I was awake at three o’clock this morning, as I have been every night since General Convention, going over in my mind the e-mails and letters I have received, and concerned about the well being of our diocese. I acknowledge the pain and unhappiness felt among many because of the decisions of General Convention. I hope the exchange of honest views tonight can help us recover one of the great strengths of the Diocese of Virginia: our capacity to hold together people of different views in the common mission of Christ in Virginia.

General Convention acted in two ways that many find controversial. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies consented to the consecration of the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. I consented and so did our Virginia deputies by a vote of 6-2.

The convention also adopted a resolution committing the church to "continued prayer, study and discernment on the pastoral care for gay and lesbian persons." The resolution recognized that blessings and celebrations of same gender relationships do occur in some parts of the church. The resolution brought to the floor of the House of bishops originally included language authorizing the development of national rites of blessing. I introduced an amendment deleting that authorization, and the amendment was adopted, eliminating its core provision for the blessing of same-sex unions. What was left in the resolution is descriptive of what is happening in some dioceses of the Episcopal Church. It is not descriptive of what is happening here. It does not authorize same-sex unions.

Where does this leave Virginia? Nothing changes: We do not knowingly ordain people involved in sexual intimacy outside of marriage; I do not license clergy involved in same-gender partnerships. I do not authorize the blessing of same-gender relationships. While our churches welcome people of all sorts and conditions, we continue to have a diocesan consensus, in the language of our 1994 diocesan council resolution, that the "normative context for sexual intimacy is lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage," and the resolution continues, "we have resisted with compassionate strength attempts to divide us, or to define us, by such a fearful or narrow expression of that teaching that it becomes oppressive and self-righteous." That policy has often been quoted in parish newsletters, often omitting the last clause that commits us to expressions of that teaching that avoid oppression or self-righteousness.

Some of you have asked how I could consent to Canon Robinson’s consecration given a diocesan policy that would not have approved his ordination in Virginia.

I had a difficult, even wrenching time deciding. I prayed a lot. I consulted widely, with clergy and lay colleagues, with other professionals, more formally with the deans of the regions, and the Standing Committee. I studied scripture anew. I was particularly struck by the 15th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles where the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem adapted the requirements of Jewish law to the reality of the situation of gentile converts in Antioch. My reading of scripture convinces me that the Gospel is ever-increasing its power to erase the barriers that we human beings erect among ourselves.

I was also struck anew by the centrality of a theology based more on grace than on law. In Philippians 3:8-14, Paul wrote to the Philippians yearning for a righteousness that comes not from the law but "for a righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith." Paul continues, "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

"Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3:8-14)

For me, my consent to Gene Robinson’s consecration was a conflict between hope and fear. Hope for God’s grace versus fear of change. I chose hope.

In preparation for Convention, I also read again the Letter from a Birmingham Jail written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in response to criticism from a group of white bishops that the timing of his non-violent protests in Birmingham was provocative.

That was the Spring of 1963. I was thinking of the possibility of the ordained ministry at the time. One of the bishops who criticized Dr. King was a young Alabama bishop whom I deeply admired and whose timidity disappointed me. I decided then, if I were ever in a position of lay or clerical leadership in the church, not to stand in the way of what God might do in the future to break down barriers.

Re-reading Dr. King reminded me that significant change, especially change that involves new understanding of justice, often comes in a disruptive and disturbing manner.

Since I was consecrated in 1984, I have consented to the consecration of nearly 200 bishops. I have not voted against a single one, not those who were divorced and remarried, not the poor administrators and preachers, not even those bishops who now threaten to leave the church. I believe strongly that the people of a local diocese, when the election is properly and fairly held, are the best people to determine who will best lead their diocese. Just as the apostles respected the local circumstances of the people of Antioch, so the General Convention respected the circumstances of the people of New Hampshire.

For persons with a permanent orientation of homosexuality, a committed partnership may be as close as they can come to the faithfulness and monogamy expected in the church’s traditional standard. Canon Robinson’s partnership, I believe, was so interpreted by the people of New Hampshire. They know him and his commitments and they believe him best qualified to lead them.

What difference does this controversy mean for us in Virginia? That depends on us. Our diocesan policy is intact, reflecting our consensus. We are a church with no doctrine of the infallibility of bishops or of councils. You are free to declare your differences with the General Convention and the bishops. I assure you that I am hearing loudly and clearly that expression of difference from those of you with those convictions.

But there is so much more that unites us in mission than divides us over issues of sexuality. Our emphasis on new churches, our pastoral care for small churches, our youth work throughout the year and at Shrine Mont are just a few examples.

The withholding of funds by individuals from the local church, by local churches from the diocese has no impact whatsoever on the Diocese of New Hampshire that receives not one cent of our money.

The use of money as a weapon of protest has no warrant in Scripture. St. Paul disagreed with the theological views of the church at Jerusalem and raised money for it nonetheless.

The withholding of funds damages what we do together, what mission opportunities we share, what diocesan services are available to your local churches. Such withholding already has had an impact. The Rev. Tony Pompa, assistant to the Bishop for congregational development and ministry, has accepted a call to be rector of a church in Delaware. Tony has served us very well. He started in this particular search process well before General Convention. We will miss him. Because of the anticipated shortfall in giving, his position will not be filled.

If your parish considers withholding funds, know that this will continue to impact ministries, programs and services in the diocese. This controversy provides us an opportunity to demonstrate how we can live faithfully together with differences, or it provides a threat to the ministries and mission we all share. The choice is ours.

To those who plan to attend the American Anglican Council special meeting in Texas next month: I pray that you will seek ways to express your dissent while remaining engaged in our common life and mission. I am sending Bishop Gray to Texas as a pastoral presence to Virginians who may be there. Those who go to Texas from Virginia are valued members of the diocese of Virginia and I trust you will take no steps there that separate you from our shared life.

In the midst of our differences, I hope all of us will act with charity and respect for one another and remember three truths:

We are all made in the image of God.
We need one another.
Each of us may be wrong.