The proposal to ban future consecrations is the most significant move yet over the issue.
The paper, which was commissioned by Dr Rowan Williams, will be debated by 650 bishops tomorrow at the Lambeth conference in Canterbury, the once-a-decade gathering of the Anglican Communion.
It is set to start the first real clash of the conference, with liberal bishops expected to fight any attempt to restrict their autonomy.
However, Dr Williams is determined to impose tighter governance of the Anglican Communion to try and hold it together.
The paper, “How do we get from here to there?”, stresses that it is vital that an Anglican Covenant be agreed so that churches around the world are mutually accountable and united by a common set of beliefs. This must happen as soon as possible, it says, to prevent further haemorrhaging of the Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexual clergy.
Until a consensus is reached, the American and Canadian churches must refrain from consecrating more homosexual bishops and carrying out blessing services for same-sex couples, the paper says.
If only…
I hope that the article is inaccurate in the matter of banning gay and lesbian clergy. There are many such in the church that remain celibate and orthodox in their teaching and it would be a true loss to push them out or prevent others from being ordained. What is at issue are behavior and teaching…those are the truly destructive aspects of what TEC did with VGR.
Jeffersonian,
I couldn’t agree more. Orientation is one thing. Struggle with one’s identity shouldn’t be a reason to be banned from orders. But, as you say, teaching and endorsement of the gay lifestyle should not happen only because there is too much evidenciary tension that cannot be overlooked.
(To follow up on Jeffersonian, and at the risk of stating the obvious….)
Make no mistake that TEC will push this straw-man hard in the MSM:
The conservatives seek to drive all gays and lesbians out of Christ’s church. To them, the LGBT, who are the least of our society, are not welcome and never were. The Bible tells us that Jesus would never close the doors on anyone who seeks him. They are un-Christian. We are true Christians.
I don’t doubt this will be the narrative promoted by TEC, #4, and it will almost certainly be the one picked up by the MSM. You can see the dishonesty in this regard peddled even here be revisionists, despite repeated attempts to correct them.
This being the age of multichannel media, I hope reasserters are wily enough to dispel these untruths and to accurately portray the Biblical truth we are trying to follow.
I disagree Jeffersonian. First of all, I doubt that there many – if any – celibate homosexuals in any church. All the evidence we have seen from our church and the RC warns us that homosexuality and promiscuity are virtually synonymous. And the homosexuals say the same thing. But more important, if it is true one bad apple spoils the whole barrel eventually, then it is even more true that a dozen bads apples will ruin the barrel even faster. What’s the cure – if you want sound apples? Don’t put soft, mushy apples in AT ALL.
Struggling with one’s sexual identity is an excellent reason to keep a postulant out of holy orders. should we have let vgr into the priesthood if we knew he was “struggling with his sexual identity”? The phrase itself is a soft and mushy spot. How does one ” struggle with one’s sexual identity?” If the “struggle” is going on, then the answer is already clear. Once again, you do not hire drunks to be bartenders, nor arsonists for nightwatchmen, even if there is no immediate evidence that THIS drunk will clear out the bottles, glass by glass. Holy orders is not, and should not be, a cross between a guidance counseler’s office and a rehab center. Larry
Larry Morse, well said and studies show that celibate homosexuals are indeed very rare.
At the end of the article I noted Bishop Saxbee of Lincoln said we need a broad church, well the CoE synod destroyed that concept with their approval of women bishops without protecting the Anglo-Catholic wing. Without them this becomes just another Protestant church as the Orthodox and Romans warned earlier in Lambeth.
Ok a copule of points.
1) Homosexuals should not be singled out. Whoever here does not ‘struggle’ with some sin or another- let them throw the first stone. there is a difference between someone striving for celibacy and occasionally needing the sacrament of confession and someone who teaches gay sex as worthy of God’s blessing. Truth is some gay clergy are superb and would never teach anything unbiblical – regardless of their personal struggles.
2) I thought this ban had already been issued before by Lambeth- and ECUSA then ignored it and that is what sparked the crossing of boundaries from African primates? Unless ECUSA admits it has a problem- like and addict- the behaviour WILL continue. The impotent beast that Lambeth has become is not going to sanction anyone and I think we all know that.
3) The ONLY way to save the Anglican Church (lets think of it as a body) is to root out ALL the cancer. that means admitting that synodical government is not working, and that those non-biblical practices of woemn’s ordination and blessing of homosexual unions need putting right. To deal with one and not the other is pointless. Either we embrace non biblical innovation or we do not. Either we return to a point at which unity with other Christians is possible or we continue to act like mock parliamentarians with a right to do as we desire.
Alas I can never see the Church leadership being humble enough to admit they have blundered. And so we will continue to stagger until we fall.
8, I agree with most of what you say, but by your standards I think a good argument could be made that the modern offices of priest and bishop are also not biblical. No where in the NT is the modern church structure and eccleastical structure,functions set out in detail.
That is the instance #9 when we view what is in scripture (peter and the keys, etc) and turn to the holy Tradition in order to see clear and concise teaching flowing from the scriptures
Larry and Baruch (## 6 & 7),
Groups such as Exodus and Courage would challenge your claim that homosexual orientation and promiscuity are virtually synonymous. It takes no imagination to grasp the kinds of pressures those with same-sex attraction are under these days to enter into the actively gay lifestyle. I wonder whether the studies you mention take this reality into account. Conservative/orthodox/traditionalist Christianity also needs to engage in honest, humble soul-searching about the message it sends to people struggling with same-sex attraction. If the message is, “by the very fact of your desires, you’re already promiscuous,” then there are many who are denied hope and the Gospel is therefore meaningless.
If you final sentence summarized my argument correctly, I would have to agree with you. But you have not summarized correctly. I am speaking of holy orders, NOT whether homosexuals should be permitted into the church at all. No one doubts that there is absolution and mercy for their sin for those who who have earned such, but those headed into holy orders absolutely need to be judged by a higher standard. It is NOT a touchy-feely purgatory for those who know they are homosexuals and don’t want to admit it. Larry
Thanks for the clarification, Larry (#12).
Regardless of whether ordination is the issue, however, I would want the evidence claiming synonymity between same-sex attraction and promiscuity to be carefully scrutinized, especially since “scientific evidence” on this issue tends to be highly politicized in both directions.
I realize this is merely anecdotal evidence, but I know homosexuals who are indeed celibate. And I believe I’m justified in taking them at their word, especially since some of those I know have come to the realization that the prevailing culture has sold them a bill of goods and they thus want nothing to do with dishonety. I would say they live a very high standard.
Then that means returning to the Church of Rome. I am somewhat reluctant to put church tradition over Scripture. However if you and others are convenced that WO is prohibited by Scripture then you shoould not be forced to accept them. Nor, I would suggest, even be in the same Church.
[blockquote]I disagree Jeffersonian. First of all, I doubt that there many – if any – celibate homosexuals in any church. All the evidence we have seen from our church and the RC warns us that homosexuality and promiscuity are virtually synonymous. [/blockquote]
I think there’s probably something between “celibate” and “promiscuous,” #6. If a gay cleric slips off the wagon at times and repents, I don’t see this as any different from an unmarried, straight priest doing the same.
Out AMiA parish had a gay deacon who was a brilliant homilist, singer and theologian who brought great gifts to our congregation. He was also a rock-ribbed reasserter. I use the past tense in great sadness, for he was also a staunch anglo-catholic who was drawn away from Anglicanism to Rome on the election of Benedict XVI. I was hoping he’d assume the position of rector once ours retired.
Br Michael Excuse me, but Paul spoke directly in more than one of his Epistle as to office of Bishops and priests in the early Church. He also defined a number of qualifications – pointing out that those desiring those offices should not be given to much wine and those who are married should be the husband of one wife. There are others but these are enough to start.