Transcript The Acts of the Apostles

Homosexuality and
Anglicanism
The Anglican Approach to Moral
Questions
“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of
credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever
any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these
the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her
ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true
or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior
judgments whatsoever”
Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V.8:2
Hooker’s Principles



Scripture: The ultimate authority, as it contains
special revelation from God
Reason: When Scripture does not speak plainly,
truth flows from what reason can necessarily
conclude from reflection upon Scripture
Tradition: When reason is applied in the
preceding manner, the voice of the Church in its
highest councils, both past and present, is
authoritative
Actions of General Convention,
the House of Bishops,
and the Lambeth Conference
1976-2003
Actions of the 1976
General Convention

Resolution A-69


“Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that it is the sense
of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children
of God who have a full and equal claim with all others persons
upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the
Church.”
Resolution A-71

“Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that this General
Convention expresses its conviction that homosexual persons are
entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens,
and calls upon our society to see that such protection is provided
in actuality.”
The Ordination of Ellen Barrett

On January 10, 1977, the Rt. Rev. Paul Moore, Bishop of
New York, ordained Ellen Barrett to the priesthood



Ellen Barrett was an avowed lesbian
The House of Bishops questioned Bp. Moore on this
matter
He insisted that the judgment to ordain her was based
on her homosexual orientation alone:

“We were not dealing with a publicly professed practicing
homosexual.”
1977 House of Bishops’ Statement


“The Biblical understanding rejects homosexual practice.
Heterosexual sex is clearly and repeatedly affirmed as God’s will for
humanity. The teaching of Jesus about marriage, the teaching of
Paul and other Biblical writers are unanimous and undeviating in
portraying heterosexual love as God’s will and therefore good and
normative at the same time keeping in mind our Lord’s recognition
(cf. Matthew 19:12) that there is also virtue in the celibate life. It is
not clear from Scripture just what morality attaches to homosexual
orientation, but the Christian message of redemption and
sanctification is one of graceful acceptance leading to graceful
wholeness for all people.
“The Church, therefore, is right to confine its nuptial blessing
exclusively to heterosexual marriage . . .
1977 House of Bishops’ Statement
(cont’d)


“With respect to the question of ordaining homosexuals it is crucial
to distinguish between (a) an advocating and/or practicing—willful
and habitual—homosexual and, (b) one with a dominant
homosexual orientation only. In the case of an advocating and/or
practicing homosexual, ordination is inadmissible . . .
“The ordination of an advocating and/or practicing homosexual
would require the Church’s sanction of such a lifestyle, not only as
acceptable, but worthy of emulation. Our present understanding of
Biblical and theological truth would make this impossible.”
Actions of the 1979 General Convention

Resolution A-53

“Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this General
Convention recommend to Bishops, Pastors, Vestries,
Commissions on Ministry and Standing Committees, the
following considerations as they continue to exercise their proper
canonical functions in the selection and approval of persons for
ordination:



1. There are many human conditions, some of them in the area of
sexuality, which bear upon a person’s suitability for ordination;
2. Every ordinand is expected to lead a life which is "a wholesome
example to all people" (Book of Common Prayer, pp. 517, 532,
544). There should be no barrier to the ordination of qualified
persons of either heterosexual or homosexual orientation whose
behavior the Church considers wholesome;
3. We reaffirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage,
marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian
sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are expected to conform
to this standard. Therefore, we believe it is not appropriate for this
Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is
engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage.”
1979 Statement of Dissention from
Resolution A-53


“. . . We who associate ourselves with this statement are deeply conscious
of, and grateful for, the profoundly valuable ministries of ordained persons,
known to us to be homosexual, formerly and presently engaged in the
service of this Church. Not all of these persons have been celibate; and in
the relationships of many of them, maintained in the face of social hostility
and against great odds, we have seen a redeeming quality which in its way
and according to its mode is no less a sign to the world of God’s love than is
the more usual sign of Christian marriage. From such relationships we
cannot believe God to be absent.
“. . . We have no intention of ordaining irresponsible persons, or persons
whose manner of life is such as to cause grave scandal or hurt to other
Christians; but we do not believe that either homosexual orientation as
such, nor the responsible and self-giving use of such a mode of sexuality,
constitutes such a scandal in and of itself.”
1979 Statement of Dissention from
Resolution A-53 (Cont’d)

“. . . Taking note, therefore, that this action of the House is recommendatory and not
prescriptive, we give notice as we are answerable before Almighty God that we
cannot accept these recommendations or implement them in our Dioceses insofar as
they relate or give unqualified expression to Recommendation 3. To do so would be
to abrogate our responsibilities of apostolic leadership and prophetic witness to the
flock of Christ, committed to our charge; and it would involve a repudiation of our
ordination vows as Bishops, in the words of the new Prayer Book, boldly [to] proclaim
and interpret the Gospel of Christ, enlightening the minds and stirring up the
conscience of [our] people, and to encourage and support all baptized people in their
gifts and ministries … and to celebrate with them the sacraments of our redemption;
or in the words of the old, to be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf. Our
appeal is to conscience, and to God. Amen.”

Signed by 21 Bishops, including the Rt. Revs. John Spong and Edmond Browning
The Ordination of Robert Williams

On Dec. 16, 1989, the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Bishop of
Newark, ordained Robert Williams to the priesthood.



“What we’re doing here today will make our Anglican
Communion more honest.” --Bp. Spong
Williams was openly gay and had been living in a non-celibate
relationship with another man for the previous four years.
On Jan 13, 1990, Williams stated to the press:

“Monogamy is as unnatural as celibacy. If people want to try,
OK. But the fact is, people are not monogamous. It is crazy to
hold this ideal and pretend it’s what we’re doing and we’re not.”
Response to Williams’ Comments





Bp. Spong asked Williams to retract his comments
When Williams refused, Bp. Spong engineered his resignation as
Executive Director of Oasis, a diocesan-related organization that
ministered to Gays and Lesbians
Not long afterwards, Williams attacked Bp. Spong as a “racist,
sexist, homophobe” on national TV
In the aftermath, Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning heeded his
Council of Advice and issued a Statement of Dissociation from Bp.
Spong’s ordination of Williams
On Sept. 18, 1990, the House of Bishops’ issued the following
resolution:


Resolved, That the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church affirm and
support the Statement of February 20, 1990, made by the Presiding
Bishop and his Council of Advice in regard to the ordination of a
practicing homosexual by the Bishop of Newark on December 16, 1989.
Williams subsequently renounced his orders; tragically, he died of
AIDS in December, 1992
Actions of the 1991 General Convention

A-104sa

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 70th General

Resolved, That this Church continue to work to reconcile the

Convention of the Episcopal Church affirms that the teaching of the
Episcopal Church is that physical sexual expression is appropriate only
within the lifelong monogamous "union of husband and wife in heart,
body, and mind" "intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and
comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity and, when it is
God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the
knowledge and love of the Lord" as set forth in the Book of Common
Prayer; and be it further
discontinuity between this teaching and the experience of many
members of this body
[The remainder of the resolution directed a church-wide study be
undertaken to inform a Pastoral Study that the House of Bishops would
promulgate at the 1994 General Convention]
Actions of the 1994 General Convention




The Pastoral Study, developed by a special
committee, was drafted in confidential sessions
The final draft was “leaked” prior to the GC
Many bishops found the draft too inconclusive in
affirming the Church’s traditional teaching
The Statement, “An Affirmation in Response”
was circulated for signatures.
“An Affirmation in Response”


“. . . (1) The fundamental element in Christian sexual morality is the
discipline of self-control called Chastity, which means absolute faithfulness
in marriage and sexual abstinence apart from marriage. Marriage is a union
of husband and wife, one man and one woman created in God’s image. We
affirm the teaching of scripture and tradition that marriage is lifelong in
intention, sacred in character, and a reflection on the human level of the
love relationship between God and the Covenant People in the Old
Testament, and that between Christ and the Church in the New Testament.
"(2) Premarital sexual relations, however prevalent in society, cannot be
condoned by a Church that proclaims the sanctity of marriage. Equally,
sexual relationships outside of marriage constitute a denial of God’s plan for
humanity, and they must be met by a call to repentance and amendment of
life. Sexual relations between members of the same sex are also a denial of
God’s plan, and cannot be condoned by the Church.
“An Affirmation in Response”
(cont’d)

"(3) We recognize fully the difficulties which Christian moral
imperatives impose on all of us as members of our fallen race, and
we therefore counsel tolerance and loving pastoral care for those
who — for whatever reason and in whatever way — are unwilling or
unable to maintain the discipline of Chastity. But neither the Church
nor its bishops have the authority to compromise in principle, or
give approval in practice, to standards less or other than our God
has given us."
Resolution B1001



Affirmed “that the normative context for sexual
intimacy is lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous
marriage”
Commended the Pastoral Study Document
Read into the Minutes two documents:

“An Affirmation in Response”


106 bishops signed
“A Statement of Koinonia”

71 bishops signed, including the Rt. Rev. Frank Griswold
“A Statement of Koinonia”

“. . . We also believe that the ordained ranks of the
church are open to all baptized Christians and that
through our regular screening process we will determine
who is both called and qualified. We are aware of the
presence in the church of gay and lesbian clergy. We
bear witness to the fact that they have served and
continue to serve this church with effectiveness and
integrity. Some of them are single, many more of them
are living in committed partnerships. They serve this
church today as bishops, priests, and deacons. In all
these orders they have won the respect of their ecclesial
communities . . .”
“A Statement of Koinonia”
(cont’d)

"We also recognize that by canon law the choice of fit
persons to serve in the ordained ranks of the church is
not the prerogative of bishops alone, but of the whole
church. We pledge ourselves to ordain only those
persons whom the testing and screening process reveals
to be wholesome examples to the flock of Christ. But let
there be no misunderstanding, both our lives and our
experience as bishops have convinced us that a
wholesome example to the flock of Christ does not
exclude a person of homosexual orientation nor does it
exclude those homosexual persons who choose to live
out their sexual orientation in a partnership that is
marked by faithfulness and life-giving holiness.”
1995-96 Presentment Against
the Right Rev. Walter Righter

On Sept. 30, 1990, the Rt. Rev. Walter Righter, Assistant Bishop of
Newark, ordained Barry Stopfel to the diaconate


On Jan. 27, 1995, 10 diocesan bishops submitted a Presentment
against Bp. Righter for serving as consecrator at this ordination


Like Robert Williams, Stopfel was living in a non-celibate relationship
with another man
A total of 76 bishops (more than the 25 percent required) acceded to
the presentment
The Presiding Bishop responded by referring the matter to a court
consisting of nine bishops, one of whom recused himself near the
end of the hearing
The Decision of the Court
May 15, 1996

Seven of the Eight Bishops dismissed the charges



They found that the Church’s teaching on sexuality is not part of
the “Core Doctrines” of Christianity and therefore the actions of
Bp. Righter were not subject to disciplinary review
Moreover, they interpreted General Convention prohibitions
against the ordaining of non-celibate homosexuals as
“recommendatory only.”
One Bishop strongly dissented from the majority

He argued that the majority presented an excessively narrow
definition of “doctrine” and that Bp. Righter’s actions violated the
contents of that corpus of doctrine.
Excerpts from the Majority Opinion

“The Court today is not giving an opinion on the morality of
same gender relationships. We are not deciding whether lifelong, committed, same gender sexual relationships are or are
not a wholesome example with respect to ordination vows. We
are not rendering an opinion on whether a bishop and diocese
should or should not ordain persons living in same gender sexual
relationships. Rather, we are deciding the narrow issue of
whether or not under Title IV a bishop is restrained from
ordaining persons living in committed same gender sexual
relationships. The conclusions reached in our opinion are based
upon our understanding of the Core Doctrine of this Church;
how this is related to traditional teaching; the ordering of the
Church’s discipline; and the authority of General Convention and
House of Bishops resolutions . . .
Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
(cont’d)


“. . . The Court finds that there is no Core Doctrine
prohibiting the ordination of a non-celibate,
homosexual person living in a faithful and committed
sexual relationship with a person of the same sex . .
.”
“. . . there is no discipline of the Church prohibiting
the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person
living in a committed relationship with a person of the
same sex . . .”
Response of the Presenters
May 28, 1996


“. . . In an attempt to restore order in a Church where it had all but
disappeared, we have engaged in a lengthy legal process within the
House of Bishops over the past year and a half. Unfortunately, that
process has been deeply compromised from its very beginning. We
cite as only one example the fact that three out of nine judges
authorized or performed ordinations identical to the one in question
- and a fourth declared his willingness to do so; yet, only one
recused himself, and then only after the majority Opinion had been
determined.
“Nevertheless, the Court has spoken. On May 15, 1996, the majority
held that - all of our previous statements notwithstanding - the
Episcopal Church has no ‘Core Doctrine’ in the area of human
sexuality; and therefore neither the doctrine nor the discipline of the
Church has been violated.
Response of the Presenters
(cont’d)

“We decry this Opinion as deeply flawed and erroneous. The Court's
disclaimer notwithstanding, its decision has swept away two
millennia of Christian teaching regarding God's purposes in
creations, the nature and meaning of Christian marriage and the
family, the discipleship in relation to sexuality to which we are called
as followers of Jesus, and the paradigm of the Church as Bride and
Christ as Bridegroom. The distinction of ‘Core Doctrine’ from other
‘doctrinal teaching’ is without precedent of foundation in the Book of
Common Prayer, the Resolutions of General Convention, or the
Canons of the Church. The very term, ‘Core Doctrine,’ is a specious
invention of the Court . . .”
Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10

“This Conference


“. . . In view of the teachings of Scripture upholds faithfulness in
marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and
believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to
marriage.
“Recognizes that there are among us persons who experience
themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these
are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care,
moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for
the living of their lives and the ordering of relationship. We
commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual
persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God
and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless
of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ . . .
Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10
(cont’d)



“While rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible
with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister
pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual
orientation and to condemn irrational fear of
homosexuals, violence within marriage and any
trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
“Cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same
sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same
gender unions . . .”
Approved by a vote of 526-70 (with 45
abstentions)
Action of the 2000 General Convention

Resolution D039


“. . . Resolved, That we acknowledge that while the issues of
human sexuality are not yet resolved, there are currently
couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in
marriage and couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church
who are living in other life-long committed relationships; and be
it further
“Resolved, That we expect such relationships will be
characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and
respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which
enables those in such relationships to see in each other the
image of God; and be it further
Action of the 2000 General Convention
(cont’d)



“Resolved, That we denounce promiscuity,
exploitation, and abusiveness in the relationships of
any of our members; and be it further
“Resolved, That this Church intends to hold all its
members accountable to these values, and will
provide for them the prayerful support,
encouragement, and pastoral care necessary to live
faithfully by them; and be it further
“Resolved, That we acknowledge that some, acting in
good conscience, who disagree with the traditional
teaching of the Church on human sexuality, will act in
contradiction to that position . . .”
Actions of the 2003 General Convention


Consented to the Election of Canon V. Gene Robinson to
the episcopate
While rejecting a call for the development of rites for the
blessing of same-sex unions, passed a resolution that
gives tacit approval to the use of such rites in local
dioceses
Resolution C051





“Resolved, that our life together as a community of faith is grounded in the saving
work of Jesus Christ and expressed in the principles of the Chicago-Lambeth
Quadrilateral: Holy Scripture, the historic Creeds of the Church, the two dominical
sacraments, and the historic episcopate.
“That we reaffirm Resolution A069 of the 65th General Convention (1976) that
‘homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all
other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the
Church’.
That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about
how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate
unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine,
discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
That we reaffirm Resolution D039 of the 73rd General Convention (2000), that “We
expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual
affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which
enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God”, and that
such relationships exist throughout the church.
That, we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of
our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing
same-sex unions . . .”
Questions for the
Remainder of the Course


What are the underlying rationales of the various
viewpoints in the Anglican Communion,
particularly with respect to Scripture, Reason
and Tradition?
How should the Church pastorally minister both
to and among those who experience themselves
as having homosexual orientations?