So the General Convention authorized the use of a liturgy to bless same sex unions! Hurray! But part of what it took to get it passed was to leave the use of the rite in each diocese to the discretion of its bishop! Um...
So, the positions two bishops are taking on this item are attracting attention. Bishop Kee Sloan of Alabama, who voted for authorizing the rite, has declined to permit its use in Alabama. Bishop Edward Little of the Diocese of Northern Indiana, issued a pastoral letter that in no uncertain terms forbids the use of the liturgy in his diocese. This is not a surprise since he voted against authorizing the liturgy at General Convention. Given that, it's surprising that he took the further step to say this:
These actions are attracting no shortage of criticism and in some cases vitriol (here and especially here for examples, albeit fairly tame ones). And let me be crystal clear on what my position is: I believe that the existing rite of marriage in the Book of Common Prayer should be authorized for use for same-sex couples.
But that is not where we are today. Today we are at an uneasy middle ground, where we have a kind of odd, not altogether satisfying rite (it's here in draft form; there were some modest revisions made at General Convention but I can't track down the revised text), that's a lot like marriage but not really, not strictly speaking a sacrament but treated as though it is, and that can be forbidden by fiat by your local bishop.
Dissatisfying as it may be, this represents enormous progress. The reason the A049 resolution contains the ability for bishops to forbid the use of the liturgy in their dioceses is because that is what it took for it to pass. Without that provision, this resolution would almost certainly have died in the House of Bishops. Further, I think it oversimplifies things to assume that everyone who opposes same-sex unions opposes a role for gay people in the church.
While not all bishops have officially given word one way or the other, it appears that same sex blessings will be made available in most dioceses of the Episcopal Church. I do not know what is in Bishop Sloan's heart, but it seems he voted against his present conscience to be generous to those in other dioceses for whom making this liturgy available is tremendously important. And while Bishop Little voted against the resolution, he has found a way that same-sex couples in his diocese can have their union blessed by a clergy member they know, albeit at the very sad cost of having to do it in an unfamiliar church.
A049 was not the end of the road for same sex marriage in the Episcopal Church, but it seems at this point that the correct approach is not to proceed by taking shots from the blogosphere or questioning the motivations of bishops of good will (it seems that not all of them are, but that's another story).
Instead, we should remember that life in Christ is not instant perfection, but lifelong conversion. Jesus tells us that "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Indeed that may be, but there is a yoke, and there is a burden. For those of us fortunate enough to live in dioceses where same sex blessings are permitted (that means me if I maybe one day ask my beloved for his hand in whatever -- no promises!), our burden is to use the rite, magnify the Lord with our unions, and convert hearts. And it will help if all of us - both those for and against same-sex blessings - will celebrate that we can disagree and yet stay together as a church.
This is cold comfort for my brothers and sisters in Northern Indiana and Alabama who yearn to see their unions recognized by the church. Colder comfort still for my brothers and sisters in the Diocese of Albany, whose canons have been interpreted as forbidding any member of the clergy from participating in or even attending a same-sex union, even if in lay clothing (that is absolutely baffling to me; given Jesus's choice of dining companions I find it hard to believe he'd refuse to attend a same-sex union, even if he disapproved). I don't have anything to make this right.
But this is the nature of the compromise that got us this far. We agreed to find a way we could do this and still live with each other. We get to keep praying together, serving together, and talking to each other. Far better this than the alternative.
So, the positions two bishops are taking on this item are attracting attention. Bishop Kee Sloan of Alabama, who voted for authorizing the rite, has declined to permit its use in Alabama. Bishop Edward Little of the Diocese of Northern Indiana, issued a pastoral letter that in no uncertain terms forbids the use of the liturgy in his diocese. This is not a surprise since he voted against authorizing the liturgy at General Convention. Given that, it's surprising that he took the further step to say this:
Second, priests of the Diocese of Northern Indiana who, for pastoral reasons, wish to use "The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant" may travel to a neighboring diocese to do so. I have spoken with the bishops of Chicago, Western Michigan, Michigan, Ohio, and Indianapolis (dioceses that border our own), and they have agreed that Northern Indiana priests may request permission to use a church in their dioceses for such a liturgy. Those priests should also apply for a "license to officiate" from the bishop of the neighboring diocese, since the liturgy would be under that bishop’s sacramental covering rather than mine.
These actions are attracting no shortage of criticism and in some cases vitriol (here and especially here for examples, albeit fairly tame ones). And let me be crystal clear on what my position is: I believe that the existing rite of marriage in the Book of Common Prayer should be authorized for use for same-sex couples.
But that is not where we are today. Today we are at an uneasy middle ground, where we have a kind of odd, not altogether satisfying rite (it's here in draft form; there were some modest revisions made at General Convention but I can't track down the revised text), that's a lot like marriage but not really, not strictly speaking a sacrament but treated as though it is, and that can be forbidden by fiat by your local bishop.
Dissatisfying as it may be, this represents enormous progress. The reason the A049 resolution contains the ability for bishops to forbid the use of the liturgy in their dioceses is because that is what it took for it to pass. Without that provision, this resolution would almost certainly have died in the House of Bishops. Further, I think it oversimplifies things to assume that everyone who opposes same-sex unions opposes a role for gay people in the church.
While not all bishops have officially given word one way or the other, it appears that same sex blessings will be made available in most dioceses of the Episcopal Church. I do not know what is in Bishop Sloan's heart, but it seems he voted against his present conscience to be generous to those in other dioceses for whom making this liturgy available is tremendously important. And while Bishop Little voted against the resolution, he has found a way that same-sex couples in his diocese can have their union blessed by a clergy member they know, albeit at the very sad cost of having to do it in an unfamiliar church.
A049 was not the end of the road for same sex marriage in the Episcopal Church, but it seems at this point that the correct approach is not to proceed by taking shots from the blogosphere or questioning the motivations of bishops of good will (it seems that not all of them are, but that's another story).
Instead, we should remember that life in Christ is not instant perfection, but lifelong conversion. Jesus tells us that "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Indeed that may be, but there is a yoke, and there is a burden. For those of us fortunate enough to live in dioceses where same sex blessings are permitted (that means me if I maybe one day ask my beloved for his hand in whatever -- no promises!), our burden is to use the rite, magnify the Lord with our unions, and convert hearts. And it will help if all of us - both those for and against same-sex blessings - will celebrate that we can disagree and yet stay together as a church.
This is cold comfort for my brothers and sisters in Northern Indiana and Alabama who yearn to see their unions recognized by the church. Colder comfort still for my brothers and sisters in the Diocese of Albany, whose canons have been interpreted as forbidding any member of the clergy from participating in or even attending a same-sex union, even if in lay clothing (that is absolutely baffling to me; given Jesus's choice of dining companions I find it hard to believe he'd refuse to attend a same-sex union, even if he disapproved). I don't have anything to make this right.
But this is the nature of the compromise that got us this far. We agreed to find a way we could do this and still live with each other. We get to keep praying together, serving together, and talking to each other. Far better this than the alternative.
Without naming Bishop Little, I did talk about how I appreciated his nuance, in this live (and therefore unpolished) interview on Saturday. The topic comes up around six minutes or so, I believe: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-dais/2012/08/04/the-dais-the-episcopal-church-opens-its-arms
ReplyDelete