Bishop William Wantland’s Response to the Bishops’ Report

Standing Firm

“It would be impossible for me to respond to the whole document in the short time I have before I leave for other duties for the next several days, but I have reviewed the document (which is rather confused and repetitive) and make observation of several key points:

The scholarship is very uneven, and even totally in error on major points. For example, in showing the difference between TEC and the rest of the Anglican Communion (especially England), these legal scholars state that we elect our bishops by clerical and lay support, while in England the Prime Minister nominates to Parliament a nominee, who is then either accepted or rejected by Parliament. Only our system is fully open to the Holy Spirit, so we cannot conform to the Tanzania communique. First, names of possible bishops are never submitted to Parliament, which has absolutely no role in the choice of English bishops. Second, a number of other Provinces elect their bishops. Third, claiming that the TEC system is the only way the Holy Spirit operates would cast into doubt the election of Matthias in the Acts of the Apostles, not to mention most of the rest of the Christian Catholic world. And how does our selection process prevent us from conforming to the Tanzania communique?

Obviously, a major issue for the Anglican Communion is the question of the election and consecration of Gene Robinson (and the probability of other non-celibate homosexual persons being consecrated bishop). The whole issue of homosexuality is mis-represented in the document. The following statements are made in the document to illustrate the position of these legal scholars:

1. All sacraments should be open to homosexuals. Inclusiveness is a matter of justice.

2. Strict constructionalists see Scripture as the code of law, challenging the authority of Tradition and Reason. These people believe that the Bible is binding even on people living in the 21st century. “Under this perception, the church applies Scripture; it neither makes nor revises it.”

3. Scripture is culturally conditioned.

4. Prescription of homoerotic behavior as a moral rule must be balanced against the costs to people whose sexual identity is with the same sex.

5. Those who oppose any relaxation of the rule against sex outside traditional marriage fail to contemplate the evolution of Christian understanding of mariage to include same sex unions.

Those in opposition to this see the issue as one of justice. It is a Christian imperative to overturn one of the most oppressive prejudices in human society.


I am aware of no one in the Anglican Communion that would claim to deny sacraments to homosexuals. However, there is a great difference between orientation and action. Not only the Old and New Testaments, but the Tradition of the Church has universally condemned homosexual practice. No one should be condemned for what he or she is, but what he or she does, if wrong, should be condemned.

Further, not only does the Church condemn homosexual practice, it also condemns all forms of adultery and fornication. Sexual practice outside a heterosexual marriage is condemned by Our Lord, Himself. Now one of the reasons for this is the medical result of homosexual practice. In a medical survey done in the U.S., male homosexuals actively engaged in sexual practice, live an average of 26 years less than do heterosexuals in an active sexual life. Another survey in Denmark covered both homosexual males and females, and it found that males lived 25 years less, and females 21 years less. In other words, this so-called lifestyle is actually a death style. If we love homosexual persons, we will encourage them to eschew a deadly lifestyle, just as we would encourage an alcoholic to abstain from drinking. Further, not only in Scripture, but in our Prayer Book and Canons, marriage is intended for the mutual support of the husband and wife for each other, but for the procreation of children as well. This is never possible for same sex unions, and children born to members of these unions are always the result of adulterous practice.

Then the paper speaks for fairness between the two sides in this dispute. However, these scholars claim that it is the traditionalist who is oppressing the party for inclusiveness. The following statements indicate this:

1. North American Anglicans are accused of rejecting the traditional Anglican doctrine on human sexuality and the authority of scripture. This is not so.

2. Traditionalists seek to drive the inclusive party out.

3. We must protect the well established rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. (These legal scholars continually identify themselves with the minority, and the so-called traditionalists as the majority.)

4. The process of dealing with the ordination of women in the U.S. is designed to protect all minorities.

To the contrary, the very document itself shows the rejection of the authority of Scripture over and over again. Furthermore, as we contemplate the myriad of lawsuits, the plans of TEC to attack even individual vestry members in these lawsuits, and the highly immoral mis-use of Canon IV. 10 to depose clergy without any opportunity for trial or hearing, and the on-going persecution of those who cannot accept the ordination of women to priesthood or episcopate, we see the falsity of the claim that TEC is somehow protecting “the well established rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.”

I must also comment on the attack on those claiming “impaired fellowship” as being guilty of donatism. First of all, most of us who see an impaired communion existing, do not deny the validity of the orders of those from whom we are now estranged. It is not validity, but the fact that it is not appropriate to share sacramental unity with those whose teaching is seen as error so great that it threatens the very life of Christian souls. I do not deny the validity of Roman Catholic ordinations, but I do not share sacramental union with those who embrace papal infallibility, which I see as very wrong. I do not deny the validity of the authors of this paper, but I do not share sacramental union with them for similar reasons.

I was deeply disappointed that the paper never really addressed the legal question of why we cannot comply with the Primates’ directives. Nothing in our Constitution and Canons would prevent us from putting a freeze on lawsuits. Nothing prevents the House of Bishops from pledging to oppose the consent to the election of any practicing homosexual to the episcopate, or to agree to issue a godly admonition to clergy to refrain from same sex blessings. Nothing would prevent them from agreeing to allow the alternative primatial oversight plan to be put into operation. After all, it is almost exactly what the present Presiding Bishop proposed before Tanzania.”

    Comments & Responses

  1. In his recent response to the declaration of the Six Retired Bishops of ECUSA, Bishop Wantland seems to support the literal application of the Scriptures in his obvious resistance to the Six Bihops’ acceptance of homosexuals in the Church.

    Does the Bp. Wantland have any explanation of why Jesus seemingly was reluctant to pronounce any specific sanctions against homosexuals, while yet doing so in the matter of heterosexual behaviour?

    In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verses 11 and 12, we see the juxtaposition of his teaching about marriage (verse 11), followed by the mention of ‘eunuchs’ (verse 12)- people either not disposed towards, or incapable of, producing children (one of the marks of some homosexuals).

    After saying “It is not everyone who can accept what i have said but only those to whom it is granted” (verse 11), Jesus goes on to say this: (verse 12) “There are eunuchs born that way from their mother’s womb”

    In the absence of any other statement about homosexuality, is it not possible that this statement of Jesus could be taken to include the homosexual condition?

    The readiness of supporters of ‘sola scriptural’ advocates of the Christian ethic must, per se, be willing to tease out this particular acriptural conundrum - posed by no less a person than Jesus himself.

    Posted by  on  09/17  at  07:49 AM

  2. Both sides of this debate are ignorant about homosexuality, especially with respect to women and the issue of genetics.  The best evidence is that homosexuality is most an issue of multiple causality, and it is rarely if ever fixed and genetic.  It is too bad that the Global South has not picked up my article from the front page of the Anglican Communion Institute website.  As a result many people are floundering about referring to the ancient information that appeared in To Set Our Hope on Christ.  Why don’t you go to the ACI website and educate yourselves by reading “Why Theology Should Precede Change”?  The science in my article mainly features the work of homosexuals, and it refutes the fixed and genetic stereotype from TV and the newspaper.

    Posted by  on  09/17  at  10:34 AM

  3. Smith, your only problem is that you have the wrong Bible--go here> New Gender Neutral Bible,
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/617454/posts
    and get your copy today. Better yet, you could write and publish the first Perverted Neutral Bible. A Bible for All man-made sexual orientations. Humm, I wonder what the next sexual orientation could be? Unlike animals, Man has no limitations when it comes to the imagination?

    Please, don’t go crying to the Editor.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  07:40 PM

  4. Ron Smithism 101--Don’t be honest enough to state openly that he/you disagrees/disagree with the Word of God – most people at his level are not, preferring to play a double-game of proclaiming their fealty to Biblical truth, reason and tradition while actually undermining them all.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  07:50 PM

  5. Maryland Court of Appeals upholds marriage as union between one man and one woman:
    http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4248

    Posted by  on  09/19  at  03:17 AM

  6. http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/003431.html#more under comments:


    From Matt 19 - God created us male and female. And for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife, and the two shall be as one flesh.

    Regarding ‘LGBT,’ from the ‘LG’ perspective, I guess this means that Jesus was mistaken in His remarks on creation, as we have now been ordered by secular psychologists (for whom the notion of sin is a joke) to believe that homosexuality is a valid, ‘orientation.’

    As for the ‘B’ in LGBT, I guess this means that some people, contrary to Matt 19, are not to be joined as one flesh with another, but are switch hitters, batting left against right hand pitchers and vice versa. And, since the Bible is silent on bisexuality per se, it must now be ok - right?

    With respect to the ‘T’ in LGBT, clearly God made a mistake in that person’s gender - right?

    LGBT - united in the belief that the God of Israel and His Son make mistakes.

    Posted by nick at September 18, 2007 02:44 PM

    Posted by  on  09/19  at  03:37 AM

  7. Home schooling a viable option; it may be easier than you think, says attorney:
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/09/home_schooling_a_viable_option.php

    http://www.pennywiselearning.com/

    Posted by  on  09/19  at  09:16 PM

  8. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, will demand concessions from the bishops of the US Episcopal Church tomorrow at a crisis meeting aimed at staving off the most damaging split in the churchs modern history, over the issue of homosexuality.

    They will be asked to give guarantees that they will not allow the election of any more openly gay bishops or authorise public blessing services for same-sex couples and will create a structure for separate episcopal oversight for conservative congregations who disagree with the churchs liberal leadership.

    http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/003433.html#more

    I keep reading, “they will be asked to give guarantees that they will not allow the election of any more openly gay bishops or authorise public blessing services for same-sex couples...”

    Soo, I suppose that hidden, behind closed doors, closed, secretly, below radar, in chambers election of gay bishops is in accordance with God’s Laws, Commandments, and Scriptures, and that authorised non-public blessing services for same-sex couples is in accordance with God’s Laws, Commandments, and Scriptures?

    No wonder the Roman Catholic, and now the Anglican Church is contantly sued for millions of dollars-they keep electing and placing perverts below radar.

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  12:57 AM

  9. Terrorists disclose: We LOVE liberals!
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57716

    I always knew that Ron Smith had his followers.

    Socialist Liberals guarantee the death of a Nation.

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  01:33 AM

  10. “On Sept. 11, 1777, the Continental Congress, in the midst of a war for independence, issued an order to the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible. The order was necessary because, in the words of that Congress, “the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great.” Our Congress has always recognized our dependence on the God of the Bible in times of distress, even as recently as Sept. 11, 2001.”
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57702

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  02:25 AM

  11. re article number 10: Would the Editor please tell us: Is your correspondent Gary Morrow an ex War Correspondent for the Fascist Right Movement -now re-emerging as the Klu Klux Klan in Georgia and other Southern States of the U.S.A. His rhetoric on this site certainly would suggest so.

    One would have thought that the Church of God is not served by such hatred as this person spouts on a daily basis. Is it really on behalf of the Bishops of the Global South that your web-site seeks to serve?

    Jesus said, after all: “Blessed are the {Peace-makers, they shall inherit the earth.” On the basis of Gary Morrow’s splenetic utterances on the site, it would seem that he might be working against the Kingdom of God - rather than for it.

    I wonder if a good dose of old-fashioned physic would bring him any relief for his constipation, with a time of prayer and study to follow - and maybe the physic of Christ in the Eucharist?

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  05:59 AM

  12. OHHH, so Ron Smith is trying to pin the Klu Klu Klan label “only” on the South. What a false and misleading premise, created by the Liberal Elite Medias. So I suppose that only the Klan was in the South, and that a majority of Whites in the South was KKK. Is this the best you can do? Why not just stick with the Liberal label--Racist.

    Quess who the real racist were? The Northern States:
    http://www.rense.com/general26/morethan10000.htm

    “There also were Hispanic Confederates. Col. Santos Benavides, a former Texas Ranger, city attorney and mayor of Laredo, Texas, commanded the 33rd Texas Cavalry, while Gen. Refugio Benavides protected what was known as the Confederacy of the Rio Grande. Recent Irish Catholic immigrants also chose to fight for the South, as did a few stalwart Chinese who served nobly in Louisiana.

    The largest ethnic group to serve the Confederacy, however, was made up of first-, second- and third-generation Jewish lads. Old Jewish families, initially Sephardic and later Ashkenazic, had settled in the South generations before the war. Jews had lived in Charleston, S.C., since 1695. By 1800, the largest Jewish community in America lived in Charleston, where the oldest synagogue in America, K.K. Beth Elohim, was founded. By 1861, a third of all the Jews in America lived in Louisiana.

    More than 10,000 Jews fought for the Confederacy. As Rabbi Korn of Charleston related, “Nowhere else in America - certainly not in the Antebellum North - had Jews been accorded such an opportunity to be complete equals as in the old South.” Gen. Robert E. Lee allowed his Jewish soldiers to observe all holy days, while Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman issued anti-Jewish orders.”

    People are leaving the Socialist Liberal Strong-holds of the North every day to come to God’s country-the South. New England is Perverted.

    Would you like to talk about slavery in Europe? You know which Continent the word slave derived from...don’t you?

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  05:32 PM

  13. Ron Smith states in #11: “Is your correspondent Gary Morrow an ex War Correspondent for the Fascist Right Movement”

    Did you notice the Socialist Left-Wing’s false premise that fascism is Right-Wing. It is the Socialist Liberals who own [fascism(Socialism)-a subtle difference]. NAZI(National “"Socialist"” German Workers’ party.

    In America, Conservatives are Right-Wing, and Socialist Liberals are Left-Wing. If you are calling Conservatives in Europe Left-Wing, then fascism would be Right-Wing(Socialist Liberals).

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  06:03 PM

  14. A Lesson on Why Liberals Worship Separation of Church and State:
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092007/content/01125108.guest.html

    Posted by  on  09/21  at  04:47 PM

  15. ‘Not a single Christian’ in birthplace of Christ
    Muslim intimidation could make ‘land of Jesus’ barren in 15 years
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57797

    Posted by  on  09/24  at  05:58 PM
    16. Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Reflections on TEC and Communion

Previous entry: Church of Uganda Supports Anglican District of Virginia

<< Back to main