Episcopal Press and News
Bishops Narrowly Vote to 'Disassociate' from Homosexual Ordination in Newark
Episcopal News Service. September 26, 1990 [90244]
WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 18 -- The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops meeting here erupted in an intensely emotional debate and voted by a surprisingly slim margin to "disassociate" itself from the ordination nine months ago of an avowed homosexual to the priesthood by Bishop John Spong of Newark (New Jersey).
By a vote of 80 to 76, the bishops chose to "affirm and support" a February 20 statement by the presiding bishop and his Council of Advice that affirmed the church's position that it is "inappropriate" to ordain practicing gay and lesbian persons. The resolution was submitted by Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire (Wisconsin), a prominent traditionalist in the church.
"We regret the hurt and confusion caused for many members of the church by the ordination and by subsequent events.... We believe that good order is not served when bishops, dioceses, or parishes act unilaterally," said the statement signed by bishops from the church's nine provinces.
In the wake of the ordination last December, many of Spong's colleagues severely criticized him for breaking the collegiality of the House, for ignoring the clear mind of the church against such ordinations, and for ignoring scriptural mandates.
Dozens of bishops lined up at microphones during the tense hour-and-a-half debate, and their comments were a clear indication that the issue is both complicated and very emotional. Several bishops said angrily that the people in their dioceses were looking to the House of Bishops for a clear condemnation of the ordination.
Retired Bishop William Sheridan of Northern Indiana called the resolution a "breach of discipline and doctrine" that could have "tragic, even catastrophic, consequences for the church. If we do not take definite action today, we will engender ridicule throughout this country." Bishop Alex Dickson of West Tennessee asked pointedly, "Can a bishop of this church do anything he wants to?"
One of the first at the microphone was Bishop Clarence Pope of Ft. Worth (Texas), president of the Episcopal Synod of America, a coalition of traditionalists who oppose what they perceive as liberal trends in the church. Pope said he supported the resolution "with great sadness. If we don't adopt this resolution, we go a long way in changing our religion. Much of the church's teaching will be altered if we don't take steps."
Others, like Bishop William Swing of California, saw a "punitive meanness between the lines of the statement." He asked what the House was voting on -- Spong, homosexuality, the force of General Convention resolutions, collegiality...,?"
Three members of the Council of Advice who signed the statement said they would remove their names if the House passed the resolution. "I'd like to think we are moving on," said Bishop Herbert Donovan of Arkansas, secretary of the House of Bishops. "We have heard some voices that we need to listen to carefully" and, he suggested, the February 20 statement was valid for the time it was written.
Bishop Arthur Walmsley of Connecticut agreed with Donovan, arguing that adopting the statement at this time "would be a token of our division, not of our leadership."
Bishop William Frey, dean of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Pennsylvania, characterized the statement as a mild reprimand. "Some have said that this is a gun pointed at the head of Spong. But it's really a water pistol."
Bishop William Burrill of Rochester said, "The price of Anglican freedom is a bit of untidiness." If we take this action, Burrill argued, Spong will "be on the outside. We are a church that welcomes diversity. Order is not that important -- diversity in unity is."
Bishop Gordon Charlton of Texas said that bishops were responsible for guarding the faith, discipline, and unity of the church. "If this is to have any reality, it must begin in our own house." He said the action was taken not in anger but with "great sorrow and reluctance" so that the whole world can see the unity of the church and the integrity of the House. Doing nothing was not an option, Charlton said, because "the church will be watching."
A substitute motion, which would have referred the issue to two committees, was decisively defeated.
In a stinging, defiant half-hour response after the vote, Bishop Spong called it "an exciting afternoon" because the debate on the issue was "substantive." Yet he admonished the House for what he perceives as a continuing hypocrisy. He contrasted his treatment, for example, with that of the traditionalist bishops who, when they opposed the church's decision to ordain women, were given a great deal of latitude.
Spong argued that, unlike the traditionalists who are his severest critics, he followed the canonical process when he went ahead with the ordination. "When the cries of ecclesiastical pain went up and words like presentment, trial, and censure were spoken as threats," the church listened to angry bishops. Yet he was excluded from such meetings and never "given the opportunity to meet face-to-face" with his accusers."
"I wonder if this House can embrace the fact that other bishops besides [Episcopal] Synod of America bishops have a conscience that cannot and will not be compromised?" Spong asked. "The way the church treats its gay and lesbian members so deeply violates my conscience that it strains my life by tearing it between my loyalty to Jesus Christ, who made a habit of embracing the outcast, and my loyalty to a church that I dearly love. But it-nonetheless is a church-that has historically rejected blacks, women, and gays, in succession."
"It is not the bishop of Newark who is violated by this process. It is the gay and lesbian members of this church," Spong added.
Going to the heart of a major component of the controversy -- how binding General Convention resolutions are for the church -- Spong said, "The day will come when every member of this House will regret any attempt we might make to give canonical weight" to those resolutions. He reminded the bishops that the 1979 resolution was a recommendation and therefore not binding.
Repeating an argument he has made in defense of the ordination, Spong said the church has been quietly ordaining practicing homosexuals for years. Noncelibate homosexuals are found at all levels of church life -- not only in parishes but also the House of Bishops, on seminary faculties, and among student bodies.
Spong said that the charge that he violated the collegiality of the House is "a sign of fear, even of homophobia." Similar charges have never been leveled against members of the Episcopal Synod or others who hold views contrary to General Convention resolutions.
Spong said he was bothered by the lack of honesty among some of his critics, especially those who have "themselves knowingly ordained noncelibate homosexual persons." He related the pain surrounding his recent decision not to ordain an avowed homosexual deacon until after General Convention in Phoenix, despite support for the candidate from the parish and diocesan committees. The decision was a further indication of his attempt to be collegial, he said.
"If the standards of this church are to apply to all equally then I will abide by those standards," Spong said -- but they must be mandatory and binding on all.
Spong concluded that the last year, despite all the controversy, was "the most exhilarating, growing, eventful year of my life. And the primary reason for that is that I have experienced first-hand the prejudice and the negativity and the pain and the fear that is the daily bread of gay and lesbian people. Their ability to forge relationships of durability, commitment, and faithfulness -- living under that kind of hostile, negative rejection -- is in my opinion, almost a miracle."
Following Spong's speech, the House adopted the resolution it had previously rejected, calling for the church to continue studying the implications of the issue of ordaining homosexuals.