A Response to the Oasis/California Advisory Board by Bishop Swing
I appreciate your letter and the clarity it aspires to. Let me take the
categories that you raise and respond.
(1) “Marriage of a bishop”
In order for there to be a marriage of a bishop, the General Convention
of the Episcopal Church alone has the authority to determine if bishops
of the same sex can be married. When the headline of the San Francisco
Chronicle states, “78 year old cleric marries same-sex partner,” I
either have to embrace that as a fact on the ground or distance myself
and the Diocese of California from the assertion. Mayor Newsom took a
preemptive strike approach to licensing civil marriage. Were I to
embrace the assertion of Bishop Charles’ marriage, I would be doing the
same thing in ecclesiastical terms. I would be saying that the final
arbiter of the Constitution and Canons and General Convention is Otis
Charles.
This matter has many ramifications, but the essential one for me has to
do with the episcopacy. Our Church puts great weight on the episcopacy.
People who are gay or lesbian are ordained to the diaconate or
priesthood regularly, and the Episcopal Church hardly notices. But when
Gene Robinson is consecrated as Bishop of New Hampshire, the foundations of the Anglican Communion shake. When a bishop takes a bold step, it needs to be well thought out, authentic, and the author needs to be
aware of the consequences. As long as Otis Charles is an assisting
bishop of the Diocese of California, any bold thing he does, I do. He
represents me and represents all of the people of the Diocese of
California. If this 78-year-old cleric marries, it appears that I have
authorized the marriage of a bishop outside the authority of the
Episcopal Church. Then I position this Diocese and myself to be in the
path of all the turmoil that follows and myself to be rightfully
disciplined by the Church. I can’t have it both ways. Either I embrace
his “marriage” or distance myself from it. I marvel that you claim that
there is “nothing unusual” about Bishop Charles being married. Surely
you realize that the Episcopal Church has not authorized same-sex
marriages of bishops or priests or deacons or laity.
One more thought on this point. I wasn’t sending any signal to the
clergy of this Diocese about our clergy. This was entirely and only a
bishop-to-bishop matter for me. Obviously there are ramifications, but
the central matter is between a diocesan and an assisting bishop.
(2) You ask, “Why is he no longer an assisting bishop?”
Two responses. One has to do with accumulated frustration. When I
discovered that he is an advocate for taking enthogens such as Ecstasy
and for taking hallucinogenic mushrooms to have a closer experience of
God and for encouraging Christians to do the same, I was deeply
disappointed. I wrote an anti-drug statement to the Diocese to distance
myself from his position.
Second, when I was asked, I told Donald Schell that Otis could have a
celebration of his relationship with Felipe with two conditions. By no
means was it going to be called a “marriage,” and Otis was supposed to
stay away from the press. I didn’t want him to use this moment to send
conflicting messages and/or to create a celebrity status for himself. I
just wanted him to gather with his friends and loved ones for a blessing
and celebration. When I picked up the newspaper and read about his
“marriage” and his comments to the press, I felt deeply betrayed. Also
it made me feel that I had betrayed the people of the Diocese of
California by authorizing Otis Charles.
It turns out that there was a critical moment. Bishop Charles had been
approached by the press for an interview. At that moment he could have
telephoned me out of courtesy, collegiality, respect. But he chose to
call a public relations expert instead. To be dismissed by an assisting
bishop as having no episcopal relevance regarding the most volatile
church issue of our generation is a gesture that hits its mark squarely.
This did not seem to be the way an assisting bishop should relate to a
diocesan bishop.
(3) Public relations
You write that it was “a public relations debacle . . . an embarrassing
fiasco.” I agree. His article incensed many people. My actions incensed
many people. Once a bishop of this Diocese “marries” in the newspapers,
the mess begins. It did not have to be this way. But this is the reality
that was set in motion with counsel from his public relations expert.
(4)Unofficial versus official policies concerning same-sex couples
Up to now, I think it has been important not to have a Diocesan policy.
The Diocese of New Westminster (Vancouver) carefully adopted a policy a
few years ago, and all hell broke loose. A great deal of the energy and
resources of that diocese have since been used up in dealing with the
aftermath of having an official policy. Also the former Bishop of Kansas
adopted an official policy for the diocese and quickly retired. That
diocese is still digging itself out from that action.
At the last General Convention we voted in such a way as to make
official policies acceptable. One of the things it means is that every
diocese is now free from having protracted conflicts over this matter or
threats of discipline. If the clergy of the Diocese of California would
appreciate an official policy, I would be glad to call together a group
to work on the details. Or if you would prefer guidelines, I would be
glad to elaborate on the ones now in place. At Clergy Conference I will
give everyone an opportunity to be heard.
I take exception to one point in your open letter. At no time have I
striven to make same-sex blessings a “dirty little secret.” One of our
same-sex blessings was carried nationwide on ABC “Turning Point” during
prime time. What I have worried about is the possibility of exploitation
when the culture of the blessings services would be frivolous rather
than sacred.
One of my items was left out of the present guidelines. I have always
insisted that the couples have proper counseling prior to their
commitment. I am deeply sorry that Oasis is not aware of that.
(5) Shame
You would want me to feel shame because of what has happened. “A little
more shame.” I don’t feel shame. I am sorry that all of this unfolded.
Ordained ministry holds together around trust. Sometimes people you
trust prove not to be trustworthy. Bad moments happen. The tension
surrounding the issues of same-sex couples that was there before this
“embarrassing fiasco” remain for us to live in and to journey through in
the power of Jesus’ Holy Spirit, who is our unity and strength. I don’t
intend for us to be a people of shame. We are complicated and
conflicted. But in the midst of our chaos moments there is still mercy
and the call to achieve justice and the potential for new life and all
the promises from our Saviour. Divine Presence. I am convinced that the
day will come when the whole family of faith will honor in the best way
the authentic relationships of love wherever they spring up.
God bless Otis Charles and Felipe Paris. God bless the wonderful
conservatives. God bless the press. God bless Oasis. God bless the
Diocese of California. We will all get there!
Faithfully in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. William E. Swing
Bishop
Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/wp-trackback.php/1316
Leave a Comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
God will bless the orthodox, he will not bless you, Otis or any of your ilk! He cannot - you betrayed the trust placed in you at your ordination! You decided that Holy Scripture and the very word of Our Lord to be irrelevant! How arrogant that you would believe that the great majority of true Christians on this north American continent agree with you - like most people, they will ignore you and your teaching, go to church and pray in the time honoured way that has stood the test of time for we ordinary people who are trying to do His will - every day! Maybe their prayers will be answered and ECUSA will vanish and the great Church will be raised again - one whose chief mission is to do His Will and to praise Him in everything we do - not to embarrass the rest of us with this Ungodly behaviour that you and your ilk pretend is guided by the Holy Spirit!
Comment by HEB — 5/22/2004 @ 1:42 am
Swing says he’s fine with a little blessing ceremony, but “by no means” call it marriage. He craves order, but thinks that the path to order lies through NOT having a policy.
Two things are abundantly clear to me now:
1. Oasis’ points in their letter were spot-on.
2. Swing has officially taken leave of his senses.
God have mercy on all of us.
Comment by Greg Griffith — 5/22/2004 @ 1:47 am
“God bless Otis Charles and Felipe Paris. God bless the wonderful
conservatives. God bless the press. God bless Oasis. God bless the
Diocese of California. We will all get there!”
Anything missing? Oh yeah, “God bless sin, God bless the devil, ‘cos we’ll all get there.” So what’s the fuss all about? You’d think someone’s soul was in danger of hell, and we KNOW that isn’t true, don’t we? The Unitarian-Universalists really are the clearer thinkers here, whether the presenting skirmish is Swing ‘vs’ Oasis or Shaw ‘vs’ EDS.
A plague on both their houses. God is not mocked. ECUSA is reaping what it has sowed.
Comment by Beacon — 5/22/2004 @ 3:31 am
mushrooms? ecstasy? (closer to God?)
Comment by noname — 5/22/2004 @ 6:43 am
nice try, but “marriage” is the same for king or commoner. Perhaps an example of ceremonial hand-washing?
Comment by Adam — 5/22/2004 @ 7:06 am
There’s a lot to comment on here, but I want to note just one thing. I’m very glad for Bishop Swing’s first section “marriage of a bishop”.
“When a bishop takes a bold step, it needs to be well thought out,
authentic, and the author needs to be
aware of the consequences. As long as Otis Charles is an assisting
bishop of the Diocese of California, any bold thing he does, I do. He
represents me and represents all of the people of the Diocese of
California. If this 78-year-old cleric marries, it appears that I have
authorized the marriage of a bishop outside the authority of the
Episcopal Church. Then I position this Diocese and myself to be in the
path of all the turmoil that follows and myself to be rightfully
disciplined by the Church. I can’t have it both ways.”
Actions have consequences. Swing has recognized this, and I’m glad for the action he took, even if much of the rest of Swing’s reasoning might be debatable.
I wish Frank Griswold had the courage to acknowledge the conesequences of his action “consecrating” Robinson and likewise take action, removing Gene Robinson. Griswold could learn something from Swing here.
Comment by Karen B. — 5/22/2004 @ 8:07 am
What is the Scriptural authority to forbid Episcopalians from using contraband drugs? Did Jesus ever mention Ecstasy? Perhaps Otis Charles is being prophetic and has discerned via the Holy Spirit that God is doing a new thing.
Comment by William — 5/22/2004 @ 8:40 am
Here is another point for you, Bp. Swing, and you Frank, and even you, John and Robert, our liberal friends, and that is this: do you think the advocates of the gay agenda in our country will pronounce themselves “satisfied” by the innovations of ECUSA and go home? Or will they pursue all aspects of their agenda aggressively, with the Charles “marriage” as but one example? The promotion of total freedom of sexual expression and promiscuity as another? Do you really claim that so called “same sex monogamous committed relationships” are typical of this culture? Prepare to reap the whirlwind, gentlemen.
Comment by William — 5/22/2004 @ 8:44 am
Karen, I agree with your discernment of the only valid point of +Swing’s statements. Thanks for sharing it.
William, I have, as do you, many unresolved issues still subject to dialogue with our ‘liberal friends’, John and Robert, but I feel compelled to defend them from any charge or implication that their postings promote either total freedom of sexual expression and promiscuity or that all of the ‘advocates of the gay agenda in this country’ are reasonably cogent. In fact, althought they each speak from totally different perspectives, both have specifically denied these points, as I recall.
Having said this, I have to agree with your central point that there are many who use their advocacy of various GLBT ‘rights’ to promote hidden personal or corporate agendas. In the interview posted herein, we find a good example when +Swing, referring to +Otis, reveals: ‘But this is the reality that was set in motion with counsel from his public relations expert.’
For heavens sake, why in the world would you need a PR expert if all you were doing is quietly affirming your mutual lifetime fidelity to each other in a Christian setting, the rationale that is so widely advertised? Other axes are surely being ground here … in my opinion, by both +Swing and +Otis.
Comment by Sleepless in SC — 5/22/2004 @ 11:46 am
I don’t know about Ecstasy, but after being in the mushroom industry as a producer of commercial cultures for 5 years, I do know of quite a few persons who ruined a perfectly decent mind by eating hallucenogenic mushrooms. The Amonitas and Psilocybes are pretty damaging to our grey cells when taken frequently over a multiyear period, and their damaging effects are probably due to their representing complex pharmocological phenomena, rather than just one chemical (e.g. alcohol) acting in a independent fashion on the central nervous system. If Otis and kin did ingest such mushrooms over a protracted period, that would explain their very unusual viewpoints on matters temporal or spiritual.
Commercially, we never had anything to do with such people because they never paid their bills.
Comment by Tom Roberts — 5/22/2004 @ 11:57 am
“Surely you realize that the Episcopal Church has not authorized same-sex
marriages of bishops or priests or deacons or laity.”
Am I missing something here? Or does this mean that Swing’s main complaint is that Otis Charles jumped the gun on an “offical policy” of the Diocese of California that is inevitable?
Comment by I’d rather not say — 5/22/2004 @ 12:47 pm
IRNS- Despite the encouragement of his academic friends at EDS, Griswold and 815 appear to not want to get in front of Eames during the next 90 days. Wonder why, eh? Apparently the hasty Canadians will provide Eames with enough of a target to aim any brickbats towards if the Commission needs any victims to show its orthodox aspersions towards. So, I would not be at all surprised if the word is out not to irk Eames this summer.
The other thing that is becoming apparent is that these ecclesiatical dinosaurs are learning that the least of their words get published around the world within 24 hours. This works two ways: most of them have shut up when they don’t know what to say, while others like Swing use this free publicity to put forth what they want that minute. Eventually, they can always change their line.
Comment by Tom Roberts — 5/22/2004 @ 12:54 pm
Not that it probably makes much difference to many of you, but there are quite a few of us liberals and GLBT’s in California who are relieved that +Swing finally did something about Otis Charles, who has been steadily spinning out of control for far too long. The Oasis is not representitive of the feeling here, not by a long shot.
Comment by Anonymous — 5/22/2004 @ 2:41 pm
What is of interest is the reason “why” you might be relieved. Swing evidently isn’t relieved, but he doesn’t support the way this soap opera played out either.
Comment by Tom Roberts — 5/22/2004 @ 4:10 pm
“Surely you realize that the Episcopal Church has not authorized same-sex
marriages of bishops or priests or deacons or laity.”
Same-sex marriage is not authorized, only sleeping around and shacking up are permitted. Also, bishops and priests had darn well follow the ecclesiastical chain of command!
+Swing’s statement is so far out, it reads like a David Virtue parody.
Comment by Ralinda — 5/22/2004 @ 9:27 pm
PREEMPTIVE STRIKE
“Mayor Newsom took a preemptive strike approach to licensing civil marriage. Were I to
embrace the assertion of Bishop Charles’ marriage, I would be doing the
same thing in ecclesiastical terms. I would be saying that the final
arbiter of the Constitution and Canons and General Convention is Otis
Charles.”
Note the logic of this: that last year’s general convention, in approving Gene Robinson, took a preemptive strike against the ECUSA constitution.
Comment by Irenaeus — 5/23/2004 @ 8:20 am
Well, +Swing did get one thing right… “it made me feel that I had betrayed the people of the Diocese of
California by authorizing Otis Charles.” He certainly did. This mess shows what happens when you don’t stand firmly for righteousness.
Comment by West — 5/23/2004 @ 8:57 am
I think there are places in scripture where God blesses people who are not “orthodox.” I think Swing’s letter was remarkably charitable, sincere, and honest. He is reigning in an irresponsible bishop who is opportunistic.
I do not buy “slippery slope” arguments. I have the inclinations of an empiricist. As I’ve said before, other things, besides homosexuality, are more threatening to Christian values.
Anyway, I don’t think Swing deserves anyone putting words in his mouth that aren’t there. From his perspective, he’s not blessing sin. He is establishing order.
Comment by John Wilkins — 5/23/2004 @ 9:43 am
Mr. Roberts -
I don’t speak for Anonymous or anyone else, but one reason GLBT folk might be relieved is that the bid for apparent normalcy is threatened. The GLBT public relations campaign is based on selling gay life as normal, except, of course, for one (tiny) thing. Otis Charles’ apparently is too bizarre.
In fact, it’s possible to read the Mass. bishop’s call for restraint wrt same-sex marraige in church as a strategy which delays the desired (and logical) outcome, lest the sleeping masses wake to the true goal of absolute acceptance, enforced when necessary, of homosexuality as a normal variant of human life, like race or gender, rather than a disorder.
Comment by Ken — 5/23/2004 @ 9:52 am
John W.- “Establishing order” has no virtue by itself. Notable anticlericals such as Napoleon, Stalin, and Hitler claimed to be doing precisely the same thing. It is merely a means, without specific ends, as you stated.
Comment by Tom Roberts — 5/23/2004 @ 10:02 am
John Wilkins:
You are absolutely right. There are certainly many other things far more threatening to Christian values than homosexuality per se. Like blessing sin.
Comment by I’d rather not say — 5/23/2004 @ 2:07 pm
Mr. Wilkins,
You speak against the idea of a slippery slope, but consider what has occurred in the area of abortion. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court announced that a “right to privacy” protected the choice a woman might make to abort the fetus in the first trimester. Many cried “slippery slope” and many others pooh-poohed that concern. Today completely viable infants are drawn partly from the womb, their heads are punctured, their brains suctioned out and their skulls crushed. This to protect “the health of the mother”, although many doctors agree that no such procedure is necessary for her health and health is, in any case, defined so broadly as to be meaningless. Slippery slopes are quite real, thank you.
However, I would consider the normalization of homosexual acts and lifestyle the bottom of the slope, or, at least, near the bottom.
Comment by Ken — 5/23/2004 @ 2:33 pm
Sleepless, with respect to you, John, and Robert, my words accuse them of nothing, but do ask a question, which they decline to answer, although John’s “refusal to accept slippery slope” arguments seems to be part of an answer. So, I decline to defend what I have asked.
The question asked, and not answered, comes again though: are we not already sliding down the slope, John? In the form of Bishop who apparently advocates illegal hallucinogenic drug use “marrying” in the church to his 4 time divorcee partner, in defiance of his Bishop? In the form of a lesbian youth minister who has a baby out of wedlock? In the form of a convicted murderer being ordained to the transitional diaconate while serving 15 to life in a California prison? In the form of an Episcopal group in the Diocese of Michigan co sponsoring a pagan worship conference? In the form of some priests threatening to conduct gay marriages anyway in defiance of their bishops, or refusing to conduct “straight” marriages until gay ones are allowed? Do you Robert and John, uphold the refusal of the sacrament of marriage to a man and a woman who are otherwise qualified, as a form of political protest? Is that a Godly act?
I notice that our “liberal friends” pick their battles carefully; I have yet to hear any of them pick up the cudgel I have laid down in the past regarding Bisexual conduct. Is the Episcopal Divinity School in Massachusetts part of the “order” in the Episcopal Church? If it is, then that order promotes NOT ONLY “committed same sex monogamous relationships” but Bisexuality–is that ok too, guys?
My friends, you may not buy into the slippery slope, but perhaps that is because you are on it, and it is moving so fast you don’t realize it.
Peace,
William
Comment by William — 5/23/2004 @ 2:50 pm
Having been travelling this weekend, I am only now catching up on several comment threads. I am particularly glad to see the comment by anonymous about how “liberals” (his or her word)are concerned about order and the possibility of failure to observe proper limits.
But herein lies a difficulty. These are people who speak more than anything else of justice, but where has the concern for justice been for THOSE WHO DIFFER FROM THEM in ecusa? I do not see them speaking out for the “conservatives” recently, have you? There have been a number of quite egregious instances of Episcopal overreach. If there were a concern about justice for all, should their not be a “liberal” protest against this? Does justice only apply when it concerns “liberals”?
We are seeing, in the context of ecusa’s chaos and deterioration, a rise in appeal to canon and a rise in the slippage toward a monarchial episcopate. If those who claim to be concerned about justice spoke out against this it would make their legitimate concern in a diocese like California more convincing.
One last thing, it is not true to say “Not that it probably makes much difference to many of you…” It is a concern.
Kendall.
Comment by kendall Harmon — 5/24/2004 @ 12:00 am
Speaking of JUSTICE, since some of our friends are strong believers in it, is the Denis Cannon JUSTICE? Or would it be JUSTICE and Christian charity to let the orthodox leave with their property? Is the Denis Cannon the Word of God? Can it not be repealed? How was it originated? As blackmail to dissenters from liberalism? Is that JUSTICE? Is it fair to tell me, who started out in ECUSA in a rented building and then helped build two new ones, have a nice day, go have church at the Holiday Inn?
Comment by William — 5/24/2004 @ 9:45 am
William, please understand that my call for precision in our criticism of those who remain in dialogue with us, like Robert and John, but whose positions most certainly differ in fundamentally important ways from ours, was not an implicit endorsement of their positions. Robert and John argue individually from different perspectives, although both selectively avoid addressing some tough questions in deference to experiential, evolution of truth, and ‘unity at all costs’ logic. I’m glad they hang in there with us on this blog. If for no other reason, in thinking through my responses to them, I find my faith reinforced.
Comment by Sleepless in SC — 5/24/2004 @ 11:48 am
Sleepless, I appreciate Robert and John also for precisely the reasons you have stated, which I stated earlier in another thread. With respect to you, and them, I am not perfect, and sometimes do wrong, and when I do, am reasonably quick to apologize. But when I don’t, I decline to apologize to be collegial or polite.
Still waiting on Robert and John to share their feelings about Bisexuality, though, among other things; aren’t you?
Comment by William — 5/24/2004 @ 2:50 pm