The former, constituted and convened in the fall of 2005 by the presiding officers of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and House of Deputies President George Werner, met six times and issued a report —One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call—as the beginning point for the conversation and discernment of General Convention. Special Committee 26, also fielded by the presiding officers, was charged to look with fresh eyes at the 11 resolutions that the Special Commission proposed as well as a battery of resolutions that would come from bishops, dioceses, and deputies that held any impact on crafting the important response of the Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report.

Because of the broad spectrum of viewpoints about the very nature of the Windsor Report and also the substance necessary for an adequate response from the Episcopal Church, Griswold and Werner sought to insure a breadth of opinions and convictions in the makeup of both groups. Of the 14 members of the Special Commission, seven went on to serve on the 19-member Special Committee 26 during General Convention.

The Special Commission and Committee 26 had to strike a delicate balance in an environment where, for some, Windsor was an appeal for space so that a conversation could continue, while for others, Windsor was a call for clarity so that the chaos might cease.

The challenge of creating a response to Windsor, explained the Rev. Charles Osberger, deputy from the Diocese of Easton and a member of both the Special Commission and Committee 26, was to “bring together a group of persons with diverse perceptions of the nature or symptoms of the problem—Is it an authority question; is it a justice issue; is it a communion value; is it an autonomy question; is it unity vs. mission—and then [attempt] to craft language which allows you all to honor equally those commitments to authority, communion, justice, truth.”

“We’re talking about virtually impossible situations. We’re talking about ambiguity inside of enigmas and riddles,” said Werner at the close of General Convention, reflecting on the work of both the Special Commission and Committee 26. “I am obsessed with bringing different voices to the table and when it works well, it is better than anything else. When I bring all my diverse voices to the table and it doesn’t work, there are body parts everywhere.”

Girding their work in a cycle of daily prayers, the Committee 26 met twice, sometimes three times a day during General Convention. The committee held early morning hearings on nearly three-dozen resolutions and hosted a massive, three-hour open hearing on June 14 that drew 1,200 observers and scores of witnesses.

The heft and complexity of the cognate committee’s work stymied the hope of its two chairs—Bishop Dorsey Henderson of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina and Deputy Francis Wade of the Diocese of Washington—to get Windsor legislation onto the floor early in the convention. By the halfway point, Committee 26 itself became mired in what appeared to some as semantic nuances of language, but in reality were word changes that deeply affected the meaning and focus of what the committee could bring to the floor for consideration.

“The challenge before us,” said the Rev. Ian Douglas, deputy from the Diocese of Massachusetts who was a member of Special Committee 26 and had been co-chair of the Special Commission, “is to live in the space [provided] in a multi-cultural reality where what seem to be mutually conflicting ideas can coexist. [It is] to both affirm our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers and also remain part of the Anglican Communion.”

The commission report, which was issued two months before General Convention, encountered criticism from both sides from people who viewed it principally as a statement on human sexuality, Douglas explained, but on balance, he thought it was well received.

“The Special Commission did maintain some space where those who called it a fudge and those who called it a sell-out, from their two perspectives, were both correct. But the import for the whole report and its resolutions maintained some space for discussion,” Douglas said. “That was a pretty hard balance to strike on the commission—to maintain that space. On the [General Convention] committee, we just went enough one way that the balance was lost.

“The reason that it took so long for us to do our work is that we went all around the map before getting back to something sort of like the Special Commission, with some substantive changes. We built a real sense of koinonia, but it was very hard,” he added.

Michael Howell, first-time deputy from the Diocese of Southwest Florida, a professor of Marine Science at the University of South Florida in Tampa, and member of Committee 26, held a different perspective and outlook on the role of the committee in preparing the legislation for the two houses to consider.

“From the first day that we met, I expressed my opinion that I saw our work—our charge—as being one to prepare legislation that would enable the Episcopal Church to clearly respond to those points that we’ve been asked to respond to in the Windsor Report. I made it clear that I didn’t feel we were here to come to an agreement on Windsor,” Howell said. “I didn’t even feel we were here to [craft] something that stood a good chance of passing. I firmly feel that the Episcopal Church has to now take a stand on what it believes and then be willing to [accept] whatever consequences come.”

Howell did not believe that Committee 26 was particularly well served by the pre-convention work of the Special Commission and he made regular attempts during the committee’s seven days of work to more precisely capture the Windsor wording for an up or down vote.

“If you look at the make-up of the Special Commission,” he said, “from a theological spectrum, [it] wasn’t very balanced. There were not enough orthodox voices by any stretch, so as a result, we inherited resolutions that had some Windsor language and maybe even some Windsor sentiment, but it is not what we were asked to do.

“Right from the start, there wasn’t a balance that would have given us the opportunity to put forward resolutions that clearly speak to the issues. I felt the committee had a much better balance from a theological standpoint, but I felt that we were starting not on a level playing field.

“I think what got us in trouble was that we focused a bit too much on trying to please everybody,” Howell said. “We’re not here to agree or we’re not here to put out something that’s going pass or what we think is going to pass and therefore [start putting consensus] at the forefront.”

As Committee 26 hit the halfway point of General Convention without reaching the floor with its most challenging legislation, the committee decided that it had gleaned whatever impact it could from the hearings on two dozen second-tier resolutions and did not have adequate time or adroitness to perfect them into floor legislation. Instead, the committee bore in on moving forward the most challenging pieces of legislation.

On Monday, June 19, the committee reached the House of Deputies with the first direct response to the Windsor Report, section 134. The Rev. Frank Wade, co-chair of the committee, introduced the series of resolutions.

“The Windsor Report is not an ultimatum, nor does it invite our ultimatum in return,” said Wade, urging the deputies to refrain from amending the legislation to make specific points. He said that the Windsor Report and the Episcopal Church response serve to create space for conversation to continue.

“Conversations between great institutions are slow, they take longer, because small points must work their way across great distances and across great differences,” said Wade.

“The words in these resolutions,” he said, “do not reflect the view of any group or subset of our church. They are attempted to help us to speak from our breadth and our complexity. The voice of many must of necessity lack the simple clarity of a single voice.”

Resolution A160 called for an expression of regret concerning the actions of General Convention 2003, which the Rev. Kendall Harmon, deputy from the Diocese of South Carolina, rose to support.

“The first step in the process of reconciliation is before us, but let’s only take it if we mean it,” Harmon said. “Expressing regret is only meaningful if the fruits of regret are evident and we will only be doing the right thing by backing this if we also back the moratorium for which we are asked.”

The Rev. Gay Jennings, deputy from the Diocese of Ohio, submitted that “the communion is strained, but it is not broken.” She offered an amendment that was accepted and Resolution A160 was approved, extending the Episcopal Church’s expression of “regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed.”

In a discussion that was continued the following morning—the penultimate day of General Convention—the House of Deputies debated the most challenging question asked of Windsor, section 134, concerning the election, consent and consecration of bishops and also a statement on developing rites for same-gender relationships.

The Special Commission had suggested that General Convention “urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.”

Committee 26 modified the language to read that General Convention is “obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to refrain from the nomination, election, consent to and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.”

A161 also included what had been filed as A162 on Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions and would have directed the church not to develop rites for blessing same-gender relationships. It affirmed the need for a breadth of responses in providing pastoral care for gay and lesbian Episcopalians and offered an apology to gay persons and lesbians for these decisions.

“There is something in this for everyone to not like,” said the Rev. Dan Martins, deputy of the Diocese of San Joaquin who served on Committee 26 and helped introduce Resolution A161 on the floor of the House of Deputies. He urged deputies to hold their noses and vote for it.

Committee member Douglas agreed, saying, “It is not perfect in anyway and there are no winners in this resolution. What this resolution does is keep us at the table, having done all that we can do in honesty and faithfulness. Staying at the table is key at this point in time, especially if we are to enable the leadership of our presiding bishop to be experienced in the inter-Anglican counsels of the world. The risk before the House of Deputies is that if we do not pass this difficult and imperfect resolution, then our detractors will say that we do not want to walk together with sisters and brothers of the Anglican Communion. Passing it will keep us in the Windsor process.”

Becky Snow, deputy from the Diocese of Alaska and member of Committee 26, spoke in favor of A161 and referred to the testimony before the committee from the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, who asked, “Where are the marks of crucifixion in these resolutions?”

“I think ‘refrain from’ is one of them,” Snow said. “I believe our willingness to stand down from our call for justice for a time will help create the space in which we will be able to continue our—the Episcopal Church’s and gays and lesbians’ —witness to the wider church.

“I am glad that I have the privilege of voting to accept this sacrifice that applies particularly to me and my partner of 24 years. I urge you, too, to accept the language presented in this resolution, including ‘refrain from,’ while acknowledging that [this language] creates a barrier that perhaps will block the work of the Holy Spirit and will cause us the loss of [important] ministries that we will suffer while it continues in effect,” Snow said.

“I wonder if we are being faithful to the spirit when we exclude a group of people from leadership based solely on who they are,” said the Rev. Jane Gould, deputy from the Diocese of Massachusetts, who opposed Resolution A161. “I am aware that keeping ourselves open to the leadership gifts of all people may heighten tensions within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. But I also know that Jesus regularly upset the religious community of his time by calling such people as the Samaritan woman at the well ...”

“We have nothing to apologize for from our actions in General Convention 2003. We need not apologize for aligning our praxis of recognizing the ministries of gay and lesbian people with our polity,” said the Rev. Michael Russell, deputy from the Diocese of San Diego, who also spoke against the measure. “For this house to flinch an inch away from the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people even for an short period of time would be an insufferable injustice.”

The Rev. Peter Cook, deputy from the Diocese of Western Louisiana, opposed A161 for different reasons. “The Windsor Report asks the Episcopal Church to give a clear, unambiguous statement in response to charges made against us. I believe we are [offering] a non-response response and I am against this resolution.”

The Rev. Christopher Cantrell, deputy from the Diocese of Fort Worth, suggested a substitute resolution that would “effect a moratorium” on electing and consenting to bishops living in same-gender unions as well as all public rites of blessing on same-sex unions, but the attempt was ruled out of order by the president who said that such a binding moratorium could only be enforced by changing the church canons.

“Regardless of my personal views,” said Josephine Hicks, an alternate serving in the debate as a deputy from the Diocese of North Carolina. “I know it is important for us to create space for further dialogue and listening, to reach out to the Anglican Communion, to demonstrate that we are serious about reconciliation and about the Windsor process. This is a process; this is not the final word. But today this is the right thing to do. I urge this house to not amend to death a carefully crafted resolution [and] a very thoughtful and prayerful process, and I urge the adoption without amendment of A161.”

Hicks is the Episcopal Church’s lay member to the Anglican Consultative Council, one of the three members who voluntarily withdrew from the 2005 meeting of the ACC in compliance with a request in the Windsor Report.

The deputations from South Carolina, Fort Worth, Tennessee and Central Florida issued a call for a vote by orders, a procedure that makes approving a resolution more difficult. A vote by orders requires a majority in the affirmative in each order—clerical and lay. If the deputation’s vote in an order is divided 2-2, it effectively counts as a negative vote.

In the vote on A161, there were 53 no votes and 14 divided votes in the clergy order for a total of 67 negatives votes, compared with 44 yes votes. In the lay order there were 53 no votes and 18 divided for a total of 71, and 38 affirmative lay votes. A161 was defeated.

“We put out something that really didn’t appeal to anybody and I wasn’t surprised,” concluded Howell, reflecting on the role of his Committee 26. Along with the deputation from the Diocese of Southwest Florida, Howell voted against the measure. “I would have voted for the Fort Worth resolution because it was Windsor-complaint [and] would have gotten the job done.”

“The committee had considerable more time [than the House of Deputies] to think about the language of the Windsor Report [and] to think about the relationship between the language of Windsor [and] the proposed language of the Special Commission,” said Deputy Osberger, a member of both Committee 26 and the Special Commission. “It was a disappointment for me, being an evangelical, that conservatives felt this was too weak or unclear. I thought the work of this committee provided a Windsor-adequate foundation to go forward from this convention.”

“Under the crush of 800 people and a clock ticking and strict imposition of rules, it does not create the kind of koinonia needed,” added Douglas.

“I think the left and the right wanted to keep the discussion as a referendum on human sexuality and only saw it through the lens of their perspective,” Douglas observed. “When you have the right and the left focused on their particular concern—i.e. human sexuality—then there was a majority from both sides and there wasn’t a large enough center [that said] ‘let’s think this through in new ways.’ In some respects, it’s a limitation of this legislative process that prohibits conversation across differences.”

The weight of General Convention remaining silent on the important Windsor issue was felt by many deputies and within an hour, a motion was made to reconsider the vote on A161.

“The issue on the vote on 161 was additional language that was inserted by the Special Committee,” said the Rev. John Keydel, alternate from the Diocese of Michigan, signaling his sense that deputies would have been receptive to the language of the Special Commission. “The original 161, prior to the Special Committee’s action, [was] perfectly acceptable. Afterwards, as the vote revealed, it was acceptable neither to one side nor the other. The two sides collapsed on the center in that particular case.”

Keydel said he thought the original Special Commission language—“to exercise very considerable caution” regarding the election of bishops—would pass overwhelmingly. However, with Deputy Cantrell and the Fort Worth deputation prepared to re-state a canonical-friendly substitute resolution that would press for an up or down vote on strict moratorium language, the ultimate outcome of a rekindled debate on A161 remained in doubt.

The only thing that was certain as the deputies recalibrated and voted on whether to reconsider A161 was that Windsor hung in the balance of a procedural vote that required two-thirds of the deputies. When only 59 percent voted to reconsider, A161 was dead.

“The conservatives agreed among themselves that it wasn’t enough. And the liberals agreed among themselves that it was too much. And the two of them together ditched 161,” said the Rev. Todd Wetzel, deputy from the Diocese of Dallas. “The truth of the matter is that there isn’t enough of a center to hold the church together. What little center there is tried to move for reconsideration and couldn’t get its footing.”

Meanwhile, in the House of Bishops, news of the defeat of A161 followed by the defeat of the motion to reconsider served to heighten anxiety that General Convention might end in 24 hours without any clear response to what many considered the lynchpin of the Windsor Report.

“I believe we in this house have to take the lead,” said Bishop Suffragan John Rabb of the Diocese of Maryland. “The church is depending on it. The Diocese of Maryland wants it. The Anglican Communion wants it.”

Bishop Gary Lillibridge of the Diocese of West Texas said that convention needs to say something strong about Windsor because “if we don’t give Katharine Jefferts Schori a chance at the table, we’re not going to have any more conversations with the communion.”

“I desperately want to preserve this communion, but I can’t do so at the expense of my own integrity,” said Bishop Gene Robinson of the Diocese of New Hampshire. “Will I exercise caution in electing bishops? Absolutely. But I cannot promise to withhold consent to a whole category of people sight unseen.”

Robinson said that he feared the Episcopal Church was letting forces outside the church influence the positions of the General Convention. “If we cannot shape our own answers,” he said, “perhaps they are not the right questions.”

Several bishops suggested the possibility of drafting a mind-of-the-house resolution, which expresses the views of the bishops but is not binding and carries neither legislative weight nor the sanction of the whole Episcopal Church.

Bishop Jon Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles spoke against a mind of the house resolution, saying, “We have to respond with something that comes out of our bicameral model.” Bishop Jim Kelsey of the Diocese of Northern Michigan agreed with Bruno.

“I remember our Camp Allen [agreement where we] voted for a moratorium and until such time when the whole church could meet. It is important to listen to the rest of the church,” Kelsey said. “We shouldn’t speak in a monologue.”

“I have great respect for the House of Deputies,” said Bishop Mark Hollingsworth, who indicated that he had been in contact with the deputies from his diocese, Ohio. “There is a large center in that house that very much wants to deal with this.”

After an hour-long discussion, Griswold announced that he would call a joint session of the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies for the following morning—the final day of the 75th General Convention.

On Wednesday, June 21, Griswold brought to the floor of the joint session Resolution B033, “On the Election of Bishops” that was formally sponsored by the five bishops of Special Committee 26: Bishop Dorsey Henderson (chair, Upper South Carolina), Bishop Ed Little (Northern Indiana), Bishop Robert O’Neill (Colorado), and Bishop Geralyn Wolf (Rhode Island). The text of the resolution read:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 75th General Convention receive and embrace the Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further

Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

Griswold noted that previous legislation like A159 and A166 reflected “a desire for continuing conversation” within the Anglican Communion. He insisted, however, “unless there is a clear perception on the part of our Anglican brothers and sisters that they have been taken seriously in their concerns it will be impossible to have any genuine conversation. Therefore there will be no conversation and the bonds of affection which undergird communion will be further strained.

“Let me say here,” he continued, “we need to be mindful of the dynamics that have brought us to where we are. Some among us feel that expressions of restraint with regard to the office of bishop demean the dignity of those among us who are gay and lesbian. Others among us may be opposed to expressions of restraint, which would make it more difficult for them to justify their apparent need to establish a separate ecclesial body. Nothing would better serve such purposes than to be able to say that we, because of our action or inaction, have chosen to walk apart from the rest of the communion. In a strange way, those with very different views are able to vote on the same side of the question.

“However, resolutions passed thus far indicate a desire on the part of the majority to find a way forward that may require relinquishments on all sides. The majority of us, whom I describe as the diverse center, made up of divergent opinions but unified by a common sense of being church together for the sake of mission, do not want to take a step that precludes further steps and genuine conversation.”

Griswold announced that the bishops would return to their chamber to consider Resolution B033 and would send it to the floor of the House of Deputies at the conclusion their expeditious work.

On the floor of the House of Bishops, Alabama Bishop Suffragan Marc Andrus, who is bishop-elect in the Diocese of California, moved to amend B033 to read “The Episcopal Church unreservedly embraces the spirit of the Windsor Report and the maintenance of unity of the Anglican Communion for the purpose of witness and mission.” The amendment also melted the language of moratorium into a commitment “to exercise caution and have in mind the Body of Christ and the good of the Anglican Communion when nominating, electing, and giving consent to candidates for the episcopacy”—wording that was similar to the original Special Commission language.

After several bishops spoke in support, Bishop Russell Jacobus of the Diocese of Fond du Lac asked Griswold whether the resolution had been drafted properly. Griswold ruled that the language of the Andrus amendment was not in the correct form and, therefore, out of order.

Bishop Thomas Ely, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont, rose to his feet to object to its dismissal and appealed for two minutes to bring the measure in line with resolution language.

Griswold allowed a two-minute recess for the purpose of perfecting the language, but made an impassioned plea to the bishops.

If we don’t make a clear statement on this issue, Griswold said, “it will be very hard for the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite bishops to Lambeth.”

At the conclusion of the recess, Andrus expressed his willingness to withdraw his amendment if Bishop John Chane of the Diocese of Washington was permitted to make a two-word change to the second resolve. Chane’s change would have read, “to exercise restraint in consenting to ...”

Several voices were heard before Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada and presiding bishop-elect, rose to support the original language, which was approved on a voice vote.

B033 was then moved downstairs in the Columbus Convention Center to the House of Deputies—literally past some deputies who were packed and heading to the airport and home.

The high drama continued on the floor of the House of Deputies where a special order of business, which required a two-thirds vote, was necessary to even discuss B033 since both the substance of the issue and reconsideration had been defeated previously.

“I speak in favor of suspending the rules,” said the Rev. Ronald H. Clingenpeel, deputy from the Diocese of Missouri. “Please—do not stop those of us who want to deal with this issue from doing so. The parliamentary procedures and attempts to stop us are unfair. I asked that we suspend the rules so that we as a body can deal with this.”

The Rev. Don Goodheart, deputy from the Diocese of North Carolina, agreed, saying “I am tired of this house being hijacked by people on the extremes.”

The suspension of the rules was approved and B033 was set before the House of Deputies.

The Rev. James Bradberry, deputy from the Diocese of Southern Virginia, said that he reluctantly voted in favor of A161 the day before and reluctantly supported B033.

“In seven General Conventions, it is the only vote I have ever cast about which I am genuinely ashamed,” Bradberry said. I was encourage to adopt A161 “in order to give our church opportunity to deal better with forces outside of this church who have remarkably different views.

“I don’t like this resolution, but I can live with this resolution. I can give it to the Presiding Bishop-elect and say ‘go into the Anglican Communion and tell them we have struggled, we have done our best, and this is what we have to offer,’” Bradberry said.

“For some of us, this is a difficult decision, as it has been for me,” said Tim Baer. first-time deputy from the Diocese of Oklahoma, “but let’s take the high ground [and] give our PB and ACC members a seat at the table.

“The Holy Spirit working does not always move on our time, and we do not always get our way today. We must lay down our fear, our swords and shield, our self-interest, and our need for power and control—as Bishop Schori encouraged us this morning [in her closing Eucharist sermon]—and trust the process,” said Baer.

In what must be considered one of the more dramatic moments of the 75th General Convention—one replete with the symbolism of a vexing problem being handed over to the next generation of leaders—Bonnie Anderson, the president-elect of the House of Deputies who was presiding in her role as vice-president of the house, announced that the presiding bishop-elect wished to address the deputies on the issue before them. Anderson sought the imprimatur of the deputies—a nod to the style of leadership on the horizon.

Then, in the same house where precisely 72 hours before, her name broke the still air of anticipation for the first time, Katharine Jefferts Schori took the podium to address the House of Deputies.

“Yesterday afternoon,” the Nevada bishop said, “the bishop of Louisiana spoke in our house most eloquently about living in a church with two minds—one church, two minds. As he was speaking, an image rose in my mind. It is a challenging image.

“We have read many stories in the news in the last several years about conjoined twins—two or parts of two bodies united in one being. And when physicians and ethicists and parents have wrestle with decisions about whether or not to try to separate the twins, they operate out of an understanding that is it wrong to attempt to separate those twins unless both can live full lives,” Jefferts Schori said.

“I think we are in a church much like that. This creature, this Body of Christ, is not wholly one and it is not wholly two. The resolution which stands before you is far from adequate. I find the language exceedingly challenging, but my sense is that it’s probably the best we’re going to do today and at this convention. I am fully committed to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in this church. I certainly don’t understand adopting this resolution as slamming the door, and I think that if you do pass this resolution, that you have to be willing to keep working with all your might at finding the common mind in this church. I don’t find this an easy thing to say to you, but I think that is the best that we’re going to manage at this point in our journey’s history.”

“Our presiding bishop and now our presiding bishop-elect have spoken with brilliant clarity as to exactly what it will take in order for us to remain in the conversation at the table of the world wide Anglican Communion,” said the Rev. Phillip Linder, first-time deputy from the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. “It is not perfect. We are a passionate body, yet we need to remember how passionate the communion is as well. I think the great strength of our Anglican heritage and theology is that different passions can exist at the one table and in that tension God’s truth will emerge.”

“This resolution tears me apart. It goes against every ounce of my being,” said Sally Johnson, deputy from the Diocese of Minnesota. “As a gift to the presiding bishop-elect, I think we should adopt it without amendment.”

The deputations from South Carolina, Fort Worth, Quincy and Central Florida issued a call for a vote by orders, thus raising the bar on whether the measure would pass.

After one attempt to amend the resolution, B033 was approved with 75 affirmative votes in the clergy order and 73 in the lay order. There were 24 no votes and 10 divided votes in the clergy order and 21 no votes in the lay order and 11 divided.

“The center caught its breath and listened to Frank Griswold, and then to the ardent appeal of Katharine Jefferts Schori,” said the Rev. Dan Appleyard, deputy from the Diocese of Michigan. “She pulled the center to vote ‘yes.’”

“The diverse center has finally found its voice in the business of this convention,” said Griswold in his final press briefing, which followed immediately after the vote by the House of Deputies on B033. “I gather that on the floor of the House of Deputies, there are a number of people who said ‘no longer are we going to be tugged about by the right and the left. We are going to stand together in all our diversity as one church committed to one mission.’”

The reaction to and reception of the Episcopal Church response to Windsor will be gauged over the course of months, but it did not take long for some reaction to percolate within the Episcopal Church itself.

“I am deeply disappointed in the leadership of the presiding bishop, [as he] sowed seeds of fear in the House of Bishops this morning and took it down to Deputies. It is unconscionable that we have bishops in this church who are willing to sell-out the gay and lesbian faithful in order to go to Lambeth,” said the Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity. “We were on a course toward a compromise that we could have lived with and sent a message to the Communion, but that got hijacked and derailed in the House of Bishops.”

The Rev. David Anderson, CEO and president of the American Anglican Council, called General Convention’s acquiesce on B033 an “unsurprising fudge on consecrations of bishops.”

“The Episcopal Church did not deliver,” Anderson said. “Instead, both the House of Bishops and House of Deputies bowed to intense pressure from the presiding bishop to pass B033, a resolution characterized by ill-defined language with no provision for enforcement or accountability.”