August 23, 1998
I was in England during the Lambeth Conference and was deeply disappointed, although not surprised, by the response of the bishops to the issue of homosexuality. The London Times reported the results of the so-called debate as a defeat for the Liberal Wing of the Anglican Communion. It was, of course, much more complicated than that. The image that sticks in my mind is that of a Nigerian bishop attempting to exorcise a patient and long-suffering gay activist. They might just as well have been trying to communicate from different planets.
Both Bishop Swing and the Presiding Bishop have responded to the issues raised at Lambeth with regard [to (omitted)] homosexuals. In conversation with Bishop Swing earlier this week, he told me that the atmosphere was both brutal and vindictive. What follow are some observa- tions which -- I trust -- will be of help to those who feel that, just as we have made great strides in celebrating the companionship of all Chr;istians -- both gay and straight -- in the community of Grace Cathedral, the Anglican Communion, as a whole, has made a giant step backwards. I look forward to our talking this through together in the weeks ahead.
First, let's be clear who we are. We are an Oasis Community with all that that entails. We acknowledge that the vote by the Anglican bishops causes severe hurt against our homosexual brothers and sisters and further contributes to a conspiracy of silence with regard to gay clergy and their committed relationships. There are issues of authority and identity involved here, but our first response is that as Christians it is our first duty to obey our conscience. This community has spent years in prayer, ministry, and action informing its conscience with regard to gays and lesbians. Our position is clear and unequivocal.
Second, let's be clear about history and geography. The debate at the Lambeth Conference was about much more than sexuality. It was a cultural, racial, and economic conflict: rich versus poor, white versus non-white, North versus South. We should take some comfort from the controversies of the past. The pst is a lot messier than we sometimes realize and it takes decades and even centuries for the church to come to a common mind. The debate got off to a bad start not least because of some of the early and informal exchanges between liberals and con- servatives. Several African bishops called homosexuality 'a white man's disease.' Liberals countered that the Africans were 'primitive.' Bishop Spong didn't help matters by saying that Africans had 'moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity.' To castigate African bishops for not being up to date simply made them angry and, frankly, out of revenge, especially when Bishop Spong said 'too bad' when asked if Third World bishops might feel patronized by the remarks.
To be fair to the African and Asian bishops, many of them are part of a minority in a (sic) Islamic world. This is not to demonize Islam, but imagine what it is like for them. The question of homosexuality 'touches the heart of the debate over how to interpret the Bible in the modern world, this debate has provoked anger and defensiveness among bishops confronted in their provinces with the unshakable certainties of Islam and the Koran.' 1
Third, let's be clear about authority and identity. The Lambeth Confer- ence has no authority. We do, nevertheless, have to be answerable to some authority. We, too, are under obedience. Our task is one of discernment. In these days, it isn't always easy to discern when to speak and when to keep silence. Eric James, a distinguished preacher and priest of the Church of England, in 1990 'came out' as a gay man on a TV program. He believed it was time for him to do so. He didn't choose to do so earlier because the time wasn't right. We, too, have to decide when to speak and when to keep silent. We have an inescapable Christian duty to struggle with the issue.
Historically, the Church enjoys and tolerates a wide variety of practice. Archbishop David Crawley of British Columbia affirmed the grace of monogamous same-sex unions. The former Archbishop of Canter- burty, Lord Runcie, who will be preaching here on October 25, admitted freely thathe knowingly ordained practicing homosexuals (an unfortun- ate phrase). Is it hypocrisy or prudence to say that gay lesbian priests can have partners as long as they are discreet? When I was at the High Mass in Chartres Cathedral a few weeks ago, I was placed in a very prominent position near the altar and given communion by the celebrant. Canon Lauren Artress was simply in the congregations. It was felt that it was the right time to allow an Anglican male priest to be front and center but not a woman -- not yet. Hypocrisy or prudence? I think progress is made slowly and haltingly in these matters but the charge of compromise and hypocrisy is a serious one.
The Roman Catholics are having a similar and potentially deeper issue with regard to authority. The Pope's recent apostolic letter,'Ad Tuendam Fidem', stifling debate and calling on the members of the Church to tow the line. Professor Conor Gearty comments in the Jesuit weekly, the 'Tablet': 'To the addicts of moral certainty, the events of the past weeks must have been pure heaven. But consider the conflicts of personality which the whole performance has imposed on the rest of us, in the cheap seats, anxiously looking for exits, wondering whether we should be part of the pageant at all.'2 Roman Catholic dissenters claim to be good Catholics. Canon François Legaux of Chartes said to me, 'Jesuis Catholique. Je suis un homme libre.' Anglican dissenters should take heart.
Alan Jones is Dean of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco.
1 Ruth Gledhill of the London Times quoted in the Tablet, August
8, 1998
2Ibid.
Please sign my guestbook
and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of
WebCounter.
