We have viewed the Windsor Report as an important, even defining, part of the Communion’s ongoing conversation about matters of sexuality. Others in the Communion, notably the Bishop of Durham, have seen it as the rules by which we can continue to be in the conversation at all. ”˜Stop making any progress on the affirmation of gays and lesbians or be gone with you.’ What strikes me as I read the posturing that is attempting to spin the meaning of these resolutions is that conservatives and liberals on the matter of sexuality are continuing to talk past each other, often in shrill ways. According to some we have ”˜renounced the Bible and the entire Tradition of the Christian Faith’ and to others have ”˜struck a blow for justice and full inclusion of a persecuted minority’. It is wearying and tiresome to keep at this. I have some instinct which I keep in check for the most part, that schism would not be so bad and then we could begin planting Episcopal Churches in England and elsewhere. The instinct that usually wins out however is the one that says there must be a way for people of goodwill to stay together in difference on this issue.
What I notice is that the ”˜liberal’ argument is dependent on recognizing that GLBT people are made and formed as such and that ’orientation’ is bound up with fundamental identity, neither chosen nor in most instances, subject to change. As such we are talking about something fundamentally new, –as new as when the solar system was first described to people who believed the sun revolved around the earth. This position is usually (or so it seems to me) dismissed in favor of something like ”˜we’ve always known about sexual proclivities and been counter cultural in saying that they are not in accord with God’s intentions for humanity’ or ”˜It doesn’t matter what you claim about this ”˜new’ thing. The Bible is clear that sex is reserved to one man and one woman in lifelong committed relationship.’ Neither statement acknowledges the seriousness of the claim which is at the root of the actions of TEC in the past two weeks.
I guess I am one of those flat earth guys who has not heard what the GLBT folks are saying. I found this writing insulting and demeaning.
I actually laughed when I read the foot stamping, “we could begin planting Churches in England”. Be careful what you secretly desire – God may yet grant you the privilege of plowing hundreds of thousands of dollars into one or two struggling church plants in central London for a few years.
No need to be insulted, Pb, unless you just want to be. It did not seem to me that Fr. Hoare is saying “failure to believe that GLBT people are made and formed as such is equivalent to believing the earth is flat,” but rather, “the assertion that GLBT people are made and formed as such is as radical in its time and context as was the assertion that the earth revolves around the sun.” The one assertion, if true, has at least the potential of changing both theology and polity as radically as did the other. How might this conversation progress if we acknowledged this, at least as long as anyone believes the question remains open to scientific debate?
Seeing as how the budget for evangelism has been gutted, I don’t think TEC will get very far planting churches anywhere.
The article fails to note that there are two distinct camps on the “liberal” side regarding the orientation issue: those who see an immutable orientation as a prerequisite and those who don’t. While there has been no decisive discovery of the basis for orientation, it is instructive how liberals avoid discussion of the analysis to date, as it has largely disproven the genetic/heritable basis of orientation. (I.e. there is no “gay gene”.) But this has failed to dissuade those in the former camp, who march on, clinging to the hopes that never panned out.
I knew Geoffrey Hoare when we were both seminary students at Yale Div. School in the early 1980s, and this statement doesn’t surprise me. He always knew how to set his sails to catch the prevailing winds. And he was always a smooth talker (see Romans 16:17-18).
There is a refreshing candor about this statement, however condescending it seems toward conservatives in general and downright insulting toward +N. T. Wright in particular. Like Mark Harris+, Hoare+ is at least clear and unambiguous. He flatly refuses to accept that Lambeth 1998’s famous Resolution 1.10 is the authoritative teaching of the Anglican Communion. He is admirably clear that if it ever does become binding, he will not conform.
This is helpful. Clarity is always good, even when it’s divisive. It’s sad, and even tragic. But I welcome this kind of forthright talk. The proud leaders of TEC are determined to stay their course, even if it means departing from the AC.
And personally, I’m unshamed to say, [i]”Good riddance, guys. I won’t miss you very much.”[/i] I went to seminary with Sam Candler and Geoffrey Hoare, but we weren’t friends even back then. And we’re even farther apart now.
David Handy_
Beggingyour pardon, #3, but you have the matter entirely wrong. Evenif it is true that homosexuality is a genetic matter, this excuses or justifies the behavior that characterizes this radical disability. And radical disability it is, much like spina bifida. The issue is the behavior, not the genetic cause. If I am born a psychopath, it makes no difference whether my problem is nature or nurture: If I am a perpetual danger to people because I have no moral sense, then I am a danger and must be dealt with accordingly. Homosexuals are no different. If, as is the present case, they are the primary vector of AIDS, then they are a danger and their behavior must be restricted.
This is, in fact, not difficult. Sin is what we do, what we wish to do, not what our DNA consists of. Larry
Thank you, Larry, for your measured response #7. My point was not so much about the truth (or not) of the proposition “homosexuality is a genetically determined disposition†as it was about what the basis of our moral discourse might possibly be.
Yours might be one of the “sorts of things that could be said while holding on to a conservative position,†as Fr. Hoare puts it, that has “the merit of letting people like me know that we have been heard and that we are dealing with disagreement rather than rank fear of the new and prejudice against GLBT people.†I might disagree with you from several standpoints, which we can certainly discuss, and we ought to be able to remain in communion while we do so.
Those who would insist that “because of [proposition x contained in scripture], homosexuality is immoral per se and we cannot be in communion with those who believe otherwise†are in fact advocating for schism – it does not matter which group ends up leaving or why. Adopting a covenant which requires adherence to such a view will certainly mean the end of the Communion as we know it. I take this to be Fr. Hoare’s thesis.
Mr. Hamilton, #8, I believe that the Archbishop of Canturbury said in his latest letter something to the effect that what issues are local and what issues are Communion-wide are not decided by the local province, i.e. TEC. The whole Communion decides this together. This is something TEC either ignores, or worse, with breath-taking arrogance, doesn’t believe. TEC doesn’t get to decide for the whole Communion what issues are local and what issues are Communion-wide. Schism is brought on by a local church continuing to act to against the mind of the Communion. Just because TEC wants to continue on in the Communion desperately doesn’t mean she is therefore innocent of schism, when she, in fact, continues to antagonize the Communion with her actions. Just my two cents.
Of course, Jennifer #9, a major part of our disagreement lies in how we understand “the mind of the Communion” is composed and determined. I believe that it is composed of autonomous provinces (independent Churches, actually) working in their local contexts, and determined by these provinces being in conversation with one another, conflicts and all. The issue as described by Fr. Hoare (as I read him) is whether, say, Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda, for example, get to declare themselves “out of communion” with, say, the U.S., Canada, and Wales (pick your own players – this is only an example and could be applied to any aggregation of Churches concerning any issue). If so, the Communion is done. In my view, “to be Anglican” means among other things “to be in conversation.” Obviously, there are those who disagree.
We have been in conversation since 1976 and there are still profound differences. The gulf has gotten worse as a new gospel is in vogue. The significance may be as radical as the ideas of Copernicus but the 2009 GC will never make the history of science.
Well, I prefer to take a longer view of these things, Pb #1, 11. We’ve been in conversation since 1559, in fact – and the question is whether you are in the conversation or out. Various folks have left since then: The Puritans, the Presbyterians, the Methodists. All have been a great loss to Anglicanism; but certainly a gain, in their way, to Christianity. In any event, I’m in. How about you? I trust that, as an Anglican, you will not undertake to throw me out because we disagree.
#12 I too am in conversation as per my posts.