As a gay man who served on a task force on the blessing of same-sex relationships for the Diocese of San Diego (see our report at this link), I am all for dialogue, as well as giving different voices an opportunity to express their points of view. I would prefer for those who do not agree with my position to remain in The Episcopal Church and stay in conversation with those who do agree with me, because such talk keeps all of us honest. If we only house ourselves in silos with others who agree with us, we have a more comfortable existence but we take longer to arrive at societal change. I'd venture that Christ calls us all to make ourselves less comfortable for his sake as well as ours.

Bill Eadie
San Diego, CA

I don't think the VTS newsletter is _attempting_ to do anything but what Dean Markham says in his introduction of the Levenson and Baker essays -- offer a place for conversation. Whether it should have allowed them to cast themselves as moderates is another matter, although one can always argue that you allow people to choose their own labels.

But we can call Levenson and Baker out -- particularly since Levenson was party to unseemly scheming against the Episcopal Church and its Presiding Bishop. And Levenson and Baker even interested in conversation? Stalling, is more like it, or worse. In the April 2009 email thread it's quite clear they are not seeking dialog. In that light these essays do nothing more than stake out the same old take it or leave it position.

I look forward to VTS publishing essays with opposing points of view, not least of which a corrective to Baker's ill informed view of church polity.

I am a student at VTS, so I have some thoughts on all of this. Those two pieces were certainly one sided, but I would refer you to Dr. Barney Hawkin's piece in the same issue on "The Work of Loving Perfectly" (http://www.vts.edu/ftpimages/95/download/The%20Work%20of%20Loving%20Perfectly.pdf), in which he lifts up the seminary's LGBT student group, Bishop John Hines, and Bishop John Walker.

The seminary is committed to the full inclusion of LGBT individuals, but it is also committed to keeping conservatives at the table. These are not mutually exclusive goals, and the seminary is not stepping back from its support of LGBT individuals even though it is reaching out to conservatives to reassure them that they still have a place in the church. The seminary is receiving the Faith in Action award this Saturday from the Washington Metro area's chapter of PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) for our commitment to inclusivity. We have three professors in same-sex partnerships. We have a strong LGBT student organization, which counts among its membership the presidents of two of the three MDiv classes. A chapel team in October designed a worship service honoring LGBT Anglican voices. Last month, Dean Markham invited the president of Integrity USA, the Rev. David Norgard, to speak to the community. Norgard admitted that his prior perception of VTS as a conservative place was inaccurate. As the spouse of one of our faculty members is fond of saying, "This isn't your grandmother's VTS anymore."

It is also true that we have a number of students (but a small minority) who are concerned about the actions the church has taken in recent years on sexuality, but I believe that most of them are concerned more about the ecclesiological implications for the Anglican Communion than they are with the morality of same-sex relationships. Very few students and very few faculty members are opposed to same-sex relationships, and I cannot think of a single person who is bigoted.

The Rev. Joseph Constant recently wrote a book about the experience of African Americans at VTS called "No Turning Back." I am glad to say that there is also no turning back in the seminary's commitment to the full inclusion of LGBT individuals in the life of the church.

Thank you all for your interest in VTS.

Chase Danford
President, MDiv Class of 2011
Virginia Theological Seminary

Good to hear about your work at VTS Chase -I read Loving Perfectly which also lifts up the group represented in this issue. I want to keep everyone who wants to stay in the church too - but the two essayists have a proven track record of trying to tear apart the church. Perhaps we need some more conversationalists - look forward to reading the next issue of the VTS news.

Chase--I am glad to hear your confidence that VTS continues to be a place of full inclusion. I was the convener of the student LGBT group during my senior year (06-07), and it sounds like the Seminary has continued to take important steps forward since then.

I was a little concerned when this newsletter arrived in my mailbox yesterday. As Ann points out, the two main articles that make up the heart of the newsletter are coming from one point of view only. This seemed out of step with Dean Markham's introduction, which upheld VTS' history of welcoming many voices to the table.

I hope the seminary will seek out other points of view in upcoming issues. Both Secretary Baker and the Rev. Dr. Levenson made nervous reference to my own Diocese's recent election of Mary Glasspool+ as our new suffragan bishop--perhaps it would be beneficial to get some perspective from people involved in ministry on the ground here in Los Angeles? Bp. Bruno is a proud alumnus of VTS and encouraged me to consider it when I (mistakenly) thought that VTS was a conservative stronghold. I'm sure he would be happy to reflect on the long journey this diocese has taken over the years toward full inclusion.

Jason Cox

I agree that it would be good if the next issue included another perspective. Jason, it would be great if Bishop Bruno would write something. Perhaps you could suggest that? I will also ask my classmates from your diocese if they would be interested in contacting him. I'm sure he will also be a little concerned when opens up his copy of the newsletter.

Ann, I quoted a poem that you wrote in my sermon about the Transfiguration this February. I have been meaning to send you a copy of the sermon. Thank you for the inspiration!

I've posted a comment on this at my blog. I don't find Baker's Balkanization a helpful model for the church. It will only set differences in concrete, creating islands of despond.

I'm not sure that I read Baker's essay the same way everyone else did. Levenson's essay certainly had the tone and sense of a conservative delaying-action; but Baker's made far more sense in terms of the broad-tent. Part of the richness of the Episcopal Church is that it has always comprehended more theological diversity than any other American denomination. Recently, certain elements have decided that the tent is too large, and that they refuse to eat at the Lord's table with certain people. OK, fine, I say; if you refuse to eat at the same table with "sinners" go ahead and be a neo-Donatist. Ain't nobody gonna stop you.

But, on the other hand, if we on the liberal side start to demand uniformity of views on sexual matters, we're going to have to deal with the issue of the very broad spectrum. It's sort of a little secret that there are some vestries who wouldn't hire a female rector, on the belief that women shouldn't be priests; and it's also a secret that there are getting to be some vestries that believe that clergy is really becoming a pink-color profession and look for female clergy. Similarly, there are some that more or less OK with LGBT. We can't really know what is in the hearts of vestries across the country; the Lord will eventually know and judge. We can only make guidelines and canons.

At the end of the day, I think, if we're going to demand generosity and orthodoxy from others, we've got to practice it ourselves. Part of doing so might be gritting our teeth and being polite to James Baker so long as he's polite to us. Of course, alternative Episcopal oversight violates the basic Nicene principles we hold dear, and is therefore outside the basics of orthodoxy. But there is a solution: if St. Martin's isn't LGBT-friendly, those who are of a more open, loving character ought to talk to their bishop and start another parish nearby. Let the Spirit guide the people in their decisions.

Mike Lockaby

This is very helpful context, Ann: context I suspect that the Rev Dr Levenson and/or Mr Baker would wish forgotten!

JC Fisher

As a student at VTS, I have to agree with and affirm Chase Danford's comment. My frustration with this post is the title, "What's up at Virginia Seminary?" I agree that the single issue of our newsletter gives a lot of space to conservative voices, but those voices do not represent life on the hill.

I almost didn't apply to VTS because I had heard terrible stories about the way LGBT people were treated here. I was told, "you won't be comfortable there. It is not an inclusive space." The reputation was outdated and inaccurate.

Last night I attended DC Metro Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gay's Annual Award Gala. Virginia Seminary was honored for its "Faith in Action." Over the past decade VTS has done hard work on behalf of full inclusion. Gay and Lesbian students make up a large part of the student body. The same-sex partners of students and faculty are active and loved members of the Virginia Seminary Community. We have a list of active seminarian "Allies," who want to make work for LGBT inclusion intrinsic to their own ministry. The list includes over 90% of the student body.

That is what is up at Virginia Seminary. It is a story of resurrection to which I can only say:
Alleluia.

-Mike Angell