I've been attending the Wednesday night talks at my church the past few weeks, about the situation between the ECUSA and the rest of the Anglican Communion, so I'm going to write about that here. The rest of the Anglican Communion, with the possible exception of the Canadian branch, isn't very happy with the ECUSA. This is because we've consecrated several gay bishops and because we're looking into developing liturgies for blessing of same-sex unions. My parish actually already blesses same-sex unions, and has our bishop's permission to do so, but this is about developing liturgies for the whole national church to use.
A lot of the other churches, particularly in Africa, have much more restrictive views on homosexuality. In their view, the Bible forbids homosexual relationships and that's all there is to say about it. They've been able to tolerate the fact that we have gay priests, but gay bishops are more of a problem because of their broader role. Basically, a parish priest can sort of fly under the radar, but bishops are involved with each other internationally, and it's considered to be more the business of the whole Communion that the bishops are acceptable to everyone.
So now there's a push from the Anglican Communion for everyone to sign a covenant basically saying that they won't consecrate gay bishops or pursue liturgy for same-sex blessings unless and until the whole Communion decides in favor of doing so. If the ECUSA doesn't sign, we might be kicked out of the Anglican Communion, or demoted within it, or something to that effect. This won't have any temporal effects – the member churches are all independent as far as property and being able to ordain clergy and that sort of thing – but it will be kind of sad in the sense that we can't reconcile our differences and stick together.
Even so, I don't think we can sign it. I don't think the grounds for condemning homosexual behavior are strong enough to counter the weight of people's lived experience of being homosexual. We already ignore most of the Levitical code, so finding it prohibited there doesn't mean much. In the couple places it shows up in the New Testament, it's not at all clear whether they're talking about temple prostitution, or whether they're just saying that the existence of homosexuality is a consequence of the Fall (which doesn't necessarily mean that it's immoral in itself) or what. And honestly, even if it was much more definite, even if it said that homosexual relationships were flat-out wrong, I don't know if that would be convincing for me.
I think the Bible is important, but I think it's important as a record of people's understanding of and relationship with God, not as the final instruction manual for all times and places. I do think it can speak to us here and now, but I think it's also important to have a sense of the context of then and there. And I think people could have been mistaken in parts of their understanding of God and that some of those mistakes could have made it into the Bible. It's not that hard for people to take the cultural charactersitics that they feel are important and conflate them with their idea of the divine – we do it all the time!
And I don't see any evidence that homosexual relationships are innately harmful, and I do see evidence that many gay people have loving and permanent relationships just as many straight people do. And I also hear about people's experience of being gay, and how hard it is in our culture and how people feel marginalized and unwelcome. The church should be a place where people are welcomed and accepted for who they are, even if the rest of society doesn't want to accept them. And I see the gay people in my own parish and how they are part of the community and are very important in it, and how much we'd miss out if they weren't there – and I think it's much more likely that God is calling us all to work together, and what business of mine is their intimate personal life?
So I don't think that we can promise not to recognize the permanent families formed by same-sex couples, because I see those families every week, and I see that they are part of this community, part of the Body of Christ. And I don't think we can promise not to consecrate gay bishops because I don't think we can control God and decide who He's going to call. I don't think the ECUSA is out to consecrate gay bishops just to make a point or annoy people – I think it's been done because the people of those dioceses thought they were the best people for the jobs, regardless of their sexuality.
I am sad at the prospect of being out of communion with the other Anglican churches. I don't think the ECUSA should seek to leave the Anglican Communion. But I also don't think we should sacrifice the gay people in our churches in order to stay in communion. To me, that would seem to be taking the easy way out, to give in to pressure to marginalize people who already get enough of that in society at large.
And I do realize that my point of view might be really hard for someone from one of the African churches to understand. I realize that they might truly believe that homosexual relationships are really wrong and that we're making terrible mistakes by condoning this kind of behavior. And it might be that their consciences really won't allow them to stay in communion with us because of that disagreement, even if they might also be saddened by it.
But in that case, I think honesty is more important than communion. If we have to separate for a time in order to follow our consciences, that's better than denying our sense of God's call in order to stay together. My own belief is that homosexual relationships are okay and that God calls us to accept gay people and their relationships and for all of us to be one community. But if I'm wrong about that, and if the ECUSA is wrong about it, I also think we can trust God to get us back on track in His own time. I think it's better to be wrong with integrity than to be right by denying one's conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment