by Deborah Quam, Eastern Shore Chapel, Virginia Beach
I grew up during the 1950’s and 60’s, the only child of a first class musician and public school choral teacher at Norview High School. My mother was blessed with many friends but those who shared her passion for great music and dedication to teaching became especially close. My home was filled with other choral and band teachers from the Tidewater area that supported each other and accomplished great things with high school students.
One friend was particularly close; the choral director at Princess Anne High School. Mom often referred to him as her brother and they were as close as siblings. They shared meals, vacations, teaching, music conferences and performances, stories, love of entertaining, recipes and life. It occurs to me now he was a gay man living in a time of uncertainty and probably secrecy. His sexuality was never discussed in my presence and I professed my undying love for him at age 6. He was accepted for who he was in my home. My father and mother joined him for dinner parties and visited often. When he found a life partner and they bought a home, they were careful to keep up the appearances of “roommate”. But they were a couple, full of life.
His sexuality was a non-issue from my earliest childhood. This dear man and his partner were loved by all who knew them. Were they able to live an open life as they might have chosen? I have no way of knowing, and can only make assumptions. Given that time in our culture and society, I’m sure they felt the need to be ‘careful’. But they lived a loving and loved life. They were together for the rest of their lives through sickness and health. Their union was as blessed and sacred as any I have known.
My point it this: I was raised in an open and affirming home. My mother set the example for accepting all people for who they were. She valued integrity, honesty and love. There was no prejudice practiced or tolerated in my home. As I grew older, it was hard for me to understand the fear and prejudice in others with which I could not identify. This was not my reality. I have taken that position into my adulthood. I have been part of a family that was truly relational and have received the gifts born from those connections. My life would have been the poorer if I had not had these two wonderful men as members of that family.
Question: Reflecting on your childhood, what helped to form your values and beliefs?
When I look back at my childhood and youth I can now recognize that my parents had a friend or two who was gay and that there was at least one gay man who was involved in the lay leadership of the church Presbyterian where I grew up. These persons were welcomed in our home and in our lives, but we never talked as a family about sexual orientation (or any other matters of human sexuality), most likely because my parents didn't know at the time they were gay.
ReplyDeleteI was very involved in my church as a young person. I don't ever remember being told directly that homosexuality was wrong, but somehow the message came through loud and clear. No one had to say it, I guess, it was just understood that it was a sinful lifestyle. I read the bible every night and it was abundantly clear to me what Scripture had to say on the matter. Our church youth program emphasized that all sexual activity outside of marriage was sinful.
So my values where formed in private on issues no one spoke about and reinforced by a typical Puritan understanding of sexuality. I have been an Episcopalian now for forty years and I am still working on creating a different biblical and theological foundation on these matters than the one I developed as a youth.
Growing up I have no recollection of any controversial topics being discussed with my brothers or myself however, I have some sense of there being an unspoken disapproval of homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in high school my best friend was a lesbian. It was the 60's and she was not public about her sexuality. It was through our friendship that, at least in part, my personal values were formed. My parent's always welcomed her in our home and treated her with respect and dignity. Through their modeling I understood that all people were to be respected whether or not I thought them sinful.
We are all sinners I remember learning at a very early age. And as I became an adult over time I came to also know that we are all redeemed. My personal values are strengthened and even tweeked through my reading of Scripture and other literature, studying and most especially through my personal relationship with God.
I grew up in a small, Quaker town right outside of Philadelphia also in the 60's and I don't remember even the hint that someone at school or in town was gay. Of course, like the others as we are all around the same age, sexuality was not discussed. I didn't even get "the talk" at home - my parents left it up to the school to educate me as far as sexuality was concerned.
ReplyDeleteIn my town and in the Presbyterian Church I grew up in, the one topic most frequently discussed was whether or not blacks and whites should worship together. In the mid 60's our little Presbyterian Church welcomed the first black family and then I think 2 more families came but even until the 70's there were only the 2 or 3 black families in the predominately white church.
However, this discussion about accepting gays at the table is a lot like the discussions in the 60's of accepting people of a different race at the same table.
Susan Pederson
St. Stephen's Norfolk
Integrity VB
To me, the issue is not whether homosexual people are good people, respected and loved in the neighborhood. It is not whether we should open the doors to our homes to them and participate in their lives as friends, colleagues, or neighbors. It is about what the Church and its seminal document say about homosexuality. The Church is not a democracy in which some majority of people get to determine what it stands for. It is an institutional community in which what it stands for is defined by the Bible. I believe this is why Keith Emerson above is having a hard time with this topic. He is, it appears, a traditionalist, looking to the Bible for guidance, and finding there words that conflict with the reformist within his soul. He faces the question of 'does my will overcome the teachings of my faith?' He should hope the answer remains 'no' else he will find himself with a different faith. Those who write about how they knew homosexuals as youngsters (or later in life) and say that because they were good people the Church should extend the sacrament of marraige to them appear to be less conflicted about the tensions of will vs. faith.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. We're glad your taking part in this important conversation. Please note that our guidelines require that you include your name and parish with your post. Please post this information so that your comments will not be deleted. Thank you.
DeleteDebbie’s initial post invites us to reflect on the moral and spiritual foundations that were built in our childhood and youth. You are correct in identifying me as a traditionalist at that point in my life. In fact, I was so traditional on the issue of homosexuality it was a red flag in my pursuit of ordination. That was twenty-eight years ago and, like the rest of the Episcopal Church, my attitudes and beliefs have changed with time. I am more willing and able to see God’s hand at work in individuals I once thought to be rejected by God.
DeleteAs you suggest, I do look to Scripture for guidance (because I put my whole trust in Christ’s grace and love) and I view it as authoritative in my life (because I promise to follow and obey Christ as my Lord). Until the last few decades, there little question as to how Christians understood what the bible teaches about homosexuality. Still, as you point out, there are good people loved and respected who are gay. I have enjoyed positive collegial relationships with gay and lesbian clergy and lay leaders. These experiences have invited me to return to the Scriptures to see if they speak to these realities in a way I did not (or perhaps could not) hear before (a part of my journey better left for another time and discussion).
I believe returning to Scripture again and again and again to listen anew is a faithful activity God requires of us. It sobers me to think of the divisive discussions that have taken place in our parishes over the decades where tradition-bearing Episcopalians brought solid biblical arguments to bear against suffrage, civil rights, and the ordination of women (to name just a few controversies). I am not making the case here that the blessing of same gender unions should be received as God’s will as we now see with these other issues – I’ll let others make that case. But doesn’t it give you pause to think that God may still want to speak to us through the bible today in a way we have not previously understood? It does me. I am willing to listen. When I was younger this would have been very threatening for me, but it is not now. Back then, I saw myself as a defender of God’s truth. Now, I rest in the knowledge that all truth is in God and God will lead the faithful in discerning it.
Thank you for taking the time to read the blog and my comments. Thank you for your faithfulness and discernment. You are obviously perceptive, articulate, and well-informed. I hope you continue to follow and comment (and also to identify yourself). God bless,
Keith Emerson
St. Paul’s, Suffolk
"To me, the issue is not whether homosexual people are good people, respected and loved in the neighborhood. It is not whether we should open the doors to our homes to them and participate in their lives as friends, colleagues, or neighbors. It is about what the Church and its seminal document say about homosexuality. The Church is not a democracy in which some majority of people get to determine what it stands for. It is an institutional community in which what it stands for is defined by the Bible. I believe this is why Keith Emerson above is having a hard time with this topic. He is, it appears, a traditionalist, looking to the Bible for guidance, and finding there words that conflict with the reformist within his soul. He faces the question of 'does my will overcome the teachings of my faith?' He should hope the answer remains 'no' else he will find himself with a different faith. Those who write about how they knew homosexuals as youngsters (or later in life) and say that because they were good people the Church should extend the sacrament of marraige to them appear to be less conflicted about the tensions of will vs. faith."
DeleteI don't think anyone is going to come here and state that homosexuals are intrinsically bad people.
But I think the reply I quoted really does boil down this whole discussion. The approach seems to be here is that this issue is still in the discussion stage.
But the facts on the ground contradict that. Last General Convention in the Resolution as passed authorizing the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to come up with trial liturgies for same sex blessing contained a provision "allowing for generous pastoral responses" in the interim. Well some Priests and Bishops have taken this as the green light to introduce them in full.
This Summer at the upcoming General Convention they are sure to vote on whether to adopt the trial use of the recommended liturgies by the SCLM. Viewing the mindset of those who will attend, this resolution will fly through with ease to passage.
Bringing it to the our Diocesan level. Bishop Hollerith in his address to the Diocesan Council said he supported same sex blessing with the proviso we would be in synch with the entire Church.
And to cap that off a resolution was passed at Council by roughly a 3-1 margin encouraging the Bishop to authorize the use of them.
So it is a matter of not if but when single sex blessings come to our Diocese.
The only open question is whether or not the resolution at the General Convention will contain a so called "conscience clause" which would allow the "traditionalists" to opt out. There are some out there who would argue that to have such a clause would violate the canon against discriminating in the church by virtue of race, gender and sexual orientation amongst others.
Others would argue for the clause not so much as on fairness grounds but to not significantly add to the 50,000 members we are currently losing every year nationally.
So to couch this discussion as to whether you agree or disagree with same sex blessing is really an academic exercise. This discussion really needs to focus on what provisions are to be made for the remnant traditionalists left in this Diocese. Because whether you agree or disagree with the practice, it will be a duly authorized practice of the Church within the next 6 months.
Randy Carter
St. Paul's Suffolk
Randy - I'm not sure it is as cut and dried as you say it is. The liturgies have not been authorized yet. That is the vote that is coming before Convention this year. I also do not believe the question will not raise much discussion and emotions from all sides of the discussion.
DeleteAs with any liturgical practice, churches can choose to not use any of the approved liturgies: the clergy and congregation have the final say in what rites are practiced from the set of approved liturgies. Therefore, in any case those who choose to not use the trial liturgies are not required to use them if they are approved.
I don't think it's a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with same gender blessings - rather this discussion should be one in which we all understand the broader perspective of the Diocese. Not simply conservative or liberal or those somewhere in the middle. Without hearing the voice of the people an informed decision cannot be made by anyone.
Please stay in the conversation here and with the broader church. It is in hearing all parties (I'm somewhere in the middle) do we better understand the breadth of God's love.
Rev. Les Ferguson
St. John's, Suffolk
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI am blessed with a large extended family that likes to spend time together. Growing up it seems like everyone I knew was an aunt, an uncle or a cousin. One of my earliest memories of my older cousin Bruce was his contagious laugh. He had a joy for life. His engaging personality made him very popular at our family reunions and I remember how much my mother adored him. The two of them would sit together and share stories and the entire crowd would erupt in gales of laughter. I remember once asking my mom why Bruce wasn't married and she explained that he was homosexual. I wasn't sure what that meant but I knew that Bruce was loved and valued in our family.
ReplyDeleteAs a young adult I moved to San Francisco and became a teacher. Within days of my arrival Bruce and his partner Jeff showed up on my doorstep. We became great friends. Bruce was also a teacher and he helped me navigate the school system and mentored me as a young teacher. I was in my non-church phase of life but I remember them taking me to Grace Cathedral on occasion where Jeff sang in the choir.
As a child, I liked Bruce because he was a funny guy. As a adult, I loved Bruce because he was a kind & generous person; a beloved child of God.
Thank you for your comments. We're glad you're taking part in this important conversation. Please note that our guidelines require that you include your name and parish with your post. Please post this information so that your comments will not be deleted. Thank you!
DeleteWhile I think our childhood and nurturing has a lot to do with our values and beliefs I also think there is so much more to go with it - our relationships at critical junctures in our lives; the influences of peer-groups and social groups (I almost want to say networks but that may be misleading - the organizations with which we chose to relate, especially in our childhood [Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Vacation Bible School], our teenage years [EYC, Young Life, Pop Warner Football, Little League], and young adulthood [Campus Ministry, University life]).
ReplyDeleteFrom the outset I lived in a loving and accepting family. Tolerant as used by Rev. Ian Markham - willing to fight for the "others'" right to have an opinion that is different than yours without judgment. I know my parent's and extended family's ethic of loving neighbor as self without being wholly stated in church terms makes me who and what I am today.
While my upbringing has a large part in who I am and how I believe; my experience "makes" me what I am. It is in the hard wrestling of the past 30+ years with scripture, tradition, and reason that I've come to better understand Scripture and God at work in our fallen world. I am almost certain that I don't have it wholly right (a safe statement for the analyst to make) nor am I wholly wrong. I believe our values are, in fact, shaped by the messy nature of our life at the meeting point between the sacred and secular in ourselves and in the world.
Rev. Les Ferguson
Rector
St. John's, Suffolk
As a dissenter I am grateful to finally see the opportunity for a civilized discussion of the sexuality issues. It has been a long time coming. I hope it is not too late, though I fear it might be. For too long we have been silenced as the “dialogue” has been stifled by labeling and name calling. The decisions of the national church have been pushed on us without adequate debate, explanation, or justification. There are many questions which, as far as I know, have not been asked or answered, at least not publicly. The sexuality issues are connected to underlying much larger theologic issues defining our very identity. The heavy handed approach of the national church comes at a great cost. Nationally, membership has declined by 20%, a half a million members, over 10 years as individuals, parishes, and diocese have departed. At that rate insolvency and irrelevancy are just a few decades off. A look at the red ink in our own diocesan budget, which mirrors most others, is telling in this regard and should sound the alarm for all of us.
ReplyDeleteThough I disagree with Mrs. Quam’s conclusions, I wish to honor her family story as a glimpse of the family St Paul calls us to be in Colossians 3:12, “As the chosen people of God…clothe yourselves in compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience. Bear with each other and …forgive as the Lord forgave you… “. The two men may or may not have been homosexual, but through the eyes of a six year old child had led lives of humility, kindness, and service to others. Her family treated them with respect and kindness irrespective of whatever their challenges and struggles might have been or wherever they may have fallen short of the glory of God. We have been extended that same grace by almighty God. Let us share it with our fellow men as we all fall short and are in desperate need of it.
Bishop Neil Alexander relates a similar story in his book, “Thus Far by Grace”. … A teacher and mentor whom he greatly loved and admired proved to be homosexual.
Both writers reach the same conclusion: Homosexual behavior has been observed in kind, loving, and charismatic people. Therefore it must be accepted, sanctified, and blessed. That is a dangerous standard by which to decide any moral question!
Both stories raise basic questions. Can a life of humility, kindness, love, and service to others automatically justify other aspects of behavior? I think the answer is clearly ”No”. Who will decide whom or what is blessed or sacred, God or mankind? If man, by what authority? Can mankind bless a behavior which God has instructed us to avoid? Why would God so explicitly instruct his people to avoid homosexual behavior? Why would Paul, His evangelist to the Gentiles more than a thousand years later, echo these instructions so vehemently? These and other questions are begging for answers. I look forward to exploring them with you.
James W. Rawles Jr.,MD
Galilee Church
Virginia Beach
Dear Dr. Rawles,
ReplyDeleteThank you for joining the conversation. It seems that, like some other ‘traditionalist’ or ‘dissenting’ voices on this blog, you feel that this is a relatively new, long-overdue discussion about a longstanding, covert agenda. While I do appreciate that this may feel refreshing to you (and others), I would ask you to consider that you are newly arrived at a conversation that many Episcopalians have been having for decades. And I think it particularly important that folks who feel ‘new’ to this seek to remember that they are speaking on deeply personal matters that affect the daily lives of fellow Christians.
A taste of the already-in-progress conversation can be found here: http://www.christianpost.com/news/episcopal-theologians-detail-both-sides-of-gay-debate-44458/
I commend the full text link at the end of the article to anyone who wishes to be well-informed on the serious work of this conversation.
That is to say: your first paragraph suggests that you believe “the heavy handed approach of the national church” on matters of sexuality to be the core reason for declines in membership & finances. I believe that these declines have much more to do with global postmodern social changes that have (as you point out) affected many churches, including those that have remained vigorously opposed to LGBT equality. Can you recognize that your language implies a hurtful scapegoating of gay people for the declines of the church?
Although I am glad to see that you are familiar with Bp. Alexander’s book, I’m afraid you have missed his point (and that of many other faithful people)—it is not that some virtues automatically justify any other behavior. Rather, the point is that when we evaluate a behavior, we are called by the Holy Spirit to measure behavior by the only metrics that truly matter—the fruits of the Spirit. And so, enabled by the lens of Galatians 5:22-23, we must look at same-sex relationships and determine whether we see evidence of these things therein.
You also question the authority of humankind to determine blessedness/sacredness. Yet we belong to a church that regards apostolic succession so highly, precisely because we understand Christ in Matthew 16 to have authorized his Church to make exactly that kind of “blessedness” determination! Not only does Christ authorize his Body to sanctify relationships, he empowers us by inviting the Father to send his Spirit. And as the winds of that Spirit can be turbulent, we have the witness of even Peter himself struggling in Acts with what seems to be God leading Peter into a much more welcoming & diverse view of other people. The trouble of course is that this work of God’s own Spirit contradicts what Peter had read as God’s clear-cut commands in holy Scripture.
Since the Acts of the Apostles, those who called themselves the Church have struggled with the issue of how open, permissive, or permeable they should be regarding outsiders, especially when the Holy Spirit’s widening embrace has felt contradictory to what they once thought Scripture stated so clearly. Over and over, the Church has faltered and stumbled as it tries to follow the resurrected footsteps of its dancing Saviour. The choreography is difficult and rarely predictable. But however hesitatingly, we have come to recognize a pattern to the dance. And just as we may see a pattern of Spirit ‘fruit’ in the specific lives of two partnered, same-gender people, so may we as a church come to see those ‘fruits’ in ourselves corporately as Christ’s Body… one enormous mass of unlikely dance partners, learning the steps better and better as we go.
Glad to be with you on the dance floor,
-Ben