Beloved in Christ in the Diocese of Springfield,

I am now safely and gratefully back home after serving for 12 days at the 79th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which was held in Austin, Texas. I was joined there by an outstanding cadre of Deputies elected by the diocese: Kevin Babb and Sharon Hoffman (St Andrew’s, Edwardsville), Randy Winn (Trinity, Mt Vernon), Gerry Smith (Christ the King, Normal), Fr Dick Swan (St John’s, Decatur), Mother Sherry Black (St Mark’s, West Frankfort), Fr Dave Halt (St Matthew’s, Bloomington), and Fr Mark Evans (Trinity, Lincoln). They all did you proud.

The convention considered and disposed of, one way or another, over 4oo resolutions. I wrote about some of them on my personal blog, which I encourage you to look at. In this letter, I will focus on just one, because it deals with the most controversial issue our church has faced over the last several decades, which is human sexuality in general and marriage in particular. and it seems important that I communicate to the clergy and faithful of the diocese about this both promptly and clearly.

At this time three years ago, I returned from General Convention in Salt Lake City, and responded to the decision of that convention to change canon law and authorize liturgies so as to provide for marriage between persons of the same sex. The new rites required the permission of the Bishop to be used, and I declined to grant such permission. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer (p. 423), in accordance with all of its predecessors, the official teaching of the Anglican Communion, the overwhelming consensus of the Christian community across both space and time, resting upon the bedrock of Holy Scripture and the words of our Lord Jesus, teaches that marriage, established by God in creation, is a lifelong covenant between one woman and one man. It is my sense that a solid majority among both the laity and the clergy of the Diocese of Springfield adhere to this understanding.

Our position is clearly a minority one within the Episcopal Church, and also runs against the cultural and legal tide in North America and Europe. So we are both a minority and a majority—a fairly small minority in our immediate environment and a quite substantial majority in the larger one. So it behooves us to behave well in both contexts—as the majority treating those who are the minority with the same grace and charity as we would, as the minority, hope those who are in the majority would treat us. Those who differ from us on this are not our enemies. The bond that unites us in baptism transcends our differences (though it does not make them trivial). I am, as ever, committed to the hope that we may “walk in love, as Christ loved us.”

However, this most recent General Convention has constrained the authority of bishops to simply prohibit same-sex marriage within the diocese. This is deeply lamentable. It undermines and erodes the ancient and appropriate relationship between a bishop and a diocese as chief pastor, teacher, and liturgical officer. It obscures the sacramentality of the Bishop’s identity and role, that all liturgical and teaching ministry in the diocese is an extension of the Bishop’s own liturgical and teaching ministry. The action of this convention flouts the notion that the Episcopal Church is true to its very name—“episcopal” means “pertaining to the Bishop”—let alone that it stands in the broad stream of Catholic Christianity. We have grievously erred, and are in need of repentance and amendment of common life.

Contrary to what you might read in various media, though, the resolution passed by the convention is not simply carte blanche for any cleric, congregation, or couple that wishes to celebrate a same-sex marriage. First, none of this takes effect until December 2 of this year, the First Sunday of Advent. This is certainly a minor detail in the long run, but, in the meantime, it does seem worth mentioning. Second, such an event would need the consent of the Rector. Here’s the specific language: “provided that nothing in this Resolve narrows the authority of the Rector or Priest-in-Charge (Canon III.9.6(a).” Since I am canonically the Rector of all unincorporated Eucharistic Communities, the general policy that I enunciated three years ago remains in force in those places.

Most significantly, there is a special provision in the resolution for situations, like ours, when the Bishop is theologically at odds with the decision of General Convention, per Resolve Clause #8:

That in dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, and there is a desire to use such rites by same-sex couples in a congregation or worshipping community, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) shall invite, as necessary, another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral support to the couple, the Member of the Clergy involved and the congregation or worshipping community in order to fulfill the intention of this resolution that all couples have convenient and reasonable local congregational access to these rites; [emphasis added]

In plainer language, here’s what this means: If a Eucharistic Community of the diocese wishes to conduct a same-sex wedding, it will first, through its rector or senior warden, inform me of this desire. We will then arrange an in-person meeting between the Mission Leadership Team, the Rector, and me. The first purpose of this meeting will be to discern whether there is indeed a consensus around the desire to hold such a ceremony. If a consensus is evident, we will discuss the terms, conditions, and length of the relationship between that Eucharistic Community and another bishop of the Episcopal Church. It will then be my responsibility to find such a bishop, to whom I will refer all the routine components of spiritual, pastoral, and sacramental oversight, including regular visitations, for an agreed-upon season. In temporal matters, such as participation in synod and payment of assessments, nothing will change.

This is harsh; there’s no denying it. Should we come to such a point with any of our congregations, it will be a source of deep personal sorrow—indeed, heartbreak–for me. I profoundly love all of our worshiping communities, and it would be a grievous loss to be in an impaired relationship with any of them. Nonetheless, these painful measures are vitally necessary. Precisely because all liturgical and sacramental ministry is an extension of the ministry of the Bishop, and implicates the entire diocese in whatever is done, there must be a robust firewall between a community that receives same-sex marriage into its life, along with its clergy, and the rest of the diocese, including and especially the Bishop. This does not have to mean that there is anger, rancor, or anything but sincere love between such a congregation and the diocese. The need for differentiation is not driven by emotion. But the rupture is real, because it deals with first things: the authority of Sacred Scripture, and the very doctrine of creation, which is the first article of both the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Any response that takes adequate measure of the rupture is virtually sure to be painful in all directions.

The impetus behind this enabling resolution of General Convention was a desire on the part of its proposers that all same-sex couples who wish to avail themselves of the newly-authorized rites will be able to do so in their home churches. I have just outlined the procedure for making that happen in our incorporated Eucharistic Communities. This may seem a minor point, but, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in it that nullifies my earlier prohibition on clergy of this diocese presiding at same-sex weddings outside the diocese. That pastoral regulation, in the context of a cleric’s vow of obedience to his or her bishop, remains in force.

It brings me no joy to exercise the authority of my office in a way that brings consternation or grief to anyone, as I suspect this letter will to some. The people of this diocese are my delight. I carry you daily in my prayers. I make no claim to infallibility, but I am determined, with God’s gracious provision, to be faithful to that which was entrusted to me on the day of my ordination and consecration in 2011. I take some comfort and inspiration from these words of St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa in the fifth century, part of a sermon he gave on the anniversary of his ordination:

Let me therefore have the assistance of your prayers, that the one who did not disdain to bear with me may also deign to bear my burden with me. When you pray like that, you are also praying for yourselves. This burden of mine, you see, about which I am now speaking, what else is it, after all, but you? Pray for strength for me, just as I pray that you may not be too heavy. Where I’m terrified by what I am for you, I am given comfort by what I am with you. For you I am a bishop, with you, after all, I am a Christian. The first is the name of an office undertaken, the second a name of grace; that one means danger, this one salvation.

Go in peace, and pray for me, a sinner.

+Daniel Springfield

Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, 2018