A lesbian priest says she wants to start a dialogue with church leaders after the Episcopal bishop of North Dakota refused her request for a license to minister in the state.
The Rev. Gayle Baldwin, 62, an associate professor of religion at the University of North Dakota, was ordained an Episcopal priest in 1980. She came out as a lesbian a decade ago in Wyoming, where she has a license to preach and administer the sacraments. She came to UND in 2000.
Baldwin went public this week with a letter Episcopal leaders explaining her request to be licensed in North Dakota.
The Episcopal Church’ consecration in 2003 of the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, led to division in the church and several dozen conservative U.S. parishes have split from the national denomination.
“I have been clear from the beginning what my expectations are,” said Bishop Michael Smith, head of the 3,000 Episcopalians in North Dakota. “That is fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those not called to marriage.”
“In her letter to Episcopal leaders, Baldwin said the bishop, in refusing to acknowledge her ordination, also is refusing to acknowledge her baptism.”
It seems to me that Baldwin is the one who is refusing to acknowledge her baptism.
I too am confused about why the Bishop’s refusal to grant the Rev. Baldwin a license in his diocese is a refusal to acknowledge her baptism, or even her ordination, come to think of it. She is in violation of his standards of appropriate behavior for clergy in the Diocese. She knows that. So what is he really denying?
I also find the following statement to be very confusing:
[blockquote]”If a bishop can do this to one, then anyone is potentially at risk. This is why I am writing this open letter to all so that we might begin a dialogical conversation over this matter,” she said.[/blockquote]
What is “this?” Being held to the same standards as the clergy in the Diocese? Or is “this” simply the Bishop having the prerogative to decide who may and may not be licensed in his diocese?
A major argument on behalf of Women’s Ordination was that it was an issue of rights. Once you make holy orders a “right” then Baldwins’ argument begins to have force. She is arguing that, merely because of her sexual practice, she is being deprived of something her baptism entitles her to have as a right.
It seems that within the Episcopal Church there are either genuine bishops – those who exercise episcopal leadership and guardianship of the historic Christian faith according to the tradition of the Apostolic Succession – or there are specially costumed spokespersons for the majorities on committees comprised mainly of politically trendy activists, both lay and clerical. I left the Presbyterians to become an Episcopalian on account of Anglicanism’s genuine bishops. I will leave the Episcopalians behind for the same reason.
My the Lord reach into Rev. Baldwin’s heart, put balm to her emotional wounds and give her what she really seeks.
#3 And I believe that is precisely why…..among other reasons……my bishop and diocese left TEC.
There will only be conformity or martyrs. That’s the TEC bottom line.
As for the clergy in question, once again we hear, isn’t that what ministry is all about after all — me, myself, and I?
If she was content to not do priest work in Wyoming, what’s the big deal in ND?
In the new TEO theology, as outlined in the 1979 PB in the “Baptismal Covenant,” one is asked whether they will “respect the dignity of every human being?”
In the newspeak of TEO, this means support the homosexual lifestyle, SSB, and same sex marriage. Thus, to deny this lifestyle is to deny her Baptism.
Unknown, or under appreciated by most of us, the 1979 prayer book changed the theology of TEO in significant ways.
They have a bishop for 3,000 people and more than 1 priest for every 100 parishoners? Seems to be that they don’t need any more shepherds — what they need is some more sheep.
If I understand the newspaper report correctly Baldwin is in a sexual relationship with another woman. It is her behavior not her orientation that prevents the bishop licensing her to officiate in the diocese. Would that all bishops would do the same.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
[blockquote]we might begin a [i]dialogical[/i] conversation over this matter[/blockquote]
Aah, rule #17 of Louie Crew and Susan Russell for the usurpation of a church – Thou shalt never speak in plain tongue, rather speaketh in gibberish, thereby making thou seemeth religious.
A “dialogical conversation”? Sounds like a Gilbert & Sullivan made-up word! Or does she mean a [i][b]diabolical[/i][/b] conversation?! 😆
When I first read the term “dialogical conversation,” I read it as “diabolical conversation.”
To be more serious about this, we’ve had this conversation at the highest levels of the communion and at the highest levels of the Church (the Apostolic Conference in Acts 15). The answer is and always has been “sex is to be expressed inside of a male-female relationship called marriage.” Sex in any other relationship is outside of God’s design for us and, no matter how good or “right” or “life affirming” it feels , will lead to death and separation from God.
There is no sin, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem to us, that will not keep us out of communion with God if we insist on keeping that sin instead of having God. There is no sin, no matter how vile or terrible it may seem to us, that Jesus did not pay the price for on the cross and God cannot or will not forgive if we but repent and turn to Him in faith.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Catholic Mom,
And what the RC Church needs to do is drop unbiblical doctrines about Infallibility, the Mother of our Lord, clerical celibacy, sports on Good Friday, lousy sixties liturgy, cover-up bishops, etc, etc, etc.
I say this as a friend. It would be nice to have a Church to which to look, but you still need a Reformation.
Re: the Baptismal Covenant-
To “respect the dignity” of every human being means many things. Not as well-received is when the Church cannot help him/her self-mutilate their own dignity by endorsing his/her errors.
The Bishop has a right to license who he sees fit. Period.
If I were in her shoes, however, I might ask my bishop to make a case to the bishop of North Dakota.
But otherwise, it seems that obedience is a part of one’s ordination vows as well.
One online source (which I can’t locate again) showed the letter that she had written that despite the Bishop’s refusal to license her to perform in his Diocese, she was going to celebrate communion anyway but follow the Episcopal Forms, or use the Episcopal Prayer book, etc. Isn’t that a violation? Wouldn’t that result in inhibition? It would be interesting to see what happens.
oops that should be not follow the Episcopal forms or use the Episcopal prayer book, etc.
here’s the link for the letter:
Link: http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=71261
Stand by–David Booth Beers will find an exception, in a yet to be determined canon, which allows the PB the power of appointment of a priest to represent the truth (known only to TEC/815) in dioceses whose bishops shockingly refuse to allow sexually active, non-celebate clergy.
[blockquote] Her bishop in Wyoming has been very supportive of her, she said. She agreed to stop working there as a priest when she came out as a lesbian, she said, after meeting the woman she believes God called her to love [/blockquote]
Why isn’t she or didnt she get upset when the Bishop of Wyoming asked to stop working as a priest when she came out as a lesbian?
Since when is one’s baptismal status a license to sin?
And, with regard to sexuality: since when does one identify one’s whole self with a sexual practice? i.e. “I am a lesbian”?
Prior to Freud, Jung and the machinations of the psychiatric community of the 20th century, we didn’t define ourselves by our sexual practices.
Why is it that some people come up with this idea that they have a “right” to be ordained? No one has such a right. Only those found fit by their bishop are eligable. If the logic of “right” is applied, how could abyone be denied Holy Orders? Her ordination was not valid to start with and she wants to complain about the rule? Get real. No women should have ever been ordained, nor licensed.
Bishop Michael Smith has issued this statement regarding Gayle Baldwin’s letter.
Let’s see. See was ordained in another diocese and supported by a sympathetic bishop; now that she is in ND she has the ‘right’ to be licensed for sacramental functions. As a Trinity grad, I wonder if I could use that same argument with the various dioceses that don’t accept us.
“In her letter to Episcopal leaders, Baldwin said the bishop, in refusing to acknowledge her ordination, also is refusing to acknowledge her baptism.â€
This is a consequence of throwing around phrases like “baptismal ministry” without any theological homework to test what is being said about it. It has come to mean: 1) baptism without discipleship, and 2) the entitlement of anyone who has been baptized, to exercise any ministry in the church, including ordained ministry. Many of the same people who stand and salute “baptismal ministry” in this sense also seem to advocate Communion Without Baptism. They don’t appear to be bothered by the inconsistency. “Baptismal ministry” presupposes that baptism somehow objectively changes a person. Communion Without Baptism says there is no significant change.
From +Smith’s letter
I have chosen to follow the recommendations of the bipartisan, international “Windsor Report.†Therefore, I will not ordain or license any clergy member who is unable to promise faithfulness in marriage or to abstain from sexual relationships outside of marriage.
Where is that in the Windsor Report? If I am recalling correctly it referred to bishops and same-sex blessings, not to priests or licensing of previously ordained priests.
FWIW, I don’t think he should have to license her, but he should simply state his reasons instead of citing reasons not supported by fact. However, I may be forgetting something in TWR.
I think more of us should offer support when a Bishop actually stands up for the historic Christian teaching of sexuality. Thank you Bishop Smith for taking this courageous step and not wavering under all the negative publicity.
“…This is why I am writing this open letter to all so that we might begin a dialogical conversation over this matter,”
Typical revisionist grandstanding: “Let’s talk about it…” Sorry, the topic has been talked to death. The answer is still the same: homosexuality is a Sin. I’m not going to change my mind, Bishop Smith of ND isn’t going to change his mind, and I know a large number of readers and writers to this blog are not going to change their minds either. So what is the point of talking about accepting something as Sin to be okay.
The Rev. Baldwin knew what the conditions in ND were before she moved there. Her attempts to rewrite those conditions to serve her own needs, and play the victim in the meantime, should fall on deaf ears. If she changes her heart attitude, then perhaps a discussion can begin.
H
With regard to obedience to one’s bishop: I ask why one should be obedient when he knows that his bishop is clearly wrong. Is it not his Christian duty to inform his bishop that he cannot in good conscience obey him while he promotes that which he (the bishop) knows is wrong? Is the bishop’s authority sacrosanct? Can he do no wrong in the eyes of the Church? Some seem to think that they can.
If Bishop Smith were inclined to satire and raising the stakes of dolorous protest, he could address his public statement to the Presiding Bishop; to every Anglican bishop and every Anglican primate (including the Archbishop of Canterbury); and, given Mother Baldwin’s Ph.D. from Marquette, even to Pope Benedict XVI.
Furhter, he could have included these sentences, tweaked ever so slightly from Mother Baldwin’s open letter:
I think the logic and ecclesiology are every bit as good as that of Mother Baldwin’s letter.
David Keller, I am more inclined to think that DBB will encourage the enactment of a new canon, rather than use an existing one, to justify representing the truth “as known to TEC/815.”
“Much of the modern resistance to chastity comes from men’s belief that they ‘own’ their bodies—those vast and perilous estates, pulsating with the energy that made the worlds, in which they find themselves without their consent and from which they are ejected at the pleasure of Another!”
– C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
It’s refreshing to see a bishop actually enforcing some standards. Too bad the ELCA Churchwide Assembly doesn’t want us to.
I am sure that the Elizabeth Kaeton calvary is on the way to inform the good Bishop which way the mop flops in The Episcopal Church.
Intercessor
I’ve just read her letter and I can’t believe that someone with this level of theological education and personal accumen was actually ordained to the priesthood. First, she writes to Bishop Shori, Bishop Smith, Bishop Caldwell [b]and Bishop Robinson[/b]? The first three I understand. Why is the Bishop of New Hamphsire involved? Was he resident in Montana and I not read about it? Instead of discussing the issues, his inclusion in the letter makes this more about a political point than a theological one.
Second, she seems to hold the opinion that there are no sins after Baptism. To deny a license based on lifestyle choice (not orientation, but how to live within an orientation) is not to deny baptism. She is not being refused the sacrament or membership in the church. She is not even being denied her ontology as a priest in the Church. She is simply being refused the authority to function as a priest in N.D. while she is sexually active outside of marriage (where marriage is defined by the Church as the union of husband and wife – man and woman – not two people who love each other).
Finally, I would love to know what an “official Episcopal stole” or “Episcopal wine” is. While I’ve not been ordained that long, I was never told that there is an “official Episcopal stole” and I’ve been a lifelong Episcopalian and been involved in altar ministry as a acolyte/chalice bearer/LEM/LEV/deacon for over 35 years and I’ve never heard of “Episcopal wine.”
Lest the Rev. Baldwin forget, the first promise in baptism is to “continue in the apostles teaching and fellowship….” The first promise in ordination is to “be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church [b]has received[/b], them.”
(Note the past perfect tense “has received.” This means that the Church does not make it up as she goes.”) If she can show Bishop Smith where sex between two men or two women is allowed and not condemned by Holy Scripture or where it is in the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church [b]has received[/b], them; then I am sure she will receive her much sought after license. Otherwise, I suggest that she be very careful about what she writes or does lest she be brought up on disciplinary charges.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
While I know that such a statement is most unlikely to come from even a conservative Episcopal bishop it would arm my heart and soul to hear this responce:
I am perfectly willing to acknowledge your baptism while at the same time denying it that said baptism has had any effect in making you a child of God, since such a state comes not through water but through the Spirit, and you show absolutely no sign that there has been any contact between you and the Spirit.
Some might call this judgmental, but I would call it a frank assessment of a lack of necessary fruit. Such judgments are, in my mind, what it really means to be “pastoral”, that is, to have a regard for the state of one’s soul rather than for one’s feelings and “self-esteem”.
Chris, the difference between you and the cleric in question is that she believes in magic, you don’t. That is what baptism is if it takes nothing else to *be* a member of a church. A further question is why anyone takes the diocese of Utah seriously with a bishop who (speaking of magic) is not baptized *at all*.
Brian (29):
The Windsor Report, in section 25, acknowledges the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 as expressing the mind and teaching of the Anglican Communion. All 7 subclauses, not just the listening process part.
[blockquote] Lambeth Conference 1998: Resolution 1.10 Human Sexuality
This Conference:
1. commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality;
2. in view of the teaching 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;
3. recognises 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 relationships. 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 baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
4. 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;
5. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
6. requests the Primates and the ACC to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us;
7. notes the significance of the Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality and the concerns expressed in resolutions IV.26, V.1, V.10, V.23 and V.35 on the authority of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality and asks the Primates and the ACC to include them in their monitoring process. [/blockquote]
Per section 2, the Bishop cannot recognise that Rev. Baldwin is married; this is a state restricted to one man and one woman. Section 5 further restricts the Bishop’s options. Rev. Baldwin must choose between her calling as an ordained minister or her calling to her partnership. Until the mind of the whole Communion is changed, which I do not expect in my lifetime, Rev. Baldwin must continue to choose between two mutually incompatible lifestyles.
Bless Bishop Michael for upholding the official doctrines of the Communion and imposing discipline on this presbyter.
Once again, we have ‘the denial of my Baptism’ quote, what these folk seem to forget is that the vast majority were ‘done’ as infants with parents and godparents making the vows on behalf of the infant. Maybe the time has come to go with Adult Baptism !!! (said with tongue in cheek)
Where is this “priest” canonically resident? Or is she one of the new breed of TEC maverick lesbian activists?
She is canonically resident in Wyoming. To find answers to such questions, go to
http://www.ecdplus.org/
Cynedd writes: “With regard to obedience to one’s bishop: I ask why one should be obedient when he knows that his bishop is clearly wrong. Is it not his Christian duty to inform his bishop that he cannot in good conscience obey him while he promotes that which he (the bishop) knows is wrong? Is the bishop’s authority sacrosanct? Can he do no wrong in the eyes of the Church? Some seem to think that they can.”
Good question, and not that easy. A bishop is not knowledgeable about everything (say a good wine, the proper car for a cleric, or international politics) although I might respect him as an educated, intelligent person worth arguing with. But when it comes to licensing of priests, managing the geography of churches, and helping churches practice the gospel, I will admit my own certainty may be the work of the devil making my heart hard.
As an Episcopalian, I do not believe the bishop can ask me to break the law (as, perhaps, a RC bishop might.). But If I decided my own conscience were more important than I could always become Southern Baptist or a UCC minister or a Unitarian. I’m sure Southern Baptists think that Episcopal Bishops are wrong all the time.
A bishop may be wrong, of course, on other issues. If the bishop breaks the rules, let him be held accountable. A good bishop (can be) is a check on clerical hubris. As well as congregational provinciality. We might not like it, but then, the world isn’t created for me. Sometimes I’m offended, uncomfortable and anxious and it doesn’t feel right, but in the end, God is God and the world is His. My own certainty is placed at the feet of the bishop. It’s practice for laying my own sins before Jesus, at the very least.
[i]As an Episcopalian, I do not believe the bishop can ask me to break the law (as, perhaps, a RC bishop might.). [/i]
This comment has stood for 24 hours unchallenged? I must assume T1.9 now find acceptable the ranting of a vicious bigot.
Words Matter, I wouldn’t worry to much about it. A bishop’s asking a Christian to break an immoral law is not at all a necessarily bad thing. Think of, for instance, Bonhoeffer’s illegal actions, as well as Rahab’s.
Besides — the person making the statement should also be considered. For instance, if the man making the statement has repeatedly stated that he does not believe Christian doctrine and a fairly typical Episcopal progressive activist, it is hardly an insult to be the recipient of an attempted insult by him, even were he trying to be insulting.
Would, for instance, the Pope be insulted by Louie Crew’s saying something pejorative about him? Even if the Pope knew about Louie Crew, it would be a compliment, not an insult, to be the recipient of an attempted insult by Crew.
I hope this helps.
In short, I really do believe that when one considers both the source and the statement, the words “the ranting of a vicious bigot” could be called somewhat of an “overkill”.
It does help, Sarah, and thank you.
Arguably, it’s overkill in this particular case , but I think I’ll stick with “vicious bigot”, given this person’s history of hateful comments against Catholics.