Garth Minott, Contributor
V. Gene Robinson, the openly homosexual bishop of New Hamsphire greets an unidentified person during the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, England, in July. Homosexual rights campaigners waved placards as Anglican bishops from around the world met to discuss homosexuality, among other things, at the Lambeth conference, the church's once-in-a-decade summit. The 77 million-member Anglican Communion has been splintering since 2003, when the Episcopal Church, the US Anglican body, consecrated Robinson as its first openly homosexual bishop. - AP
In his article in The Gleaner of Saturday, August 9, Mark Dawes suggests that there should be a radical divide (schism) in the Anglican church. The suggestion is that the presence of homosexuals in the Church, particularly in the ranks of the ordained, means only radical surgery, or separation, can cleanse the community of those deemed unacceptable (homosexuals).
Dawes suggests, by implication, that the "problem" of sexuality would be solved once surgery or schism is carried out. A cursory reading of history suggests that Dawes position is at best naïve. Problems, or challenges, of this kind are not solved by fiat, but by confronting them with the knowledge that they might not be settled in the short term. Such problems or challenges are better addressed through protracted listening and dialogue.
Take, for example, the issue of baptising persons living in polygamous relationships. The Lambeth Conference was first assembled to address this issue in 1888. Bishop Colenzo, an English bishop working in Africa, was authorising the baptism of persons living in polygamous unions. He was reported to the Bishop of London who performed radical surgery. The Bishop of London suspended Colenzo's licence. Bishop Colenzo appealed the decision at the Privy Council and the law lords ruled in his favour. The resulting tensions between the bishops, and their supporters, inspired the bishops in Canada to recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury invite all the Anglican bishops to a meeting at Lambeth palace. The Archbishop issued the invitation and the bishops responded.
polygamous unions
Though the issue was settled legally, the bishops did not accept it until much later. It was eventually settled in the 1940s when the Lambeth Conference decided that those living in polygamous unions can be baptised, provided that they (the men) agree not to add additional wives; this position would also hold if one or more wives died. The Church is, therefore, not in the business of expelling people, rather, as Dawes suggests; we are about preaching the gospel.
If we decide to expel homosexuals from the Anglican Communion we will need to do the same with adulterers, fornicators, paedophiles and those who commit incest. Laws exist to address cases of paedophilia and incest. However, the Church will not expel persons who are guilty of these. Though those found guilty must suffer the consequences of their actions, the Church will visit them, and provide pastoral care, while they are incarcerated or undergoing other forms of punishment. There are some places in the Anglican Communion, Jamaica included, where buggery (specifically male homosexuality) is a criminal offence. The law is specific to male homosexuality and not to females. As in the cases cited above, if men are found guilty of buggery, and incarcerated, it is the duty of the Church to visit them and provide pastoral care. We will visit them since they are still children of God, made in God's image. We also visit, bearing in mind that our visits, or the lack thereof, will form part of the exercise of judgement in the end (St Matt 25).
In other jurisdictions in the Anglican Communion, homosexuality (male or female) is not a criminal act. Any action taken by the Church will need to take this fact into consideration. The same way we are invited to provide a caring response (Resolution 1:10) to those in jurisdictions where homosexuality is a criminal offence, in the same way, we are expected to provide a caring response in jurisdictions where homosexuality is not a criminal offence. The Anglican Communion understands, and accepts, that pastoral care of all persons is essential to the proclamation of the gospel. Dawes expresses this caring response as the proclamation of the gospel.
"Purple-shirted flatulence" is a rather unfortunate term to be used by Dawes to describe the bishops approach to providing pastoral care to persons who are different. In addition, he uses the term to describe the bishops as they seek to exercise due care in addressing a sensitive issue. My understanding of the term, "Purple-shirted flatulence", suggests that the bishops are merely uttering pungent air in their attempt to address a critical issue.
It is true that not all the bishops of the Anglican Communion agree with the position of the resolution cited above. But, as I pointed out earlier, it is not unusual for us to have disagreements among ourselves.
coward's approach
From as early as deciding on whether those who were not circumcised should be baptised, (Acts 15) the Church has been having disagreements. The approach to such disagreements is not to take the coward's approach, which is to seek premature solutions in schism. Rather, the approach is to hear all sides of the discussion and to discern the gospel imperative in our response.
The indaba approach to conversation, taken by the bishops at the last Lambeth conference, was designed to exercise patience in discerning the best way to respond to the issue. The indaba approach is an African way of listening to different voices in a conversation. The goal is to allow all persons to speak, and then, in Quaker style, seek to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit. Dawes seems to be impatient with this process and requires an immediate response. In the case cited above, on polygamy, it took the Anglican Communion 40 years to arrive at a position. The Communion is in no mood to rush the current debate, despite Dawes' pronouncement. We agree with him, however, that the proclamation of the gospel should not be stifled in the process. To that end we proceed and leave all judgement to God. We proceed while leaving the wheat and tares to grow until the harvest.
None of the foregoing discussion is indicative of a wholesale endorsement of the practice of homosexuality. On the contrary, the Church has always held the view that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of Scripture and is not consistent with the traditions received. Nevertheless, the Church does accept that there are persons who wrestle with their sexuality as somehow incon-sistent with established norm and practice.
psychological and spiritual pain
Resolution 1:10, quoted in full by Dawes, attempts to facilitate dialogue and a pastoral response to such persons. The dialogue is not intended to be condescending. Rather, it is designed to affect the indaba process. It seeks to listen and respond, in a constructive and meaningful way, to those who are in psychological and spiritual pain. The approaches to listening and dialogue (indaba) will not only serve to address the present challenges they will also help the Church to respond meaningfully to different, or similar, challenges in the future.
It is not unforeseen that the surgery (schism) proposed by Dawes will inevitable lead to violence against homosexuals. Dawes does not address the issue of violence against homosexuals. However, given the context and the culture in which we live, is it not impossible for persons to draw the (premature) conclusion, following Dawes' argument, that since the Church expelled "those people" then we can carry out our own justice (read violence).
It is this approach and logic, in part, that led to the execution of Jesus. Jesus was first labelled an outsider (blasphemer) and then eliminated (schism). We have heard of cases in which people were first labelled homosexuals and then physically assaulted or killed. This kind of violence must be condemned. Dawes, history has taught us to be careful about labels and drastic actions, without reason. The Anglican Communion does not wish to repeat the mistakes of the past; that would be flatulence.
The original article by Mark Dawes may be found at http://www.jamaca-gleaner.com/ gleaner/20080809/news/news3.html.
Rev Garth Minott is a lecturer at the United Theological College of the West Indies. Feedback may be sent to Gminot1@hotmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.
