“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.”