Section H: Human Sexuality
90. This section should have been titled “The Bishop and Homosexuality” because it was quickly apparent the whole spectrum of human sexuality, including issues of marriage and family, was not going to be discussed. The self select sessions identified with human sexuality included sessions on Human Sexuality and the Witness of Scripture, Listening and Mission, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, Listening in Practice, Sexuality and Spirituality, Questions of Science, Culture and Christ, Culture and Homosexualities, Listening to the Experience of Homosexual People.
91. The third meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1976 spoke about the Communion in this way: “As in the first century, we can expect the Holy Spirit to press us to listen to each other, to state new insights frankly, and to accept implications of the Gospel new to us, whether painful or exhilarating. (ACC-3 p.55)” Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, while reiterating clearly the traditional stance of the Church, also called for sensitive listening. The Bible study and indaba groups gave us the opportunity to meet in a spirit of generosity and prayerful humility which helped us to listen patiently to each other and to speak honestly.
92. Christians are called to exercise judgement and discernment in their vocation and discipleship, but to embrace that discipleship with humility and with generosity. The Lord himself warned us to avoid judgementalism22. It is important therefore to be careful not to make dismissive judgements, because people have come to their decision after prayer and careful study of the Bible. Nor is there a monopoly on Christian charity: those who take different positions regarding this issue have often been the bearers of compassionate pastoral care to homosexual persons, though we must confess some failure in this regard. We come from different backgrounds, contexts and experiences. As Bishops we need to repent of the ways in which our hardness of heart toward each other may have contributed to the brokenness of our Communion at this present time. We need to repent of statements and actions that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual persons. People who have held traditional views on this matter have sometimes felt that they have been dismissed with ridicule or contempt.
93. There were repeated statements of the desire to remain in communion while attempting to maintain a generous space for ongoing discussions. Although there has been a great appreciation of one to one conversations, there is the need to develop further trust in the relationships that have started here. In this regard, in some groups, in addition to previous expressions of regret by both the House of Bishops and the General Convention of The Episcopal Church23, some individual bishops of The Episcopal Church have expressed apologies in their groups, noting that they had not previously grasped the depth of the negative impact that their action in the consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire had caused in many parts of the Communion.
94. There were several references to the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, although it was clear that only one section was being referenced and not the whole report on Human Sexuality from the 1998 Lambeth Conference or the whole resolution.
95. There is confusion about what “the issue” really means. There are three aspects that would help to clarify discussions:
-How the church evangelizes, disciples and provides pastoral care for homosexual people;
-How and on what basis the church admits people to Sacred Orders;How the church deals with the first two locally and globally.
96. The whole issue of homosexual relations is highly sensitive because there are very strong affirmations and denials in different cultures across the world which are reflected in contrasting civil provisions, ranging from legal provision for same-sex marriage to criminal action against homosexuals. In some parts of the Communion, homosexual relations are a taboo while in others they have become a human rights issue.
97. Some people said that their understanding of the long tradition of Christian moral teaching is now being questioned and this creates confusion when a clear presentation of how people have come to their new understanding of scripture and theology is not available to them. For some, such new teaching cannot be acceptable as they consider all homosexual activity as irredeemably sinful.
98. In the framework of The Bishop in Mission, it is agreed that the ordination of a partnered homosexual Bishop has compromised mission in many parts of the Communion and has had a profoundly disruptive effect on the Communion by detracting from other aspects of mission. There is anxiety that this will not turn out to be a single act but something that is likely to happen again and further compromise mission.
99. For some, the way the Communion has been perceived to handle polygamy has complicated the issue. Polygamy has been part of the history and of the present of some provinces of the Communion. It is unacceptable in other parts of the Communion. The perception has been that the Communion did not tell those Provinces that they must withdraw from the Communion. The Communion made a space for them to deal with this issue at their local level. This they are doing, setting clear standards while providing pastoral attention. The question from some is, why can we not make the same space in regard to homosexuality? In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard ”“ it is understood to be a sin, but local pastoral provision is made: polygamists are not admitted to positions of leadership, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion.
100. There have been many aspects of the history of this current situation that has brought us to this point in time. To some, the possible acceptance of homosexual people as good Christian people is new, and their acceptance as possible leaders in the church is unacceptable. To others, thirty years of Scripture study, of theological discussion, of listening and discussion to come to the present understanding, seems a long time. In the time frame of Christianity, or even of the Anglican tradition, it has not been enough time to allow for the Bishops of the Communion to come to a new consensus within Provinces or worldwide ”“ either to agree, or to live together in disagreement.
101. The issue of homosexuality has challenged us and our Churches on what it might mean to be a Communion. We are still learning how to be the Communion that God has called and gifted us to be.
102. For many Anglicans, the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop, is seen as questioning the authority of Scripture and the church’s traditional reading on these matters. It calls into question traditional moral teaching concerning the nature of marriage. The question for many is “Whether the Bible transforms the culture or the culture is allowed to transform the Bible”.
103. The ordination of an openly partnered homosexual bishop and the open blessing of same sex relationships has had many negative results including:
􀂃 Partnership in mission is lost and damaged.
– In some provinces, there is an experience of betrayal of the teaching of the missionaries who brought the faith, and it is experienced as a new form of colonisation
-Confidence in the validity of the Anglican Communion, the bonds of affection and our mutual interdependence is severely damaged
-It is dishonouring to former Lambeth Conference decisions.
-It diverts us from our primary focus
-It is seen as leading to “sexual license”
-It damages ecumenical and interfaith relationships.
-Bishops cannot be a symbol of unity when their consecration itself divides the church. The unique focus for catholicity in the Communion is lost.
-In some regions the issue has become a test of orthodoxy and a basis for hostile actions
– In some places the church is ridiculed as the “gay church”, so membership is lost.
104. There have also been positive effects in parts of Canada, the US and England when homosexual people are accepted as God’s children, are treated with dignity and choose to give their lives to Christ and to live in the community of faith as disciples of Jesus Christ with fidelity and commitment.
And this means what exactly?
Nothing, #1, it’s just a “reflection,” a gaseous bit of navel-gazing that is the logical product of a process designed to prevent the formation of a solid consensus. I’m certain Rowan Williams is quite proud of it.
You are right it’s just a list of what people said. It has no meaning.
Fudge anyone?
Chris, it’s not even fudge, it’s just a list of the ingredients.
Has anyone had time to compare the material from draft to draft to see what sorts of things are being changed as it goes?
-What about the ordination of self-avowed, practicing and unrepentant homosexuals to the diaconate and priesthood? Why be silent on that?
-What about equipping people for ministry to persons who wish to defeat same-sex attraction, or to practicing homosexuals who feel called to repent and change?
Aren’t these also important?
Besides the fact that the document offers no substantive argument or theological perspective/direction that people other than the Lambeth bishops can use for meaningful reflection, there are several good bullet point concepts that our traditionalist bishops should have ensured would be listed, such as:
1) Dioceses and most parishes shrink wherever the homosexualist agenda takes center stage in the life of the church (this is well-documented and one would think that even moderates, simply for the sake of survival, would want to make it a key area of discussion).
2) The progressivist/homosexualist agenda is not keeping pace with important trends within the various national cultures where it is being pushed; to the contrary, it is generally following (usually by about 10 to 30 years) intellectual trends among a small segment of the populace, generally consisting of far left-leaning academics, jurists, legal and political non-profit entities justifying their existence, political elites and activists, mainstream news media elites, and people in their twenties and early thirties who are still trying to figure out who they are. Consider that even in very liberal California, the gay marriage ban is likely to pass – again.
3) Anglican traditionalists are not passing judgment on people who see themselves as having a homosexual or bisexual orientation. We may not reach out as well as we should to those who try to wrestle with these powerful drives within themselves (the political climate often creates barriers where this is extremely difficult), but most of the time we are very clear that it is unbiblical, un-Christian behavior that we are standing against as the New Testament and the tradition of the Church clearly call us to do.
4) Section 103 should include this bullet point – “It is against the specific law or canons of the church in most provinces where it is happening.”
5) Traditionalists disagree with language that makes it appear that our concerns are about the “openness” of a gay relationship or who is “partnered” with who. We want the language of our resolutions to state that the problem is with non-celibate homosexual or gay persons being in ordained ministry or having their sexual partnerships blessed by a Christian denomination – or having communities of persons that are centered on a disordered sexuality treated as normative or blessed by the church as they continue in very destructive sin. Our concern is about sex outside of marriage, and the abuse of God’s glorious design for human intimacy and procreation that homosexual sexual activity clearly is.
I am deeply disappointed that none of these issues are addressed with any language that makes these important moral or ethical distinctions, or even approaches moral or factual clarity. It appears that traditionalists and conservatives essentially allowed the liberals and progressivists to establish the terms of the discussion, and at this point in the history of our church and culture, this is tragic.
I noticed legal actions moved from something that should stop to something to be avoided if possible…I bet the decade of generosity will not touch the many faithful Christians in my parish being personally sued by a Lambeth bishop…this is all so much bull when you see how little love and concern these folks really have for those committed to their charge…but it does help develop one’s doctrine of sin…
I’m sure Cantrbury considers this a real success. When he can answer a question with a yes or no he will use 37 pages to make sure no one knows what his answer is. IT’S A SHAME THAT HE IS JUST ANOTHER GOVERMENT APPOINTEE DOING HIS MASTERS BIDDING.
Additional nose picking sessions have been added to the already hectic schedule of deep discussions. More tea?
In the words of Dr. Smith from “Lost in Space”:
“We’re doomed! DOOMED, I say!”
What used to be the Anglican Communion is doomed. Those folks on the South Pacific Islands should watch for the water rising due to the air travel to and from Lame-beth, the CO2 emitted there in vast quantities, and the noxious production of destruction to the environment from harvest the trees to producing the paper this twaddle was written on in disappearing ink.
Could someone enlighten me on the positive effects in North America that have resulted from TEC and The ACofC’s actions? TEC is now the 2nd fastest declining denomination in the US. So I am led to infer that without these actions we’d be #1?