Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference

Editor's Note: This is the 3rd part of Christopher Webber's essay on the history of the Lambeth Conference, continued from Part 2 here. Information about the author and resources appears in Part 1.

Part III: Coming to Grips with Unity and Diversity
by Christopher L. Webber

• Marriage seen as primarily for procreation (1930)
• Definition of Anglican Communion adopted (1948)
• Growth in understanding of marriage (1958)
• Consultative Council given broader membership and mission

This image of Lambeth Palace is an 1834 engraving from the Government Art Collection.

1930

When the bishops next gathered at Lambeth Palace, in 1930, their views on marriage remained those of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which was still the standard book in most parts of the Communion. That book stated, and the bishops re-affirmed, that “the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children.” If parents were no longer enthusiastic about large families, the bishops called for “deliberate and thoughtful self-control . . . in intercourse.” At this conference, there was no condemnation of prophylactics, although the bishops still believed that limiting or avoiding parenthood should be effected primarily by abstinence. Now, however, they resolved that “where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence . . . other methods may be used” – though not for selfishness or mere convenience. What those other methods might be – when the use and sale of prophylactics was condemned – was left unclear, but at least the bishops seemed to recognize that the world was changing and the 1662 Prayer Book might not be the last word on the purposes of marriage. But there was strong opposition to this statement and, though it was approved by a 3-1 margin, 67 bishops voted against.

1948

This photograph during the Lambeth Conference (from July 3, 1948) shows (L to R) Bishop Hallwood of Hong Kong, Bishop Chang of Fukien or Fujian, Bishop Percy Jones of Sierra Leone, and Assistant Bishop R. W. Jones of Wales. Photo by Edward G. Malindine, Topical Press Agency.

World War II created another obstacle to meeting, and it was 1948 before the bishops assembled again. Inspired, perhaps, by the recently created United Nations, the 1948 conference was the first to attempt a definition of the Anglican Communion, stating that:

The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, which have the following characteristics in common:

1. they uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as authorised in their several Churches;


2. they are particular or national Churches, and, as such, promote within each of their territories a national expression of Christian faith, life and worship; and


3. they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference.

At the first Lambeth Conference the question of creating a “Spiritual Court of Appeal" was raised, and the next conference suggested creating Voluntary Boards of Arbitration for Churches to which such an arrangement may be applicable, but nothing was done. The 1897 Conference called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to institute a “consultative body” to provide information and advice on request, but nothing seems to have been done as result of that call. The 1948 meeting finally defined a Consultative Council made up of bishops that would serve as the continuation committee of the conference and empowered it to deal with any matters referred to it by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but without legislative or executive powers. It seems unlikely that the Council met during the next ten years.

The Conference also affirmed “that the marriage of one whose former partner is still living may not be celebrated according to the rites of the Church, unless it has been established that there exists no marriage bond recognised by the Church.”

1958

By 1958, the Lambeth Conference was ready to look at marriage in a much more positive way and rooted its statements carefully in a positive theology. Marriage, they said, is a “vocation to holiness” and the idea of the family is “rooted in the Godhead.” “Consequently," the bishops agreed, “all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organisation of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive, and sanctifying power of God.” Family planning, they now agreed, is “a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God.” Instead of condemning contraception, they now believed that methods “mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience” were acceptable.

Concentrating as they were on the family, the bishops had little to say about women’s ministry outside the home except to say that “fuller use should be made of trained and qualified women, and that spheres of progressive responsibility and greater security should be planned for them.”

1968

But women were planning for themselves, and when the bishops met again, in 1968, the issue of women’s ordination was upon them and they were not ready. The Lambeth Conference expressed the opinion that the theological arguments for and against the ordination of women to the priesthood were “inconclusive,” and asked that the member churches study the matter carefully and seek advice from the Consultative Council before doing anything rash.
Photo at right: The Rev Dr Florence Li Tim-Oi, the first woman ordained to the priesthood in the Anglican Communion, was ordained on 25 January 1944 in the diocese of Hong Kong. Several other provinces were considering the ordination of women to the priesthood. The ordination of Li had a somewhat special character; the Diocese of Hong Kong said it was necessary under wartime conditions because there were no male candidates available. Li formally resigned her orders after the war, but resumed her ministry once the ordination of women was
recognized in Anglican Churches. Photo courtesy of Anglican Journal.

The bishops also took note of the recent papal statement condemning all methods of birth control except abstinence and the so-called “rhythm” method. The bishops at Lambeth agreed that the pope was in error on this subject. Of course, that meant the bishops themselves had been in error in 1920; but Anglican bishops can change their minds, and popes find it difficult to do that.

The bishops had always been reluctant to exercise leadership, but now they were willing to share it. The 1968 conference made radical changes in the Anglican Consultative Council, ordering it to include equal numbers of bishops, priests, and lay people from the five largest provinces and a priest or lay person as well as a bishop from the others. The Council could also select six other individuals to serve with them, of whom two must be women and two less than 28 years old. Now, for the first time, there would be an official body created to help build relationships between the member churches of the Communion. A Communion that had been held together simply by “mutual affection,” a Prayer Book tradition, and occasional meetings of bishops would now have a representative body meeting every two years. Communion would be expressed through a committee.

Editor's Note: Part 4 of Webber's essay continues here. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences from 1978 to the present. He focuses on the ordination of women as a central and divisive issue, the 1978 call for a study of homosexuality, the recognition of a state of "impaired communion" (dating from 1988), and the changing role of the primates.

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference

Editor's Note: This is the 2nd part of Christopher Webber's essay, continued from here, about the history and future of the Lambeth Conference. Information about the author and resources appear in Part 1. Subsequent parts of his essay will be published over the next few days.

Part II: Broader Agendas
by Christopher L. Webber

• Resolutions adopted on church and social issues
• Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral adopted
• Definitions of “full communion” and “essentials of faith” not adopted
• Sexual issues raised: divorce and contraception condemned
• Women to be admitted to all lay ministries

This mid-18th century painting by Samuel Scott shows Lambeth Palace from across the River Thames. The image appears here, courtesy of the Society of Genealogists.

1888

By the time a third Lambeth Conference was called for, the idea of such meetings had become a tradition. Therefore, the agenda in 1888 was much bolder than that of the first two conferences, ranging from socialism to polygamy and including "Authoritative standards of Doctrine and Worship” as well as "Mutual relations of Dioceses and Branches of the Anglican Communion.” Now, for the first time, resolutions were brought before the bishops and officially adopted. The bishops acted not only upon resolutions having to do with the life of the church, but also with the civil societies in which they functioned.

“Intemperance” had become an issue in the growing cities of England and America, and the bishops suggested that governments could help by restricting the number of places where alcohol could be drunk and the hours when such places were open. In the Anglican spirit of balance, they also condemned the fanaticism of many prohibitionists as sometimes “uncharitable and presumptuous.” Now that resolutions were being adopted officially, disagreement became visible. Resolutions on not admitting polygamists to baptism found from 20% to 40% of the bishops in opposition.

The life and unity of the church were a primary concern. The principles laid down ten years earlier, that each national church should respect the work of the others and that bishops should not enter the dioceses of others without permission, were said to have been “neglected,” and therefore were reaffirmed. Statements had been made in the past about not “defining any matter of doctrine,” but it was this conference that accepted the principles known now as “The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral” as a sufficient basis for Christian unity.

The conference also suggested that it would be useful for the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a small committee to draw up a simple statement of the teaching of the Anglican Communion on such subjects as the Catholic Faith, the Holy Scriptures, the Sacraments, the Forms of Prayer and Liturgy in use in the Anglican Churches, the relation of the Anglican Churches to the Church of Rome, the Churches of the East, and other Christian Churches and Societies, and the relation of the teaching of the Church of Christ to human knowledge. [Edward White Benson (depicted at left) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1883-1896.]

The conference agreed that the 39 Articles could well be amended in some particulars. Such a statement surely went well beyond the limits laid down for the first two conferences.

The conference also stated its opinion via reports received and included by reference in an encyclical letter on divorce and polygamy, among other things, in spite of the fact that there was considerable dissent on both matters, ranging from almost a quarter to well over a third of the bishops present. A long report on “purity” was adopted, calling on bishops and churches to work for a reformation of manners in relation to marriage and sexual matters. The bishops were concerned, they said, to “guard the innocent, to punish the guilty, to rescue the fallen, to suppress the haunts of vice, and to remove temptation from our thoroughfares.”

1897

In 1897, at the fourth Lambeth Conference, the bishops set out to define themselves by referring to letters of the earlier conferences which had been addressed to “Archbishops, Bishops Metropolitan, and other Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, in full communion with the Church of England, one hundred in number, all exercising superintendence over Dioceses, or lawfully commissioned to exercise Episcopal functions . . . .” The issue of freedom and unity was addressed again in the statement that: “it is important that, so far as possible, the Church should be adapted to local circumstances, and the people brought to feel in all ways that no burdens in the way of foreign customs are laid upon them, and nothing is required of them but what is of the essence of the faith, and belongs to the due order of the Catholic Church.” The first of these statements, of course, left undefined what was meant by being “in full communion with the Church of England,” and the second left open “what is of the essence of the faith, and belongs to the due order of the Catholic Church.” Over a century later, these questions remain unanswered.

1908

The first conference of the 20th century, in 1908, found sexual matters claiming a central place on the agenda. The sanctity of marriage was seen to be threatened, and the bishops called on all “right-thinking and clean-living men and women” to defend the institution. Divorce, except for adultery and fornication, was not to be tolerated. The bishops declared that those who were divorced, even if “innocent,” could not marry again in the church. That resolution was carried by a vote of 87-84. They declared, though, that the “innocent party,” if re-married in a civil ceremony, might be re-admitted to communion. Birth control and abortion were condemned as well.

The 1908 Lambeth Conference agreed that the “ministry of the laity requires to be more widely recognised.” However, when they came to deal with the creation of a consultative council (called for by the previous conference), they resolved that such a council should be composed of 18 bishops chosen by the various provinces.

[Sidenote: The idea of a "consultative council" appears as early as the call at the 1868 gathering for a "Spiritual Court of Appeal," but no such "court" was created. In 1878, there was a suggestion of a "Voluntary Board of Arbitration," but again no such board seems to have been put in place. There was a call in 1897 for the Archbishop of Canterbury to create a "consultative council," but still there is no evidence that it was done. It seems there was some continuing interest in having a tool available to resolve disputes, not a body meeting at regular intervals; but no such group was created, and apparently no disputes were referred. All these proposals, of course, were to include only bishops and usually archbishops. The distinguished American Bishop of Olympia, Stephen Bayne, who became the first Anglican Executive Officer, created what he called an Anglican Consultative Council after the 1958 Lambeth Conference to work with him, but there is no indication that such a group was formally constituted as an authorized gathering until 1968.]

1920

The First World War made it necessary to postpone the next Lambeth Conference until 1920, and the war had begun to change settled views on a number of issues. Women, said the 1920 conference, should be admitted to all councils in the church in which lay men served. Here the conference was, indeed, staking out new territory. It took the Episcopal Church in the U.S. another fifty years to get itself in line with Lambeth and admit women as deputies to its General Convention.

On other matters of gender, however, the bishops at Lambeth were much more hesitant. The use of contraception was seen as a “grave danger - physical, moral and religious,” and the distribution of prophylactics was seen as “an invitation to vice.” The bishops believed that the use of such materials “threatens the race.” An echo of this viewpoint might be found in the response of the Church in Nigeria to the request of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that the Communion should listen to homosexuals as the Nigerian Church stated that such practice “threatens . . . the continuation of the race.” The bishops called on Christians everywhere to bring pressure on governments to end “the open or secret sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels.”

Part 3 of the essay will be published in the next day or two. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences of 1920 to 1968, characterized by a focus on the purposes and nature of marriage, the drive for a definition of the Anglican Communion, and an expansion of the membership and mission of the Consultative Council.

A Brief History of the Lambeth Conference: Unity and Diversity

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference
by Christopher L. Webber

In this multi-part essay, Christopher Webber raises questions about the history and future of the Lambeth Conference: Where did Lambeth begin? What was the original purpose? What has it accomplished? His essay is not intended as a full history of Lambeth, but a summary of the origins and main developments that may be instructive today.

Due to its length, Father Webber's essay will be published in four parts over the next few days.

About the Author: The Rev. Christopher L. Webber is a graduate of Princeton and the General Theological Seminary where he earned two degrees and was awarded an honorary doctorate. He is the author of a number of books including The Vestry Handbook, Welcome to the Episcopal Church, Beyond Beowulf (the first-ever sequel to the first English saga), and the recently re-issued Re-Inventing Marriage, as well as a new supplement to the last title, called Same Sex Marriage and the Bible (available from his website). In a ministry of fifty years and counting, Fr. Webber has served parishes in inner city, suburban, rural, and overseas communities. He is currently serving as a supply priest in the Diocese of Connecticut.

Webber has written for The Episcopal Majority before. See Listening, Causes and Effects, A Certain Madness, The Conscience of a Conservative, and 1984 in the Episcopal Church.

In this essay, he includes several quotations from the Lambeth Conference archives, which use "English" rather than "American" spelling (e.g., "recognise" rather than "recognize"). The quotations appear here as they do in the originals.

About the Sources: Quotations here have been drawn from two websites and a book:

• The Lambeth conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888: with the official reports and resolutions, together with the sermons preached at the conferences
• The Lambeth Conference Official Website - Archives
• The Lambeth Conference 1958: The Encyclical Letter from the Bishops together with the Resolutions and Reports (New York: Seabury Press, 1958)

In addition, an archive of Lambeth resolutions is available at the Lambeth Conference archive.

Introduction

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent out invitations to the bishops of the Anglican Communion to meet together at Lambeth this summer. It’s the fourteenth time that has happened, and the second time that there has been a serious question as to who might come. The first time a bare majority arrived: 76 out of 144. Many of those absent in 1868, including the Archbishop of York, had serious questions as to whether it was a good idea. Would they be creating a new center of authority? Would they be setting something in motion that might have unforeseen consequences?

In 2008 over 800 invitations have been sent, but it seems likely that a significant number will choose not to attend. Be that as it may, it seems like a good time to ask how we got here. Where did Lambeth begin? What was the original purpose? What has it accomplished? Are we over-hyping this thing? What follows is one attempt to sum it up. It is not intended as a full history of Lambeth, but a summary of the origins and main developments that may be instructive today.

Part I: The Beginning

• No binding decisions to be made
• Invitations to “all avowedly in communion”
• No defining of doctrine
• Respect for each other
• No ministry in another jurisdiction without consent

It was the Bishop of Vermont who first suggested a conference of Anglican bishops; but it was an appeal from the Canadian bishops, who saw the political unity between their country and England beginning to dissolve, that brought about the first gathering. The Archbishop of Canterbury was nervous about it. Who knew what might happen if you brought together so many bishops, or what the consequences might be for the powers of individual bishops and archbishops?

"It should be distinctly understood," said Archbishop Longley, "that at this meeting no declaration of faith shall be made, and no decision come to which shall affect generally the interests of the Church, but that we shall meet together for brotherly counsel and encouragement.... I should refuse to convene any assembly which pretended to enact any canons, or affected to make any decisions binding on the Church.” Nonetheless, the Archbishop of York and several others from his province refused to come, and the Dean of Westminster refused to let the Abbey be used for the closing service, citing (among other reasons) "the presence of prelates not belonging to our Church." [Photo at right: Archbishop of Canterbury C.T. Longley taken in 1864 (from the Lambeth Conference website). Photo Credit: Lambeth Palace.]

Hesitantly, however, Archbishop Longley sent out invitations to “all who are avowedly in communion with our Church,” assuring them that “such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine. But united worship and common counsels would,” he hoped, "tend to maintain the unity of the faith.” 76 of the 144 bishops invited made their way to England in the autumn of 1868 and heard the Archbishop assure them that, “It has never been contemplated that we should assume the functions of a general synod of all the churches in full communion with the Church of England, and take upon ourselves to enact canons that should be binding upon those here represented. We merely propose to discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action.”

In spite of all these protestations, when the bishops gathered, the Archbishop of Capetown asked for a change in the program so that he could have advice on dealing with a bishop in his province who was accused of heresy. In spite of “the strenuous protest of several bishops,” the conference appointed a committee to look into the matter and report back. The suggestion that a “Court of Appeal” be created to deal with such matters was also referred to a committee. When the committees reported back three months later, the Lambeth archives states, fewer than twenty bishops were still available to deal with them, so the reports were “received” and referred to a future conference for action.

When the Canadian bishops asked for a second conference, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Archibald Campbell Tait, was clear that such problems should be avoided. “There is no intention whatever,” he said, “on the part of anybody to gather together the Bishops of the Anglican Church for the sake of defining any matter of doctrine. Our doctrines are contained in our formularies, and our formularies are interpreted by the proper judicial authorities, and there is no intention whatever at any such gathering that questions of doctrine should be submitted for interpretation in any future Lambeth Conference any more than they were at the previous Lambeth Conference.” [Tait photograph (at left) courtesy http://www.nndb.com/people/390/000098096]

It was at that second conference, in 1878, that the Archbishop of York (William IX Thomson) preached a sermon that is still relevant in 2008. He drew on the story in Acts of the way in which Peter and Paul had argued in the early days of the church, and said, “It may be permitted us reverently to question whether the pulse of divine life in the Church has been hastened by one beat, by the violence of the zealous, who have thought well to be angry for the cause of God. Through strife, but not by strife, the Church has passed upon her way.” [The photo of Archbishop Thomson, at right, is from 1878.]

Also still relevant in 2008 were resolutions about unity within the Anglican Communion. It should be, the bishops said, “distinctly recognised and set forth, as of great importance for the maintenance of union among the Churches of our Communion” that “the duly certified action of every national or particular Church . . . should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members” and that “no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within [some other] diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.”

Each member church should be free to govern its own life, but always remembering the other churches. That tension between freedom and unity was recognized early in relation to worship which, it was agreed, was central to the life of the Communion. While the bishops agreed that there should be great freedom for churches to revise the Book of Common Prayer, they also cautioned that too great variation would imperil the Communion’s unity.

The proposal made ten years before, for a “Court of Appeal,” was dealt with by a committee which announced that they were “not prepared to recommend that there should be any one central tribunal,” but rather that each province should deal with its own issues. Where a province was unable to do so, however, they agreed there might be a committee of five Archbishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, to review the case and offer an opinion. In keeping with the preliminary guidelines that ruled out doctrinal definitions, the report was not officially adopted, but rather incorporated in an encyclical letter approved by those in attendance.

Having weathered two conferences without committing themselves to much of anything, the bishops did, however, express “the hope that the problem, hitherto unsolved, of combining together for consultation representatives of Churches so differently situated and administered, may find, in the providential course of events, its own solution.” They therefore ventured to suggest that conferences might “be invested in future with somewhat larger liberty as to the initiation and selection of subjects for discussion.”

“Differently situated and administered” though the dioceses were from which the bishops came, it was still assumed that they had something in common besides Anglicanism: the Archbishop of Canterbury greeted them as coming “from all continents, and seas, and shores, where the English tongue is spoken.” Yet even then, such a greeting might have been questioned since the Bishops of Shanghai and Haiti were among those present, to say nothing of bishops from Wales and India. Overlooking that fact, the conference arranged for its encyclical letter to be translated only into Latin and Greek!

Note: Part 2 of Christopher Webber's essay will be published shortly. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences of 1888 to 1920.

The Episcopal Majority Meets Bishop Iker

A week ago, the Reverend Thomas B. Woodward was in the Diocese of Fort Worth to present two programs to those wishing to remain in the Episcopal Church or at least to explore the questions. Father Jake carried an announcement, along with some background information and recommended sources for news about developments in the Diocese of Fort Worth. Here, Father Woodward provides a personal reflection about a meeting that occurred before the two public meetings.


Upon receiving an invitation to speak to Via Media people in Fort Worth and in Wichita Falls January 18-20, I wrote to Bishop Jack Iker to request a meeting with him to hear whatever concerns he might have about a dissident coming into his diocese to challenge his consistent message to his flock.

I could not have been happier with his response. He would see me shortly before lunch on the day I arrived in Fort Worth. In preparation for the visit, I bought a six pack of Santa Fe Brewery Pale Ale and a couple of pounds of Hatch roasted green chilies as a love offering from me, though in spirit from the Diocese of the Rio Grande. I also was careful to inform Bishop Iker of the sorts of things I would be talking about, referring him to some of what I have written for The Episcopal Majority, including the booklet The Undermining of the Episcopal Church.

We spent the first part of our meeting exchanging pleasantries, and I expressed my regret that his experience in the Episcopal Church was such that he felt he must leave it. Then I asked if he had any concerns about my speaking to his people. He said that he did not mind debate and arguing about matters of theology and the Bible – but that he did not like the demonizing that often accompanied it. He then mentioned several of the phrases that were most hurtful to him. I assured him that I had not used any of that language about him – but have stepped over the line more than once with my rhetoric, but always grateful when others mentioned that so I could apologize and, hopefully, learn something. He noted that he, too, has stepped over the line from time to time.

I assured Bishop Iker that I intended no disrespect for him during my time in his diocese. We then shared stories of blessing and of hurt in our life in the church. At the end of our time I asked for his blessing. We stood and he put his hands on my shoulder and prayed a most beautiful prayer, asking God’s blessing on my son in his recovery, asking God’s blessing on my time in Fort Worth and on my talks to his people.

I carry several things away with me from that meeting. First, what a joy it is when two people, so opposed on so many critical issues and concerns, can spend time relating to the best in the other with the best of ourselves. That is not the whole truth, but it is part of the truth. Second, I do not discount the hurt and sometimes the humiliation my friends and others in Fort Worth have suffered when +Jack has stepped over the line, nor the havoc his beliefs and attitudes about women’s ordination and our “Anglican agonies” have wreaked. Third, at this point the two of us are in the same church and attempting to follow the same Lord. Fourth, there is certainly pain when we encounter the worst in each other, but the pain is worse when we encounter their best, for it is then that the deep ache sets in as we wait for a time when our several wounds are healed and our fears are stopped in such a way that our best is our consistent selves. We are obviously not there yet.

The talks did go well, both in Fort Worth and in Wichita Falls. They were followed by time with the Steering Committee of Via Media Dallas. While I had requested time with Bishop Stanton for an earlier trip that had to be cancelled, there was no time for such a visit this time. I did, though, revel in my time with several of my heroes and heroines in the church, including Dixie Hutchinson, Katie Sherrod and Gayland Pool.

I will have more to say about the talks themselves. One thing is probably worth mentioning here. I had done some thinking about what the faithful could do to sustain themselves, and the thought about singing “We Shall Overcome” during communion at diocesan gatherings had stuck in my mind. However, reflecting upon all that is at stake in our struggles to remain in the fullness of the Episcopal Church, an even more appropriate song came to mind: “They Can’t Take That Away from Me.”

Tom Woodward
Santa Fe, NM

Postscript: Fort Worth Via Media posted a synopsis by Susan Reeves of Father Woodward's January 19 presentation , and Katie Sherrod provided a reflection after his presentations.

Civil Discourse (Part 4)

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is the last installment of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.

But how do we now move forward? And what is the rightful role of religion in this public discourse? Unlike some issues we’ve faced in the past, the movement forward in the civil realm is tied intimately to moving forward in the religious realm. There is perhaps no other prejudice, ensconced in the laws of the land, that’s so based on sacred scripture, so entwined with our theological understanding of the nature of humankind and the sexuality which proves to be both its blessing and its curse. No other attitude in the body politic is so tied to an attitude stemming from a particular Judaeo-Christian teaching. Change in no other social attitude in the secular culture is so tied to change in religious belief.

So it will take religious people and religious voices to undo the harm done by religious institutions. While there’s been a decline in the number of people who experience and express their spirituality in and through formal religious institutions, religion is still a powerful force within the culture, and it generally works against progress in the inclusion and full civil rights for gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. It’s time that progressive Christians rescue the Bible from the Religious Right, which has held it hostage and claimed it as its own private territory for far too long. It’s time that Christians and Jews actually read the holy scripture they claim as the basis of their beliefs, instead of simply believing what others tell them it says. It’s time we use reputable scholarship, sound reason, and thoughtful exploration to understand what the words of scripture meant to the person who authored them and what they meant to the people for whom they were written, before deciding whether or not those words are binding on people outside that ancient cultural context. It’s time that progressive religious people stop being ashamed of their faith and afraid to be identified with the Religious Right, and start preaching the Good News of the liberating Christ to all God’s children.

But what is a good, positive and appropriate way to voice one’s religious convictions in public discourse? I think it involves a simple shift in focus from the public to the private in these expressions. I’m free to express my own personal and religious reasons for coming to the opinions I express, but the minute I start arguing that you must come to those same opinions because my religious truth must be your truth too, then I violate the divide between private and public. Most alarming of all is when “my” truth becomes “the” truth, applicable to everyone. James Dobson or Pat Robertson are perfectly free to tell me about the religious beliefs that compel them to oppose the acceptance of gay people, but when they claim that their beliefs are right and true for all humankind, they move from democracy to theocracy.

Similarly, if I argue for the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in society, I must do so on the merits of my argument, not on a claim that my understanding of God is right and true and compels everyone. I must make my arguments based on decency, compassion, democratic principles, and a notion of the common good – not on any reading of any sacred text to which I might subscribe.

We need to separate, as best we can, the civil realm from the religious, especially in the struggle for equal civil marriage rights for all citizens. Clergy have long acted as agents of the State in the solemnization of marriages. Because a priest or rabbi or minister acts on behalf of the State in signing the marriage license and attesting to the proper enactment of the marriage, we’ve lost the distinction between what the State does and what the religious institution does. In fact, the State affects the marriage, while the Church pronounces its blessing on it. In France, everyone is married at the mayor’s office; those who are religious reconvene at the church for the religious blessing. Those who don’t desire such a blessing are still fully married according to the laws of the State. In such an arrangement, it’s clear where the State’s action ends and the Church’s action begins.

We need to make a clear distinction between civil rights and religious rites. It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing to same-sex marriages, and no church or synagogue should be forced to do so, but that should not slow down progress toward the full civil right to marriage as executed by the State for the benefit and stability of the society. Because in New Hampshire civil unions is now legal, my partner of twenty years and I have made plans to enter into such a union in June 2008. On the steps of the State capitol, our legal, civil union will be solemnized by our female Jewish lawyer. That’s the civil part, accountable to the State. Then we will walk across the street to St. Paul’s Church for prayers of thanksgiving and blessing for our union—that is the purview of the Church. Such a separation of the roles of Church and State might be helpful in many ways. Perhaps it’s a separation that ought to be made for all couples, heterosexual and homosexual alike.

In the end, I know everything will turn out right. Christians are hopeful by nature – not because we have any special confidence in the desire of human beings to do the right thing, but because of our confidence in God to keep prodding, inspiring, and calling us until we do it. The world may be ready for change, but our faith tells us that change is anything but random. God is always working for the coming of the kind of Kingdom in which all are respected, all are valued, all are included. I believe the Holy Spirit is working within the Church and within the culture to bring that full inclusion about, and in the end, God will not be foiled. In the meantime, we need to work with all our might, intellect, dollars—and all our hearts--to bring that new world into existence.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

Pittsburgh Episcopalians Speak

We received this press release today from Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh in response to the news that the Title IV Review Committee found that Bishop Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church and that Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has invited him to provide evidence that he considers himself fully subject to the Episcopal Church. Our coverage of that story is here.

Progressive Episcopalians Of Pittsburgh
6393 Penn Avenue, PMB 207
Pittsburgh, PA 15206-4010

Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail: jrgunder@hotmail.com


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Progressive Episcopalians See Review Committee Action
As Providing Reconciliation Opportunity

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — January 16, 2008 — Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) sees reason for hope in the statement issued yesterday by The Episcopal Church’s Title IV Review Committee certifying that, in its view, Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church. PEP believes that the canonical procedures set in motion by this decision will clarify issues of polity that have become confused in this diocese.

Under Canon IV.9, the House of Bishops will, at its fall meeting or at a special meeting called earlier, give or withhold its consent for Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to depose Bishop Duncan.

“The action of the Review Committee gives all of us in Pittsburgh serious cause to reflect,” said Dr. Joan Gundersen, President of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. “This can be an opportunity for all of us to consider how we can change course and restore relations with one another and with The Episcopal Church.”

The Rev. Diane Shepard, First Vice President of PEP, commented, “We understand that Bishop Duncan must follow his conscience regarding the kind of church he believes is faithful to the Gospel. Whether he can resume his role in The Episcopal Church or must relinquish it, we pray that he finds a way to serve Christ’s Church in peace and good conscience.”

PEP is committed to a diocese that finds its strength in diverse understandings of Christian faith and, as our Baptismal Covenant requires, respects the dignity of every human being, ideas that exemplify The Episcopal Church at its best. “Especially now, in this time of crisis, PEP encourages all Episcopalians in the diocese to engage in dialogue about how we can move forward together. Some people may choose to leave The Episcopal Church. We hope their number will be few,” declared president Gundersen.


Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail: jrgunder@hotmail.com


On the Web:
This document:
http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/html/2008-01-16opportunity.html

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh:
http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/

The Episcopal Church:
http://episcopalchurch.org/

Diocese of Pittsburgh:
http://www.pgh.anglican.org/

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh is an organization of clergy and laypeople committed to the unity and diversity of The Episcopal Church, and of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. It is a member of the Via Media USA alliance.

Action on Bishop Duncan

ENS yesterday released a story that the Title IV Review Committee has agreed that Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori informed Duncan on January 15 of the certification and sent him a copy. Her letter told Duncan that she sought the canonically required permission from the House's three senior bishops with jurisdiction to inhibit him, based on the certification, from the performance of any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts. "On 11 January 2008 they informed me that such consents would not be given at this time by all three bishops," Jefferts Schori wrote.

The three senior bishops whose consent would have been required for inhibition are Leo Frade of Southeast Florida, Peter Lee of Virginia, and Don Wimberly of Texas.

As Episcopal Café observes, this is similar to the charge against Bishop Schofield; but without the senior bishops' consents, Bishop Duncan cannot be inhibited. The House of Bishops will act on the abandonment charge at their next regular or special meeting after the 60 days for recanting has elapsed as per the time limits in Title IV Canon 9.2. If a majority of bishops eligible to vote then agree with the charge, the Presiding Bishop deposes him.

The full report of the Title IV Review Committee is available here. Members of that committee are Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson (committee chair), Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop James Waggoner of Spokane, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia, and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio.

In her letter to Bishop Duncan, the Presiding Bishop acknowledged that action on his inhibition cannot be taken until 60 days have elapsed. She wrote in her letter to him: "I would, however, welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church."

In a statement posted on the Diocese of Pittsburgh site, Bishop Duncan offered a brief response to the news, saying, “Few bishops have been more loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church. I have not abandoned the Communion of this Church. I will continue to serve and minister as the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh."

Father Jake has dug a bit more deeply into the canons and inhibition documents. Go over there and read more. Mark Harris also offers analysis at Preludium. Count on Mark to be careful and generous.

The photo at right is of Bishops Duncan and Iker at the August 2007 consecration in Nairobi of bishops to serve in the United States.

A story posted today at The Living Church reveals that Fort Worth bishop Iker also received a letter from the Presiding Bishop on January 15.

Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Fort Worth informed The Living Church on Jan. 15 that he has received a second letter from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori threatening him with new disciplinary action.

“Unlike her November letter, it did not imply a charge of ‘abandonment of the communion of this church’, but it said that I would be liable for charges of violation of my ordination vows if I continue ‘any encouragement of such a belief’ (i.e. that parishes and dioceses can leave The Episcopal Church),” Bishop Iker said.

It only stands to reason that bishops Duncan and Iker are receiving similar attention by the Title IV Review Committee.

Civil Discourse (Part 3)

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is a continuation of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.

These things may seem hopelessly off-topic for issues related to gay and lesbian people, but they’re all deeply related. We’re talking about how we change our minds – as a culture, a nation, and a Church – about something we’ve been very sure about for thousands of years. To some, it seems like the height of madness and a willy-nilly discarding of ancient truths. To some, it seems as if nothing is certain anymore, or that the Church doesn’t know what it believes. But to others, it seems like the kind of change that Jesus promised would be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only through such a gentle and comforting understanding of the continuing work of God will people find the courage to change their minds about this issue.

But why is the resistance to change on this issue so vehement, so vitriolic, so deep? Why would two people wanting to pledge their love and fidelity to one another for their mutual benefit and the benefit of society be seen as a problem? Why wouldn’t conservatives applaud the pledge of faithful monogamy in gay marriage for the people they’ve always accused of being promiscuous and irresponsible? Why wouldn’t conservative Christians want to see gay people stop entering usually-disastrous heterosexual marriages just to be happy and accepted? Why can conservatives use gay marriage as an effective wedge issue in political campaigns?

Or, in the Church, why would my election as bishop of a fairly conservative, rural and small-town diocese in New England turn into a worldwide controversy? How could my election spawn thousands of hateful letters and emails? Why would I, a Christian elected by the clergy and people of a diocese to be their bishop, receive death threats from other religious people and have to wear a bulletproof vest for my consecration? Why would people around the world, from the bush of Kenya to the remotest of Pacific islands, debate my fitness for this calling, based not on my skills, experience, and faithfulness, but on my sexual orientation? Why would some leaders in the Anglican Communion consider it dangerous to meet with me, talk with me, or even be seen with me?

First, we’ve never been very comfortable talking about sex. The Puritans in American culture didn’t help, nor did the Victorian Age in Britain, with its often duplicitous sensibilities. The realities of our sexual lives are perhaps too frightening to bring to the light of day.

Yet many of the moral issues that face us today involve sexuality. Abortion, fertility therapies, alternative methods of reproduction, the role of men and women, and the ending of half of all marriages in divorce that signals a crisis for the contemporary family—all these involve sexuality. We need to talk about these things, yet we have little experience doing so. Parents still falter over what to tell their children about sex—and when. Perhaps our near-obsession with homosexuality is a group denial mechanism for heterosexuals not to talk about their own sexual issues. If we can talk about them, then we don’t have to talk about us. If we can focus on their problems, we don’t have to talk about our own.

Most people resist seeing the treatment of homosexuals as “their” problem. Gay and lesbian people have known for a long time that the problem isn’t gay and lesbian people’s sexuality, but their ill treatment by a hostile society.

The problem, though, isn’t exactly “homophobia.” That surely exists, but it’s always a conversation stopper. Some claim they’re not afraid of homosexuals so they’re “not guilty” of homophobia. But the further sin our society is guilty of is “heterosexism.”

Everyone knows what an “ism” is: a set of prejudices and values and judgments backed up with the power to enforce those prejudices in society. Racism isn’t just fear and loathing of non-white people; it’s the systemic network of laws, customs, and beliefs that perpetuate prejudicial treatment of people of color. I benefit every day from being white in this culture. I don’t have to hate anyone, or call anyone a hateful name, or do any harm to a person of color to benefit from a racist society. I just have to sit back and reap the rewards of a system set up to benefit me. I can even be tolerant, open-minded, and multi-culturally sensitive. But as long as I’m not working to dismantle the system, I am racist.

Similarly, sexism isn’t just the denigration and devaluation of women; it’s the myriad ways the system is set up to benefit men over women. It takes no hateful behavior on my part to reap the rewards given to men at the expense of women. But to choose not to work for the full equality of women in this culture is to be sexist.

So the sin we’re fighting now, within the secular sphere, is the sin of heterosexism. More and more people are feeling kindly toward gay and lesbian people, but that will never be enough. More important is the dismantling of the system that rewards heterosexuals at the expense of homosexuals. That’s why equal marriage rights are so important. That’s why “don’t ask, don’t tell” is such a failure and such a painful thing for gay and lesbian people, even those who have no desire to serve in the military. These are ever-present reminders that our identities, our lives, and our relationships are second class – because the very system of laws that govern us discriminates against us and denigrates our lives. Over one thousand rights are automatically granted to a couple who marries. Yet the gay couple who has been faithfully together for thirty years is denied those very same rights.

At their root, heterosexism and homophobia are expressions of misogyny, the hatred of women. If you doubt the currency of this misogynistic attitude, go to the video store and rent a movie with a football storyline. At some point, in so many of these films, when the team is about to lose the big game and the players need to be pumped up, the coach will belittle, anger, and presumably empower the team by calling them a bunch of girls. Why does that work? Because no insult could be worse!

But heterosexism, like sexism, is beginning to erode in society and in the church. For a very long time, most of the decisions affecting the world have been made by white, heterosexual, educated, Western men. Ever so gradually, though, people of color were invited to the conversation; then women; and now gay and lesbian people. And things are never the same when the oppressed claim—and receive— their voice. It’s no wonder the resistance is so fierce, given that we’re changing a system that’s been in place almost forever.

Sneak Preview of Part 4:

But how do we now move forward? And what is the rightful role of religion in this public discourse? Unlike some issues we’ve faced in the past, the movement forward in the civil realm is tied intimately to moving forward in the religious realm. There is perhaps no other prejudice, ensconced in the laws of the land, that’s so based on sacred scripture, so entwined with our theological understanding of the nature of humankind and the sexuality which proves to be both its blessing and its curse. No other attitude in the body politic is so tied to an attitude stemming from a particular Judaeo-Christian teaching. Change in no other social attitude in the secular culture is so tied to change in religious belief.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

The final section of Bishop Robinson's "Civil Discourse" appears here.

The Strange Saga of San Joaquin

Your editor has been a bit overwhelmed this weekend with Real Life while life in the blogosphere has continued. I will not attempt here to recap all the news related to the strange situation of former Episcopal bishop Schofield. We posted the inhibition story here. Now it appears that Schofield cannot seem to figure out whether he parks his mitre in California or South America. Rather than trying to recap events, I refer you to these sites and postings that will let you catch up.

Father Jake covered the inhibition here. As he reported, the morning after the inhibition, San Joaquin issued a response, declaring that Schofield is a member of both the Episcopal Church and the Province of the Southern Cone. Shortly thereafter, Presiding Bishop Venables (of the Southern Cone) and Fort Worth bishop Iker responded in a rather contrary way, declaring that TEC has no power over Schofield, since he's no longer a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Soon thereafter, Schofield's canon issued a "correction." Father Jake covers it all, including a detailed fisking of San Joaquin's initial response, along with reports of the San Joaquin "correction" and the observation that all the conservatives deleted their initial postings. Father Jake puts it in context here. Since all the original sources of San Joaquin's initial response have deleted it, Father Jake has posted it here for review.

Thinking Anglicans seems to have been the first to reveal that the initial San Joaquin statement, quickly deleted from conservative blogsites, was written by this public relations firm, which specializes in "crisis management."

As usual, Mark Harris provided a thoughtful analysis of San Joaquin's response.

Also as usual, Episcopal Café does a fine job of coverage. At "Is He or Isn't He," they provide a good summary and ask pointed questions. At the conclusion of that story, they provide a timeline of the permutating responses from San Joaquin.

After the inhibition, EpiScope provided a round-up of news reports, as did Thinking Anglicans provided Thinking Anglicans.

Breaking News from San Joaquin

We have recently posted news from the Diocese of San Joaquin, whose convention voted to leave the Episcopal Church and join the South American Province of the Southern Cone. This evening, Episcopal News Service has posted two significant stories.

Presiding Bishop inhibits San Joaquin bishop
Action comes after Review Committee says Schofield has abandoned the Episcopal Church
By Mary Frances Schjonberg

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 11 inhibited Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

In the text of the inhibition, Jefferts Schori wrote: "I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15, I order him from and after that time to cease all 'episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,' until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops."

Jefferts Schori acted after the Title IV Review Committee certified that Schofield had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

The full story is at Episcopal Life Online. As previous reports (including this one) have explained, an inhibition is followed by a two-month period during which the bishop will be allowed to recant. What happens if an inhibited bishop fails to recant? An earlier ENS story provides the answer:

If [an inhibited bishop] failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.

If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop could depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Members of congregations in the diocese remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

Meanwhile, the remaining Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin are going about their work, according to this story at Episcopal Life.

San Joaquin's remaining Episcopalians to gather for reconciliation, inclusion, celebration
By Pat McCaughan

[Episcopal News Service] A January 26 gathering of continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin and national church leaders, "Moving Forward, Welcoming All," will focus on reconciliation, inclusion, and celebration, event organizers said.

"We are just so encouraged; we're looking forward to welcoming more people," said Cindy Smith, president of Remain Episcopal, a group which opposed the December vote to realign the Central California Valley diocese with the Argentina-based Province of the Southern Cone, which has about 22,000 members and encompasses the South American nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

Former Bishop John-David Schofield had urged the realignment, approved by 42 of the diocese's 47 congregations. Clergy approved the split 70-12 and laity voted 103-10 for realignment.

But in recent weeks, momentum and enthusiasm have spiked as additional people and some congregations "have thought about what has happened, what it means to not be part of the Episcopal Church anymore" and sought out continuing communities of faith, said Smith.

Episcopal Life Online has the full story.

Father Jake has been carrying the most comprehensive coverage of news from the Diocese of San Joaquin. At his site, go to the sidebar on the right and scroll down to the subsection, "The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin." Click on any of the links to access those discussions.

What can Episcopalians do in the light of all this?

With all that is occurring within San Joaquin, this much is clear: It's going to take a great deal to support the Episcopal Church in this region. The organization taking the lead in working with the leadership of the Episcopal Church is Remain Episcopal.




First and foremost, pray for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Episcopalians there will need comfort, strength, discernment, and wisdom.

Second, send a tangible note of support via their website, as The Episcopal Majority – like many other individuals and organizations – have done.

Finally, the tasks facing the diocese will require considerable financial support. You can make contributions (via their 501(c)(3) organization) to Remain Episcopal at:

Remain Episcopal
2067 W. Alluvial
Fresno, CA 93711

Saturday morning update:

Thinking Anglicans is carrying news reports about this development.

According to Kendall Harmon (of TitusOneNine), the "Diocese of San Joaquin" has issued the statement:

The Episcopal Church’s assertion that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church is an admission that TEC rejects the historical Anglican faith which is why The Diocese of San Joaquin appealed to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America for emergency and temporary protection. The majority of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion hold to the traditional faith. It is the primary duty of bishops to guard the faith and Bp Schofield has been continually discriminated against for having done so while Bishops and Archbishops around the world have affirmed not only his stance but the move to the Southern Cone. Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, a position not prohibited by either house. Governing documents of TEC do not prohibit relationships between different members of the Anglican Communion, rather they encourage it. TEC’s action demonstrates that there is an enormous difference between their church and most of the Anglican Communion Again, this action is a demonstrationthat TEC is walking apart from the faith and its expression of morality held by the rest of the Anglican Communion..

The Episcopal Church’s own identity is dependent upon its relationship with the whole Anglican Communion. TEC should consider whether it is imperiling that relationship by taking such punitive actions.

How is it that over 60 million Anglicans world wide can be wrong while a few hundred thousand in the American Church can claim to be right?

The source of that statement is not specified (i.e., whether it was issued by a communications officer or Schofied, voted upon by a diocesan group, etc.). We expect clarification will be offered.

Civil Discourse (Part 2)

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is a continuation of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.


There’s not a single nation, culture, or religion that isn’t dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Even those religions that are absolutely clear and unswerving in their condemnation of homosexuality are being challenged by their gay and lesbian members to take another look at that condemnation. Some estimate, for example, that between 40 and 60 percent of Roman Catholic priests are gay. [Stuart, Elizabeth, Chosen : Gay Catholic Priests Tell Their Stories] The Southern Baptist Convention, to which local autonomy is almost sacred, has expelled congregations for offering blessings to same-sex couples or for calling a gay minister. Conservative Jews have admitted gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rabbinical students to their seminaries. Evangelical Christians have been rocked by revelations that some of their leaders have had secret affairs with people of the same sex.

Who’d have thought we’d ever see legal civil unions and even marriage for gay and lesbian couples? Who’d have thought that a country like South Africa would write gay and lesbian civil rights explicitly into its constitution, or that a Roman Catholic country like Spain would permit marriage between same-sex couples? Many Anglicans from around the world continue to call on me to resign my position as bishop, naively believing that if I went away, this issue would go away, and the Church would return to its quiet, peaceful existence – though the Church has never, in its 2000-year history, enjoyed a time free of conflict.

Why does religion play such an important role in this debate? Religion, of course, has always played a role in the public discourse of nations. But why the particularly virulent and passionate stances on this issue? And why can’t we simply ignore the religious argument and have a thoroughly secular debate?

Religion makes its beliefs known on a variety of issues – from abortion to stem cell research, from environmental stewardship to capital punishment. But most faith communities have people on both sides of these issues within their ranks – at least in part because you can’t find too many definite proclamations in scripture either for or against them. You can read Genesis 1:28, for instance (“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”), and argue for good environmental stewardship. Or, using the same verse but different understandings of key words, you can argue for total exploitation of the environment. You can defend abortion on the basis of our God-given personal conscience or oppose it on the basis of the sanctity of life.

But the Bible doesn’t seem to mince any words about homosexuality. Leviticus, for instance, seems specifically to condemn male homosexuality: “You [men] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.” (20:13) (There are no same-sex proscriptions for women in these texts, by the way.) The fact that the Bible seems specifically to name homosexuality as repugnant to God and deserving of capital punishment makes religion particularly relevant to our understanding of this issue, in ways that are more compelling than with other hot-button issues.

The fact is, at least in Western culture, God’s condemnation of homosexuality is assumed. It’s in the air we breathe. And because of that, religious belief is relevant in our discourse about civil rights for gay and lesbian people.

So, what does the Bible really say about homosexuality? I believe our traditional understanding of the biblical—hence God’s—attitude toward homosexuals is flawed and needs to be reinterpreted.

First, the philosophical and psychological construct of sexual orientation is a modern phenomenon. It was only at the very end of the nineteenth century that the notion was first posed that there might be a certain minority of people who are naturally oriented – affectionally and sexually – toward members of the same gender. In biblical times, and until the last hundred or so years, it’s been assumed that everyone is heterosexual, which meant that anyone acting in a homosexual manner was acting “against their nature.” In other words, homosexuals were “heterosexuals behaving badly.” Indeed, many recent evangelical translations of the Bible use the word “homosexual” to translate certain Greek and Hebrew words that may not be related to homosexuality per se, but to sexual exploitation and abuse of underage boys by older men, common in Roman and Greek culture, and to temple prostitution in neighboring heathen cultures. Yet reading one of these translations using the word “homosexual,” you’d assume that the ancient Hebrew and Christian communities were talking about precisely the same thing we’re talking about today. That’s not the case. You can’t take a twentieth-century word, insert it back into an ancient text, and proclaim that it means something totally unknown to the authors of that text.

Second, our understanding of the word “abomination” is different from its original use. According to the Holiness Code in the Book of Leviticus, many things were an “abomination” to God, including the eating of pork. Eating pork wasn’t innately wrong, but abstaining from it was one of the ways Jews were reminded that they were a separate, chosen people. Observing the dietary laws reminded them of this special relationship to God. Jews were also forbidden to eat shellfish, plant two kinds of seed in the same field, or wear two kinds of cloth simultaneously. Tattoos were prohibited; those who cursed their parents were to be put to death. Yet you don’t hear leaders from the Religious Right denouncing these “abominations.”

Third, the ancient Hebrews’ understanding of the science of reproduction and sexual activity was different than ours today. Male sperm was thought to contain all of nascent life—the only contribution made by women in the reproductive process was providing a place for the fetus to incubate. So any “spilling” of male seed was considered tantamount to murder. Ancient Hebrews were a small minority, living in a hostile, heathen environment, struggling to reproduce, build up their population, and survive, so any waste of male sperm was antithetical to that survival and synonymous with not only murder, but a betrayal of the national interest. In the same way, masturbation and even coitus interruptus in heterosexual copulation (the so-called “sin of Onan”) were prohibited because they wasted male seed and squandered the possibility of new human life. Today, we understand that both sexes contribute to the process of human reproduction, and our day’s problem is over- rather than under-population. We believe sexuality has purposes far beyond reproduction. Yet these few verses of scripture are quoted as if nothing has changed in our understanding since biblical times. Note, of course, that all the other references to the “spilling of seed” have been reinterpreted to be acceptable, but not the proscription against same-sex behavior.

Recent studies have yielded rich information about the culture in which these texts were written and heard. Much of the biblical scholarship of the past fifty years has focused on the societies and cultures that formed the settings for these scriptural texts, both those of the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians, as well as the competing and often hostile cultures surrounding them. We’ve come to know the deeper meaning of these sacred texts as we’ve become more knowledgeable about the cultural situations to which they were responses. Those who argue for a literalist reading of scripture often act as if none of this scholarship has occurred or makes any difference to a twenty-first century understanding.

And though I believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, that doesn’t mean they are literally the “words” of God, virtually dictated by God through human media. And let’s not forget that the real “Word” of God is Jesus himself. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” begins the Gospel of John. Christians believe it isn’t the Bible but the Jesus “event” – his life, death and resurrection – that offers the perfect revelation of God. The Bible is the best and most trustworthy witness to that event, but it neither replaces Jesus as the Word nor takes precedence over Christ’s continuing action in the world through the Holy Spirit. To elevate the words of scripture to a place higher than the revealed Word of God in Jesus Christ is an act of idolatry.

Sneak Preview to Part 3:

These things may seem hopelessly off-topic for issues related to gay and lesbian people, but they’re all deeply related. We’re talking about how we change our minds – as a culture, a nation, and a Church – about something we’ve been very sure about for thousands of years. To some, it seems like the height of madness and a willy-nilly discarding of ancient truths. To some, it seems as if nothing is certain anymore, or that the Church doesn’t know what it believes. But to others, it seems like the kind of change that Jesus promised would be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only through such a gentle and comforting understanding of the continuing work of God will people find the courage to change their minds about this issue.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

Addendum (01/14/08): Click here to proceed to Part 3 of Bishop Robinson's essay.

Civil Discourse (Part 1)

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: As we noted a few days ago, Bishop Gene Robinson gave an impressive lecture at NOVA University. We later learned that his lecture was part of In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, a book scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. You can place advance orders here. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book; we will publish it in sections over the coming days, as a gift to our readers and the wider church.

In this chapter from his forthcoming book, Bishop Robinson talks about the Scriptures, how the Holy Spirit has guided Christians in the past two millennia, the civil rights of gay and lesbian Christians, and the need for mainstream Christians to "take back the Bible" from the extremists.

Civil Discourse

Sometimes—who knows why—the world just seems to be ready for a movement or a cause. In our day, it’s full civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. But swirling around this movement is a galaxy of questions. Why are we here in this particular moment, struggling with this particular issue? Why does religion play a central role in this debate—and is that role appropriate in public discourse? Who are the loudest, strongest voices coming from the religious community, and why are they so strident, unrelenting, and passionate? What does the Bible really say about homosexuality, what does it not say, and why does it matter in a secular state? What is the rightful role of religion in public discourse? How does this debate about the civil rights of LGBT people relate to the other “isms” of our culture, and what is the broader context for discussion of human rights for all citizens? How do we move forward in the never-ending search for the common good?

What the answers are depends on who you are. Look at me. Let’s just note for the record that I am male. I will never know what it’s like to live my life as a female, and if a lesbian were writing this, her perspective would be entirely different. I am a white man. The experience of being gay in a community of color is different than mine, too, especially since gay people of color experience a double discrimination that I can only imagine. I grew up in a family that was poor, uneducated, and deeply religious, in a rural, largely segregated region of Kentucky, where we were tobacco tenant farmers, living without running water and central heat, but unaware of how poor we were. All of that colors who I was, who I came to be, and how I understand my own story. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine a world in which we’d be talking openly about homosexuality, much less having an international debate in which I’d sometimes, reluctantly, find myself at the center.

I am a Christian. The fact that I am tempted to add “but not that kind of Christian” speaks to the powerful role the conservative Religious Right has come to play in this debate. While I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, I don’t believe he is the sole revelation of God’s self to the world. I respect and revere all those who have come to know God through other faith journeys. I can only speak out of my own context as a Christian, and I trust others to make the connections and translations into the understandings of their own faith communities. After all, the challenge before us as citizens of democracies is to define our rights and responsibilities to one another no matter what our beliefs are.

Why are we here in this particular moment in the history of this country and in the struggle for human rights? In the 1970s, most North Americans, like most Britons or Australians, would have told you – honestly – that they didn’t know any gay or lesbian people. If pushed, they might admit that there was weird Uncle Harry, a lifelong bachelor who everyone knew was a bit different, or those two spinster ladies who’d lived together down the street for as long as anyone could remember. But did they know any out, proud, and self-affirming gay and lesbian people? Probably not.

Fast-forward to today. Is there anyone left who doesn’t know a family member, co-worker, or neighbor who is gay? The reason, of course, is that the intervening decades have seen the unprecedented efforts of gay and lesbian people to make themselves known – as gay and lesbian – to their families, co-workers, and friends. Progress, of course, has proceeded at differing rates based on geography and culture. Metropolitan areas, to which many gay and lesbian people have gravitated because of both anonymity and generally more liberal attitudes, were the vanguard of these public admissions of sexual orientation, and these more secular, less religious, settings have provided more open and accepting environments for coming out. But the real shift in the culture has been the quiet, mostly private admissions by sons and daughters, cousins and aunts and uncles, in families from Birmingham to Boise, from Liverpool to Chipping Norton, from Winnipeg to Sydney: “Yes, I too am gay.”

It was the countless dramas, played out one at a time, of gay and lesbian people, courageously sharing who they really were at the core of their being with those they loved or worked with, that has literally changed the world and brought us to this moment.

That’s the way change always happens. You have a world view that seems to work pretty well at interpreting reality—then bam! Something happens that doesn’t fit into that view – something that your old world view can’t even explain. You’re thrown into chaos and confusion, and nothing seems certain anymore. And then, little by little, your old world view is reshaped to accommodate this new truth.

That’s the way it happens for families of gay and lesbian people. Parents believe the traditional view that homosexuals are immoral, sick, disordered, and misguided – until a beloved child comes and says, “Mom, Dad, I’m gay.” The parents are plunged, on the one hand, into the chaos of knowing their beloved children are not immoral, sick, disordered, or misguided, and on the other hand, knowing that what’s been said about gay people by the Church and the world. Over time, they come to understand that their children are exactly the same people they’ve always been, only happier and healthier. The old world view about homosexuality is overhauled into a new understanding that allows parents to continue loving their children. They may not be out there beating the drum for marriage equality (although many of them are), and they may not be bragging to all their friends about their son’s new boyfriend (though some of them may), but something deep and important has changed, some significant piece of ground has shifted, and the world isn’t the same as it was. That is happening all over the world at any given moment.

Sneak Preview of Part 2
There’s not a single nation, culture, or religion that isn’t dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Even those religions that are absolutely clear and unswerving in their condemnation of homosexuality are being challenged by their gay and lesbian members to take another look at that condemnation. Some estimate, for example, that between 40 and 60 percent of Roman Catholic priests are gay. [Stuart, Elizabeth, Chosen: Gay Catholic Priests Tell Their Stories] The Southern Baptist Convention, to which local autonomy is almost sacred, has expelled congregations for offering blessings to same-sex couples or for calling a gay minister. Conservative Jews have admitted gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rabbinical students to their seminaries. Evangelical Christians have been rocked by revelations that some of their leaders have had secret affairs with people of the same sex.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. Order now from Church Publishing.

Part Two of Bishop Robinson's "Civil Discourse" will be published in the next day or two.

Addendum (01/10/08): Continue to Part 2 of Bishop Robinson's essay here.