The Mainstream Media (MSM) headlines screamed this morning: “The Episcopal Church ends ban on gay bishops.” The headline, and the articles were sensationalistic, but misleading. Resolution D025, which passed the House of Deputies and amended, passed the House of Bishops yesterday, did no such thing. In fact, there was no ban or “moratorium” on the consecration of gay bishops, something even the Archbishop of Canterbury seems not to have understood. What the media, and the Archbishop were referring to was resolution B033 from 2006, which “urged restraint” on bishops and standing committees in their consents to the elections of gay or lesbian bishops.

Resolution D025 changes nothing. It simply states where the Episcopal Church is and what the canonical requirements for ordination are. The canons (the rules or laws) that govern the church say nothing about sexuality or gender when listing qualifications for ordination. Quite the contrary, the canons are explicitly non-discriminatory.

Resolution D025 points that out. It also acknowledges the deep divisions in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion over matters of sexuality.

For more on this, the Episcopal Cafe has been following the debates. In addition, there is a fine essay on the Anglican Centrist. But I encourage you especially to read Bishop Henderson’s letter on the meaning of the resolution. I should note that he offered an important amendment to the resolution in the House of Bishops, which they passed.

Was it just coincidence that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church began on July 9, the 500th anniversary of the birth of Jean Calvin? Calvinism has been important in the history of the development of Anglicanism, even if most of us like to downplay its role in contemporary Anglicanism. In fact, the English Reformation got its start before Calvin arrived on the scene and there was never a single voice of Reformed Protestantism influencing early English Protestant theology. Martin Bucer, the Reformer of Strasbourg, spent some time in England, and Heinrich Bullinger, the Zurich reformer was enormously influential as well.

Calvinism became significant only relatively late, in the Elizabethan period, and from the start, there was significant “push-back” from the crown and from other important players. The reason for Calvinism’s unpopularity among the political and religious powers was his vision of the church, and especially the critique of bishops. That meant that much of the rest of his theology eventually was rejected as well. Still, there was significant Calvinist (and Reformed) influence on the Elizabethan Settlement.

I’ve never found Calvin particularly appealing, and it is not just his understanding of human sinfulness. Rather, I think my aversion has to do with style or approach. The Institutes are a marvelous system of theology, carefully argued, well-organized, even elegant. I like my theology a little messier, reflective of the conflicts and emotions that drive theological thinking and innovation. That being said, Calvin continues to influence contemporary theology, as he has done for 450 years.