|
All Saints Church, Pasadena, California
God, Sex and Justice Task Force
Report INTRODUCTION On November 11, 1990, our Rector, George Regas, preached a sermon on "God, Sex and Justice." The sermon is attached to this report. After spelling out his- convictions -about heterosexual and homosexual relationships, he declared himself ready to begin blessing loving, life-long, same-sex relationships, and called upon the congregation to join him in celebrating and blessing such unions. In December of 1990, the rector appointed a task force to engage the entire parish in implementation of his decision. After more than a year of study and prayer together, we are now prepared to begin blessing such unions. We proclaim the compelling faith that calls us to this action in "Why We Are Blessing Same-Sex Unions" with which this report begins. The detailed rationale for our decision is spelled out in the pages that follow. We are compelled to act in blessing same-sex unions by the God whom we seek to serve. For too long we, like others, have remained silent and inactive while gay and lesbian people have suffered injustice in society and In our churches. Now we raise our voice in the name of God on behalf of gay and lesbian people, and Invite them into full acceptance in our parish. We will no longer exclude them from any of the sacred rites and symbols of our faith. We call upon the wider church, and upon all people, to join us in ending discrimination against gay and lesbian people and In welcoming them Into full participation in our society and our churches. This report Is intended as the beginning, not the end, of a continuing process of learning, and of listening for the clear voice of our Creator. We hope that all of the congregation and all of the wider community, heterosexual, gay and lesbian, will join us in this engagement. As you read what we believe and participate in conversation with us, we share with you three assumptions that come from our year of study and prayer: First, we believe deeply that God is calling us to this action. As a parish, we have already benefited from the contributions of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, the more so in the years since they have been given formal recognition among us. Their witness In our midst to God's powerful grace, our reading of Scripture and of the history of the church, and the mounting evidence of the social sciences -- all of these convince us of God's presence In our decision to bless same-sex unions. We celebrate this act of God in our midst. Second, we know that there is not unanimity on this question. We expect and understand the opposition to our decision. Within our congregation, we have listened to those who disagree with us. We intend to continue listening with open minds and hearts, trusting our bonds of love to keep us together. We have also heard opposition from those beyond our congregation, both from other Christians and from those outside the church. It is our intention to remain open to our critics, and to invite them into our on-going conversation. In taking the step that we are taking, we are inspired by the admonition of the Apostle Paul: "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2). Third, there is the clear need for a commitment by the congregation to engage in an on-going process of study and prayer with regard to the meaning and purpose of human sexuality. During this year, we have been impressed by the many ways in which the issue of blessing same-sex unions has driven us to face other profound related subjects, among them heterosexual marriage; the sexual experience of responsible single adults, heterosexual and homosexual; what we teach children and adolescents about sex; the sexual corruption of our society, from titillating advertising to hard-core pornography; the failure of the church-- -including our congregation --to be open to honest, God-blessed conversation and action regarding all of this. We give thanks to God for power and generous grace in this process, and for the resourceful love and courage of this congregation. May God bless all of us as we begin to facilitate God's blessing of same-sex unions. And may we honor God with our integrity and our unending gratitude. Respectfully submitted,
I. WHY WE ARE BLESSING SAME-SEX UNIONS We believe that God creates each person as unique and wonderful, and that God wants us to live In communities of faith as one human family in which all people are accepted and Included. We believe that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from communities of faith and from wide segments of society has caused great pain and constitutes a grievous sin against God. We believe that in the ministry and teaching of Jesus, God shows us how to live with a love that accepts and includes all people; and that through Jesus God breaks down "the dividing wall of hostility. . . and creates one new humanity" (Ephesians 2:14-15); and that in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, God opens to us a future in which we may live together with acceptance and inclusiveness. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides us to God's truth about living together In love , and empowers us to act with courage when someone Is excluded. We believe that in the Bible's story of God's involvement with people, God's deep desire to include all people in the family of faith is made clear, and when the Bible is read and heard by faithful people, it becomes God's powerful Word which transforms individuals, communities of faith and, ultimately, the entire human family and all of creation. We believe that God continues to reveal the truth, and that this community of faith seeks to discern God's true intention for the human family in several areas ' including the roles of men and women, racial and ethnic equality, and ecological responsibility. We believe that God intends us to live as sexual people, strengthened in God's service by the responsible use of our sexuality. We believe that the gift of sexuality is intended not solely for procreation, but also for personal fulfillment In enriching our lives. We believe that God creates diversity in sexual orientation and intends that the gift of sexuality be shared by homosexuals and by heterosexuals. We believe that God wants all of us to lead holy lives, whether as single people or as couples; that couples are called to life-long, loving, committed relationships; and that God's intention for all relationships to be loving and faithful extends to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. We believe that the Bible celebrates loving, life-long, committed relationships, while condemning relationships that are sexually exploitative, abusive or promiscuous, whether these relationships are heterosexual or homosexual. We believe that God is now leading this parish to bless the relationships of gay and lesbian couples in this congregation who are committed to the same standards of love and life-long fidelity as the Church upholds for heterosexual couples. We believe that this blessing of same-sex relationships is the clearest action the Church can take to demonstrate that gay and lesbian people are fully accepted and included In the life of this congregation. We believe that the Church's blessing of and support for such loving, life-long, committed relationships will create a healthier, more stable and more sacred human family for all of us. THEREFORE, It is our intention as a community of faith at All Saints Church in Pasadena, California, to confer God's blessing, through the priests of our parish, on loving, life-long, committed same-sex relationships, and to celebrate such unions within this parish family. This statement was adopted by the Rector, Wardens and Vestry of All Saints Church, Pasadena, California without a dissenting vote on November 3, 1991. II. WHAT WE HAVE HEARD SUMMARY In listening to the voices of the All Saints community, we have heard a diversity of thoughts, experiences, questions, fears, shame, anguish, hopes and joys, and affirmations concerning human love and sexuality and the relationship between sexuality and spirituality. We have heard strong support for the initiative of the rector reflected in more than eighty written communications, and from one hundred fourteen persons participating in the "Gays and Straights Together" workshop during the Festival of Life in February of 1991. We have also heard expressions of concern about possible negative consequences. To a limited extent, we have heard direct opposition to the initiative, including forty-two negative letters; but most of the strong opposition has been expressed orally and privately rather than publicly and in writing. Hopes have been expressed that this journey on which we are embarking will lead to a more inclusive and expansive Christ-like community in which this parish more fully accepts and celebrates diversity, in which Its members are more open to and comfortable with one another, and in which the pain Inflicted In the past by the church on lesbian and gay members will be healed. THE FORUM RESPONSE In two regular Sunday Rector's Forums and in three additional meetings with the congregation, the Task Force heard overwhelming support for the rector's Initiative. This was reinforced by the great majority of the more than eighty persons who returned the written response form provided at the original forums. The strong support was also evident in the written responses of the one hundred fourteen participants in the Festival of Life "Gays and Straights Together" workshop. Members of the Task Force have also read extensively, Including current periodical literature on homosexuality and research on the history of church relations with the gay and lesbian populations. The Task Force has been impressed by the response of church members to the process, with surprisingly large numbers attending most of the open meetings. This has reflected in particular the enthusiastic response of the gay and lesbian community. The openness of many gays and lesbians in these meetings has illuminated and inspired the work of the committee. There has been concern that the Task Force may not have heard an adequate sample of general reservations or opposition. The commitment to listening must, therefore, be reinforced. The written and oral responses came preponderantly from gay and lesbian persons. There will be additional opportunities for everyone to speak as the parish reviews the report of the Task Force. RESERVATIONS AND CONCERNS The reservations and concerns expressed most often by supporters and opponents of the blessing of same-sex unions were:
The Task Force reviewed with sympathy these and other concerns. There is validity to the concerns. No change of this sort can be implemented without controversy and pain. But members of the Task Force are confident that the blessing of same-sex unions will. have a positive overall. impact on the parish and the church at large. In this action, we are advancing a just response to a long-neglected cry for fairness, we are encouraging openness and honesty about human sexuality, and we are underscoring as well the depth of commitment in traditional marriage. As to the major concerns, the Task Force does not anticipate disciplinary action by the denomination. The convention of the national church in July rejected a narrow and rigid response to the Issues raised concerning homosexuality while affirming a course of openness and searching. Furthermore, the rector's proposal conforms to the recommendations of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs of the Episcopal Church. Anxiety lest the parish become dominated by homosexuals seems unrealistic. For several years the parish has openly recognized and supported GALAS, an organization for gay and lesbian members, without discernible negative consequences. Gays, lesbians and heterosexuals have long worked side by side, cooperatively, to strengthen the parish at every level from staff and vestry to lay committees and discussion groups. Indeed, confidence and mutual respect appear to have been enhanced as each group has come to know the other better. We understand the concern about sexual diversity felt in some families. We are impressed with the opportunity that this decision opens in terms of helping everyone in the congregation to understand sexuality better. At a time of changing patterns in the structure of families, we can strengthen families and bring more support to the children of these families, both traditional and non-traditional. There clearly is a need for more discussion and better understanding of sexuality, a problem affecting the national church as well. The decision of the rector on blessing same-sex unions has resulted in only a handful of membership withdrawals and there are no signs of deep and harmful division. - Indeed, the controversy seems to have been widely accepted as an opportunity for open and honest discussion rather than anger and isolation. There must, however, be continued sensitivity to those who, for one reason or another, may not have felt free to express their reservations or who feel discomfort with the change. FEARS AND HOPES The workshop on "Gays and Straights Together" invited expression of fears as well as hopes. An opportunity was provided at the workshop for anonymous comments, encouraging complete freedom of expression. Expressions of hope outnumbered expressions of fear. But the fears clearly need to be addressed. The fears most frequently expressed, according to an analysis by Andrew Minko of the responses of the one hundred fourteen participants, were:
The hopes most commonly expressed by the participants, Minko found, were:
III. THE BIBLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY SUMMARY Jesus made no recorded comment about same-sex relationships. There are, however, passages in the Old and New Testaments which appear to refer to homosexuality. Scholars are not agreed as to the meaning of some of these references. Many modern scholars have concluded that interpretations of some passages, which have been understood in the past to proscribe same-sex activities, are incorrect. We share the judgment of the many scholars who have concluded that the admonitions and proscriptions of the Bible regarding homosexuality are generally directed against exploitative sexual relations, not against committed and permanent same-sex relationships. The global message of the Bible accepts all people within the community of faith, including those in gay or lesbian relationships. OUR UNDERSTANDING We understand the Bible to be the story of God's involvement with humanity and of our response to God. It is clear that, from the earliest days of our creation by God, we have not lived in ways that are consistent with God's love. God's response has been to love us more, and to show us that love in an infinity of ways, which we call grace. Also, we understand revelation to be an ongoing process, not static or unchanging, but rather growing and maturing as generations pass. While we may disagree among ourselves about interpretations of specific Bible verses, we are enveloped by God's love and called to respond to each other in ways that reflect that love. Our understanding and the revelation of God are deeply influenced by the Bible. We are convinced that understanding the Bible requires an understanding of the complex process of translating ancient words and of the social and historical context In which the words were written. The Old Testament was written In Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek. Even today, the meaning of some words remains obscure. Some Christians reject this emphasis on research and Interpretation. They believe that the process of translation which the scriptures have undergone has been without error, and they are confident that they grasp the Intent of the authors. We do not agree. We are impressed with the grave risk of abuse in neglecting Biblical scholarship as was demonstrated when the letters of Paul and the words of Genesis were used to justify slavery. We are seeking in this report to clarify the complexity of Interpretations of pertinent Biblical passages. But in that process, we have sought to avoid being distracted from the teachings we judge most Important, Including the Biblical celebration of the worth of the individual and Christ's essential commitment to justice for all. BIBLICAL CITATIONS Through history, those condemning homosexuality have drawn heavily on the story of Sodom in Genesis and on the proscriptions of the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have come to agree with those Biblical scholars who have concluded that the story of Sodom delineates God's judgment of a people who rejected hospitality and embraced violence. It is not an indictment per se of homosexuality, nor does it refer to committed relationships between people of the same sex. The story in Genesis 19 describes Abraham's nephew, Lot, who lives with his family in a city known for material excess, for neglect of the poor, and for Idolatry. Because of the city's unfaithfulness to the God of Abraham, its destruction was near at hand before the events that have made it so notorious took place. Lot was visited by angels, and the men of the city surrounded the house, demanding to "know" them, a language which suggests that rape was Intended. Lot offered his daughters, in place of the angels, but the offer was refused. The city was destroyed for its sinfulness. Multiple references that follow, In the Old and New Testaments, make clear that Sodom was judged for Idolatry and Inhospitality, and for neglect of the poor and the hungry (see Isaiah 1, 3, and 13; Jeremiah 23; Ezekiel 16; Amos 4; Zephaniah 2; Matthew 11; Romans 9). Jesus referred to the sin of Sodom in three of the Gospels, in a context supporting the understanding that Sodom's sin was inhospitality (Matthew 10, Mark 6, Luke 10). Passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are also cited in condemning homosexuality. The references to homosexuality are included among rules and codes, including dietary mandates, that appear to have been written to assert for the Israelites that they were set apart by their God from the surrounding tribes in the desert. The codes explicitly prohibited practices common to the Canaanites, who, for example, practiced male and female cult prostitution. We share the view of many scholars that It is this ritual practice which is being proscribed in Leviticus 18 and 20, and in Deuteronomy 23. These passages do not appear to condemn committed same-sex relationships. Study of the Old Testament for guidance on the Issue of homosexuality has also focused on the creation stories In Genesis. These stories are often cited as evidence that God intended only one kind of sexual activity, that Is, procreative heterosexual intercourse. There are two accounts in the opening chapters of Genesis, both telling of the creation of man and woman, one of them emphasizing the fruitful purpose in the male-female bond. The Episcopal Church rejects a teaching that the only morally acceptable sexual activity is procreative Intercourse between a man and a woman, both fertile, without contraception. We affirm that all people, including gays and lesbians, are part of God's created order. Indeed, the church accepts the importance of the shared enjoyment of the gift of sexuality beyond procreation in strengthening the bond of loving couples. In regard to the New Testament, passages from Paul's letters are often quoted in condemning sexual relations between persons of the same sex. Analysis of the social context and the language used suggests that Paul was not expressing an opinion about committed relationships but was opposing promiscuity and exploitative relations. In his Letter to the Romans, Paul refers (1:26-27) to "men giving up natural intercourse with women," and to men committing shameless acts with men." We are impressed by the interpretation of the passages by Prof. John Boswell of Yale University. He has concluded that Paul was not referring to a committed relationship between a person naturally attracted to another of the same sex. In making a case against idolatry, Paul appears to have been using the analogy of promiscuous same-sex relationships. Also cited as evidence of Paul's opposition to homosexuality are his First Letter to the Corinthians (6:9-10) and his First Letter to Timothy (1:8-11). Again, our understanding of these passages is that he was not referring to committed same-sex relationships. Misunderstandings may have been generated by two Greek words, malakoi and arsenakoitai, used in the letters. They have been translated as pejorative references to homosexuality. But other uses of the words in the Bible indicate that Paul in fact was challenging loose or wanton behavior, not specifically homosexuality, and condemning homosexual prostitution, not committed relationships. IV. HISTORY, PRECEDENT AND LITURGY SUMMARY The blessing of permanent, committed relationships between people of the same sex, despite controversy and disagreement, has been a practice within Christian churches for centuries. It does not appear to be In conflict with the canons of the Episcopal Church. In fact, the practice has been commended by the Standing Commission on Human Affairs of the national Episcopal Church, in 1991. However, the General Convention of 1991 did not choose to move in this direction. Nevertheless, All Saints Church is prepared to move ahead on this issue at this time. HISTORY There is evidence that same-sex unions have been blessed within the Christian Church for more than one thousand years. This practice has coexisted with the persecution and rejection of homosexuals, evidence of the continuing conflict that has beset Christians as they struggle with issues related to sexuality. There never seems to have been a consensus within the Christian community on many of the Issues related to human sexuality and, most particularly, on issues related to homosexuality. The existence of Christian liturgies specifically blessing the unions of same-sex couples has been traced back at least to the eighth century in on-going research by Prof. John Boswell, chairman of the history department at Yale University. Despite hostility, including violent persecution of homosexuals in recent centuries, the liturgies have survived and are used to this day in a variety of places, including Europe. Heterosexual marriages in the first centuries of the Christian church were a civil matter. It was not until the early thirteenth century that the sacrament of marriage was established within the Christian church for the union of a woman and a man. PRECEDENTS AND PRACTICES Attitudes towards homosexuality have undergone changes over the centuries. It would appear that the normality of homosexuality may have been more generally accepted in the distant past than in recent years. This may explain the ancient establishment of church services blessing same-sex unions. Only In recent years has there been a renewed study of the Issue by most churches. Churches have generally exercised broad discretion in extending their blessing on people as well as Inanimate objects. The practice may have been trivialized by too general an application, but the blessing of committed relationships appears clearly consistent with Christian teaching and tradition. The role of the church in traditional marriage is that of witness, blessing the commitment of a man and a woman to lifelong relationship, not creating that covenant. "By tradition and theological precept, couples are themselves the ministers of their covenants," It has been pointed out by the Homophile Commission of the Diocese of Rochester. "By the grace of God these couples aspire to be life-long and faithful in mutuality and support through their covenant. The church celebrates and affirms that which already exists." This understanding of the theological basis of the role of the Church in the sacrament of marriage would seem to justify the same church role for "any two persons who are willing to make a life-long covenant of fidelity and love with each other," the Rochester Commission concluded. We agree. Nevertheless, opposition to any church action implying approval of sexual activity by homosexuals remains the rule in most Christian communities. The official position of most churches, Including the Episcopal Church and others In the Anglican Communion, recognizes the condition of homosexuality sympathetically but approves of sexual activity only between a man and woman bound in marriage. These policies have, in turn, led to prohibitions against the ordination of homosexuals and lesbians, and also heterosexuals who engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. This has had the effect of demanding celibacy or traditional marriage as a condition for ordination. As to marriage, the canons of the Episcopal Church do not proscribe the blessing of same-sex unions but they make provision only for traditional marriage. SEEKING CHANGE The Episcopal Church is among a number of churches that are currently rethinking their positions on homosexuality. In 1976 the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that "homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance and pastoral concern and care of the church." In 1988 the General Convention called for dialogue on the question of human sexuality, with focus on homosexuality, while reaffirming opposition to the ordination of sexually active homosexuals. In 1990, the House of Bishops urged an Intensification of the search for answers, spelling out in clear terms the challenge: "We recognize that it would not be faithful to the Gospel to ignore the anguished cries of homosexual men and women who feel hurt, rejected, and angry by what they see about them. At the same time, we recognize that It would not be faithful to the Gospel to Ignore or simply label as homophobic the anguished cries of men and women who feel hurt, rejected, and angry that what they see as sin Is not being reaffirmed as such." The Standing commission on Human Affairs this year reported a disappointing response to the request for denomination-wide study of human sexuality. The 1991 General Convention rejected proposals that would have allowed each diocese to determine the issue of ordination of homosexuals. The convention also opposed any change in the stand of the church prohibiting sexual activity outside traditional marriage. But it resisted efforts to narrow the rules and urged a broader engagement in the study of sexuality. One of the most effective descriptions of the attitude of the national church is contained in the report of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs: "A strong majority of this Commission believes that it is possible and desirable for Christian communities fully to support marriages of men and women and their families, to bless, safeguard and strengthen them, without withholding support and blessing from persons of the same sex who are in faithful, committed relationships, seeking in them characteristics of sacrificial love and abiding care for the other. The firm intention of a lifelong covenant with these characteristics is the context for the offering of God's blessing and the community's commitment of full support. To all disciples in these covenant relationships the challenge of the Gospel calls them to live in pureness of heart and to grow together in ways that will show forth to the world aspects of the faithful and sacrificial love of God and to find in their mutual care greater strength to serve the community. " V. HUMAN SEXUALITY AND LOVE SUMMARY Our study of blessing same-sex unions has made evident the importance of a better understanding of love and sexuality in the lives of all of us. There is an evident need for more openness and for better education so that each of us may more fully and responsibly respond to God's gift of sexuality. In addressing the sexual diversity in our parish, we also have come to recognize commonalities in relationships, whether that relationship is between a man and a woman or two of the same sex. The relationships we celebrate are rooted in fidelity, committed to the mutual growth nurturing and benefit of both partners, free of exploitation and promiscuity. In these relationships, a unique spirituality is discovered. Openness regarding our relationships, not least the sexual dimension, can enrich the community as well as ourselves. Communication can also help break down the barriers of bigotry. Informed understanding is essential. That is particularly evident in responding to homosexuality. We share the view that homosexuality is a condition, not a matter of choice or whim. In accepting that view, we acknowledge the uncertainties among those who are studying this Issue and we hasten to underscore the Importance of respecting an individual's sexual orientation regardless of speculation about the origins of that orientation. In facing the issue of sexuality, we must show a special concern for the families of the parish and the needs of their children. The changing pattern of families in American society and in our parish, with the traditional family now comprising only a small portion of the population, makes even more important our concern for all families, be they traditional, single parent or of same-sex parents. We are hopeful that the engagement of this issue by the congregation will result in a better understanding of our sexuality by each of us. This, in turn, can strengthen us Individually and enrich our relationships, including faithful commitments to life partners. UNDERSTANDING SEXUALITY To be an effective community, accepting the wholeness of our humanity, we cannot ignore our sexuality. We need to be open to conversation between men and women, gay and non-gay persons, single people and those in long-term committed relationships, old, young, and in between. We need to talk together about what it means to be basically sexual. The word 'sexuality' Is a comprehensive term which refers to more than the reproductive organs and overt sexual relations. This has been well expressed by James B. Nelson, professor of Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary in New Brighton, MN: "To be sure, sexuality is not the whole of our personhood, but It is a very basic dimension of our personhood.... Sexuality Is our self -understanding and way of being in the world as a male and female .... Sexuality is a sign, a symbol, and a means of our call to communication and communion.... Still, it is crucial to bear in mind that sexuality involves much more than what we do with our genitals. More fundamentally, It is who we are as body-selves who experience the emotional, cognitive, physical and spiritual need for intimate communion-- human and divine." The church cannot ignore the contemporary challenge of affirming the conventional without denigrating the non-traditional. At a time when a majority of the adults in the United States live outside traditional marriage, the church inevitably must consider whether It can continue to command only celibacy for those not in traditional marriage. But the church also has a new responsibility to affirm its opposition to promiscuity, which can only destroy or cheapen the committed and faithful relationships celebrated in the Christian faith. The formal position of the church is widely challenged. It is questioned by the young, many of them from families traumatized by divorce, who insist on trial relationships before engaging in marriage. The rule is questioned by older persons, alone through divorce or the death of a spouse, who may feel barred from another traditional marriage for a variety of legal, economic and social reasons, but want a committed, Intimate relationship. And the rule Is challenged by gays and lesbians, who appeal for recognition of their committed relationships.. The choice of celibacy or estrangement from the church does not seem consistent with our view of wholeness and inclusiveness of all persons. But that makes the search for solutions no easier. We are, nevertheless, confident that we will find our way, in response to these challenges. We must rely on faith, tradition, scripture, and reason as we respond, seeking the strengths of the past, rooted In the rich history of Christ's church, while welcoming contemporary research and scientific insights, the better to meet the needs of the present. RESPONDING TO HOMOSEXUALITY In all probability, gays and lesbians have been part of All Saints Church from its founding. But only in recent years has their presence been officially recognized and their contribution more fully appreciated. The decision to bless same-sex unions is yet another step along the path to full integration of gays and lesbians in the life of the parish breaking down another barrier of bigotry. From a parish study group in 1985 grew proposals for formal meetings of gays and lesbians. Initially, the meetings were held privately because some of the participants were concerned about being publicly identified. From these clandestine meetings emerged Gays and Lesbians/All Saints (GALAS), an accepted part of the parish, with its regular and open meetings formally announced in the Bulletin and in the printed Sunday liturgy. Many leaders of the church, including members of the Vestry and Parish Council, are drawn from this group. From the first meetings of GALAS, however, members have expressed- dissatisfaction about the absence of a ritual to support permanent, committed unions of same-sex couples. Discussions between GALAS members and the rector over the years influenced the decision, announced in November of 1990, to proceed with blessing same-sex unions. The importance of this step has been made manifest to task force members as they have listened to gay and lesbian members. In this process we have all come to understand better the pain and suffering which gays and lesbians have endured in the face of isolation, rejection and prejudice. The congregation has had an opportunity to understand gays and lesbians as whole persons, not viewed only in terms of their sexual orientation. In this process we have been forced to face the depths in which churches have been infected by bigotry. We have come to understand better the negative consequences of rejecting God's can to love our neighbor, and the sin of judging some of God's people as not worthy of our love. Cultural and religious beliefs and ignorance have contributed to bigotry, discrimination, and injustice against people of gay and lesbian orientation, causing great personal and social suffering and anxiety. In open communication regarding sexuality, and in more complete understanding of homosexuality, we can better find the path away from the enervating shadow of bigotry and into the energizing light of the accepting love Christ taught. HOMOSEXUALITY: CHOICE OR CONDITION? The debate over causes and origins has usually been at the center of the continuing controversy over homosexuality. Those ready to condemn homosexuality have often argued that it is a reversible condition or, at least a condition that can readily be repressed. Most homosexuals argue otherwise, asserting that it is a condition to which they have come, not by choice, but by orientation. The findings regarding the question of choice vs. condition from the experts reflect uncertainty but also growing agreement (1) that many, if not all the factors contributing to sexual orientation formation appear to be beyond the conscious control of the individual, (2) that a person's sexual orientation Is established at a very early age, and (3) that a number of factors appear to be involved. The uncertainty is not surprising. Sexuality has many mysterious components that defy scientific explanation. The field of psychology has been strongly influenced, until recent years, by Freud's view that homosexuality is the result of arrested or regressed development. The situation has been further confused by claims of successful reorientation of homosexuals, claims which appear under careful examination to reflect, if valid at all, most exceptional cases. The experience and understanding of homosexuals was well expressed by Rose Mary Denham, addressing the United Methodist Church. She had been denied ordination on the basis of her sexual orientation. The Methodists, like the Episcopalians, bar sexually active homosexuals from ordination. "Some say that it is not I that they (the church) judge, but my 'sin,' my lifestyle, that we must all remember to hate the sin and love the sinner," she said. "I don't buy that. I don't do lesbian, I am a lesbian." As the Rev. Dr. John MacDougall so aptly said in her behalf, "As far as the church is concerned, Rose Mary has not committed an offense, she is an offense." The Right Reverend William E. Swing, bishop of the Diocese of California with headquarters in San Francisco, also had articulated the anomaly, noting that "Through history the homosexual child has been told that he or she is morally defective from birth. Other children, heterosexual children, are born good, and homosexuals are taught that they are uniquely fallen creatures, born evil, something less than human." One of the most effective researchers among the professionals, seeking a better understanding of homosexuality Is Dr. John Money, professor of medical psychology In the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and professor of pediatrics at The John Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine. He reviews the research in his book, "Gay, Straight, and In-Between, the Sexology of Erotic Orientation." He summarizes his conclusions by saying: "In the causation of homosexuality, the basic principle is not biological determinism versus social, mental, moral determinism. The basic principle Is developmental determinism, which pertains to the developmental history of when the brain becomes homosexualized (or correspondingly heterosexualized), to what degree, for how long, and how immutably. Whether the determining agents of homosexuality are innate and biological or acquired and social is beside the point. The point is that they are determinants, no matter where they come from, or when they occur .... On the basis of today's store of scientific knowledge, the best answer that can be given today to the question of causation is that homosexuality and heterosexuality develop in stages, and have more than one contributing cause." Dr. Money also addressed the issue of choice: "The concept of voluntary choice is as much in error here as in its application to (left and right) handedness, or to native language. You do not choose your native language as a preference, even though you are born without it. ... So also with sexual status or orientation, which --- whatever its genesis --- also may become assimilated and locked into the brain as monosexually homosexual or heterosexual, or as bisexually a mixture of both." BUT WHAT OF FAMILIES? Homosexuality stirs anxiety in many traditional families. Some parents are afraid to talk about gays and lesbians with their children. Some fear that contact with homosexuals will affect the sexual orientation of their children, and that blessing same-sex unions will encourage an increase in homosexuality. We believe that the anxiety Is unfounded but needs to be addressed candidly and with understanding. We do not know all the answers. We are, however, convinced that honest and open education about sexuality strengthens the family and its capacity for love. Sexual diversity is an inescapable reality, always has been, and needs to be addressed as part of that instruction in sexuality. Understanding diversity, and encountering a diverse population, can help overcome prejudice. Sexual orientation Is not casually communicated, as Dr. Money's research dramatizes. There is no evidence that the sexual orientation of parents determines the orientation of their children. In speaking of children and the family, it is important to be aware that a large number of gay and lesbian members of All Saints Church are providing loving support for children, as teachers and care providers, as extended family members and friends, and also as parents The nature of the traditional American family is in transition. This is clearly exemplified at All Saints Church. A recent Parish survey indicates that the traditional family of mother, father and children living together constitutes less than fifteen per cent of our membership. The dramatic changes In the American household in the last decade reflect changing demographics, a high rate of divorce, economic necessity, the dynamic role of women in the work place. Another factor is the less recognized yet powerful movement of gays and lesbians seeking recognition of their committed relationships, including the growing numbers of same-sex couples raising children in a loving, nurturing family environment. A mission for All Saints Church, therefore, is to acknowledge the ongoing changes in the traditional family unit, seeking to serve all types of families--traditional, single parent or same-sex parents --in recognition that all children deserve our interest and care, regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents. By embracing the diversity inherent in gay and lesbian couples seeking a blessing of their union at All Saints Church, our children may escape the prevalent intolerance and bigotry. In reaching out in this way, the church can also ease any stigma of difference that might develop for the children of same-sex unions just as we work to ease the pain that may be felt by the children of divided families. VI. WHAT COMES NEXT? The Task Force has not charted a detailed plan for the future. Its function has been to understand the importance of the step we are taking, in blessing the committed relationships of same-sex couples, and to share with the congregation the challenge that this poses. It is evident, however, that much remains to be done on the Issue of homosexuality in particular and the broader subject of sexuality. Many remain troubled by- the- decision to bless same-sex unions. Homophobia, misunderstandings, sincere differences, lingering questions, and persistent doubts cannot be resolved or addressed to the satisfaction of everyone in a single year of study and discussion. We have spoken openly and sincerely, acknowledging the uncertainties that remain, the evolutionary character of many of our understandings. The parish now needs to make a commitment to the search for answers to these perplexing Issues. There is an extraordinary need for better understanding of our sexuality. This can be helped by open dialogue and discussion. And it can be helped by continuing education in the knowledge we have of sexuality through a program of teaching and listening for everyone In the parish, including the children, as may be age appropriate. We would recommend some specific steps to move our parish ahead on these relevant and pressing matters: -- A standing committee, to coordinate the parish needs for a better understanding of sexuality, should be appointed. We would urge that it be created and at work by Jan. 1, 1991. --We recommend that this report be widely circulated in the congregation, and that we engage in vigorous dialogue on the content and implications of this report. -- The committee would have a special responsibility to work with those at every level of the parish who already are engaged In education, so that the sexuality dimension will be included, as may be appropriate. Through forums, special classes and small group discussions, this work can also be fruitfully expanded. We need to be intentionally inclusive and sensitive to the diversity of our parish, not only in terms of sexual orientation, but also differences in culture, age, gender, marital status, life situation and personal experience. -- The committee can also serve to perpetuate the study and the listening of this task force as the parish remains engaged In issues that are changing, always open to new information and respectful of dissent as well as support. In this way, we all can strengthen our relationships, including the life-long commitments of couples, while better comprehending homophobia and other forces that breed separation and suspicion. In this way, also, we can undergird our commitment to be an inclusive, accepting and loving community. While acknowledging that more work remains to be done, while recognizing the uncertainties that cloud our work, we believe that the course we have undertaken Is the correct one. We are convinced that there should now be no further delay in implementing the decision of the rector to bless the covenants of men and of women committed to life-long relationships in same-sex unions. APPENDIX 1. The Rector's sermon of Nov. 11, 1990.
updated 17 March 2003, webmaster |