This memo responds to many letters, e-mails and other expressions of concern I have received, from both sides, concerning the upcoming General Convention’s likely vote on two issues relating to the ongoing sexuality debate:

(a) the approval (or not) of the election of the Very Rev. V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire;
(b) the approval of the proposed resolution offered to authorize blessings of same sex unions, a resolution which would also authorize the blessings of other sexual relationships between heterosexual people who are legally precluded from marriage.

As important as sexuality issues may be, they are much less so than the mission of the church and the plight of the persecuted church. For the last six years I have been working to support and publicize the persecuted Church in Sudan, where two million have died, many for our faith. I have twice been to Africa on mission in support of the Sudanese church.

Sexuality issues are important, but they are not life and death for thousands of our brothers and sisters. If we had put as much effort into helping the persecuted church as we waste on sexuality issues, the persecution would stop and many of our martyred brothers and sisters would be alive today. When Judgment Day comes, we are more likely to be condemned for squabbling about other people’s sex lives when Christians are dying for the faith, than we are for being “wrong” on the sexuality issues. From the political asylum applications I have prepared for pro bono clients, I can say that no one asks Christians if they are gay or straight when they face torture in Sudan.

Out of respect for those who have written me on this issue, I report to you that if these votes were held today, I would vote against the election of Canon Robinson and against the approval of the blessings resolution.

As Thomas the Apostle learned in the Upper Room and Paul on the road to Damascus, God can change our views dramatically. The church should not eject or vilify faithful Christians whose conscience precludes agreement with the majority’s views of the moment. Thus, my views may change based on what I learn at Convention. I do not come to these views lightly, however, and I assume that others who are voting or speaking on this issue have also prayed about this issue and weighed the merits carefully.

I. Election of Canon Robinson.

Canon Robinson is reportedly an able priest, well respected in his diocese, and instrumental in setting up an excellent program for new clergy – “Fresh Start” -- used in many dioceses, including Virginia. He was elected on the second ballot in an election where there have been no complaints about procedural regularity. For good or ill, the clergy and lay delegates who voted in the election knew exactly what they were doing. Were it not for his current living arrangements, with an acknowledged gay partner, his approval would be a foregone conclusion. Canon Robinson’s honesty in the matter is commendable; whether these living arrangements are such that the church ought to proclaim him a “wholesome example” is a separate question.

A. Should Convention Consider the Merits of the Election?

At the outset, some have argued that it is inappropriate for us to reach the merits of the bishop election, as long as it was procedurally regular. With due respect, the canons provide otherwise. Likewise, practice in this diocese has been quite the contrary, most recently to help assure that we were not approving opponents of women’s ordination, as well as to ask an elected candidate to withdraw because of allegations of sexual misconduct, even though he was acquitted of them. Our practice as a Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Diocese, has been to reach the merits of such matters.

As a member of the Standing Committee from February 1999-February 2002, including terms as Secretary and President, I have had occasion to pass on the qualifications of a number of bishops-elect. At the urging of Diocesan Council (Convention for those unfamiliar with Virginia terminology) by resolution at the 2000 Council, the Standing Committee in fact inquired into the views of bishops-elect on the issues of women’s ordination. In my own case, I strongly supported the move on the floor of Council, because I had heard from multiple VTS students about the damage some bishops have done with their with arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of women candidates.

Our inquiries did not lead us to withhold our consent to any bishop’s election. I understand that consents have been withheld both before and after my tenure on various substantive grounds.

Within the last decade as well, our diocese elected the Rev. Anthony Campbell as one of our suffragan bishops, but after allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced, the Standing Committee asked him to resign his election. Our Standing Committee did so even though his diocese acquitted him of the charges. The Standing Committee made the request in part because the defense showed that he exercised poor judgment, and in part because there was serious question about whether he could effectively minister to the women of this diocese, given the allegations and conduct. Sadly, in one other case involving Virginia clergy, the Rev. Robert Trache was elected Bishop of Atlanta, but then had his election undone. This decision was reportedly prompted by a controversy over whether he had properly disclosed a personal bankruptcy and a separation from his wife.

Under the circumstances, questions about a bishop elect’s sexual conduct and judgment in these matters have been sufficient to lead our diocese and others to invalidate elections of talented clergy as bishop. The Campbell episode was especially painful, because the Rev. Campbell was the only African-American ever elected as bishop in Virginia. We need to be very careful that we subject white bishops-elect to equal scrutiny, particularly given the Rev. Campbell’s acquittal of the canonical charges he faced and our Standing Committee’s unanimous request that he resign his election. I voted for the Rev. Campbell’s election as a delegate to that Council in May 1993, but agreed with our Standing Committee’s unanimous request that he resign. The conduct he admitted in his defense, and the lingering questions it raised about his effectiveness in working with the women in our diocese, made the resignation request appropriate. The Rev. Campbell did so for the good of the church.

Given Virginia’s sad history of racial discrimination, I believe we are honor-bound to apply the same standards to a white liberal bishop-elect from New Hampshire as we do to a charismatic African-American bishop-elect from South Carolina. Thus, the damage to the church of such an election, and whether a significant segment in the church will have confidence in this bishop, are important questions in this diocese if we are to be consistent and fair in how we judge bishops-elect.

Given that experience, I emphatically reject the claim that this approval is merely procedural. That has not been the practice of our Standing Committee, nor of others, even though the large majority of elections are approved without controversy.

As both proponents and opponents of Canon Robinson have indicated, the weight that this vote outside the church in United States, together with its precedential value for the blessings issue, make it essential we deal directly with the merits of this election. With due respect to our Presiding Bishop, I believe it does a grave disservice to the Church to pretend otherwise. We should be honest about what we are doing and why.

B. Merits.

1. Divorce followed by Subsequent Sexual Relationship.

Canon Robinson admits that he lives openly with a gay partner. He and his partner met after Robinson and his wife divorced, indeed, after Robinson’s wife had re-married. The Robinsons reportedly divorced because Canon Robinson had decided that he was gay and could not remain in his marriage. Both Robinson and his former wife have shared in the rearing of their children and are reportedly on amicable terms.

Much of the information reported in the popular press -- suggesting that Robinson left his wife and children for a gay partner – is mistaken. The falsehoods repeatedly asserted against the Robinsons are troubling, for it is evident that they were acting in good faith under difficult circumstances, with due regard to their obligations as parents.

Had Canon Robinson and his wife been divorced for other reasons and had he subsequently re-married, it is very likely that he would be approved, although some of us would vote against such approval because of the divorce and remarriage. Scripture states that a bishop is to be the “husband of one wife,” and some of us think that setting a wholesome example requires a bishop to be held to a higher standard in personal life than priests and deacons.

In my case, a divorce and remarriage would probably have led me to vote against the approval, though I have no doubt that General Convention would approve such an election. I have not voted for divorced candidates for bishop in the several elections I have participated in as a delegate, nor have I tried to recruit divorced candidates for bishop, although I have tried to recruit a number of candidates, including women candidates. Put differently, I find the divorce troubling, particularly when followed by a new sexual relationship, whether gay or straight.

Obviously, had Canon Robinson remarried, the approval of his election would not be setting a world-wide precedent on the issue. The church as an institution decided about thirty years ago to significantly loosen the restrictions on divorce and remarriage, despite many more scriptural injunctions against divorce and remarriage than there are about homosexual relationships. Indeed, the proscriptions on divorce derive directly from the Gospels. For good or ill, the American church has decided to loosen divorce restrictions in part because of the difficult pastoral situations that stringent divorce restrictions created. Yet the cultural acceptance of easy divorce has had very high costs, especially for women and children, suggesting that conformity to popular notions of sexual liberation may carry a high and at first hidden price.

The Episcopal Church has not made a similar institutional decision to approve same gender sexual relationships as it has of allowing divorce and remarriage in some circumstances. At least one report I heard several months before Canon Robinson’s election indicated that the election date was deliberately chosen in an effort to test approval of same gender relationships at General Convention.

Approval of Canon Robinson’s election will effectively make that decision for the church since by that approval we say that someone who enters into a long-term relationship with a gay partner is a wholesome example to the world and of God’s transforming love in Christ. It is unreasonable to pretend that this decision is a simply a matter of taste or a local option. We would object to African bishops in polygamous relationships as inconsistent with the Gospel; they (and others) are objecting to this relationship as inconsistent with the Gospel and the role of a Bishop in our polity.

2. Scriptural Witness.

As Anglicans, we claim that we rely on Scripture, tradition and reason in making our decisions. Of the three, however, we rely more heavily on Scripture. The Thirty-Nine Articles indicate that nothing which is not contained in Scripture or which may be proved thereby can be required of any Christian, and that Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Book of Common Prayer (BCP), p. 868, Article VI.

At the outset, much of my recent work with the Sudanese church has been to help finance the Dinka bible translation project, to bring the Old Testament into the language of nearly three million people who are perhaps the most heavily persecuted Christian group in the world today. The Old Testament brings them the stories of exile, the Exodus, of endurance in slavery, famine, and plague, and of ritual sacrifice by a herding people of great immediacy to this tribe of cattle herders, Scripture which helps them understand Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross, according to the bishops I spoke with in the Kakuma Refugee Camp. We try to take seriously the Anglican tradition of putting Scripture in the language of the laity, all of Scripture. The importance of doing so for this suffering people should be evident to any familiar with ghastly war now underway in Sudan.

Scripture says much more about money and fair treatment of the poor than it does about marriage and sex, and vastly more than it says about homosexuality. Those who take Scripture seriously have to take these economic justice issues seriously, and give them greater weight than issues of sexuality. Sadly, our culture does not, and far too few of us in the church do so.

Some of the most powerful Scriptural witnesses for the poor are in the Old Testament, including Leviticus, which provides the rules for the Jubilee. Those verses are the foundation for much of the recent debt relief campaign for the Third World, something the church has championed. “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land” – part of the Jubilee rules -- is from Leviticus; we know it as the inscription on the Liberty Bell.

Those who snidely dismiss Leviticus as having no application to modern life don’t understand the power of Scripture and its injunction that we protect the weak from the strong. Perhaps more important, they ignore the fact that “love your neighbor as yourself,” quoted by Jesus as the “second commandment,” comes from Leviticus 19:18, between two chapters which include prohibitions on male homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13 forbids male homosexuality, just as it forbids incest and bestiality, providing a death sentence for all three offenses, just as it does for sacrificing children to Molech. It is a far more serious matter than eating shellfish or violating rules of ritual purity such as touching dead bodies or touching a woman during her menstrual cycle, even though all those practices are condemned as “abominations.”

Unlike Orthodox Jews, however, we do not claim to apply all of the restrictions of Leviticus and other Old Testament books. In particular, we have dispensed with many of the ritual restrictions. Thankfully, we do not impose death penalties for sins listed in Leviticus; we would be a much smaller church if we stoned all the adulterers to death. The choice of which Old Testament rules to carry forward – besides the Ten Commandments – has been a major tension in the Church since the time of the Apostle Paul.

Some proponents of blessing same gender unions have pointed out, for example, that while Leviticus condemns lending at interest, almost everyone in our society borrows at interest and collects interest on bank accounts, the church being no exception. Some of us, however, have objected to the church going into the credit card business (Executive Board, June 1995), and have not collected interest when lending to the poor.

Jesus does not appear to have addressed the issue of homosexual relations directly, though he does condemn “fornication” -- sex outside marriage – at more than one point in the Gospels, in lists of various sins. The Pauline Epistles make some references to male and female homosexuality, treating such actions as something to be repented of or as one indication of humankind’s fallen state, as in Romans 1. In Leviticus, homosexual practice is condemned; the Prophets condemn temple prostitution, which apparently included homosexual prostitution; in Genesis the men of Sodom are condemned as terrible sinners; their efforts to rape the angels who came to save Lot are one sign of their especially nasty sinfulness. Whether we should read the story as a condemnation of their violent behavior (against the laws of hospitality) or as a condemnation of homosexuality is a matter of debate.

Implicit in the proponents’ modern understanding of sexuality is that sexual orientation is not a matter under one’s control. This is not a Scripturally based understanding, as Scripture treats homosexual behavior as a matter of choice. One can argue that we know more as a result of modern science, and that our understanding of how much choice one has in such behavior can change. To pick one example of a greatly changed modern understanding, we no longer denounce alcoholism as simple drunkenness resulting from lack of will power, something Scripture might suggest, but treat it instead as a life-threatening disease.

To date, however, our understanding of why one becomes sexually attracted to another person of either gender is still subject to huge uncertainty. We cannot predict whether a child will become gay or straight, whether this behavior is genetically determined, and if so, what genes determine such complex behavior. By the same token, if environmental factors were the determinant, we don’t know why people raised the same way don’t acquire the same sexual orientation, gay or straight.

Some very trenchant criticism has been leveled against reading the Scriptural references about homosexual conduct as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual relations. None of the Scriptural references to homosexual practice are positive, however. No coherent Scriptural case has been made for approving of same gender sexual relations as something for us to endorse as a model of proper Christian behavior. Ordinarily, the proponents of a major change in the church’s practice bear the burden of demonstrating its consistency with Scripture, tradition, and reason. With due respect, the proponents do little to try to meet that burden with Scripture, instead trying only to distinguish away the contrary Scriptural references. If one concedes that Scripture does not endorse homosexual partnerships as a model of holy living, then a very powerful case must be made out on the basis of reason and tradition in order to earn the church’s endorsement and a major change in our approach to these matters.

3. Tradition.

As proponents of Canon Robinson’s election have correctly noted, we have had gay bishops before, the major difference here being that Canon Robinson is open and honest about his living arrangements. That openness, while comendable evidence of Canon Robinson’s honesty, is an important difference between this and prior cases. It make our approval of his election an endorsement of his living arrangements as a “wholesome example” to the people of God, something we have not done in modern times. At least as far as I have been able to discern, we have not knowingly done so in the past either. The scholarship claiming that such arrangements were endorsed in medeival times is subject to much controversy. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church does not endorse such arrangements today.

a. Costs to Ecumenical Relationships.

One important aspect of our tradition is our commitment to ecumenism. We have been prime movers in this effort, beginning with the Chicago Quadrilateral in 1886, a document important enough we print it in the Book of Common Prayer even today. BCP, p. 876-77, in part because it was followed at Lambeth in 1888. BCP, 877-78. We have made major efforts in ecumenism, most recently with the ELCA, and have continuing dialog with most major denominations. We have refined common understandings of many key theological points, and narrowed the doctrinal gaps among denominations, while clearing up much prejudice and mistaken attribution of views.

If one is interested in making negotiating progress, one ordinarily refrains from deliberately provocative actions during negotiations, or at least consults with the negotiating partner before taking actions known to be offensive to the partner. Judging by the announced public positions of many of the denominations with which we are working, the approval of Canon Robinson’s election, together with approval of rites to bless same gender sexual relationships, will be viewed as inflammatory by many of our ecumenical partners. Whether we are “correct” or not about the course we choose, our approval of Canon Robinson and of same gender blessings is likely to do serious damage to our ecumenical relationships, judging by the public positions of our negotiating partners. Given the great efforts made over the last 120 years to move ecumenical partnerships and discussions forward, this is a serious cost to the church, particularly given Jesus’ prayer that we all may be one.

Proponents will undoubtedly point to women’s ordination as an example where we charted our own course as a national church, and presented our ecumenical partners and Anglican partners a fait accompli. As a strong supporter of women’s ordination and consecration as bishops, it is nonetheless fair to note that we paid a material price in ecumenical relations when we endorsed women’s ordination. Additionally, at that time, there were major Protestant denominations “ahead” of us on that issue, and that is less the case today with blessing same gender sexual relationships. With due respect, the damage to ecumenical relationships will probably be greater this time. Given the unrest by key elements of the ELCA with our joint venture with them, our endorsement of Canon Robinson and blessings of same gender relationships is likely to serve as an additional inducement for them to try to undo our agreement, and to place those relations in greater jeopardy.

b. Costs to Anglican Relationships and Mission.

A key part of our tradition, Scriptural and otherwise, is a strong commitment to mission and joint work with other branches of the Anglican Communion. This is a bright page in Virginia’s history as a Diocese. In recent decades, this has meant considerable work with the African Anglican churches, which have burgeoned in size and influence over the past thirty years.

The African churches are on the front lines of mission, in helping people with AIDS, in confronting injustice and poverty in the name of the Lord, and in improving the condition of women and children in the face of brutal and backwards mistreatment. Their faith has sustained them in the face of biblical tribulation and persecution, including marytrdom in our lifetime of one Archbishop of Uganda, and deaths of tens of thousands of faithful Christians killed for their faith in Sudan and Uganda, and fighting apartheid in South Africa. We have much to learn from them.

Endorsement of Canon Robinson and of blessing same gender sexual relationships is plainly the minority position at present in the Anglican Communion. Currently, only the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada has openly endorsed blessing of same gender unions; several provinces of the Anglican Communion, e.g. Nigeria, have expressed their profound disagreement with that action, to the point of claiming that they are no longer in communion with that diocese. It is easy to make light of such pronouncements (e.g. “Albania breaks diplomatic relations with Staten Island”). Their immediate practical impact is minimal.

That would not be so, however, if the Episcopal Church in the United States were to be out of communion with our Anglican brothers and sisters in Africa. We have vital and growing relationships with the Anglican Church in Africa, key to revitalizing much of what we do here in the United States and to re-invigorating our people with a lively faith.

The Anglican Church in Africa has far more adherents than the Episcopal Church in the United States. There are four times as many Anglicans in Uganda than in the United States; nine times as many in Nigeria than in the United States; there are probably over a million Anglicans in Sudan, as compared to two million here in the United States.

If we claim each person’s baptism is equally valid, and recognize that we are greatly outnumbered by African Anglicans, by what right do we take actions which they view as contrary to Scripture and highly offensive to them? Certainly our greater wealth gives us no special claim to greater wisdom in such matters.

Our clergy leadership and most of our lay leaders are better educated than most lay and clergy leaders in the African church. Some have claimed that we can therefor dismiss their views as coming from ignorant, poorly educated, backward church leaders, whom we are entitled to ignore. Some of Bishop Spong’s statements after the last Lambeth conference can be read that way; some of Bishop Benison’s recent remarks comparing the African church leaders opposed to same gender blessings as Nazis were a cruder version of this kind of cultural imperialism.

With due respect, none of the Apostles had college degrees or with the possible exception of John, were very learned. From the Old Testament, we learn that Solomon, for all his God-given wisdom, was led astray by his many wives in his efforts to be inclusive of their differing beliefs. Learning does not necessarily equate with virtue or with better insight into God’s will.

And on a more immediate level, I see many more African Christians dying for our common faith, and being persecuted for it, than I do American Christians. Their faith is extremely vital in the face of great tribulation and material privation. We need to respect their witness. The future vitality of the American church is likely to be tied closely to how well we can work with our African colleagues. Certainly in my own life, I have seen the transforming power of God far more clearly in the mission field in Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya than I have seen it here in America.

Put differently, for all our material wealth, the Episcopal Church in the United States needs the vital faith of the Anglican Church in Africa at least as much and probably much more than the Anglican Church in Africa needs our resources. We place critically important relationships with the Anglican Church in Africa at risk if we approve Canon Robinson and blessings of same gender sexual relationships. These are real and significant costs to the church.

c. Costs to Diocese of Virginia.

There is a translated Latin legal maxim which says “let justice be done though the heavens fall.” By the same token, Jesus told us to count the cost of what we are doing.

What is the likely impact of a decision to approve Canon Robinson’s election and to bless same gender relationships on the church in Virginia? Undoubtedly, there will be many gay and lesbian members who heartily approve, and a number of additional people who believe that such a decision represents an enlightened move to stop persecuting people for an orientation they did not choose. Certainly many, and perhaps most, Virginia clergy would support such a move, as they deal regularly with the pastoral problems faced by people struggling with sexuality issues. There will be some gay and lesbian Christians who join the Episcopal Church as a result, and others who approve of this move as a human rights matter.

On the down side, there is a strong correlation between those who are most active in mission work and those who oppose these moves on Scriptural grounds. While I do not expect specific congregations to leave, I expect an exodus of members from some our strongest churches supporting mission. I expect a slower trickle from many other congregations for whom these moves will be the last straw, seeing a church which has grown increasingly hostile to traditional views of morality and Scripture. The people who leave will include many of the most highly motivated and financially committed.

In 1969 and 1970, the national church adopted the Special Program of General Convention. It was a public relations disaster, as it was mistakenly perceived as a hijacking of the church by the Black Panthers.

The church in Virginia is supported by voluntary giving by parishes, not by the mandatory quota and assessment as in other dioceses. This plan had worked well from 1957 to 1970, and average support to the Diocese was around 14 or 15% of parish income.

After Special Program was approved by General Convention, parish giving to the Diocese dropped by an eighth; the average percentage of parish giving to the Diocese has never recovered. Indeed, there is at least one large parish in Alexandria (not mine) which gave $45,000 to the Diocese in 1969, and has never given as much since, even thirty-four years later. I am confident that their vestry does not even know why they are at the poor percentage of giving they are now. The damage to percentage giving from an event like Special Program tends to be permanent.

Current average giving to the Diocese is an abysmal 6.5% of parish income. Only by virtue of the Diocese’s large size and excellent management does the Diocese have as vital a program as it does. The Diocese will sustain major program damage if there is another significant drop in parish giving. Some of the churches most motivated for mission greatly cut their diocesan pledges after the Righter trial verdict in 1996. Thus, the damage may be less this time than after General Convention adopted its Special Program in 1969-70.

Nonetheless, the chances for significant drops in parish income are real across the diocese, as many motivated tithers are strongly oriented towards Scripture and unfriendly towards the proposed approval of Canon Robinson and of blessing same gender sexual relationships. Thus, many parishes whose clergy support Canon Robinson and same gender blessings may find themselves without the resources to continue their current level of support to the diocese.

I believe it would be realistic to project a net loss in membership and a loss of five to ten percent in diocesan income over the next two years, and some permanent reductions in percentage parish giving to the diocese. These are real costs to the mission and ministry of our diocese, and need to be weighed in the balance in making our decision. By themselves they would not justify a decision either way; nonetheless, we need to understand the price of what we are being asked to do.

4. Reason.

The proponents of Canon Robinson’s election make their strongest case on the basis of “reason,” or the observation of what modern medical and scientific research, as well as what experience with and among lesbian and gay couples shows.

As a practical matter, gay and lesbian persons living in committed relationships are largely indistinguishable in matters outside the bedroom from their straight brothers and sisters. They work at responsible jobs, they seek to raise families, they want to be part of the church, and many faithful members of the Episcopal Church, including many in Virginia including some clergy are gay or lesbian in orientation and practice. Our gay and lesbian members contribute vitally to our parishes, play leadership roles, and give faithfully for the mission of the church. They support the soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and other charitable works of the church, and participate in all aspects of the life of the church.

The church in Virginia would be worse off without our gay and lesbian members; the church’s teaching has been clear that all members are entitled to the ministry and sacraments of the church, including gay and lesbian people, and that all have important things to contribute. Our bishops have been good in making clear that gay and lesbian persons are welcome in the church.

From a medical perspective, homosexual orientation is no longer treated as an illness, and has not been so viewed for nearly thirty years. Many gay and lesbian people reject the idea that they are ill and need to be cured, and from a medical and psychiatric perspective, they are correct. And while many heterosexual people find homosexual relations repugnant, many of the same sexual practices are found in illustrated marriage manuals for heterosexual people, and in the context of marriage are not condemned even by some very conservative Christian moral writers.

From a scientific perspective, as noted above, we still cannot reliably predict whether a child will grow up to be homosexual or heterosexual in orientation, or what factors will be influential in shaping that orientation, whether genetic or environmental. Many gay and lesbian people have testified that their orientation is not a matter of choice, while for some other people it apparently is.

From a legal perspective, a fair public policy argument can be advanced that some civil union arrangement is needed to protect against oppression and fraud on the weaker partner, and to provide a decent framework for the equitable and readily understood handling of difficult situations such as illness, death, inheritance, and child custody. As someone who has been in law practice for more than twenty years, I am skeptical that provision of such civil protections will encourage people to pursue a gay or lesbian lifestyle they would not be pursuing anyway.

Additionally, whether we like it or not, it is probable that the church will soon be confronted with marriages between gay or lesbian persons under the laws of Canada, Great Britain, and probably some states in the United States. From a pastoral perspective, we are going to have to work out what the church’s position is towards such partnerships, whether it is to bar the door or welcome such couples in as couples and if so, on what terms. Much of our society seems to be moving in the direction of recognizing such couples, so if we do not, we are going to pay something of a price for refusing to do so, just as we will if we openly welcome and approve such couples as couples. We will be caught in a cross-fire of the culture wars whether we like it or not.

Some have argued that since Scripture says created order is good, and since sexual orientation is not under one’s control, that we should bless same gender sexual relationships. The unstated cultural assumption behind this argument is that if one is created with a sexual orientation one is entitled to sexual fulfillment within that orientation. That assumption is certainly a popular one in our culture but does not prove that such desires are appropriate or holy. As someone who suffers from allergies, poor eyesight, bow legs and baldness, all inherited to some degree, I can say creation is good but not perfect. And Scripture and the law are clear that not all sexual desires, even those we may believe we come by from inheritance, are to be gratified, e.g. incestuous ones or ones abusing children. The argument that one comes by one’s sexual orientation as a result of creation thus seems to me to restate rather than answer the question of whether the resulting sexual relationships are holy.

These factors, particularly the lack of scientific clarity on the issue of why people are sexually oriented the way they are, suggest to me a much stronger case for tolerance and protection against harassment than it does for endorsement of this lifestyle as a holy one. There is a difference between protecting these relationships from criminal prosecution, as the Supreme Court recently ruled, in effect, gently tolerating them on the one hand, and endorsing them as a holy way of life on the other hand. If we approve of Canon Robinson’s election, we will probably have decided that these relationships are the functional equivalent of Christian marriage or celibacy on a permanent basis.

Conclusion as to Canon Robinson’s Election.

In the absence of a positive Scriptural case for the blessing of same gender sexual relationships, and in light of the damage that these approvals will do to ecumenical and global Anglican relationships, and in light of the unsettled science on why people acquire or inherit the sexual orientation they have, I will vote to disapprove Canon Robinson’s election.

I am sure my views will disappoint many, including some or all of my colleagues in my own deputation. In reading the posts on the Bishops and Deputies website, I have seen these views repeatedly ridiculed as backward, bigoted, unprincipled, uncharitable and worse. Similarly, my unwillingness to start and end with the Scriptural discussion will disappoint many who view such Scriptural language as dispositive, and who have little patience for the other factors I have considered. For each of these groups, I ask you simply to recognize that I am trying to exercise my best judgment for the good of the Church and in seeking God’s will for it, just as I think those who have written to me and prayed for Convention are doing, on both sides.

II. Proposed Resolution Blessing Sexual Relationships Outside Marriage.

The proposed resolution providing for blessing of certain sexual relationships is not limited to people of gay and lesbian orientation. Rather, the resolution is written to apply to those who cannot legally marry, including heterosexual persons.

As controversial as the application of this resolution would be to gay and lesbian persons, I view its application to heterosexual persons as much more disturbing. A logical case is made for the application to same gender couples, since by definition under current law, such couples cannot marry and have no mechanism to recognize and formalize their relationship and the commitments they wish to make. Even those doubtful about such relationships recognize that those characterized by fidelity, mutuality, and commitment are far preferable to promiscuous alternatives, and that provision of a form to solemnize that commitment has some utility.

For heterosexual persons, however, marriage is available in appropriate circumstances. The canons recognize that a priest may decline to marry any couple for reasons which seem good to the priest. Having seen the disastrous results where couples went priest shopping and married against the advice of the clergy, it is fair to say that not all such heterosexual relationships should be made permanent in marriage or the equivalent.

Where marriage is not currently available under the law, it is for reasons of failure to terminate another marriage, insufficient age, lack of mental capacity, kinship, and similar factors. I am unaware of any good theological basis to bless such relationships forbidden by law, and no case has been made out for such blessings of heterosexual relationships nearly as well as it has for same gender couples.

In asking for the rationale behind blessing such heterosexual relationships, some of the responses have focused on retired persons who would lose benefits they hold under various wills, trusts, or social security. For economic reasons, I am told, we should bless these heterosexual relationships short of marriage. Concerns about ‘fornication” – sexual relations outside marriage -- were thought by proponents to be quite humorous given the age range under discussion.

With due respect, most heterosexual marriages pay a significant tax penalty as opposed to people sharing a household but being taxed singly. We do not say that adverse tax consequences are a valid reason to live together and have sexual relations but refuse to marry. Engaging the church in efforts to avoid the social security benefit rules to avoid loss of income is inappropriate, and threatens to make the church a party to fraud in some cases. If social security pays our seniors too little, that is an equity issue we should be addressing on its merits, not playing shell games with the tax man.

Similarly, the church teaches that it is the duty every Christian adult to have a will, in order to avoid serious pastoral problems later. Centuries of sad experience teach the wisdom of that rule. I have been in law practice long enough to understand the wisdom of the rule.

Yet now proponents are arguing that the blessing service will allow beneficiaries of wills to avoid loss of income if they remarry contrary to the terms of a dead spouse’s will. It is unreasonable for us to encourage people to make estate plans, many of which will benefit the church as residuary beneficiaries, and then on the other hand to engage in subterfuges designed to frustrate those estate plans.

For younger people, application of the blessings service is also fraught with questions. Is it an engagement? Something else? Does it bless sexual relations? What about children – does the church view them as legitimate? What are each partner’s obligation to each other? To former spouses? To current spouses who are incompetent? How do we handle a transition to marriage?

To date, I have not received satisfactory answers to these issues, nor do I think the proponents of this resolution have thought through this aspect nearly as carefully as they have the application of such a rite to same gender couples. Accordingly, I will oppose the proposed resolution in its current form for this additional reason.

As noted above, I know these views will disappoint many of my friends, friends on both sides of this issue. I would urge you to remember that there is far more to the Christian life and to the life of the Church than this issue, important as it may seem now. I would also ask for your continued prayers for the church, that we seek and do God’s will faithfully in these and more important matters.

Faithfully,

Russell V. Randle
Lay Deputy, Diocese of Virginia