Historical Actions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the USA, and of the House of Bishops, concerning the Fate of
1976 – 1994
Edited by Phil Nicholson
This is a Document in Process. No guarantee is made to its accuracy. It contains editorial comments which are the sole responsibility of the Editor.
Table of Contents
About this document"Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 69th General Convention direct the Executive Council to begin to compile a booklet setting forth what this Church has said and taught through General Convention during the past two decades regarding all the issues relating to human sexuality, and to include in such a booklet a comprehensive bibliography of recommended resources for the further study of those issues; and be it further
"Resolved, That this booklet be published following the 70th General Convention, thus allowing the studies currently underway to be completed and appropriate action in response to them to be taken by the Convention."
– Resolution A091a
General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1988
Thus has the General Convention proposed to make available an historical document describing the Church's statements and acts concerning human sexuality. Since, to my knowledge, no such document has been published, I have herein attempted to bring together some of the relevant documents in the ongoing struggle of the Church with its own conscience in what, to many of its members, is a crucial field of study of how the Church interprets its own baptismal vows:
Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
I will, with God's help.
Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
I will, with God's help.
The material herein relies on the work of many people. Much of the earlier portion is from anonymous typescripts prepared as study materials for deputations and volunteers at General Convention. The original sources, of course, are The Blue Book, which contains the reports and many of the proposed resolutions for the triennial meetings of General Convention, and the Journal of Convention, which details the day-to-day activities of that body in its ponderous movements, as well as the actions of the House of Bishops at their meetings between conventions.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not identify two major sources, Dr. Louie Crew and Kim Byham, both of whom have spent untold hours amassing information for the use of those who would see justice tempered with mercy in the Church's welcome – in Louie's oft-used phrase – to absolutely everyone.
Although Resolution A091a referenced above speaks specifically of "human sexuality," most of the material herein refers specifically to issues of sexual orientation. This is partly from my own personal bias, and partly because the preponderance of the sexuality issues facing the church today surround this thorny issue.
Please direct comments to
Phil Nicholson
PO Box 666
Poughquag, New York 12570-0666
(914) 724-3209 (voice & fax)
email: HansPhil@aol.com
——————————
Homosexuals as children of God.
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.
Suggested amendments:
Substitute the word "all" for "homosexual." Defeated.
Add the word "forgiveness" after "acceptance." Defeated.
Equal Protection under Law for homosexuals.
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.
Resolution adopted after an attempt to postpone the matter.
Whereas, the 65th General Convention has instructed the Joint Commission on Human Affairs and Health to study with care the issue of human sexuality including homosexuality; and
Whereas, this study is now underway and is expected to produce information that will be reported to the 66th General Convention in order to aid in dealing with the issue of homosexuality; and
Whereas, it would aid in the general and church wide process of study and in the assessment of the Joint Commission’s report if each diocese would also form a study and dialogue group to focus on the issue of human sexuality including homosexuality; and
Whereas, such a diocesan study and dialogue group could aid General Convention delegates in preparing for consideration, debate, and voting on all issues relating to human sexuality which may emerge at the 66th General Convention; therefore be it
Resolved, that each Bishop in his own diocese take steps to develop a commission or committee on human sexuality so as to provide a means:
Whereas, we are conscious of the mystery of human sexuality and how deeply personal matters related to human sexuality are, making it most difficult to arrive at comprehensive and agreed-upon statements in these matters; and
Whereas, we are aware that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church must continue to study these matters in relationship to Holy Scripture, Christian faith and tradition, and growing insights; and
Whereas, the 65th General Convention recognized "…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…’; and
Whereas, all clergy and laity of the Church are expected to render compassionate and understanding pastoral care to one another and to all persons; therefore be it
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 66th General Convention receive with gratitude and appreciation the Report and Recommendations of its Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health with special reference to the requested study of the matter of ordination of homosexual persons; and be it further
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:
[The motion carried in the House of Bishops by a vote of 99 to 34.]
1979 Statement of Dissenting Bishops
The Bishop of Southern Ohio moved the following statement be spread upon the minutes of the House.
WE — BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF GOD WHO ASSOCIATE OURSELVES WITH THIS STATEMENT — affirm our belief that Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman as a covenanted, exclusive, and (by God’s help) a permanent relationship is the predominant and usual mode of sexual expression, blessed by God, for Christian people particularly and for humankind generally. To this state the vast majority of persons have clearly been called.
We also affirm the sacrificial sign of celibacy, for the small minority genuinely called to that state, as a valid and valuable witness to a broken and selfish world of the virtues and spiritual power of Christian self-denial in the service of others.
Nothing in what follows is intended to deny or to weaken either the vocation to Christian marriage or to Christian celibacy; and nothing, especially, is intended to weaken or demean, or deny the centrality of, the institution of the Christian family.
However, there is a minority of persons who have clearly not been called to the married state, or given the graces for it — whether they realize this before, or painfully and often tragically discover it afterwards — and who are incapable in the very nature of their formed personalities of conforming to the predominant mode of behavior. Why this is so is a mystery known only to God; even the researchers of modern science have been unable to provide an adequate answer for it. Nor is there convincing evidence that these people, of homosexual orientation, have been given the very special and extraordinary grace the Church has always seen to be necessary for the healthy expression of Christian celibacy.
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.
Furthermore, even in cases where an ideally stale relationship has not, or has not yet, been achieved, we are conscious of ordained homosexual persons who are wrestling responsibly, and in the fear of god, with the Christian implications of their sexuality, and who seek to be responsible, caring, and non-exploitive people even in the occasionally more transient relationships which the hostility of our society towards homosexual persons — with its concomitants of furtiveness and clandestinity — makes inevitable.
We believe that the action of this House, which declares that "it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage," while it has the specious appearance at first glance of affirming and upholding time-honored verities, carries with it a cruel denial of the sexual beings of homosexual persons — against whom, given the title of this resolution, it is principally aimed. It also carries with it, in implied logic, a repudiation of those ministries, by homosexual persons and to homosexual persons, already being exercised in our midst; and it invites, furthermore, the prospect of retroactive reprisals against ordained homosexual persons, with consequences of untold harm to the Church and its people, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
This action also speaks a word of condemning judgment against countless laypersons of homosexual orientation who are rendered by its implications second-class citizens in the Church of their baptism, fit to receive all other sacraments but the grace of Holy Order — unless, in a sacrifice not asked of heterosexual persons generally, they abandon all hope of finding human fulfillment, under God, in a sexual and supportive relationship. This action, thus, makes a mockery of the vow and commitment which the Church has made to them in that same sacrament of baptism, to "do all in [its] power to support these persons in their life in Christ" — all of these persons, without exception — and calls into question the vows of us all to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being."
Furthermore, speaking for the future, if these recommendations were to be carried out as this House seems to intend, they would fatally restrict our traditional freedom and duty as Bishops in the Church of God — with the concurrence of our Standing Committees, ministry Commissions, and the like — to determine the fitness and calling of individual persons to Holy Orders — with each case being decided, not on the basis of the individual’s belonging to a particular category or class of excluded persons, but on the basis of his or her individual merits as a whole human being, and in the light of the particular circumstances obtaining in this case.
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.
Our position is based, consistent with our Anglican tradition — which values the gifts of reason and welcomes truth from whatever source — on the insights of what we understand to be the best and most representative current findings of modern science and psychology on this subject. But even more, our position is based, ultimately, on the total witness of Holy Scripture. For we are persuaded that modern exegesis and interpretation of the Scriptures — in the light of the original languages and our enhanced understanding of the cultural context of the particular passages which relate, or seem to relate, to the subject of homosexuality — gives no certain basis for a total or absolute condemnation either of homosexual persons or of homosexual activities in all cases. Holy Scripture indeed condemns homosexual excesses and exploitation, but it no less condemns heterosexual excesses and exploitation as well; and as the cure for the latter is a more responsible and less selfish expression of heterosexuality, so the cure for the former is a more responsible and less selfish expression of homosexuality, not a conversion from the one to the other. On the other hand, the total witness of Holy Scripture is to a gracious God of justice, mercy and love. It is on that witness we take our stand, and it is to that God we make our appeal.
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.
[Twenty Bishops signed the statement in 1979. Twenty-nine additional bishops signed it in 1988.]
Whereas, the 1976 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, meeting in Minneapolis, resolved 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; be it therefore
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 66th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, meeting in Denver, expresses gratitude for the work of all those groups which are ministering pastorally among homosexual persons in our society.
Whereas, the 65th General Convention of the Episcopal Church of 1976 resolved that the Diocese and the Church in general engage in serious study and dialogue in the area of sexuality as it pertains to various aspects of life, particularly living styles, employment, housing, and education; and
Whereas, we need to grow into a mature understanding of sexuality as a gift of God; and as responsible stewards, we continue in our need to be open to God’s on-going revelation to us in this area, as this is made known to us through Scripture, tradition, and reason; and
Whereas, we recognize that a Christian doctrine of sexuality promotes fidelity, love, nurturing, and mutuality so as to be a sign of Christ’s love to this sinful and broken world; and
Whereas, the Dioceses of Bethlehem and Minnesota have memorialized this 66th General Convention of the Episcopal Church to develop study programs to clarify the Church’s views of responsible sexuality; and
Whereas, the Commission on Human Affairs and Health has reported, "The one recognizable trend is that in Dioceses where study has taken place on a broad base and in depth some consensus has been reached within the individual Diocese"; therefore be it
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That every Diocese use the Report and accompanying bibliography of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health to the 66th General Convention in developing programs to enhance a mature understanding of sexuality and our Christian responsibility as faithful stewards in this regard. Care should be taken that persons of differing attitudes, professional experience, and sexual orientation are appointed to insure a full spectrum of conviction; and be it further
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the coordinator of Christian Education be charged with the responsibility for the distribution of materials and for assisting Dioceses with the establishment of diocesan study programs.
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 67th General Convention reaffirms the actions taken by the General Conventions of 1976 and 1979 affirming that homosexual persons are children of God and are entitled to full civil rights.
Whereas, AIDS [Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome] has been judged to be an epidemic and a major health crisis in the United States of America, and
Whereas, the disease predominantly strikes male homosexuals creating a situation in some parts of the country whereby homosexuals are ostracized; are openly persecuted; and are denied civil rights as well as medical treatment, services in restaurants, etc., and
Whereas, the last three General Conventions of the Episcopal Church have affirmed that "homosexual persons are children of God … and" are entitled to civil rights as citizens of the country, and
Whereas, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church has gone on record urging church people to make positive responses to the victims of this health care crisis;
Resolved, That the House of Bishops meeting in Spokane in 1983 issue a call throughout the Church to provide compassionate and practical ministry in Christ’s name to all those victims who have been affected by AIDS and by any ensuing ostracism or persecution.
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That Title I, Canon 16, Section 5 be amended as follows:
"No one shall be denied rights or status in this church because of race, color, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, or age except as otherwise specified by Canon";
and be it further
Resolved, That Title III, Canon 9 be amended by adding a new Section 2 as follows (and renumbering subsequent Sections):
"No one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, or age, except as otherwise specified by Canon."
[Note: This Canonical change failed to pass due to a clerical error resulting in a failure to obtain concurrence from the House of Bishops to the House of Deputies changes. Specifically, one version referred to "sex," while the other version used the term "gender."]
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 68th General Convention urge each diocese of this Church to find an effective way to foster a better understanding of homosexual persons, to dispel myths and prejudices about homosexuality, to provide pastoral support, and to give life to the claim of homosexual persons "upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral care and concern of the Church" as recognized by the General Convention resolution in 1976.
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 68th General Convention of the Episcopal Church recognize with love and compassion the tragic human suffering and loss of life involved in the AIDS epidemic; and be it further
Resolved, That it repudiates any and all indiscriminate statements which condemn or reject the victims of AIDS; and be it further
Resolved, That the Executive Council is charged with:
and be it further
Resolved, That the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is requested to establish and lead a National Day of Prayer and Healing with special intentions for the AIDS crisis, and to communicate the concerns presented in this resolution to the President of the United States urging long term, substantial federal funding for research.
Standing Commission on
Human Affairs and Health
In its 1976 General Convention Resolution (#A-69), the Church acknowledged "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." What many homosexuals never received in their nuclear families, to wit, a compassionate ear, needs to be provided them within the Body of Christ. The homosexual issue must be approached, first of all, as a family issue by the Church. If it is approached as sickness, or an issue of evil, or as a perversion, the conversation never emerges to the fully human level.
In 1948, Dr. Kinsey and his colleagues concluded "…that 10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55." [Kinsey, et al, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Saunders, Philadelphia, 1948, page 651.] However, if we accept homosexuality as an issue in which tens of thousands of our own members are involved, then the question for our family is, "How can thousands of our parents go about nurturing and loving their homosexual children?" And, "How can our Church help families with homosexual members to enjoy the grace of family life?" At present young homosexual persons are frequently disowned by their parents, shunned by their churches, and flee to ghettos where a high rate of suicide and alcoholism exists. The Church plays a role in this road to annihilation. "What role should the Church play?" is our question.
A slogan frequently used among heterosexual Christians when speaking of homosexuals is, "I hate the sin, but love the sinner." However, when questioning the homosexual about how "loved" he or she feels by these slogan-wielding Christians, one discovers that almost never is this "love" felt. Almost always the homosexual describes the feeling of being hated at worst, and pitied at best. Never loved!
The Commission on Human Affairs and Health challenges this Church to suspend — just for a moment — the ancient judgments against our present homosexual Episcopalians and simply allow them to tell the stories of their lives. When did they realize or fear that they were homosexuals? What was the reaction of their parents? The reaction of their Church? What is the price they have paid? What are their hopes within the Church? We realize that this is an ambitious and, perhaps, threatening task. But it can be done, and if it were, the Body of Christ would be far less estranged. The cry for justice would begin to be heard. It is not a matter of "coming out of the closet" or "staying in" but a matter of finding another room where we can talk. That room must be found.
The commission is not ready to take a position on the blessing of same-sex couples. This question does raise a myriad of other questions, such as the meaning of marriage, the meaning of blessings, the origin of homosexual orientation, etc. We do not think that homosexual Episcopalians need or deserve another rejection at this moment. Instead, this moment cries out for us to find a non-judgmental occasion to listen and talk and to lay aside, for a while, our chronic adversarial posturing.
Local Dialogue on Sexuality Issues
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 69th General Convention affirm that the Biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships is a response to, and an expression of, God’s love for each one of us; and that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality; and that holiness in life is particularly required of Christian leaders. In this context; be it further
Resolved, That this Convention, responsive to the call of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health "to find a non-judgmental occasion to listen and talk," and in the spirit of the Presiding Bishop’s statement that "there will be no outcasts in this Church," strongly urge each diocese and congregation to provide opportunities for open dialogue on human sexuality, in which we, as members of this Church, both heterosexual and homosexual, may study, pray, listen to and share our convictions and concerns, our search for stable, loving and committed relationships, and our journey toward wholeness and holiness; and be it further
Resolved, That the accepted sources of authority for Christians, namely Scripture, tradition, reason and experience, supplemented by the 1976, 1979, 1982 and 1985 statements from the General Convention on human sexuality, the resolution adopted by the General Synod of the Church of England in November, 1987, and the 1988 report of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health, and ongoing scientific research be commended for use in this dialogue; and be it further
Resolved, That each diocese report its finding and experiences to the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health no later than December 1990 and that the Standing Commission evaluate the reports and produce a composite report for presentation to the 70th General Convention.
Violence against homosexual persons
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 69th General Convention decries the increase of violence against homosexual persons and calls upon law enforcement officials across the land to be sensitive to this peril and to prosecute guilty persons to the fullest extent of the law.
Homosexual Suicides
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 69th General Convention of the Episcopal Church recognize with love and compassion the tragic suffering of gay and lesbian youth and the loss of life of these children and others who felt compelled to end their lives; and be it further
Resolved, That this Episcopal Church pledge pastoral support of troubled youth, including exploration of the root causes of why many gay and lesbian children are driven to suicide; and be it further
Resolved, That the Youth Ministries Office of the Education for Mission and Ministry Unit be requested to include in their present resources information on the diverse dimensions of suicide, including gay and lesbian, for distribution to dioceses and congregations throughout the Church.
Study of Issues Concerning Homosexuality
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 69th General Convention commend for use throughout this Church the Lutheran study guide, "A Study of Issues Concerning Homosexuality: Report of the Advisory Committee of Issues Relating to Homosexuality" (Copyright 1986, Division for Mission in North America, Lutheran Church in America).
History of General Convention Actions on Sexuality
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 69th General Convention direct the Executive Council to begin to compile a booklet setting forth what this Church has said and taught through General Convention during the past two decades regarding all the issues relating to human sexuality, and to include in such a booklet a comprehensive bibliography of recommended resources for the further study of those issues; and be it further
Resolved, That this booklet be published following the 70th General Convention, thus allowing the studies currently underway to be completed and appropriate action in response to them to be taken by the Convention.
AIDS Prevention Education
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 69th General Convention call for AIDS education programs in every congregation by the end of 1989; requests that models of AIDS education programs be made available by the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition in conjunction with the National Church staff; and requests that such models promote abstinence or monogamy as well as candid and complete instruction regarding disease prevention measures, such as use of condoms in sexual intercourse and ending sharing of contaminated needles by intravenous drug users.
National Episcopal Coalition on AIDS
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 69th General Convention recognize the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition and their work in conjunction with the National Church Center and staff; and allocate $40,000 a year to the Coalition to expand the network of AIDS educators, caregivers and advocates for people with AIDS.
Surgeon General Report on AIDS
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 69th General Convention endorse The Report of the Surgeon General on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome; and that the Report’s findings and recommendations be followed by the Episcopal Church in responding to the AIDS crisis; and call upon the Executive Council to make available copies of the Report to every member of the Episcopal Church no later than January 1989 if the Report has not been distributed by the U.S. Government to every household.
Caregivers for AIDS Victims
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 69th General Convention commend those homosexual persons and others who have witnessed to us all in their caring for persons with AIDS.
[from The Blue Book]:
Report of the
Standing Commission on Human Affairs
Members of the Commission:
The Rt. Rev. George N. Hunt, Chair, Diocese of Rhode Island (1991)
The Rt. Rev. Frederick H. Borsch, Diocese of Los Angeles (1994)
The Rev. Dr. David A. Scott, Vice-Chair, Diocese of Virginia (1991)
The Rev. Dr. Martin R. Tilson, Diocese of Alabama (1991)
Dr. Howard R. Anderson, Secretary, Diocese of Minnesota (1994)
Joyce Phillips Austin, Esq., Diocese of New York (1991)
Mrs. Scott T. Evans, Diocese of North Carolina (1991)
Ms. Lydia Lopez, Diocese of Los Angeles (1991)
Mr. Mel Matteson, Diocese of Olympia (1994)
HUMAN SEXUALITY.
Summary of Diocesan Studies
At the 69th General Convention, Resolution D120 strongly urged that each congregation and diocese in the Episcopal Church engage in open dialogue on human sexuality. The resolution further called for each diocese to report its findings to the Standing Commission on Human Affairs so that the commission could prepare a "composite report" for the 70th General Convention.
Twenty-eight of 99 dioceses submitted reports to the commission. Those submitting reports as of January 1, 1991, are the Dioceses of California, Central Pennsylvania, Central New York, East Tennessee, Eau Claire, El Camino Real, Indianapolis, Iowa, Los Angeles, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Newark, Northern Indiana, Northwest Texas, Pennsylvania, Rio Grande, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Western Louisiana, and Western Massachusetts. Nineteen additional dioceses reported studies currently underway or planned. These are the Dioceses of Arizona, Atlanta, Central Florida, Chicago, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Milwaukee, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Southeast Florida, Southern Virginia, Southern Ohio, Southwestern Virginia, Spokane, Upper South Carolina, and Western North Carolina. The commission is grateful for this response from over a third of the dioceses of the Church. However, we are disappointed with the level of response. The indication that over half the dioceses have not taken seriously the recommendations of General Convention in Resolution D120s cannot be overlooked. We have had to ask why. We call upon those dioceses not yet having done so to initiate such studies in the triennium ahead so that all our people may have an opportunity to participate in this important process.
Each diocese received a questionnaire which asked three questions: (1) In the dialogues in your diocese, what are the areas of agreement? (2) What are the areas of substantial agreement? and (3) What are the areas of disagreement? Most respondents did not use the questionnaire or even address the questions posed in it. Nonetheless, it is possible to glean some information regarding areas of agreement and disagreement within the Church on human sexuality.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT.
One immediate finding was that much of the Church is reluctant to engage in open dialogue on human sexuality. Yet we should point out that a number of dioceses reported the dialogue process had been a very good and fruitful experience. Half of the responding dioceses articulated positive results from engaging in dialogue.
Regarding specific issues, no strong national consensus emerged from the diocesan reports. A significant number of dioceses, though, did agree on some points. Over one-third of the reporting dioceses agreed that the Episcopal Church needs to educate members on sexual issues and generally exert more leadership in this area.
Many dioceses emphasized that sexuality is God’s gift and pointed to the importance of that gift and the responsibility which it brings. A number of respondents took pains to indicate their agreement that genital sexual expression is only appropriate in the context of heterosexual marriage and should be maintained as the standard for all Christians.
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT
Ten of the respondents indicated strong disagreement within their dioceses concerning the origin, nature, and health of homosexuality. There was also theological disagreement about whether or not homosexuality contradicts God’s plan for humanity, whether it is appropriate to bless same-sex covenants, or even to have different opinions in the Church on this matter. There is also significant disagreement over the Church’s authority in sexual matters, as well as the nature of biblical authority. When disagreement was expressed, though, it almost always had to do with understanding the nature of homosexuality. The commission wishes to affirm the fact of wide disagreement within the Church around very important issues such as these. We would respond that it is "normal" for a vital and vibrant community to express disagreement around issues which deeply touch each of our lives.
DISCOVERIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
When sexuality issues became "personalized," the tenor of the dialogue changes dramatically. As one diocese reported, the level of compassion rises considerably when people can put a human face on the issues.
The Church should provide assistance in the form of skilled facilitators to help parishes discuss sexuality constructively. Without such help, such discussion can be very difficult if not impossible.
CONCLUSION
A tremendous diversity of opinion regarding human sexuality exists within both the Church as a whole and also within individual dioceses and parishes. Also, we must be aware of the significant ambivalence in the Church about even discussing sexuality. Thus, one of the questions which this commission faces along with the whole Episcopal Church is. "Can we move forward on issues of sexuality, even as we affirm the diversity which we experience?"
More work clearly needs to be done in understanding homosexuality. The Church must draw information not only from the traditional theological sources, but also from medical science, psychology, anthropology, and the other fields of knowledge which can shed light on this complex issue. Before the Church can appropriately address the theological issues, we must understand the phenomenon of homosexuality as fully as we can. Studies such as these which have and are taking place in the various dioceses must continue. lest the Church be guilty of not helping support its membership in a period of enormous societal transition.
Finally, though homosexuality dominated the discussion in most of the diocesan reports, there are other sexuality issues that are vital and that need to be addressed as well. The following questions appeared in various reports:
These questions, and many others, make it clear that the Church has much work to do yet in the area of human sexuality.
Summary of the Commission’s Own Studies
I. Testimony Received by This Commission
During the triennium the commission met with Ms. Starla Allen,. Vice-President of EXODUS International, an umbrella organization for ministries concerned with "assisting gays and lesbians in changing their orientation"; with David McWhirter, M.D., Medical Director of Mental Health Services for the County of San Diego, California and co-author of The male Couple; with Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, Director of Psychosexual Education and Therapy, BCM International, a consulting therapist and author of several books and articles in her field; with Harold I. Lief, M.D., Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania and now in private psychiatric practice; and with Alan P. Medinger, Director of Regeneration, Baltimore, Maryland, a ministry "assisting men and women who wish to come out of homosexuality." In addition, the open hearings afforded us the opportunity to hear from approximately 75 persons, most of whom were gay or lesbian. Dr. Bonita Ann Palmer, TSSF, family physician and counselor and Co-Chair of The Parsonage, a diocesan pastoral and advocacy ministry, and the Rev. Paul Woodrum, sometime Executive Administrator of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Fund for Human Dignity and, since 1983, a national officer and director of Integrity, Inc., also served as ad-hoc consultants to the commission and attended its October, 1990, meeting.
We have made an effort to hear all voices in this Church and to take their concerns seriously. In the process, we have heard about a lot of pain in the Church, the pain that comes from being within the Church and treated as if one were in fact outside. We have heard from gay and lesbian clergy and lay persons who affirm their sexual orientation and experience and call upon the Church to acknowledge their presence, to repent of its exclusion of them from full participation, and who call upon the Church to affirm their sexual orientation as God-given and their experience in relationships with one another as holy, life-giving, and grace-filled. We have also taken care to listen to representatives of the smaller number of persons within the Church who claim that God has cured them of a homosexual orientation and delivered them from a homosexual lifestyle.
We recognize that speaking in terms of causation may seem unnecessary to those who see the biblical witness as they understand it, or the experience of their sexual orientation as they perceive it, as a gift of God, as the only relevant factors to consider. Nonetheless, we believe that cause must be considered because responsible ethical decision-making requires that we consider evidence that bears on intentionality. Researchers in a number of fields have proposed theories, but there seems to be no consensus in the scientific community about the cause or causes of homosexuality. Apparently, sexual orientation is a complex phenomenon in which a variety of social, cultural, biological, and psychological factors play roles in causation. Thus John Money of Johns Hopkins University wrote that "the status of sexual orientation in adulthood cannot be attributed to any variable that is either exclusively nature or exclusively nurture" (American Psychologist, April 1987: 397). Expert opinion is largely agreed, however, that a sexual orientation is not, in a large majority of cases, voluntary in the sense of a self-conscious choice.
There is also broad agreement among all who have testified to us that changing homosexual orientation is difficult. Many in the scientific community and in the gay and lesbian community, including some who have attempted to change, claim that homosexual orientation cannot be changed. The question here is not whether persons with a homosexual orientation can have sexual relations exclusively with persons of the opposite sex. Unquestionably, many can. The question is whether lesbian and gay people can ever alter their sexual identity at deep levels of sexual fantasy and response, so that heterosexual relations provide a truly satisfactory expression of their sexuality. We have heard from a very few persons who claim to have changed at such levels, but even they allow that such a change is difficult.
II. Theological Considerations
As Anglicans we understand God’s self-revelation to be witnessed to by Holy Scripture and especially mediated by Jesus Christ. Together with tradition and reason this provides guidance in matters of faith and morals. We say this recognizing that we do not sufficiently respect scripture by examining passages in isolation, but by examining every passage of scripture in the context of the whole scriptural witness. Whatever else we may say about that witness, the Bible, like modern psychology, testifies that how we live our sexuality is integral to who we are as human beings. Faithful Christian living is all of a piece; God does not deal with us as disembodied spirits for whom physical and social relationships are matters of moral indifference. This is implicit in Jesus’ discussion of sexuality in Matthew 5:27-32 and Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 6-7. Our Anglican heritage also leads us to claim that the Bible can only be usefully interpreted for moral guidance in questions of human sexuality in light of the Church’s tradition and the understanding we reach with the aid of the natural and social sciences.
Biblical authors clearly knew of and condemned some forms of what we call homosexual behavior. The principal biblical texts dealing with what we call such behavior may be listed briefly. In the Old Testament Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid men to lie with other men "as with women" and in Genesis 19 the men of Sodom confirm God’s sentence of judgment on them by attempting the homosexual rape of angels sent by God in the appearance of men. The one clear reference to genital homosexual behavior in the New Testament is Romans 1:26-27, which reads, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (RSV). Here Paul instances male homosexual behavior, and perhaps female as well, as evidence of the moral depravity that has befallen the Gentiles as an appropriate punishment for their idolatry. It also appears that at least some kinds of male homosexual behavior are condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
It is important to recognize, however, that each of these passages also raises interpretive questions and issues. The Leviticus passages, for instance, are part of a larger context of concern with avoiding certain practices, many of which are considered to emanate from cultural attitudes not significant for faithful living today. Others do not present genital homosexual practice as their major focus. Yet more important for interpretation and use of these passages today is the awareness that many aspects of homosexual orientation as understood today could not have been so understood in biblical times. The Bible passages, for example, may assume that people with attraction to members of the opposite sex are willfully choosing a different practice. It may be argued that, since biblical authors did not understand sexual relations between members of the same sex as expression of a sexual orientation not intentionally chosen, these biblical references to homosexual behavior do not decide the issue today.
These questions concerning the best interpretation and usage of these passages makes it imperative to relate them to the biblical message as a whole. In this connection, we note that Jesus reached out particularly to persons whom many at the time regarded as outside the community of God’s invitation and favor: lepers, the lame, the blind, Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2), Zaccheus (Luke 19:1-10). Such behavior left him open to the charge of being "the friend of tax collectors and sinners" (e.g., Luke 7:34). Jesus also included in his "family" of those in God’s service "whoever does the will of God" (Mark 3:35). If we ask how Jesus understood that "will of God" for human behavior, it seems to be best summed up in the Beatitudes and in the love commandment of John 15:9-12, namely, that we follow his example of self-giving love. In addition, we note that Jesus’ most pointed words and stories were directed at those who would exclude others from the invitation to live in the community of those under the reign of God: the Pharisee in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14), the ninety-nine sheep in the story of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7), the elder brother in the story of the father and his two sons (Luke 15:25-31), the all-day workers in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16), and the religious leaders who shut the kingdom of heaven to others (Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52).
We recognize that work remains to be done if we are to be guided by scripture, tradition, and reason concerning human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. We note that no passages in the Bible condone homosexual behavior and that the Bible in a number of places presents marriage as the divinely ordained context for the expression of full sexual intimacy. The creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2 thus depict God as blessing the male-female couple and commanding them to be fruitful and multiply and as creating woman to live in companionship with man. Both Jesus and Paul quote these passages and make heterosexual marriage normative along with celibacy in their own discussions of sexuality. Such study should also consider homosexuality within the context of the Church’s moral and ethical tradition, which we as a commission have not yet dealt with fully. In particular, we need to discuss the relationships between the various functions of human sexuality recognized in the Christian ethical tradition and already foreshadowed in Genesis 2, namely the strengthening of a committed love relationship and the procreation of children.
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
This commission, like the Church at large at this time, is not of a single mind in its assumption and prescriptions about what the Church should do and say concerning human sexuality. We feel it important to say that there are no self-declared gay men or lesbians on the commission; we heard their views expressed in open hearings and from Dr. Bonita Palmer and the Rev. Paul Woodrum, who attended our October, 1990, meeting. Although a strong majority of us believe that the Church’s primary call at this time is to do justice to a group of people long excluded from open and honest participation in our common life, some of us believe that our call is rather to gain a better understanding of the moral issues concerned with homosexuality. We do not agree, in particular, concerning two issues fundamental to the Church’s position on ethical questions before us: (1) whether homosexual orientation is an equally valid, God-given alternative to heterosexual orientation, and (2) whether committed, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the only morally acceptable context for full sexual intimacy.
Being divided ourselves on such key issues, we recognize that some of our recommendations will strike many people in the Church as not going far enough and that they will strike many others as going too far. We ask all those who would take issue with our recommendations to consider them carefully as conclusions arrived at deliberately and prayerfully. We offer them as a starting point for continued discussion at every level of the Church.
There are large areas where this commission is in full agreement. We are agreed that, although sexual desire can often be misused and result in cruelty and serious wrongs to others, the teaching of the Church needs especially to emphasize the positive aspects of the fact that we are sexual beings. Our sexuality can be a means of growth in grace and the ways of caring and sacrificial love. A fully developed spirituality will include a fully integrated comprehension of sexuality.
We are agreed that sexuality is rightly used and blessed by God in the life-long marriage covenant of a woman and a man. We believe that Christian communities should strive to be much more supportive of these marriages and families.
We are agreed that all sexual exploitation and coercion of the powerless by the powerful is wrong (as for example, of women by men, of employees by employers, of those being counseled by counselors, of children by adults). The Church must accept its responsibility to provide firm guidelines regarding standards of sexual conduct.
We are agreed that homosexual orientation is not morally culpable or inconsistent with being a committed Christian. Such a position is consistent with a biblical witness, which, as mentioned earlier, does not speak in terms of orientation. It is also consistent with the evidence we have received from the social sciences that such an orientation is not, in the vast majority of cases, a matter of choice. We are opposed to the argument which holds that for persons with a homosexual orientation a genuine conversion to Christ will always be accompanied by transformation to a heterosexual orientation. This Church should admit that it has, in practice, in the recent past excluded and in some places still does exclude a whole class of people from its ministry and thus burdens them with unnecessary guilt on the basis of their sexual orientation. We need to repent of such activity and take steps to see that it no longer happens.
In addition, we all accept the biblical witness, first enunciated in Genesis 2:18, that human beings are not meant to be alone. The single and celibate life is part of the vocation of a number of disciples, but all persons can benefit from the comfort and support of close relationships. We agree that homosexual relationships often provide such comfort and support and exhibit commendable love and commitment. We agree that homophobia, defined not as a clinical phobia but as an irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality, is widespread in our culture and in our Church. Where present it must be exposed, denounced, and, when appropriate, repented of. Such fear, and the prejudice it engenders, is often fed by ignorance, sometimes naive and sometimes willful, about such matters as the difference between pedophilia (that is, sexual desire of an adult for children) and homosexuality. W reaffirm the call of the 1985 General Convention to the Church "to foster a better understanding of homosexual persons and to dispel myths and prejudices about homosexuality." We agree that the basic civil rights of gay men and lesbians in such matters as equal protection and due process of law need to be upheld. Increasing violence against gay men and lesbians dictates that we reaffirm this principle already enunciated by General Convention in 1976 and reaffirmed in 1982. We are also in agreement that it is wrong to use the term "homophobia" to denounce any one simply because that person does not affirm that homosexuality is God’s will.
A strong majority of this commission believes that it is possible and desirable for Christian communities fully to support marriages of men and women and their families, to bless, safeguard and strengthen them, without withholding support and blessing from persons of the same sex who are in faithful, committed relationships, seeking in them the characteristics of sacrificial love and abiding care for each other. The firm intention of a life-long covenant with these characteristics is the context for the offering of God’s blessing and the community’s commitment of full support. To all disciples in these covenant relationships the challenge of the gospel calls them to live in pureness of heart and to grow together in ways that will show forth to the world aspects of the faithful and sacrificial love of God and to find in their mutual care greater strength to serve the community. A strong majority of this commission recommends that the Standing Liturgical Commission study the theological and liturgical issues involved in affirming and blessing these covenants of gay and lesbian persons and begin the process of developing liturgical forms for them.
This commission also recommends that the Church acknowledge that it has for centuries ordained gay men and has in recent years ordained lesbians from whose ministries it has benefited, and that some of these persons have been and are sexually active. A strong majority of this commission recommends that the Church be open to ordaining gay men and lesbians otherwise qualified who display the same integrity in their sexual relationships which we ask of our heterosexual ordinands. We recommend this because we consider the opening of the ordination process to gays and lesbians a matter of justice where justice should no longer be denied. If it is granted that a homosexual orientation is involuntary and for most persons unchangeable, it is unjust to present celibacy as a calling for only some persons with heterosexual orientation who believe themselves called to the ordained ministry but for all persons of homosexual orientation who believe they have that call. Explicitly opening the ordination process in this way is certainly desirable to clear the Church of the taint of hypocrisy, since the presence of gay men and lesbians among the clergy is no secret. It may also be necessary if the Church is to counteract the irrational fear and hatred of gay men and lesbians rampant in our society; we cannot effectively advocate civil rights for gay men and lesbians in society at large if we appear to deny such rights within our own fellowship.
While two members of this commission, Scott Evans and David Scott, agree with much of the sexuality section of this report, they disagree with the recommendations to develop liturgies blessing same-sex unions and the recommendation to ordain sexually active homosexuals. They believe that scripture clearly and consistently witnesses to heterosexual relations as God’s will and that such relations have the fullest potential for human wholeness. They also believe that neither the Church nor this commission have sufficiently established the scriptural and theological bases needed to support these recommendations.
A strong majority of the commission believes, however, that the issues have been studied in considerable depth for a number of years by this commission and other bodies and that the time has come to move forward in the direction recommended by this report.
IV. Issues for Further Study
In addition to one task already mentioned above, namely, more fully appropriating scripture and the Christian moral tradition in order to address contemporary issues related to homosexuality, the commission notes several other tasks that remain to be done. We need to gain a greater appreciation of the distinctive character and unique perspectives of the gay and lesbian experiences. We need to address the unique circumstances of gay and lesbian youth and their parents and the ways the Church can help meet those needs. We need to learn how the Church can minister effectively and evangelize within the gay and lesbian community. We also need to consider whether the Church should and how it can advocate extending legal protection to gay and lesbian couples. Does the Church need to take a stand on allowing gay men and lesbians such privileges accorded to married couples as rights to visitation in intensive care and protection for community property? Such issues can provide fruitful avenues for further work by this commission in this area during the next triennium.
V. Proposed Resolution
This commission believes that our Church is engaged in a long and ongoing process on these issues, one in which there will continue to be different perspectives, often strongly held and argued. We know that there are disciples of profound morality on several sides of the issues.
Truth in complex issues is rarely comprehended fully from one perspective, and we believe we need each other’s insights to grow together toward fuller understanding. In the Anglican-Episcopal Church tradition we also believe that it is not only possible but of God that we do not insist that there be only one agreed-upon position on these matters and that we can live and serve together with that tension. We believe that how we live with this tension and care for one another and others is more important to God than how we resolve it.
We also beg to say to ourselves and our Church that these issues ought to remain in context and perspective. As important as they are, further study, discussion or debate should not so concentrate the attention of Christians that they cannot vigorously carry forward the missionary work of evangelism and service to which God calls us or suggest to the secular media and the rest of society that homosexuality is some form of fixation. There is too much else to be done for God.
In this spirit, and also aware that different parts of the country and different dioceses presently experience the tension regarding these issues and the pastoral and evangelical aspects of them, we propose the following resolution.
Diocese Determines Whom to Ordain
Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That each Diocese of this Church, acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and in accordance with its own constitution and canons, is fully competent to determine whom best to ordain to the ordained ministry of the Church in the light of the qualifications presented for ordinations in the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further
Resolved, That, in accordance with national and local canons and long-standing practice, the Ecclesiastical Authority in each diocese determines which clergy may be received or licensed to officiate within the respective diocese(s).
[End of quote from The Blue Book, 1991]
Diocese Determines Whom to Ordain
Resolution A104 didn’t even get to the floor. The Committee on Ministry submitted a substitute, which engendered much debate in both Houses. The final version reads as follows:
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 70th General 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
Resolved, That this Church continue to work to reconcile the discontinuity between this teaching and the experience of many members of this body; and be it further
Resolved, That this General Convention confesses our failure to lead and to resolve this discontinuity through legislative efforts based upon resolutions directed at singular and various aspects of these issues; and be it further
Resolved, That this General Convention commissions the Bishops and members of each Diocesan Deputation to initiate a means for all congregations in their jurisdiction to enter into dialogue and deepen their understanding of these complex issues; and further this General Convention directs the President of each Province to appoint one Bishop, one lay deputy and one clerical deputy in that province to facilitate the process, to receive reports from the dioceses at each meeting of their provincial synod and report to the 71st General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That this General Convention directs the House of Bishops to prepare a Pastoral Teaching prior to the 71st General Convention using the learnings from the diocesan and provincial processes and calling upon such insight as is necessary from theologians, theological ethicists, social scientists and gay and lesbian persons; and that three lay persons and three members of the clergy from the House of Deputies, appointed by the President of the House of Deputies be included in the preparation of this Pastoral Teaching.
The study went forward with two Committees. One, chaired by The Rt. Rev. Richard F. Grein (New York), worked on the Pastoral Teaching, while the other, directed by The Rev. O’Kelley Whitaker, (Central New York, Retired), put into operation a process for the dialogue process.
The Grein Committee produced five drafts of its report, entitled Continuing the Dialogue: A Pastoral Teaching of the House of Bishops to the Church as the Church Considers Issues of Human Sexuality, working confidentially to prevent dissection of their report by the press before it was available in its final form. The fourth and fifth drafts, however, were "leaked," and before it was possible to present the final version to the House of Bishops at the 71st General Convention in Indianapolis, An Affirmation In Response to the Proposed Pastoral of the House of Bishops concerning Human Sexuality was generated by 18 Bishops in Province VII, and circulated amongst the Bishops for signature.
"An Affirmation in Response..."
"Until recent years there has been an almost unquestioned consensus among Christians, amply supported by the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, concerning sexual ethics. Partly as a consequence of the "sexual revolution" within the wider society, that consensus has been challenged even by some within the Church. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church was directed by the 70th General Convention of the Church in July 1991, to prepare a pastoral teaching on the subject of Human Sexuality prior to the 71st General Convention which will meet in late August and early September, 1994.
"Much hard work has been done on that pastoral and we believe there is a good deal of helpful material in it. Nevertheless, we, the undersigned Bishops of the Episcopal Church, are agreed in our conviction that this document, in its present form, is incapable of providing the clear guidance wanted and needed by Christian people for faithful living. We therefore offer the following statement to recall and affirm afresh the unchanged teaching of the Church in a day of moral confusion.
"(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.
"(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."
By the beginning of General Convention, 101 Bishops had signed An Affirmation…. Subsequently, five more signatures have been added. The status of the signatories is as follows:
|
Status |
Count |
|
Diocesan or Coadjutor |
47 |
|
Suffragan or Assistant |
7 |
|
Retired |
50 |
|
Other |
2 |
After considerable debate in the House of Bishops in Indianapolis, changes were made which reduced the gay-friendly impact of the document. When it became obvious that there was no way that a consensus could be reached, the Rt. Rev. Walter D. Dennis, Suffragan of New York, moved that the status of the document be changed from "Pastoral Teaching" to "Pastoral Study Document." Although this change was approved by a very close vote (88-81), the House then approved the document itself by a reported vote of 108-23.
The Bishops also moved, by a narrow margin, to attach the document An Affirmation in Response… to the Study Document.
On the second day, the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Bishop of Newark, took a point of personal privilege to read A Statement of Koinonia:
Koinonia""To the Members of the House of Bishops and through them to the whole Church:
"We the undersigned bishops want to thank the committee that created the Pastoral Teaching on Human Sexuality. That document in its various drafts forced the whole church to wrestle with issues that affect vitally the lives and hopes of a sizable group of the members of this church. This document also makes our faith community better able to deal with the subject of human sexuality around which there has been great fear, great misunderstanding, great misinformation, and great prejudice.
"We also value the collegiality of this House of Bishops and want to continue the mutual respect for our differences that is certainly part of the meaning of collegiality.
"We are aware, however, that this Convention by various resolutions has taken stands before on very emotional subjects such as capital punishment and abortion and has called this church to various boycotts of products to achieve what the majority believed was a moral agenda. On the role and place of women in the total life of this church, this body has spoken by amending the Constitution and Canons to give the decision of General Convention the force of law. We are also aware that even with these official actions no one has suggested that those who hold contrary opinions are somehow violating the collegiality of this house or that they were not welcome to continue to bear witness and indeed to act on their consciences in these matters. Collegiality has meant that we have agreed to respect each other and to live with our differences. It has never been a strait jacket that we forced one another to wear in order to pretend that a consensus existed where in fact one did not exist.
"In the discussion on what was first called A Pastoral Teaching on Human Sexuality we heard hints that collegiality was being interpreted in a more restrictive way. Perhaps even more importantly we heard voices of discouragement from some members of our Christian family, who had begun to trust that their church would share with them more of God’s love and less of the church’s judgment. This discouragement was produced primarily by press reports attempting to interpret the meaning of the action of this house in adopting the amended statement. It seems to hinge on the decision of this house to circulate with the committee’s document a second statement produced by a group of bishops from the Southwest. This perception has had the effect of tilting the carefully crafted work of the committee back to a place where some members of our church no longer feel included, where those living in non-traditional relationships might no longer expect to find a place or a welcome in the Body of Christ and where gay and lesbian clergy might question whether or not their gifts are still wanted by the church they love.
"It is for these reasons we feel that this statement must also be made from a different perspective to this Convention and to the whole church as a part of the dialogue, lest anyone think consensus has in fact been reached on these issues, or that there is no change occurring in this vital area of our life.
"We believe that sex is a gift of God.
"We believe that some of us are created heterosexual and some of us are created homosexual.
"We believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally neutral, that both can be lived out with beauty, honor, holiness, and integrity and that both are capable of being lived out destructively.
"We believe that wherever sexuality is lived out destructively this church must witness to its negativity. We oppose all forms of promiscuous sex, predatory sex, sex that does not honor one’s partner or that does not hold that partner in commitment and love.
"We believe that marriage is to be held in honor and that marriage represents that highest form of human commitment that a man and a woman can make to each other. We believe that through marriage both the husband and wife are called to holiness.
"We believe that celibacy is an honorable vocation for some of God’s people and that those who have chosen to live in celibacy for whatever reason have gifts to give that will enrich both the church and the social order.
"But we also believe that those who know themselves to be gay or lesbian persons, and who do not choose to live alone, but forge relationships with partners of their choice that are faithful, monogamous, committed, life-giving and holy are to be honored. We will continue to relate to these couples with our support, our pastoral care, our prayers and our recognitions, in whatever form is deemed appropriate, that God is indeed present in their life together.
"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. Like the gay and lesbian population as a whole, many of our gay and lesbian clergy have gravitated into urban areas, where they live out their priestly vocations. In some urban areas the number of gay and lesbian people exceeds thirty-five per cent of the total population. These gay and lesbian clergy work heroically and successfully in difficult assignments. By their willingness to accept and acknowledge their own sexual orientation and by the very witness of the committed nature of the lives they live with their partners, they have brought both the hope and love of Christ to communities of people long oppressed, long denigrated, and long judged by various religious authorities to be inadequate human beings in whom the image of God is somehow flawed.
"We pledge to these clergy, whom we honor as part of this church, our support and protection and we will continue to hold them to no standard higher than that we would hold any heterosexual priest whether he or she be single or married.
"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.
"We want this house and the whole church to know that we can be faithful to Christ and to our ministries as bishops in no other way than by affirming these principles. We trust this dialogue on human sexuality will go on for all of us have more to learn. But we make these comments publicly not just to prevent future misunderstanding in this house, but also to send a message of hope to a significant part of the Body of Christ, that in our own inadequate way we try to represent."
71 Bishops have signed this statement, The breakdown is as follows:
|
Status |
Count |
|
Diocesan or Coadjutor |
29 |
|
Suffragan or Assistant |
8 |
|
Retired |
32 |
|
Other |
2 |
Perhaps a more interesting comparison, however, is in terms of dioceses and communicants represented by the active bishops:
|
Statement |
USA Dioceses |
Communi-cants |
Percent of Total Communicants |
|
Affirmation |
36 |
645,827 |
26.4 % |
|
Koinonia |
29 |
967,097 |
39.5 % |
|
Neither Statement |
34 |
833,126 |
34.1 % |
|
Totals |
99 |
2,446,050 |
100.0 % |
After it was read by Bishop Spong, a motion was presented to the House requesting that the Statement of Koinonia, too, be appended to Continuing the Dialog. In the end, this motion was withdrawn when the motion to include the Affirmation was also reconsidered and withdrawn.
Continuing the Dialog contains not only the report of the Grein Committee, but also the report of the National Steering Committee for the human sexuality dialogues (the Whitaker Committee), describing the remarkable process implementing the Fourth Resolve of Resolution A104sa, and the data collection process of the survey which was part of that dialogue. Bound copies of the document are available for a nominal fee from Forward Movement Publications.
Another document of interest from General Convention 1994 was a resolution authorizing continuing efforts during the 1994-97 triennium:
Support Church in Studying Bishops' Pastoral Teaching on Human Sexuality
Originator: The Rt. Rev. O'Kelley Whitaker , Diocese: Southern Virginia
Legislative No. B-012a
Committee Assigned: Education, Deputies
Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the Bishops and Deputies to this General Convention work to establish within their respective jurisdictions the means to encourage the widest possible study and conversation on Continuing the Dialogue: A Pastoral Study Document of the House of Bishops to the Church as the Church Considers Issues of Human Sexuality; and be it further
Resolved, That a national Committee on Dialogue on Human Sexuality composed of twelve members of this Convention with competency and skills in education be appointed by the chairs of the two Houses, four members of the House of Bishops and eight members of the House of Deputies (two clerical and six lay Deputies), persons of varying points of view, to enable continuing dialogue by providing a variety of resources as it may deem appropriate, by providing training for dialogue leaders, by maintaining contact with the several dioceses, and by keeping the dioceses and provinces informed of dialogue in process throughout the Church, reporting to the 72nd General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That this Church commit itself to a dialogue in faith, with no expectation of uniformity, but every expectation of unity; and be it further
Resolved, That the national Committee on Dialogue encourage conversation on the issues of human sexuality with both Anglican and ecumenical partners open to such communication at national, diocesan and local levels; and be it further
Resolved, That this General convention appropriate $70,000 to support the work of the Committee on Dialogue through the coming triennium, subject to funding in the budget.
EXPLANATION
The 70th General Convention three years ago sought through its Resolution A104sa to assist this Church in dealing with matters of human sexuality, particularly with those issues that divide this church and cause deep pain and concern to many of our members. To this end, dialogues were set up in many dioceses and congregations. Persons selected by their bishops were trained to assist congregational leaders in conducting dialogues (as opposed to debates) on these issues. Many of these more than 200 trainers are still available to us. Additional trainers can be raised up and trained in order to continue and expand the dialogue.
Further, Resolution A104sa called upon the Bishops of the Church to prepare a Pastoral Teaching on the subject of Human Sexuality. The special committee, including representation from the House of Deputies, has worked diligently on this project. Further, the House of Bishops has spent a significant part of its interim meetings working dialogically on these issues and has reviewed and responded to five drafts of the Pastoral Teaching. A final harmony of thought has not evolved, but much keener awareness of the deeply held positions of various people has come about in an effort to continue to discern God’s will for us. Indeed, the House of Bishops issues this Pastoral Teaching to the Church as part of the process of CONTINUING THE DIALOGUE.
This resolution seeks to assist the church through the several dioceses in an efficient and cost-effective way to work as the House of Bishops has worked during the past triennium in seeking a clearer understanding of the insights of one another and thereby a clarity in the voice of God’s Spirit to the Church today. Since concern with issues of human sexuality is not limited just to Episcopalians, this resolution also seeks to expand the dialogue to include fellow Anglicans worldwide as well as other Christians at the congregational and at each judicial level.
Adequate funding to support the work of this special committee should be made available, possibly appropriated from those national funds designated for partnership with dioceses.
Develop Forms of Blessing Same-Sex Couples
Committee Assigned: Prayer Book and Liturgy, Cognate
Original Text of Resolution (C042):
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 71st General Convention direct the Standing Liturgical Commission, in consultation with Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, to study, develop, and evaluate forms of blessing of committed relationships of same-sex couples, for possible inclusion in future editions of the Book of Occasional Services; and be it further
Resolved, That for the sake of perfecting such draft texts as the Standing Liturgical Commission shall develop, this Convention authorizes such texts for use during the next triennium, such use always being with the consent and under the direction of the diocesan bishop or ecclesiastical authority.
Final Text of Resolution (C042s):
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 71st General Convention direct the Standing Liturgical Commission and the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops to prepare and present to the 72nd General Convention, as part of the Church’s ongoing dialogue on human sexuality, a report addressing the theological considerations involved in the development of rites honoring love and commitment between persons of the same sex; and be it further
Resolved, That no rites for the honoring of love and commitment between persons of the same sex be developed unless and until the preparation of such rites has been authorized by the General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That the sum of $8,600 be appropriated to support this work, subject to funding considerations.
In the House of Deputies, an amendment was proposed which would have replaced references to "honoring the love and commitment between persons of the same sex" with "same sex unions." The amendment was resoundingly defeated, and the House concurred with the substitute Resolution.
The "inaction" of the 71st General Convention was perhaps as important as its actions. The following resolutions on homosexuality were discharged:
B001 Add Blessing Same-Sex Unions to list of offenses
B002 Add Sex Outside Marriage to list of offenses
B003 Prohibit Ordaining Persons Sexually Active Outside Marriage
B004 Prohibit Blessing Same-Sex Unions
B013 Genital Sexual Relations Outside Marriage Expressly Prohibited of Clergy
Add Sexual Orientation Protection to Federal Civil Rights Act
Committee Assigned: Social and Urban Affairs
Final Text:
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 71st General Convention reaffirms our 1976 resolution that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection under law with all other citizens; and be it further
Resolved, That the Government Relations Office of the Episcopal Church be directed to work on behalf of pending and future legislation to assure that such protection is provided in actuality.
Concurred.
Amend Canon I.17.5 on Non-Discrimination in Life of Church
Committee assigned: Social and Urban Affairs
Final Text:
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That Title I, Canon 17, Section 5 be amended as follows:
No person shall be denied rights, status, or an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canon.
Concurred.
Educational materials for Lesbian and Gay Youth & Families
Committee assigned: Education
Final text:
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the members of this Church seriously address the issues of youth suicide and runaway/throwaway youth, especially as these result from conflict over sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual orientation; and be it further
Resolved, That the congregations and dioceses of this Church are strongly encouraged to identify and use as soon as possible educational materials directed to parents which will assist them in understanding their children’s sexuality and in caring for their children regardless of whatever their sexuality may be; and be it further
Resolved, That the Department of Education for Mission and Ministry, through the Youth Ministries Office, be directed to prepare educational materials to help youth understand their sexuality, and be it further
Resolved, That the General Convention allocate $15,000.00 for these purposes for the 1995-1997 Triennium, subject to funding in the budget.
Concurred.