Bishop Swing’s Response
.

Dear Friends,

The most important thing to know about the resolution on homosexuality passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference is that it is not binding. It only "advises." Thus the Diocese of California and its bishop are duly advised but nothing will change in our practice.

The second most important thing to keep in mind is that a valiant struggle was waged by the bishops of Section One (which had to address this issue) and these bishops came up with a very balanced and sensitive resolution. The bishops who were positive toward homosexuals this time around were bishops who were negative ten years ago. Ten years ago the slightest mention of homosexuality brought howls of protest from 98% of Lambeth. This time there were sizable numbers of bishops who could make sure that a livable compromise resolution was presented. The Anglican Communion has come a long way in ten years and there is every reason to believe that more progress will be made in the next decade before Lambeth 2008.

Make sure that you realize how far this Communion has come in affirmed item (c)...homosexuals "are full members of the Body of Christ." That is a big step. Also there was great restraint in not counseling all bishops to cease and desist from ordaining homosexuals and blessing same-sex unions.

Now for the troubling amendment "rejecting homosexual behavior as incompatible with Scripture":

1) Bishop Spong stirred the African bishops prior to Lambeth by making wide, sweeping generalizations about their ancestry and lack of sophistication. Although he apologized, they were out to make a point. It was as if he had whacked a beehive with a long stick.

2) The African bishops, as well as Pakistani, Indonesian, Malaysian, and others, are indeed facing great competition and persecution from radically militant Islam. Islam gains a big upperhand on the field of battle when Christians are seen in newspapers as supporting homosexuality. In many tribes there is no word for homosexuality because it is taboo even to mention the subject. They were pleading with Lambeth not to add to their misery by giving a lenient statement on this volatile subject. They wanted a blunt statement about scriptural references on the subject.

3) The Bishop of Dallas, James Stanton, heads up another unhappy-about-the-state-of-the-church Anglican group. He and his colleagues invested a lot of time, money, and recruiting energy in rallying troops around this amendment. They did their homework, and the fight on the floor was like a rugby match.

When all is said and done:

A) The feeling level in the debate was actually a lot worse than the final resolution. It was worse than liberal vs. Conservative; it was Black vs. White, Imperialists vs. The natives, North vs. South. It was raw.

B) There was a sense of being hijacked. Leadership was in the hands of the bishops of Section One, and they gave every indication that a workable compromise was unfolding. At the last second a questionable procedure allowed the amendment to come forward with the backers well prepared for it and its detractors off guard.

C) The Archbishop of Canterbury did not rise to the occasion of being a symbol of unity afterwards. He was content to bask in he victory and announce that we can get on to important matters.

D) The experience will force the American Church to become clearer on its biblical approach, rather than to rely so heavily on experiential insights.

Personally...it was a draining, deeply sad and isolating experience. I know that what we do in the Diocese of California is right according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And...most important, the bishops in my daily Bible Study do not agree with me but they trust me to do the best that I know how to do. The Anglican Communion holds together because of this king of trust, not by resolutions.

My message to you: Do not be discouraged. Real life always wins at last. You are cherished in this Church, and together we will keep moving forward.

Love in Christ,

+William E. Swing