Responding to C056: Seeing the Grace Among Us

Note: Apparently, the House of Deputies has yet to approve C056. It will take up the legislation this morning.

Well, it's happened. Every three years, General Convention is asked to approve liturgies for "same-sex blessings" or approve the drafting of such liturgies for further study. Finally, in 2009, we have C056, which says:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call for a renewed pastoral response from this Church and for an open procession for the consideration of theological resources and liturgies for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological resources and design liturgies, and report to the 77th General Convention for further action; and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved that bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church, and be it further

Resolved that this convention continue to honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality and be it further

Resolved that member of this church be encourage to engage in this effort.

In other words, General Convention has authorized me and every other Episcopalian to reflect on "the blessing of same gender relationships." So I am going to do just that.

Recently, the Diocese of Niagara in the Anglican Church of Canada posted their trial liturgy for such blessings on their web site. I remember skimming this liturgy and thinking something to the effect of "I might have to stifle laughter frequently during the ceremony." Derek quotes some gifted reader as saying,

"I believe their new liturgy is the absolute quintessence of everything that is wrong with liberal
Anglican liturgics. It’s so supernally bad, abysmally written, and theologically horrifying that if I were a gay man in the Diocese of Niagara contemplating marriage, I might throw myself over the falls in despair. It’s no wonder that so many anti-inclusion Anglicans see inclusivity as the path by which the Anglican Churches will abandon their fidelity to the Creeds and to the theology of the Prayerbook.

I currently attend the parish in the Anglican Communion that has been blessing same gender unions the longest (nearly two decades). I once attended such a liturgy, which resembled a wedding of two sensible straight people beyond childbearing age with a slight shift of pronouns from the 1979 BCP (well as faithful as my parish ever is to the Liturgy of this Church). Louis and Ernest Crew (though much younger) apparently used the 1928 BCP.

From these anecdotes, I think the blessing of same gender unions is likely to go one of two ways. Either liturgies will be developed that showcase the descent of Anglican liturgics further and further toward Unitarianism or pop paganism, because someone will think that living in a homosexual relationship is apostasy anyway (they'll say "progressive" or something rather than apostasy, but let the reader understand) or someone will alter the Marriage liturgy decently and in good order.

The first essentially denies a same gender union a Christian character or at least a Trinitarian one. The second says that a same gender union is the same as an opposite gender union in terms of Christian theology.

I can't find the quote at the moment, but someone (I think on Thinking Anglicans) said something to the effect of, "Anglicans bless fishing boats and dogs but not the love [between two people of the same gender]"

From a theological perspective, the blessings of the Church fall into three categories. Fishing boats and dogs fall into a category that probably should be called sacramentals . The Roman Catholics use this name for any ritual outside of those necessary for the efficacy of the Sacraments. So sprinkling holy water or praying over someone in general is a sacramental. (The Methodists call our next category sacramentals, but I'm a High Churchman and prefer the Roman usage.) The Scriptural warrant for the fishing boat/dog type of sacramental is 1 Timothy 4:4-5. The Apostle says, "For every thing created by God is good and nothing to be refused, if received in thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." Except for the fact that Paul is knocking kashrut, this is very Jewish approach to the world. And so a sacramental reminds us of the goodness of each created being and the whole of creation and their utility to the Kingdom when used by members of the Kingdom. But beyond this, a sacramental has no particular theological significance. A scientist might call a sacramental relevant to Christian life on short timescales: the sanctification of the little things of daily life.

Marriage in Anglican theology falls into a second category defined by the Articles of Religion as, "states of life allowed in the Scriptures...for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." (Article XXV). In true High Church fashion, I regard these as Sacraments not of the Gospel or commonly called Sacraments, as the Article saith. These are important on scale of our natural lives. They aren't necessary to salvation. No one need use them. But they are the standard forms of care for great changes and long timescales in our life. For some, they can serve to deepen the work of God within us and our communities. The Apostle says of some women that they will be saved through their children. He was arguing against marriage at that time (on prudential grounds), but this comment shows he recognized that the raising of children could be means of relating to God. In fact, it's a good example of how our relating to God more deeply is very often couched as mimesis . By relating to our own children, we understand how God tries to relate to us. Something I often hear from parents who want to baptize their children is that they hear the words of the Father to Jesus in his baptism and want to say this with God to their own children.

The 1662 BCP says of Marriage (or the Solemnization of Matrimony):

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

The first part is interesting in that it does everything but say that Matrimony is a Sacrament. It is instead an "estate", a thing in which to stand, to be stable. Thus if I may dispense with explaining the eternal nature, relevance, and necessity of the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Baptism, Anglican theology recognizes three means or forms of blessing: sacramentals, estates, and Sacraments. Of course, to be consistent, I guess sickness and/or wellness are estates as well to include Unction, but anyone who has been sick or especially chronically ill might appreciate that there is a particular form of blessing and care for that estate. (Penance is for for spiritual illness after all. Hmmm...)

I think the blessing of a same gender union ideally is the blessing of an estate, a particular and not universal need. Like Penance (or Matrimony for that matter), all may, some should, and none must. The question is whether the estate of a same gender union is Matrimony or not. I would argue from the 1662 BCP that it isn't for the very reasons that opponents of homosexual love in general might use. Same gender unions don't arise from the primal union of Adam and Eve. Jesus didn't go to a gay wedding in Cana. Most obviously, same gender unions do not signify to us the mystical union between Christ and His Church. Nor could a gay couple procreate (using their own resources) for most of human history. Matrimony arises from Scriptural witness that connects male-female romantic love with the relationship between God and the covenant people. Matrimony is a mimetic exercise with distinct obligations of the partners. In former times, theologians often emphasized the New Covenant role of the husband and the Old Covenant role of the wife: sacrifice for one, obedience for the other. In modern times, we're having a lot of trouble dealing with gender complementarity, gender roles, equality between men and women in all spheres and life, the evils of patriarchy, and a past in which the equal status of men and women in Jesus Christ and elsewhere was denied. Yet even in this more egalitarian age, I think New Covenant role of a wife requires serious reflection. If a wife is supposed to imitate the Church, I think that could mean something quite different in the present era. But maybe I'll figure out what that is if I ever get married.

In our era, I think the confusion of same gender unions with "the way of a man with a maid" (or at least the lawful way) is logical. Matrimony has become egalitarian, so the notion that husband and wife might have distinct mystical significance and roles in a marriage seems old-fashioned, backward, and dangerous. So let me tell you a story. My mother was the first person in her particular white collar workplace not to leave when she had a child. I was very well taken care of when I was a baby. My parents worked different shifts. My mother ensured that I was fed the old-fashioned way using modern technology and the transfer of necessary nutriment took place when they changed shifts. My father recognized that the work my mother did was important to her flourishing (and possibly larger aims) and nobly inconvenienced himself in a variety of ways to make it happen. (I associate my father with household chores stereotypically associated with men and women). My mother realized that bringing me into the world was an important telos as well. In a world in which women try to be both mothers and active in the labor force (and often fail without support), I find the self-giving love of Christ for a Church pursuing actively his Reign to be quite palliative to the often falsely egalitarian modern marriages, in which husbands appreciate their wives' income (and children) but not the struggle that it takes to do it if relieving that struggle would hurt their own careers.

I suppose same gender unions could have that dynamic. In a lesbian relationship, one partner could have the kids, the other not. Surrogacy etc. allows all sorts of permutations with regards to reproduction, and I know the progeny of these relationships and think that they turned out very well. What worries me is that being gay or lesbian is a gift from God: an occurrence throughout the created order and thus the result of natural law. If God didn't give such a gift for a good and particular purpose, I think it would not be fitting, considering the prejudice humans show to those out of the mainstream in anything. I worry that we might try to incorporate gay and lesbian relationships into Matrimony, because we do not appreciate the unique charisms such relationships have in the Church and the world. How many times does a gay couple get asked, "Who's the woman?"? Well, from my reading of certain ancient texts, that's not how life-giving same-sex relationships work. To relate to someone in love of the same gender, you need to relate on the same level. The ancient world was obsessed with active and passive and violence and exploitation. That's not love. That's not a permanent and faithful union. That's not a mimesis of anything of things where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Part of our theological work with same gender unions must be about the unique charisms such relationships bring to the Church. This will be hard. In our discussions of civil marriage, we demand equality in all things, fearing that the equality of our citizenship depends on it. In the Church, we need not worry. Our equality lies in the Sacraments. But thinking about estates means thinking about gender distinctives or distinctives in gender relationality, the particularity of our creation, and how we participate in the divine life with one another. As I've written before, there's an eschatological hierarchy in all of this. A monk is in an estate. An anchorite is in an estate. And at the eschaton all estates end and merge into an estate in union with the Triune God.

I've argued before that the mimesis of same gender unions lies in the relationality of the members of the Body (with Christ as Head) or the members of the Trinity, following the ancient estate of adelpheia (signified through the rite of Adelphepoesis). But I'm open to any other ideas or arguments. In this time of theological reflection, I would urge us all to spend time in fellowship with faithful couples of all types in the Episcopal Church. See how unions solemnized by matrimony work. See how unions of two men or women work. See the gifts they bring to each other, the church, and the world. And then I urge brothers and sisters to pray on the how the life of God in relation to creation is reflected therein. Only then should the liturgizing begin.

P.S.: The rite *Christopher and his partner used is far and away the best I've seen. (Yes, I wrote part of it, but I only could write what I wrote because of the theological vision of the rite and its celebration of the unique charism of the union of two Godly men.) The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music needs to read it well before the next General Convention.