(Mark is Rector of St. James’ Episcopal Church, Millcreek Hundred, Wilmington, Delaware. Formerly Coordinator for Ministry in Higher Education, Coordinator of Overseas Personnel and Partnership Officer for Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East at the Episcopal Church Center. He is author of THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGE, the Anglican Communion in the Post Modern Era, published by Church Publishing Incorporated.)

The "Pastoral Statement to Lesbian and Gay Anglicans from Some Member Bishops of the Lambeth Conference" [http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/lambeth30.html] was a much-needed apology and pledge for continued engagement. With some pride I see my bishop’s name among those listed, as well as the names of many friends and mentors. I read the statement carefully, wondering what morsel of hope it might hold out for gay and lesbian members of our Church and what it might tell us about the future of this peculiar band of people, the Anglican Communion, and what it means for me.

The Statement is carefully worded genuine admission of the inadequacy of the work done by the Conference on issues of inclusion of Gay and Lesbian persons in the faith community. Some of its signers, notably the Primate of Scotland, have been open about their feelings of betrayal. From the remarks of Dr. Louie Crew, The Rev. Michael Hopkins, The Rev. Elizabeth Keaton and others I sense that the Statement is correct to assume that many the Statement addressed do indeed feel abandoned. So an assurance of continued support and an apology was in order.

Still, I was struck by the strange joining of two sentences in the third paragraph of the Statement: "We pledge that we will continue to reflect, pray, and work for your full inclusion in the life of the Church. It is obvious that Communion-wide we are in great disagreement over what full inclusion would mean." What is there not to understand about what "full inclusion" means?

The way the phrase is put together, "full inclusion" would lead us to think there are reasons that could be given for "partial inclusion." I suppose that is what my clerical ancestors did when they thought it all right to tell my grandmother she could build a church, but she could not lead evening prayer in that church. "Partial inclusion" might well have been about Black candidates for holy orders being told that although they were indeed being trained to be priests in the whole Church, they could not go to this or that U.S. seminary because they were ‘colored.’ "Partial inclusion" might well be about telling gay and lesbian people that indeed they are baptized and confirmed, Children of God, etc., but that’s it. No further.

But surely we know what "full inclusion," means. Surely those who held the day at Lambeth knew. As a white, heterosexual, western, adult and not yet totally over-the-hill male, I know what it means. "Fully included" is what I am. "Full inclusion" for others means that people not like me can aspire to every role, function and ministry in the church that I can. In whatever way I can be included in the life of the Church, so can they. What part of the phrase "full inclusion" has not been understood?

My sense is that these two sentences in the Statement were written that way because there was a desire to be as polite as possible. The problem for opponents to gay and lesbian access to the possibility of ordination or blessing is not with the word "full," the problem is with the word "inclusion." A better reading of this portion of the Statement would be, "It is obvious that Communion-wide we are in great disagreement over whether or not homosexual persons should or even can be included in the life of the church." This issue is not a problem of meaning. It is a problem of actualization and practice.

The Lambeth Conference resolution on sexuality would seem to suggest that there is no problem with full inclusion in the life of the church of persons who identify themselves as having a sexual orientation towards persons of the same sex provided they are not moved to practice. In that case, the Lambeth solution might read, ‘if you know you are oriented to others of the same sex by practice, now you know it, so stop. If you don’t know it by practice, don’t start.’ If you are oriented to persons of the opposite sex, good for you. But practice only within the proper constraints – get married. This makes me think that perhaps having a sexual orientation is something like wanting to smoke. (If you want to smoke cigars, or do, stop! No cigars! This train is bound for glory. No smoking anyway, except with a special ticket and in the smoking car, cigarettes only please.)

The impolite questions at hand in the Lambeth Conference resolution on sexuality is this: (i) whether being a Christian requires that one never start, or quit, practice that might result from a particular sexual orientation, and (ii) whether those who will not or can not quit are to be considered less than fully included until they are changed by "God’s transforming power." (That last being a phrase that stuck out in the Lambeth resolution. See section c.) This resolution is primarily about the maintenance of a purity code.

Most bishops at Lambeth answered these two questions with a ‘yes’ when they voted for the resolution. Some voted ‘no.’ (And where were some of our friends who signed on to the Pastoral Statement but did not vote no in the proceedings?) Still, fair enough. Being a Bishop on that Wednesday in Kent could not have been an easy task.

Still, to put it impolitely, those who voted for the resolution were less than truthful. It turns out that, contrary to the statement made in section (c), only some baptized persons are full members of the Body of Christ. Those who are not married or homosexual and who know their sexual orientation through practice are, so long as they practice, not full members. They remain or become unblessed, unlicensed, and disempowered, and for sure they are not wholesome examples. (That sure sounds like less than full membership to me.) They sit there damned until they stop. This is why the Pastoral Statement is very important, for it at least acknowledges the disempowerment of the Resolution.

So where are we? Lambeth seems to have decided that being homosexual is not the issue, acting on it is. Lambeth is against homosexual practice, and does so claiming it is incompatible with scripture. The bishops who wrote the Pastoral Statement have decided homosexual persons need to be supported, respected and heard and do so claiming such care is compatible with scripture. But the Statement does not clearly come out for the normalization of homosexual practice, by which I mean opening out to the possibility of committed and affirmed same sex relationships whose health should be encouraged and sustained by blessing. Perhaps that was too much to ask for.

What is missing, of course, is the word "advocate." Lambeth will not, and the Pastoral Statement does not, advocate for homosexual practice as a possible means of the expression of purity of heart, that is as a way of expressing the love for one another that is holy and of God. (We all know some bishops who are advocates, and their names will be remembered with joy.) Advocacy is one of the many attributes we ascribe to Jesus. It is one we ascribe to some of his followers. It moves beyond hearing, supporting and respecting. It requires standing for and with the shunned and cast out.

But for now this is all a sad turn of events. Taken as a whole, there is no inclusion in this church, and no advocacy by this church. It is not just that we are not for full inclusion, at the moment we are not for inclusion at all.

In the Church, the only way to make inclusion happen where there is hardness of heart is to identify with the excluded. Jesus surely modeled that. Too old to learn new practice, I guess I will just have to be a white, heterosexual, western, adult and not yet totally over-the-hill male whose sexual orientation is nobody’s business. I am who I am. But if gay and lesbian friends will have me among them I’m in. And, if in, if asked, I’m gay.