Unity in Mission A Bond of Peace for the Sake of Love C. Andrew Doyle Unity in Mission: A Bond of Peace for the Sake of Love Copyright © 2015 by C. Andrew Doyle First Published in the United States by C. Andrew Doyle as the Bishop Of The Episcopal Diocese of Texas 1225 Texas Ave Houston, TX 77002 ISBN---13: 978---1514741436 ISBN---10: 1514741431 New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America August 2015 Second Edition First Printed in the United States of America April 2012 I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even has you have loved me. John 17:20-23 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Matthew 5:9 CONTENTS Acknowledgments i 1 Remarks by Secretary James A. Baker III Pg 1 2 Choosing Unity Pg 5 3 The Future We Create Pg 10 4 The Responsibility of Bishop as Leader Pg 18 5 Unity as an Instrument of Communion Pg 25 6 Essential Foundations of Marriage Pg 46 7 We Are Not of One Mind Pg 67 8 A Communal Response Pg 89 9 A Strategy for Unity in Mission Pg 94 10 On Pilgrimage Together Pg 99 11 Forward into Mission Pg 162 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful for the many people who have spent time with me over these past seven years and shared their hopes and desires as well as their concerns and prayers. A number of these have been bishops who have shared in their thoughts and have supported me in discerning my leadership on this issue. I give thanks for the direction and clarity with which the following have offered guidance: the Most Rev. Justin Welby, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Most Rev. George Carey, the Rt. Rev. James Tengatenga, the Rt. Rev. Philip Poole, the Rt. Rev. Ed Little, the Rt. Rev. Neil Alexander, and the Rt. Rev. Duncan Gray, III. I give thanks also for the Rt. Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon (former Secretary General of the Anglican Communion) and the Rev. John Peterson (former Secretary General of the Anglican Communion). I give thanks for the Very Rev. Joe D. Reynolds (former dean of Christ Church Cathedral, Houston), the Rev. Dr. Russell Levenson (rector of St. Martin’s, Houston), the Rev. Dr. Ian Markham (Dean of Virginia Theological Seminary), the Rev. Dr. Bill Stafford (former Dean of the Sewanee School of Theology), and the Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl (former Dean of Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge) and the Rev. Larry Hall (former rector of St. John’s the Divine, Houston). I am thankful for the challenge and support that I have also received from Ms. Laurie Eiserloh (parishioner at St. David’s, Austin). In no way do I mean to imply their endorsement of this paper, but I appreciate the time and conversations they have had with me over the last several years and their encouragement in seeking a way for the Diocese of Texas, and for the wider church, to seek unity globally. In addition, these faithful bishops—the Rt. Rev. Claude E. Payne (seventh Bishop of Texas), the Rt. Rev. Don Wimberly (eighth Bishop of Texas), the Rt. Rev. Dena A. Harrison (bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Texas), the Rt. Rev. Jeff Fisher (bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Texas), and the Rt. Rev. Rayford B. High (bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Texas, retired)—all have been a part of this conversation and have offered nothing but their support of me for the sake of unity and the health of mission for i the Diocese of Texas. Most especially, I am thankful to the Rev. David Puckett and the Rev. Chris Bowhay, who agreed to help with editing the text, and Dr. Scott Bader-Saye, who agreed to serve on the Task Force for Unity and also agreed to be a reader for this paper. His thoughts have been most helpful in insuring a solid theological footing. Together they were my first readers. I am also grateful for the Diocese of Texas staff who has helped me to make time devoted to this project. I am especially indebted to the Rev. Canons John Logan and John Newton, and Carol E. Barnwell, each of whom has helped with my thinking and my writing. Let me now thank JoAnne, my wife. She is my partner in the adventure that is bishop. She has read more than a few pieces of my work, and in all she has given me her support despite the numbers of comma and semicolon corrections. I love her and am blessed to have her in my life. Lastly, I am grateful to God and the people of the Diocese of Texas who have inspired my ministry and have invited me, as the ninth bishop diocesan, to share their lives. Their courage, their fierce tenacity for mission, and their belief in the kingdom of God—all of this makes me want to be a better bishop. Moreover, their audacity for the Gospel of Jesus Christ urges me to leadership on this issue. ii 1 REMARKS BY SECRETARY JAMES A. BAKER III At the inaugural meeting of our Episcopal Diocese of Texas Unity in Mission Task Force Meeting in 2011, Secretary Baker made the following remarks regarding sexuality issues facing the Church. I became involved in this issue about three years ago, as we were witnessing the schism in The Episcopal Church over this issue play out in the form of one congregation after another leaving to go its own way. We were witnessing at that time as well—and before, frankly—the proliferation of lawsuits over church property that accompanied those departures. I personally grew quite concerned. I really felt that we were desperately in need of a way to resolve our differences, rather than to allow those differences to continue to separate us. I tried to look at it from several different perspectives—first, as an Episcopalian, and one who dearly loves our Church, albeit one who really claims no expertise whatsoever in the polity of the Church. I will confess to you that I’ve learned a little about it, since I first became so concerned, but I really don’t know a lot about the polity of the Church. Secondly, I looked at it as someone who has had extensive experience in both national and international politics and negotiations. From both perspectives, it was clear to me that this issue is one that is so very divisive and with respect to which positions of both sides are so deeply held, that we’re not going to resolve it, if we insist that we have to go one way or the other. That is, if we insist, that on this issue, there is going to be one winner and one loser. I must confess to you that I ran into a few of those types of issues during my time in public service that are so divisive that they’re just not capable of being solved on a one-win, one-lose basis. Instead I felt—and I still feel—very deeply that our goal ought to be to 1 come up with a win-win solution, if we can, that gives those with views on either side of this issue, the opportunity still—notwithstanding their views—to dedicate their lives to Jesus Christ through The Episcopal Church. Now, saying that, I recognize and I appreciate that there will be some on the fringes of this issue that feel so committed and so dedicated that they will always look at this issue as an either-or matter. I just happen to think that continuing on that path is a recipe for disaster. My experience, frankly, told me that the best way to find that win-win solution would be to see if we couldn’t create a system that allows both sides of the controversy to simply agree to disagree, and in so doing, to still maintain respect for one another in the process. The more I thought about it, the more I felt that we should try to establish what might be called an all-are-welcome approach that allows our parishes to make important decisions on this issue. That seemed to me to be a fair and reasonable approach. It still seems to me to be a fair and reasonable approach. On this one issue, some will choose a more traditional stance, while others will choose to do blessings (and/or marriages). Doing this—I think—allows the local parishes to make the critical decisions on the issues, and that is, after all—at least, in my view— consistent with the Church’s long history of allowing for decision-making at the local levels. As many—as all of you probably know—many of the same people who developed our country after the American Revolution—that is, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and James Madison—were members of our Church after it separated from the The Church Of England.