Running Out of Time

As I write this article, General Convention has just completed its work. For the first time since 1991, a back injury has forced me to view the events from the sidelines through reports in the media, e-mail lists and my Montana delegation. General Convention often sees the Church at its best in worship and sharing of ministry and sometimes at its worst in the political maneuvering of the legislative process.

I regret not being able to see the exciting ministries on display in the Exhibit Hall, and miss sharing the passion of the participants. One cannot attend a General Convention without being impressed by the complexity of this event and how well it is orchestrated. It is amazing that a group of over 1,000 deputies and bishops can debate, perfect and separately vote on over 400 resolutions in 10 days. Can anyone imagine this being accomplished by our Congress? I commend those attending for their dedication to the Church and thank them for their service. Obviously, General Convention has taken many actions that have yet to be fully reported, and my following comments are directed toward the issues that have been most visible in reports I have seen.

I expected to be a deputy in Columbus and participated fully in the discussions leading up the General Convention. I proposed what I called the “common ground” resolution defining possible answers to the theological and pastoral questions related to the blessing of same-sex relationships that were left unresolved in 2003. Responses to my effort before General Convention indicated that supporters of same-sex relationships were not ready to define answers to those questions in a resolution, and those opposed were not ready to consider compromise. More support was directed toward responses to the Windsor Report drafted by the Special Committee. The actions taken in Columbus on those resolutions will satisfy some while leaving others confused or frustrated.

There was an expression of regret for any harm caused by the consecration of Gene Robinson and a call for restraint in the election of bishops "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider Church." In the area of rites for blessing of same-sex relationships, it appears no action was taken that would modify the previous position of the Episcopal Church.

In response to calls for a theological explanation for the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003, some are characterizing our Church as a community united in ministry with members that have diverse interpretations of scripture and theological beliefs. They say there is no single theological explanation for that action and none should be expected. In contrast to this, the debates at General Convention show that we are not united in our political beliefs and yet we support an office in Washington advocating one position on issues where we obviously disagree. Priorities seem to be confused when a religious community claims singularity in its political advocacy while in its scriptural interpretation and theology, diversity is accepted and even embraced. Whatever happened to scripture, tradition and reason?

It is also a contradiction to proclaim the diversity of our theological beliefs, when those opposed to the ordination of women are subjected to ridicule. I have not been against the ordination of women and would not have opposed the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop because of her gender. I pray that she is able to build bridges with those who would have opposed her election, and hope she has the administrative ability to effectively oversee ministry at the Church Center.

At this time, General Convention appears to have taken many of the steps needed to continue full participation in the Anglican Communion. The question for many is whether that participation will be used as an opportunity to reconsider policy in response to concerns, or simply used to promote the acceptance of homosexual activity. Because of the inability to get answers to theological and pastoral questions as well as the contradictions discussed above, I tend to believe that embracing diversity is simply a way to generate support while the Church moves away from its traditional teachings and purpose.

While I believe that one of the purposes of the Church is to show the world how Christ’s love and example can unite people and build community, it seems obvious from our struggles that we have gotten something wrong. Based on the frustration many in Columbus have expressed and the desire members have to be part of a religious community where policies reflect their beliefs, it seems the Episcopal Church is running out of time to get it right.

"Common Ground in Areas of Human Sexuality" - Draft #2

"Common Ground in Areas of Human Sexuality" - Draft #2

Resolved, That this 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, in response to the Windsor Report, affirms the traditional teaching of the Church that sexual activity is only appropriate within the marriage of a husband and wife; however, we acknowledge that for pastoral reasons, some local faith communities may be using liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex relationships that are an exception to this teaching and not endorsed by the broader Episcopal Church, and be it further

Resolved, That we regret having failed to make it clear that we do not view these blessings as being supported in scripture, but see them as a pastoral response at a time when it is vital to encourage stability and fidelity in sexual relationships and we also regret having failed to define the following requirements for receiving these blessings, and be it further

Resolved, That these local departures from our traditional teaching can only be offered as pastoral support to members who believe they are gay or lesbian with no choice in their sexual orientation, who wish to join in life-long committed relationships and are willing to make commitments in order to protect one another from exploitation, and be it further

Resolved, While no rites for blessing same-sex relationships will be included in “official” liturgies of the Church, the rites used locally for these blessings must include the same commitments of fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, forsaking all others through sickness and in health as found in the marriage of a husband and wife, and be it further

Resolved, That same-sex couples seeking a blessing from any local faith community, must be required to join in civil unions if they are available and, in the event they are not, join in legal and financial commitments similar to those applied under civil law in marriage and obtain blood tests for communicable diseases with results shared between partners, and be it further

Resolved, That to take responsibility for the pastoral role of the local faith community and protect partners in the event of a separation or their heirs after death, copies of the legal and financial commitments between these partners must be retained in the local faith community where the relationship is blessed and records of all local blessings should be retained at the Church Center, and be it further

Resolved, That any person who is a partner in a same-sex relationship, and seeks to serve the Church through ordination or higher office, must satisfy the requirements listed above and, because that person serves at the choice of their local faith community, they shall not demand the recognition of other Church bodies where their participation is not welcomed by the majority, and be it further

Resolved, That other local faith communities, and individual members of this Church who cannot in good conscience support the blessing of same-sex relationships, are welcome to disassociate themselves from these pastoral decisions and continue having the option to offer non-coercive efforts to heal gay and lesbian persons who seek their pastoral care, and be it further

Resolved, That we agree any homosexual or heterosexual behavior that is not based on lifelong commitment between two people such as; promiscuity, prostitution, pornography, polygamy, experimentation with one’s sexual identity and sexual exploitation or abusiveness of any kind are condemned in scripture and are wrong, and be it further

Resolved, That the Church should teach that any sexual activity outside of marriage, civil unions or committed relationships blessed by the Church can harm a person's emotional, physical or spiritual well being and have serious life-changing consequences that include; being a victim of sexual exploitation, unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease or confusion of one's sexual identity.


Explanation: The Episcopal Church includes both members who oppose and those who support blessing same-sex relationships. The General Convention has given consent to the local election of a Bishop who is in a committed same-sex relationship and has identified a local pastoral response to members in same-sex relationships as being within the common life of the Church. In the Windsor Report, the Anglican Communion has requested a theological explanation of these actions.

While in these specific situations homosexual behavior has received the blessing of General Convention, there has been no agreed upon theological explanation for these actions and pastoral guidelines for sexual behavior and commitment within these relationships has yet to be defined. In addition, the 2003 General Convention also gave consent to non-coercive healing programs for gay and lesbian persons who seek pastoral care in Resolution C004.

To preserve the unity of the Church, this resolution seeks to end the debate on homosexual behavior with responses to the beliefs of all members. It describes a theological position that upholds the authority of scripture and tradition, while including the previous actions of General Convention. It also provides the pastoral guidelines needed to advise and protect the vulnerable from exploitation or abuse in any relationship that includes sexual activity.

Proposed Resolution for General Convention 2006

"Common Ground in Areas of Human Sexuality"

Resolved, That this 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirms the traditional teaching of the Church that sexual activity is only appropriate within the marriage of a husband and wife; however, we acknowledge that for pastoral reasons, it is part of our common life for local faith communities to explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions as an exception to this teaching, and be it further

Resolved, That this exception to our traditional teaching should only be offered in pastoral support of members of this Church who believe they are gay or lesbian with no choice in their sexual orientation, who wish to join in life-long committed relationships based on holy love and are willing to make commitments in order to protect one another from exploitation, and be it further

Resolved, While no rites for blessing same-sex relationships will be included in “official” liturgies of the Church, the rites used locally for these blessings should include the same commitments of fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, forsaking all others through sickness and in health as found in the marriage of a husband and wife, and be it further

Resolved, That same-sex couples seeking a blessing from any local faith community, are required to join in civil unions if they are available and, in the event they are not, join in legal and financial commitments similar to those applied under civil law in marriage and obtain blood tests for communicable diseases with results shared between partners, and be it further

Resolved, That to take responsibility for the pastoral role of the Church and protect partners in the event of a separation or their heirs after death, copies of the legal and financial commitments between these partners must be retained in the local faith community where the relationship is blessed and records of all local blessings should be retained at the Church Center, and be it further

Resolved, That other local faith communities, and individual members of this Church who cannot in good conscience support the blessing of same-sex unions, are welcome to disassociate themselves from these pastoral decisions and continue having the option to offer non-coercive efforts to heal gay and lesbian persons who seek their pastoral care, and be it further

Resolved, That we agree any homosexual or heterosexual behavior that is not based on love and commitment such as; sexual experimentation, promiscuity, prostitution, pornography, and sexual exploitation or abusiveness of any kind are condemned in scripture and are wrong, and be it further

Resolved, That the Church's should teach that any sexual activity outside of marriage, civil unions or committed relationships blessed by the Church can harm a person's emotional, physical or spiritual well being and have serious life-changing consequences that include unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease or confusion of one's sexual identity.



Explanation:

The Episcopal Church includes both members who oppose and those who support blessing same-sex relationships. The General Convention has given consent to the local election of a Bishop who is in a committed same-sex relationship and has identified a local pastoral response to members in same-sex relationships as being within the common life of the Church. In the Windsor Report, the Anglican Communion has requested a theological explanation of these actions.

While in these specific situations homosexual behavior has received the blessing of General Convention, there has been no agreed upon theological explanation for these actions and pastoral guidelines for sexual behavior and commitment within these relationships has yet to be defined. In addition, General Convention has also given consent to non-coercive healing programs for gay and lesbian persons who seek pastoral care.

To preserve the unity of the Church, this resolution seeks to end the debate on homosexual behavior with responses to the beliefs of all members. It describes a theological position that upholds the authority of scripture and tradition, while including the previous actions of General Convention. It also provides the pastoral guidelines needed to advise and protect the vulnerable from exploitation or abuse in any relationship that includes sexual activity.

In Search of a Rationale

This Article was first published in April, 2005

Bill Cosby has a routine in which he says children must be "brain damaged." He describes a typical scene when a child is caught misbehaving. The parent is demanding to know why the child did what they obviously knew was wrong and the child, having no explanation, responds, "I don't know." I am reminded of the Episcopal Church as the Anglican Communion asks how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ, only instead of responding, "I don't know," the Presiding Bishop has formed a committee to come up with an answer. Just as children often do things in a compulsive way without thinking through the consequences, the Episcopal Church took action at the last General Convention that is not easily explained.

I am also reminded of typical "mob behavior" when a group of people lose inhibitions and act in a way that individual members would usually avoid. The group as a whole has no common explanation for the actions taken and sometimes the reasoning of followers is not the same as the leaders. As the appointment of the theology committee indicates, no common belief has been defined for blessing same-sex relationships and yet supporters march into the future having no idea where they are going.

Some say that there should be an exception to the traditional interpretation of scripture to allow the blessing of same sex relationships. This rationale is often compared to the exception allowing remarriage after divorce; however, this rationale fails to recognize that we still consider divorce as something to be avoided. It is also based on the belief that a homosexual person has no other choice for enjoying the gift of sexuality. While this reasoning was compelling in the beginning of the debate, it has little relevance today because supporters want to see bisexual people, those who do have a choice, also given the option to join in homosexual relationships. The agenda is revealed further when some supporters say there are few purely heterosexual or homosexual people and that all of us are bisexual to some degree.

Others say that Jesus is silent on loving homosexual relationships and the behavior condemned in scripture is only that which is exploitive or against the nature of the person joining in the homosexual act. To believe this one must ignore Matthew 19 in which Jesus affirms teachings of the Old Testament on marriage, emphasizes the importance of commitment in sexual relationships and indicates that the only alternative to the marriage of a husband and wife is the life of a eunuch. One must also ignore other passages in the Old and New Testament that condemn homosexual behavior and assume that, even though supporters say homosexuality is a statistically predictable part of the population, no one had heard of loving homosexual relationships in Biblical time. We must conclude that the physical, emotional and spiritual harm that can be caused by practices that are condemned in scripture, are not a concern with homosexual behavior.

The last explanation that is often given is that scripture is culturally biased against homosexual relationships. To follow this line of reasoning, we must first believe that scripture is not the word of God and that we are not blinded to truth by our own cultural bias. Since the condemnation of homosexual behavior is compared to discrimination by gender or race, we must then believe that being homosexual, which is defined by behavior, is the moral equivalent of being female or being a person of color. Finally, if cultural differences are used to deny scripture and tradition, the interpretation of scripture will become dependent upon local cultural norms and any overriding truth will be lost in the confusion. This was seen when the election of Gene Robinson was affirmed by many who seemed to feel their own beliefs were no basis for denying New Hampshire their choice of Bishop.

In the midst of this confusion, representatives of our Church are now invited to present an explanation of the thinking behind the actions of General Convention to the Anglican Consultative Council. The problem is that General Convention is the only body that has the authority to provide an explanation and the theological rational was not addressed in 2003. As our leadership struggles to answer questions, it would be helpful to have broad participation in the discernment process.

We could facilitate broad participation by having a vote or survey in each diocese to determine the percentage of support for; 1) the historic disapproval of homosexual behavior, 2) an exception for committed same-sex partners, 3) the position that scripture is silent on committed homosexual relationships or 4) the belief that scripture is culturally biased against homosexual behavior. With broad discussion of the theological rationale, ways to protect partners in relationships with no legal status and guidelines for healthy sexual behavior; perhaps we could identify common ground that would help the Church protect the vulnerable and provide guidance in areas of human sexuality