A STATEMENT OF UNITY
(The following statement was drafted by the Revd Canon Daniel Weir and circulated to clergy and lay leaders in the Diocese of Western New York during Holy Week 2004. At the time Canon Weir served as Vice-Chair of the Diocesan Council and had been involved in some of the efforts to promote dialog between those who support and those who reject the actions of the 2003 General Convention refered to in this statement. He drafted the statement hoping that it would provide a way for Episcopalians with differing views on these issues to express their commitment to unity. The comments of two clergy colleagues who declined to sign the statement can be found below the list of signers. The first is from the Revd Hary Grace, Rector of Saint Mark's Church, Buffalo. The second is from the Revd Dr. Roger Grist, at the time the Rector of Saint Michael and All Angels Church, Buffalo. One of those who signed, the Revd Dr. Max Myers, at that time Canon Thelogian of Saint Paul's Cathedral, has written a response to Fr. Grist's statement . It is posted below that statement.
As of May 26, 2004, 36 clergy and 17 lay persons had signed the statement. In the list below the statement, the congregation or the position of the signer is included for identification purposes only.
+++++++
We, the undersigned, are ordained and lay Episcopalians in the Diocese of Western New York who are committed to remaining within the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
We understand and accept that some of us and other members of the Diocese are deeply troubled and grieved by the actions of the 2003 General Convention in consenting to the consecration of an openly gay man as Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire and in acknowledging that the blessing of same sex unions is happening in some parts of the church.
We understand and accept that some of us and other members of the Diocese celebrate these actions.
We understand and accept that some of us and other members of the Diocese are more neutral on this matter.
We believe that such diversity in opinion and belief expresses the range of faithful responses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We believe that all Episcopalians in Western New York bring unique gifts to the ministry of the church and that all have a place at Christ’s table. We strive to hold each other in love and respect, remaining together as sisters and brothers in Christ within the Episcopal Church. The departure of any of us diminishes our common life. We know that it is possible for us to remain together because during the past thirty years we have done so despite deep differences over such matters as Prayer Book revision and the ordination of women.
We are loyal to the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Episcopal Church. We continue to be nurtured by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason—the three-legged stool of traditional Anglicanism. We are Episcopalians striving for a middle way—a via media—of diversity and tolerance in the Diocese of Western New York.
We invite all Episcopalians in the Diocese of Western New York who share these views to join us in subscribing to this Statement of Unity.
Signers as of May 26, 2004:
The Revd Peter Arvedson, Retired
The Revd William M. Bayle, Retired
The Revd Canon and Mrs. John B. Birdsall, Saint Paul's Church, Harris Hill
The Revd Deacon Polly Bowen, Diocesan Education For Ministry Coordinator
The Revd John Paul Boyer, Rector, Saint David's Church, West Seneca
Elisabeth M. Brauza, Saint David's Church, West Seneca
The Revd Ellen Brauza, Co-Vicar, the Church of the Ascension, Buffalo
The Revd Peter W. Bridgford, Retired
Gloria Bryant, Saint John's Church, Wilson
The Revd Terry W. Bull, Rector, the Church of the Advent, Kenmore
The Revd Deacon Bonnie Bundrock, Christ Church, Lockport
The Revd Judith D. Burrows, Rector, Saint Paul's Church, Harris Hill
The Revd Sarah Buxton-Smith, Vicar, Saint Andrew's Church, Buffalo
Lois Carter, Saint John's Church, Wilson
The Revd Beryl T. Choi, Retired
The Revd Gordon J. De La Vars, Rector, Saint Paul's Church, Mayville
The Revd Philip W. Dougharty, Rector, Saint John's-Grace Church, Buffalo
Judy Elliott, Parish Adminstrator, Saint Simon's Church, Buffalo
The Very Revd Allen Farabee, Dean, Saint Paul's Cathedral, Buffalo
The Revd Jerre Feagin, Rector, Saint Mark's Church, North Tonawanda
The Revd Carole Grant-White, Trinity Church, Lancaster
The Revd Susan Keppy, Rector, Saint Paul's Church, Lewiston
The Very Revd Earle King, Dean of Northern Erie; Rector, Saint Martin's-in-the-Fields Church, Grand Island
The Revd Dr. Warren Lane, Trinity Church, Buffalo
The Very Revd Eldwin Lovelady, Dean of Chautauqua; Rector, Saint Peter's Church, Westfield
The Revd Ross Mackenzie, Priest Associate, Saint Luke's Church, Jamestown
Linda Makson, AOJN, Saint Matthias Church, East Aurora
The Revd James Massie, Interim Rector, Saint John's Church, Youngstown
The Revd Deacon Leann McConchie, Saint Paul's Cathedral, Buffalo
The Revd Steven Metcalfe, Rector, Calvary Church, Williamsville
The Revd Dr. Max Myers, Canon Theologian, Saint Paul's Cathedral, Buffalo
The Revd Russell A. Newbert, Co-Vicar, the Church of the Ascension, Buffalo
Kathleen Niles, Calvary Church, Williamsville
Barbara Northan, Saint Andrew's Church, Buffalo
Debi Overton, Organist and Choir Director, Calvary Church, Williamsville
Jay Phillippi, Diocesan Youth Missioner
The Revd Walter Pond, Diocesan Baptismal Ministry Developer
The Revd Canon Richard Rowe, Retired
Bernadette Ruof, Calvary Church, Williamsville
The Revd John A Russell, Interim Rector, Saint Philip's Church, Buffalo
The Revd Carmen Seufert, Rector, Saint Patrick's Church, Cheektowaga
David Smith, Saint Matthias Church, East Aurora
The Revd Canon Stephen Smith, Diocesan Ecumenical Officer
Julie & Joe Spina, the Church of the Good Shepherd, Buffalo
The Revd Ralph Strohm, Rector, Saint Simon's Church, Buffalo
Candy Stiles, The Church of the Advent, Kenmore
Lay Canon Shirley M. Watts, Retired, Saint Paul's Cathedral, Buffalo
The Revd Deacon Frieda Webb, Saint David's Church West Seneca
The Revd Canon Daniel S. Weir, Rector, Saint Matthias Church, East Aurora
The Revd Canon William Wipfler, Priest Associate, Saint Matthias Church, East Aurora
Patricia Gail Zebrowski, Calvary Church, Williamsville
"I am in complete agreement that we in the Diocese of Western NY (clergy and lay) need to pray and work for unity, reconciliation and healing of our painful divisions. However, I cannot sign the statement, because I truly believe that the unity we seek cannot be achieved unless those who are of significant differences actually sit down together and draft a statement that all can sign that leads us toward that unity we seek. I have had statements of both agreement and disagreement with my current position, but I fear that unless we begin to work together, we will continue to stand across the gap from each other with statements that might even widen the gap."
The Revd Harry Grace, Rector, Saint Mark's Church, Buffalo
I have read your Statement of Unity, and applaud you for your attempt to try to bring about a unity in the diocese. It is, however, a unity which I am afraid cannot be accomplished by merely signing a document.
One of the reasons I cannot sign this document is because I do not believe your statement to be true which says: "that such a diversity in opinion and belief expresses the range of faithful responses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ". I do not understand how a response that is contrary to the plain reading of Scripture regarding sexuality, the vast majority of Christians who believe in traditional biblical morality, the Lambeth Conference which affirmed this same morality, the early Church Fathers, and much of Church history, could be deemed a faithful response to the Gospel.
I'm not sure what you mean by your statement: "all Episcopalians...have a place at Christ's table." If you mean by table, the altar around which we receive communion, then I would have to disagree with you. The Prayer Book, for example, says that a person may be denied communion who is living a notoriously evil life. That person may not come to communion until giving clear proof of repentance and amendment of life (BCP 409). There are many who consider all sexual sin, without repentance, (since that is basically the sin we are talking about here) to be "notoriously evil," thus, we have a responsibility to, in love, encourage the unrepentant to repent before coming to the table.
If you mean by "the table" simply coming to church, then we can agree on that because all are welcome to come to church to hear the Gospel of repentance and grace.
I agree that the Church is to hold each other in love and respect, remaining together as brothers and sisters in Christ. The question becomes one of which Christ we are talking about. St. Paul tells us that some come preaching a different Jesus and a different gospel from what the apostles preached. I'm afraid, Dan, that this is what is happening here. A Jesus that would affirm a sexual expression which is contrary to what the Father and the Jesus of the Bible affirmed is a different Jesus. I find it difficult to be at unity with those who believe in such a Jesus. As St. Paul encouraged Timothy to do, so, I believe he encourages those of us who disagree with the interpretation of Scripture that led to the actions of the past General Convention to do as well. He encourages Timothy to instruct certain people not to teach any different or false doctrine. He includes a number of aspects of moral behavior in the category of doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3-11). We cannot be united with those who insist upon changing a core doctrine of the Church.
Remaining together during the changing of the Prayer Book or Women's ordination is an entirely different thing than remaining together after changing (or acting against) a core doctrine of the Church and Scripture. The issues of Women's ordination and the Prayer Book are not so clearly defined in Scripture, and so we can remain together because the Anglican way allows for a diversity of opinion in these non-essential elements. According to Article 7 of the Thirty Nine Articles (BCP 869), we are not free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral, while we can have a diversity of views on ceremonies, rites, and civil precepts.
The problem many are having in this debate is that they find it difficult to associate with those in the Church who teach false teachings or promote immoral behavior. As St. Paul said:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons - not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).
I have seen on a number of occasions that those who want to change the Church's view of traditional biblical morality in sexual relations often end up denying or trying to change other essential elements of the Christian faith and Creeds (like denying the virgin birth of Christ), as Bishop Spong has done.
I am not trying to be judgmental; I am simply trying to follow Paul's and Jesus' advice to "make a right judgment." (John 7:24). That judgment can only be right when it lines up with Scripture and how Scripture has been interpreted from the very beginning of the Christian faith.
Sincerely,
The Rev. Dr. Roger Grist, Rector, St. Michael and All Angels, Buffalo
Counter questions for Rev. Dr. Roger Grist
By Rev. Dr. Max Myers
We owe Rev. Dr. Grist a debt of thanks for making a statement explaining why he cannot sign the Unity Statement circulated by Rev. Dan Weir and his understanding of what the Christian faith compels him to believe and to do in the face of the election and consecration of an openly gay man as Bishop. I have put forth an article (which can be found on the web site of the Diocese of Western New York) explaining my position supporting that election and consecration, from a theological point of view. I think that if any real reconciliation is to be had between those on opposite sides of this issue we need to have a rational debate between the two sides. To that end, I would like to pose some questions that arose in my mind as I read Rev. Dr. Grist’s statement, and invite his response. In that way, perhaps, we may move forward.
First, what is a Moral law or precept as opposed to a ritual or ceremonial or civil law? Rev. Dr. Grist notes, correctly, that in the articles of religion, Christians are said to be bound to observe the Moral law, giving to Moses by God, but are not so bound by the ritual or ceremonial or civil laws (Art. VII). I have trouble identifying the Moral law in this sense, and separating it from the ritual or ceremonial or civil laws. Certainly, in the Pentateuch, the Law is the Law, there is no clear differentiation between moral and ritual and civil and ceremonial, it is all the Law and all required to be observed. I am not saying that it ever was wholly observed or that we, Christians, are bound to observe all of it, but I would like to know what authorizes anyone to pick and choose which laws are to be observed and which not (the place of the law in relation to the gospel is another, very difficult question which we may lay aside here). If it is the church, i. e. the bishops, clergy and laity in council that have this authority, then that is a coherent answer, but one that may prove inconvenient for Rev. Dr. Grist’s larger point. If it is some other person or body, then what is that? Or is the law to be reinterpreted? Again, by whom and how?
Moreover, how does one define a moral as opposed to a ritual or some other law? After all, if you can’t give a definition of a word, then no one knows how to use it, and that is my problem with this sort of division of the law. I presume that if anything counts as a moral law, in the articles of religion sense, then it must be the Ten Commandments, since they were said to be given by God to Moses. Now, in those ten commandments the fourth is to observe the Sabbath, and what that means is quite explicit, it means that no one is to do any work at all on the seventh day of the week, no one! (Ex. 20: 8-11) I would be very surprised if Rev. Dr. Grist has ever obeyed this commandment, I know that I have not. We may call the First Day the Sabbath but it is not, and calling it the Sabbath is like calling Baptism the rite of Circumcision. Sunday celebrates the Resurrection and it is not a day of complete and utter rest whereas the Sabbath celebrates the rest of God on the seventh day as in the first account of creation in Genesis. Now, is the Fourth Commandment not to be counted a part of the Moral law, but a part of the ceremonial law or even the civil law? In that case, we should not speak of the Ten Commandments but of the Nine Commandments, if we mean, as most people do, commandments of God which are still required to be observed by Christians, in some sense. But the question still remains, what criterion, what standard, do we have to distinguish moral laws from other kinds of laws? It cannot be simply our own arbitrary whim, if they are of such importance. Or, to state it differently, what authorizes us Christians to re-interpret the clear sense of the Fourth Commandment? And would not the same authority, if valid, perhaps allow us to re-interpret the clear sense of some other commandments? By the way, the same problem exists with respect to Rev. Dr. Grist’s notion of the prohibition of homosexuality as one of the “core doctrines” of Christianity. What constitutes a “core doctrine?” Again, what is the criterion or criteria that Rev. Dr. Grist is employing to distinguish core doctrine from other doctrines? He seems to think that women’s ordination and the new prayer book are not core doctrines but why? Could it be that he himself has no problem with those doctrines and so he feels entitled to label them “non-core?” But that is just a personal whim, hardly a real intellectual reason if that is the case. To stimulate his thinking about criteria, I might ask him about divorce. We have the words of Jesus forbidding divorce except for the case of adultery, and that only in one version. (Mk. 10: 1-12, but cf. Matt. 19:3-9) Why would the words of Jesus not make the prohibition of divorce a core doctrine? Or do they?
Furthermore, the Hebrews knew that laws are pretty much meaningless unless there are clear penalties for breaking them, and, indeed, the Bible supplies such penalties and spells them out in clear detail. So, even if we could give a criterion for separating moral from other kinds of laws, what would authorize us in changing the penalty that God, according to the Bible, explicitly charges us with visiting upon the malefactor? For example, anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death, according to Exodus 21: 17 (a violation of the fifth commandment, Ex. 20:12). Is that a moral law or a ritual law or a civil law? The point is, I think, the division of laws into moral, ceremonial, ritual or civil is a modern invention and is wholly foreign to the world of the Bible as is our neglect of the clear scriptural injunction to punish those who break the laws with the penalties laid down. I bring up this question of a penalty, not to make fun of the Hebrew laws, but because Rev. Dr. Grist claims that we are still bound to carry out the penalty prescribed by Paul vis-à-vis an immoral person who is a member of the assembly. We will return to that shortly. Now I only want to point out that we do not simply read out of scripture itself a moral scheme and certainly not one that is self-evidently moral and not civil or ritual or ceremonial. So, whatever other religions who revere these books as sacred scriptures might do, modern Christians must have some kind of critical hermeneutics to interpret them. I have sketched out my suggestion for what such a hermeneutic might look like in the article referenced above, so I won’t go into it here, except to say that I don’t think the few remarks suggested by the articles of religion are much help in this task.
I think that we must confront one question from hermeneutics, however, before we can hope to have a rational discussion. That question can be put this way, Does the moral meaning of a particular act change as the social, cultural and political circumstances of that act change? Or, to put it another way, can we learn more about ourselves and our world and come to a point at which what was once considered by most right thinking people to be wrong can come to be considered right? I think that the answer to that general question must be affirmative, in either form. Consider usury, for example, that is the act of lending money to another person for a profit. In the Old Testament law usury was a sin (Ex. 22:25). In the early church, likewise, usury was condemned as a mortal sin and this was reaffirmed in a series of councils throughout the Middle Ages. Dante, in his Divine Comedy, reflects this theological understanding of usury by placing usurers in one of the lowest circles of Hell. Calvin was one of the first theologians to recognize that both parties gained from a loan and refused to condemn usury per se. But in parts of the church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, usury retained its sinful status until the beginning of the twentieth century. The reason given by theologians for the sinful nature of usury is interesting, considering some reasoning with respect to homosexuality. Money, they held, following Aristotle, was sterile, it was simply a means of exchange and of itself produced nothing. To realize a gain from lending money was “against its nature” and was therefore wrong. Modern economics, however, has a wholly different view of the nature of money and all of our financial institutions and practices prove, in the only sense that matters, that Aristotle was wrong. Just as modern science proves in the only sense that matters that Aristotle was wrong about the cosmos, physics, and biology, including human sexuality. For example, modern biologists tell us that homosexuality is practiced by a certain percentage of most animal species. That was certainly not known by Aristotle or by the writers of the Bible. Does it make a difference in interpreting passages of scripture which deal with homosexuality? Not necessarily, but it may, and I think that if you combine it with what other scientists are telling us about human genetics and biology, and empirical human behavior, it makes the claims of fellow Christians who say that they are most themselves when they express their sexual nature with another person of the same sex entirely believable. I do think that the present day experience of Christians, both gay and lesbian and those who worship and work with them, should be given more weight than it is allowed by their opponents. Moreover, when you combine this with the history of hatred, torture and murder of gays and lesbians, perpetrated by Christian clergy and their governmental allies, I have to wonder why people who were certain to be persecuted and punished so ferociously would perversely continue to behave in ways that were ‘not natural’ for them, in the same sense that sex between men and women is natural for them. I also marvel at the moral certainty of some Christians who seem to brush over the history of persecution that we know, and offer in its place an ideal and very naïve version of church history and highly selective reading of the scriptures. I am aware that the question of whether there is a genetic cause of homosexuality is not settled, that there are arguments for that and against it, but I am also aware that certain Christian writers and TV personalities who do not accept the theory of evolution which is basic to all modern science but who will pounce on any ambiguity in genetic science as presumed validation for their side.
I want to turn to the passage from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians ( 1st Corinthians 5: 9-13) that Rev. Dr. Grist cites, because it is on such passages that much of the rhetorical force of the Bishops’ opponents turns. In the first place, it must be emphasized that the exact meaning of the immorality Paul refers to in the character of the unnamed Corinthian is unknown. Almost all modern commentators on the passage state that the “letter” Paul refers to (verse 9) is lost and its contents unknown. Some commentators have pointed out the connexion with greed or usury in the passage and suggest that an inordinate striving for wealth, power and prestige may have something to do with Paul’s condemnation. At any rate, it seems odd to hang such an important point on a passage which we do not fully understand and probably never will fully understand, unless we find the missing letter and can verify it as the letter referred to.
Beyond this point, though, there is the question of what we, modern Christians, do with such a passage. The picture presented here is one of an individual who is widely recognized to be immoral and whose immorality has been pointed out by the leaders of the church and is acknowledged by the congregation. This individual has been the subject of some conversation but has not changed his ways. Paul therefore says that the Christians should not associate with this person nor eat with him. The first thing that occurs to one in thinking of the situation is that this is the case of an individual whose wrong-doing, whatever it is, is obvious to everyone, even it seems to the person himself. Thus, the controversy is not about whether what the person is doing is wrong, that seems to be granted by all, but about what the appropriate response of the assembly and its members should be. Some, to judge from Paul’s emphasis, seem to have assumed that they should respond to outsiders who do this sort of wrong as if they were insiders. Paul says that the assembly should not be concerned about their contacts with outsiders but that they should deal with those in their midst. Note that this passage is not about disputes over what is moral or immoral, that is taken as settled and obvious to all, including the wrong-doer. But in our situation today, it is precisely the question of what acts are immoral that is the question. The initial interpretative impulse, and it is surely basically sound, is to find an analogy in contemporary life which might be illumined by this scripture. The question is, what is the best analogy. Given that we don’t know the precise immorality in the original, although it must have something to do with sexuality and greed, what should be our overarching interpretive theory? I suggest that we find it in Paul’s general mission, that of building an alternative, anti-Imperial community of women and men based on the all-inclusive love of God as shown in the Cross of Christ which nurtures and is mirrored in compassion and caring for each other in this society. If this is basically descriptive of Paul’s mission, then the question becomes how we continue this mission in our day using Paul’s letters among other writings which witness to the original revelation of God’s love in Jesus Christ. Given this understanding, which I am prepared to argue for on the basis of theology and scripture, I would say that the best way to obey Paul’s injunction in 1st Corinthians 5: 9-13 would be to try to create an alternative community which is wholly inclusive and accepting of all genders, sexual orientations, races, ages, economic groups and ethic backgrounds and to exclude only those who live and express the immorality of racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, male chauvinism and patriarchalism. Those are the immoralities of our day, and I am afraid that many Christians have fallen victim to them.
I consider myself a Bible-believing Christian, as the sign on a local independent Baptist church has it. But in my interpretation, the Bible is not, itself, the Word of God, but the witness to the Word of God. The Word of God I believe is the second person of the Trinity. But I do not accept a kind of fundamentalist system of what the Bible teaches. I think the Bible is much more interesting, open, and alive that any fundamentalist system, evangelical or catholic, tries to force on people. In fact, the Biblical fundamentalism rampant in American culture today reminds me of the sort of Stalinist fundamentalism of the old Soviet Union. And, like the Stalinists the popular TV evangelists promote a closed, static theological system and have a definite political and cultural agenda behind their pious words. I am not saying that Rev. Dr. Grist is a member of this Biblical cabal, but if those who oppose Gene Robinson’s election with the cry that “worldly standards” have invaded the church are allowed to hide their own debt to “worldly standards” of a different sort, namely those of the right wing, then the debate is skewed from the start.
My own plea is to those, of whom I presume Rev. Dr. Grist to be one, who are genuinely troubled by this action of the Bishops but who are willing to set down rationally with other Bible-believing Christians who may interpret the Bible differently and discuss the matter with them. Tossing labels at others, labels such as “false teachers,” does not increase dialogue, it only increases hostility, sadness and division.
Any use of scripture relies on an analogical vision of the similarities and differences between two situations, the situation in the Biblical text and the situation in modern life. It also relies on the sense in which a word in first century koine Greek is translated into a modern context. On both of these points Biblical scholars can and do disagree, on both Christians disagree and have throughout history. This disagreement is not surprising, since hermeneutics is an art not a science. Traditionally, it has been understood that a sacred text has many meanings in it, some visible to one group, others discernible only to another group. In fact, this multiplicity and inexhaustibility of meaning is one definition of a sacred text. And, if as Christians believe, the scriptures are a witness to the living Word of God, it should be clear that human readers and hearers will never capture all of its meaning. Therefore, as I said, disagreement is to be expected, the important thing is to keep grounded in the text, for as long as we are grounded together in the same text, we can show one another what we have found in it and grow in our discussions with each other. One of the points that I found puzzling about Rev. Dr. Grist’s statement was his assertion that he could not take a place around the table, as his metaphor had it, with those who are immoral, interpreting Paul’s passage in what I think an odd way, if I understand him. Again, Paul has it that the believers should not eat with one that all acknowledge as immoral, not that they should not eat with the majority of fellow believers who disagree with them about the meaning of immorality in a particular instance. It is not disagreement over what is immoral that Paul is talking about but about the discipline of one immoral fellow believer. If one were to take Rev. Dr. Grist’s interpretation here seriously, then he would not be in communion with any of the clergy or laity who remain loyal to Bishop Michael and the rest of the Episcopal Church, he would not recognize their authority to preach or celebrate any of the sacraments validly as Christian clergy. I could be wrong, but I find it difficult to believe that he would carry his disagreement to this extreme. As a matter of Christian doctrine and discipline, the Episcopal Church has a process for resolving such disagreements when they reach the level of decision. It is a process that all ordained and trained clergy understood when they took their ordination vows. It is a process that, as far as I know, everyone acknowledges was gone through legally, honestly and openly in the case of Bishop Robinson. Part of the process is to respect the views of those who disagree with the outcome of an action but to keep them as valued colleagues and to continue to share the sacraments with each other in spite of that disagreement. That is the unity that the statement that Fr. Weir drew up proclaims and that is the unity that we seek to keep with our brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us.
I offer these sometimes rambling reflections as a means toward continuing the dialogue about our response to the election of Bishop Robinson. As I said, I do not think that there is any possible way to ‘prove’ that one side is right or wrong here. Persuasion is the aim in such discussions, not coercion, logical or otherwise. What we have instead is an attempt to try out various ways of discernment with prayer that the Holy Spirit will lead us on to the most inclusive and loving perspective, and that we should do what we can to be coherent and to arrive at conclusions which are adequate to the life experiences of all of our fellow Christians no matter what their sexual orientation.
To that end, I invite Rev. Dr. Grist or anyone else, to respond to my counter questions, I would welcome the chance to engage in a deeper dialogue than that we have so far entertained.
Rev. Dr. Max A. Myers (mmyers7165@aol.com).
