In this month's Voice we have reprinted a letter, dated June 15, 2000, which I sent to our delegation to General Convention in order to express my concerns over a report issued by the Episcopal Church's Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM). The Commission had been asked by the last Convention to study the issue of "Theological Aspects of Committed Relationships of Same-Sex Couples," which is also the title of the resultant report in the General Convention's Blue Book (the collection of documents prepared for each General Convention). The Commission's report concluded with a resolution (Resolution A065) recommending that General Convention grant local bishops the authority to develop rites for the blessing of same-sex relationships.

While I have not previously weighed-in on this issue, I felt compelled to do so after reading the section of the report dealing with "Scripture," written by William Countryman, a Professor of New Testament at CDSP, our seminary in California. Essentially, the essay argued for a minimal place for Scripture in Christian Theology and then offered a series of brief analyses of biblical passages dealing with homosexuality.

As a Professor of New Testament, I not only felt that the article was a poor piece of scholarship, but also that it was erroneous in its assessments. Hence, in my letter, I presented to our delegation a critique of Countryman's brief in order to offset any notions that the views expressed therein were representative of biblical scholarship at large.

Although the letter was written to our delegation, a deputy from the Diocese of Ft. Worth obtained a copy and posted it on a closed email list of General Convention deputies and bishops, thus giving the critique a wider audience.

We reprint it here because too often in the popular press and elsewhere comments appear from biblical scholars who, like Countryman, quickly dismiss the import of the Scriptures in this debate, often characterizing those who hold to the traditional teaching with phrases such as "naive Fundamentalists" or some other patronizing epithet. As I make clear in the letter, it is actually those who minimize the biblical witness in this area who are engaging in some rather ingenious, though fundamentally unsound rationalizations in order to clear the path for their own heart-felt ideologies.

As it turns out, Resolution A065 never made it to the floor of the Convention. Instead, a special committee forged what was dubbed a compromise resolution with eight clauses, only the last of which was viewed as controversial (Resolution D039). It called upon the SCLM to develop "rites for inclusion in the Book of Occasional Services" which would "support relationships of mutuality and fidelity other than marriage." While the House of Deputies voted overwhelmingly for the first seven clauses of the resolution, the eighth resolve was narrowly defeated by the laity, falling short by the votes of three delegations (the clergy actually passed the measure, but with no votes to spare).

The following day, some in the House of Bishops attempted to reinstate the clause, but after hours of sometimes acrimonious debate, the measure was voted down, 85-63. The bishops then passed the other seven parts of the resolution, 119-19. The remaining clauses acknowledge that "there are currently couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church . . . who are living in other life-long committed relationships [besides heterosexual marriage]" and call upon the Church to "provide for them the prayerful support, encouragement and pastoral care necessary to live faithfully by . . . [the values of] fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication" (last clause transposed; click here for entire text).

The ambiguity of the resolution's wording allows for opponents of same-sex rites to interpret the resolution as simply being descriptive—that is, merely stating a reality. Proponents, on the other hand, have already interpreted the resolution prescriptively, arguing that for the first time the Church has given official sanction to sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage. Where the debate will go from here is anyone's guess.

As someone who studies and teaches Scripture and who, through the grace of Christ, attempts to live his life by it, I can only concur with Lambeth Resolution 1.10, overwhelmingly adopted in 1998 by Anglican Bishops in the world-wide Communion, that in view of Scripture our Church "upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage."

At the same time, that resolution recognizes that those with homosexual orientations "are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationship." It therefore calls upon all Anglicans "to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation."

It is unfortunate that so many in the Church view adherence to traditional teachings on sexuality and ministering pastorally to those struggling with homosexual urges as being mutually exclusive. Yet in every other area in Pastoral Theology, such as ministry within Alcoholics Anonymous or another of the 12-Step Programs, this attitude would quickly be identified as "denial" or "enabling."

In fact, such 12-Step Programs for gays and lesbians, while not widely touted by the press, have been well-established for some time now, with success rates comparable to those of AA or NA. In this area, I recommend the book of Harvard psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996), which not only surveys the effectiveness of such programs, but also presents a comprehensive review of the scientific findings on homosexuality.

Several persons who have received the healing of God's grace through programs such as those reviewed by Satinover presented moving testimonies at General Convention, reportedly influencing many who were present. Hopefully, their continued witness will not only lead our branch of the Anglican Communion to rethink its current course, but also provide new possibilities to those caught in the midst of a difficult personal struggle in this area.

Read Dr. Countryman's Essay

Read Dr. Binder's Response

Read the SCLM's Report the 2000 General Convention

Read Resolution D039 with Annotations