In
this blog series I have been attempting an explanation of how I have come to a
more affirming position on same-sex unions. For various reasons, I am going to
interrupt that explanation and jump to a conclusion. I ask those who are
wanting more of a defense of how I arrived at the conclusion to be patient. I
intend to return to that.
As
a deputy to our last General Convention I voted in support of The Witnessing and
Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant, Liturgical Resources for Blessing Same-Sex
Relationships. I consider them equal in dignity and potential sanctity to
heterosexual marriage. I support legal marriage equality.
Given
all that, one might expect that I would support the proposed resolutions being
presented to the Episcopal Church’s General Convention later this month that
would revise our marriage canons to make marriage a one-size-fits-all rite
regardless of the genders of those making the vows.
But,
I do not. Why?
There
are several reasons. While I truly appreciate the work they have done and find
much of it helpful, I have issues with the Marriage Task Force, their
conclusions, and how they came to them. They might have done as well as they
could with the time and resources that they had. But, I do not think the result
has the heft it needs to do what is being proposed. And they were not able to
take into account all they were charged to take into account, i.e.,
"consult with other churches in the Anglican Communion and with our
ecumenical partners." The mandated groundwork is not done. I'll mention other concerns in the comment section
at the end of this post.
It
is also the case that the proposed revisions to the marriage canons will not
change anything on the ground. I understand that there is some canonical
messiness in the current situation given the language of the canons when it
comes to solemnizing marriages in states where it is legal and the bishop
permits. But, as an Anglican, I am OK with some messiness in this era of
transition and sorting things out rather than trying to make things too tidy
too quickly.
But,
more importantly, I have some theological concerns and want to sketch an
alternative. That is that we recognize same-sex unions as a sacramental rite
equal to sacramental rite of marriage.
Difficulty with
Difference
For
all our talk of diversity, we don’t do otherness well. There are two common
tendencies that get us into trouble when we encounter otherness. One tendency is to recognize otherness but
reject, diminish, marginalize, or even destroy the other as a threat. This is
the root of racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, etc. It also shows up
when we assume that all reasonable people will reason like us and then dismiss
those who do not as unreasonable. The other tendency is to deny any real
otherness and presume a sameness where it does not exist or assume a normal
into which the other must be assimilated. One example of this is the assertion
that all faiths are essentially the same based on the asserter's presumed
ability to see beyond differences to a sameness that denies the significance of
those differences
Certainly,
those who have found themselves on the short end of "othering" have
reason to be wary of appeals to difference used to keep them subordinate or
marginalized (the various “isms” above). And yet, our difficulty with
difference also messes with us. It has certainly messed with us in both ways in
our engagement with sexual otherness. Should we reject that otherness as a
threat? Should we deny its reality and seek assimilation?
Or
might we recognize the difference and seek to honor it?
One
reason I oppose the revisions to the marriage canons proposed for the Episcopal
Church’s General Convention later this month is that they seem to be a rush to
sameness that may deny us of the gifts and witness of real difference.
Vocation
I
appreciate that the Marriage Task Force included some reflection on vocation.
This is important. The vocation of all Christians is to adopt those practices
and disciplines that lead to deeper love of God and love of neighbor as
exemplified by Jesus. It is pursuing the holiness of God-centered,
self-emptying, cross-bearing, other-oriented love incarnated by Jesus Christ
and cultivating the disciplines that enable us to embody that love in thought,
word, and deed and build up the community. That is, our vocation is
sanctification.
It
is to that end that God calls us to life together in the Church. Each
congregation is a laboratory for that sanctification. Historically, within the
larger community of the Church, there have been two main ways of entering into
even more intentional communities of discipleship – monasticism and monogamy.
Both of these ways are schools of love, involving vows of commitment and
self-denial as means of working out our salvation.
At
different times one or the other was held in higher esteem, but at our best we
have recognized them both as equal and legitimate paths to holiness in
communion. They are equally legitimate, but they are not the same. They are
different, not just in their respective vows. They are different in the witness
they offer to the rest of the Church and to the world. Marriage participates in
the order of creation bearing witness to the continuity of creation before and
after Christ. Married Christians continue to participate in the social
structures of this world where they
build houses and live in them; plant gardens
and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives
for their sons, and give their daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons
and daughters; multiply there, and not decrease. And seek the welfare of the
city. (Jeremiah 29:5-7)
They continue to marry and be given in marriage
(cf. Mark 12:18-27).
Monastics
bear witness to the new creation in Christ and how it disrupts the usual order
of the world. Detaching from the usual social order of the world, monastics
seek to live in communities that more nearly anticipate the kingdom of God –
giving up private possessions (Luke 14:33) and living in the simplicity of
Jesus, neither marrying nor being given in marriage (Mark 12:18-27 again). They
witness to a hope beyond the heritage of children. As such, they are a radical
contrast and challenge to the usual way of things.
This
is an over simplified description, but I believe it still has merit. There are
similarities between these two paths and there are differences within them. But
all marriages have things in common that are different from monastic life and
vice versa. They are not the same, but they are equally valid ways to enter
into vowed commitments leading to sanctification.
Sacraments and
Sacramental Rites
Catholic
Anglican though I am, I appreciate that the Articles of Religion (Article XXV,
BCP p. 872) and the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer (BCP p. 857-861)
maintain that there are fundamentally only two sacraments – Baptism and
Eucharist. These are the sacraments of the body of Christ. Indeed they are
where the body of Christ and new members of that body are made. These are the
two that are required of Christians.
According
to the Catechism, the other five of what are commonly call sacraments (and
officially so by the Church of Rome), are “Sacramental Rites.” While they are
“means of grace”, they are not “given by Christ as sure and certain means by
which we receive that grace,” as are Baptism and Eucharist.
In
fact, over a thousand years of Church history went by before the Roman Church
recognized seven sacraments – the Councils of Lyons (1274), Florence
(1438-1445), and Trent (1547). While the
Eastern Church sometimes refers to the “seven” sacraments, it is not as much a
part of the dogmatic teaching. In fact Orthodox theologians have suggested
other sacraments along with the usual seven, e.g., monastic profession, the
consecration of a church, the crowning of a ruler, icons, relics, the giving of
alms. (Anthony M. Coniaris, Introducing the Orthodox Church). According to
Alexander Schmemann in For the Life of the World, the whole of creation is
meant to be a sacrament or at least sacramental.
Another Way
If
we accept this and we recognize that the covenanted sexual unions of gays and
lesbians can be means of grace, wouldn’t it make more sense to bless them as a
distinctive sacramental rite alongside the sacramental rite of marriage? Or,
perhaps they are, along with heterosexual marriage, subsets of Holy Matrimony
along the lines of the distinct orders of the Sacramental Rite of Ordination?
I
suggest this a more fruitful approach than simply folding same-sex unions into
the existing reality of heterosexual marriage. For one thing, if we recognize
that sex can be a faithful aspect of sanctified and sanctifying relationship
beyond heterosexual marriage, we don’t have to work to make everything fit the
same mold. And we are free to experience – and benefit from – the distinctive
witness of each.
I
wonder if, as with traditional monasticism and heterosexual marriage, there
might be significant distinctives as well as similarities between heterosexual
and same-sex relationships. Rushing to the conclusion that vowed and covenanted
gay and lesbian relationships are the same as heterosexual marriage might lead
us to deny, overlook, and miss the particular witness of same-sex
relationships. There are obvious similarities. But, it is also evident that
there are differences (see Gay Marriage: Same, But Different). Might the
differences bear significant gifts and witnesses to the Church that might get
lost if same-sex covenant partnerships are simply folded into marriage as the
same thing? Some gay people I have spoken with or read (along with some
straight authors) have made that case. For example, as the article referenced
earlier suggests, might there be particular things committed sexual covenants
between two men or two women witness to that are significantly different from
heterosexual marriage? They have characteristics of both non-sexual same-sex
friendships and conventional marriage. And given that pregnancy is not an
inherent possibility in same-sex sex, such relationships share characteristics
with monasticism that most heterosexual marriages do not. What does it mean for
their relationships that they are less likely to be bound together by children
and then only by deliberate choosing?
Identified
as sacramental rites of their own integrity might there be biblical and
theological themes to which they bear distinctive witness? Here are a couple of
suggestions:
If
heterosexual matrimony is the imitation of the unity of Christ and the Church, might Same-sex unions be the imitation of the unity among the believers through
Christ? Might they be a witness to the Holy Spirit's work in building up and
uniting the Body until we shall be one as the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit are one? If heterosexual unions witness to the unity between Christ and
the Church, perhaps same-sex unions show the unity of the Church through the
Holy Spirit.
The
rush to sameness also ignores or denies the peculiar history and contours of
heterosexual marriage. For all its various forms and meanings in different
times and contexts, marriage has always been about the joining of male and
female. I do not think we can ignore as easily as the Task Force suggests the
basic givenness of sexual differentiation and complimentarity. To do so is a
sort of modern Gnosticism–an overspiritualization–that denies our embodiment
in particular kinds of bodies. No doubt gender is more complicated than many of
us are used to thinking, but it does not follow that it is insignificant.
With
that is the reality that for most heterosexual sexual encounters pregnancy is a
possibility. Marriages that do not include biological procreation are not less
for that. And same-sex partners also become parents. But pregnancy and
procreation are an inherent aspect of heterosexual sex and thus of heterosexual
marriage. It is not the only or primary good of marriage, but it is one we
should not ignore. Not least because it is generally only relatively affluent
and educated people who can afford to ignore it.
And,
given that heterosexual marriage has its own history of theological witness, I
wonder if it fits or does justice to the particular shape and witness of
same-sex unions. Or vice versa.
There
are similarities between same-sex and opposite-sex couplings. And there are as many varieties within each as there are couples. But the two are
not exactly the same. And we do not need to try to make them so.
No
doubt, this proposal has its own problems. But, revising the marriage canon
would leave us with a bland sameness that does not honor significant
distinctiveness along with real similarity. It seems to me to have at least as much theological integrity as the proposed revisions to our marriage canons.
Next: Part 6. Back to the Bible
A Partial Bibliography
ReplyDeleteAlong with conversations with people, gay and straight, here are some books that have informed my thinking in this regard (though none of them come to the conclusion I have suggested) are:
Sexuality and the Christian Body: TheirWay into the Triune God by Eugene F. Rogers Jr.
The Sacrament of Love by Paul Evdokimov
Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same-SexRelationships by Robert Song
Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics by Lisa Sowle Cahill
An example of this is the essay on A History of Christian Marriage which does a fine job of describing the varieties of ways marriage has been understood and practiced through the centuries. But it underplays the continuities of the Church’s teaching on marriage through those same centuries.
ReplyDeleteThough members of the task force have asserted that revising the marriage canon does not change any doctrine I do not think the distinction is that clear cut. I am content for the most part to be a creedal minimalist. But, things are connected and if we tug on one part of the mobile of doctrines and disciplines, others move. For example, there are doctrinal implications for theological anthropology, i.e., what does it mean to be human created in the image of God? And whether or not the marriage is a doctrine or simply a discipline is another question.
I also admit to concerns for the effects of such a revision on several levels: on the Episcopal Church, on the Anglican Communion which I cherish and which remains fractured and in need of repair, and on our ecumenical relationships.
Lastly, though probably not as important, I wonder if we want our new Presiding Bishop to start off on the defensive with the rest of the Anglican Communion and with the more "traditional" members of TEC who are looking for some indication that there is space for them and their views/concerns.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, let me underline that this is an excellent blog and I really take pleasure in reading your posts. I try to make out some sense out of my faith and Anglican/Episcopal theology seems to be absolutely fascinating and revealing.
Your arguments for SSU are robust and intellectually satisfying. I truly believe you can interpret Scripture in a way that allows for homosexual unions. My question is whether you really should to.
I am not "homosexual basher", but I think that "slippery slope" argument was proven to be true. What is the Episcopal Church position on polyamory? What do you think of incest? Polyamory is not anecdotic anymore; it is a serious question that is addressed by more and more people in the US. In Germany brother/sister incest is about to be decriminalized. I heard one of the French philosophers affirming that since the times of Ancient Greece we live in a fear of sexual relations between parents and children. He suggested that a mother and an adult son may have a satisfying sexual life and we should stop condemning it. Shocking?
Since love is the only criterion for marriage, there is no real reason not to allow it between those who want it. And I am convinced that sooner or later some fancy Christian intellectuals will prove that harmonious sexual relations between three siblings represent a beautiful parallel of the Holy Trinity, and as such, polyamorous, incestuous marriages should be legalized. I can even imagine a society where this kind of plurality of forms of marriage exists. Old taboos are falling apart with birth control tools and sooner or later new sexual ethics will prevail.
And yet, even though I grew up in a secular family and I live in a very liberal (libertine?) environment, the older I get (I am 27) the more I appreciate the robust and solid foundations offered by some mainstream conservative churches. I am not saying that homosexuals are all going to burn in hell. I simply started recently believing that good old fashioned sexual ethics is somehow better than politically correct sexual revolution that is being sold us every day. If the Church does not stand for these values, who will?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete