I am not a gay person and in preparing these remarks I do not
presume to speak for anyone else, much less for the gay and lesbian community. Since I
believe all of us present are familiar with the basic arguments about homosexuality and
its place in the Church I have spent most of the time allotted for this presentation on
where I think we are headed and how we might proceed and I hope that I have honored and
understood the Presiding Bishop's instructions in this matter. We live in an age during
which, as some wag paraphrasing Oscar Wilde said, "The love that dare speak its name
has become the love that won't shut up. "Like it or not, the Church today must deal
forthrightly with the matter of homosexuality which has brought us here today. As we
gather at the end of the twentieth century, most of the "hot button" issues
which confront our church are related to issues of sexuality: homosexuality and the
blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of women and sexually active gay and lesbian
persons, inclusive theological language and gender-related issues in general, abortion,
chastity outside of marriage, the appropriate means of HIV/AIDS education and prevention,
sex education in general and biblical authority as it relates to all of those issues. It
is not the Church that has set this agenda, but the world. I believe the Incarnation is
all about God letting the world set the agenda that God's grace may abound.
There is no scriptural support for homosexuality or the Church's
acceptance of it, except in the broadest sense of the admonitions to love all people and
exercise pastoral concern for them, nor is there in Holy Scripture any understanding of
the nature of homosexuality, as it is generally understood today. One cannot make an
unambiguous case for homosexuality from scripture anymore than one can make such a case
for pacifism or the remarriage of divorced persons, as it is widely practiced in the
church today. Nor, try as they might, can people make an unequivocal case for or against
nuclear power, human servitude, abortion, genetic engineering, cloning or a host of other
contemporary concerns. As bound as we are to take Holy Scripture as our chief guide in
matters moral and spiritual, the scriptures by themselves are often not sufficient
resources for the decisions we must make. Hence, our cherished Anglican stool of
scripture, tradition, reason/experience and the ever-present guidance of the Holy Spirit;
the one whom the Father will send in Jesus' name who will teach us everything and remind
us of all that he has said (JOHN 14:26). As we all know, Jesus Himself never said a word
about homosexuality.
In an oft quoted remark at the General Convention in Indianapolis,
the Bishop of Long Island, referring to a resolution on a matter of sexuality proposed by
one of his episcopal brothers remarked: "That won't fly in the streets of
Brooklyn." Another bishop responded to the effect that "we don't do theology in
the streets". I heard that and I have wrestled with it and wondered: if not in the
streets, then where? Jesus did "do" theology in the temple in Jerusalem at least
twice and we know that he occasionally spoke up in synagogues, as in Nazareth and
Capernaum. Other than that, his teaching and preaching seems to have taken place on the
highways and byways of Galilee and the streets of Jerusalem. In short, Jesus
"did" theology in dialogue with His world, often the least acceptable parts of
it, as we must do in dialogue with ours. God's action in the world and God's continuing
self-revelation is not limited to the councils of the Church.
Christians who are homosexual in orientation and behavior do not see
that behavior to be sinful in the context of fidelity and mutuality, nor do many others of
us. I believe that most gay and lesbian Christians do not believe that they have chosen a
homosexual lifestyle and do not wish to entice others to embrace that which they feel they
themselves have not chosen. (Whether the origin of their orientation is hereditary or
environmental or both is, I believe, of no consequence.) Their attitudes toward privacy or
public recognition vary, as greatly as does their desire to have their unions blessed or
to be ordained. What I believe the wide variety of Christians who are gay and lesbian seek
in common is to see the Church stand with them, as they believe their Lord does.
In practice the Episcopal Church in recent years has become more
accepting of persons who are homosexual and in some cases of those who are sexually active
in a context of mutuality and fidelity. In authoritative statements the Episcopal Church,
while offering pastoral support, does not through its all-important liturgical formulas
(lex orandi, lex credendi) accept or bless such persons and their faithful commitments.
For persons looking to the Church to lead the way in accepting them as fully human and
responsible, the impact of the former does not outweigh that of the latter.
Just as Jesus is known to us more as a man of action than as a man
of thought and we know more of what He did than of what he said, so it seems that His
theological reflections often occurred as explanations of what he was (sometimes it would
appear almost impulsively) doing, as in the case of the man born blind in the ninth
chapter of John's Gospel. Although the "orthodox" would have us believe that
orthopraxis proceeds from orthodoxy, perhaps it is sometimes the other way around. That is
to say, preaching what we practice may be as important as practicing what we preach.
Perhaps this is a way out of our ecclesial dilemma. Perhaps, on the other hand, it is
precisely this which people who hold the traditional, we may say "orthodox",
point of view most fear.
Although I am better acquainted with those who favor the ordination
of persons in faithful, monogamous, life-long relationships and of the blessing of such
relationships, than I am with those who are opposed to them, I believe that on both sides
there are sincere, Christ loved and loving persons, believers, of strong convictions which
cannot be reconciled as long as they are placed within the context of what Krister
Stendahl, Professor of Divinity Emeritus of Harvard Divinity School, calls the
"ethics of decision making", as opposed to the "ethics of character".
If we continue to function in a "win/lose" mode we will have winners and losers
which in the context of the Kingdom means we will have only losers. Those who leave will
lose and those who stay will lose, for the Kingdom which the Church foreshadows, is a
Kingdom for all believers.
As an analysis of the current situation of our churches, as well as
a possible entree into a way to work through our dilemma, I take the liberty of presenting
some thoughts in these hopefully pre-concordat days by Krister Stendahl, a distinguished
Lutheran scholar whom I have previously cited. I quote from a paper that the Emeritus
Bishop of Stockholm wrote to the bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in
February of 1994 and which he subsequently shared with the bishops of the First Province
of the Episcopal Church at one of their retreats. (As far as I know, it is unpublished.)
"Churches, and not least their bishops, are tempted to think
that unless we take clear and unified stands, the authority of the church and the
faithfulness to the Scriptures will suffer loss. Paul knew that temptation. But in Corinth
he learned that such an attitude comes out of a secular, he calls 'carnal' (I Cor 3:1),
way of thinking about the church on the model of competition between schools of
philosophy. In that third chapter he casts about for other images, architectural and
agricultural, to make his point: While I am convinced of being right in my views, that
does not settle the matter, let us work side by side in full conviction (cf. Rom 14:5),
leaving the judgment to God. 'Do not judge before time...' (4:1-5). Such an attitude may
strike the world as unwise or dangerously open-minded, but there it is.
"Churches are not very good at maintaining the distinction
between commandments and advice or opinions. Also here Paul is a good guide (I Cor 7). He
takes care to distinguish between what he sees as the Word of the Lord and the words of
Paul, (vv 10 and 12). It is here he gives his own opinion instead of pressing a word of
Scripture, as can always be done, to yield an answer with scriptural authority (v 25). And
he ends this section by saying about his personal opinions 'and I think that I too have
the Spirit of God.' He does not say 'I know.' It should be of great interest to the church
that this attitude of Paul's is found in the only section where he deals explicitly and
extensively with matters of sexuality. In Romans 1 his comments are part of his general
picture of Gentile, i.e.,Greco-Roman depravity, and in I Cor. 6 we have a kindred list of
vices, also including idolatry. My point is this: Let us not rush into a mood and language
of authority but relearn Paul's: On this one I have no Word from the Lord but my tentative
advice is...
" Perhaps we should also recall that the truly devout bible
reading Christians of Lutheran piety did not read the Scriptures so much in the anxious
decision making mode, seeking divine answers to preconceived questions. They rather read
attentively and extensively, the Bible was their whole library, their whole literature.
They were shaped by the whole story, the whole Bible as it entered their subconscious and
formed their thinking and sensitivities. For them the Bible played more into what is
called the ethics of character than the ethics of decision making. We should be aware of
the ways in which the ethics of decision making stifles spirituality and forces
right/wrong dichotomies on situations that may not allow for such, while ethics of
character often come closer to both reality and biblical modes of evaluation.
"While Christians usually, and correctly, criticize the world
for its excessive and exploitative preoccupation with sex, it seems that the churches have
themselves become mesmerized by questions of sexuality. Few issues seem to be more
polarizing or consume more energy in hierarchies and assemblies. It is time to remember
that the sixth commandment is only one of ten, and that originally the words 'You shall
not commit adultery' were to protect men from having other men steal their wife or wives,
as is obvious to anyone who knows his Old Testament stories. Which goes to remind us that
in both Judaism and Christianity sexual ethics has evolved and will evolve out of the
sacred interplay between Scripture, tradition and human experience and understanding,
scientific and socio-psychological. So it has been with our cosmology, with our
understanding of slavery, and, except in the United States, with the death penalty... The
Church and the scriptures live by interpretation, not by repristination. Faithful
interpretation is faith filled creativity.
"To cut a long story short, I think the two foci of a Christian
teaching on responsible sexuality are fidelity and mutuality. While the church
traditionally has been forceful in teaching fidelity, the church's record on mutuality has
been weak indeed. Even the very emphasis on fidelity, not to speak of pre-marital
virginity, was in actuality applied more forcefully to women than to men. As a Bible
reader I note with interest that the mutuality theme breaks through in Paul's chapter on
sexuality when he counsels mutual consent and balances the patriarchal pattern of the
husband's ownership of the wife's body with 'and likewise the husband does not rule over
his own body, but the wife does' (I Cor 7:4f), a statement remarkable in its time.
"As the churches assess their teaching about sexuality, it
would be reasonable to expect that Item One on the agenda should be a radical repentance
for the dehumanizing neglect of mutuality as one of the two cornerstones of our sexuality,
the cornerstone that became our stumbling block...
"It strikes me as of great significance that exactly in matters
pertaining to marriage, divorce, celibacy, both the gospel material and Paul's teaching
include a, perhaps surprising, caveat, a warning against what Jesus elsewhere speaks of as
'they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they
themselves will not move them with their finger.' (Mt 23:4)
"When Jesus in Matthew's gospel restores the original intention
of marriage, without the divorce Moses was forced to allow for, Matthew has the disciples
say 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.' Jesus'
answer is: 'Not all can receive this word, but only those to whom it is given' (19:10-11).
And the text continues with the famous words about celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven, thereby breaking the dominance of procreation as governing sexual behavior. Here
comes that same caveat: You cannot make it obligatory, or in Jesus' words 'The one who is
able to receive it, let him receive it' (v 12). "
Also in Paul, who was much given to laying down the rules without
ifs and buts, we find the same note when he witnesses to his preference for a celibate
life for the Lord. 'I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift
from God one of one kind and one of another' (I Cor 7:7).
"For us Lutherans", Stendahl concludes, " it should
not be strange to listen to that note. The miseries and moral distortions of an obligatory
celibacy was not an insignificant factor in Luther's work for reforming the church. Thus
it cannot be right, biblical, Christian, or Lutheran to lay the obligation of celibacy on
gays and lesbians as the only option for their sexuality, or perhaps we should rather say,
for their love."
It is noteworthy that a bishop of a "confessional" church
has come to a conclusion so much like that of our "Blue Book" Report on the
Blessing of Same-Sex Relationships, where it states: "Anglicanism has refused to
adopt an authoritative magisterium or confessional stance. It has never insisted on
deciding for one side of a truly ambiguous question at the expense of the values
represented in its opposite....Anglicanism's authority has consistently grown from
pastoral decisions rather than ideological ones."(p.296)
It does not seem possible for the Episcopal Church to further define
its position on homosexuality as long as we continue to pursue what Stendahl calls a
"decision making ethic". Yet, postponing such definition seems irresponsible
unless we are doing so in order to move to a new context. Such a context might be to
develop an "ethics of character"; an ethic which focuses on Baptism as the
fundamental context of the Christian life; the event in which, as we claim, full
membership in the Church and the principal call to its ministry begins. If baptism is full
initiation and call, ministry must begin in that dominical event and not in the subsequent
calls to ordained ministry and blessed union.
I pray that our church can find a way for us all in which we can
shift from an ethic of decision-making, of judgment, of deciding who's in and who's out,
to an ethic of character to help people; not people who are homosexual or heterosexual but
people who are the children of God, redeemed by the only-begotten Son of God and seeking
through the grace of the Holy Spirit to lead fulfilled and fulfilling lives in a
Christ-centered context of mutuality and fidelity.