wfn.org | Lambeth struggles over homosexuality in emotional plenary

["Lambeth98" <storm@indigo.ie>]

ACNS LC098 - 7 August 1998

Lambeth struggles over homosexuality in
emotional plenary session

By David Skidmore
Lambeth Conference Communications

Division in the Anglican Communion over homosexuality widened
Wednesday when the Lambeth Conference adopted a resolution that
includes a strong condemnation of homosexual relationships. 

After a nearly three-hour debate that was often tense and
passionate, conservative bishops emerged victorious with a
resolution that upheld the biblical understanding of marriage
while rejecting sexual activity by gays and lesbians as
"incompatible with scripture." 

The resolution, adopted on a vote of 526 to 70 with 45
abstentions, also opposes the recognition or blessing of same-sex
unions, and the ordination of non-celibate gay men and lesbians.
Though not binding on the Communion's 37 provinces, the
resolution carries moral weight as a statement of Lambeth
Conference. 

Most of the session's debate dealt with proposed amendments to
the resolution proposed by the Conference subsection that had
been considering sexuality. 

Archbishop of Canterbury intervenes

Archbishop George Carey, speaking just before the vote, endorsed
the final version of the resolution to applause from some
bishops. He warned the bishops, however, not to make sexuality
the defining issue of the conference. "If this conference is
known by what we have said about homosexuality," he said, "then
we will have failed."

Acknowledging the "painful and difficult" course of debate,
Archbishop Carey said that nevertheless he stood "wholeheartedly
with the traditional Anglican orthodoxy. I see no room in Holy
Scripture or the entire Christian tradition for any sexual
activity outside matrimony."

He cautioned the bishops not to "impugn the motives of one
another, whatever side we may have taken," and urged the bishops
to continue to listen to each other. "The dialogue," he stressed
"goes on."

But some criticized Archbishop Carey's endorsement of the
resolution just before the vote. At a press conference following
the plenary, Primus Richard Holloway of Scotland said he
"personally was offended by it." The best response given what had
happened, he suggested, "would have been a courteous silence for
those of us who were hurting."

African and Asian voices heard

The strongest support for the resolution came from African and
Asian conservatives who insisted on a strict biblical
understanding of sexual morality. With support of European and
North American conservatives, they pushed through several
amendments that strengthened language condemning sexual
expression by gays and lesbians, and declaring abstinence as the
only acceptable alternative to marriage.

Bishop Wilson Mutebi of the Diocese of Mitiyana (Uganda) said
that in his diocese, and throughout eastern Africa, the Bible is
the foundation for faith. Anglicans in his region, he said, are
aware of what science and philosophy have to say on
homosexuality, but for them the final truth resides in Scripture.
"For us, the Bible and the apostolic tradition have authority
through all our church," said Bishop Mutebi.

 "In the Sudan we know nothing of homosexuality," said Bishop
Michael Lugor of the Diocese of Rejaf. "We only know the Gospel
and we proclaim it."

Bishop Eustace Kamanyire of the Diocese of Ruwenzori (Uganda),
argued that homosexual activity is condemned as immoral in both
the Old and New Testaments. Pastoral care towards homosexuals, he
said, should emphasize repentence. 

He also criticized liberal bishops for continuing to ordain
non-celibate gay men and lesbians and bless same-sex unions,
which "is causing serious damage and scandal to Christ and his
church." 

The Christian faith, he noted, "is not only under attack by
nonbelievers but is actually being undermined by some of the same
people who are supposed to be its defenders."

Subsection work eroded

As amendments from conservatives tilted the resolution to a
harder stance on homosexuality, several members of the sexuality
subsection urged the bishops not to undermine their two-week
effort at reaching a compromise. The subsection's work was being
steadily eroded by amendments, said Archbishop David Crawley of
British Columbia and Yukon (Canada). What had been a document
that presented "a face of love and compassion," he said, "is
gradually, bit by bit, step by step, turning into a judgement and
condemnation." 

The subsection's "painful but deeply privileged" process, said
Bishop David Russell of Grahamstown (Southern Africa) "was an
amazing coming together. Please, please, brothers and sisters,
don't crush that achievement."

But these pleas were largely unsuccessful. While able to retain a
commitment "to listen to the experience of homosexual people,"
the bishops failed to sway others from adding the clause on
"rejecting homosexual practice." 

Bishop Robert Ihloff of Maryland (USA) and Bishop Catherine
Roskam, suffragan bishop of New York (USA), spoke against the
amendment that put the conference on record "rejecting homosexual
practice as incompatible with scripture." The amendment,
sponsored by Archbishop Donald Mtetemela of Ruaha (Tanzania), was
approved 389 to 190.

As a bishop who has had a change of heart on this issue through
his ministry with homosexuals in his diocese-both lay and
ordained-Bishop Ihloff said he was committed to continuing the
dialogue. Bishop Mtetemela's amendment "would ruin dialogue," and
alienate a number of bishops, he said.

Bishop Roskam acknowledged that conservatives had the votes to
adopt the amendment, but said they would not necessarily win the
hearts and minds of the Communion as a whole. "It will be a
Pyrrhic victory, and we will have a divided church," she said.

While a previous speaker, Bishop Peter Adebiyi of Owo (Nigeria),
had called any condoning of homosexuality "evangelical suicide,"
Bishop Roskam asserted that "to condemn it, in the form it has
been condemned, is evangelistic suicide in my region."

Division was on the mind of Bishop Catherine Waynick of
Indianapolis as well. "We have the potential to work either for
unity or for divisiveness," she said. Crusading for correct
answers, as the church has painfully learned, can prove
fruitless, she noted. Often times the church has prescribed a
teaching, only to repent of it later.

"I want to suggest that our call is not to correctness," she
said. "It is to love." As bishops, she continued, "we are to feed
the flock, and more importantly, to love them and to help them
learn to love each other."

Similar pleas were made by other bishops. Bishop Michael Bourke
of Wolverhampton (England) warned the bishops against using the
Bible "to oppress people, especially people who are different."
He also implored the bishops, particularly bishops who see
homosexuality as sinful, to listen to the experience of gays and
lesbians "and confront our own prejudices."

Conservatives meet setbacks

Conservatives, while achieving their overall aims, also
encountered setbacks. A resolution introduced by Bishop Eustace
Kamanyire of Ruwenzi (Uganda) as substitute language was
resoundingly defeated. Originally proposed by the Central and
East Africa Region, it declared all sexual promiscuity, including
committed homosexual relationships, to be sinful, and called gays
and lesbians living in such relationships, as well as bishops who
ordain them, to repentance. 

Also defeated by overwhelming margins were an amendment from the
West Africa Region condemning homosexuality as sin, and an
amendment from Archbishop Moses Tay, primate of Southeast Asia,
that called for the primates to study human sexuality in their
own provinces, rather than engage in a Communion-wide process
jointly organized by the primates and the Anglican Consultative
Council. 

Several conservatives also sought a more explicit condemnation of
homosexuality, among them Bishop Alexander Malik of the Diocese
of Lahore (Pakistan). He criticized the resolution adopted by the
conference as "ambiguous, unclear, and impotent." He also took
issue with the resolution's condemnation of homophobia-later
amended to "irrational fear of homosexuals." Instead of
unequivocally condemning homosexuality, he said, it seems to be
condemning those who oppose homosexuality. "If we speak against
the homosexuals, it is certainly not gay bashing but a matter of
doctrine, faith and dogma," he said.

In perhaps the afternoon's most provocative statement, Bishop
Malik asked whether bishops who ordain non-celibate homosexuals
would consider bringing a resolution supporting bestiality.

Section report on sexuality accepted

The only clear consensus emerging from the plenary concerned the
Section One report, "Called to Full Humanity," which was received
unanimously by the bishops. The report, echoing the section's
submitted resolution, stakes out a middle ground position,
affirming past Lambeth Conference statements on the sanctity of
marriage but also opposing homophobia and "any discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation." 

While affirming marriage as the only acceptable means for sexual
expression, the report recognizes that gays and lesbians are
loved by God, and that all baptized members of the church,
regardless of their sexual orientation, "are full members of the
Body of Christ." The report also acknowledges "that we are not of
one mind about homosexuality."

At the beginning of Wednesday morning's session, Archbishop
Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town (Southern Africa), chair of the
section that dealt with both international debt and human
sexuality, told the conference in his introductory comments: "Our
work was intensive . . . arduous . . . hammered out on an anvil
of pain."

"It is an under-statement to say that the sub-section on
sexuality has been far from straightforward," he said. "Here our
different cultures, theologies and understandings and
interpretations of Biblical texts nearly broke any chance of
coming to some sort of agreement on the question of
homosexuality." 

Even so, through "much careful listening," the sub-section was
able to agree unanimously on the report as a way to "represent
where the Communion is," he said. "This part of our report is not
only about homosexuality. There is much of great value in what it
says about all sexual relationships."

Bishops stunned by decision

Though stunned by the vote, supporters of gays and lesbians
pledged to continue to work for their full inclusion in the life
of the church. At a press conference organized by the Lesbian and
Gay Christian Movement immediately following the plenary session,
several bishops shared their disappointment and their resolve to
stay in dialogue, but questioned whether their conservative
colleagues were equally committed. 

Primus Richard Holloway of Scotland said he "never felt this
depressed and so close to tears in my life," but said he would
continue his efforts as an advocate for gay and lesbian
Anglicans. "I feel gutted, I feel betrayed, but the struggle will
go on," he said. 

As a heterosexual man, Bishop Holloway said he has been aware of
the homophobia experienced by gay and lesbian members of his
church, "but sitting in there this afternoon I felt it."

Bishop Waynick of Indianapolis said she was "saddened" by the
result of the debate. "I think we have chosen foolishly today,
but I believe God is still reigning."

In a written statement handed out after the press conference,
Bishop John Spong of Newark (USA) said the vote would not stand
indefinitely. "Be assured that today's minority will inevitably
be tomorrow's majority," he said. 

Bishop Richard Randerson of Canberra & Goulburn (Australia) said
the decision brought division to the church. Gay and lesbian
members in committed relationships believe they are living
according to Christian values, but by labeling these
relationships as unscriptural, the conference is excluding them
from the church, he said. "I think it is totally inappropriate
for a conference of this sort to 'un-church' people who
conscientiously believe themselves to be members of the church,"
he said.

Chances for further dialogue

Leaders of the Wednesday plenary session were not as willing to
paint the outcome as a debacle for progressives. At a press
conference, Archbishop Robin Eames of Armagh (Ireland), who
chaired the plenary session, said he was not surprised by the
decision, based on conversations he had with bishops during the
conference. He also pointed out that the resolution would be
referred to the Primates for implementation. "Looking ahead, what
the Lambeth Conference said today is to the Primates, 'Monitor
this, watch this,'" he said. "Certain trends will develop. It's
not the end of the story by any means."

Bishop Duncan Buchanan, chair of the sexuality sub-section,
insisted that "nobody's existing ministry will be invalidated by
this development." In some respects, he said, the vote is a step
forward. "Ten years ago an attempt to consider homosexuality was
howled off the stage. At least now the word is part of the
history of Lambeth." 

Nan Cobbey, E.T. Malone Jr., Allan Reeder, Katie Sherrod, Lisa
Barrow-Clough and James Thrall contributed to this article.

For further information, contact:

   Lambeth Conference Communications
   Canterbury Business School
   University of Kent at Canterbury
   Telephone: 01227 827348/9
   Fax: 01227 828085
   Mobile: 0374 800212

   http://www.lambethconference.org