Witness, Browning Share Views
Episcopal News Service. September 4, 1986 [86193]
Dear Bishop Browning:
As you may be aware, the Rev. Zal Sherwood, a parish priest, and Anne Gilson, a postulant for Holy Orders, recently have been stripped of their ecclesiastical standings in the Episcopal Church because they revealed in The Witness that they are gay/lesbian. This is only the latest evidence of a type of ecclesiastical discrimination which is eroding the Episcopal Church's pastoral integrity.
The current stance of many church bodies, including the Episcopal Church -- that it is "forgivable" to be gay provided one does not "practice" one's sexuality -- is both duplicitous and ignorant. Sexual preference, be it heterosexual or homosexual, can lead to expressions of fear and faithlessness, or of love and faithfulness. The difference lies not in sexual orientation but in the moral commitments of the individuals involved. Over the centuries, up to and including today, countless ordained homosexual persons have served God faithfully and honorably. The Church is greatly in their debt.
The Episcopal Church is again in danger of continuing too long on the wrong side of a fundamental moral issue. For example, Absalom Jones, a Black man, was ordained a priest in the diocese of Pennsylvania in 1804, but only with the accompanying proviso that his Black church not send a clergyman or deputies to the Convention. Again, a decade ago, women were ordained priests in the Episcopal Church, but their ordination was not recognized by the Church for several years. Indeed, women's ordination still is not recognized as valid and legitimate by some Anglicans. In the cases of both Black and female priests, the Episcopal Church has recognized, only over-time, the rightness of such ordained vocations. In both cases, a Spirit-filled reading of the will of God prepared the way for a more faithful position on the part of the Church at large.
It is not the Episcopal Church alone but the Church Ecumenical whose confusion over this moral scandal cries out for leadership. That leadership the Episcopal Church is peculiarly qualified to provide. The House of Bishops at the 1985 General Convention supported a more just resolution concerning the role of homosexual persons in the Church, even though the House of Deputies by a narrow margin failed to concur. This is the repetition of a pattern seen in the issue of the ordination of women, where favorable votes in the House of Bishops anticipated by some years the positive position the Church finally took.
For these reasons, we, the Editorial Board and staff of The Witness, call upon you, as Presiding Bishop and Chief Pastor of the Church, to lead the way in correcting this pastoral scandal. Pursuant to that, we urge you to communicate to all bishops of the Church the immediate need for a just and humane dealing with gays in the Church, and to encourage the Bishops to accept, ordain and deploy persons who are qualified, irrespective of their sexual preference.
Sincerely,
Editorial Board, The Witness
24 July 1986
My Dear Friends:
I am happy to respond to your Open Letter and hope that the publication of our correspondence will lead members of the Episcopal Church into intentional prayer and careful consideration of homosexuality and the attendant issue of the ordination and deployment of homosexuals.
Your letter points to a number of specific instances with which I am not familiar, and about which I know no details. My public comment on them might detract from the larger question you have asked me to address. I will assume that the persons you mention have established pastoral relationships with their bishops and that all parties are being led into an understanding of God's will for both their individual ministries and that of the whole Church.
It is my experience that little is really understood about homosexuality. There is diverse professional opinion about its genesis, and there are historic myths about the homosexual condition. The persistent lack of real communication on this human condition has fostered mutual distrust between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This distrust has caused separate communities and created walls of misunderstanding. No ghetto is spiritually healthy, and that includes the sexual ghetto.
We cannot ignore nor treat lightly the fact that the Church has understood and taught that marriage is the norm of sexual expression. Roger Shinn, the noted Protestant theologian, has stated it succinctly, "the Christian tradition over the centuries has affirmed the heterosexual, monogamous, faithful marital union as normative for the divinely given meaning of the intimate sexual relationship." In the New Testament selected passages seem to pass judgment on homosexual actions and relationships. I am well aware of those who are ready and armed with these proof texts when discussing this subject. There are many within our Anglican tradition, as well as the other Christian traditions, who can speak with authority on the biblical and theological aspects of homosexuality. There are many exegetical approaches and conclusions about the total witness of Holy Scripture on this subject. I hearing you asking me for a pastoral response.
First, I believe that no one should stand between a person and our Lord Jesus. I have tried to establish a pastoral ministry which brings people to Jesus. It is in relationship to Jesus that we find our true selves and know God's will for us. The Christian must be careful not to call into question another's faith by prejudicial harshness. It is our apostolic ministry of compassion which fosters relationship with God through the love and forgiveness of Jesus.
Second, I believe that the Church must foster reconciliation. Through word and sacrament, the Church can be a loving and reconciling force in the world. Every human being needs love and reconciliation. We must never assume that any one of us is without sin or above the need for penance and reconciliation.
Third, I believe that Jesus' sacrifice for our sins put our guilt and self-rejection within the healing presence of hope and grace. My vision of our Church is that of a community where love and grace abound.
The Church is well aware of my participation in the statement of conscience in response to the resolution concerning the ordination of homosexuals which was passed at the 1979 General Convention. Few, however, have heard all my reasons for opposing the legislation adopted. I have been consistently on record in the House of Bishops opposing those attempts to constrict the established canonical processes granted to the dioceses. In the matter before the General Convention in 1979, I believed that the freedom of the Diocesan Commissions on Ministry was being circumscribed. The duties of the Diocesan Commission and the Bishop are clearly outlined in Title III of the Canons. I believe that these canons give ample guidance to an ordination process that encourages all parties to seek God's call and will, and that should not be encumbered. I continue to hold to that position.
I look forward to growing more conversant with this issue and I encourage the Episcopal Church to gain a greater perspective on homosexuality and to explode and transcend the myths and phobias which impede our common life.
I welcome this opportunity to share these thoughts with you. I hope that they will contribute to a reasoned reflection and discussion within our Church. I do not believe the issue will be resolved quickly, but I pray that the process ahead will be conducted with the awareness that it is done in the presence of our blessed Lord.
Faithfully yours,
Edmond Lee Browning, Presiding Bishop
Ms. Mary Lou Suhor, Editor
The Witness
Post Office Box 359 119 East Butler Pike
Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002