Openly Episcopal in Albany

St. Patrick's Day Flap

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fr. Paul Bresnahan, "a simple parish priest" who blogs as Heaven and Earth, comments (March 7) on the exclusion of openly gay and lesbian marchers in the annual Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade.  While an Episcopal priest, Paul+ appeals to the Cardinals and even the Pope to intervene.  Understandable, since for Boston Catholics, St. Patrick's day is the most prominent festival.  (The latest news is that talks with the organizaers continue, and there is a 50-50 chance the marchers will be able to join the parade.)

St. Patrick's Gay Parade

By now many of you will have heard that the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Boston have banned gay folks from marching "openly" in the event.  I'm not sure if this would please Patrick one bit. When he brought the Irish nation to Christ, I do not remember any reference to the LGBTQ community as being "excluded" specifically from the Grace that Christ offers in God's salvation plan. 

 

To the contrary we know quite clearly that in St. Paul's theological approach, in our Baptism we become one with each other and with Christ. "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." ~Galatians 3:28. Obviously we're not just talking about Jews and Greeks alone, but all races and all ethnicities. Likewise we're not just talking about slave and free, we're talking about all folks no matter where they find themselves on the ladder of social class. It follows too that we are not talking here just about male and female, but folks of every orientation under heaven. When Paul says we are one in Christ, he did not exclude any one particular group. We know that from creation we are made exactly the way we are in the image of God and that we are "born that way". If you want to argue with me about Romans 1 or Leviticus, I'll take that one on too. But not now. 

 

Because now it seems fitting to offer a prayer to the Compassionate heart of Christ. Perhaps there will be those Christian leaders at all levels whose hearts will be likewise moved to join me in this prayer and perhaps even in some action on behalf of those all too used to being marginalized by the Church and her representatives. Perhaps the church's Bishops or Cardinals maybe even Francis himself, may hear our prayer and join us in asking for the Love of Christ to reach out to all.

 

O God, hear our Prayer. 

 

God of Compassion and Love, you have made us the way we are, and sent Jesus to us to embrace us in ever widening circles of inclusion, hear our prayer on behalf of all who have been excluded from your invitation to march with those who love the Saints, and especially Patrick whose example brought the Emerald Isle to the knowledge and love of God. Turn the hearts of those who would turn us aside from the love God and bring us at last to the one triumphant march of Glory you intend for all people, through Jesus Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.

 

May God prosper our prayers, and may God inspire our actions. 

 

Fr Paul

Marriage or Matrimony?

The Rev. David Simmons, blogger of Ask the Priest, answers a submitted question about same-sex marriage.  His distinction between mariage and matrimony is cogent.  Marriage is a civil matter, matrimony the church blessing of a committed couple.  Same-sex marriage is valid in jurisdictions that allow it.  The blessing of such relationships is now a valid Episcopal service.  But is it matrimony?  The answer here is, surprisingly, no.  But it can be understood as a sacrament.  A sacramental analogy offered is that of monastic vows.  Would you agree with this argument?  It bears close reading:

One of the questions everyone is asking about the approval of a provisional rite for same-sex blessings is how it changes our understanding of marriage. It's a complex question, and I'll start with defining "Marriage" and "Matrimony. " These are often used interchangeably in both the culture and the church, but I'm going to define these just for use within this post.

"Marriage" is a civil affair binding two individuals together legally. This is the ancient definition of marriage which predates Christianity.

"Matrimony" is a sacrament, or sacramental rite, or has no religious status at all, depending on your time period and which strain of Christianity you belong to. It's important to note that matrimony can be seen as kind of a "Junior Sacrament" due to its relative newness.

Jesus spoke of the of the permanence of marriage, but not the moral goods. Paul saw marriage as a poor second to celibacy, as did most early Christians. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 385 or so) was one of the first to see a possibility of divine work within marriage equal to that of celibacy, in that it trained people in impermanence.

The role of the church in marriage only began to pick up when it became the established religion of the Roman Empire. As ministers became civil officials, they took on civil roles, including solemnizing marriages. The church slowly began to develop a sacramental theology of matrimony. By the early Middle Ages, marriages begin to be celebrated in churches. By the late Middle Ages, marriage and matrimony combined as the church took over many of the civil functions of the defunct empire and became the sole purveyor of marriages.

This is the confused understanding of marriage and matrimony that we inherit - one born of a confusion of religion and civil government. Clergy in the United States that perform marriages function simultaneously as religious and civil officials. It's important to note that the center group of one of our most cherished American myths, the puritans fleeing religious persecution, believed that marriage was a purely civil affair and rejected any sacramentality around it.

In the modern situation, we face our old confusion. While Europe has separated civil marriage from religious matrimony, The United States continues to conflate the two. This gets especially difficult as the civil authorities redefine (or one could say refuse to define in specific gender terms) what marriage is. In many states, same-sex marriage is legal, while in others same-gender unions are legal, while in others constitutional amendments make such civil recognition impossible.

It is into this morass that The Episcopal Church wades. There is a cultural expectation that when you celebrate the sacramental rite of matrimony in church, you are married in the eyes of the state. Our canons state that matrimony is between one man and one woman. So what exactly is happening in a same-sex blessing? Is it matrimony or not? Is it marriage or not?

The response of the church with a proposed rite allows us to address the varied situation in the United States. It seems to me that the rites are clearly NOT matrimony. For them to be so, we would have had to alter the canons. There are those that say, "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck." This line of reasoning points out that since there are vows and an exchange of rings, it looks too much like matrimony to be anything else. But this completely disregards a regular part of our religious life in the Episcopal Church, namely that of monastic vows. Those rites within the various religious orders of the Episcopal Church also have vows and sometimes include a ring but almost always include some token of the vows. While matrimonial language is sometimes employed metaphorically (I.e. "Bride of Christ") no one would claim that such vows are the sacramental rite of matrimony. Saying that liturgical similarity implies sacramental correspondence ignores this important part of our tradition. Saying that monastic rites are not sacramental just because they are not matrimony would be a rather startling assertion. The same could be said of same-sex blessing rites. Just because they don't fit the category of one of the sacramental rites does not mean they are not sacramental in nature.

What the rites definitely are is a recognition of a covenanted relationship between two people, of which there are many precedents in history. How they interact with marriage and matrimony will vary from place to place. In places where same-sex marriage is legal, it will mean that a clergy person will not be celebrating matrimony, but MAY be solemnizing a civil marriage. In places when same-sex marriage is not legal, a Clergy person will neither be celebrating matrimony, nor solemnizing a civil marriage, but simply blessing a covenanted relationship. In many places, the rites will not be used at all because the diocesan bishop will not authorize their use. This flexibility is necessary at this time, not only due to theological diversity, but due to legal issues with civil marriage in many states.

There may be those, both for and opposed, that will insist that this really IS matrimony. There could be truth in that, since matrimony is a sacramental rite in which the couple itself are the ministers. The priest only adds the Church's blessing to their sacramental action in the vows. Thus, it could be matrimony whether the church believes it or not. (Though technically, if the church does not recognize it, it may be sacramental, but it is not a sacramental rite.)

What the church will do in the future is unclear. We may move towards accepting same-sex rites as being matrimony by adapting the Prayer Book rite and changing the canons. Or the LGBT community may decide that what they are doing is something other than matrimony (A position I have heard articulated by several LGBT individuals.) In any case, the current rites provide something for a time in which we need to address various needs in multiple contexts.

David+

Bishop Love on Anglican TV: Part I

 

In anticipation of General Convention this year in Indianapolis, it might be instructive to reconsider Bishop Love’s comments to Anglican TV following the 2009 General Convention in Anaheim.  At that time, Bishop Love was interviewed by Kevin Kallsen, the ultra-conservative founder of Anglican TV, for his impressions of the proceedings.  Kallsen’s leading questions were clearly aimed at provoking +Love to repudiate the convention, criticize the Presiding Bishop and reject decisions taken on controversial resolutions, particularly D025 and C056.  To his credit, Bishop Love largely deflected the confrontational questions, but in his answers he provided ample evidence that he was not in accord with the direction of The Episcopal Church in most matters. His statements, given then, provide a good indication of the views that he and the Albany deputies will bring with them to GC 77.

Because of its length, I have divided the transcription of the interview into two parts.  Following is the first half of the conversation:

Kevin:  This is your first general convention as bishop?

Bp. Love:  Yes, it is.

Kevin:  You’ve actually been bishop now for two years?

Bp. Love:  About two and a half.  I was confirmed at the 2006 General Convention.

Kevin:  So you’ve been to a convention before or were just confirmed there?

Bp. Love:  I was a deputy to the '97 convention in Philadelphia. I came to be confirmed at the 2006, so this is my first one as a bishop. 

Kevin: But you’ve seen this before?

Bp. Love:  I have. After the '97 convention I decided that if I never came to another one it would be too soon. The Lord kind of changed things when he called me to be a bishop. 

Kevin:  Sure, the Lord put a purple shirt on you and said “be a bishop to my people”.  And now we’re here in Anaheim, California for the General Convention, 2009.  A lot of church-changing things happened here that I have witnessed.  Give me your impressions, just generally, as to what your expectations were the first couple days and what you experienced.

Bp. Love:  I came into the convention with a sense of hope, but also a sense of reality, and knowing that anything could happen at this.  And hoping for the best but being prepared for the worst.  I think we didn’t hit the worst, but we certainly didn’t hit the best either. One of the things that people kept talking about, at least within the House of Bishops, was a desire of clarity, in terms of where The Episcopal Church truly is.  And looking at the votes I would say that was achieved, there was clarity.  Unfortunately, where the majority of the church leadership is, at least represented at general convention, is not where I am and so that is of great concern to me.  And that is not new either.  I knew that coming into this.

Kevin:  You weren’t surprised by the resolutions and stuff like that...?

Bp. Love:  No.

Kevin:  I was kind of surprised that the bishops voted the way they did.  I kinda had the impression, talking to both liberals and conservative bishops coming up to this, that D025  wouldn’t pass.  Were you of the same impression as I?

Bp. Love:  I thought that there was a possibility that it wouldn’t.  At the last House of Bishops meeting we had in the spring, several bishops from all different theological persuasions or understandings made the comment to the effect that the best thing that could happen at this general convention was for nothing to happen.  And again, I think that people were aware, especially after the bishops having attended Lambeth, that we really are at risk of finding ourselves outside the wider Anglican Communion.  And I would argue that we already are, with much of the Anglican Communion.  But there is still the connection with the See of Canterbury and the Archbishop.  And I think that people were concerned that we could take things so far that even the Archbishop could no longer give his endorsement or receive us as being in communion.  So there was that sense of concern, but as I have seen so often in the House of Bishops, once the ball gets rolling, it’s hard to stop it.  And while it looks as though people may be leaning in one direction, depending on what’s said and how it’s said, then all of a sudden  the whole view can shift drastically,  just like the wind changing.  And that’s what happened, I think, with this.  We had put off, I think it was D025 that we actually stopped the vote, or didn’t vote and held off so that we could discuss it more in private session, but ultimately those that were in favor of it succeeded in getting it passed.  I was not on the winning side of that in terms of I could not support it.

Kevin: In terms of The Episcopal Church, how does this foreshadow the future of the church?   Are we watching the church die, imploding upon itself, or is there really a hope for this church?  What’s your sense?

Bp. Love:  It all depends on who you talk to.  Those that are in support of the direction that the church is currently going think that what has happened is a blessing and long overdue and will bring new life and energy into the church.  Is see it entirely different.  I cannot -- again, not being judgmental of those who voted differently than I did -- I think that everyone, or a vast majority of those who voted in support of D025 and C056, I think they were well intentioned in voting in accordance with their conscience, but I’m convinced that what they think is going to happen is not going to happen.  Rather than this being a blessing for the church I think it actually will ultimately be a curse on the church, and that it will not bring in new people, but the floodgates will continue to be opened even wider.  We’re going to be losing more people from our congregations, we’ll be losing more congregations, and there ultimately could be other dioceses that at some point leave.  That’s not suggesting that Albany is leaving, and I don’t want that --  anyone to think that -- but people, especially those that are theologically conservative, are struggling with this.  I’ve talked to several people that are just tired.  They’re tired of the fight, they’re tired of the direction that the church is going, and I don’t know how long some of those can hold on.

Kevin:  It started really bad for me the first day when we had the opening speech from the  Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop, where she mentioned that, in her opinion, redemption through a personal Jesus was heresy.  I struggle with that.  I know that I have a personal relationship with Christ and I know you very well, you certainly have a personal relationship with Christ.  Is that also a struggle, having that as another teaching in the church?

Bp. Love:  It’s a real struggle.  I haven’t actually been able to see the written text of her opening address, and so I’m hesitant to comment on exactly what she said.  I know that at the time, that what I thought she said caused great concern, and I was sitting there thinking “did she say what I just thought she said?”  And if in fact her comments -- and again, I haven’t seen the written text so I’m hesitant to quote anything -- but to suggest that it is heretical for people to think that they can be saved through a personal relationship with Christ as opposed to “we’re all in this together and we’ll be saved together as a body,” then that’s not scriptural.  The fact is, the Lord talks about the narrow door.  And while the door’s open for people to come through, they have to be intentional about choosing it.  And our salvation is the result of our acceptance of the gift of what Jesus Christ did on our behalf, of his dying on the cross to, offering himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and dying on the cross, conquering the power of sin and death and rising to new life, and it’s our belief of that gift that he made possible, and that faith in Jesus as lord and savior, and the dedication of our life to him.  That’s where salvation comes from.  It’s not by being part of a particular group of people, but it’s that ultimately each one of us will have to answer the question that the Lord asked the disciples, and that was “but who do you say that I am?”  And the answer to that question is essential in terms of our ultimate destiny.

Strengthening Marriage

The Right Reverend Mark Beckwith, Bishop of Newark (New Jersey) weighs in on New York's passage of Marriage Equality:

I rejoice with our New York neighbors on the passage of a state law that will make it legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry. I ache for gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey, which came very close two years ago to passing similar legislation. By a close vote New Jersey chose to stick with civil unions -- which is a separate but unequal provision if there ever was one.

What the country is learning, slowly but inexorably, is that marriage for gay and lesbian couples and families strengthens marriage for all couples and families. Relationships marked by fidelity and life-long commitment, and which are protected by law -- as well as blessed by the church, weaves yet another important and necessary thread of support into the social fabric.

Same-gender marriage also exposes the inequity of so-called "traditional" marriage, in which a wedding ceremony was in large measure a contract between two men -- the groom and the father of the bride. When the father of the bride "gave away" his daughter, she surrendered her name, her property and her legal status -- to her husband. With the evolution of marriage -- and particularly with the advent of same-gender marriage, the only surrendering is that of two people giving their love and commitment to each other.

My hope and prayer is that the action in New York will serve as a catalyst for providing the same outcome in New Jersey. Many in the Garden State will redouble their efforts to promote marriage equality. I will join them.

I am reminded by an insight made some sixty years ago by Reinhold Niebuhr, a remarkable theologian who in many ways served as our culture's post-war conscience: the human capacity for justice makes democracy possible; and the human capacity for injustice makes democracy necessary.

I hope and pray for the continued unfolding of democracy, the evolution of marriage -- and the freedom and equality that are the hallmarks of each.