The suffragan bishop of RAD, the Rev. Dom Filadelfo Oliveira Neto; The BAEC Special Commission; The clergy and laity of the RAD and the BAEC; and to all Christians

Beloved brethren,

The debate on the understanding of (homo)sexuality and its implications has been dividing opinions within the Anglican community for some years now. Though there is a vast majority of people, dioceses and provinces that consider an erotic relationship between people of the same sex inappropriate from Christian standards, there has always been even within this majority a diversity of interpretations on the phenomenon and various ways of understanding its implications for the reality of the Church and Society in general.

The recent happenings of the Episcopal Church of the United States and of Canada, however, immediately led to such a polarisation of opinions and heightening of tensions that it is now almost impossible to conduct a calm reflection and mature discussion on an issue of the utmost importance for the contemporary Church. In this context, the alternatives are reduced to extreme caricatures of an unreasoning, almost homophobic rejection and a secularist and uncritical, almost festive acceptance.

Unfortunately, the international scenario has been transplanted to the reality of our Province and our dioceses without any mediation; reproducing the outside polarisation, leading to extreme and precipitated actions and manifestations, that have led to the rekindling of the historical tensions between the South and Northeast and between the traditional currents in Brazilian Anglicanism.

We, the undersigned, as clergy and laity of the Recife Anglican Diocese and of the Brazilian Anglican Episcopal Church, judge it our duty to come public, at this moment in time, to manifest our appeal for moderation, serenity and wisdom in the discussions regarding this issue. We emphatically affirm that the intransigence often shown in the debates and the extremism clothing the opinions are an obstacle to the cause of the Kingdom of God in our country and an affront to the Brazilian Church.

This letter is an attempt to make a contribution to a realistic and productive dialogue, taking up a position in favour of the construction of a Christian, mature, relevant and renewing alternative to the impasse that our Church and Society are experiencing at the moment. A debate of ideas, respect for different positions, peaceful argument, spiritual and intellectual humility, self-criticism, openness to criticism, an honest and profound analysis of opposing arguments, sobriety, generosity and other attitudes like these are the worthy resources of anyone proposing or even wishing to construct a consistent, responsible and historically relevant discourse on the issue.

In the face of growing speculation, and a climate of suspicion and hostility that has been placed in our context, we also judge it necessary to present some positions in relation to the present debate.

1. Regarding our Faith:

a. We believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit creator and sustainer of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible, who created the human being - man and woman to his image and likeness, with the capacity to co-operate in creation, to develop language, culture and to build on Nature;

b. We believe in the universality of human sin and the universal merit of the redeeming sacrifice of Christ on the cross on Calvary, as also the sovereignty of God in relation to the salvation of human beings.

c. We believe in the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments as the written Word of God, divinely inspired, ultimate authority in matters of theology, trustworthy in its integrity and infallible in all things necessary for salvation (Art. 6, XXXIX);

d. We acknowledge the Ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church as an efficient synthesis and a sufficient summary of the basic points of our faith, and we respect the tradition of the Church as a source of inspiration and counsel on the Christian Faith and as a sign of the ongoing action of God as Lord and sustainer of History;

e. We consider ourselves to be heirs to the evangelical tradition of a living Protestantism, fulfilled in the day-to-day of the Church; representatives of an evangelicalism open to the work of the Holy Spirit in history, to the diversity of cultures and forms of contextualisation of the Faith, to the contributions from theological reflection and responsible biblical criticism, committed to personal and historical transformation and to the ethical and social implications of the Faith.

2. Regarding the question of (homo)sexuality:

a. We believe that the discussion on the issue of human sexuality and especially of homosexuality for the Church and for theology, today, must go beyond the question of defining what sin is, since, in accordance with our belief, sin has attained all areas of human life and permeates all our works and relationships (Rm. 3,23).

b. It is a fact that the erotic relationship between people of the same sex does not represent the divine ideal for the human creature, as expressed in the Scriptures and thus understood by the Church's tradition (Rm. 1, 18-32). It is also a fact that the questions relative to the discussion on (homo) sexuality comprise a great complexity of human factors that need to be deeply analysed and taken into account when honestly seeking a practical and historical understanding of tradition and the biblical texts.

c. We acknowledge that there exist different forms of interpretation and hermeneutic treatment of the texts that deal with the phenomena of homosexuality, and that it is extremely necessary to deepen and broaden the studies as well as the understanding of this issue.

d. We affirm that a large part of the Church has already become aware of its duty to acknowledge and respect the intrinsic dignity of every human being. Many Christian ministers have been pioneers in dealing with the issue of (homo)sexuality in a respectful, humble and humane manner. Not all the Church, however, has followed this example of evangelical fidelity. It is necessary that work and reflection be stimulated in the sense of producing a Christian mentality and practice, as free as possible from prejudice, hatred and arrogance, regarding these issues.

e. We believe that it is necessary to try to understand in a profound manner the cultures of our time, as a way to identify the renovating work of the Holy Spirit and the aspects of the multiform grace of God in each moment and context, and also, as a way of identifying the presence and mechanisms of the works of sin and death in our generation. It is impossible to understand the issue of homosexuality in a coherent manner today, outside the context of a broader debate on the notion of sexuality for contemporary cultures.

f. We believe that a deepened analysis should seek to be faithful to Biblical revelation and to Christian tradition, while taking into account the biological, psychological, anthropological, philosophical and social aspects that differentiate the understanding of the present phenomenon from the understanding of other similar phenomena contained in the history of Christianity.

Such an analysis should help in outlining ethical strategies for institutional organisation and works, as also forms of individual and collective pastoral works, and the taking of a stand before Society and other emerging disputes.

g. We believe that both the discourses of the "conservatives" as well as of the "liberals" presented up to now, have failed in the task of presenting a sufficiently deep and comprehensive reading of the phenomenon under discussion. The great majority of the discourses of the "conservatives" have been based on what seems to be rejudice, ignorance and a superficial reading of the Bible, while the "liberals" seem to have limited themselves to revering and ratifying the agenda, bringing up the centuries old discourse, labelling belief in the Bible and Church tradition as anachronisms.

h. We believe that the plurality of theological currents and positionings regarding the issue within Anglicanism do not necessarily represent a weakness in our Church, but rather should be considered as a positive though annoying - quality, since it endows us all with the privilege of being constantly questioned and confronted, and of contributing to the growth of the Church through the multiform grace of God. The plurality and inclusion can and should lead us to humility, humanness, maturity, and often, to face up to difficult issues that have as yet not been faced up to by the majority of the Church, but only if we are capable of respecting, listening to and dialoguing with one another, and continually growing together.

i. Finally, we affirm that though plurality of opinions and openness to debate are licit, desirable and extremely necessary, the hegemonic position of the majority of the Anglican Communion and of the tradition of the Church, in as much as we claim to be a protestant and catholic Church, should be respected and maintained by all the institutions linked to her, until there is a minimum consensus regarding the way to deal with the issues raised by our tempo. The ministerial ordination and episcopal consecration of people who publicly profess a conscious and voluntary option for living in a homosexual union is unacceptable in this context, as is the holding of rites and ceremonies for blessing unions between couples of the same sex.

3. Regarding the crisis in the Anglican Communion:

a. We believe that the decisions and the consequent actions of the episcopal Churches in the United States and Canada have publicly and deliberately offended the conscience of the majority of the Church and the international agreements that have been gone into over recent years within the Anglican Communion.

b. We believe, however, that these provinces and dioceses as well as others that may come to adopt the same line of action - should be urged to renounce their works and decisions, so as not to be an obstacle to their participation in the Anglican Communion, as well as suffering the lamentable and inevitable institutional isolation that could be imposed by the other provinces and the risk of provoking an irreversible schism.

c. We uphold, as an alternative to a "curialisation" or "federalisation" of the Anglican Communion, that the instruments of Communion should be strengthened, where there will be a greater participation of the clergy and laity the Anglican Consultative Council in such a manner that important decisions can be analysed and ratified in distinct courts.

d. We uphold that, in the case of the dioceses and parishes in the United States and Canada that did not concord with the decisions and actions of their provinces, a norm should be urgently drawn up for the alternative episcopal supervision, so as to avoid greater conflicts and misunderstandings.

e. We uphold that the financial dependence of the Anglican Communion on the Episcopal Church of the United States be urgently reduced, through, if necessary, a reduction of the administrative machine and the cutting down on and sharing of expenses, to such an extent that the "economic weight" does not upset the relations of authority between the various provinces.

f. We call attention to the immense profusion of manifestations of sin that we are witnessing in the contemporary context such as hunger and consumerism/waste, environmental crimes, sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, child labour and slavery, forms of torture, imperialist wars, international economic exploitation those that have been and should not be forgotten, neglected and relegated to a second plan in virtue of an internal struggle in the body of the Church.

4. Regarding the repercussions of the crisis within the BAEC:

a. Reaffirming our feeling of belonging to the BAEC and our regard for the brethren in the other dioceses, we believe there is no reason for any discussion on, or speculation about a possible schism here in the Province, since unlike the United States and Canada no decision nor action has been taken or even insinuated that could justify such an extreme action;

b. We recommend Christian wisdom, patience, moderation, serenity and humility as necessary attributes for all those involved in the debate. We appeal that they be not any untimely and indiscreet actions or manifestations from any party and we suggest that, at a propitious moment, more profound and specific questions and topics be proposed for discussion.

c. We also recommend that there be greater respect and a searching for greater mutual understanding among the various dioceses of the Province, and that plurality be respected not only while they exist as isolated and parallel currents, but that we be ready to interact, listen to and learn from one another.

d. We support the proposal for the creation of internal provinces in the BAEC, an issue that was discussed a few years ago, not as a way to promote isolation among the regions, but, as a strategy for driving away the "ghosts" and lessening the tensions, and to stimulate growth in the Church.

e. We also support the three-chamber proposal in the synods of the BAEC as a way of promoting greater participation of the laity in the life of the Church.

5. Regarding the repercussions of the crisis in the RAD:

a. We reaffirm our personal respect and affection for Dom Robinson Cavalcanti and Dom Filadelfo Oliveira Neto, as well as our institutional submission to them as diocesan bishop and suffragan of the RAD. We deny and repudiate any accusation of disloyalty, betrayal or disregard. We believe, however, that our loyalty, friendship and submission does not prevent us from disagreeing, duly, from ideas, actions, proposals or from presenting positions contrary to them at some moments.

b. We manifest our concern with the growing canonical restrictions on theological/ideological norms for ordination and participation in our diocese, as well as with the growing climate of ideological and behavioural patrolling that has arisen. The attempt to put Truth within strict boundaries is always risky.

c. We reaffirm our willingness and desire to give of our best, in working together with all the clergy and laity of the RAD, for the growth of our Church and for the construction of a diocese that is Anglican, missionary, mature, relevant, inculturated, inclusive, alive and fraternal.

We do not know the how or the when regarding the outcome of the crisis within the Anglican Communion, nor the manner that this will be reflected in the BAEC, but we do know that the problem of human sexuality and especially homosexuality, is and will continue to be a fundamental question to be understood and work on by our generation. When "the dust settles" from the battles and the "war drums" have been silenced, there will still be people with their pains and problems, and the Church, with its mission to preach and live the Gospel in an integral manner. Then there will be noticed the lack of an honest, mature, sensitive and serene reflection on the reality of (homo)sexuality, on the Gospel message and on the Mission of the Church in our context. It will be imperative that both the "conservatives" as well as the "liberals" be open to review their histories and positions and be ready to listen and learn under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ, Lord of History,

Recife, 6th July 2004.

Feast of St.Thomas Moore, Martyr, 1539.

Rev. Gustavo Gilson S. de Oliveira, OSE,
Rector of the Anglican Seminary for Theological Studies-Recife
Most Rev. Sérgio F. Lomeu de Andrade Dean of the Anglican Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity
Rev. Fábio S. Vasconcelos,
Rector of the Parish of The Mediator and Chaplain to the Anglican Seminary of Theology Studies
Rev. Manoel S. Moraes de Almeida, OSE,
Rector of the Parish of The Good Samaritan
Rev. João Câncio Peixoto Filho
Rev. Elias Leôncio de B. Filho, OSE
Friar Quintino Geraldo Diniz Melo, OSF
Maurício Amazonas, OSE, Lay Minister
Prof. Fernando Antônio Gonçalves, Seminarian
Rodrigo Espiúca, Seminarian
Senomar Teixeira Junior, Seminarian
Sílvio de Freitas Barbosa, Seminarian

END