The Prayer Book, Memorialization, and Communion Across Difference

EDITORIAL 

This article is being published in three parts. Part I looks at the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference, which were considered by the 81st General Convention; Part II begins the conversation about the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer; Part III looks at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and proposes some ways to think about the future.

Introduction

The 81st General Convention is Louisville may well turn out to be the beginning of a sea change in a whole host of ways. One of the most obvious of these changes was that the baton was passed to a new generation of leaders. Three of the four elected officials of the two houses are under the age of 50 — Presiding Bishop-elect, Sean Rowe, is 49; President of the House of Deputies, Julia Ayala Harris, is 43; Vice President of the House of Deputies, Steve Pankey, is 44. Many prominent leaders of the older generation who spoke to an issue in the House of Deputies found their position rejected by that House or were not elected or appointed to position of authority.

Sean Rowe was not only a full-decade younger than any of the other candidates. He was a bishop longer than each of them and could theoretically be elected to a second, nine-year term and still have five years before mandatory retirement. He was clear that, if elected, he would undertake serious changes to the church’s structure and he reiterated this in his remarks to the House of Deputies on June 28, just after his election. But in so doing, he also called for “relational jubilee in which we can let go of the resentment, anger, and grudges that have weakened our leadership in this church” and spoke repeatedly not only of Jesus, but of Jesus Christ and the gospel.

Another striking feature was the location of conflict and differences. Despite the efforts of some leaders, there are still clergy and laity in the church who maintain a traditional position on the issues de jure, and they are often associated with the Communion Partners (both in the Episcopal Church and in Canada). There were almost no floor debates between liberals and conservatives for the first time in decades. The conflicts, rather, were between those in the majority.

There were two issues around which there was a great deal of work, writing, caucusing, and floor debates: issues related to Communion Across Difference and prayer book and liturgical matters. These are topics about which The Living Church and Covenant have published a great deal and which I have committed much time, effort, and writing, including at this convention as a deputy and member of Legislative Committee #2 on Constitution and Canons.

I want to lay out what took place in Louisville, both for those who are still understandably a bit confused and for posterity, as these matters will not be going away. As we will see, these issues overlap in some important ways.

Part I: Communion Across Difference

The Communion Across Difference task forces were established first in 2018 and renewed in 2022 with equal representation by members who hold that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, as described in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and those who support the definition established at the 2018 General Convention that marriage is a covenant between two people. (Former TLC Executive Director Christopher Wells was a member of the first task force and TLC Editor-in-Chief Mark Michael was a member of the second. Both support the traditional definition of marriage.) The purpose of this work was to foster “mutual flourishing” between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage and to work to establish structures and practices that would make this so (see here for TLC’s coverage of the debates about Communion Across Difference in Louisville, from which this first paragraph was drawn). The task force’s work was profiled in a recent episode of The Living Church Podcast.

The task force unanimously proposed five resolutions to this Convention. The House of Bishops passed them all by wide margins, after which they came to the House of Deputies on June 27.

In what follows, I walk through each of the resolutions and describe how they were engaged by the Convention and their implications.

Resolution A090, Authorization of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer

The first resolution from the Task Force was a brief proposal to authorize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer for continued use by adding this sentence to the Canons: “The Book of Common Prayer as accepted by the General Convention of this Church in 1979 is authorized for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.” This resolution, however, never made it out of committee because it was judged to be redundant, as the prayer book is already authorized. As we will see, the intended effect that this canonical addition would have enabled was accomplished in two other acts of Convention: Resolution B008 and Resolution A224.

Resolution A091, Definition of doctrine

This resolution passed nearly unanimously in the House of Bishops, but debate in the House of Deputies made it clear that the meaning and effect of the resolution was not understood. The purpose of the resolution was quite narrow and specific: to ensure that either view on the nature of marriage could never be the basis of a Title IV charge. That’s it. The resolution attempted to do this by adding this sentence to the definition of doctrine in Title IV: “For the purposes of this canon, the Book of Common Prayer and any Book of Common Prayer memorialized by General Convention are understood as sufficient statements of the doctrine of this Church.” The key phrase is “for the purposes of this canon.” There is a list of nine items from which clergy are to refrain, and the second is “holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any Doctrine contrary to that held by the Church” (Canon IV.4.1(h)1). Because the new marriage rites for same-sex couples will be added to the prayer book alongside the current marriage rites (assuming they are approved on a second reading in 2027, which is a near certainty), this change was a way of stating that the Episcopal Church has two teachings on marriage and this resolution’s intention was to specify this when it came to discipline.

Some asked whether such a protection is even necessary. But as TLC reported, a group of younger clerics from dioceses across the church who hold a traditional teaching on marriage all had Title IV charges filed against them on the same day. While the allegation was that a Discord group of which they were a part of violated Safe Church guidelines (which it did not), it was clear that the motivation of the charges was their view on marriage.

When it came time to debate the resolution, as TLC also reported, there were only a few deputies who testified for and against the proposal (all seemingly in support of same-sex marriage), after which there was a call for a vote by orders. It was narrowly defeated in both orders.

I was disappointed that the Deputies did not pass this protection, but there are a few mitigating factors for those who desire a protected canonical space for those who hold the minority, traditional teaching on marriage. First, the next two resolutions that did pass provide similar sorts of protections. Second, Resolution B008 and Resolution A224 both provide a definition of the term “memorialization” (a heretofore undefined term first introduced in 2018 in Resolution A068) which “authorized [the 1979 Book of Common Prayer] for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.” The clear implication of this is that if a liturgy expresses a theological position, a cleric could not be in violation of the disciplinary canons for holding said position (in this case, that Christian marriage can only be between a man and a woman).

The next two resolutions were both passed by the House of Deputies but, as with the others, not without debate.

Resolution A092, Access to ordination and deployment

This resolution adds the following sections to Canon III.1:

Sec 3. No person shall be denied access to the discernment process or to any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two people. No right to employment, licensing, ordination, call, deployment, or election is hereby established. In dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) is unable, for reasons of conscientiously-held theological belief, to ordain a person who holds one of the above-named theological beliefs, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) shall invite another bishop of this Church to provide access to the discernment process for ordination.

Sec. 4. No priest or deacon shall be denied licensure or canonical residence in any diocese of this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two persons. No right to canonical residence or licensing is hereby established.

Like the resolution about doctrine, the intention was to take one’s view of marriage off the table regarding the discernment process, employment, licensing, etc. Again, there was a call for a vote by orders, but this time it was approved.

Resolution A093, Add provisions of 2018-B012 to canons

The fourth resolution from the task force enshrined in the canons (I.19.3 and III.12.3.a) a series of conscience protections for bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage that were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012 (see the TLC story on B012 from 2018). This was a complex and controversial resolution that was understood to be a compromise. On the one hand, it meant that a diocesan bishop could not forbid the use of same-sex rites within the diocese — the decision was in the hands of the rector. Ecclesiologically, it is important to note, this is a “presbyterian,” not “episcopalian,” approach to doctrine and order. On the other hand, it requires a diocesan bishop with reservations about same-sex marriage to delegate episcopal oversight to another bishop (this could be accomplished through DEPO, but that is not required). This resolution directs that this is to happen both in the case of parishes where there is a desire for a same-sex marriage and when episcopal consent is required for remarriage after divorce for same-sex couples. Thus, through a rather untraditional approach to episcopal authority, the bishop with a traditional view is permitted to maintain episcopal integrity by not functioning as the chief pastor for a rite that expresses a theological belief that the bishop cannot espouse.

Resolution A094, Communion Across Difference

The final resolution sought to renew the Task Force on Communion Across Difference for a third triennium, which would

seek to build on the Blue Book reports of the previous two triennia, continuing to seek a lasting path forward for mutual flourishing consistent with this Church’s polity and the 2015 “Communion across Difference” statement of the House of Bishops, affirming (1) the clear decision of General Convention that Christian marriage is a covenant open to two people of the same sex or of the opposite sex, (2) General Convention’s firm commitment to make provision for all couples asking to be married in this Church to have access to authorized liturgies; and also affirming (3) the indispensable place that the minority who hold to this Church’s historic teaching on marriage have in our common life, whose witness our Church needs.”

This sticking point was Sec. VII of the joint rules of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses to continue a task force beyond a single triennium. It seems that on this basis, the Legislative Committee on Governance and Structure recommended that the Convention Take No Further Action and placed it on the consent calendar. A group of deputies in favor of same-sex marriage but who nonetheless are deeply committed to the work of Communion Across Difference petitioned to remove the resolution from the consent calendar, which it was. Nonetheless, it was debated briefly and defeated in the House of Deputies.

While this too was disappointing, I again take consolation for a number of reasons. First, the number of people who I had never met but who came up to me during Convention to tell me that they were supportive of Communion Across Difference, that they wanted people with a traditional view on marriage in the Episcopal Church, and who were grateful for the work of The Living Church astounded me. A progressive friend who served on Constitution and Canons with me was asked by another deputy, “Why are you working with Matthew Olver?” “Because,” she replied, “in addition to being a committed Christian, he’s kind, he comes prepared, his contributions are clear and make sense, and he is concerned that our language is clear and precise. Wouldn’t you want to work with someone like that?” This kind of affection was never in short supply, and it was a gift every time.

Second, the work of Communion Across Difference does not require the General Convention. In fact, I think this is an opportunity to model the kind of reform that the Presiding Bishop-elect, Sean Rowe, has indicated are major priorities for him. “We spent years resisting the change that was forced on us, wishing things would go back to being the way they had been,” he said in his inaugural speech to the House of Deputies. “It’s time to reorient our churchwide resources — budgets and staff — to support dioceses, congregations on the ground where ministry happens. To build on what dioceses and diocesan partnerships already do better than the churchwide structure and use churchwide resources to strengthen those ministries. We must reform our structure and governance so that our essential polity, in which laypeople, clergy and bishops — all of us together — share authority, does not collapse under its own weight.”

The Living Church is already in conversations with some other key organizations and leaders to continue the work of Communion Across Difference. Not only can we continue an essential task that is necessary in these fractured times when some of our disagreements are substantive. We also can model to the church how we can do this work (a) without the bureaucracy of a task force and (b) without any strain on the national budget. Such a group can issue a Blue Book-like report, and those members who will participate in the 82nd General Convention in 2027 can, along with other friends, propose resolutions, just as task forces do.

We stand ready to model a new way forward: one that does not require us to compromise while attempting to maintain the highest degree of communion possible, and at the same time, provide a clear model to reform our structures and our spending.

Tomorrow’s essay continues the conversation and explores the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer and the ways the General Convention made it clear that the Episcopal Church has two teachings on marriage.