By the Rev. Rhonda Wheeler, St. Andrew's, Newport News
“Generous pastoral response” is
a term which was part of Resolution CO51 from General Convention 2009. It calls for clergy, with the guidance of
their Bishops, to respond lovingly and faithfully to persons in homosexual
relationships who want to live a monogamous life together, blessed by God and
the Church.
It gives us the opportunity to
welcome conversations about blessing same gender couples and develop liturgy
for such purposes. Pastorally responding
to folks involves the couples, but includes the entire congregation. Is there room for all of us to discuss
blessings of same gender couples when we having varying feelings and beliefs
about it?
The ‘generous pastoral response’
calls us to provide education for the entire parish being sensitive to the
varying feelings and beliefs about the
Church moving forward. How do we
continue to say “Welcome to the Episcopal Church” if we don’t find a way to
honor and bless all persons who desire to live faithfully together in
relationship to God?
In my own experience, when The
Diocese of Washington began marrying same gender couples, because D.C. had
legalized it, a female couple in our parish came to me and asked if I would
travel with them to D.C. to preside at their marriage. Because Bishop Chane (Diocese of Washington)
would not allow priests from Dioceses where same gender marriage was not legal
to preside in D.C., it was a moot point for us.
However, it brought up much
discussion about pastorally responding to this couple who had been committed to
one another for ten years and were raising two children together. They are
active parishioners in the ministry of the Church and wanted a blessing from
the Church, as well as a legalized marriage.
Many people would have
celebrated such a blessing, while many would not. So, it was important to honor all sides of
the issue, continuing to talk and talk and talk to understand one another’s
points of view.
In the end, I blessed their
rings before they went to D.C. where they were married before a justice of the
peace.
It was so important for our
faith community to talk about the hospitality issues surrounding a response to
this couple. As an identified and open
same gender couple, they had been welcomed and encouraged to participate and
lead in all aspects of worship. Their
children were acolytes and active participants in EYC. Once the issue of their formal/legal marriage
was “out there,” some folks were not as welcoming of them, even to the point of
exclusion. Fewer people passed the peace
with them. The couple began to question
how sincere was the initial welcome and acceptance of them. My question became: “What’s different now? How does their marriage affect “our” response
to their commitment?”
How unfortunate that folks were less welcoming after the ceremony. I, too, would have to ask what changed? What was different?
ReplyDelete"Resolution 2000-D039, identified certain characteristics the Church expects of couples living in marriage and other lifelong, committed relationships: “fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.” We understand couples who manifest this manner of life, with God’s grace, to have entered into a covenant with each other, which presents a rich opportunity for theological reflection," taken from I Will Bless you and You will Be a Blessing.
Note that in the definition above, no where does it state that the relationship has to be between a man and a woman.
I hope that folks will start to look at relationships with the definition above in mind when it comes to blessing same gender relationships.
Let us make our "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" a reality for the LGBT community as well as anyone else who walks in the doors of our churches.
Susan Pederson
St. Stephen's Norfolk
Integrity DioSoVa
While a church is no place for personal rudeness, I can understand why some members of the parish did not wish to fellowship with the two individuals you described. In my opinion, their behavior is essentially an "in your face" response to traditional, scriptural Christian morality and practice.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think the Apostle Paul would have had much the same attitude. As he says in I Corinthians 5:9-13, "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
Obviously the individual discussed here had been given ample opportunity to repent and had not done so. What is wrong with counseling repentance today? It is, after all, a Christian practice.
James Deviese, Christ the King
Traditional scripture and morality ask us to be faithful and monogamous in our significant love relationship. To a straight couple, we can make that public commitment in marriage. It sounds like they are already there, even to the point of wanting to make it legal in the community of society and in the community of faith. Unfortunately, our laws have not caught up with a reality for many couples. I also wonder how being together for 10 years and raising a child together is in your face. It wouldn't be a problem if this were a straight couple. How does two women instead of a man and a woman make a difference? And I also would like to know what they are going to be repenting of.
DeleteDear Nellwyn:
DeleteYou stated that "Traditional scripture and morality ask us to be faithful and monogamous in our significant love relationship." Respectfully, I have to disagree. The New Testament does not teach any sexual morality outside of tradtional male-female monogamy. Would you support a group marriage or polygamy if it were faithful and loving?
As far as the "in your face" part of our discussion, let me say this. There have always been acts and behaviours of sexual disobedience within Christian churches. We have probably always had those who commit adultery, various forms of fornication, homosexuality, voyeurism, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. Sin within church communities is nothing new. The difference is that in the past these practices were not treated as openly normative, healthful, or righteous. It seems that today there are some who want to move the boundry line to accomodate the Zeitgeist. But God's moral standards do not change and to live as if they did is indeed an "in your face" act toward others who adhere to scriptural and historic norms.
James Deviese, Christ the King
Dear James,
DeleteI appreciate your engagement with this issue, but I think you may be speaking too broadly. The notion that the NT "does not teach any sexual morality outside of traditional male-female monogamy" might come a surprise to this Roman brother of yours:
http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Ethics-New-Testament-Companions/dp/0824518012
To say nothing of our very own Bill Countryman, an Episcopalian voice:
http://www.amazon.com/Dirt-Greed-Sex-Testament-Implications/dp/0800638484
I was also struck by your description of this lesbian couple's decision as "in your face." After meeting with their priest, they chose to NOT make a public insistence within the parish that they be afforded something that might cause division. It seems to me that in fact they exercised a great deal of loving restraint in opting to have their rings privately blessed & then to travel to another jurisdiction for a civil service that did not involve the parish at all.
Can you share more about how you find that to be an "in your face" approach? Whether our Church blesses a same-sex relationship or not, I think the civil protections for same-sex couples can be rightly understood as an appropriate attempt in line with our baptismal vows to seek justice and preserve the dignity for our gay & lesbian brothers and sisters. If you feel that this couple's choices to engage private pastoral care from their priest and also to enter into a civil contract in another jurisdiction to have been inappropriate within the life of a Christian community, would you say more about the place of LGBT people in the life of the Church? In this particular case, are you opposed to the pastoral care they received from their priest or is your objection more rooted in the private civil contract?
I appreciate your perspective here & am trying to get a clearer sense of it. Thanks for being part of this conversation.
Sincerely
-Ben Hines
Grace Church, Yorktown
Hello Ben, I appreciate your comments and the opportunity to rAs an identified and open same gender couple, they had been welcomed and encouraged to participate and lead in all aspects of worship. respond. Let me begin by quoting Rhonda, the cleric who wrote about these two particular women. She said in her narrative:
Delete"As an identified and open same gender couple, they had been welcomed and encouraged to participate and lead in all aspects of worship."
Based on Rhonda's words, I would hardly call their lifestyle a private matter. The fact that they wore wedding rings makes it obvious that they considered themselves to be in some sort of a non-traditional union. And since wedding rings are an historic symbol of marriage, I consider the act to be an "in your face" event.
As far as the two websites you list, I will take a look at them and post again; but in the meantime I would ask you to give me one verse in the New Testament which advocates anything outside of traditional male/female monogamy.
Thanks, James Deviese, Christ the King
Hello Again, Ben:
DeletePlease see the first part of my response to you above. It appears that my hands got ahead of my eye and I inadventently deleted a portion of my first sentence. It should have read, "I appreciate your comments and the opportunity to respond." Then it continues correctly with "As an identified and open..."
I could not get to the Amazon links you gave. Can you set a hyperlink up for me to do so?
But regardless of that, opinions on Amazon are generally not that academic. Can you give me a synopsis of what each of these men are saying about New Testament sexual morality?
Thanks, James Deviese, Christ the King
Ben,
DeleteI just read your posting again and realize that I did not answer your final question. Sorry, it was not by design. You asked if I was opposed to the pastoral counseling the two lesbians received or if my objections were based on their private civil contract.
Well, not knowing more about the details of the specific situation, I am not sure I can fully answer your query. In general, however, I am not against two people establishing any type of legal, civil contract. That is their business. On the other hand, when an immoral, unnatural arrangement is introduced into a parish setting and treated as normative, that is a violation of scripture.
Let's put it another way, Ben. What if we had two businessmen in the parish running a joint business which was legal but morally questionable? The joint venture made pornographic films and everyone in the parish knew it. Do you think a business of this nature should be seen as reflective of Christian values? Do you believe that having men like this in a parish enhances the image of the church? Does it provide a good influence on the youth of the parish? Should the rector counsel the two men to repent?
James Deviese, Christ the King