Presiding Bishop's Letter to the Bishops of the Episcopal Church on the Ordination of a Gay Priest in Diocese of Newark
Episcopal News Service. January 10, 1990 [90009]
As Presiding Bishop I write to put before you serious questions raised by the actions of the Bishop of Newark with respect to the process leading to ordination.
Over the past few day I have talked to numerous members of the House [of Bishops] representing a broad spectrum of opinion. Many of you have shared with me your pain and anger, and I want to tell you that I am not without those emotions myself. I am exceedingly mindful that the 1979 General Convention resolution on the inappropriateness of the ordination of practicing homosexuals still stands, and of my particular responsibility as Presiding Bishop in upholding the authority, mind, and voice of the General Convention.
In my telephone conversations with many of you, issues of the integrity of the General Convention and the boundaries of individual episcopal authority have been seen as just as central to our life as a Church as the actual appropriateness or inappropriateness of ordaining practicing homosexuals.
By this time you will have seen my initial letter to the Church concerning the Newark ordination. The letter's purpose was to make plain three things, which I will reiterate. First, the General Convention has a "mind" on the question of the ordination of practicing homosexuals as expressed by the 1979 resolution. Second, the discussion on this issue continues and is lodged with the Standing Commission on Human Affairs. Third, how we behave toward one another in matters of controversy is a mark of who we are in Jesus Christ.
I would now add that I, along with others, have special concern about backlash against our Christian sisters and brothers who are gay and lesbian. We also must recognize and respond to the many who are offended by the departure from the General Convention stance, and the unilateral and public manner of so doing.
I have consulted individually and corporately over the last few days with my Council of Advice, and with Bishop Borsch in his role as the chair of the Theology Committee. After much prayer and discussion, we believe the question before us is how we as a House can best begin to address these issues for our whole Church of boundaries, collegiality, and authority. While it must be said that the Bishop of Newark does not speak for the Episcopal Church, we do not believe the mission of our Church or the spiritual well-being of the faithful would be served by turning the public spotlight further on him. Unfortunately, to a large degree, that is out of our control.
The Council of Advice and I see questions raised by this ordination. First, what does it mean to live held within the bonds and indeed boundaries of constituted authority as the expression of this Church's understanding of the universal authority and tradition of the Body of Christ? How can we be even more clear that what one does has an effect on the ministry of all the others?
As Richard Norris put it in his essay on "Episcopacy" in The Study of Anglicanism: "Episcopacy in the Anglican tradition has not infrequently been tainted by prelacy or inordinate individualism, or both; and these defects, it might be argued, stem at least in part from structures and attitudes that isolate bishops from those relations of fellowship and communion whose maintenance is the raison d'etre of the episcopal office." Questions for us then are: what are the tolerable boundaries of nonconformity, and what is the responsibility of the college of bishops attending those isolating structures and attitudes?
Next, there is always a tension between the prophetic role of the bishop and the need to defend the faith and not scandalize the faithful. How can we live in that tension and, within the bonds and boundaries of our common episcopal calling, assist one another both in fulfilling the prophetic ministry of bishops and in defending the faith?
Further, are we as bishops clear about the distinction between speaking for the Church and to the Church? Do we understand the difference we each need to preserve between the episcopal office and our individual person?
In January bishops of three provinces will gather. I ask the bishops planning these events to use the gatherings to confront with candor and charity, in the spirit of our Philadelphia discussions, the questions the Council of Advice and I have raised. I will continue to consult with the Council and others of you over the Christmas holidays and in early January about the options with which we are presented. I will thereafter share with you the fruits of those conversations.
I will be back in the office the first week in January and would welcome your communications as we attempt to work through this in a way that will best further the ministry of the Church.
In the meanwhile, I ask your prayers for me, our Church, and our House of Bishops, and I assure you of mine for each and all of you. Please share this letter with clergy and laity as you think would be helpful in your dioceses, and then share with me any statements you may make on the matter. Together we have a responsibility to inform our membership of the General Convention position on ordination, as well as the ongoing study by the Commission on Human Affairs and other Interim Bodies. As we do this, we must also stress the importance of being open to one another and acting in love and charity.
Edmond L. Browning
Presiding Bishop and Primate
December 21, 1989