The following is a summary of an address given on Sunday, July 15, 2012, by the Rev. Daniel K. Dunlap, Rector of the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd in Tomball, TX. The intention of the address was to clarify the actions of General Convention and to pave a way forward in mission as a parish in the Diocese of Texas of The Episcopal Church.
Last week the 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church met in Indianapolis. General Convention is the legislative body that gathers every three years to consider the church’s common mission, to share its common concerns, and to order its common life. As you can imagine in a church as theologically and ideologically diverse as The Episcopal Church, it can sometimes be a contentious gathering, producing plenty of fodder for reporters, critics, and even casual observers to feast on. This year proved to be no exception with the approval of I Will Bless You and You Will Be A Blessing – a provisional rite for same-sex blessings. Many national news outlets reported that The Episcopal Church was the first major Christian body in the USA to adopt such a rite.
No doubt many of you are asking, why us? Why must we be the first? The answer may be as simple as the kind of church we are. We are church that invites a wide diversity of belief and practice; a church that does not have a litmus test for membership; a church that unites around the historic creeds, yet affords room for each member to form their own conscience. Perhaps more importantly, we are a church that has a reputation of being open to the disenfranchised of our society. It might also have something to do with our size. We may be oldest of our nation’s denominations, but we are also, paradoxically, one of the smallest. On a local level, it is easier to hear the voices of the disenfranchised in smaller, family-sized parishes than larger ones; and, like it or not, we are a denomination of small, family-sized parishes.
Yet despite being the “first” major church to approve such a rite, a good case could be made that the actions of General Convention did not really clarify or achieve the much sought after consensus on issues of sexuality that we have been seeking for decades. Moreover, it doesn’t help matters when the actions of General Convention have been intentionally misreported and misrepresented by those who should know better.
So in the interest of clarity and of full disclosure (i.e. what the reporters won't report), let me attempt to outline for you what hasn’t changed in The Episcopal Church, so that perhaps we can better understand and deal with those things that have.
1. General Convention did not change the theology of the Book of Common Prayer.
2. General Convention did not approve or adopt a rite for same-sex marriage.
What was approved last week was a blessing rite, not a rite of matrimony. The name of the rite -- I Will Bless You and You Will Be A Blessing -- is intended to convey this intent. Granted, this distinction may be confusing, and the fact that it will be used in those states where same-sex marriage or civil unions are legally sanctioned does not help to clarify our church’s position. But let’s not forget that The Episcopal Church is a sacramental church. We bless many things, some of greater and some of lesser importance. Many gay and lesbian couples wish to have their life-long relationships blessed within the context of their local worshiping communities, and General Convention has responded to this desire.
3. General Convention did not change what has been the practice of The Episcopal Church for quite some time.
Back in 2003, the 74th General Convention declared that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.” So-called “local option,” whereby bishops grant special permission to perform same-sex blessings in their own dioceses, has been in force for years. The new rite serves only to bring accountability to this situation. Otherwise local option is still in effect as General Convention did not grant blanket permission. Bishops still govern their own dioceses, and explicit permission is still needed to perform same-sex blessings. The House of Bishops even added a conscience clause to ensure that no clergy would ever be compelled to participate in same-sex blessings. So, in reality, apart from the provision of a uniform rite, there has been no substantial change in practice from what has been going on for quite some time in The Episcopal Church.
It is natural at this point to ask how the actions of General Convention affect our parish. Where does our diocese stand? What about our bishops? Where do we stand as a parish? A look at our context and circumstances should help clarify where we are as a parish and how we will move forward from here.
OUR STATE (Texas):
We live in a state that does not recognize either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions. It is not even possible for gay and lesbian couples married in other states to secure a divorce in Texas. Barring an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I do not see this situation changing any time soon, either in Texas or most other states of the Union. Ironically, this means that the greatest obstacle facing those who support same-sex marriage in The Episcopal Church is not what remains of the stubborn traditionalist lobby in the church, but rather the distance left in the uphill, state-by-state, battle for civil sanction and recognition.
OUR DIOCESE:
The Diocese of Texas is as diverse as the church at large, but in the balance it is generally more conservative with most of its parishes and clergy continuing to hold to a traditional view of marriage. However, a significant and probably growing number of clergy, laity, and parishes are in favor of some kind of pastoral provision for gay and lesbian members, be it a blessing ceremony for same-sex couples or civil and sacramental recognition of same-sex marriage. This means, of course, that we are compelled to find a way forward together as conservatives and liberals, traditionalists and progressives.
OUR BISHOPS:
Both Bishops Doyle and Harrison were among the 41 bishops who voted against the provisional rite when it came before the House of Bishops. Bishop Doyle has also gone on record as opposing any change to the Prayer Book’s theology and definition of marriage. However, he is committed to working both with traditionalists and progressives. Last May, in full expectation of General Convention’s approval of the new rite, Bishop Doyle unveiled a plan to work with those parishes who might wish to use it. Initially, only two churches (St. Stephen’s, Houston and St. David’s, Austin) will be given permission, followed by other parishes at a later date. In the meantime Bishop Doyle has assured the clergy that no one would ever be compelled to participate in same-sex ceremonies and indicated that rectors and parishes were free to establish their own local policies.
YOUR RECTOR (yours truly):
Last week, in the wake of General Convention’s decision to approve the provisional rite, I outlined to the vestry the following position:
(1) In agreement with the Book of Common Prayer, I affirm holy matrimony as a union, both civil and sacramental, between one man and one woman.
To clarify, my position is not so much about what I am against as it is about what I am for. At this point in my life and ministry, I am not comfortable to go beyond the limits of what the church has taught for the last two thousand years. I believe that marriage between one man and one woman is unique. It is the very metaphor used in the New Testament to describe the relationship between Christ and the Church, and thus is sacramental. Unlike same-sex unions, it is also potentially generative, and thus the only possible context in which children can live together with both natural parents as a family.
(2) As things stand now, I cannot take part in any same-sex blessing ceremony nor will I seek permission for Good Shepherd to conduct same-sex blessings.
In the wider discussion within the church, there is simply not enough theological clarity or cogency in these matters to justify in my mind any attempt to navigate our parish in any new direction, particularly since the official doctrine of the church remains as it was before the approval of the new rite. Therefore, not wishing to bring any more confusion to our context, I simply cannot participate in any blessing ceremony that might affirm or imply in the minds of many that the union between two same-sex people is equivalent or analogous to holy matrimony.
(3) I will not turn anyone away from membership or deny pastoral care to any person who desires to worship/unite with our parish. We will continue to welcome all to Christ’s table.
For me this last statement is crucial. To understand this point is to understand the heart of your rector. It is not my practice to turn away from pastoral care any person who desires or needs it, be they straight, gay, or transgendered. We will continue to be a parish that practices radical hospitality. For me, this issue is not about sex or sexual identity. I have ministered to many homosexuals during the course of my ministry, and, accordingly, my views have evolved over the years. I gave up on the notion long ago that sexual orientation is something that a person necessarily “chooses” or that homosexuality is something that can be “cured.” In short, I do not believe that homosexual orientation is intrinsically evil. I even support the state recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples. So while there are many ministers out there who are willing to condemn a person for their sexual orientation, let me be crystal clear: I am not one of them.
That being said, I do believe that the traditional family is the ideal for a healthy society. However, please do not mistake this as a naïve suggestion that the natural family is immune to dysfunction and/or disintegration, or that non-traditional families (of whatever configuration) are not a blessing to our society. We are all keenly aware that traditional families often fail, and we have all experienced, to one degree or another, the deleterious effects of divorce and broken homes on society. We also know that where the traditional family might fail, the non-traditional family can be a place of redemption, grace and new beginnings, and thus, in these ways, are just as sacramental and worthy of celebration as the traditional family. Indeed, let us never forget that the New Testament employs “adoption” as one of its primary metaphors for salvation.
Finally, let me just say that, despite our controversies and the criticisms we receive from the rest of the Christian world, I am truly thankful to be a priest in The Episcopal Church. Granted, these issues are difficult to process, difficult to talk about, difficult to resolve. As a church we have been talking about matters of human sexuality for decades, and full consensus still seems beyond our reach. Yet I believe that God has uniquely called our church, both conservatives and liberals, to continue this conversation and to reach the very consensus that for the time being seems to elude us.
What was approved last week was a blessing rite, not a rite of matrimony. The name of the rite -- I Will Bless You and You Will Be A Blessing -- is intended to convey this intent. Granted, this distinction may be confusing, and the fact that it will be used in those states where same-sex marriage or civil unions are legally sanctioned does not help to clarify our church’s position. But let’s not forget that The Episcopal Church is a sacramental church. We bless many things, some of greater and some of lesser importance. Many gay and lesbian couples wish to have their life-long relationships blessed within the context of their local worshiping communities, and General Convention has responded to this desire.
3. General Convention did not change what has been the practice of The Episcopal Church for quite some time.
Back in 2003, the 74th General Convention declared that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.” So-called “local option,” whereby bishops grant special permission to perform same-sex blessings in their own dioceses, has been in force for years. The new rite serves only to bring accountability to this situation. Otherwise local option is still in effect as General Convention did not grant blanket permission. Bishops still govern their own dioceses, and explicit permission is still needed to perform same-sex blessings. The House of Bishops even added a conscience clause to ensure that no clergy would ever be compelled to participate in same-sex blessings. So, in reality, apart from the provision of a uniform rite, there has been no substantial change in practice from what has been going on for quite some time in The Episcopal Church.
Where do we go from here?
It is natural at this point to ask how the actions of General Convention affect our parish. Where does our diocese stand? What about our bishops? Where do we stand as a parish? A look at our context and circumstances should help clarify where we are as a parish and how we will move forward from here.
OUR STATE (Texas):
We live in a state that does not recognize either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions. It is not even possible for gay and lesbian couples married in other states to secure a divorce in Texas. Barring an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I do not see this situation changing any time soon, either in Texas or most other states of the Union. Ironically, this means that the greatest obstacle facing those who support same-sex marriage in The Episcopal Church is not what remains of the stubborn traditionalist lobby in the church, but rather the distance left in the uphill, state-by-state, battle for civil sanction and recognition.
OUR DIOCESE:
The Diocese of Texas is as diverse as the church at large, but in the balance it is generally more conservative with most of its parishes and clergy continuing to hold to a traditional view of marriage. However, a significant and probably growing number of clergy, laity, and parishes are in favor of some kind of pastoral provision for gay and lesbian members, be it a blessing ceremony for same-sex couples or civil and sacramental recognition of same-sex marriage. This means, of course, that we are compelled to find a way forward together as conservatives and liberals, traditionalists and progressives.
OUR BISHOPS:
Both Bishops Doyle and Harrison were among the 41 bishops who voted against the provisional rite when it came before the House of Bishops. Bishop Doyle has also gone on record as opposing any change to the Prayer Book’s theology and definition of marriage. However, he is committed to working both with traditionalists and progressives. Last May, in full expectation of General Convention’s approval of the new rite, Bishop Doyle unveiled a plan to work with those parishes who might wish to use it. Initially, only two churches (St. Stephen’s, Houston and St. David’s, Austin) will be given permission, followed by other parishes at a later date. In the meantime Bishop Doyle has assured the clergy that no one would ever be compelled to participate in same-sex ceremonies and indicated that rectors and parishes were free to establish their own local policies.
YOUR RECTOR (yours truly):
Last week, in the wake of General Convention’s decision to approve the provisional rite, I outlined to the vestry the following position:
(1) In agreement with the Book of Common Prayer, I affirm holy matrimony as a union, both civil and sacramental, between one man and one woman.
To clarify, my position is not so much about what I am against as it is about what I am for. At this point in my life and ministry, I am not comfortable to go beyond the limits of what the church has taught for the last two thousand years. I believe that marriage between one man and one woman is unique. It is the very metaphor used in the New Testament to describe the relationship between Christ and the Church, and thus is sacramental. Unlike same-sex unions, it is also potentially generative, and thus the only possible context in which children can live together with both natural parents as a family.
(2) As things stand now, I cannot take part in any same-sex blessing ceremony nor will I seek permission for Good Shepherd to conduct same-sex blessings.
In the wider discussion within the church, there is simply not enough theological clarity or cogency in these matters to justify in my mind any attempt to navigate our parish in any new direction, particularly since the official doctrine of the church remains as it was before the approval of the new rite. Therefore, not wishing to bring any more confusion to our context, I simply cannot participate in any blessing ceremony that might affirm or imply in the minds of many that the union between two same-sex people is equivalent or analogous to holy matrimony.
(3) I will not turn anyone away from membership or deny pastoral care to any person who desires to worship/unite with our parish. We will continue to welcome all to Christ’s table.
For me this last statement is crucial. To understand this point is to understand the heart of your rector. It is not my practice to turn away from pastoral care any person who desires or needs it, be they straight, gay, or transgendered. We will continue to be a parish that practices radical hospitality. For me, this issue is not about sex or sexual identity. I have ministered to many homosexuals during the course of my ministry, and, accordingly, my views have evolved over the years. I gave up on the notion long ago that sexual orientation is something that a person necessarily “chooses” or that homosexuality is something that can be “cured.” In short, I do not believe that homosexual orientation is intrinsically evil. I even support the state recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples. So while there are many ministers out there who are willing to condemn a person for their sexual orientation, let me be crystal clear: I am not one of them.
That being said, I do believe that the traditional family is the ideal for a healthy society. However, please do not mistake this as a naïve suggestion that the natural family is immune to dysfunction and/or disintegration, or that non-traditional families (of whatever configuration) are not a blessing to our society. We are all keenly aware that traditional families often fail, and we have all experienced, to one degree or another, the deleterious effects of divorce and broken homes on society. We also know that where the traditional family might fail, the non-traditional family can be a place of redemption, grace and new beginnings, and thus, in these ways, are just as sacramental and worthy of celebration as the traditional family. Indeed, let us never forget that the New Testament employs “adoption” as one of its primary metaphors for salvation.
Finally, let me just say that, despite our controversies and the criticisms we receive from the rest of the Christian world, I am truly thankful to be a priest in The Episcopal Church. Granted, these issues are difficult to process, difficult to talk about, difficult to resolve. As a church we have been talking about matters of human sexuality for decades, and full consensus still seems beyond our reach. Yet I believe that God has uniquely called our church, both conservatives and liberals, to continue this conversation and to reach the very consensus that for the time being seems to elude us.
But didn't The Church of the Good Shepherd in a sense take a stand a few years ago by refusing to join the majority who withdrew from the Episcopal Church over these issues?
ReplyDelete