Mark Dawes, Religion Editor

A group of Anglican church bishops gather around American clergymen, Rev William Atwood and Rev William Murdoch, during a consecrated ceremony by Kenyan Archbishop of the Anglican Church, Rev Benjamin Nzimbi (centre), at the All Saints Cathedral Church in Kenya's capital, Nairobi, in August 2007. The two US clergymen form part of the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church in the United States, that strongly opposes the homosexual lifestyle, gay marriages and the 2003 consecration of the openly homosexual and non-celibate Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire.

I have read with disappointment, but not surprise, the article 'Anglicans opt for dialogue over schism', which appeared on September 7. The article was penned by the Rev Garth Minott, lecturer at the United Theological College of the West Indies.

His article was a response to the one I wrote which appeared on August 9 under the headline 'Purple-shirted flatulence'.

consecration

In that article I observed that after five years since the consecration of the openly homosexual Rev V. Gene Robinson to the bishopric of New Hamsphire, there had been enough talk within the Anglican Communion to resolve the issue. I said it was now time for action as there is no middle ground between the two opposing positions.

By action I meant that the leadership of the Anglican Communion should indeed expel that segment of the body that is hell-bent on promoting and sanctioning homosexuals to the priesthood and bishopric of the church.

Minott supports dialogue as the way forward in dealing with the homosexual in clergy crisis. He wrote, "Such problems or challenges are better addressed through protracted listening and dialogue."

COWARDICE

Dialogue is important and has its own validity. But one cannot be engaged in dialogue indefinitely on a matter that is a black and white issue in scripture. Indeed, to dialogue indefinitely is to pander to the rebellious who refuse to be placed under the weight of the clear teaching and the authority of the Christian scriptures. Dialogue in those circumstances is thinly veiled cowardice and an excuse for inaction. What the Anglican church needs is not so much more dialogue but a dose of courage.

If I were an Anglican I would have been ashamed and embarrassed to cite the example of dialogue as recorded in Minott's article. He wrote how his church began dialogue on the issue of baptising persons in polygamous relationships in its Lambeth conference of 1888. Then it dialogued and dialogued and dialogued until finally they came to an agreement at the Lambeth conference in 1940 - a total of 52 years later. So maybe the Anglican Communion, as it moves full speed ahead in pursuit of dialogue, might be fortunate to resolve the matter by 2060. I hope Minott is alive at that time to rejoice in the consummation of the process. Bear in mind that Minott wrote that "The Communion is in no mood to rush the current debate."

In my article of August 9, I deliberately did not address homosexuality among rank and file. That is a separate though not unrelated issue. My article addressed open homosexuality among priests and bishops.

I am saying that at the highest levels of leadership you cannot be faithful to the Bible and yet knowingly appoint practising homosexuals to the office of priest and/or bishop. The leadership of the church, as in any organisation, must be held to a higher standard than the ordinary membership.

contrary to teachings

Minott wrote that the Anglican Church "has always held the view that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of Scripture and is not consistent with the traditions received."

Then he wrote, "The approach to such disagreements is not to take the coward's approach, which is to seek premature solutions in schism.

Rather, the approach is to hear all sides of the discussion and to discern the gospel imperative in our response. The indaba approach to conversation, taken by the bishops at the last Lambeth conference, was designed to exercise patience in discerning the best way to respond to the issue. The indaba approach is an African way of listening to different voices in a conversation. The goal is to allow all persons to speak, and then, in Quaker style, seek to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit. Dawes seems to be impatient with this process and requires an immediate response."

So here it is, the Anglican Communion holds the view that homosexuality is contrary to scripture and tradition. But, nevertheless, its bishops at Lambeth were seeking to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit on the matter.

listening

This is analogous to a born-again Christian young woman praying about whether she should marry the nice non-Christian young man - notwithstanding her ability to read and comprehend 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." She is listening to hear God when God has already spoken in the Bible. Perhaps she is hoping that God will change His mind.

Pastor Minott, God has already spoken and is continuing to speak to us all through the Bible. Those who did not hear Him at Lambeth merely need to read the Bible. He is not going to change His view of homosexuality during His lifetime. When God has spoken, the thing to do is to obey Him. Delayed obedience is disobedience. The Anglican Communion cannot claim to be following the Bible while knowingly appointing practising homosexuals to hold the office of priest and bishop in the church.

There is a time for dialogue but there is also a time to 'lay down the law'. There must be a time when the bishops of the church say 'This is the way of the Lord, walk ye in it!'

Polygamy was a subject worthy of dialogue by the Anglican Communion decades ago. David and Solomon had more than one wife, and in the New Testament St Paul said that the deacon and elder must be husband of one wife.

reflection

There was serious reflection to be done to discern scriptural teaching on the subject. But homosexuality is not like that. The biblical teaching is clear - it is a sin and is not to be condoned. The Anglican Communion needs to lay down the law that persons known to be practising homosexuals cannot become priests or bishops. At this time of writing, the name of the Rev Jeffrey John, a practising homosexual, is being called as the next Bishop of Bangor in Wales. Is his appointment going to go ahead and then we will all have more dialogue?

Minott does not seem to believe that there is a basis for expelling a person(s) from the church. There are indeed lots of biblical grounds to do this (for example 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, Ephesians 5:3,11, Romans 16:17-20). In fact, failure to do so when such is required is a failure of leadership and disobedience to God and the Scriptures. If you love your people you will discipline them when such is required - even if that means expulsion. Admittedly, expulsion should be the last step in a disciplinary process. Indeed, it should be a last resort. Furthermore, the person who is expelled from church is not to be treated as a pariah, but must continue to be the recipient of pastoral care. There is no contradiction between taking a principled stand based on scripture while at the same time offering pastoral care and counselling.

Bible-believing

No Bible-believing denomination in Jamaica would have allowed the appointment of a known homosexual to the office of pastor - let alone bishop. No Bible-believing denomination in Jamaica would still be in dialogue on the issue after five years.

My view is that there has been enough talk within the Anglican Communion in the five years since V. Gene Robinson was made a bishop.

Dialogue is a drug which, when taken in excess, leaves one anaemic to summon the courage to take hard decisions. Dialogue is also a tranquilliser and if the Anglican Communion continues to receive heavy dosages it will end up in a coma.

There comes a time when there has been enough dialogue. For how long will the Anglican Communion engage in dialogue with people who refuse to accept the authority of the Bible? To refuse to accept the authority of the Bible is to be in rebellion. But no, Minott and the Anglican Communion are willing to cuddle rebellion, engage in dialogue until thy kingdom come. That approach is not pastoral care, but pastoral cowardice, and it makes the Anglican bishopric a fellowship of wimps.

Send feedback to mark.dawes@gleanerjm.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.