Dear Gay Anglicans letter

1. Deja Vu all over again. It’s starting once again. Guess what folks? ACNA ain’t no different from TEC.

   • It is and it can be. But at critical junctures it must make different choices than TEC did. It has to stick to proclaiming the truth in love and not some compromised form of truth in the name of love.

     I personally believe that if they are to maintain orthodoxy they must be on guard regarding the spiritual formation and academic bent of seminaries and then be vigilant about ordinations and appointments. Once you’re dealing with a critical mass of clergy who do not believe key teachings of the church, trying to rescue matters at the parish level is like trying to stop a train speeding down a steep hill.

     • The CoB are loath to take a strong stand. Hence the spineless process on Women’s Ordination. Hence the 3,700+ word document to tip toe around what to call persons with same-sex attractions. If they run true to form, the homosexual activist lobby will eat them for lunch and as ReebHerb said it will be TEC all over again. Their moment to step us is now.

   • My thoughts exactly! I resigned from the ACNA about 2 years ago and told my Bishop explicitly I saw this day coming and was not going to do that battle again after TEC. And here they are. Unreal. Will strong Bishops have the spine to put this down? Don’t bet on it.

     • Warren, I’ve had a similar experience and I’m curious about where you’ve settled (if you’ve settled). Many years ago now I was influenced in my thinking about women’s ordination by the “biblical feminism” movement. Having seen what’s happened in the AC with regard to SS issues has forced me to realize that the groundwork for dismissing the clear teaching of scripture was laid there. For this reason I feel the same concern; that those who left the TEC and ACoC over the SS issue have set the clock back, but have failed to really deal with the undermining of scripture’s authority in doctrinal matters, which goes further back. And yet, in leaving they’ve taken a brave step in the right direction.

2. This constitutes a crisis of theological/philosophical language for the ACNA (which will have a profound influence on the practical ministry it informs). I’m glad this opposing letter has been released because it offers the opportunity actually to deal with what amounts to incompatible approaches. This letter, which has to be regarded in its title as a pretty clear shot at the CoB statement, whatever affirming language they use, enshrines a concept of ‘sexual minorities’. I’m curious, which sexual minorities are included here? Which ones could simply be exchanged with “Gay”? Sure, Gay (and Lesbian) are the biggest and most powerful of the sexual minorities, but there are many others. Some of the other sexual minorities claim oppression from the dominant forms, so why not specifically validate them? On what grounds would the organizers accept some and reject others (if in fact they would reject any)?

   If the CoB is happy to allow a thousand flowers to bloom, the inevitable question arises, why should the CoB issue statements regarding anything at all? What does it say of the ACNA if the CoB relinquishes even the possibility of speaking with authority on matters of such importance?

3. ACNA is losing its way on the very issue that saw its creation. Just some random thoughts about this.

   (1) “each of our sexualities is broken, churches have often treated different brokenness differently”. What’s wrong with this statement? Not all sexuality is broken. In order for there to be “broken” sexuality, there must be an “unbroken” yardstick to measure it against.
   (2) Churches have been “holding same-sex attracted people to a higher standard”. No. What has been applied is a single standard. What higher standard has been applied?
   (3) “We confess that Christians have perpetrated destructive reparative/conversion therapies, leading many sexual minorities to lose their faith or die by suicide.” How weird. Traditional Christian beliefs make people commit suicide? So if you counsel traditional sexuality you are saying “lose your faith or die?”
   (4) “We affirm the Provincial Statement’s call to lead conversation about God’s love and wisdom for same-sex attracted people across the lifespan so children and teenagers feel safe to share early with parents and pastors.” So, they mean we should lead the charge for homosexuality, so that teenagers can be safe. As if this is a major thing among teenagers. Why should we lead the charge?
   (5) “vocational singleness or mixed-orientation marriage”. How weasily can you get?
   (6) “…extend Christ’s love to sexual minorities.” There is no such thing as a sexual minority. We are all sexual. 100% of us. There might be 1or 2% who are confused, and they are usually adolescents. But there are no sexual minorities. We are either male or female, and divided by roughly 50%.

   • So the point obviously is that these signatories are coming down on another side with regard to language. Those who wrote this letter likely have more on-the-ground experience in discussion with SSA people who are struggling to come to terms with the Gospel. I believe their intention is to use language that is already in use by these people to mean particular things and not wanting to further alienate them by becoming dogmatic about terminology.

     On some of your specific points –
     2) Theologically, you and I can agree. But in many churches adultery, divorce and fornication among singles are shrugged off or frowned over while SS activity is condemned outright. The signatories are acknowledging that this happens sometimes in some places and it’s unjust and hypocritical when it does.
     3) Similarly, when I read “conversion therapy” I feel concerned because I know that this can mean any conversation in which a professional is trying to support and encourage a client towards a goal of living according to the Gospel. But the reality of this at many times and places has been a shocking and abusive experimental process which is how many people – perhaps especially those who identify with the gay community – understand “conversion therapy.”

     End of the day, I agree with the statement that came from the ACNA bishops and I don’t disagree with you, but I do think there’s a place for sensitivity in conversation with people who are coming out of this particular culture and background, who are using this language and having had damaging encounters with Christians in the past. (But it is very important that “sensitivity” and the use of compromised language not shift into “pastoral accommodation”).

     • “and having had damaging encounters with Christians in the past. ”

       Could you be a little more specific there? In today’s world, simply reading Scripture to someone can be considered a damaging encounter. What do you have in mind regarding your comment?

       • Right. Fair question. Many Christians make every effort to express their point of view kindly and clearly. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about some Christians who are very angry about what is happening politically and culturally (which is understandable), and who may forget that an individual person struggling with SSA is not the embodiment of everything that’s gone wrong with the world, but a fallen human being who needs Jesus. In these circumstances things can be said which do qualify as psychologically damaging. Not merely “These behaviours are sinful, and there must be repentance” (with which I agree), but name-calling, slander and false judgements together with the assertion that there is only condemnation without hope for people “like this.” If you’ve never heard someone speak in this way, perhaps it means you move in more elevated and enlightened circles than I do!

   • Just to get started, in that bullet about “destructive reparative/conversion therapies”, I’d like to know WHO did that study, and how it was done. Plus, the ACNA stopped promoting such therapies long ago, as far as I can see, which raises its own questions.

     I’d also like to know what’s going on in this letter, why was it released, what are the signatories looking for. It does seem to take a shot at the CoB statement (“We affirm what is good and true from the recent Pastoral Statement on Sexuality and Identity from ACNA Bishops”).

     But, seriously, in this statement, what are these signatories and the CoB LOOKING for? What are they trying to say? I haven’t noticed any destructive systemic bias against… well, we’re dancing around what to call them… For SURE not in my church.

     But, as a moderator of this website with not a little experience what I expect is that we’ll see a number of comments picking both apart and angrily accusing it all of being a product of hate. These will probably not be the intended recipients of the CoB statement and this letter, but it will be public. I think that whatever the ACNA wants to accomplish, it should have been communicated locally, from our churches, and not the way it was.

     And if we DON’T get the usual critics showing up to rail at the statement and the letter, we can thank national politics for capturing their attention and distracting them. For the moment. Their definition of ‘hate’ includes the failure to accept AND ENDORSE EVERYTHING about the group in question.

   • 1. “In order for there to be “broken” sexualaity, there must be an “unbroken” yardstick to measure it against.”

     I refer you to Jesus.

     3. Much of “conversion therapy” (i.e., exposing homosexual men to heterosexual pornography, and so on) is inconsistent with “Traditional Christian beliefs.”

     We aren’t discussing godly admonition and counsel, but the use of warped pseudo-Freudian theories to change people instead of the power of the gospel.

     5. What is weasaly about the language here? Some homosexual persons are called to celibacy; some are called to heterosexual marriage. These options are well within the range of “Traditional Christian beliefs”–in fact, they exhaust the orthodox options. What other options do you propose?

     • Your point number 3 absolutely breaks my heart, and gives me that “ewww” feeling. I have never heard of that practice, and it is absolutely one that all Traditional Christians should denounce.

   • I agree with much of what you say here, and the lack of a firm final judgment in the final few paragraphs does make it seem reasonable to claim that “ACNA is losing its way on the very issue that saw its creation.”

     Your random thoughts are all compelling, but, in terms of supporting you original claim (which I have quoted in the above paragraph), I think some are more persuasive than others.

     (1) Absolutely. Saying all sexuality is “broken” is one of two things: a) more akin to the Shakers or some other group that couldn’t survive as a movement because it offered so little room for maneuverability, or b) a total cop-out that opens the door toward outright acceptance of gay relationships…a door which (as TEC has learned) can’t be easily closed once opened before all the other “alphabet soup” sexualities come a-knocking.

     (2) Also agree. It’s a single standard. But other people here have noted its inconsistent application. Given that even churches more conservative than ACNA have all but stopped ex-communicating couples who bear children out of wedlock, out of fear of losing their congregation amidst the rampantly secularizing culture, this point of hypocrisy is a vulnerability that gay activists will capitalize upon. Which then begs the question, when sinful heterosexual activity is as manifest as homosexual, how should a church respond? It’s harder to condemn sinful relations when they bear the children that will ideally help perpetuate the church for another generation.

     • (3) While your point is well taken, I’m not sure there’s a suitable means of neglecting the elephant in the room–that conversion therapies are more likely to fail than heroin treatment therapies–and time has borne this out. I’m not sure the church has found a solution, but doing the same thing they did in 1980 and expecting difficult results is the definition of…well, you get it. If the church can cultivate a role crafted to congregants who are celibate singles that is orientation-blind, they may be able to find a way to bring gays into the church that breaks no church tenets, venerates Scripture, and does not push gays into a position where they are “less themselves”. I’m not theologically astute enough to know what that role would be, but it doesn’t need to involve celebrating sexuality at all (or distinguishing broken from unbroken)–merely from making sexuality a small enough part of identity that those who are “broken” can find plenty of reward elsewhere. In other words, allowing God’s kingdom to transcend identity politics, when may in turn transcend carnal desire–something many spiritually attuned churches are doing already.

       (4) Excellent point. “God’s love and wisdom” sounds like the same escape clause that TEC used 30+ years ago. And, having attended TEC periodically for a number of years until recently, I can say pretty confidently that the more liberal churches in TEC are getting ready to apply “God’s love and wisdom” for pedophilia and bestiality. And I’d imagine most TEC locations are already tolerant or completely comfortable already with polyamory.

   • I’ve been out of the Episcopal Church for almost 15 years, but I can say that some parishes I attended did not apply the single standard, to anyone. However, before I became an Episcopalian, I was raised in a holiness-movement, Wesleyan-theology denomination, which over the course of my childhood absolutely caved on the matter of remarriage after divorce. It was this issue which first spurred me out of that church and toward the liturgical, sacramental communions. I’m now in an ACNA church, and it’s the first parish I’ve ever been in that has so upheld the sacredness of matrimony that members (who probably came from similarly formerly-biblical Protestant backgrounds) who desired to remarry, without suitable grounds for annulment of their first marriage, actually left the ACNA. Chilling thought — “what of your immortal soul?” one might have wanted to ask them. So yes, many American churches have not applied the one biblical, traditional standard to all its members across the board.

   • About your point number 5: what do you mean by “weaselly?” There is such a thing as non-vocational celibacy, which is expected of all unmarried people, but normally it should lead to either matrimony or vocational celibacy. In all stations of life, the doctrines of what was expounded by John Paul II as ‘theology of the body’ hold true. I don’t sympathize with the signatories of this letter, but neither do I comprehend your response.

   • (5) Weaselly indeed. Yes, mixed orientation marriages absolutely exist, but if they don’t involve spousal fidelity (and I suspect they rarely do) then they don’t warrant the church’s blessing. An asexual man and woman who marry out of convenience to the partnership are not sanctioning a sin, but neither is their consummation a validation of holy matrimony because there is no consummation. I’m not even sure what “vocational singleness” means.

     (6) I’m not clear how to interpret this. Are you conflating sexuality with gender identity? I think this is a pitfall that both religious conservatives and secular leftists share. Gender identity is not intrinsically sexual, since dysphoria is divorced from orientation. A person with no sexual interest at all could have gender dysphoria. I guess, in light of what you say in (1), in which there are broken and unbroken sexualities, wouldn’t it logically flow that there are minorities? Or do you feel that asserting the existence of “sexual minorities” is the slippery slope toward validation? If so, I see where you’re headed, but it’s probably dangerous to conflate the two. It would be nigh impossible to assert that homosexuality is fiction, and for the vast majority of history they did not want to be that way. That they become more prominent in a fallen culture that embraces them (as ours does) does not mean that they will go away in a culture that does not tolerate them–else there would be no homosexuality in Islam. Furthermore, evidence seems to show that intensive psychotherapy for transgenderism (gender dysphoria) has a far greater success rate–of course, in the end, many teens with gender dysphoria are simply homosexuals who are terrified of puberty.

     • “Vocational singleness” would indicate a person who is single and celibate as a spiritual vocation, and not just single because he or she happens not to be married. For instance, a member of a religious order.

4. I think it would be more helpful if the authors gave a scriptural basis for their disagreement with the COB statement, and for their support of the “sexual minorities” nomenclature. Citing support from an academic study on the ineffectiveness of change efforts can not be prescriptive but only descriptive, but of what? Reminds me of Agnes Sanford’s analogy of the broken lamp proving there is no such thing as electricity. Paul’s words “and such WERE some of you” (1 Cor. 6:11) sheds a truer light. Don’t be confused. The COB statement gives genuine clarity and guidance for the call to a Gospel centered life. That we need to learn to minister the power of the Gospel rather than just about it, is the issue we need to be striving together to achieve.

5. ” faith in Christ signaled by baptism is all that is required to be securely in Christ and to have one’s identity in Christ (ACNA Catechism, Q12 & 14). ” All good and well because Christ taught that homosexuality is a choice, a shameful act and immoral in Romans 1:26, 27, 28 – It was even referred to as “error”, so to be “secure in Christ” is to follow His teaching to refrain from the immorality and ask His help to rid one of the sin (1 Corinthians 6:11)

6. Another thing that concerns me about all of the fuss about this issue is that fairly often people who are single are left out of anyone’s thinking. What’s different about a person who just hasn’t ever found someone to share life with in marriage? Do we need now to be interrogating people, to determine WHY they’re not married? Why not just welcome people and offer them the Gospel? To identify people who might want to have relations with the same sex and treat them as somehow different from those whose interests are in the opposite sex, but who have not found partners, seems to be twisted thinking. All unmarried people are acceptable to Christ and his Church.

   • Katherine, this is something that I often feel also. Singles often feel patronized in couple-focused parishes. We need to fully embrace the teaching that celibate singleness is an honorable estate. I think a failure in this teaching is part of why some liberals seem to think that it would be a death-sentence to tell SSA people that they likely have a celibate life ahead. But this has always been the case for single Christians and a faithful understanding of the Gospel is that a life without ‘sexual expression’ can still be valuable and fulfilling!

   • Very, very true. Once someone reaches a certain age (especially if not living in at least somewhat of an urban area and even there to a lesser degree), there is a dearth of suitable potential spouses, especially for women. That applies to everyone, but even more so for Christians and Jews who take their faith seriously.

7. […] I am writing today to address a letter which was put out yesterday via social media. A group led by aspirant, Pieter Valk, has put out a letter entitled, Dear Gay Anglicans, in response to the College of Bishops’ pastoral letter on identity. If you have not seen the letter, you can find it HERE. […]

8. […] even if they were acknowledged. Earlier this week, a group of Anglicans published a letter, “Dear Gay Anglican”, that attempted to continue the pastoral conversation about loving those who are same-sex attracted […]

9. I love my gay friends. I don’t judge them and they accept me. They know I oppose all attempts to set aside the authority of Scripture and Church Tradition to accomodate culture. Most of them think it quaint and they humor me up to a point. Most of them do not attend church. They have chosen to live according to their own desires. Same-sex attraction is for them a non-issue. In the Church, on the other hand, it is a boil that needs to be lanced. I am glad Pieter Valk has withdrawn the letter.

   • Valk has withdrawn the letter? I am hoping that is a good sign for true unity within the ACNA! He has written several blog posts that have helped me to realize my need to scrutinize my knee-jerk reactions about these issues, a holdover from my days in the Episcopal church. Louie Crew was a hardened activist, determined to press his agenda. That’s not the case with a young teenager who has been raised in the church in a loving family, who feels discomfort with his or her sexuality, and who is under spiritual attack by the enemy in this sin-soaked culture. I will continue to pray for Valk, and also for Bishop Ruch.

10. […] I am writing today to address a letter which was put out yesterday via social media. A group led by aspirant, Pieter Valk, has put out a letter entitled, Dear Gay Anglicans, in response to the College of Bishops’ pastoral letter on identity. If you have not seen the letter, you can find it HERE. […]

11. This letter conveys a conservative ethos on human sexuality. As an Anglican from a more liberal province, liberal on this issue I mean, I disagree strongly with the premises and conclusions of the letter. That makes it more disheartening that some have now said that one cannot be a Christian and identify as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian.’ That is extreme and rather uncharitable to those who are celibate LGBTQ people who, even though I disagree with them regarding marriage, have trusted the ACNA or other more conservative Anglican churches.

12. A helpful write up on this topic. https://www.biblicalcounselingcoalition.org/2012/01/24/christian-psychology-of-and-response-to-homosexuality/

13. […] Although this has been withdrawn by the originator as discussed here , you can read a copy of it here. This prompted a response on 23 February: Archbishop Beach writes to the Diocese of the South […]

14. […] The events of the last week have, however, highlighted just how serious the situation now is and made me realise that my initial silence was wrong.  I was greatly encouraged to see a letter organised by Pieter Valk (like David Bennett, a celibate same-sex attracted man committed to traditional teaching on sexuality) who is exploring ordination in ACNA and signed by him and some ACNA clergy and one bishop.  This letter appeared on a new website – https://deargayanglicans.com/ although as you will discover if you follow that link, the letter did not stay there very long.  It was only there for a very short time due to the actions of ACNA leaders as stated there.  It is, however, thankfully able to be read elsewhere on the internet including at Anglican Ink. […]

15. […] Although this has been withdrawn by the originator as discussed here , you can read a copy of it here. This prompted a response on 23 February: Archbishop Beach writes to the Diocese of the South […]

16. For the life of me I am astonished at the extreme and vicious reaction to this fairly uncontroversial letter,that affirms the historic teaching of sex only within heterosexual marriage,and celibacy outside this,including life long celibacy for gay Christians.
    This all seems very orthodox and inoffensive.Peter Vielk and the acna clergy who signed the letter are simply asking to be able to acknowledge their sexual orientation by calling themselves ‘gay’ or ‘same sex attracted’.This is simply a descriptor of an ontological part of their being.It seems the hateful bigots of Nigeria and sadly archbishop Beach are basically telling gay Christians not to admit they’re gay or SSA.They are trying to shame gay anglicans into going back into the closet,into denial about a significant part of them.This encourages secrecy,shame and dishonesty.
    No gay anglican would feel comfortable or safe approaching their priest for pastoral care when they are made to feel sinful simply for being honest about their orientation!!
    Sexual orientation is NOT a sin.Being gay isnt just about sex,it is as much about emotional needs and a distinct psyche/talents.
    These pharisaic legalists make me sick to my stomach.
    Celibate gay Christian’s like Peter Vielker,David Bennett and Wesley Hill are true disciples of christ,making an incredibly painful sacrifice,by ruling out any romantic relationship.
    They have to endure loneliness,isolation or rejection in church,and if this wasnt enough…the pharisees like Foley Beach and the Nigerian primate insist on throwing an even heavier burden around their necks-basically suppressing their voice and telling them they have no right to express their needs,views or hurt.
    They arent allowed to be honest about their hurt or views.
    They arent allowed ti be honest about their sexuality and call themselves gay or same sex attracted.
    They get called a “virus” by the hateful homophobe who is head of the Nigerian Anglican church.
    The ACNA wants to treat celibate gay members as second class,disempowered,voiceless Christians who must not be heard to admit “the love that dare not speak its name”.
    The ACNA doesn’t mirror Jesus Christ at all.It is a false church.

17. […] The events of the last week have, however, highlighted just how serious the situation now is and made me realise that my initial silence was wrong.  I was greatly encouraged to see a letter organised by Pieter Valk (like David Bennett, a celibate same-sex attracted man committed to traditional teaching on sexuality) who is exploring ordination in ACNA and signed by him and some ACNA clergy and one bishop.  This letter appeared on a new website – https://deargayanglicans.com/ although as you will discover if you follow that link, the letter did not stay there very long.  It was only there for a very short time due to the actions of ACNA leaders as stated there.  It is, however, thankfully able to be read elsewhere on the internet including at Anglican Ink. […]

18. […] of Bishops’ Statement in an open letter called “Dear Gay Anglicans” (still available at this site). Echoing Johana-Marie Williams of AMEN, the letter decried the inequities experienced by […]

19. […] Now some ACNA Anglicans are making a similar argument.  Not the same argument, for they do not endorse gay marriage, or even sexual relations for the same-sex attracted.  But they say that their fundamental identity is in being “gay Christians,” not just “Christians.”  […]

20. […] on the “Dear Gay Anglicans” letter, Archbishop Foley Beach’s response, and Archbishop Nudukuba’s words to the ACNA, there’s […]

21. […] that discouraged the use of the term “gay Anglican.” Dozens of ACNA clergy signed a protest letter that urged churches to become places where gay people could “share all their story, find […]

Comments are closed.