|
They
could have voted against the Lambeth Conference resolution on human sexuality
holding that 'abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage'
and rejecting sexual activity by gays and lesbians as 'incompatible with
the scripture.' Seventy bishops did so. They also could have abstained,
as did forty-five bishops -- including the Presiding Bishop in the United
States, Frank Tracy Griswold III. Instead, Bishop Peter James Lee and Bishop
Suffragan David Colin Jones of the Episcopal
Diocese of Virginia voted with
the five hundred and twenty-six majority.
Of the 52 ECUSA bishops whose votes were known as of August 28, 1998,
twenty-seven or 52% voted no, eight or 15% abstained, while twelve or 23%
voted yes. So why did Bishops Lee and Jones choose to vote to support the
Lambeth resolution on human sexuality? (ECUSA
Bishops' Votes on the Sexuality Resolution at Lambeth, August 28, 1998).
"'It is in the context of (the) shift in Anglican energy,' writes
Bishop Lee, 'that we should consider the highly publicized resolution the
Lambeth Conference adopted regarding homosexuality ... Many of the Bishops
from the South (Africa, Asia, parts of South America) would have supported
an even more stongly worded resolution than the one that was finally adopted.
In many cultures, the church has no experience with faithful Christians
who are openly gay and lesbian and living in life-long, faithful relationships.
The media, of course, has emphasized what one London tabloid called the
rout of liberal bishops. A more careful analysis of the resolution, and
more significantly, of the report submitted by the section of the conference
that discussed sexuality for two weeks before adopting unanimously its report,
would reveal a commitment to listen to gay and lesbian Christians and to
assure them that they are full members of the church'" (The Rt.
Rev. Peter James Lee, Virginian Episcopalian, September 1998).
"'The Lambeth Conference, in language more strident than
we have used in Virginia, nonetheless affirmed our long-standing policy
in the Diocese of Virginia, and the conference, while affirming the church's
traditional teaching, has opened doors for dialogue that have never before
been opened in some parts of the world. (While Bishop Jones and I voted
for the resolution, we voted against an amendment that I believe was unnecessary
and imprecise. The amendment was adopted so I voted for the resolution unhappy
with some of the language'") (The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Virginian
Episcopalian, September 1998).
In his Memorandum
to the Clergy of the Diocese of Virginia, Bishop Lee describes some
of the complicated details surrounding the event along with "'the prayerful
context in which the discussion on sexuality was held in sub-section at
the Lambeth Conference, and, quite frankly, the more political context in
which the sexuality matter was dealt with in the plenary session.' He also
expands on his view of the church's traditional teaching: 'that we believe
that the normative context for sexual intimacy is lifelong, monogamous,
heterosexual marriage, and in our pastoral practice, we are sensitive and
try to mediate God's grace to those whose life experiences are different
from that norm'" (Memorandum to the Clergy of the Diocese of Virginia,
August 25, 1998).
Bishops Lee and Jones also signed a pastoral statement (released
by Bishop Ronald Haines of Washington on behalf of the signers) pledging
to continue "'to reflect, pray, and work for (Lesbian and Gay Anglicans)
full inclusion in the life of the church'" (A Pastoral Statement
to Lesbian and Gay Anglicans from Some Member Bishops of the Lambeth Conference,
August 5, 1998).
For more, see also Unity and Dissension
at the 203rd Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia.
|
