First draft of the Lambeth reflection on the bishop and human sexuality:
THE CONTEXT OF OUR TALKS
We met in a spirit of generosity and prayerful humility which enabled us to listen patiently to each other. Apologies have been expressed in the Indaba groups by some of the Episcopal church who had no idea that their action in the consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire had caused such a negative impact in many parts of the Communion. Although there has been a great appreciation of one to one conversation, there is the need to develop further the trust in the relationships that have started here.
While there is a desire to end the spiral of chaos around this issue, there appears to be no desire to be so decisive at this stage that anyone would want to walk away. There was a plea to have an “enabling” environment to discuss issues without creating a win-lose situation.
It is important to be careful not to make judgments because on both sides people have come to their decision by careful study of the Bible. Those who take different positions regarding this issue have exercised passionate compassionate pastoral care to homosexual/lesbian people.
We need to repent of positions that have been taken that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual/lesbian people.
THE ISSUE
The whole issue of homosexual/lesbian relations is highly sensitive because:
there is a long tradition of Christian moral teaching which is now being questioned
there are very strong affirmations and denials in different cultures across the world which are reflected in contrasting legal provisions, ranging from gay marriage to punitive action against homosexuals
In some parts H/L relations are taboo; in others it has become a justice issue.
We wish this wasn’t the big issue because there are bigger ones, but we can’t now avoid it.
We are not agreed as to whether this is a first or second order issue.
Even before the Consecration of a partnered gay bishop the issue of homosexual/lesbian relations was a contentious issue in the Anglican Communion shown by the fact of the long debate at Lambeth 1998.
The ordination of a partnered gay Bishop has put this onto a higher plane and focused the issue furthr.
there is an inevitable anxiety that this will not turn out to be a single act but something that is likely to happen again.
Given all this, an unilateral action by any province without consulting the Communion was bound to have profoundly disruptive effect on the Church.
For some the way the Communion has handled polygamy has complicated the issue.
IMPACT
It creates problem for the Church because:
It questions the authority, the interpretation of the Bible and the basic teaching of marriage and questions the traditional teaching on morality of the Church. The question for many is “Whether the Bible transforms the culture or the culture transforms the Bible.”
This is an issue which divides people within provinces and not only between provinces.
In some cultures the action of the North American churches has commended the Gospel in some quarters. In some places the church is ridiculed as the “gay church”, so membership is lost.
Partnership in mission is lost and damaged.
It is felt in some provinces as a betrayal of the teaching of missionaries who brought the faith and it is experienced as a new form of colonization.
Confidence in the validity of the Anglican Communion is severely damaged.
It is dishonoring to former Lambeth Conference decisions.
It diverts us from our primary focus.
It is seen as leading to “sexual license.”
It affects ecumenical and interfaith relationships.
Bishops cannot be a symbol of unity when their consecration itself divided 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.
OPTIONS
Understandably there are competing visions of how the communion should responsibly handle this difference:
Gamaliel’s advice can be followed here: “If it is from God it will last,” so wait.
Decisive action (if your eye causes offense, pluck it out.)
Let God be God and allow Him to transform the attitude and behavior of people.
Further careful study of the Scriptures and theology to be pursued.
Some people are looking for a clear direction from the Communion, in the form of a pastoral letter or direction.
More “listening” than hearing is needed where the purpose is not to “I win, you lose,” but “nobody wins, nobody loses.”
Ongoing dialog itself is a “Christian witness”. The Communion needs a “catholic patience.”
Reaffirm the 1.10 resolution and accept that it was a mistake to ignore it.
Give pastoral care, but do not canonize, regularize, legalize or endorse homosexual/lesbian relationships.
Cross provincial and diocesan borders must stop to create the space for creative responses.
Keep walking, keep talking.
Comment: I was expecting a wide variety of opinion, but there’s not variety enough. Was there not a bishop at the entire conference who said that consecrating Gene was a good idea, that he’s been a good bishop, that he has energized a marginalized population and kept people in the church? GLBT people are discussed exclusively as a problem and a challenge, never as a gift. Where are the voices of the bishops who voted to consecrate Gene?
That said, I like this bit: While there is a desire to end the spiral of chaos around this issue, there appears to be no desire to be so decisive at this stage that anyone would want to walk away. There was a plea to have an “enabling” environment to discuss issues without creating a win-lose situation.
It is important to be careful not to make judgments because on both sides people have come to their decision by careful study of the Bible. Those who take different positions regarding this issue have exercised passionate compassionate pastoral care to homosexual/lesbian people.