Note, this article was originally written for LGCM, UK
"Not for Heterosexuals Only: The Revolutionary State of Marriage"
the Rev'd Canon Elizabeth Kaeton
Diocesan Canon Missioner to The Oasis
The Episcopal Diocese of Newark, New Jersey, USA
I recently read a humorous quote from American singer-comedian, Bette Middler, who said, "When the clock in Times Square, NY, welcomes the dawn of the year 2000, it will still be 1946 in London." On some subjects, she may be correct. On the subject of marriage for lesbian and gay Christians however, both the Episcopal Church and the Church of England seem to be stuck somewhere in a time warp.
As we began to discover during Lambeth '98, the discussion about homosexuality is a 'smoke screen' of sorts. Once we've begun the discussion and moved through the initial emotionally-charged fog of what constitutes an "abomination in the sight of the Lord", the smoke clears and suddenly, mysteriously, we find ourselves in "a land where time stood still". We discover ourselves in the midst of the argument in which the Early Church found itself: how do we interpret ancient scripture in light of the Jesus-event at the dawn of a new age?
Just as Peter (in Acts 10) and Paul (in Romans) struggled in their day with the question of the focus of their mission - Jews only or Gentiles - so too are we struggling with issues of identity and membership in the Body of Christ. Peter found his answer in the midst of a mysterious dream and was able to determine, "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality" (Acts 10:34). Paul, on the other hand, giving careful scrutiny to the lives of Jew and Gentile, reasoned that, " . . . there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . ."(Romans 3:22b-23). In the midst of Peter's mysterious dream and Paul's intellectual reason, the mission of the church was expanded.
That seems to echo the conversion experience of Jesus himself. Both Matthew (15:21-28) and Mark (7:24-30) report a conversation between Jesus and a Canaanite woman which is startling in its revelation of the human limits Jesus had placed on his divine mission and ministry. Jesus is confronted with his own racism and sexism ("It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Matt 15:26) and, in the midst of those decidedly human prejudices ("Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table" Matt 15:27), gains an insight into the distinction between his mission and his willingness to respond to faith wherever it is found. The conversation about human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular, seems to return us directly into the center of this ancient conversation and controversy.
As if that were not daunting enough a task, we seem also to be re-visiting a tenet of Anglicanism: our beloved Three-Legged Stool, given to us by Richard Hooker, of scripture, reason and tradition. The questions which now surround us are ones for which, we thought, answers had already been determined: Just how much authority does scripture have in our lives of faith? How do reason and tradition inform what we read in scripture?
In the USA, the 'call to arms' has already been issued by godfearing members of every major religious denomination who urge their politicians to support legislation known collectively as "The Defense of Marriage Act." That 'marriage' is something which needs 'defense' from lesbian women and gay men is, in my mind, quite laughable. Indeed, in my experience gay and lesbian people who have come to have a ceremony in the church which asks a blessing of their holy covenant are closer to the spirituality of the sacrament of marriage than most of their heterosexual counterparts. I'll discuss this claim further in a moment.
The need to 'defend marriage' in this country is probably heightened by the fact that not only are we on dangerous scriptural ground, the issue of marriage for lesbian women and gay men also returns us to the old battleground of 'separation of church and state'. Unlike the Anglican Church in the U.K., the rector or vicar of an American church or parish does not function as an agent of the state, with the one and only exception of marriage. In the American system, an ordained person is 'duly authorized' by the government to preside over the civil as well as the religious aspects of the ceremony.
This has created the effect of producing for our church-as-institution a very profitable little cottage industry. The 'business of marriage' has kept open the doors of more than one or two struggling churches - in quaint little rural settings or in stately urban grandeur - for the enjoyment of the rest of the sometimes dwindling flock. Many priests also function as wedding consultants, of sorts, assisting with locating community resources for selection of flowers, photographer and videographer, selection of music and musicians, and, in many cases, providing the parish hall for the reception and cooks to prepare the festive repast. In this country, this often translates into an obscene amount of money which line the pockets of the church and local businesses. It also has the effect of creating general good will for the church which is providing the stimulus for the system of free enterprise - a cardinal tenet of capitalism.
Now, what could be wrong with any of that? Why, marriage is as American as apple pie! A cornerstone of our society! Isn't it right that the church be involved in this foundational event in the lives of our culture? Didn't our Lord choose to perform his first miracle at the Wedding Feast in Cana? Doesn't this justify the role of the church in the sacrament of marriage? Well, yes, of course. Except, there is this disturbing statistic of almost half of the marriages in this country ending in divorce within the first five years.
While there are as many reasons for this staggering and disturbing phenomenon as there are marriages, the church, it seems, needs to confront itself with the issues for which it is entrusted by God. What have we done to empower the spirituality of marriage? In our rush to provide all things legally correct and civilly right as well as esthetically pleasing, have we neglected to provide at least a modicum of understanding for the spiritual basis for this holy union?
The real danger of lesbians and gay men who seek to have their relationships blessed is that we challenge the church with precisely these questions. When we ask the church to bless the sacred covenant we make with one another, we are asking the Body of Christ to act with integrity upon its authentic mission. We are asking the church to do what the church can and should do and what it claims to have the sole right and authority to do: Bless.
The provision of this spiritual blessing is at the core of the Rite of Marriage, and it is one which has been usurped by the civil role now assumed by our priests. It is meant to bestow an 'outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace' which is the very nature of a sacramental act. That is quite a different subject from the civil right of marriage, which is its own separate battle. However, the request of gay men and lesbians to bless the covenant of our relationships does bring the church to confront it's own embarrassing dilemma: our request calls the church to cherish her own orthodoxy, even as we endure the false charges of a blasphemous and heretical modern accommodation of a cultural abomination.
In struggling with the issue of blessing the commitment of lesbian and gay relationships, the church has the opportunity to return and embrace its roots and, in so doing, to celebrate the radical orthodoxy of Jesus, whose Sacred Body we are. We have the opportunity to take our part in ancient conversations, such as the one Jesus had with the Pharisees and some of the Herodians who asked , "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" And Jesus, taking a coin which had the likeness and inscription of Caesar, answered, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:13-17, Matthew 22:15-22)
Just as the early disciples learned the new meaning of the ancient Sabbath laws ("For the Son of Man is the lord of the Sabbath" Matthew 12:1-8), and they with the Pharisees learned anew the meaning of the words of Hosea when he said, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," (Hosea 6:6) we, too, might gain fresh understanding for our day and time about the authority of Jesus as the Word of God over our human understanding and interpretation of the words of God.
Perhaps Jesus chose the Wedding Feast at Cana as the occasion of his first miracle because he knew that the miracle of changing water into wine pales in comparison to the sacred and transformative act of entering into a covenant with another person. The real blessing of this sacramental act is that not only are the two changed, but so are all who involve themselves in it this deeply spiritual act - including the church.
Who knows? The church and her priest just might find the courage to take real leadership in the spiritual lives of God's people, instead of allowing ourselves to be subverted by the seduction of what our culture determines and rewards as normative. The church might find the courage to set the agenda for the world, and not allow the world to set the agenda for the church. It would be miraculous, indeed, for the church to call our government to the provision of the civil right of marriage for her lesbian and gay citizens.
I suppose that is the most dangerous aspect of this request: that the church might also be transformed into greater authenticity as the Sacred Body of Christ. We too, like Jesus before us, might learn the distinction between our limited, human understanding of the mission of Jesus and the willingness of Jesus to respond to faith wherever it is found. Like Peter and Paul, we might find ourselves in that sacred place between the mystery of our dream and the reason of our intellect, which is where I believe the genius of the Anglican 'Via Media' resides.
It is from this place that I believe we may know our deepest hope and greatest ability to live faithfully into the new commandment which Jesus gave us: "Love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35)
The gift of the present controversy of lesbian and gay blessing and marriage is that it will help us reclaim our ancient identity as followers of Christ. It will also place us in time where, whether it is 2000 in New York City or 1946 in London, we will not be in kronos, the time of humankind, but rather in kairos, the time of God. That's quite a revolution!
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.