STEP
III: Engaging the Light of the Tradition
In
light of the biblical contexts explored in Step I,
1. Different
Christian doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, creation, grace)
can each provide a different perspective from which to consider
a subject. For example, if you were reflecting on the subject
of friendship, looking through the doctrine of the Trinity
as a lens might draw your attention to the self-sharing and
freedom between friends as an echo of the relations of the
divine Persons; looking through a theology of grace might
lead you to reflect on whether or how friends are sometimes
able to give freely to each other, quite beyond calculations
of what each deserves from the other.
What
doctrines come to mind as possibly illuminating lenses for
your subject? Some doctrines or teachings of the Church may
relate very immediately to your subject, and some may offer
a helpful side-long view. What is your understanding of these
doctrines or teachings?
2. What
Christian doctrine(s) or teaching(s) seem most illuminating
for your thinking?
3. Among
the doctrinal lenses that your group identifies, settle on
the one or two that seem best for viewing the subject at
hand.
4. Now
let the doctrines begin to shed light on the subject.
· What
new aspects of the subject do you notice?
· How
might the theology of this doctrine re-shape your own thinking?
More general popular thinking?
· What
effect do these new aspects have on your understanding?
· How
do you now see the subject in relation to God?
<top
of page>
STEP
IV: Engaging the Light of Prayer for Discernment
This
step begins with each member of the group working individually
and then returning to the small group. Having prepared your
minds through the reflections of the previous steps, you
are invited to draw your theological work more immediately
into prayer.
2. Now
find a quiet place where you will not be disturbed and give
yourself 15-20 minutes of silence in the presence of God.
Do not read over any notes you have made. Simply hold your
theological exercise before God and ask for divine companionship
and wisdom in your work. Wait peacefully and patiently, without
any sense of urgency or anxiety. Allow God to be present
with you, and allow yourself to be present to God. Listen
with the ears of your heart.
3. Bring
your focused time with God to a close and return to your
group. Reflecting on the following questions, each person
is asked to say what new sense of the subject may have begun
to emerge from the contemplative period.
Give
each person time to speak. Hold you responses and comments
until all have spoken.
· Are
there fresh insights? Are there newly perceived restraints
for theology or for our praxis?
· Pay
particular attention to any sense of divine generosity or
invitation.
· Where
in your reflections about the subject do you sense a possibility
of deeper freedom or joy?
· Are
there any additional biblical or doctrinal contexts you would
like to explore now?
· Is
there any sense of being invited to ask new questions?
· How
does God seem to be present to you now in relation to the
subject?
STEP V: Living
our Theology in Public Life
Continuing
your discussion as a group, the focus now shifts to reflecting
on the public aspects of theology, your ministry, and the
Church’s role in God’s mission.
1. How
do Scripture and your theological reflection and prayer help
you think about the subject in terms of public life (life
in the world, your community, your diocese)? How is the subject
related to important issues of our day?
2. If
you take seriously Scripture and the beliefs, teachings,
and doctrines discussed as you go to work, school, a rock
concert, sports event, or the movies, where would they come
into play? How might they conflict with the operative values,
habits, goals, or behaviors of daily life?
3. What
new opportunities, constraints, and practices arise from
your (new) theological insights or vantage points?
4. How
does this critical thinking and theological reflection inform
and shape your ministry? How might it open your work to God’s
authority and purpose in fresh ways?
5. How
might your theological reflection support the emergence over
time of a sensus fidelium (communal understanding of the
people of God) and the unity of the Church about the subject
considered?
<top
of page>
Report of the Theology Committee of
the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church
Mind
of the House Resolution
It
was moved, seconded, and carried that we receive this
document with thanks as a report of the Theology Committee.
Though it does not reflect in all points the views of
all members of the House, we offer it to the Church for
study and reflection, and thank the Theology Committee
for inviting us into deeper reflection and for modeling
collegiality.
Adopted by the House of Bishops on March 18, 2003 meeting at Kanuga in North
Carolina
THE
GIFT OF SEXUALITY: A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
1. Preface
[1.0]
The House of Bishops, meeting in the 73rd General
Convention of the Episcopal Church, resolved to continue
to study and be in conversation about issues of human sexuality. The
resolution called for the Theology Committee of the House
of Bishops, in consultation with the Pastoral Development
Committee, to prepare a report on the matter, in the hope
that a Mind of the House resolution will result.
[1.1]
The following paper is the product of an eighteen-month study
undertaken by the Theology Committee. The House of Bishops
Theology Committee consists of six
bishops and seven academic theologians of the Episcopal Church who
represent diverse theological viewpoints. The Committee has not attempted
to consider exhaustively all the issues related to the subject of human
sexuality, but has focused primarily on those brought before the 73rd General
Convention. The scope of this paper, therefore, has not included consideration
of bisexual and transgendered persons or the broader range of heterosexuality. It
has been our special concern to encourage the Church to think about
how disagreement over issues of human sexuality may become open to
God’s grace.
[1.2]
In our choice of language and approach we have attempted
to respect the dignity of all persons whose lives and faith
are affected by the complex subject of human sexuality. We
have been sensitive to the cross-cultural issues of the Anglican
Communion of which we are an integral part. For instance,
we have consciously chosen to speak of “homosexual persons”
rather than the self-appellation of “gay men and lesbians”
as widely used in the United States of America. We have
met in the context of corporate worship and prayer and have
held our questions before God for guidance. We have sought
wisdom from Scripture, reason, and tradition. We have been
sustained by our mutual faith in Jesus Christ and our commitment
to God’s mission of reconciliation in the Church and the
world.
[1.3]
We offer this work to the House of Bishops and the Church,
to the glory of God and in faith that, as our Lord promised,
the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church into all truth
(John 16:13).
<top
of page>
2.
Introduction
[2.0]
The Episcopal Church in the United States, the worldwide
Anglican Communion, and many other Christian Churches and
other faith traditions, are engaged in a debate over issues
surrounding human sexuality. Our age has experienced new
challenges in the understanding of the meaning of sexuality
and its ordering for the good of persons and society. Scientific
research into the complexities of human sexual
behavior and technologies such as birth control and in vitro fertilization
are changing how many in our world view human sexuality. We believe
sexuality is one of God’s wonderful, complex, confusing, and, sometimes,
dangerous gifts. At the same time, we have been made freshly aware
of how sexuality can be cheapened and exploited in human society and
made an occasion of sin, hurt, and disorder, rather than the blessing
God
intends it to be.
[2.1]
One of the more challenging areas of human sexuality in our
Church is homosexuality. A certain percentage of human beings
experience and understand themselves to be homosexually oriented. Homosexual
persons are increasingly visible in our society, our churches,
and our communities, bringing particular challenges and gifts
to Christian ethical and theological understanding.
[2.2]
The Christian community, from generation to generation, must
address the new spiritual and moral concerns that emerge
in the experience and understanding of God’s people. The
right ordering of human sexual behavior has always been an
aspect of the Jewish and Christian visions of the good for
human life and society. In relation to new and emerging
learning about the experience of homosexually-oriented persons,
our Church especially struggles with two related questions:
(1) Is it ever appropriate to
pronounce the Church’s blessing on same-gender relationships as we
do on heterosexual marriages and, if so, under what conditions? (2)
Is it ever appropriate to ordain non-celibate homosexual persons, and
thereby commend them as “wholesome examples” to the Church and society,
and, if so, under what conditions?
<top
of page>
3.
The Theological Context
[3.0]
Before addressing issues of homosexuality directly, it is
important to
reiterate the context within which this debate is taking place, namely
that of Christian
theology. Christian theology seeks to discern and articulate the grace
and truth of God revealed in Jesus Christ and to guide the Church in
mission. God, whom we know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has lovingly
created the world and all that is therein. Human beings are graciously
created in the divine image (Gen. 1:26a), but we have fallen into sin
and fail to live into the fullness of this gift and calling. In his
life, death, resurrection, and ascension, Jesus Christ, the incarnate
Son of God, has restored us to unity with God and each other and calls
us to become agents of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18). Empowered by
the Holy Spirit, we are called to grow into, rejoice in, and herald
God’s grace for all creation.
[3.1]
We believe the Old and New Testaments are the revealed Word
of God and contain all things necessary to salvation. We
further believe that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are
enduring statements of the essentials of the Christian faith
and express our basic beliefs about God and God’s saving
work. The truth of the Creeds is further expressed in the
teaching, ascetical discipline, and ordering of the Church
in its pastoral ministry. The Creeds and the great Ecumenical
Councils of the Church thus help us to interpret and live
into the saving story of Scripture. They shape the inherited
faith of the Church in which we stand as Anglicans.
[3.2]
In baptism all Christians are born anew by water and the
Spirit (John 3:5), incorporated into the Body of Christ,
and made part of the Church’s disciplined communal life of
worship and witness. Theology is the way in which we speak
of the mystery of God and express the faith of the Church. Theology
is both derived from and informs our common life in prayer
and sacrament. As we pray so we believe, and as we believe
so we pray.
[3.3]
As Christians, we seek to hold all our thoughts before God
for guidance and blessing. We know this is especially important
in times of intense disagreement. We pray for God’s wisdom,
for the continual conversion and illumination of our minds
and hearts. St. Paul teaches that the wisdom of God is the
great reversal of strength and weakness, as the world understands
these (1 Cor. 1:27-30). Political, military, economic, and
social power often bespeak spiritual weakness. God’s wisdom
and strength is displayed in the humility of the Incarnation
and cross. The cross unites enemies (Eph. 2:15-16) and reconciles
those who are separated and divided by difference. Enmity
and division ill befit the Church, and weaken its ministry
and service to God’s mission.
[3.4]
With Christ, the wisdom and the power of God (1 Cor. 1:24),
we humble ourselves to one another as evidence of God’s reign
in which we participate by virtue of our baptism. Therefore,
we commit ourselves to hold up our deliberations, especially
our most painful areas of disagreement, to the wisdom of
the cross and to the loving mutual scrutiny and testing of
the spirits (1 John 4:1) to which Christ crucified and risen
calls us as members of his Body.
<top
of page>
4.
The Complex Gift of Human Sexuality
[4.0]
Sexuality is a fundamental and complex aspect of human nature,
which we both use and abuse. As Christians we believe it
is part of God’s good creation and intended to be a source
of blessing and joy for human beings. We also believe sexual
desire and behavior can be an occasion of sin leading to
personal unhappiness and social disorder.
[4.1]
The links between love and sexual pleasure testify to the
way in which sexuality blesses human intimacy. Sexual intimacy
has a public and social dimension as well. When healthy
and well-ordered, our sexuality and sexual expressions contribute
to the health and stability of individuals and society. Levels
of sexuality and intimacy are factors in all human relationships
and receive a range of expressions along a spectrum of relationships,
from friendship to family in its various configurations. Within
the context of marriage healthy sexual intimacy supports
the couple and the possibility of children and their care
and nurture.
[4.2]
Yet this great and mysterious gift is often the cause of
pain to individuals and suffering throughout society. Human
beings are most vulnerable in sexually intimate relationships. Our
sexual lives can be very fragile and complex. When disordered,
sexual behavior can destabilize human society and become
a means of exploitation and damage. The staggering divorce
rate in the United States, the proliferation of serial marriages,
and the increase of promiscuity, especially among the young,
attest to the
varied struggles many experience around sexuality.
[4.3]
Why did God give humankind this wonderful and often overwhelming
gift? If we thought it was solely as an aid to intimacy
and pleasure, we might come to a particular set of conclusions. Alternatively,
if we believed it was solely designed as a means of procreation,
our conclusions might be of quite a different character. Our
conviction is that God’s gift of human sexuality embraces
all of these goods, which are perfected in a yet higher reality,
namely, making present in creaturely life a self-sharing
and mutual fidelity that images the divine life and nurtures
and protects both partners
involved and the well-being of the social order.
[4.4]
Holy Scripture teaches that God gave sex as one of the means
for married persons to share themselves with each other (1
Cor. 7:3-5); for procreation (Gen. 1:28); and to be an icon,
on the human level, of the relationships between God and
the people of Israel, and Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:25-33).
[4.5]
We also recognize there is a range of sexual identities among
human beings, and a portion of the population experiences
itself as having a homosexual orientation. As Christians,
we affirm that persons of all sexual orientations are created
in the image of God, and they are full members of the human
family. The Church vigorously denounces discrimination and
violence based on sexual orientation, and we call upon all
members of our society, and especially members of the body
of Christ, to honor their baptismal vow to respect the full
humanity and dignity of every human being (BCP 305).
[4.6]
If we have correctly discerned God’s purpose in giving us
the gift of human sexuality, and if there are those both
within and outside of the Church who experience themselves
as exclusively homosexual in their sexual orientation, difficult
questions inevitably arise as to what patterns of sexual
intimacy are most congruent with the holiness of God’s self-giving
life. In particular, many are asking, with attendant pastoral
concern, whether some forms of homosexual activity might
be open to God’s blessing in ways the Church has not previously
recognized. Does the Church remain persuaded that all expressions
of homosexual intimacy are sinful, or are there conditions
under which we might be able to recognize that intimacy as
a source of God’s blessing, just as is true in some, though
not all, expressions of heterosexual intimacy?
[4.7]
If some, though not all, expressions of homosexual intimacy
might be open to the blessing of God, might they also be
open to the blessing of the Church? If so, which ones? Under
what conditions? Would the Church’s blessing be considered
in any sense
a marital blessing? Parallel or analogous to marriage? Or
something else? And if something else, what?
[4.8]
If some, though not all, expressions of homosexual intimacy
might be open to the blessing of God, and the blessing of
the Church, is it thus appropriate for the Church to ordain
as “wholesome examples” certain non-celibate homosexual persons? Again
we would have to ask: which ones? And under what conditions?
[4.9]
These questions are controversial in part because they challenge
the Church’s traditional understanding of human sexuality
which can be summarized as follows: Holy Scripture nowhere
condones homosexual practice; in fact, a few passages of
Hebrew Scripture and of letters of Paul explicitly proscribe
homosexual acts; marriage is defined as the joining together
of a man and a woman; marriage is the only appropriate setting
for genital sexual intimacy; the norm for singleness, as
for marriage, is chastity; but in the case of singleness
that norm means abstinence.
<top
of page>
5.
Disagreement and Division
[5.0]
The Episcopal Church, and the larger Anglican Communion,
belongs to the
tradition of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and we
are thereby bound by the decisions of the first Four Ecumenical Councils. These
decided the Trinitarian
identity of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Creator of heaven
and earth; and the full humanity and full divinity of Christ. These
two great doctrines anchor the Church in orthodoxy. As Anglicans
we further believe Christian unity is grounded in the principles of
the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (BCP 876-878). It is our conviction
that only those issues that undermine these foundational doctrines
and commitments should
constitute grounds for separation within the Church.
[5.1]
We are aware, of course, that many other matters over the
long course of Church history have in fact divided the Body
of Christ. In many cases institutional arrogance, corruption,
or timidity have underlain Church fracture. Other instances
of Church division have been highly principled, including
some over doctrinal issues that were never universally or
even generally agreed upon at any council or public synod. Often
such divisions are framed as a necessary pursuit of holiness.
[5.2]
Nevertheless, authentic fidelity to Christ cannot posit the
Church’s unity and holiness over against one another, for
they are integrally related marks of Christ’s Body and only
flourish as they are held together. It is a serious question
whether the unity and catholicity of Christ’s Body can ever
rightly be held over against its holiness or apostolicity
and vice versa. In other words, the holiness of the Church
cannot be received from God and exercised apart from the
continual conversion to Christ that the unity of the Church
calls forth from us all. Apart from an abiding commitment
to remain with one another in Christ, the desired holiness
of one position or another may tend to fall into exclusivity
and self-righteousness. Conversely, apart from a faithful
desire to seek the holiness
and moral goodness of Christ’s Body, an intention to uphold
the unity of the Church may lapse into unrooted toleration.
[5.3]
We believe that disunity over issues of human sexuality in
general, and
homosexuality in particular, needs to be taken seriously by all members
of the Church. And diverse opinion needs to be respected. But we do
not believe these should be Church-dividing issues.
[5.4]
There are those among us who believe that Scripture and/or
the order of
nature render all homosexual behavior intrinsically sinful, and therefore
the normalization of any homosexual intimacy in liturgical and sacramental
practice would so radically depart from the Church’s historic teaching
and practice that it would cut to the very integrity of the biblical
historic Faith. Even though homosexuality has never been the subject
of an ecumenical council or the cause of Church division, normalizing
any homosexual behavior, and thus, arguably, changing the Church’s
understanding and teaching regarding marriage and sexual propriety,
would be considered by some due cause for delegitimizing such a Church.
[5.5]
There are others among us who believe that statements of
Jesus and admonitions of Paul which call all within Christian
community to lives of mutual upbuilding and fidelity open
the door to reevaluating at least committed homosexual relationships.
For some, the refusal to normalize those homosexual relationships
that are intended to be “life-long committed relationships.
. . characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection
and respect, careful, honest communication and the holy love
which enables those in such relationships to see in each
other the image of God” (Resolution D039, from the 73rd General
Convention) is the perpetuation of
discrimination, prejudice, and injustice.
[5.6]
Many Christians believe homosexual relationships as described
in 5.5 to be holy and to indicate God’s blessing on their
unions. The Church’s unwillingness to bless such unions
or to accept individuals in such unions as appropriate candidates
for ordination is seen as an oppressive betrayal of Christ’s
love and the denial of the unfolding of the Holy Spirit.
[5.7]
The challenge we now face is how to maintain the unity of
the Church in the face
of such intense disagreement. Despite the common Faith that
makes us one, we confess that on the issues surrounding human
sexuality just now, we are of different minds. The depth
and complexity of human sexuality are reflected in the multiple
understandings and interpretations held by thoughtful people. There
are at least three major perspectives: (1) Homosexuality
is constitutional, i.e., an unchangeable given. Some believe
this form of sexuality is a gift of God and therefore good
in and of itself. As a gift of God, homosexuality is to
be accepted and affirmed by those of this sexuality and those
who support them. Others argue that even if a given, homosexual
behavior is nonetheless an offense against nature and may
be contrary to the will of God. (2) Homosexuality is a psychological
reality that might be changed through therapy. (3) Homosexuality
is a social construct of gender identification and therefore
malleable.
[5.8]
Regardless of the origin of homosexuality, there are at least
two contrary
positions regarding homosexual intimacy: (1) Homosexual genital expression
is always
sinful and is not acceptable within the Christian ethic. (2) Some homosexual
genital
expression is legitimate and Christians should lend pastoral support
for such relationships. Neither the complexities nor the issues end
here.
[5.9]
Some understand the conflict sparked around homosexuality
to be a matter of justice calling for redress of grievances
and violence suffered by homosexual persons at the hands
of both Church and society. Others see it as a pastoral
issue, calling for
compassion. Some believe that the intent of long-term faithful relationships
among
homosexual persons should be adequate grounds for normalizing them. For
others intent does not address the issue. In a world in which all
things have been corrupted by sin, neither our affections nor our
intentions alone can be dispositive. Some see questions about homosexuality
linked to questions about heterosexuality, while others object vigorously
to making such connections. Some believe there is in homosexuality
an inherent disposition to promiscuity, which undermines any argument
that such unions should be blessed. Others are offended at this suggestion,
and point to the high rate of heterosexual promiscuity in reply. Still
others feel the Church is paralyzed by debates about this issue which
distract us from pressing needs for attention to mission. Others would
say this is an integral part of our mission.
[5.10]
To overcome the painful disagreement present among us over
these
matters, some believe compromise is necessary to preserve the unity
and peace of the Church, while others believe that compromise with
the truth as they understand it is not possible.
<top
of page>
6.
Questions about Same-Sex Blessings
[6.0]
The question before the Church is whether some homosexual
relationships are, like some heterosexual relationships,
open to the blessing of God through the Church, or are they
always inherently sinful? And for those who believe that
at least certain homosexual practices are sinful, the question
must be raised, “how sinful”?
[6.1]
We have insisted there are no doctrinal grounds for inhospitality
to
homosexual persons as members of the Church. What, then are the grounds
for refusing to bless the relationships of homosexual couples who are
prepared to commit themselves to the same standards and vows as do
heterosexual couples?
[6.2]
The Episcopal Church is committed “to support” those whose
relationships of sexual intimacy are other than those of
marriage. As noted above, it calls all such
persons, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to standards of life-long
commitment, “characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection
and respect, careful, honest communication” and the kind of “holy love
which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the
image of God” (Resolution D039, from the 73rd General Convention). The
question remains, does extending this support include pronouncing the
Church’s blessing on such relationships?
[6.3]
Those who argue for the Church’s blessing see it as an ecclesiastical
support for the difficult task of sustaining long-term faithful
unions. They contend that the Church need not choose between
supporting heterosexual marriage and supporting the concerns
of homosexual relationships. Just as the Church’s blessing
on Christian marriage is for the sake of the common good
as well as for the psychological, physical, spiritual, and
emotional well-being of the partners, so the Church’s blessing
on
relationships of homosexual couples may be argued on grounds that have
little to do with homosexuality per se.
[6.4]
Those who argue against the Church’s blessing believe it
is a contradiction in terms to bless relationships that involve
behavior proscribed by God. More broadly, they object that
changes in the Church’s moral teaching on this question will
impair the larger witness and mission of the Church.
[6.5]
Liturgy provides cohesion for the Anglican Communion, and
it is through our liturgies that we define what we most deeply
believe as Christians. Because at this time we are nowhere
near consensus in the Church regarding the blessing of homosexual
relationships, we cannot recommend authorizing the development
of new rites for such blessings.
[6.6]
For these reasons, we urge the greatest caution as the Church
continues to seek the mind of Christ in these matters. This
will require a diligent and perhaps painful
willingness on the part of the Church to engage in focused conversation
among all of us, and an openness to the guidance and movement of the
Holy Spirit. We urge the Church to cherish all members of the Body
of Christ without fail, and to seek always for the fullness and diversity
of that unity we are called to in Christ (Rom. 12:4-8).
[6.7]
We call upon the Church to develop and provide pastoral support
and
spiritual guidance and specifically to provide prayers as we wrestle
and discern the will of God with regard to human sexuality and its
various expressions.
<top
of page>
7.
Questions about Ordination
[7.0]
There is a subset of questions that needs further exploration. Chief
among them is whether unmarried, non-celibate persons, heterosexual
or homosexual, should be ordained. In our polity, ordination
is at the discretion of the bishop as overseer in the community
of faith with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee. Sexual
discipline and holiness of life must be a very serious consideration
for bishops, Standing Committees, and Commissions on Ministry
as they discern what constitutes a “wholesome example to
all people” (BCP 544).
[7.1]
We affirm the responsibility of Dioceses to discern and raise
up fit persons for the ministry of word and sacrament to
build up the body of Christ in that place. We call on bishops
and Standing Committees to be respectful of the ways in which
decisions made in one Diocese have ramifications on others.
We remind all that ordination is for the whole Church.
<top
of page>
8.
Living in Disagreement
[8.0]
Our present conclusion is that equally sincere Christians,
equally committed to an orthodox understanding of the Faith
we share, equally looking to Scripture for guidance on this
issue, are deeply divided regarding questions with respect
to homosexuality. It will be crucial for all parties in
this debate to ask God’s blessing on their ever-deepening
conversion in Christ, and to pray for God’s love and forgiveness
to be granted to all. Faithfulness and the courage to offer
love and acceptance to those with whom we disagree is the
great need of the moment.
[8.1]
For these reasons, we believe it is imperative that the Episcopal
Church refrain from any attempt to “settle” the matter legislatively. For
a season at least, we must acknowledge and live with the
great pain and discomfort of our disagreements. The act
of trusting those with whom we disagree intensely bears witness
to the reconciling power of God, which is always beyond our
imagining. Sensitive restraint and mutual forbearance is
needed rather than a vote that might “win” the argument for
some and leave others seemingly rejected. “Let everyone be
quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger
does not produce God’s righteousness” (James 1:19-20).
[8.2]
At the Lambeth Conference in 1998, the bishops of the Anglican
Communion addressed questions of human sexuality. Although
overshadowed by a controversial Resolution on Homosexuality,
the report, Human Sexuality, was well crafted, and
we believe it remains relevant to the present discussion. We
share the principal conclusions of the report:
Clearly
some expressions of sexuality are inherently contrary to
the Christian way and are sinful. Such unacceptable expressions
of sexuality include promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography,
pedophilia, predatory sexual behavior, and sadomasochism (all of which
may be heterosexual and homosexual), adultery, violence against women
and in families, rape and female circumcision. From a Christian perspective
these forms of sexual expression remain sinful in any context. We
are particularly concerned about the pressures on young people to engage
in sexual activity at an early age, and we urge our churches to teach
the virtue of
abstinence.
All
human relationships need the transforming power of Christ
which is available to all, and particularly when we fall
short of biblical norms. We must confess that we are not
of one mind about homosexuality. Our variety of understanding
encompasses:
i)
Those who believe homosexual orientation is a disorder, but
that through the grace of Christ people can be changed, although
not without pain and struggle.
ii)
Those who believe that relationships between people of the
same gender should not include genital expression, that this
is the clear teaching of the Bible and of the Church universal,
and that such activity (if unrepented of) is
a barrier to the Kingdom of God.
iii)
Those who believe that committed homosexual relationships
fall short of the biblical norm, but are to be preferred
to relationships that are anonymous and transient.
iv)
Those who believe that the Church should accept and support
or bless monogamous covenant relationships between homosexual
people and that they may be ordained.
We
have prayed, studied and discussed these issues, and we are
unable to reach a common mind on the scriptural, theological,
historical, and scientific questions that are raised. There is much
that we do not understand.
(Called
to Full Humanity, Section 1 Report, pages, 16, 17)
[8.3]
We encourage the continuing examination of God’s gift of
human sexuality. We urge Church leaders everywhere, both
within our own household of faith and in other
denominations, to join us in seeking the mind of Christ and the wisdom
of God. But the
responsibility for doing so is not reserved to theologians and ecclesiastical
leaders alone. All those who bear the name of Christ share such responsibility. We
believe that by
patience, prayer, and continuing study, with forbearance and charity
for all, God will guide the Church through this season of conflict
to a place of reconciliation and peace for all. Let us support each
other in love and prayer.
Guide
us, O God, in our continuing consideration of human
sexuality to be responsive to and respectful of all persons,
their
ideas and experience. Convert and empower us to listen
penitently and, with humility, to speak honestly with
one another.
Set our disagreements within the mutual knowledge and
love which
we
experience in you as Holy Trinity. Whenever we experience
fear, anger, or mistrust with one another, give us new
hope and
consolation in your never-failing love for your children. In
all
things, let us submit our ideas to your thoughts, our
desires to
your will, and our actions to your purpose. In our diversity
as
members of the Body of Christ, help us find our way, through
Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer.
Amen.
The
Members of the Theology Committee:
The Rev. Michael Battle, Ph.D.
Ellen Charry, Ph.D.
The Rt. Rev. Theodore A. Daniels, D.D.
The
Rev. Ian T. Douglas, Ph.D.
The
Rt. Rev. William O. Gregg, Ph.D.
The
Rev. Canon James E. Griffiss, Ph.D.
The
Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, D.D.
The
Rt. Rev. Robert W. Ihloff, D.Min.
The
Rev. Mark McIntosh, Ph.D.
The
Rt. Rev. Henry N. Parsley, D.D. - Chair
Russell
R. Reno, Ph.D.
The
Rt. Rev. Catherine S. Roskam, D.D.
Kathryn
Tanner, Ph.D.
(Click
here for PDF Version)
