As evidenced throughout the last several years, as well as at General Convention this summer in Denver, one of the most contentious issues in the Episcopal Church is the issue the blessing of same sex unions. American priests, irregularly consecrated bishops in another province, have set up a mission in the U. S. explicitly from the catalyst (if not explicitly for the reason) of the Episcopal Church's apparent growing willingness to approve rites for same sex unions. Since Convention a few parishes have left the Episcopal Church to join themselves to this mission. Primates of other provinces in the Anglican Communion have chided the American Episcopal Church for what they perceive to be a drift away from traditional orthodoxy. It is an issue in which all sides of the debate have ratcheted up the rhetoric. Involving as it does both our understandings of human sexuality as well as of marriage, it is a complex issue involving much more than some of the simplifications that rhetoric on all sides of the issue utilize; that is to say, it involves much more than sexual expression and much more than justice.

The focus in my paper will be just on this juxtaposition of sexuality and marriage, specifically as it bears on the issue of same sex unions. I will not answer the question, "Should the clergy of the Episcopal Church bless same sex unions in an approved rite?" Nor will I answer any of a plethora of related issues. In my view, these are just the sort of questions that send discussion of these matters down unproductive pathways, not because they are illegitimate, but because they are premature. They are, in other words, the wrong sorts of questions with which to begin. Rather, what I hope to accomplish in this paper is to raise much more basic and substantive questions. It is my hope that with these questions in the forefront of the Church's dialogue, a dialogue called for explicitly in Resolution X018 from the 73rd General Convention, that we might productively and gracefully come to holy consensus.

My paper has three prongs with which to begin orienting ourselves around the sort of substantive and important questions I am proposing. First, I want to come to an honest, if not exhaustive, assessment of the factors in the dialogue which have brought the Episcopal Church to this point of apparent impasse. Next, I want to call for a clear teaching from the bishops of the Episcopal Church on this issue; not the bullet points of entrenched positions, but a carefully articulated theology of the issues surrounding these questions. This is what I understand Resolution C008 to calls the Episcopal Church to. Finally, though I recognize that at this juncture the bishops are divided on the issue, I nonetheless want to call for a consensus on the direction the Episcopal Church should take in these matters, recognizing that consensus is not an matter that happens quickly.

Part of the intensity of the dialogues result not from a disagreement over conclusions reached from similar data, though of course this is a part of it. Indeed, part of the difficulty surrounding the debate on same sex unions is that the varying perspectives start from such different points. The debate at its core is less about the validity of same sex unions and more about kulturkampf. As the Report to the 73rd General Convention put it, "There has been passion on both sides of the issue, as well as pain. There have been studies that have been read one way by one group and interpreted differently by the other" (3). That is to say, the debate is suffused in the issues of worldviews. The questions that seem so fundamental do not appear to be addressed: From what vantage point do we begin the dialogue? What sources inform our thinking? Are there limits to which we may allow the dialogue to go? These and other questions need to be part of the back and forth of the issue from the very start. In my view, if these questions are not asked, the debate will not only not proceed, but will only entrench each side in their own positions. Such an entrenchment will not only not foster responsible communication, but will only exacerbate the divisions which already exist over the argument.

In fact, this already seems to be the case. The American Anglican Council, in their publication "Mixed Blessings," have not so much engaged proponents of same sex unions within the proponent's arguments, but rather have marshaled evidence against such a position. For example, Christopher Seitz, in his response (pages 6-10) to Dr. L. William Countryman's article in the Commission's report, does not explicitly deal with Countryman's minimalist understanding of Scriptural interpretation. He does work point by point through Countryman's article, but he does not himself explicate an interpretive rationale. This may well be due to the focus of Seitz's own article, which is to respond to Countryman. But this is exactly what illustrates my point.

Similarly, the reports from the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music did not so much engage opponents of same sex unions so much as to offer an rationale for their own positions. As an example, Countryman, in his report on Scripture, writes in conclusion: "It would seem that the Bible, taken as a whole, is not definitive enough to demand a negative judgment on the present subject" (7). But if that statement is true, then it's opposite is likewise plausible: The Bible is not definitive enough to demand a positive assertion on the subject. It is true that Countryman sets his conclusion within an assumption of minimalist interpretation of Scripture, but it must be acknowledged, that this is what Countryman brings to the text, not what the text itself demands. Which brings us back to presuppositions again.

Another development that has structured the current debate is a much larger emphasis on personal experience. Proponents of same sex unions as well as their opponents have offered testimonials from individuals highlighting both implicit and explicit calls to either accept or reject same sex unions. Some urge that the experience of the Church through the centuries is in opposition to such unions. Others argue that those who have taken part in liturgies crafted for these unions via local option have experiential evidence for the validity of the rite and relationships blessed in these rites. Bishop Charles Bennison, in his article in the Commission's Report, citing the work of Kenneth Stevenson and Mark Searle, writes that "any theology of marriage must arise from reflected experience, mediated through liturgy" (13).

However, in the face of competing experiential witness, how are we to discern between them? This sort of ethical method can become dangerously close to what Alisdair MacIntyre labels "emotivism." "Emotivism is the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more specfically all moral judgments are nothing but expression of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling insofar as they are moral or evaluative in character" (11-12). By citing MacIntyre here, I do not at all mean to suggest that any party in the debate is merely offering up their preferences. But I do wish to illustrate that when one begins with experience, one must in some way be able to discern between experiences. But this sort of question does not seem to play a part within the debates on same sex unions. Nonetheless it is crucial. Is the Epicsopal Church to discern between these competing experiences by legislation and voting? And if so, what evidence can be marshalled in favor of taking such a course? Further, what then is the Church to do with those marginalized by such a vote?

So it appears that at the present juncture in the Episcopal Church we have those for and those against same sex unions, marshalling arguments and personal experience for their own views, and labeling their opponents as schismatics or heretics. Unfortunately, rather than a game-like atmosphere where the combatants are observed from the sidelines by spectators with varying levels of engagement, what we have is more like a battle, with noncombatants caught in the middle and wondering what sense to make of it all.

I would like to next make some proposals to all those involved in the debates so that the Episcopal Church might not only avoid the brink of division, but might also pastorally minister to all parishioners. By all parishioners, I mean not just proponents and opponents of same sex unions, but also to the rest who have not taken a side and are discerning not so much what they should do regarding the issue of same sex unions, but have some concern over the state of the Church in which they worship, love and serve.

Resolution X018 from the 73rd General Convention calls for the use of the Theology Committee in consultation with the House of Bishops Committee on Pastoral Development to continued study and conversation on these issues. As I understand it, it is a call for the bishops to exercise their charism in the teaching office. So my call for clear teaching from the bishops is nothing more than an affirmation of the Resolution and of the office of bishop. But when I call for a clear teaching from the bishops I do not mean a recital of what the Church has already heard. Rather, I mean positive theologies (that is to say, in the sense of declarative propositions, as in to posit a premise) concerning marriage (and correlatively on same sex unions) and anthropology, an explicit declaration on how the Episcopal Church will understand and assess the catholic Tradition of the Church through the millennia, an explicit declaration as to what degree the Episcopal Church will either embrace or oppose aspects of our current culture which come to bear on this debate (medical, scientific, legal, etc.), and finally, perhaps an honesty that admits mere conversation will not itself bring about consensus.

By a theology of marriage (and the corollary same sex unions), I do not mean a mere citation of Scripture to support one's own views and critique one's opponent's views. Rather I mean an honest, direct and forthright handling of Scripture, Church Tradition, and human experience (a point to which I will return shortly).

The bishops will need to articulate clearly to what end a human marriage is directed. The Book of Common Prayer and the Catechism make statements in this regard. But the various sides of the debate have taken these statements and used them for their own ends, often in contradictory ways. Furthermore, according to Bishop Marshall in the Commission's Report, "there is no unanimously held view of same-sex unions in the gay community" (26). How is the Church to discern between these opposite interpretations and understandings? Other questions which must be asked are: What is the source of human marriage, ontologically and theologically speaking? What role does the Church play in human marriage? To what degree do Christian marriages and non-Christian marriage correspond and differ? To what end do Christian marriages point: procreation, companionship, growth in holiness, or some other telos? The bishops will also need to articulate whether or not same sex unions are the same thing as marriage. If same sex unions are simply another human expression of what the Church means by marriage, that will need to be substantiated. If same sex unions have points of similarity, but are nonetheless different from what the Church means by marriage, then the bishops will need to articulate a rationale, a theology in fact, of same sex unions. Whence their origin? To what purpose? What rationale is there for their "creation" (if it can be said that same sex unions are an "innovation")?

I would suggest the bishops will also be forced by the issue to articulate a positive theology of human beings. According to Bishop Marshall, "[T]here has not been a serious and thorough-going attempt among us at a theological anthropology . . . for far too long" (26). Indeed, perhaps a Christian anthropology should be a more foundational issue than a theology of marriage. After all, what are humans beings? To what degree does (or should) our sexuality play in our being and living? Is our debate over same sex unions fueled more by such a Christian view of human beings, or more a reflection of where our culture is? Indeed, should that matter? What role does sexuality play in our growth in holiness? Correlatively, what role does celibacy play in our faith life? Can celibacy be required of Christians who are not married, nor are partners in same sex unions, or is celibacy a charismatic gift that not all share? These questions are not explicitly addressed either by Timothy Sedgwick, or by Dr Sheryl Kujawa, in their respective sections of the Commission's Reports.

To the various sides on the issue of same sex unions answers to the questions appear obvious. But once again, this frequently appears to be more a matter of presuppositions and starting points, than it is of a clearly articulated theology of human beings.

Even more pointedly, neither in the group of articles in "Mixed Blessings" from the American Anglican Council, nor in the Standing Commissions report, could I detect that there has been any connection between a theological anthropology and Christology. For if we are to understand Christ as the Chalcedonian formula articulates his nature, then the understandings we come to regarding human sexuality will impinge back on our understanding of Christology. Theology cannot be compartmentalized.

Of course, from the very beginning, bishops (and others) will have to come to an understanding of what weight will be carried by all the various sources brought to bear on the issue of same sex unions. This last will be no small task. For at the heart of the debates are not only disparate understandings of which set of sources may validly enter the discussion, but more to the point, which source(s) may "trump" the others when there is apparent contrariety between them. Do we start from human experience, or from Scripture, or from the catholic Tradition? The bishops will hopefully be able to articulate how differing starting points will yield different answers to the same questions, and why a particular starting point is to be preferred over another. It should be completely obvious that if one starts with a rationale of the primacy of Scripture over human experience one may very likely be interpreted differently than if one were to start with human experience and to interpret a particular set of Scriptural texts.

Involved in this is, of course, a rationale of what stance one should take in relation to our culture. Do we embrace culture and its presuppositions wholecloth, interpreting our faith experience in light of such cultural mores? Or do we take a stance in opposition to our culture such that we interpret our experiences in light of our Christian faith? I have drawn these possibilities in diametrical extremes to make my point. I do not suppose that either is genuinely possible. Our Christian presuppositions cannot but color how we approach our culture, whether in a stance of embrace (from an ethic say, perhaps, of loving transformation) or opposition (from an ethic, perhaps, of prophetic holiness). Similarly, our cultural presuppositions will color our view of the Christian life. It should be telling to us that in other Anglican provinces the issue of same sex unions is not in the forefront of the issues with which they wrestle. The Episcopal Church should ask why that is so; not from the standpoint of derailing the issue in our own country, but rather of taking stock of the factors involved in its being such an important issue in American Anglican experience.

The bishops will need to help the Episcopal Church in this debate by giving clear direction. This will be most challenging of all in the disciplines that are frequently brought to bear on the issue of same sex unions: scientific, medical and legal. It is perhaps unrealistic to suppose that the House of Bishops should be experts in these areas. But they should engage all viewpoints in these areas, not simply those with which they agree, and as best they can assess the evidence. Timothy Sedgwick summarizes some of these findings in his report, but does not explicitly deal with counter studies, explaining whether or not these do indeed counter evidence seeming to support same sex relationships.

Further, if the Episcopal Church is going to proceed in a direction that appears to be different from the course the Church has taken in its two thousand year existence (which point of course begs the question), then an explanation as to why and how it can be discerned that such a move is directed by the Holy Spirit will be paramount. Likewise, if the Episcopal Church is going to proceed on a course similar to that which the catholic Church has maintained over two millennia (again, to beg the question), then it will be encumbent upon the bishops to explain how such a course is fully in line with the Spirit's direction of the Church in the areas of pastoral ministry and justice.

Finally, it should by now be obvious to all those involved and all those observing the debates on same sex unions that mere conversation will not bring about consensus. Like Socrates in Plato's Gorgias, rhetoric presumes a priori assumptions, and when one cannot agree on what is meant by various terms, nor even on the "rules of dialogue" then conversation will not go forward. The opponents will simply circle one another in seemingly endless repetition. Consensus can only begin when one's structures, of thought and of argumentation, are laid bare for analysis. If bishops cannot agree on what are our commons sources, to what degree they carry weight, to what degree we ought to embrace or oppose our culture, then there will be a concomittant inability to build a common theology such that the Church can reach consensus. To state that all involved can hold our disparate and contradictory understandings on these issues and still go forward in love, is to both ignore the present realities in the Episcopal Church and perhaps to engage in a dangerously obscurantist naivete.

It is manifest that to engage these proposals will demand from the House of Bishops in the Episcopal Church a strong collegiality that goes beyond mere acceptance and opinion, to a deep filial bond in the Spirit; the sort of bond that partners in difficult struggles find: at times in heated argument, at times in confession and repentance, always in love and in the union we all share in Christ and in God. I do not by this mean to presuppose that the House of Bishops does not have this sort of collegiality. But the practice of local option as called for in the Commission's Report at least calls such a collegiality into question.

This of course begs the question as to what I mean by collegiality. By it I mean consensus, that is to say in the etymological sense, being of the same mind. Being of the same mind does not at all mean mere conformity, nor a "cookie-cutter" like demand. As the Ecumenical Councils of the catholic Church have shown, there can be great diversity in opinion, even on matters as momentous as Christology. But when such diversity is engaged in the matter I have proposed above (and I have, as consciously as I can, taken the Councils, especially the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, as a model for this paper), then a common mind can be reached.

Furthermore, if American Anglicans take their roots in the Anglican tradition, and our membership in the Anglican Communion, seriously, the bishops will likewise need to act in collegial consensus with fellow bishops around the Communion. Indeed, this is true as well of our ecumenical partners. Our decisions and actions in our churches here in the United States, do affect and impinge on our sisters and brothers overseas--as do theirs ours. This sort of collegiality will be difficult, particular in today's present inflamed circumstances. But it was the prayer of our Lord, and remains so.

Still, such a collegiality will not happen immediately. It is patently obvious from my proposals that this process will not happen overnight or within the next year. This will be a long, tedious, and perhaps at times thankless, process. Indeed, so precarious an undertaking is it, that it may not happen at all. But we do have the promises of our Lord to lead his people into all truth, and he has further promised to be with us through the end of the age. So while the Episcopal Church may approach such a task with the weariness of heated engagement, and the accompanying despair it can bring, it can nonetheless remain hopeful.

But in my view it is the only sort of process by which the Episcopal Church will move from contentious debate to a consensus of the Holy Spirit. In the end this process, as guided by the Spirit, may very well lead the Episcopal Church in a direction no one can at this time envision.

I have not as yet even begun to touch on liturgical issues directly. But it should be obvious by now that I view a move to proposal of rites for same sex unions as premature. That such rites have been occurring both preceding and following General Convention is open knowledge (see the Commission's Report, page 16). Those opposed to such rites have found this a great offense to what they take the Church to be and believe. Those who are in favor of such rites have found this to be an issue of justice, and view their activities as a prophetic call to the Church. It is not suprising perhaps, then, that rather than continuing dialogue on a major national scale, we have those who are viewed as renegade bishops operating a mission of sorts to those in the Episcopal Church who wish to leave and yet remain part of the Anglican Communion which is still in communion with the see of Canterbury.

It is difficult to see at this juncture whether the situation will resolve itself into official endorsement of same sex unions through approved rites and/or canonical change, or whether the call for a parallel province of sorts will emerge with or without Canterbury's blessing. Or perhaps both. The tensions among the participants in the debate seem to be increasing. What appears unlikely at this point is that any sort of rapprochement is imminent.

What may be left to us is an Aristotelian understanding of the mean. That is to say, perhaps we can agree on the edges of the dialogue. One likely candidate for setting those markers might be a statement similar to the Cambridge Accord. Once those markers are laid out, then we can begin to work the hard work of laboring toward agreement, resolving differences, going forward with a common theology, with bishops leading the Church into the holy consensus of the Spirit. This would appear to be far different than our current litigious agendas.

By all this, I do not mean to suggest that such a proposal of rites for same sex unions is somehow wrong per se. I mean only to say that if such rites are to be formulated in the current context, it may only go forward by weight of numbers. Legislation of such rites will not help those who are opposed to them accept them, anymore than opposition to such legislation will convince those in favor of them to abandon their efforts. Enforcement of one's position on others through political and canonical processes is highly ineffective, unless one wants to officially marginalize one's opponents. But I would maintain that what I propose, while not alleviating the pain of those engaged in the process, either through enactment of such rites or through their prohibition, goes much farther toward avoiding schism and the further pain that schism itself brings. My proposals are, tacitly, calls for patience and reflection. But depending upon with whom one is talking, the Episcopal Church may be beyond the point at which all sides in the debate are able to enact a pause in the discussions, or even to start over.

American Anglican Council. "Mixed Blessings: Why Same-Sex Blessings Will Divide the
    Church." June, 2000.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1984

Scanzoni, Letha Dawson and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? San
    Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.

Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. "Report to the 73rd General Convention."
    November, 1999.

© 2000 Clifton D. Healy

Return to Clifton's Writing Page

Return to Clifton's Page