The Biology and Spirituality of Human Sexuality
Class 2: Sexuality and the Church:
What is(are) the debate(s) about regarding sexuality?
June 1, 2003
(Revised 22 June 2007)

Introduction

     In his book, Congregations in Conflict, Keith Hartman writes that "homosexuality is the most divisive element facing the church today. Like the issue of slavery a century and a half ago, it is a matter that stirs up passionate convictions, one that threatens to turn members of the same faith against one another, to divide churches, and even to split denominations."[1] (See Slide 2:)

     What we will do in this class is take a survey of a few denominations and churches inside and outside Christianity to look not only at their views on homosexuality, but on sexuality as a whole. A now dated, but nonetheless very comprehensive survey of denominational views on sexuality (with particular emphasis on homosexuality) is J. Gordon Melton. The Churches Speak on Homosexuality: Official Statements from Religious Bodies and Ecumenical Organizations. Detroit, MI:Gale Research, Inc., 1991.

   Back to Top

The Roman Catholic Experience

     John McNeill has written a book entitled The Church and the Homosexual, currently in its fourth edition.[2] McNeill is a Jesuit who was expelled from the Society of Jesus in 1987 for refusing to stop ministering to gays and lesbians. McNeill is a Catholic moral theologian who wrote the first edition of this book before 1976. He received an official Imprimi Potest, which is the Roman Church's approval for his book in 1976. Like other authors of controversial books, Fr. McNeill went on the talk circuit, and appeared on "Today" and the "Phil Donahue Show." His popularity was not liked by his Catholic superiors, and in 1977 he was forbidden to discuss his book or his views in public. It is interesting that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) that imposed silence on Fr. O'Neill was known as the Holy and Roman Inquisition before 1965.

     The CDF states that "homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God." The Roman position condemns homosexual genital behavior because the Roman Church's criterion for the use of genital sexuality is within a heterosexual marriage. Even as late as 1992, the CDF ignored the fact that the American Psychiatric Association does not recognize homosexuality as a mental disorder. The CDF claimed at that time that homosexuals were mentally deranged and had to have their rights limited.

      The Roman Catholic moral position on homosexuality is based on the foundation work of the 13th century theologian, Thomas Aquinas, as well as a post Vatican II view in which human freedom is acknowledged and limited. (See Slide 3 )

     The Roman Catholic position on dealing with homosexuality is that there are two exclusive aims: (1) To convert homosexuals to a heterosexual orientation, or in the absence of conversion, (2) To abstain from all sexual expression. Consequently, homosexuals are caught in a terrible dilemma. They can either continue their relationship with the Roman church at the price of being deprived of their own potential for personal growth and development of self identity, or to seek personal growth by means of a homosexual relationship, only to be cut off from the sacramental and spiritual aspects of the church. McNeill, who has ministered to gay and lesbian people for many years, believes that the vast majority homosexual people who "attempt to life without any sexual intimacy, who despise their own homosexuality and stay in the closet, end up extremely unhappy, are frequently suicidal, and battle serious psychological problems that often lead to alcoholism, drug abuse, or mental breakdown."[3] Consequently, McNeill believes that a serious reappraisal of the Roman Church's stance on homosexuality is needed.

     The Catholic moral theological position on homosexuality has tempered somewhat, although there are considerable differences between the American and Italian branches of the Roman Church. One view (not McNeill's) is that instead of declaring homosexuality entirely sinful and immoral, there can be a compromise, in recognition of the (Catholic) doctrine of sin. According to this view (promoted by Charles E. Curran), homosexuality is not objectively wrong because in the presence of sin it is the only viable option for sexual expression for a homosexual.[4] (See Slide 4; ). Thus the homosexual can engage in homosexual acts recognizing that the action itself if wrong, and is a manifestation of sin. If possible, the homosexual should try to overcome sin, but at the same time the Christian homosexual knows that the struggle against sin cannot really be overcome in this world. Thus, the homosexual can engage in what the Roman Church declares as immoral behavior because homosexuals are (like all human beings) objectively sinful. However, the homosexual must so everything they can to rid themselves of the need of a homosexual relationship because it is sinful. (See Slide 5; )

Back to Top

The Presbyterian Perspective

     The debate over homosexuality in the Presbyterian Church as been hotly debated since 1978, however the issue has not been over morals. Rather the issue has been over legitimizing same-sex unions. (Slide 6; )A good history can be obtained on line at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pru.htm.

     In 1978, the Presbyterian General Assembly established a policy recognizing homosexuals as Children of God, but condemning homosexual behavior as incompatible with Christian faith and life. [5] Since that time, charges have been brought against some churches for allowing gay and lesbians to be deacons and elders, a majority report promoting the acceptance of homosexual relationships like heterosexual ones was overruled at the 1988 General Assembly, and a measure forbidding ministers to perform same-sex unions was put in effect by General Assembly in 1995. (Slide 7; )

     In 1997, the U.S. Presbyterian Church passed a law requiring all unmarried ministers, deacons and elders to be sexually celibate. Some Presbyterian leaders argued that the purpose of the law was to keep gays and lesbians out of the Presbyterian ministry. Scores of Presbyterian churches signed a covenant of dissent.

     In 2000, an overture (similar to our resolutions) was narrowly passed that said, "Scripture and our Confessions teach that God's intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness. Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall not take part in conducting, any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God's intention as expressed in the preceding sentence." (Slide 8; ) This demonstrates that the Presbyterian Church, is split into two approximately equal parts, one part favoring and one part against homosexual unions.

Back to Top

Jewish Perspectives

     There are three basic, traditional categories of Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed. (Slide 9; ) A fourth group, the more modern Reconstructionist Jews, also exist, but that group will not be discussed at length here. The categories of Judaism form a continuum of sorts from fundamentalist right wing Orthodox Jews to the most progressive left wing Reformed/Reconstructionist Jews. All of these groups believe in the general verses from the Torah, and while all branches of Judaism believe the Torah to be the revealed word of God, how they live into it, however, varies widely.

Orthodox Judaism

     The Torah is quite specific. Lev 18:22 states that males shall not lie as with a female. Although this applies only to acts of anal intercourse between males, subsequent rabbinic tradition saw this to include all sexual acts between males.[6] Although female homosexual acts are not specifically prohibited in the Bible, there is rabbinic prohibition of them. Basically all homoerotic acts are prohibited under the rabbinic term giluy arayot, "uncovering the genitals for sexual acts." (Slide 10;)

     Because the Jewish perspective is that God is the One who initiates and sustains the covenant, a relationship with God is what enables attainment of the highest good. The highest good for the public arena is that which comes from the divine. Thus to an observant Jew, God's commandments apply to everyone for good reasons. Also, to an observant Jew, a secular argument, based on reason alone, is questionable special pleading. Consequently, God is the source of both wisdom and authority, and being observant of that, and being in relationship with God, is what provides for right ordering of society for the highest good of its members.

     In the Jewish tradition, pleasure itself is a desirable accompaniment to sexual activity, not its essential purpose. The primary purpose of sexuality relates to the family. Consequently, the prohibition against homoerotic acts is just in both the religious and secular spheres, because sexuality is viewed as something necessary to the initiation and maintenance of the institution of the family. However, note that a homosexual Jew interested in family may make the argument that the traditional institution of blessed unions could be expanded to include them. However, an observant (heterosexual) Jew would argue that such unions preclude procreation and therefore do not support family. As David Novak writes, "What interest foes society have in recognizing [homosexual unions]? But society does have an interest in the production and raising of children because experience has clearly taught us that society, which fulfills a natural need of human beings, intends its own transmission into the future ... [Its new citizens] are best cared for and raised to responsible adulthood in a home founded on a permanently intended heterosexual union."[7] (Slide 11; )

     The Jewish perspective does not see homoerotic acts themselves as unnatural or as sinful in and of themselves. Jews however clearly privilege heterosexual acts because they are procreative and lead to conception and joint rearing of children. What is intended here is the virtue (or "good") of family life.

     Finally, the Jewish moral perspective on sexuality relates to personal inclination (perhaps "will" is a reasonable term to use here). If sexual orientation or need is involuntary (genetically determined, for example), then there are no inherent moral limits one can place on it. But, society (and individuals) place limits on all kinds of such "involuntary behaviors" - including sexual expression. The Jewish perspective is that parents are the "intermediaries between elementary narcissism and human community and society."[8]

     "So in the end, we are left with family life, which includes personal communication and sexual pleasure. Homosexual unions, even if including the good use of personal communication and accompanied by sexual pleasure that is not compulsive, still do not intend the core of the good of family life, which is to procreate ... Judaism makes the severest demand on those who by inclination cannot and do not intend this overall good minimally to refrain from sexual activities that contradict it."[9]

Conservative Judaism

     Conservative Jews are much less harsh on homosexuality. In 1990, they voted to recognize the equality of congregation members regardless of sexual orientation. (Slide 12;) Conservatives have also gone on record as favoring the decriminalization of homosexual activities (including the anal sex forbidden by the Torah) between consenting adults. They support equal rights for homosexuals, and gays and lesbians are often welcome in their synagogues. (Slide 13;)

Reformed Judaism

     Reform Jews are even more liberal about homosexuality. The Central Conference of American Rabbis accepted gay and lesbian rabbis in 1990, and they do not discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation when ordaining rabbis. In March 1996, they voted to support same-sex civil marriages and to oppose state government efforts to ban such unions. It is of note that reform rabbis are still divided on whether to perform same-sex commitment ceremonies. (Slide 14;)

Back to Top

The Unitarian-Universalist Perspective

The Unitarian-Universalists affirm gay and lesbian rights as an essential component of their support for all human rights. Their first resolution on the subject was passed in 1970. (Slide 15;)

Back to Top

The Baptist Perspective (Slide 16;)

 The Southern Baptists

    The largest group of Baptists in the US is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). In 1979 a fundamentalist Baptist was elected president of the SBC. Moderate Baptists tried to wrest political control from the fundamentalists, but by 1989, the fundamentalists were in complete control. In 1992, the Pullen and Brinkley churches were expelled from the SBC. Pullen was expelled because it's pastor, in full agreement with its congregation, had married an openly gay couple. The Brinkley church was expelled because it licensed a gay Baptist student (in the Baptist tradition a minister is first licensed and then ordained after being hired in a ministerial position). The SBC is adamantly opposed to same sex unions.

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship    

     Moderate Baptists formed the separate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The CBF licenses and ordains women. Although the CBF does not have a formal policy about homosexuality and same-sex unions, David Vestal, the Coordinator of the CBF since 1996 has written, "I believe the practice of homosexuality violates the teaching of Scripture. . . . But I will not throw stones at those who live a homosexual lifestyle – or any other lifestyle I believe to be outside the will of God. As a follower of Jesus, I should offer them my love and friendship. I should do this in a spirit of humility that grows from my own need for forgiveness and grace. (See http://www.cbfonline.org/newsstand/cbfnews.cfm?forumid=1126)

Back to Top

The Methodist Perspective (Slide 17;)

     Like the Presbyterians, the Methodists are concerned more with the validity of same sex unions rather than fundamental issues of theology or morality of homosexuality.

     Methodists are guided by the Book of Discipline. Paragraph 65 in the Book of Discipline states that "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." Because of that statement, two ministers were recently brought up on disciplinary charges for performing same sex unions. The Rev. Gregory Dell, the pastor of Broadway United Methodist Church was charged by his Bishop for a same-sex union he performed in 1998. A church trial began March 25 at First United Methodist Church in Downers Grove, Ill. Retired United Methodist Bishop Jack Tuell of Greenbank, Wash., presided. Thirteen clergy were selected to serve on the jury. In another case, a challenge was made to paragraph 65 itself. Paragraph 65 is part of the church's Social Principles, which are contained in a section of the book. In 1998 this paragraph was considered to be fully enforceable.

Back to Top

The Episcopalian Perspective

     It is almost laughable to discuss "the" Episcopalian perspective on anything, since it is characteristic of our denomination to be diverse in its views about nearly everything. Why is that? It is because our tradition had its beginnings in the Elizabethan Settlement. In its efforts to embrace the diversity of Calvinistic Geneva, Lutheran Germany, and Papal Rome, the Church was solidified by the Act of Uniformity and the Act of Supremacy in passed in the early reign of Elizabeth I in 1559. (Slide 18;) Although these were official state acts, they did not legislate a church of absolute uniformity, but rather one of considerable diversity.[10] The creation of the famous via media ("middle way") enabled the Church of England, the forebear of the Episcopal Church in the United States, to encapsulate elements from the principal religious traditions in England at the time. The middle way of our tradition is a blessing and a curse, because we are often accused by other denominations of not standing for anything. But the via media was an intentional formulation that had always endeavored to be more than an attempt at compromise. It is a view that teaches the whole of the catholic (meant to mean "universal") faith without the distortions, exaggerations, over-definitions, or dogmas of the Protestant left and the Tridentine Catholic right.

     So, where does the Episcopal Church stand in regard to sexuality? Given the immense diversity of our people, the Episcopal Church presently does not have a single mind on the issue. Every 10 years, the Bishops of the churches within the Anglican Communion throughout the world meet at Lambeth Palace in England, the see of the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the most recent conference in 1998, the Bishops adopted a resolution that contained five principal elements dealing with sexuality. The classic Anglican pension for pragmatic compromise was shown by the report's recognition that gays and lesbians are loved by God and, along with all baptized members of the church, are full members of the Body of Christ. Although such resolutions are not legally binding on any of the autonomous national churches within the Anglican Communion, nonetheless they carry a tremendous moral and pastoral authority once they are passed by this international convocation of bishops. The five key resolutions pertinent to our discussion are that the conference of Bishops: (Slides 19 and 20;)

• commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality.
• in view of the teaching of Scripture, 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.
• recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and 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 their relationships, and we commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual people. We wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.
  
• while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialization of sex.
  
• cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same-sex unions, nor the ordination of those involved in such unions.

     It needs to be noted that there are members of the Anglican Communion who are very conservative. Some "African and Asian bishops and conservative North American bishops regard homosexuality as nothing less than sinful behavior which is condemned by God. This attitude was illustrated by the comments made by Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma of Nigeria to the press corps immediately before the plenary debate and vote on the sexuality resolution. In his remarks, Bishop Chukwuma expressed his thoughts about gays and lesbians when he said, 'They will suffer the punishment. Not only homosexuals alone but those who condone them'."[11]

     The House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of American (PECUSA), recently accepted a report from the Theology Committee Report entitled, . "Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective." (Click here to view a copy of this report in Adobe pdf format). That report recommended the following: (Slides 21 and 22; )

• The ordination of persons is at the discretion of the Bishop with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee. [7.0]
• Sincere Christians are divided on the issue of homosexuality, the Episcopal Church should "refrain from any attempt to 'settle' the matter legislatively." [8.0-9.1]

     Consistent with the Anglican perspective noted above, the members of the Bishop's Theological Committee noted that they were not of one mind about homosexuality. The range of understanding understanding encompassed: i) Those who believe homosexual orientation is a disorder, but that through the grace of Christ people can be changed, although not without pain and struggle. ii) Those who believe that relationships between people of the same gender should not include genital expression, that this is the clear teaching of the Bible and of the Church universal, and that such activity (if unrepented of) is a barrier to the Kingdom of God. iii) Those who believe that committed homosexual relationships fall short of the biblical norm, but are to be preferred to relationships that are anonymous and transient. iv) Those who believe that the Church should accept and support or bless monogamous covenant relationships between homosexual people and that they may be ordained.

     The committee encouraged the continuing examination of God's gift of human sexuality. They wrote

• "We urge Church leaders everywhere, both within our own household of faith and in other denominations, to join us in seeking the mind of Christ and the wisdom of God. But the responsibility for doing so is not reserved to theologians and ecclesiastical leaders alone. All those who bear the name of Christ share such responsibility." [8.3]

In 2007, Bill Moyers wrote a wonderful summary of the major events concerning the Episcopal Church as it has addressed the issue of homosexuality. It is copyrighted by PBS and published on line as part of Bill Moyers' journal. That material is reproduced below for your convenience, or you can click here to read it on the PBS site.

One central aspect of the Episcopal Church is its emphasis not only on Scripture as a source of authority, but on the equal importance of "tradition" and "reason" in church decision-making and practice. This philosophy is often referred to as the "three-legged stool," and many credit its conception to Richard Hooker, an Anglican theologian from the 16th century.

Yet unlike scripture, tradition and reason are much more subjective terms, affected heavily by culture and context, which helps to make understandable why 77 million Anglican worshippers from all over the world might disagree on an issue as controversial as homosexuality in the church.

Below is a brief collection of major events concerning the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion and homosexuality from 1976 to the present.

1976:

• The General Convention, the governing body of The Episcopal Church that meets every three years, in 1976 voted on two important resolutions concerning gays and lesbians in and out of the church. Yet perhaps more significant was the vote to amend the Canon in order to allow the ordination of women.
  
  It is important to distinguish resolutions, which are non-binding advisory measures for the church, from amendments to canonical law, which then become officially added to the Constitution by which the church governs itself.
  
  
  • Resolution A-69: "That it is the sense of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church."
    
    
  • Resolution A-71: "That this General Convention expresses its conviction that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens, and calls upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality."
    
    
  • Resolution B-005: "The provisions of these canons for the admission of Candidates, and for the Ordination to the three Orders: Bishops, Priests and Deacons shall be equally applicable to men and women."
    
    
• On the question of ordination of homosexuals in the church, the Convention created a "Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health" that was tasked to "study and concern itself with the theological, ethical and pastoral questions inherent in such aspects of human affairs as human health, sexuality and bioethical problems."

• In response to the resolutions passed by the General Convention in 1976, particularly Resolution B005, which called for the equal ordination of men and women, the House of Bishops met in Port St. Lucie, Florida in 1977 and drafted "A Statement of Conscience," which stated that a Bishop did not have to ordain a female priest or bishop if it goes against his conscience.
• Interestingly, many Episcopal officials began using this "conscience clause" as reason to allow the ordination of open gays and lesbians in the priesthood.

• The 1979 General Convention rejected the assessment report put forth by the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health, which spoke favorably about the future prospect for the ordination of homosexuals, and passed Resolution A053:
  
  
  • "We re-affirm 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 person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage."
    
    
• At this meeting, Bishop of Southern Ohio, John Krumm, introduced and 21 other bishops signed a "Statement of Conscience" disagreeing with the Episcopal stance on homosexuality as dictated in Resolution A053:
  
  
  • "We who associate ourselves with this statement are deeply conscious of,, and grateful for, the profoundly valuable ministries of ordained persons, known to us to be homosexual, formerly and presently engaged in the service of this Church. Not all of these persons have necessarily been celibate: and in the relationships of many of them, maintained in the face of social hostility and against great odds, we have seen a redeeming quality which in its way and according to its mode is no less a sign to the world of God's love than is the more usual sign of Christian marriage. From such relationships we cannot believe God to be absent."

• The 1985 General Convention reiterated some of the sentiments expressed in the 1976 conference:
  
  
  • Resolution D082: "That the 68th General Convention urge each diocese of this Church to find an effective way to foster a better understanding of homosexual persons, to dispel myths and prejudices about homosexuality, to provide pastoral support, and to give life to the claim of homosexual persons "upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral care and concern of the Church" as recognized by the General Convention in 1976."

• Bishop John Shelby Spong of Newark ordained the first homosexual male to the priesthood living openly with his partner of five years. "My church's leaders recoiled, but the debate raised consciousness and even the attempts to disassociate the leaders of the Episcopal Church from my actions and those of the Diocese of Newark failed to reveal a consensus."

• 88 Bishops sign "A Statement of Kiononia," affirming support for gays and lesbians in the ranks of the ordained:
  
  
  • "We pledge ourselves to ordain only those persons whom the testing and screening process reveals to be wholesome examples to the flock of Christ. But let there be no misunderstanding, our lives and our experience as bishops have convinced us that a wholesome example to the flock of Christ does not exclude a person of homosexual orientation nor does it exclude those homosexual persons who choose to live our their sexual orientation in a partnership that is marked by faithfulness and life giving holiness."
  
  
• The Standing Commission on Human Affairs of the Episcopal Church issued a report focussing on children and "our sisters and brothers in Christ who find themselves -- among other things -- to be lesbian and gay." While not coming to any definitive conclusions on the ordination of homosexuals, the body urged for the protection and appreciation of homosexuals in congregations. "We have raised difficult and complex issues for the culture and for the Church. They will not be resolved easily or quickly. But we must continue to address them, and we must 'hang in there' with one another while we are discerning where our journey is taking us."

• Bishop Walter Righter, an assistant Bishop of Newark, is tried for heresy by judges of the Episcopal Church, after ordaining Barry Stopfel, a homosexual male in a sexual relationship with another man, six years earlier as a deacon. The charges were dismissed by the court by a vote of 7-1. More about the trial and church discipline.

• The Lambeth Conference, a meeting of worldwide Anglican bishops that occurs once a decade. in 1998, issued Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality:
  
  Important to distinguish the difference between the General Conventions of the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.) held every three years and the Lambeth Conference, held once a decade, and comprised of all representatives of the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is just one small part. Historically, this body, since it represents a worldwide view, has been more conservative than the Episcopal Church itself.
  
  
  • "Those persons who practise homosexuality and live in promiscuity, as well as those Bishops who knowingly ordain them or encourage these practices, act contrary to the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church. We call upon them to repent."

• The Episcopal General Convention of 2000 votes to acknowledge and protect same-sex couples in the church:
  
  
  • "That we acknowledge that while the issues of human sexuality are not yet resolved, there are currently couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in marriage and couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in other life-long committed relationships."

• The Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia voted to authorize the blessing of same-sex unions within the diocese. The vote was 63% in favor (215 to 129).

• The Diocese of New Hampshire nominates and the General Convention confirms the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson as the first openly-gay bishop in a same-sex relationship.

• The Lambeth Commission, a 17-member body created by Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in order to reflect on the growing division inside the Anglican Communion, release the Windsor Report, mandated to "examine the legal and theological implications flowing from the decisions" by the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster. More on The Lambeth Commission Report.
  
  
  • The Windsor Report highlights that change in the church is possible, as evidenced by the inclusion of women in the priesthood, but stresses that this issue was handled Communion-wide, and followed a proper procedure so as not to take anything for granted.
    
    
  • "We particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA) which explains, from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ."
  
  
• Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank T. Griswold, issues a 135 page answer to this charge entitled, "To Set Our Hope on Christ (pdf)."

• The Episcopal Church elects Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the new Primate, a woman who favors same-sex unions and the ordination of homosexuals.
  
• 11 Virginia churches, including some of the largest congregations in the United States, vote to leave the Episcopal Church due to disagreements over leadership and practice.

• Peter J. Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria and chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa, visits Virginia in order to install Bishop Martin Minns as head of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), an offshoot of the Nigerian Anglican church, comprised predominantly of American congregations that broke away from the Episcopal church.
  
• The Communique of the Primates' Meeting in Tanzania in February 2007, asks that the Episcopal Church stop issuing a Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions, and will not elect any further members to the Episcopal Order that are currently living in a same-sex union, by September 30th.
  
• Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, chooses not to invite Bishop Robinson or Bishop Minns to the 2008 Lambeth Conference. "I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the communion."

Back to Top

No Class Next Week, June 1!

Next Class June 15:

The topic for Class on June 15 is What does the Bible say about sexuality? In this class we will look more carefully at the Biblical texts that are often cited in debates about sexuality (and not just homosexuality). It is important for all of us to know the context of these texts and exactly what they say.

Back to Top

[1] Hartman, Keith. Congregations in Conflict: The Battle Over Homosexuality. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996), i.

[2] McNeill, John J. The Church and the Homosexual, 4th Edition. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 1993.

[3] McNeill, xvii.

[4] McNeill, 67-88; Charles E. Curran. "Sexual Orientation and Human Rights in American Religious Discourse: A Roman Catholic Perspective." Olyan, Saul M., and Martha C. Nussbaum (Eds.). Sexual Orientation and Human Rights in American Religious Discourse. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), 85-109.

[5] Hartman, 175-181.

[6] Novak, David. "Religious Communities, Secular Society, and Sexuality: One Jewish Opinion." Olyan, Saul M., and Martha C. Nussbaum (Eds.). Sexual Orientation and Human Rights in American Religious Discourse. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), 11-28.

[7] Novak, 16.

[8] Novak, 19.

[9] Novak, 21.

[10] Berk, Dennis B.A. Embracing Inclusion: Comprehensiveness in Anglicanism. (Reading, PA: Areopagite Press. 1999), 26-36.

[11] Berk, 82-83.

Biology & Spirituality of Human Sexuality Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Sunday School Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Home Page

Visits Since 24 May, 2003:

This publication, ie. this page and the preceding document that has a link to this page, are copyrighted. Except as permitted by the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without the prior permission of the publisher.