Part II: Practice

Part II. Practice

Three more specific and practical questions were raised in the “Bishop’s Address at Annual Convention” (10/25/2008): 1. Are priests ordained in the Episcopal Church permitted to officiate at civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples? 2. What standards of commitment should we have for ordained deacons and priests (or bishops) who are in same-sex relationships? 3. In all things, how can we be the face of Christ, to invite, welcome and pastorally care for seekers and believers who are gay and lesbian, including those who seek to be married?

 

I joined my parish in objecting to the consecration of Bishop Robinson because I thought it would lead to schism, and because I thought the church had not yet settled on a clear rationale concerning the doctrine of marriage and its application to gay and lesbian unions—and it seemed to me this ought precede the consideration of ordination, especially to the episcopate. As events since then have shown, there was some truth in that—but the die was cast. Both preceding that parish letter and in subsequent years I have followed the matter closely and read extensively in the literature. This essay—and I apologize for its length—is at least the distillation of some of my reflections on the need for shoring up biblical arguments in favor of same sex union, if for no one else then at least for me, for whom biblical authority is a key ingredient in weighing whether developments are consonant with the will of God and the mind of Christ.

I have come to a settled mind concerning the arguments in favor in favor of a change in the doctrine of marriage, and consequently a return to consistency in the canonical requirements for ordination. The arguments laid out in this essay are weighty enough at least to justify my support, if not convincing to those who follow a more traditionalist line. I am eager to see the church implement changes in its doctrine and practice, but I remain a moderate in respect to the pace of change. I believe we are well served to change doctrines at (at least) a national level—and in conference with our brothers and sisters in the worldwide Anglican Communion, while allowing a degree of latitude and local option to the diocesan level. This is of course being worked out in practice now. In the particular case at hand I advocate this:

1. We should not permit priests of this diocese to officiate at same sex marriages until the rite of marriage has been changed through two successive General Conventions. This demonstrates that we take seriously and faithfully the “doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church” to which we have vowed obedience. It is hypocritical to wish to evade some canons while enforcing others (such as enforcing diocesan boundaries and claiming all church properties). Furthermore, the House of Bishops has also agreed to abide by a promise to keep the “three moratoria.” The Anglican Church of Canada has recently met as a house of bishops and decided to support the Archbishop of Canterbury’s call for “gracious restraint” as the process of designing an Anglican Covenant is completed.[i] We ought to follow their example—as they indeed have been struggling with how to respond to legalization of same sex marriage for a number of years. However we may and ought to support a change in rite, beginning at GC 2009, even though this strains the moratorium on blessing same sex unions. For this process will go hand in hand with a consideration of our willingness to live in covenant relation with our other partners in the AC. We need to be honest about our intentions, but not unilateral or hegemonic in our decisions.

2. Clergy or candidates for ordinations living in same sex relationships should get married in a civil ceremony.  It would, of course, be desirable to have a full Christian marriage ceremony, but such will not be immediately available if we follow the counsel above. Nevertheless the lack of the perfect should not prevent the attainment of the good. It is a matter of simple fairness that all clergy should abide by the same requirement for “holiness of life.” Cohabitation--or any sex outside of marriage-- is not an option for heterosexuals; it should not be either for gays and lesbians. Civil marriage may not be full Holy Matrimony, but it is certainly a binding contract that demands strong commitment. This is what we ask of some; it should be asked of all.

         3. As a provisional step, and providing the House of Bishops and General Convention approve, both clergy and lay gay and lesbian members of our diocese who are civilly married should have the opportunity to receive a blessing, provided that the congregations support the couple and the bishop approves the rite of blessing. Although I know that this also violates the moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions I consider the rite “The Blessing of a Civil Marriage” to be a public reaffirmation of a prior commitment. In other words, the blessing is not a sacrament. The “performative utterance” that accomplishes the marriage has already been made; this service only repeats it. Furthermore, it requires no change in language, only a repetition of one part rather than a use of both (either husband and wife said twice), except in the exchange of rings at the end. It seems to me reasonable then to treat the use of this rite as a provisional step in accommodating a clear change in status for those living in states that allow same sex marriage (namely that they can be legally married and so be “eligible” to receive a blessing on their civil marriage).  Of course it signals the church’s acceptance of a disputed change in doctrine—but this is why indeed I would like to see the step approved by the General Convention even though it may not yet be applicable to many dioceses. Nevertheless, I am hesitant in proceeding unilaterally. “The local Church alone is never the entire Church” (Archbishop Rowan Williams, First Presidential address at 2008 Lambeth Conference).[ii] It may be best to continue the current policy of permitting special prayers within a community Eucharist, without however permitting a “marriage like” exchange of vows or priestly blessing.

---

 

[i] A Statement from the House of Bishops (Anglican Church of Canada). The conclusion reads: “As a result of these conversations a large majority of the House can affirm the following:

A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible to the three moratoria -- on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions -- until General Synod 2010. Members of this House, while recognizing the difficulty that this commitment represents for dioceses that in conscience have made decisions on these matters, commit themselves to continue walking together and to hold each other in prayer.

The House also affirms:

A commitment to establishing diocesan commissions to discuss the matter of same-sex blessings in preparation for conversations at General Synod 2010.

Continued commitment to exercise the greatest level of pastoral generosity in keeping with provisions approved by this House in Spring, 2007 and continued commitment to the Shared Episcopal Ministry document approved in Fall, 2004.

We ask for your continuing prayers as we steadfastly seek to discern the mind and heart of Christ for the wholesome care of all members of his Body, the Church. We share a deep hope that though we may never come to consensus over this matter of the blessing of same-sex unions, we will live with differences in a manner that is marked by grace and generosity of spirit, one toward another.

October 31, 2008

 

See also the article on diocesan reactions, especially that of the diocese of New Westminster, which has allowed the blessing of same sex unions in six parishes since 2002—although refraining from allowing more in response to the call for a moratorium.

 

[ii] It is worthwhile to reflect seriously on Archbishop William’s thoughts concerning covenant, both in terms of our relation with partners in the Anglican Communion, and in the context of a discussion about the covenant of marriage. Excerpts from his Lambeth addresses are may be found in the concluding pages of A Lambeth Commentary on the Saint Andrew’s Draft for an Anglican Covenant. http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/a_lambeth_commentary.pdf