For
years I have wrestled with questions about the faithful options for Christians
who are romantically and sexually attracted to others of the same sex. It has
been a topic of conversation and debate in the church for decades and has
consumed the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion for the last ten to fifteen years. I have long described myself as ‘on the fence’ – open to considering a
rethinking of the interpretation of scripture and tradition, but not persuaded
by the arguments for doing so.
There are people who I respect who have come to differing
conclusions. As one of my seminary professors liked to say, "Some of my
friends say this, some of my friends say that, and I always agree with my
friends." But over the years I became increasingly
uncomfortable with fence-sitting. Though cautious by nature, I knew I had to
risk a more definite position on the subject however complicated, confusing,
and contentious.
This all came to a head in the summer of 2012 when, as a
deputy to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, I was called upon to
vote for or against a provisional rite of blessing for same-sex unions (SSU). I voted yes. I could be wrong, but I am persuaded that same-sex relationships can be blessed and that such unions can be a means of sanctification (becoming holy, fully human, more like Jesus).
There a number of obstacles that made reaching that conclusion difficult:
1. It
is no small thing to adopt a position that is counter to what
has been the consistent teaching of the Church and remains the understanding of
the vast majority of Christians. Any scriptural argument affirming the
bless-ability of Same-sex Unions (SSU) is less than straightforward at best, as
even some of its proponents have admitted, e.g., Walter Wink and Luke Timothy Johnson.
2.
Most of the arguments for
SSU seem tendentious and thus convincing only to those who are already convinced
or want to be convinced.
3. Many
biblical scholars and theologians I hold in high esteem who
have commented on the topic have argued against the bless-ability of SSU, e.g.,
Raymond Brown, N. T. Wright, Richard B. Hayes, Oliver O’Donovan, Wolfhart
Pannenberg.
4.
While it is true that, one way or another, the topic of same-sex
sexuality has been discussed in various contexts in the Episcopal Church for
some decades, I have seen little evidence of genuine conversation, engaging the questions and concerns of those who disagree, and precious
little deep and sympathetic listening. And much that has passed for
conversation has been manipulative.
5.
What exactly is our teaching? The argument in favor of SSU
in the Episcopal Church has been ad hoc and uneven. It has been ad hoc inasmuch
as there are multiple and not altogether compatible attempts at making the
case. And it has been uneven inasmuch as the quality of the argument has varied
considerably, much of it, frankly, quite bad. This makes it hard to know just
what the Episcopal Church actually teaches on the subject.
What is that teaching?
Is it the same as John
Spong’s (Living in Sin?), rooted
in a reductionist, rationalistic rejection of anything like classic Christian
doctrine and discipline?
Or maybe it is more like William Countryman in Dirt, Greed, & Sex, who reduces biblical sexual ethics to ancient obsessions
with purity and property (simplistic and misleading in my opinion). In that
case, do we agree that, “[T]he gospel allows no rule against the following, in
and of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse,
bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature [i.e., pornography]”
(p. 243)?
Or is our affirmation ultimately based on modern
individualistic, consumerist notions of self-actualization, disdain for limits,
and individual rights? One gets the impression that for some in the church any
argument that leads to the ‘right’ conclusion is acceptable – because that
conclusion seems so obviously right to them that it needs no real defense.
Or are we advocating something more like Eugene Rogers who,
in Sexuality and the Christian Body:Their Way into the Triune God, approaches the question in terms of what
leads to the holiness of disciplined, self-sacrificial love conforming with the
way of Jesus?
It is hopeful that Rogers was one of the authors of ,and his approach was reflected in, 'The Liberal View' (beginning on p. 40) in the document on Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church submitted to the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in 2010. If this is closer to our 'official' position, it would be helpful if our leaders publicly articulated it in those terms and, just as importantly, made it clear that we reject the other arguments.
6. The
Episcopal Church has done a clumsy job of it. Consecrating Gene
Robinson before/without revising the marriage canon was an end-run around the
hard work of building a new consensus that such revising was meet and right so
to do. However uneven, difficult, and drawn out it seemed, there was a
conversation that might have led to more of a consensus if that conversation
had not been prematurely cut off.
One does not need to be narrowly conservative to wonder if
some inconvenient bits of the Book of Common Prayer and Canons got ignored or
finessed. I am convinced that the exercise of more patience and prudence would
have avoided much of the turmoil and division we have experienced over the last
ten years. As Aquinas would say, how we achieve something is as important to
it's being virtuous as what we achieve. And while those who have resisted or
pursued schism as a result share the blame, the general dismissiveness by
‘progressives’ toward ‘traditionalists’ has belied their talk of inclusivity. Schism can be provoked as well as pursued.
7. Too
often, those arguing for SSU offer no comprehensive sexual ethic that
has any continuity with what has heretofore been considered faithful Christian
discipline. Indeed, much is dismissive of anything like that discipline or has been indistinguishable from what one might expect to hear from Oprah or read in the
heirs of Dear Abby.
8.
Given the Episcopal Church’s seeming inability
generally to discern the difference between a gospel imperative and
liberal/progressive prejudice it is no wonder many suspect us of merely
accommodating one segment of worldly culture. As I have written elsewhere,
there is a sort of idolatry in the Episcopal Church that compromises our
witness (the fact that “conservative” Christianity is just as culturally
compromised does not change this).
9. The giveness of male and female and their sexual
complementarity cannot be dismissed – as even some advocates of SSU acknowledge,
e.g., Jeffrey John.
10. I
respect the sacrificial self-discipline of those like Wesley Hill and Eve Tushnet who have embraced celibacy in their determination to
live faithfully according the traditional Christian sexual ethic.
11.
Our understanding of abstractions like love, holiness, justice,
etc. is provisional. So is any interpretation of scripture This side of the
kingdom they will be incompletely understood, let alone lived. Thus, it is in
the widest communion possible that interpretations and definitions of Christian
faithfulness, however provisional, are best discerned. As an Anglican, I take
the Anglican Communion to be the most adequate body for such discernment.
12.
Being part of the Anglican Communion– a trans-national Christian
body– is a basic reason I am an Episcopalian. The actions and reactions on this
issue have done great harm to that communion. This has perhaps been the most
significant obstacle for me. I have been an advocate for the Anglican Communion
Covenant. I would still like to see something like the Covenant adopted – even
if that meant that the Episcopal Church might serve some time on probation or
something.
So . . .
Given all that, why argue in favor of blessing same-sex
unions? That is what I will try to explain beginning with my next post (the beginning
of next week).
Next: Part 2. Negative Testimony
Part 3. Positive Testimony
Part 4. Some Thoughts on Interpreting Scripture
Part 5. Why I Am Disinclined to Vote for Revising the Marriage Canon
Part 6. Back to the Bible
Part 7. What Did Jesus Say?
Part 9. Jesus on Marriage and "God made them Male & Female," (ii)
Part 10. Romans 1 (i) Context
Part 11. Romans 1 (ii) Unnatural Passions
Part 12. Romans 1 (iii) Natural and Unnatural Sex
Part 13. Romans 1 (iv) Idolatry, self-control, and same-sex sex
Part 14. The Rest of the New Testament
Part 15. Sodom
Part 16. Abomination (i)
Part 18. Creation and New Creation
Part 19. Conclusion
Next: Part 2. Negative Testimony
Part 3. Positive Testimony
Part 4. Some Thoughts on Interpreting Scripture
Part 5. Why I Am Disinclined to Vote for Revising the Marriage Canon
Part 6. Back to the Bible
Part 7. What Did Jesus Say?
Part 9. Jesus on Marriage and "God made them Male & Female," (ii)
Part 10. Romans 1 (i) Context
Part 11. Romans 1 (ii) Unnatural Passions
Part 12. Romans 1 (iii) Natural and Unnatural Sex
Part 13. Romans 1 (iv) Idolatry, self-control, and same-sex sex
Part 14. The Rest of the New Testament
Part 15. Sodom
Part 16. Abomination (i)
Part 17. Abomination (ii)
Part 18. Creation and New Creation
Part 19. Conclusion
Right Reverend Sir,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this. I was taught that sin is a very serious subject and that all sin derives from a desire to "be like God" (gen 3:5). If we are going to now say that homosexual sexual relationships are blessed instead of sinful, shouldn't we come to a consensus before we start doing so? The history of blessing same sex unions (and much of the other changes to TEC's teaching and order) seem to follow a pattern
1. Start suggesting a change to teaching or order. Get loud about it.
2. Say that, because some are questioning the old order, we should be allowed to "try" the new thing to see how it fits.
3. Begin to practice the "new thing" - hoping your Bishop won't call you on the carpet too badly
4. Because this is now part of the practice of the Church, try to get trial use codified
5. Expand - claiming that those who oppose the new thing are hateful, fearful, or more interested in their power than the Holy Spirit.
6. Start taking over dioceses - running those who opposed the "new thing" out by ridiculing them.
7. Make the "new thing" madatory - as a trial use item - assure Bishops that no one will ever be required to accept the new thing.
8. Because of Justice requirements, now require that all Bishops and Clergy will be required to accept the New Thing.
Look at the history of Women's Ordination as confirmation of this.
I would urge you to take a "Halt" stance on any new canons or resolutions regarding same sex blessings until the Communion and TEC come to a consensus and until canonical safeguards can be put into place that allow those who accept what the Church has always taught on this matter to continue in good conscience within TEC.
Respectfully,
Phil Snyder
I am highly impressed with this introduction and its candor, and I look forward to reading what the Bishop has to say about SSU's. I do wish that more in the church would better understand the obstacles to blessing SSU's for the church, which are presented very honestly here.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I wish more in the Communion and the world wide church were generally less obsessed with sex / gender issues, and were aware of the state of Christology in TEC, especially at the top level - which anyone googling Presiding Bishop Resurrection (or a few other terms) can very easily discover - and about which we have had an almost deafening silence, compared to the gravity of the circumstances at hand.
Many blessings to you, Bp. Gunter.
James - I submit that there is a very large correlation (if not causal relationship) between Christological heresies (or the tolerance thereof) and the blessings of same sex unions. I was on The Episcopal Cafe around Easter and the idea that Jesus physically rose from the dead was ridiculed - as was the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation. Many of the leaders there wouldn't even condemn Bishop Spong for his theology or writings.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that our anthropology (what is mankind) informs our soteriology (how are we saved). If we assume that mankind is a sinful, fallen creature, then being saved means being rescued from being sinful and fallen and being given new life. However, if we assume that we are basically good people who need a little help to overcome our bad tendencies, then being saved means being enlightened about what our bad tendencies are so we can work to exclude them from our lives.
Soteriology leads us to Christology (Who is Jesus). If salvation means being given new life and having the old debts wiped away, the we need a person who is fully human (to pay the debt) and fully divine (to give us new life). Thus Jesus must be fully human and fully divine. However, if salvation is enlightenment, the Jesus is a fully human person in touch with his divine nature and who "becomes" or is "proclaimed" divine.
Christology, in turn, informs ecclessiology - what is the Church. If Jesus only a human being that was more elightened than us and did not defeat sin and death on the cross, then the Church is also a human construct and can be changed as we become more enlightened. But if Jesus is fully human and fully divine, then The Church (his Body), must also be fully human and fully divine. The human aspects (governance, budgets, etc.) are also divine, but the Church needs a way to deal with those and that is the task of General Convention, Diocesan Conventions, etc. However the Theology of the Church - the teaching of the Church is not something that can simply be changed by a vote by orders. The question comes down to this: Are the proscriptions against homosexual behavior in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church part of how the Church expresses its faith or are they part of the faith itself? If they are only part of how the Church expresses its faith, then we can look at changing them. However, if they are part of the Faith itself, then we cannot and anyone who claims to change them is actually mis-representing God. That, of course, brings up the question of how do we know what is part of the expression of the faith vs what is part of the Faith itself.
Bishop Matthew, I want to thank you for your comments. As a partnered gay priest, I thank God for the welcome I have received in the diocese of Western Michigan and others and grieve the rejection I have received in some simply because of my sexual orientation. I chose to earn my living outside the church some years ago because I believed my honesty to myself and my partner was more important - and more costly - than hiding within the church. My partner and I are Jesus disciples and we are fully orthodox. I do not "cross my fingers" when saying the creeds nor do I believe that contemporary men and women are wiser than our forebearers in the faith simply because we are contemporary. On the other hand, I do believe the Holy Spirit is teaching us new things that we still have trouble receiving because of our inability to see God's hand at work in the world. I believe the lives of Christian GLBT persons are known by their fruits despite - despite - the rejection given us by parts of the church. How much more faithful can we be? What further sacrifices do we need to make? Blessings, if I may.
ReplyDeleteIf homosexuality was deemed an abomination in Leviticus, and if Paul describes such acts as unnatural and shameful, and if the church agrees that the canon of scripture remains the canon of scripture, where is the disagreement? Can you really imagine explaining to Jesus that you have modified His plan of male and female into something entirely different, unnatural and unhealthy for the temple of the Holy Spirit, but that erotic love trumps everything? Yes, LGBT people are known by heir fruits and their sexual fruit is sinful, not because I say so but because the God of eternity has spoken.
ReplyDeleteHi Bishop Matthew. I am following your current series on abortion. I felt hungry for more from you, so I decided to peruse some of the older content. The sentence "As Aquinas would say, how we achieve something is as important to it's being virtuous as what we achieve" really speaks to my heart. Someone close to my heart is so passionate about justice that they often come across as too harsh for my tender soul. I really appreciating the way you are so thoughtful and deliberate.
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to reading more on this series and the current one. Thank you!
Thank you for reading and leaving a comment, Emalie. I am glad you are finding this helpful. Aquinas is not alone in the Christian tradition in emphasizing virtue. Athanasius (293-373) in 'On the Incarnation' wrote:
ReplyDelete“But for the searching of the Scriptures and true knowledge of them an honorable life is needed, and a pure soul, and that virtue which is according to Christ; so that the intellect, guiding its path by it, may be able to attain what it desires, and comprehend it, in so far as it is accessible to human nature to learn concerning the Word of God. For without a pure mind and a modeling of the life after the saints a man could not possibly comprehend the words of the saints.”
Karl Barth (1886-1968) wrote something similar in a letter:
https://anoddworkofgrace.blogspot.com/2015/03/bearing-with-one-another-8-only-what-is.html