Today, the Right Reverend Gene Robinson visited St. Edmund’s, Chicago, and many of my friends and colleagues will have gone down to see him. Margaret and I gave it a miss; without intending any disrespect, he’s a bishop; maybe a famous/notorious bishop, and of course he’s a gay bishop, but just a bishop nonetheless, and I already know a lot of bishops. God bless him, and the crowds who will have headed to St. Edmund’s, but I’ll wait till the brouhaha settles down some.
I’m thinking more about another bishop, Peter Lee of Virginia, who’s taking a lot of flak for voting in favor of Gene Robinson’s consecration. Bishop Lee appeared in a cover story in the New York Times Magazine at the beginning of January, when I was in New Haven. At the time, meant to note the story online, but it slipped my mind. Now the Times has relegated it to their paid archive, but one can find more or less of the article at various sites (viz..) with judicious Googling.
A number of people have commented to me about the portrait of Bishop Lee as complex person, whose willingness to go out on a limb lags behind his sense of what might be right, who stepped out at General Convention to do what he thought was the right thing; others have commented on the portrait of Martyn Minns, his opposite number, rector of Truro Episcopal Church (home parish of Oliver North, Clarence Thomas, Diane Knippers of the Institute for Religion and Democracy and — I think — John Poindexter). Evidently Minns’ friends hold a more favorable view of him than they think the Times conveyed. (I’ve met Bp. Lee a couple of times, and he made a positive impression on me, not least because he addressed Pippa with respect and genuine attention at the General Convention in 1997, though I’ve heard less favorable assessments of him also. I haven’t met the Rev. Mr. Minns.)
The paragraph that caught my attention came toward the end of the article. Bishop Lee observed that he still can’t bring himself to ordain somebody he knows to be gay: “noting that a half-dozen or so clergy members — some of whom he had ordained — had already come out to him privately. The bishop remains opposed to ordaining noncelibate gays, because of both his own personal resistance and that of his diocese. He's only willing to go so far.”
If I read that correctly, Bishop Lee is saying, in effect, that he won’t ordain an honest gay or lesbian person; but if someone deceives him, then he’ll ordain them and not inhibit the exercise of their ministry. Does that sound odd to anyone else? I’m not so concerned with ordinands who feel obliged to keep closeted in order to follow their call to ministry; it hurts me very much, but I can see why they would feel constrained so to do. But Bishop Lee admitting that he institutionalized deception in the ordination process. . . . That can’t be healthy for anybody involved, and I’d have hoped that Bishop Lee would acknowledge some discomfort with that situation.
Posted by AKMA at February 8, 2004 12:08 PM | TrackBackHey.
Bishop Lee presided over the very first Vigil I ever attended. He made a good initial impression on me as well. The parish I attended had openly gay members (some coupled). One or two even served on the vestry. He was always very respectful of all he met. Though, I heard through the grapevine (a reputable source as always)that he was inconsistant. This seems to be true.
As inconsistant as he may be, I enjoyed my time worshiping with him. There were several. I even remember that first sermon.
Posted by: Tripp at February 8, 2004 02:08 PMDoes the inconsistency have to do with Lee's point of view? Maybe he is only looking at it from his own point of view. He may say to himself, "I see sin in homosexual behavior, therefore I won't ordain a homosexual." Yet he will accept that he ordained gay people, and can wash his hands of the perceived sin because, as he may say to himself, "It wasn't I who sinned in the ordaining. It was the closeted gay person, by presenting himself for ordination dishonestly, who sinned. I did nothing wrong." And so Lee leaves it at that, seeking his own aquittal, and looking no further.
Posted by: Dash at February 8, 2004 03:22 PMOr maybe he really doesn't have this completely worked out in his own mind--is that so utterly evil? There's a negative vibe going around that says everybody has to decide right now, once and for all, which "side" of this issue one is on, and thereafter defend it to the utmost. Phooey.
Peter Lee certainly gave me confidence in the Episcopal view of bishops. I had come from an ELCA synod in which my experience taught me not to expect much leadership from them. But he is a thoughtful and considerate person who I believe takes seriously his role of shepherd for a large number of very diverse people. That he doesn't please everybody is (in my opinion) a positive indication.
Friends, I have no interest in picking on Bishop Lee; as I said, I have a generally positive impression of him, and if he’s moving toward the position I hold on sexuality, I would think all the more highly of him. And I certainly, certainly don’t want to scapegoat ordinands who perceive the clear message that they must not acknowledge who they are.
At the same time, I’m an Augustinian on the subject of lying. One of the deepest wounds caused by the church’s willingness to accept the service of gay clergy but not to accept their honesty has been that the church introduced a further grave distortion in the already-precarious ordination process, devalued the importance of truth-telling in a situation that demands candor, and thus integrated deceptiveness and evasion into a sense of “business as usual.” I take that very seriously, and it worried me that Bishop Lee wasn’t shown to have noticed that dimension of his position.
Peter, if he’s working his way from one theological stance to another, it’s only reasonable that he not make a 180-degree turn overnight. I just wish that, in the article, the centrality of truth had shared some of the spotlight that church politics occupied.
Posted by: AKMA at February 8, 2004 08:33 PMI agree with others that Bishop Lee is on a journey from one point to another when it comes to the subject of gay clergy. But you are right to point out the word games that some folk use when they talk about homosexuality in a variety of contexts. They get nervous.
See for example, our current president's comments on defending the sanctity of marriage, and efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution. Or most politicians when the subject of gay marriage comes up.
I am not sure that John Poindexter is still Episcopalian. According to this story in The Boston Globe about a conservative Catholic organization in DC, the Admiral's wife is listed as a volunteer and former Episcopalian priest.
Posted by: Don at February 8, 2004 09:13 PMWas the article clear that the ordinands who came out intentionally deceived Bishop Lee? I wholeheartedly agree that deceit need be confronted in the Church, but it seems to me there is an air of ambiguity about the whole situation, likely due to lack of or second-hand information. I haven't read the article, however, so I'm interested to know if Bishop Lee confronted/questioned the ordinands who came out to him, and if their deceit was intentional in the first place.
Posted by: Scott at February 8, 2004 10:28 PM"Friends, I have no interest in picking on Bishop Lee; as I said, I have a generally positive impression of him, and if he’s moving toward the position I hold on sexuality, I would think all the more highly of him."
Andrew: surely this isn't what you intended to convey. So someone's regard in your eyes depends on the degree to which he or she agrees with you?
Posted by: Kendall Harmon at February 9, 2004 08:38 PMKendall, you rightly catch that my comment above doesn’t express all I’d have said. I have (as I indicated) a broadly positive view of Bp. Lee. He struck me as a relatively acute participant in Episcopal Church life, from a time when he and I disagreed. That being said, I — understandably if imperfectly — confess a proclivity to think at least marginally more favorably about people whom I respect, who have come to look at matters more nearly as I do.
Of course, I respect focused, searching, respectful reflection on and engagement with our questions a great deal more than I do mere agreement (in fact, often as not I’m quite exasperated by some people who seem to agree with me). But I can’t claim the spiritual purity that would entirely separate sympathy from regard. There is no favoritism with God, but I I'm still pressing onward toward that upward call; I have not attained.
One of the very most frustrating experiences for Margaret and me has been our experience of being denied a discursive point of standing apart from two poles, neither of which seems correct to us. Part of my respect for Bishop Lee involves my saying, “I approve of your vote on the consecration of Bishop Robinson, but I’m troubled by the implications of your stand relative to ordination.”
(Speaking of which, Scott, you are quite right to correct me regarding my too-free use of the word “lying”; I do not know that anyone actively deceived Bishop Lee. I still find his present stand perplexing, though.)
Part of my respect for a wide variety of spokespeople for ordination/consecration of lesbian and gay Christians involves saying, “Your ecclesiology and use of Scripture don’t convince me.”
So yes, quite so, Kendall: apparent agreement on a course of action does not entail approval of the explicit or implicit rationale for those actions, and I don’t assign my regard for others based exclusively on their apparent endorsement of my conclusions — but I can’t honestly exclude that as a factor, either.
Posted by: AKMA at February 9, 2004 10:29 PM