2003 |
|
x
N |
Bp. Fairfield joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Fairfield protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Northern California |
Lamb |
6/11/2003
(date from private comm.; date shown on AAC site is date of post to that
|
Y |
|
“I really don't
know where I stand on this issue at this time. Part of me
responds that it is New Hampshire's choice, let New Hampshire
deal with it. On the other hand, a Bishop is not elected for a
Diocese but for the Church at large and we have significant
relationships, both within the Anglican Communion and the
Ecumenical and interfaith world.” [I had put Bp. Lamb in the
Con column, in part because his statement appeared on the AAC
Web site. This was my mistake; even the page on the AAC site
described the bishop as “unsure.” Consider this a
retraction.] |
| Northern Indiana |
Little |
6/18/2003
(date from private comm.) |
|
x
N |
In a “pastoral
word,” Bp. Little affirms his belief that the church should
welcome everyone, but he says that he can teach nothing but
“revealed truth.” “Such an ordination [of a gay bishop]
would declare as normative behavior that the Christian church
has not affirmed.”
Bp. Little protested the vote on Robinson, along
with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Northern Michigan |
Kelsey |
(date
uncertain) |
x
Y |
|
Bp. Kelsey declares his intention
to vote in favor in the lead story of the July/August issue of
the diocesan newsletter, The Church in Hiawathaland: “I
rejoiced when he [Robinson] was elected, and I am eager to add
my vote to those who will be consenting to his election in
Minneapolis.” |
| Northwest Texas |
Ohl |
|
|
N |
|
| Northwestern Pennsylvania |
Rowley |
|
|
N |
|
| Ohio |
Grew |
|
Y |
|
|
| Oklahoma |
Moody |
6/11/2003 |
x
Y |
|
“... Christ keeps breaking down
barriers that religious people once thought were sacred.” |
| Olympia |
Warner |
|
Y |
|
|
| Oregon |
Ladehoff |
|
Y |
|
|
| Pennsylvania |
Bennison |
6/7/2003 |
x
Y |
|
Bp. Bennison is quoted in The
Philadelphia Inquirer: “This is a breakthrough for which we’ve been
waiting.” (The date is presumed; the story is dated 6/8/2003.) |
| Pittsburgh |
R. Duncan (diocesan); Scriven
(assisting), press release of 7/18/2003, statement of 7/23/2003,
and protest of 8/5/2003; Hathaway (retired diocesan), press release of
7/18/2003 only |
6/7/2003 |
|
x
N |
Bp. Duncan says that he expects the
election to be confirmed. “My prayer is—and my efforts will
be—that the election not be confirmed.”
On 7/8/2003,
Bp. Duncan issued a statement with Bp. Salmon of South Carolina
relating the Robinson situation to that of Jeffrey John: “If
the General Convention votes to approve Bishop-elect Robinson
the Convention will vote to do something the Episcopal Church
has never agreed to do. ... Finally, approval of this election
will be a vote to rupture the Anglican Communion.”
Bp. Duncan and 23 other
bishops (14 additional diocesans, 7 retired diocesans, 2
assistants, and 1 suffragan) issued a press release 7/18/2003
describing (and containing) a letter of 7/15/2003 addressed to
“concerned bishops of the Global South” that hints how such
a rupture might begin. After lamenting the likelihood of assent
to the election of Robinson and the approval of “any same-sex
marriage provisions,” the bishops accuse the Presiding Bishop
of encouraging “these church-rending innovations.” “We
desire to act in concert with you, and are ready to take counsel
from you. ... We now join in your declaration of impaired
communion with the Bishop and Diocese of New Westminster.”
[There is some confusion about who signed the original letter,
because it says that it is from “Bishops of the Church
catholic with jurisdiction (or office),” which does not
describe all the reputed signers. Moreover, a post by Bp. Duncan
to a Diocese of Pittsburgh e-mail list on 7/17/2003
carried the names of only 23 signatories.]
At the end of a two-day
“gathering of worldwide Anglican mainstream leaders” in
Fairfax, Va., the more than 60 participants issued a statement 7/23/2003
promising both domestic and international action that “will
precipitate a dramatic realignment of the Church” should
Robinson’s election be affirmed or same-sex blessings be
authorized. Bp. Duncan was one of ten current ECUSA diocesan
bishops signing the statement. He was joined by AAC
president Canon David Anderson, primates who have been involved
in the Anglican
Mission in America, and others, including Bp. Scriven.
Bp. Duncan spoke against consent to Robinson's
election 8/1/2003
before the Committee on the Consecration of Bishops, arguing
that one error in a church council (in this case, General
Convention) invalidates all actions by that council, inviting
“intervention” by the Anglican Communion. The American
Anglican Council site “A Place to Stand” purportedly
contains Bp. Duncan’s testimony,
although the text are not consistent with the quotations from
the ENS story.
Bp. Duncan, with the support of
18 other bishops (including Bp. Scriven), delivered a statement 8/5/2003
immediately after the vote by the House of Bishops: “As
faithful Episcopalians and members of this house, we are calling
upon the Primates of the Anglican Communion, under the
presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in accordance
with Lambeth Resolution III.6(b), to intervene in the pastoral
emergency that has overtaken us.” The list of participating
bishops was published on p. 3 of Convention
Daily for 8/6/2003.
The bishops are also noted in this table.
Bp. Duncan issued a more personal statement on 8/5/2003:
“May our merciful Lord Jesus have pity on us, His broken
bride.”
|
| Puerto
Rico |
Álvarez |
|
Y |
|
The diocese of Puerto was added to
ECUSA at General Convention 2003, thus allowing Bp. Álvarez to
vote. |
| Quincy |
Ackerman (diocesan); Parsons
(retired diocesan), press release of 7/18/2003 only |
6/12/2003
(date uncertain) |
|
x
N |
In a letter to clergy, Bp. Ackermann’s position is strongly implied: “I know
Canon Robinson to be a talented, winsome, and energetic priest.
These wonderful attributes, however, are not qualifications
alone for inclusion as a Successor to the Apostles. ... Even
an approval by General Convention cannot legitimize the circumstances
related
to this election, nor alter the divinely inspired Word of God.”
Bp. Ackerman declared his opinion
unambiguously by joining Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Ackerman also signed the Fairfax statement
of 7/23/2003.
In a Peoria
Journal Star story of 8/4/2003,
Bp. Ackerman expressed disappointment in the House of Deputies
vote and said that he believes that “the middle,” rather
than liberals or conservatives will determine the final outcome
in the House of Bishops.
Bp. Ackerman protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Rhode Island |
Wolf |
(date
uncertain, see p. 5) |
Y |
|
Bp. Wolf, in the Summer 2003 issue
of diocesan newsletter Risen, declares that she
“need[s] time for prayer and reflection.” In a 7/31/2003 NPR
interview,
she is quoted as saying that “God is doing a new thing in the
church” with gay relationships. “And I suspect that if unity
is our goal, we¹re going to find ways to live together in spite
of these profound differences.” |
| Rio Grande |
Kelshaw |
7/18/2003 |
|
x
N |
Bp. Kelshaw joined Bp. Duncan in
the press release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Kelshaw protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Rochester |
McKelvey |
6/11/2003 |
x
Y |
|
Bp. McKelvey, who narrowly defeated
Robinson in the vote for Bishop of Rochester, is quoted by the Rochester
Democrat and Chronicle as saying that he expects Robinson to
be elected. “He was chosen because he will be the best person
to lead the diocese as a bishop, not because he is gay.” |
| San Diego |
Hughes |
6/16/2003 |
|
x
N |
In a letter to local clergy, Bp.
Hughes says, “I am deeply disappointed at this
turn of events, and I cannot give my consent to this
election.” He cites the lack of theological consensus about
homosexuality as described in the House of Bishops
Theology Committee report, “The
Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective,” a complete
copy of which was sent along with the letter.
Bp. Hughes joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
The Standing Committee of the diocese passed a
resolution on 7/15/2003 opposing both confirmation of Robinson and moving forward on
blessing of same-sex unions.
Bp. Hughes protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| San Joaquin |
Schofield |
6/12/2003 |
|
x
N |
Cites American
Anglican Council statement.
Bp. Schofield joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Schofield protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| South Carolina |
Salmon (diocesan), Skilton (suffragan);
Allison (retired diocesan) press release of 7/18/2003 only |
6/9/2003 |
|
x
N |
“If Gene Robinson’s election is
confirmed by General Convention, it would bring through the back
door a practice that the Episcopal Church has never agreed to
approve through the front door.”
Bp. Salmon and Bp. Skilton joined Bp Robert Duncan in his
statement of 7/8/2003.
The three bishops joined Bp. Duncan in the
press release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Salmon and Bp. Skilton also signed the
Fairfax statement of 7/23/2003.
After the vote in the House of Deputies on 8/3/03,
Bp. Salmon is quoted by a Los Angeles Times reporter as
saying, “We are not going to accept this.”
Bp. Skilton protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| South Dakota |
Robertson |
|
Y |
|
|
| Southeast Florida |
Frade |
6/18/2003 |
Y |
|
Bp. Frade calls for prayerful
consideration at General Convention. “We do not need to fear
controversy or opposing views; our Anglican heritage has been
strengthened by diversity and dissent.” |
| Southern Ohio |
Thompson |
6/13/2003 |
|
N |
Acknowledging that whatever General
Convention decides will be painful for many, Bp. Thompson calls
for unity. “We are a Church that values unity over uniformity.” |
| Southern
Virginia |
Bane |
|
|
N
|
|
| Southwest Florida |
Lipscomb |
6/21/2003
|
|
x
N |
Quoting a General Convention
resolution of 1979 and the now well-know Lambeth resolution of
1998, Bp. Lipscomb explains that he cannot consent to
Robinson’s election. “Such relationships [as Robinson’s]
fall outside the boundary of the current and historic teachings
of this Church and the majority of Christian Churches regarding
the sanctity of marriage and our understanding of the place of
sexual expression in human life.” The Standing Committee
issued a similar
statement.
Bp. Lipscomb protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Southwestern Virginia |
Powell |
6/25/2003 |
x
Y |
|
Bp. Powell acknowledges that
people will be upset irrespective of the outcome of the vote,
and he applauds the ability of Episcopalians to discuss such
matters. The Standing Committee distributed a message on 6/12/2003
saying that it voted “to affirm the election of ... Robinson
... and wanted to commend this vote to the deputies of our
diocesan delegation.” |
| Spokane |
Waggoner |
|
Y |
|
|
| Springfield |
Beckwith |
7/18/2003 |
|
x
N |
Bp Beckwith joined Bp. Duncan in
the press release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Beckwith also signed the Fairfax statement
of 7/23/2003.
Bp. Beckwith protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| Taiwan |
Lai |
|
|
N |
|
| Tennessee |
Herlong |
6/25/2003
(date uncertain); newsletter
version |
|
x
N |
Bp. Herlong issued a statement in
which he suggests procedural grounds for not voting to affirm
the New Hampshire election. He then goes on to say, in part, “The
approval and blessing of sexual intimacy,
heterosexual or homosexual, outside of traditional marriage of
one man and one woman is not a question of
justice or civil rights, it is a question
of morality.” The statement was edited slightly and published
in the July-August 2003 issue of the diocesan newsletter, Cross
& Crozier.
Bp. Herlong joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Herlong also signed the Fairfax statement
of 7/23/2003.
|
| Texas |
Wimberly (diocesan), Payne
(retiring bishop), statement of 6/11/2003); Benitez (retired
diocesan), press release of 7/18/2003 and statement of
7/23/2003; Charlton (assisting), statement of 7/23/2003 only |
6/11/2003 |
|
x
N |
A statement was sent by the bishops
to all clergy and congregations in the diocese that said, in part,
“we have consistently opposed the ordination of non-celibate
homosexuals, and we oppose the confirmation of the New Hampshire
election.”
Bp. Benitez joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Benitez and Bp. Charlton also signed the
Fairfax statement of 7/23/2003.
|
| Upper South Carolina |
Henderson |
6/9/2003 |
|
N |
Bp. Henderson speaks of the
difficulty in making a decision about the Robinson election and
says that he will decide on his position at General Convention.
“Committing the Church to a decision now affirms a decision
which has not yet been reached.” |
| Utah |
Irish |
6/11/2003
(date from private comm.) |
x
Y |
|
“Speaking
for myself, I see no obstacle whatever in his [Robinson’s]
sexual orientation or in his dedicated relationship to serving
faithfully as a bishop of the church, just as I would not with
reference to women, people of color, or varying backgrounds—in
education for example.” |
| Vermont |
Ely |
6/16/2003 |
x
Y |
|
Bp. Ely is reported by the Concord
Monitor as supporting the New Hampshire election. “In some
ways, Gene is a reluctant symbol of the church’s need to reach
out to those who have often experienced themselves on the
margins of the church.” |
| Virgin Islands |
Daniels |
|
|
N |
|
| Virginia |
Lee |
6/2003
(date uncertain) |
Y |
|
Bp. Lee cites a 1994 Virginia
declaration in support of the traditional view of sex and
marriage and their relation to ordination. He concludes:
“It’s tempting but finally faithless to dismiss those with
whom we disagree as prejudiced fundamentalists on the one hand
or heretical revisionists on the other. Somewhere in the midst
of our differences, Christ is calling us to unity, love and
witness in our discipleship. That center, where Christ dwells,
is where we are called.” |
| Washington |
Chane |
6/9/2003 |
x
Y |
|
“Not to affirm the New Hampshire
election would be, I believe, a challenge to the revelation of
the Holy Spirit ... .” Bp. Chane is on
record as expecting that Robinson’s election will be
affirmed and the church will go ahead with liturgies for the
blessing of same-sex relationships. |
| West Missouri |
B. Howe |
|
Y |
|
|
| West Tennessee |
D. Johnson (diocesan), statement
of 7/9/2003 and protest of 8/5/2003; Dickson (retired diocesan), press release of
7/18/2003 |
7/9/2003 |
|
N |
Bp. Johnson emphasizes that issues
of human sexuality are not the most important ones before
General Convention. He mentions Robinson without taking a
position on his election. He is more forthcoming on
related issues: “Others are just as convinced that the time is
not right to make this decision [to change the church’s
position on homosexuality].
I tend to be of this persuasion. ...
I will not be voting in support of making these changes at this
Convention.”
Bp. Dickson joined Bp. Duncan in the press
release of 7/18/2003.
Bp. Johnson protested the vote on Robinson,
along with spokesman Bp. R. Duncan on 8/5/2003.
|
| West Texas |
Folts (diocesan), Hibbs (suffragan) |
6/10/2003 |
|
x
N |
Bishops Foltz and Hibbs accuse the Diocese of New
Hampshire of trying to “force the issue politically,” and
they say that they doubt that the election will be affirmed. The statement
is referred to in a story on the MySanAntonio
Web site. |
| West Virginia |
Klusmeyer |
|
|
N |
|
| Western Kansas |
J. Adams |
|
|
N |
|
| Western Louisiana |
MacPherson |
6/21/2003 |
|
x
N |
Bp. McPherson acknowledges that
people will be hurt, irrespective of the result of the vote on
Robinson’s election. After describing the polity implications
of confirmation, he continues, “Further, and more importantly,
we must be mindful of the theological implications, and this
being the universal understanding of the church down through the
ages of God’s revealed plan for his creation, a plan that very
intentionally defines the relationship of man and woman, and
this being in the context of a monogamous lifelong union.” |
| Western Massachusetts |
Scruton |
|
A |
A |
|
| Western Michigan |
Gepert |
|
Y |
|
|
| Western New York |
Garrison |
|
Y |
|
|
| Western North Carolina |
R. Johnson |
6/11/2003 |
x
Y |
|
“I think we’ve learned to live
together with our differences on many issues.” (Bp. Johnson
quoted in an AP story.) |
| Wyoming |
Caldwell |
|
Y |
|
|
Organizational Statements
| Organization |
Date |
Pro |
Con |
Comments |
| American Anglican
Council |
6/12/2003 |
|
x |
“The election of Canon
Robinson, who left his wife and children to pursue a homosexual
relationship, is a clear illustration of the deep dysfunction in
our ‘anything goes’ Episcopal Church, and is a witness that
is not consistent with the global Anglican Christian Church.”
A 7/21/2003
press release, describes AAC plans for General Convention.
According to President Canon David
C. Anderson, “We will also work diligently to prevent, on
theological and practical grounds, any attempt by General
Convention to step out of orthodoxy and affirm homosexual
behavior.”
|
| Episcopal Church Publishing Co. |
6/13/2003 |
x |
|
This organization publishes The
Witness. “We also rejoice that a barrier of sexual
orientation has been crossed in our church: the election to the
episcopacy of an openly gay person living in a committed
relationship.” (Statement posted to House of Bishops and Delegates list.) |
| Episcopal
Peace Fellowship |
7/2/2003 |
x |
|
“The Episcopal Peace Fellowship is committed to peacemaking in all areas of
life—within ourselves, our neighborhoods, regions, nation, world and Church. Peace is only possible when all voices are heard and can legitimately participate at the table of life and in the decision making process.” |
| Episcopal Women’s Caucus |
6/10/2003 |
x |
|
“His openness about the fact
that he is a gay man living in a committed
relationship during the process gives hope and inspiration to
countless women and men in similar situations as they get news
of his election.” |
| Forward in Faith/North America |
6/10/2003 |
|
x |
“The election of V. Gene Robinson
as Bishop of New Hampshire, says Forward in Faith, North
America, is evidence that what we are witnessing is more erosion
of the Faith and Order of Christianity—an erosion that has
been rampant for decades.” |
| General Theological Seminary |
6/11/2003 |
x |
|
Dean Ewing is quoted as saying, “I
am personally convinced he [Robinson] will make a fine bishop.”
Robinson is a graduate and trustee of GTS. |
| Integrity |
6/7/2003 |
x |
|
“Sexuality should not be an issue
in those hearings given the Church’s canonical prohibition
against discrimination based on sexual orientation (among other
things) in the process for ordination (Title III, Canon 1).”
Integrity issued a press release 8/5/2003
immediately after the House of Bishops approved Robinson’s
election.
|
| Oasis/Newark |
6/10/2003 |
x |
|
“We share with Canon Robinson
his belief that our love of Jesus Christ is bigger and more
unifying than any differences of opinion.” |
| Trinity
Episcopal School for Ministry |
6/10/2003 |
|
x |
Dean Peter Moore
says, in part, “Only hubris can have motivated otherwise
well-intentioned people to scorn the wisdom of the church that
through its history has taught that sex belongs within the
covenant of heterosexual marriage.” He calls for the election
to be rejected, so as not to rend the Anglican Communion. |
|
