Exodus International - A Time of Trial, Part III: A Discussion Guide on the 1990 Statement of the House of Bishops

Introduction
The foregoing material has reviewed the extensive teaching tradition of the Episcopal Church on homosexuality. We cited a resolution of the House of Bishops in 1990 responding to the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual man by the Bishop of Newark. In this section, we provide a discussion guide focused on that resolution for those interested in delving more deeply into the issues of the Trial of Bishop Righter.

This statement is important not only for what it says, but because of its place in the events which involve Bishop Righter. The Bishop of Newark, Bishop John Shelby Spong, ordained Mr. Robert Williams, on December 16, 1989. Meeting in February 1990, the Presiding Bishop and his Council of Advice put together the statement which follows. Later that year, the House of Bishops gathered in Washington, D.C. On September 18, 1990, the House as a whole adopted that statement as their own. Bishop Righter was at that meeting. Twelve days later, on September 30, 1990, Bishop Walter C. Righter ordained Mr. Barry Stopfel to the diaconate.

In what follows, the text of the resolution adopted by the House of Bishops is set in italics, and comments are set with bullets. The wording of the resolution may be found in the Journal of the General Convention 1991, pp. 501-503. (The Journal records the official actions of the House of Bishops between General Conventions, as well as recording the acts of Convention itself.)

The Resolution of 1990 (1991 Journal of the General Convention, pp. 501-503)
Resolved, That the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church affirm and support the Statement of February 20, 1990, made by the Presiding Bishop and his Council of Advice in regard to the ordination of a practicing homosexual by the Bishop of Newark on December 16, 1989.

The Statement of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice of February 20, 1990 is appended and made a part of this resolution:

We feel called to address issues raised in the ordination, by the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong of Newark on December 16, 1989, of Robert Williams, a homosexual person living in a public, avowed relationship with a person of the same sex. This statement grows out of extensive consultation, initiated by the Presiding Bishop, throughout the Episcopal Church, particularly with respect to the issues of the accountability of bishops and others in authority to the theological tradition of the church and orderly process in church life.

*Who initiated the "consultation" which resulted in the crafting of this statement?
*What reasons are offered for the initiation of this consultation?
*One issue cited "particularly" as a basis for this consultation is that "of the accountability of bishops and others in authority to the theological tradition of the church." How does this notion of "the theological tradition" affect or shape your understanding of "doctrine"?

As bishops of the Province of the Pacific have said, "We do not believe any of us is being responsible with the duties of this office and the polity of this church when one of us acts in such public disregard."

*To what, in your estimation, does the phrase "when one of us acts in such public disregard" refer? In what way (or ways) does Bishop Spong's ordination evidence "public disregard"? "Disregard" of what?

We affirm that the Episcopal Church's position regarding the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian persons is that set forth in a resolution adopted by the 1979 General Convention in which a majority of the bishops and deputies affirmed the following points:

1. There are many human conditions, some of them in the area of sex, which bear upon a person's suitability for ordination;

2. Every ordinand is expected to lead a life which is "a wholesome example to all people" (Book of Common Prayer, pp. 517, 532, 544). There should be no barrier to the ordination of qualified persons of either heterosexual or homosexual orientation whose behavior the church considers wholesome.

3. We reaffirm the traditional teaching of the church on marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are expected to conform to this standard. Therefore, we believe it is not appropriate for this church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any other person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage.

*Notice that this statement asserts that "the Episcopal Church's position" is found in an act of General Convention. Why do you think they are able to say this? How does this statement reflect the importance of an act of General Convention?
*If this statement understood the resolution adopted by General Convention as "recommendatory" only, would that have made a difference in this statement?
*Notice the distinction made between point 2 and point 3: between "orientation" and "behavior." Which of these two is most important in determining who is a "wholesome example" to the Christian community?
*The proponents of Bishop Spong and Bishop Righter have said that this resolution is "recommendatory." If that is so, what do the terms "reaffirm" mean as applied to the Convention which adopted this statement? What does the phrase "are expected to conform to" mean on the part of candidates for ordination?
*If the whole statement is "recommendatory" only, would it be possible for revisionists to claim that a heterosexual person engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage might be ordained? If not, why not?

Not all members of the church agree with this position, as they did not when the resolution was adopted in 1979. Nevertheless, short of action by the General Convention, it is the stated and authoritative position of the church at this time. Because our society is undergoing a deep reexamination of attitudes about sexuality and intimacy, it is not surprising that this should be an arena where we are likely to find disagreement within the church.

*The statement acknowledges that there is disagreement in the Church over what should be done about homosexuals living in committed relationships. Yet, it calls the 1979 action "the stated and authoritative position" of the Episcopal Church. What do you think the framers of this statement meant to convey by these words?

*How does this statement explain the variety of opinions which are in evidence in the Church about sexuality? What does it suggest is the only means for changing the "stated and authoritative" teaching of the Church?
*In general, do you believe that people who disagree with actions enacted by majority vote in a constitutional form of government, have the freedom to act contrary to those actions? In what kinds of situations are persons right to act contrary to majority rule?

For more than a decade, leaders of the church, through the Commission on Health and Human Affairs, have sought to engage the church in reflecting on a number of issues having to do with sexuality. The work continues. We decry the action by the Bishop of Newark, which, far from furthering that discussion, has polarized our community of faith. What is at stake is the discipline of the church in addressing actions that violate the spirit of our common life. As bishops of the Province of the Midwest have stated:

"The richness of our tradition in part flows from the freedom of inquiry that it encourages and the diversity that it engenders. (However) when persons move beyond the broad parameters of our common life, as expressed through the General Convention resolution . . ., the seeds of anarchy are sown."

*What is one outcome of the action performed by Bishop Spong, according to this statement?
*What are the dangers involved in unilateral action, according to the bishops cited?
*According to this statement, there are indeed "broad parameters" in our common life which foster freedom of inquiry and diversity of opinion. How do we know when those parameters have been crossed? Do you believe that there can be order as well as freedom of inquiry? Or are the two mutually exclusive?

While the choice of fit persons for the sacred ministry is canonically a diocesan responsibility, no one diocese or bishop speaks for the whole church, as this would be contrary to the very nature of our life together as an ecclesial body. In the words of bishops of the Province of the Southwest, "Bishop Spong does not speak or act for . . . any diocese other than the Diocese of Newark."

*While dioceses are responsible for calling and raising up persons fit for the ministry, why, according to this statement, can't they define what `fit' means in their own terms?
*In our structure, who can speak for the whole church? How, in your view, should decisions that affect the whole church be made?
*If bishops or dioceses spoke and acted only for themselves, what would become of our unity and communion as a church, in your view?

Bishops are called to safeguard the unity of the church, a responsibility the Newark ordination has seemed to disregard. As the Presiding Bishop and council of Advice, we disassociate ourselves from the action of the Standing Committee and Bishop of Newark in carrying out this ordination.

*Compare this statement to the rite for the ordination of a bishop (in the Book of Common Prayer, p. 517-519). Does the concern for "unity" expressed here faithfully reflect the emphasis found in the ordination rite?
*The Examination of the candidate makes this statement: "With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world." Later, the bishop-elect is asked "Will you share with your fellow bishops in the government of the whole Church?" What, in our current understanding, does the word "share" mean? What kinds of actions might it exclude?
*Why is the Examination carried out, according to the rubrics, with the bishop-elect "facing the bishops" instead of the people who elected him/her?
*What prophetic role is accorded to the bishop in the ordination rite? How is this teaching — or its lack — important for the present controversy?

We regret the hurt and confusion caused for many members of the church by the ordination and by subsequent events. Scandal within the church, whenever and however it may occur, is a profoundly serious matter. We believe that good order is not served when bishops, dioceses, or parishes act unilaterally. We believe that good order is served by adherence to the actions of General Convention.

*This statement says "scandal within the church . . . is a profoundly serious matter." To what does the word "scandal" refer? Why do think the framers of this statement chose the word "scandal"?
*What is meant by the words "act unilaterally"? Do you believe that Bishop Spong was acting "unilaterally"? What implications does this statement have for Bishop Righter's action?

We must stress here that our "disassociation" is not from the many members of our church who are gay and lesbian. Several conventions have affirmed and reaffirmed their God-given dignity, in common with all other members of the body of Christ. We do the same, and value their presence and their service within the church.

*Proponents of Bishop Spong and Bishop Righter have suggested that the presenters have sought to scapegoat the bishops - to transfer to them their private agenda with respect to homosexual persons. What does this statement say about the actions of this Church with respect to homosexual persons?
*This statement "disassociated" the Presiding Bishop and his Council of Advice from the action of Bishop Spong. Were they also engaged in "scapegoating"? When adopted by the House of Bishops as a whole, did this action mean that the whole House was "scapegoating"?

Accepting the challenge to be faithful, a challenge shared by all Christians, we call upon you to join with us in recommitting ourselves to the unity of the church and to the mission of Christ, praying that we may grow in our knowledge of Him who is "the way, the truth, and the life."

*Given this statement, and the circumstances under which it was adopted, do you believe Bishop Righter (or any other bishop) could have been in the dark about what it meant?
*Given the fact that Bishop Righter went ahead with the ordination, do you believe that he was right in doing so?
*What response do you think could have been made at the time which would have restored order to the Episcopal Church?

Conclusion
The breadth of this statement is striking: It not only assumes that the Episcopal Church holds a teaching or doctrine on sexuality, but sees that other doctrines are involved as well. What other doctrines involved in this controversy can you enumerate?

This document was prepared and distributed in support of the Presenting Bishops by: Concerned Clergy and Laity in the Episcopal Church, Post Office Box 36433, Grosse Pointe, Michigan 48236. More information on the purpose and work of CCLEC may be had by calling 1-800-307-7609.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is given to anyone to reprint any of the six sections of this document, provided the sections are used as a whole and without change.

< Previous		Next >