Sunday,
August 10, 2003
Good morning. I hope you all had
a good week. Here at the Chapel, we had a wonderful
I resisted interviews about the action of General Convention for a number of reasons, many personal. For one thing, I believe the story is not over, and it’s really too early to tell exactly what it means. Usually, I speak to you at this time in our worship, “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Today, however, I would just like to share with you some of my reflections on the events we have watched on the news, or read about.
If the familiar sales maxim, “bad publicity is better than no publicity,” is true, then last week was a great week for our Church. In fact, it was not all bad. Indeed there was much to celebrate in the accounts of the General Convention of our Church. In many ways, the operative word was “open.” Fr. Robinson was the first “openly gay” bishop. The procedures of the convention were open to the press, and much of the debate was held in public view. When questions arose concerning Fr. Robinson’s character, the charges were openly announced, and clearly defined procedures were ready to deal with them in an open way.
Moreover, the fascination of the nation with the Church’s debate was an indication that our Church is openly confronting a major social issue of our times. Several commentators in fact made the point that our Church was serving a wider national debate, which could benefit us all. This was true not only of the content of the debate itself, but more importantly, I think, by the spirit of the Convention. One anecdote, in particular, sticks out in my mind.
At one point in the week, when the House of Bishops had delayed its vote to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of Fr. Robinson, a television news anchor asked a reporter about the mood of the delegates. Were there charges of “dirty pool?” The reporter said that the mood was certainly somber, but he went on to tell about an incident he had witnessed that day. He was interviewing a leading opponent of Fr. Robinson, in a close space in the convention center, when a leading supporter of Fr. Robinson happened by. He expected a confrontation. Instead, the two opponents hugged each other, and gave mutual assurances of the good will of each for the other’s side. This spirit at the convention may have shown how “a genuine Christian community of love and service can become “a beacon of faith and hope to the world.”
I know that many of you have an interest in knowing my own views on the convention and its outcome. I wish that I could give an enthusiastic endorsement of the convention’s action, or could at least give a clear condemnation. Instead, I can only share a little of my own dilemma with you. I know that my own lack of clarity will be as disappointing to some of you, as any clear and ringing endorsement would be to others; or any outright condemnation would be to others still. Yet I hope that you can at least join prayerfully with me in wrestling with the issues that confront us in the Church, as well as in our world — on television, in the market place, in our work places, in our families, and in ourselves.
Let me begin very personally. To begin with, I know Gene Robinson. We were in college together at Sewanee, and although he was a year or so ahead of me, Sewanee is a small school, and I knew of him, as an upperclassman who was actively involved in the Chapel, and in fact president of the University Choir. Later, a few years after we were ordained, I attended a workshop he led at a conference on faith development. I took his material, and have been using it ever since. As is evident from the interviews he has given, he is a deeply committed, intelligent, and articulate priest.
As most of you know, I have been
involved in two Episcopal elections, one in this diocese, and one in the
diocese of the
This is very mysterious to me,
and a reminder that God is Lord of the Church, as well as Lord of each of us.
In this diocese, as I was leaving the house to go to Bishop Frade’s
consecration in
What most of you do not know, is
that I have also been nominated to be bishop in several other dioceses over the
last few years, in Mississippi, in Atlanta — and in New Hampshire. In each case
I prayerfully studied the diocesan profile, considered my ministry here, and examined
the calling in light of my personal gifts, and family situation. In each case,
I concluded I was not called to serve, but I hope you can understand why my
decision in the case of
In the Episcopal Church, we have
always believed that the Holy Spirit is given to the whole Church, not just to
the hierarchy of the clergy. We believe that the Holy Spirit confirms each baptized
Christian’s faith with the signs and wonders of His presence. We believe,
moreover that the whole Church must discern the will of God within the
community. For that reason, we meet in conventions to decide important issues.
We do not receive directives from a Pope. Nor is every individual pastor, or
congregation, his own master. We believe this process is truly scriptural, as
can be seen in the story in Acts 15 of the council of Jerusalem, and we believe
it is in accord with the most ancient and historical traditions of the Church,
as in the great councils of Nicea and Chalcedon. In
To speak again personally, I
have for years been engaged in the sexuality dialogue within our Church.
Several years ago, during the trial of bishop Righter, I was asked to
contribute a paper for a symposium in our diocese at
I have come to believe (as the astronomer, Sir Alfred Eddington once said about the universe) that the matter is not only “queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think.” Indeed (to borrow again from science) a contemporary physicist has said that anyone who tells you they understand quantum mechanics has not understood it. I believe the same is true of human sexuality.
Human sexuality engages us at the most deeply personal and private levels of ourselves. Yet, it is also at the heart of our very existence as a human society, and indeed goes beyond the limits of our humanity, as sexuality is woven into the very fabric of Nature. Moreover, we believe that sexuality also is reflective of the very nature of God.
One of the frustrating things to me, in fact, about the present debate is that it has been largely uninformed by serious theological reflection. Chapter One of the Book of Genesis tells us that we are created “male and female, in the image of God.” Chapter Two of Genesis describes the union of husband and wife as a reconstitution of the Original Unity of Humanity in Creation.
Yet, the debate on human sexuality is too often an expression of gay pride, or heterosexual prejudice. Mostly, it is argued in terms of inclusivity, or morality. To be sure, each side is able to quote scripture, but as we know, the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose. If the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also condemns loaning money for interest, tolerates slavery, and commands tithing. When it comes to proof –texting, the Bible can always reinforce our own pre judgments.
When framed as a matter of inclusiveness, the Church is clear. Homosexual persons are children of God. Our motto stands, “The Episcopal Church welcomes you.” Or, as Jesus says in today’s Gospel,
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [1]
When framed as a matter of morality, we find ourselves quickly embroiled in the murky ambiguity of human experience. Soon, we are in another gray area that includes divorce, co-habitation, social mores, and human frailty. The Church has always chosen to deal with these things pastorally and compassionately, rather than by legislative action, or administrative fiat. As Paul says in today’s lesson, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”
The Church always has to struggle with the open inclusiveness of the Gospel, and the call to holiness. Indeed, over the last several years, the Church has been consistent in affirming the dignity of the individual, regardless of condition, or orientation, while upholding the norm of the Church’s traditional teaching that marriage is the only sanctioned context of sexual intimacy.
This has not settled the issue
for us in the Episcopal Church, for us in
When I was a candidate for the
Bishop of the
African Bishops, in particular, have resisted any attempts to relax the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Not that they have not also had to wrestle with the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage. For them the issue, however, is not homosexuality, but polygamy. Many African societies are traditionally polygamous. African Christians, moreover, are actively engaged in a missionary struggle with Islam. As the Bishop of Kenya told the Lambeth Conference, “Muslims have a saying, ‘Christians want you to have one wife and three Gods. As a Muslim, you can have four wives, but only one God.’” Moreover, African bishops view our own views on marriage as hypocritical: liberal western divorce laws amount to “serial polygamy.”
So, I wish the Convention had not acted as it did. It appears to have acted outside the agreed statements of the Church at this time. It may threaten our unity. Yet, it was not the faithless action of a minority. It was not a conspiracy championed by a few. It was not a clandestine operation. It was not an act of hierarchal hubris. It was a democratic decision that ratified the democratic decision of a diocese in our Church. To have done otherwise, may have been to grieve the Holy Spirit, as some claimed.
It is too soon to tell. As Episcopalians, we believe that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,” and that “He has given us the ministry of reconciliation.” We recognize that we have this treasure “in earthen vessels.” We know that “we see through a glass darkly.” We must “walk by faith, not by sight.” “It does not yet appear what we shall be, we only know that we shall be like Him” who died and rose again for us. “Therefore” as Paul urges us today, “each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body… And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.” We must continue to pray, as we did today, for God to grant us “the spirit to think and do always those things that are right, that we, who cannot exist without you, may by you be enabled to live according to your will.” In the meantime, we must speak the truth, as we know it, to one another in love, and plead with one another, “Please be patient, God is not finished with me yet.”
[1] The Collect and Lessons referenced are those from Proper 14, The Sunday closest to August 10, Year B (BCP p.909.)