++Peter to ++Rowan

 

 

Nigerian Primate Peter J. Akinola (left) installed Bishop Martyn Minns (right) as leader of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America during a May 5 ceremony at the Hylton Memorial Chapel in Woodbridge, Virginia. The service drew comments from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori who urged Akinola not to proceed with the installation.

_____________________________________________

Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace, London

Sunday, May 6^th, 2007

My dear Rowan,

Grace and Peace to you from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus the Christ.

I have received your note expressing your reservations regarding my plans to install Bishop Martyn Minns as the first Missionary Bishop of CANA. Even though your spokesmen have publicized the letter and its general content I did not actually receive it until after the ceremony. I do, however, want to respond to your concerns and clarify the situation with regard to CANA. I am also enclosing a copy of my most recent letter to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori.

We are a deeply divided Communion. As leaders of the Communion we have all spent enormous amounts of time, travelled huge distances – sometimes at great risk, and expended much needed financial resources in endless meetings, communiqués and reports – Lambeth Palace 2003, Dromantine 2005, Nottingham 2006 and Dar es Salaam 2007. We have developed numerous proposals, established various task forces and yet the division has only deepened. The decisions, actions, defiance and continuing intransigence of The Episcopal Church are at the heart of our crisis.

We have all sought ways to respond to the situation. As you well know the Church of Nigeria established CANA as a way for Nigerian congregations and other alienated Anglicans in North America to stay in the Communion. This is not something that brings any advantage to us – neither financial nor political. We have actually found it to be a very costly initiative and yet we believe that we have no other choice if we are to remain faithful to the gospel mandate. As I stated to you, and all of the primates in Dar es Salaam, although CANA is an initiative of the Church of Nigeria – and therefore a bonafide branch of the Communion – we have no desire to cling to it. CANA is for the Communion and we are more than happy to surrender it to the Communion once the conditions that prompted our division have been overturned.

We have sought to respond in a measured way. We delayed the election of our first CANA bishop until after General Convention 2006 to give The Episcopal Church every opportunity to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor report – to no avail. At the last meeting of the Church of Nigeria House of Bishops we deferred a decision regarding the election of additional suffragans for CANA out of respect for the Dar es Salaam process.

Sadly we have seen no such respect from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. Their most recent statement was both insulting and condescending and makes very clear that they have no intention of listening to the voice of the rest of the Communion. They are determined to pursue their own unbiblical agenda and exacerbate our current divisions.

In the middle of all of this the Lord’s name has been dishonoured. If we fail to act, many will be lost to the church and thousands of souls will be imperilled. This we cannot and will not allow to happen. It is imperative that we continue to protect those at most risk while we seek a way forward that will offer hope for the future of our beleaguered Communion. It is to this vision that we in the Church of Nigeria and CANA remain committed.

Be assured of my prayers.

Sincerely,

 

Signed,

 

The Most Revd. Peter J Akinola, CON, DD

Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of all Nigeria.

(Church of Nigeria News)

 

 

++Peter to +Katharine

 

2nd May, 2007

The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori,
Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017, USA

My dear Presiding Bishop:

My attention has been drawn to your letter of April 30th ostensibly written to me but published on the Episcopal News Service website.

In light of the concerns that you raise it might be helpful to be reminded of the actions and decisions that have led to our current predicament.

At the emergency meeting of the Primates in October 2003 it was made clear that the proposed actions of the Episcopal Church would “tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues …” Sadly, this proved to be true as many provinces did proceed to declare broken or impaired communion with the Episcopal Church. Since that time the Primates have established task forces, held numerous meetings and issued a variety of statements and communiqués but the brokenness remains, our Provinces are divided, and so the usual protocol and permissions are no longer applicable.

You will also recall from our meeting in Dar es Salaam that there was specific discussion about CANA and recognition – expressed in the Communiqué itself – of the important role that it plays in the context of the present division within your Province. CANA was established as a Convocation of the Church of Nigeria, and therefore a constituent part of the Communion, to provide a safe place for those who wish to remain faithful Anglicans but can no longer do so within The Episcopal Church as it is currently being led. The response for your own House of Bishops to the carefully written and unanimously approved Pastoral Scheme in the Communiqué makes it clear that such pastoral protection is even more necessary.

It is my heartfelt desire – and indeed the expressed hope of all the Primates of the Communion – that The Episcopal Church will reconsider its actions – and make such special measures no longer necessary. This is the only way forward for full restoration into fellowship with the rest of the Communion. Further, I renew the pledge that I made to your predecessor, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, that the Church of Nigeria will be the first to restore communion on the day that your Province abandons its current unbiblical agenda. Until then we have no other choice than to offer our assistance and oversight to our people and all those who will not compromise the “faith once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

You speak in your letter of centuries old custom regarding diocesan boundaries. You are, of course, aware that the particular historical situation to which you make reference was intended to protect the church from false teaching not to prevent those who hold to the traditional teaching of the church from receiving faithful episcopal care. It was also a time when the Church had yet to face into the challenge of different denominational expressions of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I also find it curious that you are appealing to the ancient customs of the church when it is your own Province’s deliberate rejection of the biblical and historic teaching of the Church that has prompted our current crisis.

You mention the call to reconciliation. As you well know this is a call that I wholeheartedly embrace and indeed was a major theme of our time in Tanzania. You will also remember that one of the key elements of our discussion and the resulting Communiqué was the importance of resolving our current differences without resorting to civil law suits. You agreed to this. Yet it is my understanding that you are still continuing your own punitive legal actions against a number of CANA clergy and congregations. I fail to see how this is consistent with your own claim to be working towards reconciliation.

Once again please know that I look forward to the day when this current crisis is behind us and we can all be reunited around our One Lord and only Saviour Jesus the Christ. Until then be assured of my prayers for you and The Episcopal Church.

In Christ,

Signed

The Most Revd. Peter J Akinola, CON, DD
Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of all Nigeria

+Katharine to ++Peter

The Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola
Primate of All Nigeria & Bishop of Abuja
Archbishop’s Palace
PO Box 212 ADCP
Abuja
NIGERIA

My dear Archbishop Akinola:

I am writing this letter with my prayers for you and for the entire worldwide Anglican Communion from a fellow child of Christ.

I understand from press reports you are planning to come to the United States to install Martyn Minns as a bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. I strongly urge you not to do so.

First, such action would violate the ancient customs of the church which limits the episcopal activity of a bishop to only the jurisdiction to which the bishop has been entrusted, unless canonical permission has been given. Second, such action would not help the efforts of reconciliation that are taking place in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion as a whole. Third, such action would display to the world division and disunity that are not part of the mind of Christ, which we must strive to display to all.

I would carefully ask that you reconsider your plans to come to this country for this purpose. This request stems from the hope and vision of reconciliation which was the mind of the primates as we met in Tanzania.

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

Mormonism and Homosexuality: Apostle Jeffrey Holland Speaks

This page contains verbatim reports of an interview with a prominent Latter-Day Saint leader authorized to share the official doctrines and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints regarding homosexuality and homosexuals.

If you have reached this page because you are in crisis over your sexuality or same-gender attraction, or if you are conflicted over the Mormon Church’s teachings on homosexuality,  you may benefit from reading some of these additional links for a wider, inclusive voice from fellow Mormons as you continue to explore your attitudes, opinions and beliefs about homosexuality within the Mormon community:

A Plea for Reconciliation — respecting the dignity and worth of every human being

Mormons for Marriage — promoting marriage equality

Latter-Day Saint Doctrine — the case for civil same-sex marriage

LDS Resources for Latter-Day Saints Dealing with Homosexual Attraction — reliable info for Mormons by Mormons

Signing for Something — D&C 134:9 in action:

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.”

Family Fellowship — Strengthening families with homosexual members in the household

Gay Mormon Stories — First-person narratives of gay Mormon men and women

The Trevor Project – Suicide prevention and anonymous help in time of crisis

Gays and the Gospel — A resource for Latter-day Saints and other Christians regarding the rights, marriages and families of their Gay and Lesbian neighbors

Seeking Forgiveness — Apologies from Latter-day Saints (Mormons) who wish to find peace and reconciliation following the LDS Church’s involvement in passing Proposition 8

Reconciliation — a call for dignity towards, respect for and mutual understanding between Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

If you are suicidal and actively thinking about killing yourself over your same-sex desires, please know that you are a person of great worth, deeply loved by God,  even right now as you find yourself in crisis. To talk to someone, anonymously and confidentially, please call 1-800-488-7386 or go to the Trevor Project home page now.

Cold Comfort: “Hang on, and hope on, and pray on, and [your homosexuality] will be resolved in eternity.”

Background information on the writer

Jeffrey R. Holland was ordained a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on 23 June 1994. At the time of this call, Holland was serving as a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, to which he had been called on 1 April 1989.

From 1980 until his call as a General Authority in 1989, Holland served as the ninth president of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He is a former Church commissioner of education and dean of the College of Religious Education at BYU.

This post reproduces Holland’s recent comments on Homosexuality; the original post can be found here.

Another anguishing issue that faces you and every church: homosexuality. On a personal level, how do you counsel people dealing with that?

“… The emotion and the pain and the challenge of [dealing with homosexuality] has to rank among the most taxing, most visceral of any of the issues that any religious group wrestles with. As others of my colleagues and brethren have, I have counseled hundreds — I don’t know how many hundreds — of these young people. I say young people because often that’s the group that come to us most, but there are people of every age struggling. … The counsel I have given is that God loves them every bit as much as he loves me; the church loves them. We do have doctrine; we do have borders; we do have foundational pieces on which we stand. And moral chastity — heterosexual … and homosexual — are areas where God has spoken and where the church has a position. …

I spoke earlier about the price everyone has to pay for the blessing of the covenant, to be counted within the institutional circle of the blessings of the church. … I have spent a significant portion of the last few years of my ministry pleading to give help to those who don’t practice [homosexuality] but who are struggling with the impressions and the feelings and the attractions and the gender confusion. Or if they do practice or are trying to deal with it, that group I have spent scores of hours with, if nothing else, just saying: “Hang on, hope on, try on. … Get through the night; get to the light.” …

I believe in that light, and I believe in that hope, and I believe in that peace. So I offer it without apology, but I know sometimes that’s thin to people who would want more. Any more than I can see it compromising on its heterosexual position of chastity before marriage and fidelity afterward, I don’t anticipate it that [the church] would change on homosexual behavior. But none of that has anything to do with my belief in the value of that soul and the love that God has for that person.

But it’s just that … there is a quid pro quo in terms of wanting the church’s blessing on our lives. If someone chooses behavior that goes in a different direction, people choose that every day. And while that may make me weep, … people are free to do that. …

I believe with all my heart that it’s divine language; it’s a divine commandment. There really are “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” in life. And in this world, in some contemporary life, thou shalts and thou shalt nots are not popular on the face of it; it wouldn’t matter what subject. But we’ll always have some, and we’ll try to help each other master that and embrace it and see it through and be exalted on the other end.

It’s tough being gay anyplace in society, in any church, but especially here in yours.

Absolutely. I don’t think there’s any question about that. And it’s true of so many other things about the church. We’re so defined by marriage and family. … So it’s got that added component of pain in a church where we do advocate and expect and encourage marriage — traditional marriage, man to a woman, woman to a man — and family and children. And for anyone in whatever gay or lesbian inclination may exist, … the marriage I have and the marriage I’ve seen my children have and I pray for my grandchildren to have, they say, “For me it’s an experience I’ll never have.” And true to the Holland tradition, I burst into tears, and I say, “Hope on, and wait and let me walk with you, and we’ll be faithful, be clean, and we’ll get to the end of this.”

I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. I have a niece who cannot bear children. That is the sorrow and the tragedy of her life. She who was born to give birth will never give birth, and I cry with her. … I just say to her what I say to people struggling with gender identity: “Hang on, and hope on, and pray on, and this will be resolved in eternity.” These conditions will not exist post-mortality. I want that to be of some hope to some. …”

[End of interview.]

Questions for personal reflection

* What importance do you place on the fact that what you have just read was written by a man with the title “Apostle”?  How does this affect the way you “hear” his words or weigh your personal disagreement?

* Do you believe, as Elder Holland writes, that  homosexual people are actually loved by God?  What about being loved by the Mormon Church?

* Do you agree with Elder Holland that gay people, “. . . [struggle] with . . . impressions and feelings and . . . attractions” because of sexual confusion?  How did you reach your personal conclusion?

* Elder Holland writes “I don’t anticipate it that [the Mormon church] would change [its doctrines and beliefs] on homosexual behavior.”  Can you think of any issues or doctrines on which the Mormon Church has changed its official policy?

* Elder Holland believes that there will be no gay people in the next life, and that no person in the next life will struggle with “gender identity.”  On what basis, or authority, does he make this claim?  What does his statement imply about homosexual people in this life?

* Elder Holland says “I have a niece who cannot bear children. That is the sorrow and the tragedy of her life. She who was born to give birth will never give birth. . .”  Does his comparison with his barren niece and homosexual people work for you?  Do you believe that homosexual people lead sorrowful or tragic lives?

Complete these sentences:

“My church teaches me that homosexuality is . . . ”

“I personally believe that homosexuality is . . .”

Do you notice any difference between your statements?

Mormonism and Same-Gender Attraction: Marlin Jensen Speaks

“In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope.” Marlin Jensen: March 2006

This post explores recent statements on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or the Mormon Church, by Marlin Jensen an LDS church historian and member of the First Quorum of the Seventy.

If you have reached this page because you are in crisis over your sexual orientation, you may consider following some of these additional links for a wider, inclusive voice from fellow Mormons as you continue to explore your attitudes and opinions about homosexuality within the Mormon community:

A Plea for Reconciliation — respecting the dignity and worth of every human being

Mormons for Marriage — promoting marriage equality

Latter-Day Saint Doctrine — the case for civil same-sex marriage

LDS Resources for Latter-Day Saints Dealing with Homosexual Attraction — reliable info for Mormons by Mormons

Signing for Something — D&C 134:9 in action

Family Fellowship — Strengthening families with homosexual members

Gay Mormon Stories — First-person narratives of gay Mormon men and women

The Trevor Project – Suicide prevention and anonymous help in time of crisis

Gays and the Gospel — A resource for Latter-day Saints and other Christians regarding the rights, marriages and families of their Gay and Lesbian neighbors

Seeking Forgiveness — Apologies from Latter-day Saints (Mormons) who wish to find peace and reconciliation following the LDS Church’s involvement in passing Proposition 8

Reconciliation — a call for dignity towards, respect for and mutual understanding between Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

If you are suicidal and actively thinking about killing yourself over your same-sex desires, please know that you are a person of great worth, deeply loved by God,  even right now as you find yourself in crisis. To talk to someone, anonymously and confidentially, please call 1-800-488-7386 or go to the Trevor Project home page now.

Here is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 7, 2006 for the PBS Frontline documentary, The Mormons, an exploration into the “. . . richness, the complexities and the controversies of the Mormons’ story as told through interviews with members of the church, leading writers and historians, and supporters and critics of the Mormon faith.” Find the original Frontline post here. Find the ofiicial Mormon response here.

… What is the official position of the church on homosexuality?

… Our position on that is that there is a single standard actually of morality for all members of the church, and that essentially is that we abstain from all sexual relationships and sexual relations prior to marriage. Once we do marry, we are loyal, completely loyal, to our marital partner, and that the only marriage sanctioned by God is of a man to a woman. As Paul said, “Neither is a man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord.”

["Wonderful People" and their Same-Sex Feelings, Thoughts and Desires]

So there is really no allowance within our doctrine for a homosexual relationship of woman to woman or man to man. Obviously that creates a lot of pain. It has created a lot of pain for me just because I’ve known some of these wonderful people who have these feelings, who have these thoughts, who have these desires, and I’ve worked with them in my official capacity as a church leader. … I’ve sat with those that have tried for years to transition to a more traditional way of life and who haven’t been able to produce those feelings in themselves that would permit them honestly to marry. …

[Nature, Nurture and Choice]

The thing that we have to ultimately say … is, yes, there’s nature; yes, there’s nurture; but there’s also agency. We all have the capacity and power to choose. If you’re going to live your life within the framework of the Gospel, within the framework of our doctrine, then you’ve got to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and if you can’t do that honestly, then your choice has to be to live a celibate life. That is a very difficult choice for the parents, for the young man, the young woman, for whoever’s [sic] making that choice, and my heart goes out to them. I think we’re asking a tremendous amount of them.

[Celibacy for the Unmarried and the Homosexual]

And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we’re not asking more of them than we’re asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they’re going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life [homosexual] in his heart and mind doesn’t have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing.

[Being Charitable towards Gays]

We, again, as a church need to be, I think, even more charitable than we’ve been, more outreaching in a sense. A religion produces a culture, and culture has its stereotypes, has its mores. It’s very difficult, for instance, in our culture not to be a returning missionary. What about the young man who chooses not to go, or the parents who marry and for whatever reasons don’t have children, or the young woman who grows old without marrying, or the divorced person? I think we can be quite hard — in a sense unwittingly, but nevertheless hard — on those people in our culture, because we have cultural expectations, cultural ideals, and if you measure up to them, it’s a wonderful life. If you don’t, it could be very difficult. …

[Science and Revelation]

Science is moving toward the idea of a scientific origin for homosexuality. What if this isn’t a choice, but the way people are born? Would that change the church’s thinking about it?

I think that the origins of homosexuality are still very much up for grabs. … I don’t think the church could ever change its position, because gender, gender identification and the idea that a man and a woman coming together in marriage and to procreate and to have a family is such a core element in God’s plan for our life. There’s no room in doctrine, and there’s no room within the plan of salvation, as we call it, or God’s plan for our life, for homosexuality to be accepted. …

At several points in your history there were changes in your doctrine. Is there any way, through revelation, this ban could be changed?

Again, through revelation, I suppose anything could be changed. But certainly, in the consistency with which God has dealt with us from the beginning, the elements of his plan for our life, the essential elements have remained unchanged. That’s why in this context, in the context we were talking about here, the tension between the plan of salvation and the gay person, I just don’t think there’s room for the plan to accommodate the idea that someone can marry, live with, be romantically involved with someone of the same gender and can then be living in accord with God’s plan or our life. It’s too antithetical. Just cannot work within the confines of his plan. …

I feel there’s been a sea [sic] change in the Mormon community I’ve talked to. I still hear “abomination,” but don’t you feel there’s been a change?

“Yeah, I do. We’re more enlightened. We’re more accepting in the sense that we understand this is a condition that some people are dealing with and that even if it needs changing or even if it needs controlling, that can’t be done without our support, our love, our empathy, our interest in them as people. That’s much different, I’m sure, than it was in my youth. I hear very little terms of derision used anymore, for instance, yeah.”

Reframing the Conversation: The Anglican Communion and Human Sexuality

 

Utah’s Episcopal Diocese is speaking out on behalf of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals in the Anglican Communion, issuing a lengthy statement of support that will be taken to a meeting of the House of Bishops in Texas this week:

“We in Utah have been strongly supportive of gay and lesbian people in our life and in our leadership,” says Reverend Canon Mary June Nestler, press officer of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah, “and we wanted to issue a statement that would both encourage marginalized people – people marginalized by their sexual orientation – to encourage them in the face of hearing so much that’s negative about them from our Anglican brothers and sisters worldwide.”

Nestler notes that the 2003 ordination of a partnered gay man as Bishop of New Hampshire has led some church leaders to urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to expel The Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion. However, Nestler says the statement by the Utah Diocese is earning positive response since its release yesterday:

“I have already had emails of support from all over the country; we issued this statement on a listserv as well,” Nestler says.

It is believed that the Epsicopal Diocese of Utah is the only diocese whose deputies and leadership have offered such a response to the wider Anglican Church. Full statement:

A Statement by the Deputies to General Convention 2006, Leadership, and Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah

March 13, 2007

Ye are not now to learn, that as of itself it is not hurtful, so neither should it be to any man scandalous and offensive, in doubtful cases, to hear the different judgement of men.  Be it that Cephas hath one interpretation, and Apollos hath another; that Paul is of this mind, and Barnabas of that.  If this offend you, the fault is yours.  Carry peaceable minds, and ye may have comfort by this variety.  Now the God of peace give you peaceable minds, and turn it to your everlasting comfort.    

(Richard Hooker, “Learned Discourse of Justification”)

Introduction

The Utah deputation to the General Convention 2006 and other diocesan leaders met on February 22, 2007, at the invitation of the Tenth Bishop of Utah, The Right Reverend Carolyn Tanner Irish, to review and discuss the Primates’ Communique from Tanzania.  After several attempts to respond to its various points, we felt called to state who we are as a Church and how we came to be where we are on matters of great importance — rather than simply to respond to descriptions and opinions expressed by others. 

Therefore this document seeks to reframe the conversation of matters now dividing the Anglican Communion worldwide. 

In an effort to produce a document of readable length we have not explicated the issues as deeply as their seriousness demands.  In the hopes of presenting these comments for wider readership and reflection, we make them concisely and offer them prayerfully.

The Baptismal Covenant

The Book of Common Prayer 1979 of The Episcopal Church, pp. 304-305.

Our people seek to live out the covenant of Holy Baptism.  This is the foundation of our identity as Christians, and the vows we make in this covenant are based on our understanding of the essential relationship between God and humanity. 

The covenant is placed at the heart of the baptismal liturgy in the context of the Apostles’ Creed.  Echoing the earliest known liturgies of the ancient Church, the covenant calls each baptized person into faithfulness in prayer, fellowship, eucharistic celebration, repentance, and proclamation of the Good News, asking for commitment in the questions which follow the Apostles’ Creed.  The two final questions are these:

Q:  Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?

Q:  Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?

(We note with appreciation that the substance of these questions is affirmed but differently stated in Sections 3 and 4 of the Report of the Covenant Design Group.) 

We cannot answer “I will, with God’s help” with integrity if we do not love the neighbor who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (hereafter “gay and lesbian”), if we do not strive for justice for all persons, and if we do not respect their dignity by our words and actions.  Our Lord Jesus Christ himself modeled a ministry of care and respect for persons marginalized by their societies.  Bigotry, discrimination, and hatemongering have no place in the life of the baptized.    

Our Baptismal Covenant describes our Christian commitment, solemnly sealed by water and the Holy Spirit and regularly reaffirmed by each of us in liturgy.  We will not lay it aside for the sake of an outward unity.  We are not willing to bear this cost, nor to set the cost on the backs of lesbian and gay people.

The context of the covenant with the Apostles’ Creed is important here.  The Anglican tradition has over the centuries resisted the sometimes forceful calls to become a confessional Church, as in some Protestant traditions.  We hold firmly to the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds as our definitions of doctrine.  We have adopted versions of the Book of Common Prayer in our provinces which we believe rightly reflect the doctrine of the creeds. 

The creeds do not address particular ethical or moral issues, but formulate what is essential to the faith about the nature and work of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.  We do not accept any attempt to elevate particular moral questions and answers to the level of essential doctrine.  The Church has always been free to establish its teachings and discipline with respect to moral issues in ways faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This freedom should not be diminished by temptations to expand core doctrines with litmus tests of so-called “orthodoxy.” 

Defining and Redefining Authority

The Holy Scriptures, Polity, and Documents of Meetings

The Holy Scriptures

Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? …

Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?            
(Galatians 3:2-3)

Judgments about ethics by appeal to the Holy Scriptures alone are foreign to our Anglican traditions, which have always included other sources of authority in their deliberations.  The seminaries of The Episcopal Church have taught biblical studies for more than a century by employing the hermeneutical methods of modern biblical criticism.                             

These methods require that Holy Scripture be interpreted not in their literal sense alone (nearly impossible, since each of us brings our own lenses to the interpretive task), but with reference to scholarship in linguistics, history, narrative, culture, anthropology, archaeology, and other disciplines which, in combination and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, may reveal a yet undiscovered richness in the text.

The interpretation of Holy Scripture is impoverished by narrow understandings and by the selective application of such understandings to complex moral issues.  There is no single biblical morality.  Few biblical scholars would claim that a monochromatic approach to ethics and human behavior exists in the Holy Scriptures.

For these and other reasons Anglicans have historically rejected sola scriptura in the narrow sense that some continental Reformers understood it.  We hold that the Holy Scriptures are indeed the Word of God and do contain all things necessary to salvation, as our ordination oath states, but this written Word of God is a witness to our Lord Jesus Christ, not Christ himself.  Or, to state it differently, following Anglican theologian John MacQuarrie, the Holy Scriptures are not the revelation of God; Christ is the revelation of God, and the Holy Scriptures are the record of that revelation.

The Holy Scriptures, written in antiquity, could not and did not foresee many of the ethical questions we face in our age.  We cherish the revelation of God which comes to us most perfectly in Christ, by whose Mind and in whose perfect example all our biblical interpretation must be prayerfully tested.

Christ’s risen presence and God’s Holy Spirit assist us in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures as communities gather both in liturgy and in synod.  Synods, solemnly and prayerfully met, have historically held the weighty responsibility of interpreting the sacred texts as they formulate the beliefs and actions of our provinces.  The General Convention bears this responsibility, as do the highest assemblies of each of our provinces. 

Polity

Unity in essentials.

Diversity in nonessentials.

Charity in all things.                               (Augustine of Hippo)

We are wary of setting forth any new design for our Communion which creates supra-provincial bodies capable of directing or legislating for our provinces.  Recent disagreements concerning human sexuality have demonstrated that the hope of finding a worldwide path acceptable to all on this or other major issues may be elusive (and, we believe, may not at all times be desirable). 

We are called to demonstrate the values of living with diversity while still seeking to discover the unity Christ alone can give.  Unity cannot be forged violently or artificially out of the fires of dissent.  It is a gift of Christ fervently to be prayed for and thankfully to be acknowledged in those places across the Communion where the fruits of our cooperative ministries are so richly evident.

We value and uphold the rights of provinces to provide for their own episcopate, locally adapted, and to create provincial canons and structures that serve their people.  We do not wish to become a centralized Communion, even one focused on the so-called Instruments of Unity (or Instruments of Communion).  We note that these Instruments allow for precious little participation by lay persons and even less for women, who are not yet called to leadership or even voice in many places across the Communion.

We are concerned that the Communion is addressing proposals to change our polity substantially, driven by the tensions around issues of human sexuality.  We believe this will set a dangerous precedent.  There will come other issues that have the potential to divide us.  These ought not to be resolved by redefining our structures each time they emerge, nor can one newly-created structure hope to anticipate all future demands. 

Provincial autonomy has served us well thus far precisely because it has not demanded uniformity.  It has relied on the exercise of affection, not law, to bind us.  The depth of our worldwide conversations, and until recently their generally irenic spirit, demonstrate how well autonomy works when member provinces and their leaders are committed to the exercise of respect among equals.  Lack of such commitment and practice does far more damage to the bonds of affection than do the contents of any specific issues of debate. 

We affirm, with the ancient Church, the principle of respect for diocesan and provincial boundaries, which is foundational to the integrity of provincial relationships.  Permission is required for any bishop to exercise ministry in another diocese.  Degradation of this principle weakens the whole.

Documents of Meetings

Documents and resolutions that emerge from the Lambeth Conferences, meetings of the Primates, and working groups have value in our ongoing discourse, but they have been recently accorded an authority they simply do not have.  Members of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church 2006 heard the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion assure us that the Windsor Report was one step in a process which will take years to blossom fully.  We know that the Lambeth Conferences’ resolutions have no legislative force, and that no province is required to take upon itself any demands made beyond its own boundaries (and, indeed, some provincial canons make this expressly illegal).  Such is the current nature of Anglican polity.

We are concerned about a creeping authoritarianism, both in the claims made by the groups that produce the documents and also in the manner they are employed in worldwide discussion.  In places it is noted that while such documents have no legal force, they are spoken of nonetheless as representing the “standard of teaching” of the Anglican Communion or as bearing a “moral force.”    

We regret that the documents themselves are being used as if they already have definitive moral and juridical force across the Communion.  Authority cannot be claimed by itself.  It must be recognized and accepted by those whom it governs.  The process of acceptance to which The Episcopal Church and all provinces have been bidden has only just begun.  It may be strongly argued that The Episcopal Church has in fact addressed what has been asked of us through our churchwide structures with greater fidelity than other provinces. 

Human Sexuality

We are well aware that languages and cultures across the world speak of gay and lesbian persons and the concepts of human sexual behavior differently.  Some languages have no words for what the English terms mean; some cultures describe no similar concepts.

The Holy Scriptures do not speak of what we describe in The Episcopal Church as loving, faithful, monogamous, life-long commitments of two persons of the same sex, nor do they speak of the intimate sexual lives such committed persons may express with one another in their relationships.  We must therefore look more deeply within as well as beyond the Holy Scriptures for guidelines that may be brought into dialogue with those passages of Scripture usually employed to address matters of sexual intimacy.  Sustained study, dialogue, and prayer are critical to understanding the mystery and gift of human sexuality.  This Church has offered to the Communion a study entitled To Set Our Hope On Christ, which speaks at length of these complex issues. 

Some cultures have not yet engaged in public discussion of the issues on any significant level because of religious or ethnic tensions within their communities or because of cultural norms or taboos.  We are fully conscious that respectful dialogue and education about human sexuality cannot happen with ease in many places for various reasons.

Nevertheless, we believe the Church must take leadership in this.  We are conscious that many provinces where dialogue and education are possible have not yet undertaken such study.  We urge the Primates of the Anglican Communion to engage as a body themselves, and to offer opportunities to their peoples, for serious study of the scholarship produced in the last decades by researchers in the medical and human sciences as well as the work of a broad spectrum of theologians. 

No true education can take place without hearing lesbian and gay voices in scholarship and in person.  It is deeply distressing to us that gay and lesbian people are being spoken about and not with. 

We hold firmly that each person is a child of God, beautifully and wonderfully made.  We do not sanction the use of any language in our worldwide discussion or from our leaders that demeans, demonizes, demoralizes, or damns people who are gay or lesbian.  We are ashamed that any in our midst have spoken with words that are hurtful and even shameful in our debates about human sexuality.

Language is powerful.  Words, including religious words, can and have incited violence against the gay and lesbian children of God.  No person should be spoken of with a single-identity “tag” meant to define, often in demeaning ways, the whole person. 

For these sins we ask God’s forgiveness and beg our Communion to repent of any participation in this verbal abuse, the power of which to escalate into violence is all too well demonstrated.

At the same time we acknowledge and repent of our culture’s part in the degradation of human sexuality and the ways this has affected other countries, particularly through the entertainment industry.  Many of the truly immoral dimensions of sexual behavior, including abuse, infidelity, pornography, exploitation, promiscuity, and violence, have no doubt stemmed from this general cheapening.  Such behaviors are not to be found solely among people of any one sexual orientation, however.  We do not condone any of these behaviors, yet we understand why many in the Communion may be reluctant to credit any words on sexual morality from the West.

Finally, mindful of our commitment to respect the dignity of every human being, we hope that all Primates and other bishops will work to ensure that pastoral care is provided for all their people, including gay and lesbian members of every province.

Communications

We note that the Internet, so useful a tool for human communication, has served both those who would truly be in dialogue across the globe as well as those who would wield it as a weapon.  The Internet has the capacity to amplify the voices of a few and to misrepresent the positions of others.  While it gives voice to those previously excluded from debate, it can also allow people to hide behind its anonymity.  Its speed and its tendency to suggest urgency lend themselves neither to thoughtful theological inquiry nor, at times, to the dissemination of accurate information. 

There is no doubt the Internet has shaped the conversation on human sexuality worldwide.  It has brought many points of view to the fore.  It has also forced our Communion to make quick responses to momentous issues.  While the Church has never been known for moving with particular dispatch, its employment of the Internet as the primary locus and voice of the current conversations has contributed in large part to the sense of urgency the Communion feels.  The artificial pressures of polity and theology at high speeds are now propelling the Communion to issue demands that The Episcopal Church make responses out of season with our constitutionally sound and canonically-bound processes of decision-making, processes which have served this historic Church well for more than two hundred years. 

These demands for nearly immediate responses misrepresent or ignore our polity.  As is only becoming clear to some across the Communion, our House of Bishops may not speak for the Episcopal Church definitively.  Our House of Deputies, composed of equal numbers of lay and clergy persons from each diocese, must participate and concur in decisions that bind this Church through our own Constitution and Canons and in our relationships worldwide.

Our ongoing dialogues with other provinces of this Communion will benefit from a more accurate understanding and acknowledgement of the polity of The Episcopal Church.  The Communique requests that our Bishops make an unequivocal common covenant that (they) will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention…and confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent…unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.

Our bishops are bound by the decisions of the General Convention of this Church.  They may not, even by common covenant amongst themselves, agree to do otherwise.  They may, of course, individually exercise the latitude allowed them in canons and in General Convention resolutions.  But they may not covenant to act unilaterally to clarify or sidestep the processes of General Convention and to frustrate the freedom and intent of the Constitution and Canons of this Church.  

Conclusion

We respectfully present these thoughts and concerns to the wider Church, praying that they may assist in reframing the debates away from the narrow consideration of human sexual conduct and toward the humanity of those persons who are gay and lesbian, the place of Holy Scripture richly interpreted in our moral decision-making, and the structures of our communities through which we seek to live in the light of Christ.

We encourage our Presiding Bishop, The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, to foster the formation of networks with Primates who are supportive of the actions and directions of The Episcopal Church.  Their collective voice will assist the Communion in understanding that the issues we have spoken of in this paper have support in other provinces and are not solely expressed by many in The Episcopal Church.

We express our desire to continue in the bonds of affection that tie us by the Spirit’s tether, not by the shackles of our own making.  We continue to pray that the Anglican Communion may be a worldwide witness to the saving grace of Jesus Christ in the lives of all its diverse peoples.

O God, you have made of one blood all the peoples of the earth, and sent your blessed Son to preach peace to those who are far off and to those who are near:

Grant that people everywhere may seek after you and find you; bring the nations into your fold; pour out your Spirit upon all flesh; and hasten the coming of your kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

(The Book of Common Prayer 1979, p. 100)

The Deputies to the General Convention 2006  

The Reverend W. Lee Shaw                                        

The Reverend Canon David E. Bailey              

The Reverend Adam S. Linton                                     

The Reverend Susan G. A. Wiltsey                              

Steven F. Hutchinson, Esq.                                          

Mr. Russell P. Babcock                                               

Ms. Karen Cramer-Van Winkle                                   

Col. Jay P. Stretch                                                       

 

The Canon for Ministry Formation

The Reverend Canon Mary June Nestler

 

The Members of the Standing Committee

 

The Members of the Diocesan Council

 

The Tenth Bishop of Utah

The Right Reverend Carolyn Tanner Irish

 

 

The Alternate Deputies 2006

Toni Marie Sutliff, Esq.

Ms. Nancy Appleby

Ms. Ann B. Ellingson

Ms. Barbara Losse

The Rev. Cn. Pablo Ramos

The Rev. Suzanne Duffield

The Rev. R. Michael Mayor

The Rev. Steven Andersen