Theology and Ethics

This third chapter is available as a 24 page PDF or in 5 separate blog posts:

3(i) – Priesting of Ellen Barrett

3(ii) – 1977 House of Bishops’ Statement

3(iii) – Pastoral Care: Two Models

3(iv) – Lambeth Conference 1978

3(v) – Road to General Convention 1979

Primary source material:

Bishop Moore Letter and Statement re Barrett Ordination, 1977

Bishop Moore to HoB, 1977

Bishop Barrett Support for Moore, 1977

House of Bishops Pastoral Letter, October 1977

Theology Committee Report to HoB, October 1977

House of Bishops Minority Report (Bishop Myers), October 1977





Chapter Three – Actions & Reactions – The Road to General Convention 1979, Denver

Countdown to Colorado

A year later, in 1979, as ECUSA began the year of its 66^th General Convention, many supporters of Integrity were upset and frustrated at the resistance to their desire to interpret the decisions of 1976 as paving the way for (or at least permitting) same-sex blessings and the ordination of what the House of Bishops had called “advocating or practicing homosexuals”. Louie Crew vented these feelings in the year’s opening edition of Integrity Forum. Headed “Not To Send Peace” he explained that, despite the many positive fruits of the group’s work, “what troubles me is the immense recalcitrance of the ignorance and the homophobia which we are called to exorcise.  I very much doubt that we have found the most effective strategies for our prophetic missions to non­gays and gays alike”.^[1] Looking back on the origins of the newsletter he sketched both his perception and his hopes at the time – “I assumed that social injustice could be rectified simply by telling the oppressors the truth” – and his assessment four years on – “I was very naive.  I failed to reckon with the fact that some people have a vested interest in our oppression.  Perhaps a majority of the leaders of our church feel that they have an obligation to silence “undesirables,” particularly those defined as undesirable by the heterosexual majority”. In reality, “our oppressors have grown much more sophisticated since we first started speaking out…The last two sessions of the House of Bishops have produced the most anti-homosexual ecclesiastical statements since Leviticus and Romans 1”.

Having caught people off guard at General Convention in 1976, the prospects for 1979 were not positive and so he looked in response to Christ’s “volatilely nonviolent” ministry as a pattern, arguing that “as Christ turned over the tables of the money-changers, so we must begin more serious instruction of those who have turned God’s house of prayer into a heterosexual club with gay closets.  The Church has shown very limited good faith in responding to our less dramatic presentations:  we need to find more forceful measures”. Among these possible measures he proposed a policy to be taken up much later in England by Outrage! – the outing of gay Christians:

some closets need fumigating…When known gay and lesbian laity, priests, and bishops speak out against homosexuals to throw the suspicion off themselves, their position is as untenable as that of the high-yellow riding in the front of the bus and throwing rotten eggs at the black sisters and brothers in the back.  If such folks can’t be persuaded to desist in their abuses of us, they need to be exposed.^[2]

Drawing attention to bishops refusing to allow Integrity members to preside at eucharists for gay Christians he raised the spectre that “very soon INTEGRITY members may have to face jail sentences for volatile, nonviolent acts at such altars, for performing the services our Lord performed for the temple exchequers”. His challenge was simple and stark –

We simply can no longer rule out the rasher measures of Christian witness.  Often Dr. King was heard most clearly when H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael were in the wings.  For sure, we will never do much educating if we allow our oppressors to dictate either the content, the style, or the timing of our reactions. The real test will be whether we can resist in love.  If we cannot, we should not even begin, for lovelessness is no victory at all.

In the course of 1979 news from other provinces wrestling with the issue also did not bode well for Integrity’s goals: in February the Canadian House of Bishops took a similar stance to that of the ECUSA bishops in 1977, requiring abstinence from gay clergy while in England in July the long-awaited Gloucester Report offered the prospect of a more liberal stance but only appeared with the addition of ‘critical observations’ from the Board for Social Responsibility.

However, when it appeared, after two years’ study involving seven meetings, the unanimous 17-page report from ECUSA’s 12-member Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health – chaired by Bishop Spears of Rochester – was not as negative as many in Integrity had feared.^[3] Having discussed issues concerning appeals to Scripture, tradition and reason and the state of modern knowledge and debate in various sciences, the report distinguished “open and avowed” from “disguised or hidden” homosexuals. It acknowledged that many of the latter had been ordained and in such cases “the problems of hypocrisy, integrity, and suffering remain unsolved”.

In responding to homosexuals seeking ordination it outlined three possible stances the Church could take:

• encourage people to stay “in the closet”;
• encourage openness and welcome homosexual people into the church, including into the ministry if they were competent;
• support those who campaigned for the church to recognise their relationships.

The third group they believed displayed “an abnormal obsession with homosexuality” and so, although to be welcome in the church, those who took such a stance “are not competent and qualified to be ordained”.

In line with the 1976 resolutions, the Commission stressed that all civil rights should be given to all people and it was wrong to single out any people as special sinners. However, while “all human beings are equal before God; their actions are not”. Using the language of ‘ideal’ that would gain currency in later discussions, the report declared “we believe we are faithful to biblical traditions in constantly emphasizing the normative values of the family, social responsibility, and life of the Church, even though we know we all fall short of ideal values”. Sexual ethics, however, should not be the church’s only concern in this discussion and it was important to acknowledge that “regardless of what moral judgment may be passed on homosexuality, we believe that there can be no question in the sight of God the persecution of homosexual persons is a very serious sin. The Church has much of which to repent in this regard”.

In the light of their study, rather than proposing constitutional or canonical changes, the Commission proposed a “mind of the General Convention” approval of its five recommendations:

(1)  Among the conditions relevant to a person’s suitability for ordination were some in the area of sexuality;

(2)  In some cases homosexuals behaved in a manner “which most Christians regard as abnormal, immoral, and/or anti-social” and, as with some forms of heterosexuality, this would disqualify someone from ordination;

(3)  The issues about any individual was whether they “can and will lead a life which is a wholesome example to Christ’s flock” and those homosexual persons able and willing to conform their behavior to that which the Church affirms as wholesome should not be barred;

(4)  Clergy should offer “compassionate and understanding pastoral care to homosexual individuals” but they are not expected “to promote or foster a homosexual adaptation as a generally acceptable alternative for Christians”;

(5)   General Convention should enact no legislation which singles out a particular human condition and makes of it an absolute barrier to ordination, a course which would deprive Bishops and Commissions on Ministry the proper exercise of their discretion in particular cases.

[1] Jan/Feb 1979, Vol 5 No 2.

[2] A slow trickle of priests voluntarily ‘coming out’ occurred throughout these years.

[3] Members of the Commission, in addition to Bishop Spears, were: Bishop Hal R. Gross, retired suffragan of Oregon; Bishop Willis R. Henton of Northwest Texas; the Rev. William A. Spurrier of Connecticut; the Rev. Thomas F. Pike of New York; the Very Rev. Gordon T. Charlton of Texas; Ruth T. Barnhouse, M. D., of Massachusetts; J. Campbell Cantrill, M.D., of Lexington; Michelle W. Hawkins of Pennsylvania; Thomas G. P. Guilbert, Esq., of Oregon; D. Bruce Merrifield, Ph. D., of New York; and Anna H. Grant, Ph. D., of Atlanta. Details of membership and report contents taken from ENS 79187.



Chapter Three – Actions & Reactions – The Road to General Convention 1979, Denver

Lambeth Conference 1978

Particularly in the light of developments since 1998, it is important not to divorce the ongoing American discussions and actions from the life of the wider Anglican Communion. From July 22^nd to August 13^th, 1978 more than 400 bishops from the Anglican Communion’s 25 provinces gathered for the eleventh Lambeth Conference. In its wide-ranging agenda, the discussion of the ordination of women priests gained most attention as it rejected the option of a five-year moratorium on further ordinations (by about 2:1) and instead declared its acceptance of those member Churches which now ordain women and those which do not.^[1]

In relation to the Communion’s debates about sexuality, there proved to be two noteworthy events at Lambeth. First, the significance given to the newly instituted Primates’ Meeting. Second, and more immediately of importance, the Conference passed a resolution on human relationships and sexuality which included the first explicit mention of homosexuality in a Lambeth resolution (Resolution 10) and it included a discussion of homosexuality in its Section One report on “What Is The Church For?”.^[2]

In the report, after a lengthy discussion of the family, the significance of the subject of sexuality was highlighted by drawing attention to resolution 112 from 1958 that the Conference had a profound conviction that the idea of the human family is rooted in the Godhead and “all problems of sex relations…must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive and sanctifying power of God”.^[3] Although God is neither masculine or feminine, God’s nature is reflected in the balance and interaction between the masculine and feminine. As sexual creatures, created male and female, “the wholeness of God can be most directly expressed in the give and take of love between a man and a woman” although this wholeness is present in each individual person “whose total sexuality is expressed through the interplay of masculine and feminine qualities”. Holding these qualities in balance the Christian life is one in which God sets us free and calls us into mature relationships of inter-dependence in which we can find “our fragmented sexuality transformed by his wholeness”.

Turning to homosexuality, the report noted that as we no longer expect everyone to conform to a norm of average humanness but rejoice in variety, “the status and rights of homosexuals are being reconsidered”.  Acknowledging the subject “has rarely received understanding either in Church or in society” and that much disagreement exists on homosexuality’s nature and causes, it recognized that many homosexuals ask “for recognition of the fact that their homosexual relationship can express mutual love as appropriately for the persons concerned as a heterosexual relationship might for others”. However, it stated that “the majority of Christians would not willingly agree with this attitude” although an adequate Christian understanding and response required approaching the subject “compassionately and without prejudice”. They noted that the complex questions raised “are currently the subject of serious study in some parts of the Anglican Communion”. However, highlighting what would become a central issue twenty years later, they noted that “there are other places (e.g. in the Church of Africa) where homosexual behaviour has not emerged as a problem” and that this raised questions about the relationship between homosexuality and the environment.

The short section concluded by stressing the need for further study of the Scriptural evidence, “such as Romans 1.18-21 which depicts homosexual behaviour as one of the manifestations of the fragmentation of life in a fallen world” and calling every local Church to become “such a warm-hearted, Christ-centred, Eucharistic fellowship, that people of every temperament and tendency might find their true unity and fellowship within the total family of Christ, where all are sinners, but all can find the grace and forgiveness of Christ in “his accepting community””.

The resolution from the whole Conference gladly reaffirmed “the Christian ideals of faithfulness and chastity both within and outside marriage” and called all Christians “to seek the grace of Christ to live lives of holiness, discipline, and service in the world”. It commended “the need for theological study of sexuality” stressing this should relate sexual relationships to the “wholeness of human life which itself derives from God, who is the source of masculinity and femininity”. At a diocesan level it commended programmes involving men and women in relation to Christian marriage and family life as well as fulfillment for those who are unmarried, the provision of “ministries of compassionate support to those suffering from brokenness within marriage and family relationships”, and the sacredness of all human life. Finally the bishops stressed that “While we re-affirm heterosexuality as the Scriptural norm” they recognized “the need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality”. Such study would have to “take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research”. In addition, “recognizing the need for pastoral concern for those who are homosexual” the Church “encourages dialogue with them”. It was noted with satisfaction that the sort of studies being commended were already underway “in some member Churches of the Anglican Communion”.

[1] 1978 LR 21.6

[2] The section, chaired by Bishop Desmond Tutu, produced “an editorial collation of views expressed in the course of the discussion by the section and in its groups during the Conference” (p53). The Conference as a whole was only responsible for the final resolution. The group dealing with sexuality and the family was chaired by Bp Elebash of East Carolina. It comprised the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA (Allin), Archbishop of Adelaide from Australia, the evangelical bishop Maurice Wood from England (along with Stephen Verney as a suffragan bishops) and one bishop from Canada, Ireland, South Africa, the Province of Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi & Boga-Zaire, West Africa, West Indies (with an assistant bishops acting as Secretary to the group) (pp15-21 of Report).

[3] Report Section I.D. Sexuality-masculinity and femininity (p63).



Chapter Three – Actions & Reactions – The Road to General Convention 1979, Denver

Pastoral Care for Homosexual People: Two Models

Although much less prominent than the debate about ordination, the late 1970s also saw the beginnings of two opposing and controversial patterns of Christian ministry in relation to gay Christians that would increasingly become hallmarks of different ‘sides’ in the wider debate. These are broadly the responses of ‘blessing’ and of ‘healing’.

From early in its life Integrity wrestled with the question of the proper form of same-sex relationships and how they could be given public recognition. Integrity Forum published two possible forms of service – a “Mass for Gay Union” and an order of service for “The exchange of vows between friends” by the English priest Malcolm Johnson.^[1] One question was how introducing such services would relate to the church’s traditional marriage liturgy. Norman Pittenger, their main theological consultant, was reported as expressing the view that – as the BCP marriage service was like the slave block and the worst sort of material objectification of human personality – “it is high time that the Church go out of the marrying business altogether, and instead enter the blessing business…The Church should be on the side of spiritual support, for everybody”.^[2]

Existing forms of blessing could, of course, easily be used to provide forms of spiritual support for gay Christians. In San Francisco, in February 1976, several Episcopal priests performed the Anglican ritual for blessing a new home for John Preston, former editor of the gay newspaper ADVOCATE and as leader of the first Episcopal Gay Caucus, one of the pioneers in organizing Gay Episcopalians.^[3]

More problematic were public ceremonies blessing same-sex couples. In January 1977, Integrity reported a conflict in the Diocese of Washington (the diocese whose bishop – 27 years later – became the first ECUSA bishop to preside at an authorized blessing of a same-sex union). The Episcopal Church of St. Stephen and the Incarna­tion had announced in the parish newsletter that there would be a celebration of the “holy union” between Wayne Schwandt, 27, and John Fortunato, 29.^[4] The Rt. Rev. John T. Walker, Bishop Coadjutor of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, objected and when the rector (Fr William Wendt) and vestry decided to override him he threatened to cut off diocesan financial aid of about $7,000 annually. Wendt proceeded to cancel the ceremony but to participate in it at its rescheduled location of Washington First Congregation Church. Explaining his actions, Wendt referred to the resolutions of Minneapolis on gay people and wrote,

The Church too has been engaged in re-thinking its attitude from a pastoral and theological view…I want to say that in my opinion this resolution was adopted with insufficient consideration of the full implication or even the meaning of its action.  What has happened here…was an attempt to deal openly, prayerfully and most lovingly with the needs of two members of a Church community which because of its model, Jesus Christ, is committed to offering sustenance to all of the children of God…at no time were the terms marriage or wedding incorporated in the resolution.

He also noted that “holy union” had been deleted by the vestry before they gave their support to the service.

Shortly after this conflict, and in the midst of the furore over the Barrett priesting, Integrity president Ron Wesner wrote to Fr John Scott, rector of the Philadelphia parish in which he served, “requesting permission of the Vestry and Parish of St. Mary’s Parish, Hamilton Village, to bless Gay unions in the parish church of St. Mary’s”.^[5] The papers relating to this early example of ‘local option’ again helpfully summarise the central arguments advanced for the church embracing this course of action.^[6]

In his initial request Wesner explained to Scott that a main reason for distress in the homosexual subculture was the apparent lack of stable same-sex relationships. In fact many relationships of ‘considerable duration’ existed – in contrast to the stereotype of fleeting gay relationships – “but almost all of them are generally hidden from the public view, and survive despite their clandestine nature”. There was therefore a need for both gay culture and wider society “to have these relationships more visible and accessible, thereby providing positive models of faithful, responsible relationships”.  Visibility and support could be given by “the community’s gathering together, expressing its intention to uphold and bless these unions”. Although the term marriage was generally not used in gay culture because too many of its connotations were inapplicable, “there are qualities held in common by both the terms of gay unions and marriages — the intention to be mutually supportive, caring, faithful, and to be able to express those intentions within a gathered Christian community”.

Scott, informing his vestry of this request (which was still hypothetical as no couple had requested a blessing) informed them that Bishop Ogilby had agreed to come to the February vestry meeting where it would be discussed. In his memo, Scott expressed his view that “this is primarily a pastoral matter, and the extension of the ministry of INTEGRITY to gay Episcopalians and their friends”. He made a number of points in broad support of the request, drawing attention to the fact that “only the extraordinary grace and gifts of a W.H. Auden or a Benjamin Britten have withstood the lack of ministry, compassion, and understanding to which gay people have had to live out their lives”.

Perhaps his most controversial point was his claim that “satisfying and fulfilling interpersonal human relationships, explicitly sexual or not, are a precious ingredient of life.  How can the Church as the expression of the love and grace of Jesus Christ our Lord witness to that in our society?”. He later expanded on this, clarifying his overall model by reference to the staged expression of commitment on the part of those joining religious orders – “postulance, novitiate, first vows, life vows — spread over a minimum of six years and often with the stipulation that life vows could not be taken prior to age thirty”. Here “life-long interaction is present from the beginning” in a time of testing and “first profession and life profession do not set aside the need for frequent self-­examination and renewal”. Similarly, in the past, the church had services of ‘betrothal”. He therefore asked whether, when society was marked by marriage breakdown, co-habitation, and same-sex relationships analgous to heterosexual ones, the church was wise “providing for only liturgical forms and recognition of binding obligations”. Although some couples had no intention of lifelong commitment, “others have a commitment to work at, develop, and support one another toward a mature and lasting relationship” and “the pastoral task is to help a couple discover where they are, and if the latter relationship is what they seek, to support and bless them in it”.

In the light of such arguments the vestry of the Philadelphia parish “unanimously endorsed the freedom of their rector Fr. John M. Scott and associate Fr. Ron Wesner to work with Gay couples and to bless Gay unions”.

At the same time as these developments, a quite different approach was, meanwhile, being developed in a parish which and by a rector who would remain prominent throughout this debate – Revd John Howe, rector of Truro Episcopal Church, Fairfax, Virginia.^[7] They gave permission for a ministry called Liberation In Jesus Christ, headed by Guy Charles, to work from their parish buildings. It described itself as “a Christian ministry within the Episcopal Church in the United States to help individuals with sexual problems, especially homosexuality and lesbianism”. Charles claimed to have been rescued from a homosexual lifestyle (and his ministry offered similar hope to homosexual Christians) on the basis that because of Christ’s recreation of him he was no longer gay. The ministry would, however, be short-lived as, on July 15^th, Charles resigned as Executive Director as a result of exhausation from his four years of ministry which had led to conflict with people such as Ralph Blair of Evangelicals Concerned and allegations about his ministry techniques. Later that summer the President of Liberation announced the ending of its ministry from Truro Episcopal Church.

A group with a similar ministry was The King’s Ministries based in Denver, Colorado. It, too, held strongly that homosexual practice was sinful and its mission was to offer forgiveness and healing to homosexuals: “liberation from a life-style result­ing in rejection and fear by proclaiming that Christ can set them free from their bondage”. To achieve this it offered education – drawing on theological, psychological, medical, sociological and pastoral insights and skills – to those “ministering to persons of Gay orien­tation who are seeking release from the homosexual lifestyle”. This was rooted in a commitment to “the historic Christian understanding of the Gospel, with its clear teaching about sin and forgiveness” that in turn led to “an authentic Christian approach to hu­man sexuality, and therefore, to an effective ministry to homosexuals”.^[8] The ministry won support from a number of diocesan bishops, notably in its home base of Colorado and in Gulf Stream. This alternative pastoral response would continue to be prominent in the pastoral ministry of many reasserters in the following decades.

[1] Mar 1975 (Vol 1 No 5) & Oct 1976 (Vol 2 No 10).

[2] March 1975, Vol 1 No 5. Similar views were clearly expressed by him at the First Integrity Convention (April 77 Vol 3 No 6)

[3] Feb 1976, Vol 2 No 4

[4] Fortunato subsequently served as Integrity President 1981-2.

[5] The report and documentation appears in April 1977 (Vol 3 No 6)

[6] Published in ibid.

[7] Howe would become Bishop of Central Florida and sign the presentment against Bishop Righter, in 2003 while under his successor, Martyn Minns, the parish would be central in the Network following 2003 and at the heart of CANA, with Martyn Minns being consecrated a bishop in the Church of Nigeria.

[8] Mission Statement quoted in April-May 78, Vol 4 No 4. See also the earlier critical report on the ministry of one of its workers, William Preussing (Oct 77, Vol 3 No 10).



Chapter Three – Actions & Reactions – The Road to General Convention 1979, Denver

The 1977 House of Bishops’ Statement

The House of Bishops, with 150 of the 235 eligible bishops in attendance, met in the first week of October. Continued divisions over the ordination of women was one major issue with the House approving a Statement of Conscience that affirmed that “no bishop, priest, or lay person should be coerced or penalized in any matter” for their views on women’s ordination. This was then demonstrated by the bishops expressing their support for Presiding Bishop Allin who remained personally unable to accept women in the role of priest.^[1] The House also overwhelmingly decried and repudiated the actions of a retired bishop (Bishop Albert Chambers of Springfield) who – in opposition to ECUSA’s decisions to ordain women priests and following a pattern of dissent which would reappear later in relation to homosexuality – was exercising episcopal ministry without the permission of the bishop with jurisdictional authority.^[2]

In relation to sexuality, the bishops approved a resolution asking each bishop to take steps to select a group to study the question of human sexuality, including the issue of homosexuality. These studies would act as a possible aid to the Joint Commission on Human Affairs which had been asked by General Convention to study the issue in relation to ordination and report in 1979. The House, however, also “decided that some statement at this time is needed on the issues of the marriage and the ordination of homosexual persons”. The content of their statement and the views of those bishops who dissented from it present an illuminating snap-shot of what would remain the paradigms and some of the central arguments of ‘reasserters’ and ‘reassessors’/ ‘reinterpreters’ both in the US and elsewhere in the Communion.

The report of the theological committee,^[3] summarised in the pastoral letter,^[4] is a clear and strong statement of the church’s traditional teaching and practice. Apart from its lack of any reference to, or discussion of, the key relevant biblical texts (demonstrating a confidence in the clarity of Scripture’s plain sense that would rarely appear in subsequent statements), it captures what would remain the heart of the ‘reasserters’ theological position over the coming decades (in which it gradually became the minority position among the US bishops).

The report highlights the distinctive calling of bishops who are commissioned as “pastors and teachers of the Church, charged with interpreting the canons, and serving as chief liturgical officers in a diocese”, “guides for prospective ordinands and the ordaining minister”. In relation to the former, it argued that the biblical understanding of sex is rooted “in the conviction that the divine image in humanity is incomplete without both man and woman” and that “the aim of sexuality, as understood in Christian terms, is not merely satisfaction or procreation but…interper­sonal completeness…a union of differences”.  This explains why “the biblical understanding rejects homosexual practice” and “heterosexual sex is clearly and repeatedly affirmed as God’s will for humanity”. 

Without denying value in the celibate life, Jesus, Paul and others “are unanimous and unde­viating in portraying heterosexual love as God’s will and there­fore good and normative”.  Scripture here is not confused but clear – “heterosexual marriage is unanimously affirmed” and “homosexual activity is condemned”. Scripture is not, however, clear on matters of homosexual orientation although here “the Christian message of redemption and sanctification is one of graceful acceptance leading to graceful wholeness for all people”.

In the light of this Scriptural witness, “the Church…is right to confine its nuptial blessing exclusively to heterosexual marriage.  Homosexual unions wit­ness to incompleteness”.  The report not only rules out same-sex ‘marriage’ but implicitly any form of blessing of a same-sex relationship because “for the Church to institutionalize by liturgical action a relationship that violates its own teaching about sex is inadmissible”. The significance and unacceptability of any such innovation is based on the fact that “The Church’s liturgical action is corporate.  It is also public. It witnesses to what the Church stands for ‑‑ and to what it advo­cates as good for society as a whole”.

Turning to the question of ordination the report made a crucial distinction between “(a) an advocating and/or practicing ho­mosexual and (b) one with a dominant homosexual orientation only”. In relation to the former, it clearly stated that “ordination is inadmissible” and this for two reasons. First, “because ordination is a corporate act which proclaims our understanding of ministry, the Church thereby sets forth its values, not simply for itself, but in evangel­istic terms for the social order”. This means that to ordain an advocating and/or practicing homosexual “involves the Church in a public denial of its own theological and moral norms on sex­uality”. Second, as an ordinand vows to commit himself or herself to the fashioning of personal (and family or community) life after the manner of Christ so as to be an example to the Church, “the ordination of an advocating and/or practicing homosexual would require the Church’s sanction of such a life style, not only as acceptable, but worthy of emulation”.  The report concludes – interestingly not ruling out possible future development and revision of these views – that “our present understand­ing of biblical and theological truth would make this impossible”.

Finally, the report reaffirms the decisions of General Convention in 1976 and “with dismay and with shock” notes “the deprivation of civil rights and the development of mass hysteria in parts of this country directed against persons known as homosexuals”. It concludes by clearly distancing itself from these positions (found among those we have categorized as taking a stance of ‘rejection’) on theological grounds – “The same gospel which leads us to the above conclusion also compels us to treat every person of any sexual orientation as a child of God, entitled to our pastoral concern and guaranteed his or her civil rights”.

On receipt of this report the bishops approved a mind-of-the-House resolution stating that “in light of the principles concerning homosexuality adopted by this House as contained in the report of its committee on Theology, it is the mind of this House that, pending further inquiry and study by the Church, no Bishop of this Church shall confer Holy Orders in violation of these principles”.

There were, however, clearly bishops who disagreed with this resolution. Integrity, in an account that did not hide their unhappiness with the House’s “hard and fast homophobic pronouncements”, claimed that “a significant minority, per­haps as many as 30 of the…bishops in attendance manifested some significant degree of openness to and concern for gay people, including gay clergy” and that “an earlier effort to receive, rather than approve the report received about forty votes”.^[5]

The sympathies of these bishops presumably lay more with the minority report produced by Bishop Myers, which succinctly summarises some of the central arguments of the alternative “reinterpreter” perspective.^[6] Placed alongside the majority report it also vividly illustrates how, from the start, the main opposing viewpoints approached the questions quite differently and with contrasting theological presuppositions. By failing ever to find a common language in which to engage each other’s arguments the debate would become increasingly sterile and reduced to a matter of power politics with “truth” being determined by the changing numbers supporting each ‘side’ on relevant panels and committees.

Myers begins with the 1976 resolution of General Convention affirming homosexual persons and states that while ruling out “all cruel attacks on homosexual men and women”, there is “no judgement concerning the homo­sexual expression of sexuality”.  Instead of making such a judgement, the Church committed itself to a period of study to “deepen its understanding of human sexuality including homosexuality” in preparation for the Denver Convention of 1979. Faced with difficult decisions, the Church should depend on Christ’s promise to always guide her.

The central question is identified by Myers as “What behavior can be judged appropriate for homosexual persons?” and specifically whether the church can accept “open and honest homosexual relationships as morally good…and the ordination of individuals who openly acknowledge their homosexual identity”. This is equivalent to asking “is homosexuality sinful?”. Here it is clear that sometimes it is but it is necessary to ask “is it sinful in and of itself? And, if so, at what point?”. Just as heterosexual behaviour is sometimes sinful, so is homosexual behaviour. Clearly “sexual promiscuity cannot be condoned in any form.  It is destructive and dehumanizing”.  However, “It should be our conviction that persons, male or female, who earnestly desire to give loving expression to their innate humanity ‑‑ even if they relate sexually to another of the same sex ‑‑ are persons acceptable to the God who sold all He had in order to buy the world (us)”.

Given that the church always has gays present in ‘very large numbers’ it has to decide what to do – “Shall we refuse to baptize them?  Refuse them the Holy Communion?  Shall we, instead, burn them?”. Refusing the sacraments and imposing Levitical penalties will mean the church “shall not be talking much about Jesus of Nazareth”. Such questions – answered, for example, by a clergyperson faced with someone “stating that he/she is a homosexual living with a homosexual partner and planning to continue to do so” – are crucial because

 It is our conviction that any condition or circumstance which ipso facto would bar any person from ordination would also make that person ineligible to receive the primary sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist.  All the other sacraments flow from these.  Is it our intent then to ‘withdraw’ Baptism from such persons?  To excommunicate them?  If we cannot ordain them, then they should not seek Baptism.  Nor indeed, can we admit them to the Table of the Lord….If a person can be baptized and admitted to the Holy Communion, he or she (the personal call to ministry by the Holy Spirit and the consent of the Church being present) can be ordained to the ministry of the Catholic Church. 

Especially as human sexuality is such a grey area in this modern day, the debate about ordination is therefore really an application of the debate between Law and Grace and the church needs to acknowledge “this new insight [about the relationship between baptism and ordination] as yet another bond and Christian step toward the liberation of all God’s people for humanness at its highest level”.

Turning to the person of Christ, the minority report draws attention to the fact that as he was a human being he was “a sexual person” and that although “our assumption about His sexual life is that He was a celibate throughout His short time among us”, his teaching and his own radical attitude (especially to women) shows that “the highest objective of His life and ministry was fidelity to ‘the other,’ the neighbor”. Jesus, as “this Parable of God” therefore places us in a new relationship with others such that “if, for example, one among us were to be homosexual and a loving, open, accepting person, we would say he would be far nearer to this Jesus, now the Risen Jesus Christ, than any heterosexual person who hates, despises, and uses others”.  This is because it is hu­manness – the model for which is Jesus – that matters and to be a Christian is to be radically human.

The Chruch’s calling is to stand up for the radically human even though this is costly. Jesus, our “beloved Founder did not declare Himself on every human issue.  But we do know what His direc­tions were.  They were to show us that God’s cause is man’s cause.  And God’s cause is our full humanization”. The church is therefore called to struggle with this “unqualified, unconditional love of ‘the other’” and be dangerously different if its members are to be disciples of Jesus.

What does this mean in relation to homosexuality?  Myers fully recognized that his position “does not reflect the views generally held in the Church”, which, while showing “a growing disposition” to accept homosexual persons in a pastoral man­ner as Children of God, often looked upon them as deviants from the sexual norm of the majority of humans or “even as perverted, as unnatural”. Claiming that it is the homosexual act which particularly disturbs he notes that although some modern theologians (such as Barth) continue to see such acts as outside the natural order, others (he names Baum and Pittenger) have rejected such a static view of human nature and argued that it is the “open­ing up of humanness, after the model of Jesus, the acceptance of ‘the other,’ the responsibility and sensitivity toward ‘the other’ which matters ‑‑ not Aristotelian or Thomistic theory of the or­ders of creation”.

Acknowledging that why some have a homosexual orientation appears a mystery, Myers insists that it remains a fact, a given – “such persons exist; they were born, just as left-handed persons were born” – and so the options we have are three-fold: “1) to reject them; 2) to accept them as per­sons, but not accept their homosexual life-style; and 3) to ac­cept their life-style (including their responsible genital expres­sion of it) without making any claims about its equality with heterosexual life-styles yet recognizing that a minority of human beings are oriented in this direction”. If this last option were to be accepted then “attitudes toward sexual life-styles in our congregations will need to change”. This would have to be evident in relation to such public activities as holding hands, kissing and partnering at parish dances. While this is only now happening in a very few parishes, “we believe from the depths of our souls that we must begin now to enable it to happen where it may.  Sooner or later it must take place if we take seriously the demand of Jesus Christ that we become radically human”.

Acceptance of the third option would have implications for homosexual ministers in the church: “They must be persons of good character; they never should flaunt their sexuality; should they have a companion they should not dissemble the fact; their ethical standards in such a union should be no different from those of their heterosexual brothers and sisters in Christ with whom all are united in Baptism”. All of this is shaped by the goal of “the fullest possible realization of humanness, pat­terned after the humanity of Jesus” while admitting one’s need for God’s grace in a fallen world.

Although this would “move us into unknown ethical and social territory”, Myers is clear that this should not rule such developments out of court:

Yet, did we know what the levelling of relations between whites and black former slaves would do to white society?  I know and you know that it was and is and will be in­creasingly liberating and humanizing ‑‑ for both blacks and whites.

The church must continue to wrestle with “the meaning of the historical ministry and risen presence of the Christ who…equated God’s cause with man’s cause” and in so doing it must remember that homosexual people are “our people” by blood – our husbands and wives, sons and daughters – and baptism, “the friend for whom we are to lay down our life…the gentiles with whom Peter learned to eat”. A magnanimous spirit of reconciliation is what is required – “The Church’s ministry to those who dissent with the decisions of the Church concern­ing the ordination of women has been affirmed by the Bishops.  Let us now affirm the Church’s mission to be reconciled to this unknown body of men and women who are homosexual”.

It perhaps was in part such a magnanimous spirit of reconciliation that prevented the House of Bishops from following through the apparent logic of its stance in relation to the past actions of Bishop Moore and possible future actions of Bishop Myers and others. A motion was put to the House that Bishop Moore and the diocese of New York should be censured for Barrett’s ordination. Moore delivered a passionate and provocative defence of his actions which he insisted related to someone who had been open about her sexual orientation not her sexual practice. The ordination, he said, had become a sign of hope that advanced the mission of the church in New York and in performing it he had faithfully fulfilled the apostolic ministry to which he was called – not “to manage, administer, and keep safe a steadily decreasing number of frightened and confused people” but rather “to see the modern world as it is, and bring to that chang­ing, suffering world the liberating, loving message of the Gospel of Christ”.^[7] He warned of the dire consequences of any censure for gay people both in the church^[8] and wider society and asked bishops to reflect on their own experience of gay priests with the challenge, “No one of you dares deny the effective priesthood of homosex­ual clergy you have known.  Are you about to say that the grace of priesthood cannot function in such persons when their effectiveness has been shown again and again?”.

The censure motion was duly tabled (ie not put to a vote) by 66 votes to 48 in part because Bishop Coburn of Massachusetts (one of the authors of the theology committee’s report) pointed out that he had served on the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New York which had approved Ellen Barrett for ordination. A resolution aimed at impeding the licensing of Barrett and other ordained homosexual clergy was defeated by a similar vote (68 to 49).

Although the House of Bishops therefore drew back from the toughest possible stance against Bishop Moore, their actions infuriated many. The Mission and Social Action Committee of the Episcopal Divinity School meeting the following week passed a damning resolution expressing their dismay at “the failure of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to address in any just or responsible way is­sues that affect all people within and without the church”. Although more wide-ranging, its specific complaints on women’s ordination and homosexuality clearly express the political self-understanding that would increasingly drive many in ECUSA –

We do not believe that Christians may grant one another a “right” to exercise conscience for the purpose of discrimination against anyone.  We decry, and do not accept this “right” given by bish­ops to one another to discriminate against women priests of the church.

We deplore the hypocritical and fear-ridden reaction of the bishops to the issue of sexual identity.  We encourage individual bishops to exercise their consciences, in this instance, to see that equality and dignity are granted to homosexuals seeking ordination and to homosexuals already ordained, whether their homosexuality is “active” or “latent,” avowed or unspoken.^[9]

One of the criticisms strongly leveled at the statement of the bishops was that, in the words of the EDS resolution, they were “undercutting the processes of study implemented by the 1976 General Convention”. Foreshadowing a debate that would recur repeatedly in coming years, ‘reasserters’ in contrast believed that it was actions such as Barrett’s ordination which were undermining of any proper reflection by the church. In any case, the process of study was one in which – at the national level – Integrity increasingly had little faith. Although they were able to be represented on and therefore influence a number of diocesan studies,^[10] they lacked any visible permanent presence (despite strenuous efforts from immediately after General Convention) among the membership of the national Commission on Health & Human Affairs. In contrast, one of the leading ‘reasserters’, Dr Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, was a full member of the Commission which was chaired by Bishop Spears of Rochester (seen by Integrity as an ally).^[11]

[1] “We have sought to recognize that many were dismayed because of General Convention’s action concerning the ordination of women, even as others were gladdened and encouraged. No attempt was made to recommend a change in that decision during our meeting. We do affirm that one is not a disloyal Episcopalian if he or she abstains from supporting the decision or continues to be convinced it was an error. We call for careful avoidance of any kind of pressure which might lead either an advocate or an opponent of the action to offend against his or her conscience. We acknowledge that as bishops we have a special responsibility in this regard. The Minnesota Convention sought to permit but not to coerce. We affirm that no members of the Church should be penalized for conscientious objection to, or support of, the ordination of women. A vivid personal example is the Presiding Bishop himself. He has acknowledged his inability thus far to affirm such ordinations. This has dismayed many who rejoice in the admission of women to the priesthood. We nonetheless express our full confidence that he will continue to carry out the duties of his office with integrity. We have made this decision about respect for conscience because we believe it is just. We will continue to reach out to any who might separate from us” (Pastoral Letter Oct 7, 1977).

[2] A central issue within ECUSA in recent decades has been how the House has responded in different ways to bishops who act unilaterally or apparently question orthodox faith (eg Pike) and those who – usually in response to such actions – no longer fully acknowledge and respect the territorial jurisdiction of certain bishops.

[3] The signatories were the bishops of The Bishop of Ohio (Chairman), West Missouri,

Western N. Carolina, Western Mass., Quincy, Eau Claire, Kentucky and Massachusetts.

[4] The relevant section of the letter reads, “It is clear from Scripture that the sexual union of man and woman is God’s will and that this finds holy expression within the covenant of marriage. Therefore this Church confines its nuptial blessing to the union of male and female. It is likewise clear that in ordination, this Church publicly requires each ordinand to fashion his or her personal life after Christ as an example to the faithful. The bishops, therefore, agree to deny ordination to an advocating and/or practicing homosexual person. In each case we must not condone what we believe God wills to redeem. We are mindful that homosexual persons as children of God have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, concern and pastoral care of the Church. Furthermore, they are entitled to equal protection under the law with all other citizens. We call upon our society to see that such protection is provided. We are deeply distressed that in parts of the world such persons are deprived of their civil rights and in some cases are subjected to the tragedy of humiliation, persecution and violence. The Gospel of Jesus Christ compels us to act against these injustices and affirm these persons as our brothers and sisters for whom Christ died”.

[5] Oct 77 (Vol 3 No 10). Doubleday identified Moore of New York; Ogilby of Pennsylvania; McGehee of Michigan; Myers of California; Swift of the American Churches in Europe; Charles of Utah; Trelease of Rio Grande; Frensdorff of Nevada; and Spears of Rochester  as among those sympathetic and as among those “least helpful” Burt of Ohio; Krumm of Southern Ohio; Temple of South Carolina; Terwilliger of Dallas; Simms of Atlanta; Hosea of Lexington; Folwell of Central Florida; Robinson of Western New York; Wicher of Long Island, Parsons of Quincy; Duncan of Southeast Florida; and McAllister of Oklahoma.

[6] Another important contribution from this perspective was a letter from retired Bishop Corrigan (consecrator of the Philadelphia Eleven) who was unable to attend. This focussed on reflections on his “long and unprotected life in a poly-everything society composed of boys and girls, men and women whose sexuality found expression in various patterns of behaviour” including on his seminary training where “we did learn that Biblical fundamentalism was not an Anglican concept” so “much of the literature addressed to us today, in support of everything, bluntly premises a Biblical position that might seem strange to anyone nurtured in the Anglican tradition”. His conclusion in retrospect was that “I would wish to say bluntly that I do not think that Christian responsibility necessarily demands celibacy from the homosexual and not from the heterosexual as well.  My memory of real people gives me a different message”. He ended by commending the 1973 proposal of the United Church of Christ that “in the instance of considering a stated homosexual’s candidacy for ordination, the issue should not be his or her homosexuality as such, but rather the candidate’s total view of human sexuality and his/her understanding of its use”. (Dec 77/Jan 78, Vol 4 No 2).

[7] Nov 77, Vol 4 No 1.

[8] “Aspirants for holy orders who sense a vocation within themselves will be encouraged to lie to their psychiatrist, standing committee, ministries commission, and Bishop.  Ordained clergy of the Church who have declared themselves to be gay, will be left wondering when charges for deposition will be brought against them.  The Episcopal Church may become the scene of a McCarthy-like purge, rife with gossip, charges and counter charges.  Also the General Convention study process will be frustrated.  It may result in many communicants leaving this Church” (Nov 77, Vol 4 No 1).

[9] Quoted in Dec 77/Jan 78 (Vol 4 No 2). Virginia Theological Seminary at this time took a quite different stance, making clear in their policy that “This seminary does not knowingly accept an applicant or retain a student who is a practicing homosexual” (Vol 3, No 8, June-July 77).

[10] For example Ohio, in strong opposition to the bishop (May/June 79) and Chicago, where Integrity editorial board member Revd Grant Gallup was influential details (Mar/April 79).

[11] Barnhouse, a psychologist not convinced by the APA’s recent decisions on homosexuality, was the author of “Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion”, a volume frequently and vehemently attacked in issues of Integrity.

Chapter Three – Actions & Reactions – The Road to General Convention 1979, Denver

The Priesting of Ellen Barrett

From January 1977 the Episcopal Church began ordaining women as priests in accordance with the new canons agreed in Minneapolis. For some in the church this in itself marked an unacceptable break with Scripture and catholic tradition.[1]  Others accepted, or at least could live with, women priests but were concerned at the growing alliance between many ordained women and the work of Integrity.  Back in April 1976 the annual meeting of the Episcopal Women’s Caucus had passed a resolution identifying shared concerns with Integrity and offering it their support.[2] This early connection between supporters of women’s ordination and supporters of gay and lesbian inclusion was an important development and perhaps nobody(with the possible exception of Carter Heyward) embodied this conjunction of support for women priests and Integrity more than Ellen Barrett who became the focus of the next stage of the debate after Minneapolis.

At the time of Minneapolis Ellen Barrett was already an ordained deacon in New York diocese. Prior to her ordination she had taken a high profile in Integrity serving as one of its first Co-Presidents. At Minneapolis two resolutions had been filed opposing her ordination but it was her priesting by Bishop Paul Moore on the evening of Monday 10^th January 1977 which lit the fires that threatened to engulf the Episcopal Church.[3]  The fact that two days later Bishop Moore was the chief cele­brant and preacher for Integrity NYC’s concelebrated Eucharist (with among others the newly priested Barrett) suggests a clear determination on his part to signal his support for Integrity and its pattern of support for gay and lesbian Christians.[4]

The reaction was fast and strong and appears to have taken many by surprise.[5] In the March Integrity Forum, President Ron Wesner began a pastoral letter outlining how to respond:

In view of the heat about Ellen Barrett’s ordina­tion, let us remind each other that this heat is a necessary part of the loving revolution and must and can be endured.  I am getting distressed calls and letters from people around the country who are afraid that the world is falling apart because of the reaction to the ordination.  It was a blessed event — with many lesbian [sic] having a rare affirmation from the Church — and will prove to be an important part of the building up of good things.[6]

The remainder of the short letter highlights the need to educate non-gays in the Church and sketches what is required to accomplish this: self-education,[7] speaking from love not anger, imaginative reliance on the Holy Spirit, personal presence in the pattern of the Incarnation,[8] avoiding detailed debates about Scripture,[9] and taking care in the language used.[10] The goal was simple and clear – to persuade people that “homosexual and heterosexual expression are appropriate for the person who finds either as a primary drive”.

Bishop Moore himself explained to Integrity Forum that he was feeling totally isolated with only one brother bishop having written to support him (The Rt. Rev. Robert DeWitt, retired Bishop of Pennsylvania — “but he knows Ellen anyway,” Bishop Moore added) and a ‘flood of abusive language’ including from some of the liberal bishops, many of whom simply remained silent. For Crew and others this was a classic case of scapegoating – faced with the pain and confusion surrounding the major debates of Minneapolis, Barrett & Moore became the target of hatred in an attempt to recreate unity.[11]

On 21^st January Presiding Bishop Allin warned against over-reaction but made clear his own unhappiness – “Do not run before every embarrassing incident, every false wind of doctrine, every rumor.  This church has produced some damn fool decisions, but it also a church with the capacity to learn”. Stronger statements, often addressing the principles behind the opposition, were made by Bishops Sims of Atlanta, Frey of Colorado, Brown of Louisiana (who wrote a letter to all the newspapers expressing his shock and sadness and reaffirming his policy that “homosexuality is still considered an impediment to ordination in this diocese” because “I cannot condone clerical lifestyles and sexual mores repugnant to Holy Scripture”[12]) and Sanders of Tennessee. The bishops of Dallas (strong opponents of women’s ordination) refused to accept the ordination as valid and made public their letter to Bishop Moore[13] while Bishop Robinson of Western New York made clear she would not be able to function as a priest in his diocese. A number of diocesan councils and conventions also debated and voted on the matter.[14]

Bishop Moore’s own statement sheds much light on his thinking and highlights many of the issues that would resurface at each controversial gay ordination or consecration in the decades ahead. He explained how, when approached by Barrett in 1972 (when she was active in the gay movement) he had refused to recommend her and that a similar decision had been made by the diocese of Pennsylvania. Barrett, however, serious about her call, began training at General Theological Seminary and reapplied   for candidacy in 1975. Bishop Moore viewed this much more favourably although the explanation he gave for doing so with regard to her involvement in the gay movement was false.[15] Barrett came back with a deeper sense of vocation, was strongly recommended by General Theological Seminary, and passed the selection processes.[16] She was admitted as a candidate by the standing committee in May 1975 and approved in early November. When her sexuality became known and protests were received, the Standing Committee unanimously reaffirmed its approval – “The fact that she has publicly admitted her homosexual orientation was not judged by the Bishop or the Standing Committee to be a barrier to ordination”. Moore stressed that the novelty here was not the situation but the honesty and openness being shown – “many homosexual persons have served the Church well.  They were, of course, forced to be very secretive about this aspect of their personality.  Now it is possible to be more open about one’s sexual orientation, and that is a healthy development”. In relation to the crucial question of her personal conduct he stressed respect for privacy and the test of public scandal.[17]

Turning to the perceived political and theological issues raised by the ordination, Moore denied any intention of making statements of this form by his actions and instead emphasized that Barrett was properly treated as an individual whose call to ordination the church had tested.[18]  That there were, however, serious theological differences under the surface was clear from the final paragraphs of his statement where he responded to those opponents who had raised theological concerns. Here he succinctly signals some of the more fundamental differences that would continue to shape the varied responses to gay and lesbian Christians and make the issue such a divisive one. These included differences over

• Scripture and its role in ethics, particularly different understandings of the relationships between love and law and the Christian gospel and specific biblical injunctions;[19]
• the authority of tradition[20]
• the content and significance of greater human knowledge of sexuality[21]
• the purpose of sex and the significance of changing Christian understandings in this area[22]
• the relationship of Scripture, the Spirit and developing human knowledge to truth[23]
• the validity of the category ‘homosexual persons’ and the implications in relation to such people of the need to follow Jesus’ pattern of ministry to the excluded and oppressed[24]
• the relevance of the language of ‘sin’ in relation to sexuality[25]
• the value, structure and content of continued dialogue on sexuality in the church[26]

After the instant opposition to the action, more supporters made themselves known. Bishop Moore claimed his postbag gradually moved from 40:1 against to almost 50:50 by April.[27] Some bishops took a less hostile stance, notably Bishop McGehee (Michigan)[28] and the retired Bishop of Rochester, George W. Barrett,[29] who wrote of “the high degree of irrationality existing in human institutions gener­ally and in the Episcopal Church in particular”.[30]

Bishop Barrett’s response on matters of substance and process vividly illustrates the gulf that was beginning to appear in theological method and ecclesiastical practice, raising yet more of the issues that would become prominent in the debates to come:

• the role of Scripture and traditional moral teaching while the church studied sexuality in depth[31]

• the unfairness of having to wait until a consensus had been reached[32]
• the unacceptability of requiring people to remain in the closet or celibate[33]
• the value of comparing the situation to that of the early Jewish church needing to welcome Gentiles[34]
• the balance between the personal authority and collegiality of bishops, and the importance of canon law, especially in relation to prophetic actions[35]
• the role and importance of dialogue with homosexual people[36]
• the analogy with racism and sexism and the paradigm of social justice and human rights[37]
• the relative importance of questions of sexuality compared with other challenges in society[38]

Although Moore could take comfort from such support, strong opposition continued from fellow bishops (e.g. Bishops Trelease (Rio Grande) and Krumm (Southern Ohio)[39]). Bishop Vogel (West Missouri), while seeking clarification, also raised wider theological questions concerning the role of the bishop in relation to ordination, questions that would resurface over 25 years later in relation to both Jeffrey John and Gene Robinson.[40]

Within New York diocese itself, a number of parishes initiated a pattern of response that would recur (on both sides) in the following years by withdrawing their financial support to the diocese. In sharp contrast, and perhaps signaling both the different reactions of men and women to this issue and the close connection in the American church between support for women priests and for gay priests, the women clergy of the diocese gave Bishop Moore and Barrett their strong support.[41] Nationally, however, Integrity claimed that “the experience of several seminarians already suggests that the ordination has contributed to a growing witch-hunt for closeted and hidden gays among prospective ordinands”.[42]

The first official response at a national level came from the meeting of the Executive Council at the end of April. The 41-member Council, as the body chiefly responsible for the implementation of policy and program for The Episcopal Church in its national jurisdiction under the authority of the General Convention, passed the following resolution –

Resolved, That the Executive Council express the hope that no bishop will ordain or license any professing and practicing homosexual until the issue be resolved by the General Convention; and be it further

Resolved, That this Council deplore and condemn all actions which offend the moral law of the Church; and further that it witness to the necessity for the Church to give moral leadership in the affairs end activities of the Church and the world; and be it further

Resolved, That these matters be referred to the House of Bishops, meeting in September, with a request that they be placed on its agenda.[43]

The reference to licensing was not accidental. Ellen Barrett, though ordained in New York, was completing studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkley, California. The Bishop of California (C. Kilmer Myers) had licensed her as a deacon and that licence had expired on April 17^th.[44] She was now seeking to be licensed as a priest in his diocese. Many advised him against – The Rt. Rev. Victor M. Rivera issued a statement that said, “As Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin and as President of Province VII (of the Episcopal Church), I humbly request, plead and beg, that no bishop of this Province license or ordain any avowed homosexual”. However, there were supporters of Barrett among the most prominent of whom was Otis Charles, Bishop of Utah, who would himself later take a prominent personal role in the church debate about gay ordinations and blessings and eventually came out as a gay man. Myers’ own comments highlighted the tension many bishops would feel and their openness to charges of hypocrisy:

I have never during my episcopate ordained an ‘avowed’ (that is, an out-of-the-closet) homosexual. I have ordained ‘in-the-closet’ homosexuals. My quandary is this: given the assurance of general psychic and spiritual health of an aspirant for Holy Orders, should I consent to the ordination of out-of-the-closet homsexuals? Or should I penalize them for honesty when I consent to the ordination of in-the-closet homosexuals?[45]

[1] Interestingly, showing the complexity of the situation, strong opponents included some supporters of Integrity, with Forum reporting the departure of its former Boston convenor and his friend to the Roman Catholic church along with their priest. A further sign that divisions on both subjects ran deep is that the prominent re-asserter against Integrity, Dr Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, worshipped in the same parish while holding views Integrity summed up as “she approves the action to ordain women in the Episcopal Church but roundly opposes any kindnesses or acceptance of Gays who are not on her psychiatric couch struggling to affirm her claims that she can cure them (Mar 77 Vol 3 No 5)

[2] The text read – “Whereas INTEGRITY is an organization expanding consciousness of the presence and ministry of Gay people within the Episcopal Church, and Whereas the Episcopal Women’s Caucus is also concerned that patterns of ministry within the Episcopal Church contribute to the full development and use of each person’s talents, Therefore be it resolved:  that we, the Episcopal Women’s Caucus at our Annual Meeting, April 1976, convey our greetings ln Christ to INTEGRITY, with our prayers of thanksgiving and continued support of their ministry, And be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be promptly forwarded to the editor of Integrity:  Gay Episcopal Forum.” In the letter reporting this resolution, The Rev. Helen M. Havens, President of EWC, added:  “The Episcopal Women’s Caucus has an underlying belief that until all people are free, none are.  It is our prayer and our determination in the months and years ahead to educate in terms of freedom, in pastoral ways.” (Dec 76, Vol 3 No 2)

[3] The plan was she be presented by Carter Heyward (Feb 77, Vol 3 No 4) but I am unclear if this happened.

[4] In 2008, his oldest daughter, Honor Moore revealed in a newspaper article and a book that Paul Moore, her father, was himself bisexual in a long-term gay relationship and with a number of other gay lovers.

[5]“The Rev. Ms. Barrett said beforehand that she felt that homosexuality would be but a “footnote,” that her femininity was the main concern of most of those who opposed her. Reactions from the Church at large suggest that few had adequately estimated the way in which this event would seize the homophobic imagination.  Diocese after diocese in council or other annual meetings face resolutions to evaluate the ordination” (“In the Wake of the Barrett Ordination – Homophobic Poison Floods The Veins of the Church” by Crew, March 77, Vol 3 No 5).

[6] March 1977, Vol 3 No 5.

[7] “We must read and talk with each other enough to be able to reflect with articulate excellence on the experience of growing up Gay in America and in the Episcopal Church”

[8] “We can let our humanity and presence and health which come from affirmation say much more than tired words and pat phrases”.

[9] “Pitfalls to avoid:  jumping into the fundamentalist pit with fundamentalists.  Don’t try to best them at their own game.  If you were to, all you would do is silence them.  Rather, be aware of the prooftexts, and then speak of and from an informed experience in relationship with the Good News, God’s affirmation of all people through Jesus Christ”.

[10] “Avoid words like tolerance.  We need to ask for tolerance only if there is something wrong with us, a handicap or some other inadequacy.  We show a lack of pride when we ask for tolerance.  Avoid also the phrases that indicate “we protest too much.””

[11] This interpretation would find support in the work of Rene Girard whose work has particularly influenced the Roman Catholic gay theologian James Allison.

[12] Bishop Brown had in October 1976 written to his clergy with the following charge “The pastoral care of homosexuals is to continue as in the past within the context of ordinary parochial life.  Specifically, I am charging the clergy of the diocese to refrain from giving the aegis of the Episcopal Church to any organization of homosexuals by advising, joining, acting as chaplains, or by holding services of the church for such an organization in a Church or Chapel or privately”.

[13] “We condemn your act in attempting to ordain a practicing homosexual woman to priesthood and declare it a denial of Christian morality. This is an affront to our relationship as bishops.  It presents a painful problem to Christian homosexuals seeking to live chaste lives. Your action compromises the church’s credibility as a force for the healing of society, and brought even more tragic divisions into the broken body of Christ”.

[14] Central Gulf Coast, Atlanta, Georgia,

[15] Moore claimed that at this point of ‘early 1975…she had by then resigned her office in “Integrity” and ceased to be active in the Gay Movement” (Vol3 No 5, March 1977). This is a serious error of fact. Barrett’s first appearance in Integrity Forum (which only began in late 1974) is as an associate editor in March 1975. She then edited a May 1975 special edition on lesbianism, stood for Co-President in June 1975 being elected in July, wrote on “One Woman’s Integrity” in Sept-Oct 1975 and was still listed as a contributing editor and co-President in the Dec 1975 issue. Her resignation was announced in January 1976. Bishop Moore had ordained her deacon on Dec 15^th 1975. Barrett herself wrote in April/May 1978 to say “Many times I have tried to stamp out the extremely unfair rumor that Bishop Moore asked me to resign as Co-President of Integrity before I was ordained.  I am horrified to find it surfacing again in what purports to be a definitive, if brief, history of Integrity.  To assume that Bishop Moore would ask such a thing, and, further, to assume that I would agree to it (presumably the implication is that it was a condition for my approval for ordination), is entirely to misrepresent his stance and mine as well as the mutual respect for conscience we share.  Please correct the misapprehension that my resignation was motivated by anything other than pressures of time and my basic inadequacy as an “organization woman.”” (Vol 4 No 4). This was in response to a section of  “A Brief History of Integrity” which had appeared in Vol 4 No 2 and read “Meanwhile, in December 1975, with no fanfare, Ellen Marie Barrett, a woman who had acknowledged her lesbian orientation, was duly ordained deacon by the Rt. Rev. Paul Moore, Jr., Bishop of New York.  Ms. Barrett had served with Wickliff as one of the first co-presidents of Integrity until she was asked by Bishop Moore to resign in preparation for her ordination”.

[16] Moore emphasises these included “the canonically required psychiatric examination which is designed to screen out those emotionally unfit for the ministry” and adds that “It is worth noting in this context that the American Psychiatric Association, the professional organization of psychiatrists, has declared that homosexuality as such is not an illness”.

[17] “The personal morality, lifestyle, and behavior of every ordinand must be and is carefully weighed by the Bishop, the Ministries Commission, and the Standing Committee.  This applies to persons of all sexual orientations.  In the absence of public scandal, however, the personal morality of an ordinand becomes almost by definition a matter between him or her and a confessor, pastor, or bishop.  Suffice it to say that Ellen Barrett’s life and profession had not been an occasion of public scandal”.

[18] “In approving persons for ordination, the Bishop, Standing Committee, and Ministries Commission deal with each person as a whole and as an individual.  It is an intensely personal judgment and does not lend itself to categories.  Ellen Barrett, judged as a whole person, was determined by us to possess a valid vocation to the diaconate and priesthood, and to have the character and competence to fulfill this vocation.  Her ordination was not a political act and did not seek to make a statement about homosexual activity; it was, like any ordination, the solemn laying on of hands upon a person carefully and prayerfully chosen”.

[19] “I believe that better guidance will be found in the fullness of the Gospel than in the narrowness of isolated verses selected painstakingly from the Epistles or the Old Testament.  There is a timelessness to the message of God’s love that outweighs the datedness of so many Biblical injunctions rooted in ancient societies”.

[20] “Prejudices passed down through the centuries have made it difficult for most of us to make a genuinely Christian judgment of the homosexual condition”.

[21] “We know, however, that a great deepening and broadening of our understanding of human sexuality has emerged in recent years, nurtured by the interaction between traditional Christian theology and our modern world’s perception of human nature”.

[22] “There has, for one thing, been decided movement in the Church away from a tradition which grudgingly accepted sex for procreative ends only toward a more encompassing, psychosomatic view of sexuality as a good and desirable way of expressing a loving relationship between persons.  One telling result of this theological shift is the general acceptance within the Anglican communion of birth control as a fully moral practice”.

[23] “In shifting away from an exclusively procreative view of sex to one of sex as a human expression of love, we move beyond explicit Biblical guidance.  I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us.  The Church has re-awakened to the realization that Truth is an open-ended process of progressive revelation, and what we are witnessing in our time with regard to human sexuality is just such a process”.

[24] “For most people, however, this rethinking of the morality of sexual expression is yet to be extended to homosexual persons.  I believe that their recognition as full members of the Church with the opportunities, rights, and responsibilities of all other members is based ultimately on Jesus’s view of human nature as reflected in the Gospel.  Again and again, He broke through the prejudices of the day to accept and lift up those rejected and downgraded by others.  And just as the reasons for their rejection were often beyond their control, so the homosexual person’s condition is generally not a matter of conscious choice… the sometimes violent social prejudice against the homosexual condition comes painfully close to the recorded targets of Jesus’s preaching”.

[25] “The force that shape sexual orientation are still somewhat mysterious, but there is general agreement that our sexuality is forged at an incredibly early age, long before puberty.  Thus, a person’s sexual preference is not in the category of sin”

[26] “As a Church, we are only beginning to work out the complicated issues in the area of human sexuality.  I plan to have some conferences in the near future to help us all in our thinking…Meanwhile, for those of you who have an interest in exploring the issue of the moment, I have listed some books that might prove helpful…”. The books Bp Moore recommends – by Weltge, Pittenger and McNeill – are all by ‘reassessers’ or ‘reinterpreters’ of traditional teaching.

[27] Rev George Hunter, Director of Admissions and Field Education at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge where he taught courses in the Department of Pastoral Theology wrote as a straight man in favour of the ordination of gay persons in Aug-Sept 77 (Vol 3 No 9)

[28] Although he stressed that “neither the Diocese of Michigan as a corpo­rate body, nor I as a Bishop, has ever endorsed, condoned, or encouraged sexual activity between homosexual persons”, McGehee and Michigan had been engaging sympathetically with Integrity’s concerns for many years with a diocesan Commission on Homosexuality set up back in 1970 which resulted in what the first edition of Integrity Forum described as “the strongest Episcopal statement to date”.  Back in Sept 1975 The Michigan Diocesan Commission on Ministry had adopted the following statement: “The Diocesan Commission on Ministry has as one of its responsibilities the duty of assisting the Bishop in his judgment on the emotional maturity and stabi­lity of persons seeking Holy Orders. The use that a person makes of his sexuality is one way in which he exhibits his responsibility and maturity in living with others.  In attempting to give its best judgment on the general maturity and stability of an applicant for Holy Orders the Commission on Ministry finds it essential to consider each person individually. Any applicant for Holy Orders presenting himself as a ‘professed homosexual’ will be reviewed by the Commission on Ministry as an individual person and not as a representative of a particular life-style. Because the manner in which a person handles his sexuality can lead to maturity and stability or to a destructive disruption of his own life and the lives of others, the Commission on Ministry must concern itself with the manner in which a candidate’s sexual orientation finds its expression in his life.” (Jan 76, Vol 2 No 3). In Oct 1975, however, the diocesan Convention had rejected strong pro-gay statements approved by the Executive Council and which had the support of Bishop McGehee (whose speech was published in Jan 76).

[29] Bishop Barrett was a 1933 graduate of the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge who served as a Professor of Pastoral Theology at General Theological Seminary from 1952 to 1955 and as Bishop of Rochester from 1963 to 1969.  In his retirement he lived in Santa Barbara, California. He was one of the retired bishops who ordained the Philadelphia Eleven and the Washington Four. The diocese of Rochester itself had been prominent in supporting gay people, voting in 1975 and 1976 in support of the Gay Ministry founded with the support of the bishop in 1973.

[30] June/July 77.  Although he did not mention this it is perhaps not insignificant that around this time the Vatican ordered the Jesuit John McNeill to be silent and announced that the “imprimi potest” would be removed from future editions of his book, The Church and the Homosexual.

[31] “It is foolish to quote Biblical texts that reflect far different cultural conditions in a manner that suggests a literalist or pre-critical attitude toward the interpretation of scripture or a naive natural theology that takes little account of actual biological and psychological complexities”. 

[32] “Many people seem to assume that until more is known about homosexuality, homosexuals should not be ordained.  However, it will be a long time before Christians agree on this sensitive subject, judging by the emotional level of the current comments. In the meantime, shall we deny that homosexual persons can be called to the priesthood or demand from them a standard of celibacy not expected of others?…Can anything more be expected of Christians, ordained or unordained, that they strive to live lives of value and dignity, always knowing how short we fall and how great is our need of forgiveness?  Can anyone say with assurance that God’s purpose for the homosexual is something other than living out his nature with dignity?”

[33] “It is very distressing to note that some people are willing for homo­sexuals to be ordained, as indeed a great many of them always have been, provided they do not admit their inclinations publicly.  Thus we shall perpetuate a conspiracy of silence with its guilt, fear and hypo­crisy.  Critics seem to have overlooked the fact that many homosexu­als feel called to minister to the “gay” community, to people seek­ing to find and maintain a human and Christian identity.  Can this be done from the closet or with the tacit assumption that such folk must “repent” by denying themselves to a degree not required of others?”

[34] “But Christians must learn to live with fellow Christians who are homosexual, just as Jewish Christians had to learn to live with Gentile converts.  Bitter trauma seems to have been or to be involved in both instances”.

[35] “The doctrine of “collegiality” in the House of Bishops is advanced as an argument for inaction or delay.  Obviously bishops should consult and counsel with each other on matters of substantial consequence to the faith and to the Church.  But for them to bind themselves and each other to certain courses of action is to circumvent the constitutional and canonical procedures provided for the orderly governing of the Church as well as to abdicate the responsibility for leadership laid upon bishops by the very virtue of their office.  There may be extreme instances when certain bishops alone or with others  feel that they must go beyond normal canonical rules, but to inter­pose a binding of collegiality is to exceed constitutional standards”.

[36] “The protests show little or no evidence of dialogue with homosex­ual persons or communities, of listening to their needs, aspirations and anxieties, to how they understand and value their sexuality and relate it to the whole of their Christian profession”.

[37] “This [lack of dialogue] brings to mind similar insensitivities such as white people discussing among themselves (often very charitably) how far to go in granting freedom or civil rights to black people, or men deciding among themselves whether women should have the right to vote or be ordained as priests”.

[38] “We need taboos against waste and pollution of human resources that could rob our children of life and health, taboos perhaps against several cars for at least most families, against overpopulation and the alleged right of every couple on earth to have as many children as they wish; taboos against indiscriminate development of nuclear energy, a far greater threat to the human race than almost any number of homosexuals.  And need we not develop taboos against violence and the attitude that one man shooting another or beating him into unconsciousness is somehow natural while two people embracing in love, whatever their sex, is not? Are there not more consequential areas in which to expend our energies and to seek to learn the will of God for our time?”

[39] Statement of Feb 8, 1977 published in June-July 77 (Vol 3 No 8). The editor introduced it with the comment, “Bishop Krumm has in the past offered some modest leadership in changing the Church’s ecclesiastical and pastoral attitudes towards gay people, but now he seems to have lost his nerve.  His pastoral letter in response to the Barrett ordination is an expression of poor hermeneutics, bad theologizing and outmoded psychology.  With sadness we reproduce that letter”. Krumm had, for example, been one of eleven Episcopal bishops, alongside Paul Moore, signing in support of a statement by gay Roman Catholics (Feb 1976, Vol 2 No 4). He returned to this stance at General Convention in 1979.

[40] “Since the bishop in each diocese, by his sacramental office, presents and represents the universal church to the people of his local diocese, as a brother in Christ, I must report the deeply deleterious effects of Ms. Barrett’s ordination upon the clergy and people of this diocese.  Shock wave after shock wave of disappointment and bewilderment are striking the faithful in this portion of God’s vineyard… The difficulty in which we now find ourselves once again involves the nature of episcopacy and the relationship of individual bishops to the wider, universal church.  Bishops, as individuals, may not appropriate their sacramental functions to their personal views.  The demand to accept a controverted life style, for example, in the name of the sacramental recognition of Holy Orders is to misuse and appropriate a communal expression to one’s own perspective.  It is to make a sacrament a means to an end extrinsic to its nature.  So to use a sacrament as a means to an end beyond itself in an argument, is to damage the sacrament’s effectiveness in the very community it is supposed to serve.  The subversion of the church’s sacramental structure to the opinions and positions of individuals is what the church must not allow! In advocating different positions within the church, partisans should argue in such a way that they alone bear the consequences of their argument.  That is where Christian charity has failed us in recent years”. (Quoted in April 77, Vol 3 No 6).

[41] Whereas nothing in the canons of the Episcopal Church forbids the ordination of homosexual persons, closeted or avowed, latent or active; and Whereas “sexuality” has never been set forth canonically in the Episcopal Church as an issue in ordination or licensing procedures; and Whereas the decision of the 1976 General Convention not to consider the question of ordaining, or not ordaining, homosexual persons cannot be construed in any way as a prohibition against the ordination of such persons; and Whereas many persons who are known to be actively involved in sexual relationships with members of the same sex have been and continue to be ordained, and licensed, as deacons, priests, and bishops of the church; and Whereas candor about oneself has never been deemed an impediment to ordination and has in fact been expected in the canonical processes leading to ordination; and Whereas Ellen Marie Barrett had fulfilled all canonical requirements, and was judged qualified for ordination by the General Theological Seminary, the Standing Committee of New York, and the Bishop of New York all of whom were aware, at the time, of her sexuality; and Whereas, with the permission of the Standing Committee of the Diocese and in the presence of other laypeople and clergy from the Diocese, the Bishop of New York, Paul Moore, ordained Ellen Barrett to the diaconate and to the priesthood; THEREFORE, 1. We extend our support to our sister priest, Ellen Barrett, noting especially her call, her candor, her courage, and the irreversible sacramental validity and canonical regularity of her Holy Orders. 2. We extend our support to our bishop, Paul Moore, and to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New York, noting espe­cially the canonical precision with which they undertook the pro­cesses leading to Ellen Barrett’s ordination; the strength and courage of their corporate conviction; and the justice of their willingness to treat Ellen Barrett as they would, and do, any per­son whom they believe to be spiritually, morally, mentally, aca­demically and otherwise canonically qualified for ordination. 3. We urge the Bishop of California, Kilmer Myers, to re-issue a license for Ellen Barrett to function as a priest in the diocese where she presently resides.  The Rev. Laurel Artress-Ulrich; The Rev. Columba Gilliss, O.S.H.; The Rev. Emily Hewitt; The Rev. Carter Heyward; The Rev. Barbara Schlachter; The Rev. Julia Sibley; The Rev. Mary Michael Simpson, O.S.H.

[42] June/July 77, the first edition edited by Doubleday, who had himself recently been denied ordination. A letter by an anonymous seminarian in Aug-Sept 77 described one such situation.

[43] EXC041977.16 – Executive Council Minutes, Apr. 27-29, 1977, Louisville, KY, pp.26-30, 33.

[44] Myers had been the celebrant at the second Integrity Convention in San Francisco in 1976, produced the dissenting statement against the House of Bishops (later in 1977, see below) and received Integrity’s award in 1979 before his retirement in 1980 (his speech at the Convention appears in Advent 79, Vol 6 No 1 where he asked, with Stringfellow, if God had abandoned the church given its lack of support for gay Christians).

[45] Quoted in ENS 77153, May 12^th 1977 which reports Myers’ struggles with this dilemma and his consultations with other Episcopalian leaders. I assume he licensed Barrett in the end but have been unable to find evidence to confirm this.



This chapter is available as a 5 page PDF or as a single blog entry.

Primary Resources:

1976 General Convention Report & Resolutions

Chapter Two – General Convention 1976, Minneapolis

At the time of Integrity’s launch, the House of Bishops had, for over a year, had a Task Force on Homophiles and the Ministry working towards a statement on the status of gay people in the church.[1]  In March 1975, three Integrity editors and six other gay professionals met with the Task Force and the Episcopal priest Robert F. Herrick (coordinator of religious programs for the National Gay Task Force) was appointed as its first openly gay member. Then, in September, the House of Bishops resolved to ask the Joint Commission on the Church and Human Affairs also to examine issues concerning the homophile community and to do so in consultation with “leaders of the organizing forum for homophiles who are active members of the Episcopal Church”.[2] As a result of approaches from Crew and other Integrity members, at its next meeting in January 1976 the twelve-member Commission, chaired by Bishop George Murray (Central Gulf Coast, formerly Bishop of Alabama when Crew worshipped in that diocese), welcomed four consultants linked to Integrity.[3] 

In his Lent diocesan newsletter Bishop Murray explained something of the work, claiming that not only did the American Psychological Association (APA) no longer list homosexuality as a treatable illness[4] but that “between 5 percent and 10 percent of the population is made up of people who, as they mature, find that their primary affectional and sexual attraction is toward persons of their own sex”. He also stated that “psychiatry has had very little success in changing sexual orientation, unless the case is borderline and the person wants to change”.[5]  Integrity’s claims and requests were summarized as not asking for a right to be promiscuous but for understanding and a recognition that homosexuals could be responsible and exercise self-control.

By summer 1976, therefore, Jim Wickliff, Integrity President could welcome the fact that a resolution proposed by Integrity was being put to General Convention by the Joint Commission and that Integrity would have a booth there and had been listed in the Episcopal Church Annual. Furthermore, many Integrity members had been instrumental in raising issues and establishing official studies in a number of dioceses.[6]

At that point, as General Convention approached, Wickliff had served as sole President for nearly six months as a result of the resignation of co-President Ellen Barrett.[7] Barrett resigned on being ordained deacon by Bishop Paul Moore of New York in December 1975. This ordination – unlike her subsequent priesting – roused relatively little controversy even when in June 1976 TIME reported that “the Episcopal Church has one out­spokenly lesbian deacon Ellen Barrett, 30, ordained last December” and quoted Bishop Moore’s comments on her sexuality.[8] Wickliff’s one-year term as President came to an end before the second Integrity Convention in August 1976 and he was replaced by The Revd Ron Wesner who had been co-ordinating Integrity’s presence at General Convention.[9]

Shortly before General Convention met, the Joint Commission was able to issue a majority statement and proposed resolutions. The statement declared, in words subsequently approved by General Convention, “homosexual persons are children of God, who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church”. It also offered “grateful recognition of the substantial contri­butions which homosexual persons have made and are making to the life of our Church and society”. Addressing more controversial areas it claimed that “the question of the causes of sexual orienta­tion, the personal meaning of that orientation, and the ethical implications of homosexual acts are shrouded in great obscurity” and identified “a confusion and tension which exists in the consciousness of the Church and many individual Christians concerning the relationship between the traditional Christian ethic and current developments and concepts of pastoral ministry, understanding of human psychosexual development, and the sexual prac­tices of contemporary society”.[10]

The 65^th General Convention of the over 3 million strong Episcopal Church took place from September 11^th to 23^rd in Minneapolis (which next hosted a General Convention in 2003). The gathering of 172 bishops and 912 deputies or alternates, representing 113 dioceses, is most famous for changing the canons to authorize the ordination of women (to both the priesthood and the episcopacy) and for approving a revised Book of Common Prayer. This followed the controversial irregular ordinations of the “Philadelphia 11” women (including Carter Heyward) on 29^th July 1974, following the 1973 General Convention’s failure to authorize women priests, an important context for understanding the birth, growth and approach of Integrity.

Minneapolis’ discussions and decisions on sexuality were also of importance.[11] Four main resolutions were passed, building on the work and proposals of the Joint Commission.[12]

The first to win approval ensured that the work begun on sexuality would continue and initiated what would prove to be nearly three decades of continually renewed official dialogue and study. Resolution A-068 recommended that “the dioceses and the Church in general engage in serious study and dialogue in the area of human sexuality, (including homosexuality) as it pertains to various aspects of life, particularly living styles, employment, housing, and education”.

A few days later, two more substantive motions were agreed. The most famous of these (A-069) affirmed – in the words proposed by Integrity to the Joint Commission – that “it is the sense of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church”.[13]

The implications of this theological statement in relation to matters of justice and public policy were drawn out in the third resolution (A-071) where the Convention affirmed its conviction “that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens, and calls upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality”.  Attempts to postpone voting on this were defeated and it was carried by both clergy (98-13-2) and laity (69-26-15).[14]

As the Convention drew to a close, the earlier commitment to continued study and dialogue was given more substance and focus in a debate concerning the ordination of homosexual persons. Noting that there was a lack of agreement among theologians and those engaged in the scientific study of homosexuality and that General Convention had proposed a study of human sexuality as a major concern for the whole Church, a resolution (B-101) was carried that directed the Joint Commission on the Church in Human Affairs to study the matter of ordaining homosexuals in depth. All diocesans studies were to be forwarded to the Joint Commission which would report its findings and make recommendations to the Church at large and to the next General Convention. In the course of the debate a substitute resolution was moved “that the House of Deputies respectfully request the Bishops of the Episcopal Church to refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals until such time as this Church, by vote of the General Convention, officially approves the same”. This gained the support of the laity (56-42-10) and a majority (but not the necessary majority of approval from over 50% of the diocesan delegations voting) among the clergy (50-43-16) and so the original Joint Commission’s resolution stood and was duly carried.[15]

The response of Integrity was summed up in the heading given to their interim report on the Convention – “The Bride of Christ Abandons the Tents of the Homphobes !”[16]  They had, however, not quite accomplished all they set out to achieve. There was an interesting contrast to the English debates which is also perhaps instructive in relation to recent debates about legislation in parts of Africa. It what is perhaps a sign that the delegates were more concerned about pastoral care of homosexual persons than the politics of homosexual practice, the Convention did not approve the recommended resolution from the Joint Commission that asked it to urge “the legis­latures of the several states to repeal all laws which classify as criminal conduct any form of non-commer­cial sexual conduct between consenting adults in private, saving only those portions which protect minors or public decorum”.[17]

General Convention had, however, clearly set the agenda for the next three years – diocesan and national study and dialogue on sexuality with a particular emphasis on the implications of its decisions concerning homosexual persons for the ordination policy of the church. However, in a pattern that was to repeat itself several times in the following decades, that reflection took place in the midst of conflict and sharp divisions as bishops took actions that others saw as unacceptable.[18]

[1] The term ‘homophile’ soon disappeared from the debate to be replaced by ‘homosexual’, ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘lesgay’, ‘lesbigay’ and ‘lgbt’. Despite an attempt by the English House of Bishops to revive it in their 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality, it is now rarely used.

[2] The full “Resolution on Homophiles” was submitted jointly by the Task Force and the Committee on Pastoral Development to the House and reads, “WHEREAS, the homophile community in the United States is seeking understanding from our society, and WHEREAS, strong prejudices and discrimination do in fact operate to deny homophiles certain civil rights, thus working a hardship on persons with this sexual orientation, and WHEREAS, the Episcopal Church seeks to be sensitive to the needs of these persons; therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Presiding Bishop ask the Joint Commission on the Church and Human Affairs or such other appropriate commission as may already exist to take up this matter to assure the continuation of the dialogue between the Church and leaders of the organizing forum for homophiles who are active members of the Episcopal Church; and be it further RESOLVED, That the Task Force be asked to work with the Joint Commission, sharing with it its findings and insight and that the Task Force continue its involvement as a resource to the House of Bishops in this regard” (quoted in Nov 75, Vol 1 No 10).

[3] Feb 1976, Vol 2 No 4.

[4] This decision by the APA in 1973 played an important part in much of the American church debate. The basis for it and means by which it was accomplished has been strongly attacked by many of those opposed to homosexual practice, most fully in Satinover’s work, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.

[5] Quoted in May 1976, Vol 2 No 7.

[6] June/July 1976, Vol 2 No 8.

[7] Barrett edited May 75 lesbian issue and published Sept-Oct 75 article on her support for Integrity. Biographical info – “Age 29, unemployed writer/teacher. M.A. (history), New York University; M. Div., cum laude, General Theological Seminary. Between 1969 and 1973:  Member of Gay Liberation Front/NY; DOB/NY; Radicalesbians, NYU Student Homophile League (later – Gay Students Liberation); Group V, a lesbian/feminist CR group; Past Moderator of NYU-GSL; past co-Chairman DOB/NY; past Executive Secretary for the Homosexual Community Counseling Center/NY.  For the past three years, actively involved in the struggle for ordination of women and of open Gays.  An editor of GAY EPISCOPAL FORUM. STATEMENT:  In six years’ open participation in the Gay movement outside the Church, I frequently wished I could communicate to my religiously disillusioned sisters and brothers the joy of Christian struggle, and in a lifetime in the Church I have bruised both my head and my heart on the Church’s traditional rejection of Gays.  I believe in our people and in our contribution to humankind’s vision of love.  I also believe, against all odds, in the Church as inclusive community of Christ.  Refusing to tolerate their actual dichotomy is painful but vital to how I see us as Christians and how I see my own ministry.  I see INTEGRITY as both a support group for individuals and groups and as an agent for change within the structure of the Church.  I also hope that its influence will extend far beyond its membership to bring hope and strength to all who need us — women and men, Gay and straight — until we can all partake of the freedom and unity (not to be confused with homogeneity) of the children of God” (June/July 75, Vol1 No 8).

[8] Quoted June/July 76, Vol 2 No 8. However, two resolutions (from South Carolina & Texas) criticising the action were filed at GC 1976 (ENS 76264, Aug 10, 1976).

[9] Wesner, a regular contributor to the newsletter, had been ordained by Bishop Pike in 1963/4 and the founding of Integrity and first convention had been life-changing for him: “This past year has been the time of my birth, my coming out, my affirmation.  It has been and continues to be one of almost unmitigated joy.  To be overly brief, until two years ago I prayed almost nightly not to wake up the next morning — you recognize the syndrome — in the closet, lonely as hell, and feeling the shame and the guilt of being different and trying hard to be like everyone else I knew.  That has changed, radically.  Before I came to the convention in Chicago I had come out to my bishop, rector, and many members of the vestry, as well as to friends and other members of the parish…My return to Portland was not so joyful.  I had found while I was away that the shit had hit the fan.  If I had not resigned, that would have been forced.  I may have been able to fight it, but chose to do otherwise.  Although I don’t like the context of the decision, nevertheless I feel very good about the decision itself.  After twelve years in the priesthood, spouting most of the right heterosexual values and practicing otherwise, I have called a halt to the whole process and am giving myself a break of indeterminate length to enjoy life out of the closet and a step removed from the institutional Church…Later I may wish to become active again as a priest, or I may not…” (Dec 1975, Vol 2 No 2). His Thanksgiving for Gayness (Feb 1976, Vol 2 No 4) vividly captures his new state – “God, thank you for the gift of Gayness, a way of reaching out and loving, a way of enjoying your gifts of sexuality and pleasure, a way of knowing aloneness, a way of knowing union.  Thank you for the awareness it gives me, for the clarity of pain, for the rapture of joy.  All good gifts come from you, Oh God.  May I use the gift of Gayness to celebrate you, life, your love, your tender whimsy.  AMEN” – especially when contrasted with his frank “Bedtime Prayers From Another Era” (June/July 1976, Vol 2 No 8).

[10] Quoted in Aug/Sept 1976, Vol 2 No 9.

[11] The Convention also had to face the horrific reality of parts of the gay sub-culture when, on the opening day, Fr. James Kilpatrick, vicar of St. John’s in Center, TX was murdered in a hotel room while attending General Convention. On 12th January 1977 a male hustler named Daniel Lee Moe, 17, pleaded guilty to the stabbing of Kilpatrick. Moe claimed that Kilpatrick, a married man with children, had picked him up for sex and then attacked him (March 1977, Vol 3 No 5).

[12] This was, of course, not the first time General Convention had addressed matters of sexuality. Back in 1967 the following had been passed – “Whereas, Man having been created a sexual being, sexuality is of the very nature of life and is good; and Whereas, Attitudes about sexuality should be focussed less on specific sexual acts and more upon the development of human personality and relationships in the context of social responsibility; and Whereas, With respect to civil laws which govern social conduct, a distinction should be made between those laws which are necessary for the protection of society and those which attempt to regulate private moral choice; therefore, be it Resolved, That the General Convention instruct the Executive Council (1) To initiate studies to express Christian attitudes with respect to birth control, contraception, abortion, sterilization, illegitimacy, divorce and remarriage; marital, premarital, postmarital and extramarital sexual behavior; sexual behavior of single adults; and homosexuality; and (2) To develop an educational program designed to communicate such attitudes to the Church at large, after study and approval by the membership of the Executive Council with competent theological assistance” (March 1976, Vol 2 No 5). At the same Convention Mrs Peggy Morrison circulated a 103-page typewritten document “Christianity & Human Sexuality” though this was never adopted as church policy (Feb 77, Vol 3 No 4).

[13] In the debate, attempts were made to replace ‘homosexual’ with ‘all’ and to add ‘forgiveness’ after ‘acceptance’ but the original motion was retained and approved.

[14] Figures are for dioceses voting Yes, No and divided.

[15] The strength of feeling was evident in the fact that three diocesan deputations asked for each individual’s vote to be recorded. Note, the resolution is also recorded as B-102 and D-058.

[16] Oct 1976, Vol 2 No 10.

[17] Proposed resolution quoted in Aug/Sept 76, Vol 2 No 9. The importance of the repeal of sodomy laws – still on the statute book in the majority of states – is evident from comments in Integrity Forum. In his reflection on the Convention for Integrity, Richard H. York referred to “the one resolution which was defeated, the repeal of the sodomy law” and claimed that “ On this issue it was clear that people simply were not aware of the laws and how oppressive they are.  One delegation thought this resolution would repeal adultery and incest laws. What this experience clearly indicates is that we need to educate people” (Jan 1977, Vol 3 No 3).

[18] The decisions of General Convention were themselves too much for some – The Vestry of St. Stephen’s Parish notified Bishop Van Duzer of New Jersey at the end of September that pronouncements on human sexuality at General Convention were among their many reasons for being unable to accept the action of the Convention and they accordingly withheld payment of all diocesan assessments, refused the service of diocesan bishops, and suspended active fellowship with the diocese (Feb 77, Vol 3 No 4).



This first chapter is available as a 17 page PDF or in 4 separate blog posts:

1(i) – Louie Crew

1(ii) – Founding Integrity

1(iii) – Structure and Growth

1(iv) – Responses

Primary source material:

General Convention & House of Bishops’ Resolutions from 1960s and early 1970s

Chapter One – Louie Crew & Founding Integrity

Responses to Integrity

Fairly rapidly it became clear that – at all levels of its existence – Integrity was revealing a spectrum of responses within the Episcopal church. Four broad categories of reaction can be identified which persist to the present day in ECUSA and the wider Anglican Communion: rejection, reassertion, reassessment and reinterpretation.[1] Clearly these are not water-tight – individuals move between them over time and even within one category there is a range of different attitudes and approaches.

Firstly, a vehement rejection of Integrity and all that it stands for, sometimes including expression of revulsion at anyone identifying as a homosexual. Examples of this have already been cited in the letter of the unnamed bishop on receipt of the first edition of Integrity Forum and the campaign of the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Orthodox Church. Perhaps the classic extreme example of this is the non-Episcopalian, Revd Fred Phelps who, long before establishing his “godhatesfags” website and picketing the consecration of Gene Robinson, was already protesting against those who held Integrity’s views.[2]

Secondly, reassertion of traditional church teaching that in God’s intention sexual intercourse is for a man and a woman who are married to each other and thus the church should not commend or bless other sexual relationships or ordain anyone in a non-marital sexual relationship. This view was clearly expressed in early letters to Integrity Forum by The Rt. Rev. James L. Duncan (Bishop of Southeast Florida)[3] and The Rt. Rev. Clarence E. Hobgood (Bishop to the Armed Forces)[4] and is articulated in the October 1977 report of the House of Bishops’ Theology Committee (discussed later). Although often treated as indistinguishable from the first group by those who disagree with its views, it differs in its focus on biblical, moral and theological defence of traditional teaching, seeks to offer a compassionate and understanding pastoral response to gay and lesbian Christians, and is often explicitly critical of those in the first group.

Thirdly, reassessment of the church’s traditional teaching and practice in the light of new knowledge, the public visibility and moral qualities of Christians attracted to (and often in an intimate relationship with) someone of the same sex, and awareness of the church’s unloving attitude – both past and present – to those who identify as gay or lesbian. This stance is open to seeing the church as entering a period of ‘reception’ in this area as it has over the ordination of women. Some in this category – even if personally unconvinced of the correctness of change – are likely to be willing to tolerate diversity and plurality within church teaching and practice in order to enable discernment of God’s will. In the early days of Integrity this appears to be the initial public stance of bishops such as The Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison (Bishop of Western Michigan) and The Rt. Rev. George E. Rath (Bishop of Newark).[5]

Fourthly, reinterpretation or revision of traditional teaching and practice in relation to sexual ethics in order to end a perceived injustice against gay and lesbian people when their loving relationships are not recognized and affirmed by the church and those in such relationships barred from ordained ministry. This end of the spectrum clearly represents whole-hearted support for Integrity’s stance and, as already noted, a number of bishops made public their adherence to this view through support of Integrity while others were soon to do so by their ordination policies (e.g. The Rt. Rev. Paul Moore, Bishop of New York) and response to bishops who were reasserters (e.g. The Rt. Rev. Kilmer Myers, Bishop of California).[6]

[1] Although not to be treated as fully equivalent (and here expressed in terms of responses to Integrity and its aims rather than homosexuality per se) this is similar to James Nelson’s influential categorisation of ‘rejecting punitive’, ‘rejecting non-punitive’, ‘qualified acceptance’ and ‘full acceptance’ (Nelson articulated this in a 1975 article, reprinted in Christianity & Crisis (4^th April 1977), relevant extracts of which appeared in June-July 1977,  Vol 3 No 8. It is most accessible in his Embodiment (1979) This analysis nuances the simpler ‘traditionalist’ vs ‘revisionist’ dichotomy that I and others have used elsewhere and adapts and extends the terms “reasserters” and “reappraisers” developed by the Revd Dr Kendall Harmon in his categorisation of the debate (Harmon, p4). I have explored it more fully, in relation to homosexuality, at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=250 and http://www.ajgoddard.net/webdocs/anglican/conservativeviews.pdf

[2] The summer 1993 edition of Voice (Vol 3 No 3) includes a report of his protests. Those seeking to find humour in the face of such hatred may enjoy the rival site, www.godhatesshrimp.org

[3] “I do not believe that overt, practicing homosexuality can be tolerated within the Christian priesthood.  I believe we can work with the gay, we can accept him [sic], but when his [sic] action becomes overt it becomes fornication.  I think we have to accept this as fact” (Apr 1975, Vol 1 No 6).

[4] “I am interested, as always, in giving whatever moral support I can to the Church’s ministry to all people including homosexuals, provided you will allow me to do so from my own perspective as a Bishop of the Church of God…I firmly believe in the institution of Christian marriage and the family, and I spend a great deal of my time in an effort to maintain the highest standards for persons entering into the marriage relationship…Thus, I heartily affirm Bishop Montgomery’s recent statement concerning “homosexual marriage.”  He wrote, “Some attitudes and views of extremely vocal members of the gay community are not in keeping with Christian doctrine.  …  I do not believe that any commitment however deep and meaningful, between two persons of the same sex can be called ‘marriage’ and given the same sacramental character as that union of man and woman which our Lord sanctified.”” (Dec 1975, Vol 2 No 2). His stance as a ‘reasserter’ is evident in his letter responding to Crew’s reply to this letter – “I am sorry you have been hurt by me and by the Church in general, but it seems the only way I could have avoided hurting you would have been to have violated my own conscience and convictions which are based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I see myself, not in the role of one who attacks, but rather as one who defends; in this case, as one who defends what you believe to be “apple pie virtues” but which I see as Christian virtues”. (Jan 1976, Vol 2 No 3).

[5] “Certainly our understanding of homosexuality has increased…What a difference from our special program in Columbia, SC (1961) meeting of the House of Bishops and our Province V meeting in April [1975]… You may be assured that I shall make every attempt to give my support to you and any other person who is experiencing repression and recrimination in our society.  I shall hope to come to a greater understanding of this life style, for it is my duty to minister to all people…” (Bennison) and “I did support the resolution, passed by the House of Bishops, to keep open the dialogue with the Gay community, and I am prepared to explore ways in which this might be done” (Rath); Jan 1976 (Vol 2 No 3).

[6] One of the early signs of episcopal sympathy (from England) is the following letter in Sept/Oct 75 (Vol 1 No 10) – ““I would like to take this opportunity to send you every blessing in your own important work and hope that we might meet some place in the future.  With every good wish and blessing. The Rev. Michael Marshall, Vicar of All Saints, London and Bishop designate of Woolwich”.



For some time Evangelicals and Catholics Together has been an important movement in North America issuing a number of key statements. Just discovered over at First Things that they have a new statement out on Mary – Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life.

Still to read it but looks an important document covering both areas of agreement and words from Catholics to evangelicals and from evangelicals to Catholics over areas of disagreement.