The Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee



The Rt. Rev. John C. Bauerschmidt: Reflections on Communion Matters, September 1, 2007

Process
In the Spring of this year, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church published a study document, Communion Matters, to guide Episcopalians across the country in considering and responding to the requests of Anglican primates directed to the House of Bishops. Bishop John C. Bauerschmidt appointed a committee to assist him in implementing this call consisting of Dr. David L. Rowe, St. Paul’s, Murfreesboro, Chair; the Rev. Freddy Richardson, Holy Cross, Murfreesboro; Susan Huggins, St. David’s, Nashville; and the Rev. Jerry Smith, St. Bartholomew’s, Nashville. The committee met and developed a process for fulfilling the Bishop’s charge.

After studying the report (published early in June), the committee composed a set of three questions for consideration. The first two were posed directly by the Primates of the Anglican Communion to the House of Bishops: would we wish Bishop Bauerschmidt to accede to the primates’ request that we refrain from developing rites to bless same-sex unions, and would we want our Bishop to accede to their request that we withhold consent to the ordination of a practicing homosexual as a bishop in the Church? The third question emerged from our interest in maintaining communion here at home. Realizing that regardless of the outcome of this controversy some people will feel marginalized, what are we willing to do “to continue to live
and work together as church in this diocese in the face of our differences?”

Initially we considered holding conversations, as the bishops’ proposed process requested, in each of the diocese’s four missionary convocations. But the short time given to us and the difficulties of arranging these conversations during the summer months led us to revise the approach. Instead, we communicated to the Senior Wardens and leading clergy of our constituent congregations and asked them to disseminate the report and our three questions to their congregants and to arrange congregational conversations being careful to record the comments of those attending. The goal initially was for them either to develop a consensus statement or simply a summary of responses within their congregations. These were then submitted to the Bishop’s office. As of the date of this report, twenty three congregations had responded in one form or another. These responses represent the opinions of those who cared to participate and are not, nor were they intended to be, representative of the Episcopalians in the Diocese of Tennessee. Most of the statements responded to the issue of human sexuality rather than to the study’s core question of the nature of communion among Anglican provinces.

Bearing this in mind, we are able to report on the results of these reflections.

Response
1. A large majority of the congregational statements desire Bishop Bauerschmidt to accede to the two requests of the primates. That is true also of two congregations that did not prepare a consensus statement but that solicited individual reflections from congregants.

2. There was sentiment also that the Bishop not agree to these requests. Among those who wish the Bishop to
support denying the primates’ requests, there is a genuine desire to remain connected to the Anglican Communion while maintaining the autonomy of our national church. Restraint could provide an opportunity for discussion to continue throughout the Communion.

3. In some congregations expressions were evenly divided on the matter, and two congregations chose not
to respond to the questions at all.

Responses to the third question reveal a strong desire to maintain fellowship and communion with those who will feel marginalized by the final resolution of these matters. While a few responses on both sides evinced a mood of frustration and anger–with the actions of the Episcopal Church, with the requests of the primates, or with the continuing divisions among us the controversy has caused–the dominant tone of the responses was thoughtful, deliberate, and aware of the debate’s significance and implications.

[cover letter to the Bishop]
Right Reverend Sir;
It is the pleasure of your Study Committee to present you with this report on the results of our diocesan consideration of Communion Matters. Regardless of the short time allowed to undertake this effort, we think the results speak clearly about the desires of our parishioners. And we have received many expressions of gratitude from people who were pleased finally to have an opportunity to express themselves on these weighty matters. The spirit throughout the diocese about this effort, so far as we can tell, is very positive.

It was our hope that we could shape our report to you in a way to suit the form the House of Bishops is asking you to submit. In reviewing that form, though, we find that almost all the questions they ask have little bearing either on the nature of the report or on the questions they asked us all to consider. What we have gleaned from the responses and summarized in our attached report properly answers the question on the bottom of page 2 and the question labeled “other” on page 3 if you wish to format it thus. Since we did not plan, organize, nor conduct diocesan-wide or regional conversations with you present to hear the discussions, I suspect the
rest of the questions are moot.

At any rate, it has been our pleasure to serve you in this way. We pray that our work has, indeed, been of assistance, and we assure you of our continued daily prayers for your own discernment in these matters. Be assured that the diocese has the strongest confidence in your leadership and your shepherding. God bless you in both.

Back to Bishop's Forum