Comments on the Theology Statements of the House of Bishops and the "Claiming the Blessing" Gathering
By Ralph Spence - Montana Deputy and Editor of TheMinistree.com - April 2003
I had eagerly anticipated the report of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops as well as the theology statement from the "Claiming the Blessing" gathering. Like many of you, I was disappointed in both and felt they did little to get us beyond politics and word play and into finding answers to the underlying scriptural and pastoral concerns. There are many unanswered questions regarding the interpretation of scripture and pastoral care and neither document provided direction in these areas. Furthermore, the theology statement from the "Claiming the Blessing" gathering failed to indicate whether or not those united in support of blessing same-sex unions even agree on the answers. Getting specific details from supporters has been much like the story of the "Emperor's New Clothes," many appear to see something wonderful, but the details can vary and are often hard to describe. Until we have seen and discussed the proposed answers to the following questions, the church's present position of "Don't Endorse - Don't Condemn" while providing pastoral care, as set forth in Resolution D-039, should continue to be the policy of the church.Originally, the discussion of homosexuality centered on the need to respond to individuals who could not enjoy the "gift of sexuality" within the teaching of the church because of their sexual orientation. Now we hear that even those who have bisexual desires and are able to join in marital sex should be allowed to choose homosexual relationships if they wish. I have also heard others maintain that a person's sexual orientation is usually not completely heterosexual or homosexual because there is a "spectrum of sexual orientation" and most individuals are bisexual to some degree. If sexual orientation is not simply heterosexual or homosexual, it is possible that many individuals could have difficulty understanding their sexual identity and the church needs to provide guidance to protect the spiritual, physical and emotional well being of those who look to the church for advice. Depending upon age and maturity, feelings of friendship and love can be confused with physical attraction in relationships that include emotional intimacy or dependency. Whether individuals respond with anger or by joining in sexual experimentation, anyone struggling with these feelings could benefit from the church's pastoral care and it is possible that scripture does provide guidance when a person's sexual orientation may not be well defined. In the discussion of scripture, many opinions have been expressed about Leviticus and Romans, but it is still often said that Jesus was silent on homosexuality. Jesus' support for the union of male and female, as set forth in the Old Testament, is often overlooked and there is little mention of Matthew 19 where Jesus appears to say that the only alternative to the marriage of husband and wife is the life of a eunuch. It is possible that Jesus was not silent on this issue and it is obvious that he considered the marriage commitments to be important. Heterosexual relationships are supported throughout scripture and homosexual relationships are not supported and possibly condemned. Supporters of same sex unions usually say that scripture is silent on homosexuality, scripture is culturally flawed or that homosexual behavior should be allowed as an exception to scripture when a person has no other way to enjoy their sexuality. Most agree that scripture condemns a heterosexual person who joins in homosexual acts. If our beliefs are based on scripture and we believe there are consequences if scripture is ignored, it seems reasonable at the very least for the church to guide individuals with bisexual desires into heterosexual relationships. For a person with heterosexual desires and some degree of choice in their sexual identity, a heterosexual relationship does not present an obstacle to eternal salvation while the consequence of joining in a homosexual relationship is at best unknown. To encourage stability and protect individuals from sexual or financial exploitation, the commitments and responsibilities expected in any sexual relationship, as well as the consequences of dissolution, should be equal to those found in marriage. Without the legal protection that comes automatically with marriage, the partner that is willing to sacrifice the most to honor their spiritual commitment can become the most vulnerable. Our civil laws regarding divorce protect dependent partners while discouraging separation and these obligations could be undermined if a lower standard of commitment in sexual relationships is blessed by the church. We need to be sure that any pastoral care that the church decides to offer unmarried couples is designed to resolve problems rather than creating new ones. The church should not make exceptions to bless homosexual or heterosexual relationships without taking steps to protect those who may be vulnerable to sexual or financial exploitation. If marriage is not available, the church should require that partners join in obligations that are similar to marriage and, when marriage is available, the reasons for wanting to avoid it should be carefully examined. The church should not become an accomplice in action that helps individuals avoid marriage in order to circumvent the law or deprive legitimate heirs and beneficiaries of their rights. In addition. the church should not create liturgical rites for divorce that could be used by couples to avoid legal obligations by providing both the blessing and dissolution of relationship by the church. If the church blesses and dissolves relationships separately from legal commitments or civil authority, protecting the partners in those relationships from exploitation and dependency becomes the pastoral responsibility of the church. I had hoped that the "theological and pastoral arguments" from the "Claiming the Blessing" conference would discuss the criteria that could guide the discernment process regarding the "prayerful support, encouragement and pastoral care" of relationships other than marriage that are described in Resolution D-039. General Convention took positive steps in defining some of the responsibilities expected in relationships that include sexual activity and in denouncing promiscuity, exploitation, and abusiveness in relationships; however, there is more clarification needed to provide guidance and protect the vulnerable. In addition, as we are seeing in some dioceses, we need to know how conflicts will be resolved when the bishop and clergy in a diocese have different theological positions on sexuality issues or if a congregation calls a new priest who's position is different from that of the bishop. We need to know if bishops or priests would be allowed to deny the blessing of same-sex unions based on personal theology if rites were approved by GC or if there would be efforts to force bishops who are opposed to blessing same-sex unions to allow these blessings in their diocese. I have long wished to see General Convention become a place where we could share ministry opportunities and seek common ground on divisive issues by exploring our various points of view. We must be sensitive to the fact that there is a major conflict between political advocacy and welcoming diversity and, as long as we value our diversity, we should avoid using the church's influence to advocate political and cultural positions that will alienate many of our members. Often our positions differ more on how to respond to a challenge than if the challenge exists, and the church would provide a better example for the world if we could avoid political debates with win and lose decisions. Even if GC merely asks that rites for blessing same-sex unions be prepared and presented with theological basis for consideration at the next GC, as was almost done in 1997, the headlines will proclaim that ECUSA has approved same-sex unions. This would leave many theological and pastoral questions unanswered, possibly reduce the diversity of our membership and do little to reveal the underlying beliefs that unite us. When we are united, ECUSA does have influence and the church should welcome discussion of political issues; however, members should be encouraged to participate as individuals in the political process when we disagree. While there are those who advocate and perform same-sex unions in ECUSA, there are also those who believe homosexual behavior is wrong. Because there is no official ECUSA position that could be used to support political advocacy or condemnation of same-sex unions, these groups are able to coexist in our church. Supporters of the "Claiming the Blessing" conference indicate that it is time to move beyond this "don't condemn - don't endorse" position; however, they have still not provided answers to theological questions and pastoral concerns. We should not move forward without seeking a better understanding of each other's concerns, working together to discern God's truth and developing a clearer picture of where ECUSA is heading on these issues. 