The Accusers' Position on Doctrine in the Heresy Trial of Walter Righter

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH)

IN THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF A BISHOP



James M. Stanton, Bishop of             )
Dallas, et al.,                         )
                                        )
                Presenters,             )
                                        )
v.                                      )
                                        )
The Rt. Rev. Walter C. Righter, )
                                        )
                Respondent.             )



A PAPER ON DOCTRINE



                                                        Respectfully
                                                                     submitted,

                                                        JAMES M. STANTON,
                                                            BISHOP OF
                                                        DALLAS, et al.
                                                        By Counsel

A. Hugo Blankingship, Jr.
Church Advocate
Blankingship & Keith, P.C.
4020 University Drive, Suite 312
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
703/691-1235

Transcribed by Integrity, Inc.

Doctrine is that which is taught. Jesus in his rabbinical role is called master or teacher. The early church committed to the "teaching" of the Apostles. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, p.112, defines doctrine as "communally authoritative teachings regarded as essential to the identity of the Christian community."

Some argue that doctrine is restricted to basic beliefs about God in the creeds. Respondent seeks to distinguish between Church doctrine and its moral and social teaching. Yet Christian doctrine cannot be simply equated to the creeds. The Church has many other doctrines as well. The sufficiency of the sacraments, the reconciling power of Christ's death are examples of Church doctrine. The Church also has a doctrine on Christian marriage.

There would be further difficulties in this matter if statements about God were the only content of Christian doctrine. In fact, however, Christian doctrine also includes statements about humanity and the created world, about Jesus Christ, the Church and the sacraments. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p.5.

The Anglican Prayer Book has always presented doctrine as inextricably bound up with morals. The Outline of Faith or Catechism includes examples of faith (the Creed), morals (the Ten Commandments) and piety (the Lord's Prayer). Candidates for ordination are asked: "Will you pattern your life [and that of your family, or household, or community] in accordance with the teaching of Christ, so that you may be a wholesome example to all people?"

The pattern of life which accords with Christ's teaching to set a wholesome example presupposes a moral doctrine based on His teachers. Thus the judgment of the bishop of what constitutes a proper standard or "manner" of life becomes a matter of doctrine. The Great Commission calls for bishops to both preach and teach. In our case, the Respondent clearly intended to affect the criteria of future ordinations thereby teaching a doctrine not held by this Church.

The Church so guards its doctrine that the Declaration required of all ordinands by Article VIII of the Constitution is signed publicly. In the case of a bishop it is not only signed publicly but subscribed by witnesses. Bishops are guardians of doctrine as it is received. They may not make it up and may not condone matters "spoken or acted out" by fellow bishops which cross doctrinal limits and are "clearly irreconcilable with the Church's teaching." (Bayne Committee).

From apostolic times, the Church has recognized a "rule of faith" inherent in the biblical Gospel, which later was formulated in the creeds. This principle of a summary of normative teaching also applied in the area of morality and sexual morality in particular. Thus the earliest, subapostolic writing, the Diadache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, begins by delineating "two ways, one of life and one of death" (1.1), and immediately turns to sexual moral teaching against adultery, pederasty, and fornication (2.2, 5.1). The settled, normative authority of this moral principle is reflected in the subsequent consensus of the Church's teaching, including that of the Book of Common Prayer. Bible translators treat "teaching" and "doctrine" interchangeably. Thus, "dadiskalia" in the moral "teaching" found in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 is usually translated "doctrine." Moral teaching and moral doctrine are equivalent terms.

SEXUAL MORALITY AND DOCTRINE

Since the Church has a moral doctrine, we next inquire whether noncelibate homosexual practices conform to standards of sexual morality consistent with that doctrine. We shall examine the Bible, universal teaching of the Church and current Episcopal doctrine on human sexuality.

THE BIBLE

All ordinands including Bishops declare that the Bible is the Word of God and receive a Bible during the ordination service to emphasize the Church's commitment to the authority of the Scripture. The Bible repeatedly warns against false teaching. Nothing may be taught as doctrine which is contrary to God's Word written. (Articles XX, VI). A bishop must hold and teach sound doctrine (Titus 1:9).

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The creation accounts lay the foundation for the biblical view of sexuality. In Genesis 1:26, God makes humankind in His image male and female. In the second account (Genesis 2:18-24), God acknowledges that "thus a helper according to his opposite." The complementary genders of male and female united as one flesh fulfill God's design for the human family" "Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one."

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) warns of the dangers of violating the creation order as does the parallel story about Gibeah in Judges 19.

The Ten Commandments sum up the reverence for God ("I am the LORD your God...you shall have no other gods before me") and the danger of uncontrolled desire ("You shall not covet"). Chief among the prohibitions is adultery and related sexual violations. Under this commandment, homosexuality is condemned in the moral law of Moses as an "abomination," an offense both to the holiness of God and to his created order (Leviticus 18.22).

See, Articles of Religion (VII) holding that Old Testament ceremonial rites are not binding, but "no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called Moral."

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Jesus incorporates most of the Old Testament teaching about sexuality. In Mark 7:18 he declares obsolete the mosaic food laws, but reaffirms the moral connection between sin in the human heart and specific actions: "...fornication, theft, murder adultery . . ." Jesus' sexual ethic is more strenuous than the Old Testament. He refers to the creation stories in affirming marriage and identifies exclusive monogamy as the primal purpose of God and exclusive celibacy as a sign of discipleship (Matthew 19:3-12). For Jesus and the Christian Church thereafter Genesis creation stories were normative references for teaching about human sexual relations.

The apostolic writers uphold the Old Testament teaching on sexuality as mediated by Jesus. While relaxing the food laws, they warn repeatedly against the connection between false religion and false sexuality, i.e., sex outside marriage or "fornication" (see Acts 15:28-29; 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; Galatians 5:19-20; Ephesians 5:3-5; Colossians 3:5; Hebrews 12:16; Revelation 2:14-21; 21:8, 22:15). While the apostles give instructions for mixed-faith marriages, and single, celibate, and widowed people (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7), they make no provision for any kind of sexual arrangements outside marriage. Homosexuality is identified as one variety of false sexuality (i Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-7, Jude 7).

The two most important New Testament passages on homosexuality come from Epistles of St. Paul. In addressing the Corinthians, he writes:

Do you not know ... that neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (passive or active) ... will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

The same tradition of Christian teaching, based on the Old Testament, undergirds Paul's well-known argument in Romans 1:18-32 about God's wrath against all human ungodliness and wickedness. He charges that human sin led characteristically to idolatry and to disordered desires in which their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men....

The Statement by the Bishops of the Church of England includes the following helpful summary of biblical teaching:

There is, therefore, in Scripture an evolving convergence on the ideal of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union as the setting intended by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings.

Sexual activity of any kind outside marriage comes to be seen as sinful, and homosexual practice as especially dishonourable. It is also recognized that God may call some to celibacy for particular service in his cause. Only by living within these boundaries are Christians to achieve that holiness which is pleasing to God. (Issues in Human Sexuality, 2.29, p.18).

TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

The affirmation of marriage as the only legitimate form of sexual arrangement, with the alternative of abstinence, is one of the most universally accepted Christian teachings.

The second generation after the apostles clearly accepted the biblical prohibitions against fornication and homosexuality as part of its "pattern of sound teaching" (2 Timothy 1:13; cf. 1 Timothy 1:10). Indeed the earliest church rule, the Didache, explicitly condemned both pedophilia and homosexuality, and similar admonitions come from Church Fathers both East and West. Patristic scholar Joseph Trigg concludes:

As in the New Testament, homosexual behavior was not a particularly important issue for the Fathers, but wherever it was mentioned it was condemned. Arguably, there was relatively little mention of homosexuality in Patristic literature because there was no debate on the subject. The position recently argued by John Boswell--that homosexual relationships were acceptable in the church before the twelfth century--does not square with the Patristic sources. (Wholesome Example, p.31).

Professor William Stafford adds:

for more than eight centuries the Latin church praised celibacy, acknowledged the goodness of marriage, and taught that sexual acts outside of marriage were wrong. (Wholesome Example, p.44).

Thomas Aquinas, for instance, elaborated the Biblical and patristic understanding of homosexuality as being "against nature" for humans, both in their capacity as animals and as rational beings. (Commentary on Romans 1:26)

The Reformation accepted without question the church's sexual teaching. Anglican Reformers were particularly concerned to emphasize that "the works of the moral commandments of God be the very true works of faith." Positively, they commended marriage as "an honourable estate," ordained by God for procreation, as a remedy "to avoid fornication," and "for the mutual society of husband and wife." Negatively, they condemned adultery and fornication, which included "all unlawful use of those parts which be ordained for generation." (Homilies 1.11.1).

Catholics, Puritans, and Anglicans were all agreed that "unlawful copulation" of all sorts "doth pollute and dishonour both parties." It may be inferred that Richard Hooker had considered homosexuality contrary both to the laws of Scripture and nature, and "the ancient practice of the Church." (Laws I.12.1; V.10.2 cf. I.10.10).

CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN TEACHING

While issues of homosexuality have only surfaced recently, Anglicans addressed the matter of the Church's sexual teaching earlier in this century. The 1920 Lambeth Conference stated:

Recognizing that to live a pure and chaste life before and after marriage is, for both sexes, the unchangeable Christian standard, attainable and attained through the help of the Holy Spirit by men and women of every age, the conference desires to proclaim the universal obligation of this standard, and its vital importance as an essential condition of human happiness. (Resolution 66).

Again in 1930, Lambeth stated that "illicit and irregular unions...are contrary to the revealed will of God" (Resolution 19). After addressing the concern for homosexual legal rights in 1978 and 1988, the Lambeth Conference went on to say that it "gladly reaffirms the Christian ideals of faithfulness and chastity both within and outside marriage, and calls Christians everywhere to seek the grace of Christ to live lives of holiness, discipline and service in the world..." (Resolution 19 [1978] and (Resolution 64 [1988]).

The English bishops reaffirmed that teaching in a 1987 Resolution:

1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent marriage relationship;
2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
3. that homosexual acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality, and that holiness of life is especially required for Christian leaders.

The bishops followed this Resolution in 1991 with a Statement entitled Issues in Sexuality, which concludes:

that homophile orientation and its expression in sexual activity do not constitute a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual. The convergence of Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, make it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. 5.2

We have, therefore, to say that in our considered judgment clergy cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships. 5.17

Those who disagree with that mind (of the Church) are free to argue for change. What they are not free to do is to go against that mind in their own practice. 5.15

It is clear from a reading of Issues and its Scriptural content that the English bishops speak of doctrine:

It is our duty to affirm the whole pattern of Christian teaching on sexuality set out in these pages. 5.21

Our Church has committed not to depart from the doctrine of the Church of England (B.C.P. Preface).

CURRENT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE

Although distinctly pastoral, the Episcopal Church has remained consistent in its official teaching. This teaching has been articulated in Resolutions of the House of Bishops and General Convention. Historically, such resolutions on moral matters have been considered binding on its members and clergy, especially when they claim to be an expression of "traditional teaching" and an interpretation of Prayer Book language about the manner of life of clergy (Prichard in Wholesome Example, pp.51-54).

The decision in the Brown case adopts the traditional view that the Church's doctrine is fixed by the whole Church acting in its corporate capacity. (Tr., pg. 133). The 1964 Resolution of General Convention, outlining levels of authority within the Church, further affirms that the body speaks at the highest level of responsibility. The 1979 Resolution affirming the Church's traditional "teaching" on sexual morality must be viewed in the context of these pronouncements.

The 1976 General Convention called for a study of homosexual ordination to be reported in 1979. In 1977, the House of Bishops adopted their Committee on Theology report that "the biblical understanding rejects homosexual practice"; a Resolution that "no Bishop of this Church shall confer Holy Orders in violation of these principles"; and the now famous "Port Lucie" pastoral letter.

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. (1979 Journal, B-226)

The actions of the House of Bishops were confirmed by the next General Convention in 1979, which after much debate passed a key Resolution which is still in effect. The Resolution stated that homosexual orientation did not present a barrier to ordination. It did, however, reaffirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity, and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are expected to conform to this standard. Therefore, we believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or anyone who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage. (Journal,C-88, 89)

In 1988, confirming the English Bishop's action of 1987, the General Convention reaffirmed once again "the Biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity" and called for further study and dialogue on the subject of human sexuality (1988 Journal, 206.

Bishop Spong ordained Robert Williams, an avowed, practicing, homosexual, to the priesthood in December 1989.

The bishops again responded. In February 1990, the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice reaffirmed again the traditional teaching of the church as articulated in 1979. It noted: "short of action by the General Convention, it is the stated and authoritative position of the church at this time." (1991 Journal, 501-503). At their meeting in September 1990, the House of Bishops endorsed this statement (1991 Journal, p.401). Less than two weeks later, Respondent ordained Barry Stopfel.

The 1991 Convention called for a Pastoral Teaching for the 1994 Convention. The proposed document "Continuing the Dialogue" was seen by some to undercut existing statements on sexuality.

Significant modifications to "Continuing the Dialogue" (1994 Journal, 141-142) were made:

1.They demoted it from a pastoral teaching to "pastoral study document."

2.They prefaced the document with a reaffirmation of "the teaching of the church that the normative context of sexual intimacy is lifelong heterosexual, monogamous marriage..."

3.They amended one of its "Guidelines": "...Therefore we commit ourselves to ... continue in trust and koinonia ordaining only persons we believe to be a wholesome example to their people, according to the standards and norms set forth by the Church's teaching."

The Preamble to the Constitution confirms our Anglican heritage and our fellowship within the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. True to that heritage and fellowship the Episcopal Church has never made an official pronouncement contrary to the clear doctrine outlined in this paper.

CONCLUSION

This Church has a moral doctrine. It does not permit the ordination performed by Respondent. Challenges to that doctrine have been based on non-biblical and non-traditional propositions derived from contemporary culture. These challenges are not a matter for this Court. They are best left to the General Convention to consider in its corporate capacity.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that on the 1st day of February, 1996, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Paper On Doctrine and List of References with attachments was mailed by Federal Express Priority Overnight to the following:

        The Rt. Rev. Edward W. Jones
        Diocese of Indianapolis
        1100 West 42nd Street
        Indianapolis, Indiana 46208

        Michael F. Rehill, Esquire, Chancellor
        Williamson & Rehill, P.C.
        343 Kinderkamack Road
        Westwood, New Jersey 07675

        Sally A. Johnson, Esquire, Chancellor and Lay Assessor
        Faegre & Benson
        2200 Norwest Center
        Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
                                        /s/  A. Hugo Blankingship, Jr.
                                                A. Hugo Blankingship, Jr.