A Dissent from Pittsburgh

By Christopher I. Wilkins

To: The Most Rev. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

September 25, 2003

Your Grace,

I am writing you with extreme sadness, and with a profound sense of Christian duty, concerning events that have transpired of late in the Episcopal Church (USA), and in particular in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, in which I was born and raised, and to which I recently returned with my wife and children.

In collusion with our diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, a majority of the clergy and possibly the laity in this diocese are prepared to set in motion a process that, if successful, will bring schism to the ECUSA and throughout the Anglican Communion. It threatens to change the very nature of the ECUSA throughout this country, and is meant to affect - and indeed, shatter - each diocese and parish in this province of that Communion. Indeed, those who bring about this process in see it as beginning of a new Reformation in the church throughout the world.

As you know, the presenting issue is a disagreement over two resolutions adopted at this summer's General Convention of the ECUSA: to allow the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire to ordain a partnered homosexual man, the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, as a bishop; and to allow all dioceses to develop liturgies to bless same-gender unions, if they so desire. In the reasoned but anguished debate concerning these resolutions, there was no final question as to the validity or benefits of Canon Robinson's ministry as a priest. Likewise, there was no question that a diocese would seek to bless any relationship between two men or two women other than one which mirrored Christian marriage.

This is the equivalent of saying that because two rotten acorns have fallen from an oak tree, one should cut the whole tree down and feed it to the flames. Since homosexuality is an issue about which people of faith disagree, and suffer, throughout the world, careful reflection on the roots of this schismatic over-reaction is warranted.

Yet, in response to these actions, a small minority of bishops - 19, out of more than one hundred with jurisdiction - felt compelled to declare, in public, that the entire ECUSA is now an apostate church. An even smaller minority - six, or perhaps seven, including Bishop Duncan - are attempting to break the church apart, and their dioceses away, because of their conviction of its error. This is the equivalent of saying that because two rotten acorns have fallen from an oak tree, one should cut the whole tree down and feed it to the flames. Since homosexuality is an issue about which people of faith disagree, and suffer, throughout the world, careful reflection on the roots of this schismatic over-reaction is warranted.

As you are well aware, and about which you have offered wise counsel, there is disagreement in the ECUSA and in the United States, as well as around the world, about how to understand homosexuality and how to treat homosexual persons. However, our courts, and our national constitution, now hold unequivocally that homosexual persons, and committed, intimate homosexual relationships, are to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality before the law. A great many Americans celebrate, and nearly all Americans will tolerate, this understanding of our constitution and our society. Sadly, there are some who adamantly oppose treating homosexual acts and relationships as anything other than contrary to the will of God, the natural order, moral decency, social cohesion, church witness, and Holy Scripture.

There is but one source among us for this opposition: eight passages from Scripture which discuss, and condemn, homosexual acts. There is no passage discussing, and hence none that condemns, committed homosexual relationships. When these relationships embody love in any of its forms, and mirror Christian marriage in intent and effect, it would seem that Christ's injunctions to love God and to love one's neighbor as oneself are fully met, and hence worthy of esteem in Christian churches. However, to some, the scriptural passages condemning homosexual acts outside of loving relationships must be read to condemn such acts within loving relationships. I can see no warrant for this, and much that tells against it. For this thinking has given the semblance of Christian blessing to cultural prejudices against homosexual persons around the world, as well as to violence against them.

There is not a shred of evidence from psychology, sociology, or any other science to support a claim that homosexual relationships, or treating homosexuals with dignity, degrades moral decency, threatens social cohesion, or does harm to homosexual persons. The evidence, in fact, points the other way. Furthermore, we have been given no arguments stating that homosexuality is contra naturam except those that assume the validity of this premise in their conclusions. Such arguments, as I read them, denigrate not just homosexual persons, but logic itself and the natural order, as well as all who desire to have love in their lives. Since both love and hate are natural to human beings, we are called in Christ not to act either fully in accord or fully in discord with our nature, but to turn it to God's love. We are called to act as God wills, and to spread the blessings of divine and human love and charity throughout the world. It cannot be God's will that we reject how, or whom, we are drawn to love, or lead others to do so.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the lack of evidence to support claims that homosexuality is unnatural or socially undesirable, those who would have it so have clung with undue fervor to their thin, and thinning, claim that it is unbiblical.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the lack of evidence to support claims that homosexuality is unnatural or socially undesirable, those who would have it so have clung with undue fervor to their thin, and thinning, claim that it is unbiblical. I believe that this reliance on Scripture alone - and on a tiny sampling of Scripture alone, read with a maximum of special pleading - lies at the heart of Christian opposition to homosexuality, and to the violence and ignorance to which this opposition inevitably leads. It is also the root of our pending schism.

We do not all agree about how to read Holy Scripture faithfully. For this reason, Anglicans have long held that Scripture's authority not only allows, but requires, us to accept that no single interpretation of Scripture can reveal all of God's word or be binding on all people. Moreover, Anglicans have long held that Scripture is no more than a full and equal partner with the vast traditions of Christian witness and the gifts of enlightened human reason. None is superior to, or subordinate to, the others in the faith. Only in a careful balance of these three can the Anglican Communion maintain its unity as, as well as amidst, its God-given diversity.

Bishop Duncan, along with a small number of other bishops and some of the most adamant evangelicals in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere, are seeking to create a province of the Anglican Communion in which this balance will not be possible. They seek, in fact, to make this balance impossible throughout the Communion. They claim to have the backing of their diocesan clergy and laity, and the support of Episcopalians throughout the country, and of Christians around the world.

I cannot see how those who would rely on Scripture in defiance of scientific evidence, their own church, and enlightened charity in matters of human sexuality, and who would drive their church toward irreconcilable division because of it, could rightly claim to be acting in communion with your grace...

I respectfully submit that support for schism and its bibliolatry is far less that some would desire, and that what support there is for it arises from misunderstanding and fear. However, even if it support for these things were broad and deep, I cannot see how those who would rely on Scripture in defiance of scientific evidence, their own church, and enlightened charity in matters of human sexuality, and who would drive their church toward irreconcilable division because of it, could rightly claim to be acting in communion with your grace, or with any Anglican province.

Some have claimed that there are two churches in the ECUSA now, but I do not believe that this is so. There is one church with many rooms - and there are those who dissent from that church and would have all its rooms to themselves. When the Anglican primates meet next month, it is my prayer that you would call each of them to witness that the unity of the church in each province, and of the Communion entire, lies not in its opposition to homosexuality or in a single-minded reading of the Bible, but in its broad array of ministries, its diversity of faithful Christians, and in its opposition to schism.

I am aware that the primates of this Communion are not in agreement concerning these issues. Most Anglican Christians, it appears, dwell in provinces in which homosexual persons are not typically treated with dignity or respect, and in which issues of human sexuality, and homosexuality in particular, are not often handled with Christian tolerance and charity. I respectfully submit that the witness of certain primates in these provinces against the ECUSA's actions this summer emerges from not from a careful analysis of our province's needs in this area, but from bibliolatry, a lack of charitable discussion at home, and an unfortunate display of arrogance abroad. Where they should counter prejudice, they deepen it. Where they should block violence against those they perceive as sexually deviant, they all but incite it. Where they should work for the unity and common mission of this communion, they do what they can to divide us. It is difficult to imagine how this could be in accord with the will of God.

The struggle to preserve the ECUSA as it is within the Anglican Communion concerns not only what the ECUSA stands for and who gets to say so. It is not a struggle of the rich, pushy north against the faithful global south. It is a struggle to preserve a welcoming, democratic religious institution in a multicultural, democratic society. This struggle is as important to Anglicans in India, South Africa, Rwanda and Nigeria as it is to Anglicans in Canada and Britain, and to Episcopalians in the United States. It is a struggle to bear Christian witness that freedom, tolerance, and a loving salvific God are known best only in each other's company.

Please be assured that my prayers are with you and your colleagues in this difficult time. May the strength of the Spirit be with us all in the days ahead, as it has been promised, and as we need.

Christopher I. Wilkins holds a Ph.D. in religious studies from Boston University and a master's degree from Harvard Divinity School, and is currently at work on a book concerning theology, poetry, and rhetorical style. He is a program officer with the Association of Theological Schools , serves on the vestry of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Mt. Lebanon, PA, and is a member of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. His views are his own, and not necessarily those of any of the organizations with which he is associated. He may be reached by email at ciwilkins@juno.com

Related Links:

Review a statement by the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh on the actions of its diocesan special convention.