The banns of marriage and the law of the land

As the Supreme Court concluded hearing oral arguments about marriage equality today, I've been asked to offer comments by a number of people.

Allow me to step back a few paces and point out that marriage licenses began at the behest of the Church of England, which was having a whale of a time enforcing monogamy standards in a maritime nation (sailors seemed to have wives in every port).

The Church tried to enforce its moral standards through the “banns of marriage,” an announcement done three Sundays in a row that so-and-so intended to be married; the idea being it would surface a wife. The strategy didn't work, and so the Church asked Parliament to license marriages. The concept was transported to the colonies where it is now a part of our law in the United States. In other words, it is our church that got government into the marriage business in the first place. By the way, Pastor Heather Warren explored this history in great detail at a series of forums in 2011. You can read all of our material HERE.

As a priest in a church, when I preside at a wedding I am also acting as an agent of the state, which is a complete blur of the separation of church and state. It is also raises the question of why one of the sacraments of the Church – Holy Matrimony – is licensed by the state. Baptism and Eucharist are not, but marriage is. Were it up to me, marriage would be a private contract between consenting parties, and the church would be entirely out of the legalities.

I made that argument about a year ago at a panel discussion at the University of Virginia School of Law. One of the panelists pointed out that the difficulty with my argument is that marriage law has provided a common and predictable set of legal guidelines that ordinary people can follow. To make marriage entirely a private contractual arrangement might require people to hire lawyers to get married.

The solution, it seems to me, is to get religion out of the legal marriage business. Those who wish to form a legal union of their relationship, with all the rights and privileges thereto, could go to the courthouse to seal their contract as civil marriage. It wouldn’t matter whether they were same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples. Then if they wished to have their union blessed as marriage, churches and other religious institutions could decide whether they could bless such relationships. Church and state would remain separate, and blessings would remain entirely religious. Each religion could interpret religious law as it sees fit.

And I would not be acting on behalf of the state.

By James Richardson, Fiat Lux

Holy Week: The palms are drying out, the days are wearing on

The palms from last Sunday still adorn our worship space, but they are drying out and will soon disappear. The Cross will soon be veiled in black, but not yet.

St. Paul’s at mid-holy Week is a bustle of activity. Extra hands on Tuesday were cleaning floors. The office staff prepared newcomer packets for Sunday and attended to a thousand other details. I tried to stay out of the way by plugging away on a sermon in my office.

At noon, Father Nik led the Holy Eucharist in the Chapel. He read from a long gospel passage about Jesus teaching in the Temple, and then he bid us to sit in silence for a time to simply be in the presence of the Lord and relax for a few moments.

I welcomed the quiet respite for a time. My eyes focused on the palms behind the chapel altar (in the photograph at right). They look so dry now. The week is wearing on.

When we were through, I went back to my office to work on my sermon. But not getting much creative traction, I looked at my Facebook page. It was ablaze with red-and-pink equality icons.

Many of my friends and relatives had bannered their Facebook pages with the icon because The U.S. Supreme Court was hearing arguments Tuesday and Wednesday about whether gay people should have the same right to marry as straight people.

I’ve long supported marriage rights for all people – gay or straight. Marriage is for those who can make a serious commitment in love for life to their partner. Marriage, as the Book of Common Prayer states, is first and foremost for the “mutual joy” and support of those who make this commitment. Sexual orientation is beside the point, or ought to be.

There is nothing in the Bible that puts limits on God’s call to love-based marriage, but there is a great deal of bias in our culture that is against it. Our culture is shifting, and for the better. We’ll see if the Supreme Court agrees. I changed my profile picture to the red-and-pink equality icon; it seemed like the holy thing to do this Holy Week.

The week is wearing on. And all things will be made new (and sermons will be written).

By James Richardson, Fiat Lux

Continuing the conversation

Thanks for the many comments I've received the last few days about our presentations on the issues of marriage and same-sex marriage. Many of the comments have come from around the country, including requests to use our presentations in other churches (yes!). All of the presentations are posted on a special blog, www.episcopalmarriage.blogspot.com, which you can also reach by clicking HERE. You will need to click "Older Posts" at the bottom of the page to reach Part I, and then scroll to the bottom.

I want to keep the conversation going, both online and in person in our parish. We will have an open discussion at our adult forum on April 10 at about 11:30 am. The presentations will be given again in May on Wednesday evenings and at an all-day Saturday workshop.

To keep this conversation going, I will add articles to episcopalmarriage from time-to-time on topics related to marriage and the inclusion of gay people in the life of the Church. We will try to keep some balance without edging into extremes by presenting multiple viewpoints (and feel free to send me your suggestions). To get that started, I've added an article by a former Presbyterian pastor that appeared a few days ago in Salon.com. It is reposted on episcopalmarriage, and worth your time.

A word about our continuing adult forums on marriage and the issues of same-sex marriage

In case you missed it, I want to draw your attention to our continuing Sunday adult forums on traditional marriage and the issues of same-sex marriage.  I am teaming up with The Rev. Dr. Heather Warren, who is a professor of Religious Studies at the University of Virginia, to bring you this series.

We've set up a special blog to post our presentation notes. You can get to that by clicking HERE.

On Sunday, we focused on traditional marriage as it has come down to us in our Christian tradition. We looked at how marriage customs and theology developed through biblical story, beginning with Adam and Eve, and we explored the Hebrew concept of covenant. We looked at Christian marriage vows since the Middle Ages, and how those vows have changed through successive versions of the Book of Common Prayer since 1549.

Christian marriage rites were once primarily property transactions (with brides as property) to where we now see marriage as an exchange of vows representing equal pledges of fidelity between husband and wife. Until recently, our prayer book proclaimed that marriage is primarily for the purpose of having children. With the changes in the prayer book in 1979, the Episcopal Church now views marriage as primarily for the "mutual joy" of a married couple.

That is a big shift, and has brought with it questions about why "mutual joy" should be restricted only to opposite sex couples.

My presentation notes are posted in full on our special blog, Marriage & Blessings. Presentations from previous weeks are also posted there. Please join us in person or here on the Internet for this important exploration of these issues.

Next week we will look at the arguments for and against same-sex blessings.

Our series on marriage and same-sex blessings continues

A quick update on our adult education series on blessings, marriage, and same-sex blessings. The Rev. Dr. Heather Warren, who is a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, gave a talk Sunday on the biblical origins and understandings of blessings (and curses), and her presentation is now posted on a special blog we've set up for this course. You can read her remarks by clicking HERE. She packed quite a lot into her presentation, so take your time.

This Sunday I will continue with a presentation on covenants and vows, and a quick history of marriage in Christianity. We will look at some of the vows of marriage and see how vows have changed as understandings of marriage has changed. We will leave plenty of time for discussion.

I've been asked what the purpose of this series is and whether we are going to "debate" same-sex marriage. My intention is that we not just pool our preconceived notions and opinions in a debate, but gain some common understanding of the historical and theological underpinnings of marriage and blessings so that we aren't lobbing sound-bites at each other. The institution of marriage comes with tremendous emotional and historical baggage, and that makes any debate about same-sex blessings so difficult. This is not the same as blessing your house or your car. It is about people and their relationships.

If you haven't read my presentation about the crisis in marriage from two Sundays ago, I would ask that you do so, especially if you are coming to the presentation this Sunday. You can read my presentation by clicking HERE. I hope to see you Sunday, or please follow along at our special blog: www.episcopalmarriage.blogspot.com.

Artwork above: Detail from a decorative block print of a Hebrew blessing; late 14th century C.E. The Hebrew text from Deuteronomy 28:6 reads: "May you be blessed as you arrive and as you depart." From the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, University of Cambridge.

Adult forum on marriage and blessings: New blog with notes from presentation

Several people asked me today for copies of my presentation notes on my talk on marriage, same-sex marriage and blessings. Rather than put a lengthy post on Fiat Lux, I have created a separate blog for this series of adult forums. The blog is called Marriage & Blessings, and you can read today's notes by clicking HERE.

My apologies; I have not had a chance to add footnotes or clean up the writing. These are notes, not a polished paper. For those of you who came today, thanks, and for those who couldn't make it, I hope these notes will suffice. We will try to keep up with posting our notes as we go along.

A reflection on the defense of marriage by Barbara Crafton

I did not preach today, and I'd invite you to go to our sermon page to hear and read the sermon by The Rev. Nicholas Forti, who preached on the Transfiguration.

After our 10 am service, we launched an adult education series on marriage and same-sex marriage. I gave an overview of this complex topic, and talked about the shifting meaning of marriage within the Christian tradition over time and the arguments for and against redefining marriage to include couples who are of the same sex.

There is a lot to take in, and over the next few weeks we will take our time looking at Scripture, history, theology and sacraments. I am very pleased to be teaming up on this series with The Rev. Dr. Heather Warren, who is a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia and a historian of American religious history and our part-time ministry associate for adult education.

I've created a special blog, called Marriage & Blessings, to post our presentation notes and other materials from these talks. My notes from today are posted and you can read them by clicking HERE.

As we go along, I will be posting various commentaries here on this topic, beginning with this reflection that came yesterday from Barbara Crafton, who is an Episcopal priest from New Jersey, an author and a retreat leader. We will be hosting Barbara in December for a parish retreat day, and perhaps we'll get to hear her thoughts on this and other topics as well. Here is her commentary:

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE?

Things seem pretty solid here at home, the week after the Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act cases. So it seems that our straight marriage has survived the unspecified threats gay marriage poses to it. I still don't get what these threats are, exactly, nor do I understand how it is that an institution said to be the bedrock of everything civilization holds dear can at the same time be so utterly fragile as to stand in need of a vigorous defense. Now it seems that the whole thing may be on its way to the footnotes of American constitutional history without my ever having figured it out. Not even the Republicans, for whom this issue seemed so central not that long ago, seem to want to fight about about it any more, except for Mike Huckabee. Of course, he's a pastor, so what do you expect?

But wait a minute -- I'm a pastor. This reminds me of what has irked me about DOMA ever since it appeared, what's been so irksome about the whole moral conversation among us, and it's this: people think there's only one kind of Christian. People think there's only one kind of religious moral vision. People outside faith communities imagine a conservative social consensus within them that isn't there, and people within them often think there should be one, even though there isn't. The old inside joke about Jews -- two Jews, three opinions -- is true of all faith communities. We share a certain moral and cultural inheritance, and our spiritual assignment is to puzzle over it. Often we agree among ourselves about its meaning and application in the world, and sometimes we don't. That's the way assemblies of human beings are, and faith communities are nothing if not human.

Still, many faith communities -- most of them -- do claim a monopoly on truth. They want to proclaim it and then they don't want anybody messing with it. The last sentences of the Christian scriptures contain this warning to anyone who might be toying with the idea of adding something to Holy Writ: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. -- Revelation 22:18

Our reverence for our ancient texts trips us up. We imagine the truth of scripture to be of the journalistic sort, the who-what-when-where-how kind of truth, the it-either-happened-or-it-didn't kind of truth, which many among us have come to believe is the only kind of truth there is. But it is not so. There are many truths -- the truth of story, the truth of archetype, the truth of poetry, the truth of group aspiration. None of those fit easily into who-what-when-where-how. And the world's holy scriptures contain them all.

Because we have so beggared our notion of what truth is, we can easily find ourselves imagining religious truth to reside only in our past, as the words on the page record it. There it is, in black and white, we say. Just do what it says. And so we reach back across several linguistic groups and several cultural groups, through the filters of redactors and translators too numerous to count, and struggle to don first-century clothing we can no longer wear. Or we project ourselves backwards through time -- Well, they must have been just like us, we think. Our own local version of The Family, as we know it today, must be and always have been the timeless rock of humanity. In order to believe this, we must not only ignore the varieties of contemporary family arrangements but also significant portions of the very scriptures we tell ourselves we are protecting -- our polygamous patriarchs, their concubines and the children they begot upon them. We must ignore the custom of the Levirate, by which you had to take your sister-in-law as your wife if your brother died. We must read the story of David and his beloved Jonathan selectively, resolutely ignoring the sexual aspect of their deep friendship. And we must ignore some very interesting women of the Hebrew scriptures -- Tamar the wronged daughter-in-law who turned the tables on those who wronged her. Rahab the brave and crafty prostitute, who used her profession to save her people. Ruth, who secured her future by seducing a wealthy farmer. Old Testament women who thought outside the box, remembered fondly in the New -- each of them listed by Matthew the evangelist as part of Jesus' family tree.

The nuclear family, so often imagined to be the norm in America, is not the only family of the scriptures. It is not even the majority family of the scriptures. In fact, it is not even the only American family: American families have had many configurations in the short history of our Republic. The family has always changed. Yes, it has always been a basic building block of society, but it has changed shape throughout history. Human history is shaped by living people, as well as by the testament of dead ones. It is a conversation between the living and the dead. And the history of any community is shaped by forces outside it, as well as by those within.

So, not with a bang but a whimper, the Defense of Marriage Act fades from the headlines. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has ended, too, with hardly any truculence to mark its departure. Maybe we are turning a page. Maybe we are beginning to save our energy for something more worthy of it than the culture wars about sex and marriage we have fought so long and with such zest. Maybe. Because there are, indeed, threats to the health of families everywhere, but they are not other kinds of families. Shocked by an economic downturn, sickened by the sacrifice of young lives in ill-considered wars, sobered by a new consciousness of societal and environmental limits, perhaps we can begin to see an urgency in finding ways through all of these, instead. Perhaps we already do see it.

The Almost-Daily eMo from the Geranium Farm Copyright © 2001-2011 Barbara Crafton - all rights reserved

Forums on marriage, same-sex blessings, begins this Sunday

Beginning Sunday, we will be offering a series of adult education forums at St. Paul's on the topic of marriage and same-sex blessings. The forums will get underway at 11:30 am in the Lounge.

This is a controversial subject on many levels. Meanwhile our diocese will likely see its first authorized same-gender unions this spring.

There are many underlying issues, and I think it important that we as people of good will and faith take the time to understand the competing points of view and how we have arrived at this moment in our history as a church.

When a couple exchanges vows of commitment, who is conferring the blessing? God? The Church? The couple? And what is a blessing? What obligations come with a blessing for us as the people of God and for the couple?

The Anglican Theological Review, which is typically a weighty journal, devoted its Winter 2011 issue to an exploration of these questions and others, with papers commissioned by the House of Bishops representing competing points of view written by a diverse group of eight theologians and biblical scholars. We will be drawing on that work in addition to a number of other resources.

What is the purpose of marriage? Is marriage primarily for the procreation of children, or as it says in The Book of Common Prayer, is it primarily for the "mutual joy" of the couple? Should that joy be restricted only to opposite-sex couples? Are there theological meanings to marriage that need to be recovered?

We are a church that holds dear our history and our connection to the apostolic tradition. We revere the authority of Scripture as the primary guide for Christians to holy and ethical living, though we often don't agree on what we mean by that. What does Scripture say about marriage? What doesn't it say? As Anglicans, how do we bring into the conversation our "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Reason and Tradition?

And is the Holy Spirit calling us to a new understanding of marriage, or are we succumbing to popular culture?

To bring you this series of forums over the next four weeks, I will be teaming up with The Rev. Dr. Heather Warren, who is a professor of Religious Studies and a historian of American religious history. Whatever your point of view, I hope you will come with open minds and open hearts. One of the papers in The Anglican Theological Review (p. 62) noted this, and I think it is a good starting point:

"It is no accident that we now debate marriage. For marriage is an example of the concrete discipline that most of us (liberal and conservative) lack: in marriage we practice common discernment over self-interest. Marriage cultivates concern for one another; it offers lifelong hospitality; it enacts love; and it exposes our faults in order to heal them. It is the marital virtues that the church needs, not only with respect to the Bridegroom, but just now, with respect to one another."

I hope you will join us for these forums.

Same-sex blessings: Where are we?

The issues of inclusion of gay and lesbian people are at the forefront this week in several spheres, including in The Episcopal Church. Under lively discussion this week in my parish, and generally in the Diocese of Virginia, is a resolution approved recently by Diocesan Council (or convention) a few weeks ago calling up Bishop Shannon Johnston to impanel a study group on same-sex blessings.

The diocese resolution is in response to last summer's national General Convention which called for a "generous pastoral response" by the bishops to allow for such blessings in those places where it is needed. Many in the LGBT community are interpreting the recent Virginia resolution as, essentially, a call upon our bishop to go slow before allowing any such blessings in his diocese.

The issue is timely for us at St. Paul's because Bishop Shannon Johnston will be with us on Sunday. I think it is important that before he arrives we understand the issue, and the nuances of church governance that underly the issue. I want to share with you some background that I have given our Vestry and leaders in our Gay Straight Concerns Group and the Charlottesville chapter of Integrity.

First, to read the national resolution (C056) approved by General Convention, click HERE.

To read the Virginia resolution, click HERE.

Here is what I have shared with the Vestry:

This is complicated because the national resolution (C056) provides that bishops may provide a "generous pastoral response" for same-sex blessings at their individual discretion. That means all of the authority on this is in the hands of the bishop, and not in the hands of a Diocese Council or an individual parish or its priests.

Indeed, this is consistent with the practice of marriage rites. The parish and its Vestry has no authority to require its clergy to preside at a marriage rite, or to order its clergy to refrain from presiding at a marriage rite. The bishop has limited authority over his priests on this. The bishop could direct me to not perform a wedding, but he could not order me to preside at a wedding. Presumably, the same principle would hold true for a same-sex blessing. When I preside at a wedding, canon law provides that I seek the bishop's written permission in certain cases (divorced people primarily).

My ordination vows include that I will follow the "pastoral direction" of my bishop, and same-sex blessings certainly fall in that category. So even if the Vestry wanted me to preside at a same-sex blessing, I am not really free to do so without the permission of the bishop (I suppose I could ignore or defy the bishop, but let's call that for what it is).

I would also argue that the Virginia Council has no authority on this topic, and that its recent diocesan resolution is only a recommendation to the bishop; a close reading of that resolution shows that it is, indeed, phrased as a non-binding resolution. Only the bishop can act on the recommendation contained in the resolution, and he also could ignore it or modify it. It is my hope that he will impanel a study group, and in the meantime, that he will allow those of us who are willing to preside at same-sex blessings to do so with his permission and support.

Let me also mention that I have had at least three conversations with our bishop on this topic, including at General Convention in July on the day he voted for C056, and he has been consistent in saying that his intention is to allow priests who are willing to preside at same-sex blessings. He has also said that he wants to work out a consistent liturgy with those clergy who are willing. I should also mention that several dioceses have impaneled tasks forces on this topic, and are moving forward. There is already a body of resources to work with on this.

Finally, I think it is important that we engage in a conversation with Bishop Shannon about this when he is here Sunday, and I trust that it will be respectful and fruitful.

The strange saga of Roy Ashburn and the cost of being in the closet

I’ve been watching from afar the saga of Roy Ashburn, a Republican state senator who represents one of the most conservative districts in California – Kern County. The California Highway Patrol stopped Senator Ashburn early Wednesday for erratically driving his state-issue vehicle. He failed a sobriety test and was booked for drunken driving.

That would not be much worth noting here. Sadly, Ashburn is not the first legislator popped for DUI, and sadly, he will probably not be the last.

It became newsworthy when reports came to light that Ashburn had been a patron earlier in the evening at a gay bar in mid-town Sacramento. When Ashburn was pulled over, he had a male passenger who was not a member of his staff or his family. Over the weekend Ashburn, a divorced father of four, has reportedly asked for a leave of absence from his Senate duties.

As the story continued to unfold last week, it appeared that Ashburn has been a frequent visitor of several mid-town gay bars. Moreover, his patronage was well-known to other politicians who are openly gay. And this while he has been a strict party-line vote against gay marriage and all efforts to expand LGBT rights.

I bring this up neither to excuse nor to condemn Ashburn. In the interests of full disclosure, I consider Ashburn to be a friend. I was the Chaplain of the California State Senate for four years before coming to Charlottesville. My job was to open each session with prayer and to schmooze with senators. I very much enjoyed doing both.

I always found Ashburn, unlike a number of his colleagues in either party, to be a gentleman who was friendly and appreciative of my work. I did not know his sexual orientation, nor did I ever hear any rumors about it, though there are now news reports that rumors have flown in his district for many years.

This episode brings up a number of issues, beginning with Ashburn’s hypocrisy in voting against gay rights while socializing within the gay community that has protected his privacy. A number of commentators in recent days are asking legitimate questions about whether the gay community is obligated to protect such a politician’s privacy when he is voting against its interests. I leave it to the LGBT community to have that debate. Sacramento Bee columnist Marcos Breton wrote a good piece on Sunday, which you can read by clicking HERE. The San Francisco Chronicle has also done a good job reporting this story, including the ethical nuances, which you can read by clicking HERE.

There are some points I want to make. First, this episode underlines that our larger culture still creates enormous pressure for gay people to stay in the closet, especially to those who are in politics and who have an otherwise conservative perspective on politics. That cultural pressure comes with a cost not just to the individuals themselves, but also comes at the cost of distorting our political culture.

For Ashburn, who has made his way in politics as a conservative Republican, the contradictions that he has lived with are huge. According to reports in the media, Ashburn has previously sidestepped questions about his sexual orientation. He has not lied in the way that former U.S. Senator Larry Craig lied. But Ashburn apparently could not be open about his sexual orientation while also pursuing a successful political career. To do the latter required him to avoid honesty in the former. For the sake of argument, what would have happened if Ashburn had said he was a gay conservative in favor of gay rights as a principled libertarian position? Would his party have given him room for that? Likely not.

Or, what if Ashburn were to have said he is a gay Republican who believed no further civil protections are needed for the LGBT community and he did not believe, on principle, in gay marriage? Would the LGBT community give him room for that?

You may say that he showed a lack of personal integrity, but his integrity is at least partly shaped by the political culture in which he lives. It was easier for Ashburn to vote against gay rights by day and frequent gay bars by night.

Meanwhile, the liberal media has shown little interest in reporting fully on the ethical dilemmas this case raises, especially the dilemmas it raises for the media itself. Reporters and editors too easily fall back on the dictum that a politician’s personal life is not newsworthy unless it directly impacts on their public duties. The Ashburn incident should raise questions about whether there is such a neat dividing line, and whether the media has the ability to judge where that line falls. Was Ashburn’s anti-gay votes a way for him to hide? Or was he making legitimate principled votes? Does he even know the difference? How do we know if the media does not report the relevant facts?

Finally, those who think being gay is a “choice” should think again; it would be easier for someone like a Roy Ashburn to be heterosexual and conservative than to try leading the double life that he has apparently led while in politics. Ashburn is certainly not the first to lead such a double life in Sacramento (or Washington DC). Decades earlier, Conservative Assemblyman Democrat Walter Ingalls was a closeted gay man with a wife back in the district. Reporters and their editors knew that fact (I knew that fact when I was a reporter) and none reported it. Ingalls died of HIV/AIDS a few years after leaving office in the mid-1980s.

Where should the Church be on all this? I pray the Church will encourage honesty in government and honesty in personal sexuality. The Church should question the culture when it pushes people into such distortions of honesty. We must also ask about the cost we pay with a church culture that, in many places, still forces people and their clergy to remain in the closet. And in the case of government officials, personal dishonesty -- even about sexual orientation -- comes at a cost to the people they serve.

Moving beyond human precepts

Now and then I run across something in the Daily Office readings that I have never quite focused on before. For the uninitiated in Episcopalspeak, the Daily Office gives us biblical readings from Old and New Testaments assigned for each day running on a two-year cycle.

We are nearing the end of Year One (the new church year begins the first Sunday of Advent, Nov. 29, when Year Two will begin).

So it was that on Monday I came across a tidbit in the Gospel of Matthew that I had seen before, but which now jumped off the page to me. The passage for the day, Matthew 15: 1-20, is a short lecture from Jesus about how religious leaders give lip service to the religious law (Torah) but do not honor it with their actions.

He ends up with the familiar statement that it is what is in your heart that leads to good or bad actions.

But that is not what intrigued me. What caught my attention Monday was Jesus quoting from Isaiah 29: 13. Jesus does not quote Isaiah precisely, but tweaks the Isaiah passage a bit. Here is how it comes out with Jesus:

“The people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.”

Teaching human precepts as doctrines.

That led me to crack open the commentaries on this passage. What I learned is that Jesus was wading into the controversy of the korban, a First Century Jewish practice of declaring something to be sacred, or "clean," when, in fact, it really isn’t. Jesus criticized the religious leaders for looking for loopholes in Torah by embracing human practices and declaring them clean when, in fact, they are merely cultural customs. Let us not forget that in this, like so much else, Jesus is Jewish and is primarily concerned with showing others how to be better Jews.

As I said, Jesus tweaked Isaiah a bit. The Isaiah passage is focused on worship practices. Jesus moves beyond worship and into life practices. He puts it squarely: how much of what we justify in life as central to religious doctrine is really cultural practice dressed up as sacred?

And that led me to wondering how much korban we do as Christians in the theological debates that so captivate us now. How often do we declare that one of our cherished cultural practices is based on “sacred” doctrine when, in fact, it is really only cultural?

This is a touchy topic, and can cut in several directions.

A century-and-a-half ago, white Americans declared that slavery was sacred, and they found much in religious doctrine to support their position. The Bible is certainly full of justifications for slavery. Yet who among us now would make the claim that slavery is justifiable based on Christian doctrine?

Did the doctrine change or did the culture? Or was the doctrine never really in support of slavery, but those who supported slavery forced the doctrine to support it?

Nothing is more culturally based than marriage customs. That has been true since the dawn of humanity, and is certainly true now. Every society and every religion has marriage rites, and rules governing who may be married to whom. The Bible reflects several forms of marriage, including polygamy. When it comes to marriage, the Bible oozes with the culture of the people who wrote it.

But what about marriage is based on doctrine?

I sincerely believe that God blesses loving relationships, and that two people can be bound together in spirit and flesh in life-long committed relationships. I believe that is at the heart of the gospel, and that St. Paul gives us a foundation of “faith, hope, and charity” that can guide us in all human relationships, including marriage.

Yet we also add layers of culture – human “precepts” – to our marriage customs. Our wedding ceremony in the Episcopal Church is based on the Book of Common Prayer; weddings in our church look a certain way, reflecting our European (English) roots. We've added a few extras in recent years, like "unity" candles. Go to Mexico or India or China, and you will see very different ways of celebrating weddings, all wonderful, and all grounded deeply in their cultures.

This passage from Matthew, if taken seriously, poses tough questions for conservatives and liberals alike on the topic of marriage.

Conservatives rightly warn that we should beware of bending our religious doctrine to changes in our culture. Yet how much of that doctrine is grounded in a cultural practice? How much of their opposition to gay marriage is really based on a cultural bias against homosexuality? Do recent votes, like in Maine, against gay marriage prove that gay marriage is wrong, or only that American culture is still much biased against gay marriage?

Recently, a wing of our church has taken to calling itself “orthodox” because it is following traditional teachings on marriage. Yet that begs the question: Are these traditional teachings “orthodox,” or merely human precepts in the guise of orthodoxy?

Liberals warn that the culture is changing, and the church needs to change with it lest it become meaningless to the people it is meant to serve. Yet does the gospel change when the culture changes? Are liberals responding merely to new human precepts? Are there timeless foundations to the gospel that can guide us beyond the boundaries of culture as it changes?

It seems to me that there are. When we discuss the issue of marriage, straight and gay, we ought to be discussing it in the context those timeless gospel values of faith, hope and charity.

True orthodoxy might just get us out of this predicament.

As I understand it, orthodoxy in a Christian context is grounded in the creeds: statements of faith about the triune nature of God and the saving acts of Jesus Christ (note: marriage is not mentioned). Resurrection is central to the creeds, and resurrection knows no cultural boundaries because resurrection comes only by the grace of God through Christ. Resurrection and salvation ought to be our guide in conversations about marriage, whether you are liberal or conservative – and maybe then our conversation might move beyond “human precepts.”

Follow-up: Windsor Listening Process in the Diocese of Virginia

This is a week heavy with church affairs on this blog. I promise it will ease up and we will have a poem or two later in the week. For now, a few more developments:

You may recall that earlier this year, St. Paul's was invited to participate in a diocesan pilot program for "listening" related to the Anglican Windsor report related to the conflicts over sexuality issues. A team of four St. Paul's Memorial Church parishioners was paired with a team of four from St. John the Baptist, Ivy. They met for weeks to share their stories and talk through the issues facing our church. A total of twelve churches -- six pairings -- participated in the pilot project in the diocese.

The Diocese of Virginia last week posted on its website a report summarizing the work of all of the participants in the pilot project. You can read the report by clicking HERE.

I would also suggest you read the report from our St. Paul's team; it goes into greater detail and nuance without violating any confidences. I posted that report on this blog May 6, and you can access it by clicking HERE.

The Anglican Railroad: Rumbling down the tracks, a train to somewhere (but where?)

There is considerable commentary in recent days on the latest conflicts in the Anglican Communion, which, at last notice, we are still a member in good standing. You may be excused if you find this topic tedious and not worth reading further.

Truthfully, I find this topic tedious, too, and much of it smacks of ecclesiastical inside baseball at its worst. You may rightly ask: What does any of this have to do with me, or my family, or my work, or even what does this really have to do with the life of my local church? All fair questions, and questions for which I have, at best, partial answers. I hope you will keep reading but I would not blame you if you stop here.

I want to start by saying I do not question the faith or sincerity of the advocates on any side of this. I leave that judgment to God alone. If everyone could subscribe that statement we might get somewhere. But not all do, and so into the swamp we go.

Before we get our ankles muddy, let’s take a few steps back. This conflict predates the election of Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire. The fight 30 years ago was over the prayer book and the ordination of women; before that it was a fight over whether African Americans were included in a predominantly white upper class church. Now it is an argument over whether gays and lesbians are included. Yet it is Robinson’s election in 2003 that sparked the latest fire in the Anglican Communion, and that fire is not going out anytime soon.

I highly recommend reading the commentaries of recent days put forth by advocates of differing points of view (and thanks to several of you for bringing these to my attention). Among the best I’ve seen recently is by Jim Naughton in the U.K. Guardian; you can it read HERE. Another, by Frank M. Turner, on the Episcopal Café blog, is a good critique of the mythology of the Anglican Communion as an “imagined community.” You can read Turner's piece HERE.

On the conservative side, Fr. Dan Martins from Indiana offers thoughtful comments as he works through how he and his diocese attempt to remain in an Episcopal Church even though he and his diocese see themselves much at odds with the majority in the church. His questions are genuine and should engage all of us. You can read Martins' comments HERE.

On the extreme side, you can read David Anderson’s commentaries, though I hesitate to send you to his screeds. They are worth reading if for no other reason than he reveals much about the motives, tactics and divisions among his right-wing allies. You can read his website HERE.

Now that I have sent you there, fair warning: I want to express in the strongest possible terms my disagreement with Anderson, who heads up the American Anglican Council, a self-appointed schismatic organization aligned with those seeking to create a new Anglican communion based on an exclusionary view of the Gospel. He long ago claimed the mantle of being “orthodox” though he has acted as anything but. He received an ordination as a bishop that was, at best, irregular and outside of any Episcopal election or confirmation process.

Anderson's use of language is no small thing. Most disturbing, Anderson uses creepy rhetoric of war and warriors to make his case for purging the Episcopal Church of gays, liberals and other ilk he finds heretical. In a recent commentary he talked of the church needing “war chiefs” and “peace chiefs.” How that is scripturally based is beyond me. Note well the tone and content of his words in his Sept. 4 newsletter:

"As with a nation, so does the church require an appropriate leader for the time and the circumstance. What do these days in the Anglican World Communion call for, a Peace Chief or a War Chief? I would argue that this present time requires a War Chief for the defense of the Gospel and the Anglican Communion."

It should also be noted that Anderson and his allies are using same tone as the extremist “tea-bagger” anti-Obama forces so vocal this August in a supposedly secular debate over health care. Anderson and his allies stand for continued militaristic confrontation with the Islamic world; are against a two-state Israel-Palestine solution; and are stridently anti-gay and anti-abortion.

That is no coincidence – the same people who are underwriting the schism in The Episcopal Church are the same people underwriting the attacks on President Obama in Washington DC and in townhall meetings, including the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife (who underwrote the scurrilous film that accused the Clintons of murdering Vincent Foster). Make no mistake: these people have a larger political agenda beyond the Episcopal Church. As Naughton points out:

“[A]warding the Anglican brand in North America to the schismatics would reverse the trend by handing the American right the opportunity to wrap its agenda in the endorsement of a major mainstream religious organisation.”

All this leads to one basic fact: The conflict in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion remains an argument over power, and it is playing out in the arena of who gets ordained and who does not, who may be married and who may not. Various interests have attempted to dress this up as an argument over the authority of Scripture and the divinity of Christ, asserting that it is self-evident that there is only one interpretation of the Bible possible (their own).

Weaponizing the Bible, by the way, is as un-Anglican is it gets; one of the bedrock values of Anglicanism is the acknowledgment that it is just possible that there are competing interpretations of Scripture, so we best be humble when we throw our Bible verses at each other (see Article 20 in the Articles of Religion, p. 871 of the Book of Common Prayer).

Everyone in this conflict interprets the Bible, and none are abandoning their vow of discipleship of Jesus Christ as they see it. I do not doubt that David Anderson is a deeply devoted disciple of Jesus, though I wish he would acknowledge the same in Susan Russell and Louie Crew of Integrity.

In reality, there is precious little in the Bible to go on to guide us about who may be ordained and who may not, which is one reason everyone can claim to have the Bible on their side.

And while this sounds esoteric – and it is – and while this may not directly affect you if you have no intention of being ordained, it does boil down to this issue: Who holds power in the Church and how they get it. And that should concern you.

That brings us to where we are now: This past summer, the General Convention – the once-every-three years legislative meeting of elected Episcopal church leaders – approved two significant measures which roiled the waters further throughout the rest of the Anglican Communion. One resolution lifted a moratorium on ordaining new bishops who are openly gay, and the other resolution allows bishops to sanction same-sex blessings if they so wish.

And that brings us the Anglican Railroad.

After General Convention, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who is the titular head of the Anglican Communion (Note: he is the first among equals and not the Pope) stated that there ought to be two “tracks” in the Anglican Communion. He has no direct power to create such tracks, but his voice carries considerable weight throughout the Communion.

In Williams’ scheme, the first track would subscribe to his complicated proposal for an “Anglican Covenant” that would, in effect, declare that no province of the communion may do anything significant without consensus from the rest. Issues including the ordination of openly gay people and women would presumably remain on the backburner on the first track until everyone reaches a consensus.

How such a consensus would come about is not clear. The archbishop has pushed hard for the adoption of his covenant, and he appears to be proposing this “First Track” as an incentive for the provinces to sign up and fall into line.

The second track would be churches that don’t sign up for the covenant, but can remain within the communion at a lower status level. The consequences of being relegated to secondary status are not entirely clear.

There are a number of practical issues at stake, first and foremost which national province is running on which track and who gets to decide. The first track presumably would be those Anglican provinces subscribing to the more traditional structures of ordination (i.e., no gays and women), and those provinces it so happens coincide with the poorest countries in the

communion (Nigeria, Uganda, Sudan, etc).

To add a new layer of complexity, seven American Episcopal Church bishops met with Rowan Williams last week to explore whether they could bring their dioceses onto the first track while the rest of the Episcopal Church remained on the second track.

The seven American bishops signed a statement following General Convention stating that they have no intention of leaving the Episcopal Church but they are trying to find a way of co-existence without compromising their beliefs.

We shall see where this goes, but it begs the question: If individual dioceses can get onto the first track, what about single parishes, or individuals? This railroad could end up with many side spurs.

The second track is likely to be inhabited by the more liberal communion members who, it so happens, are mostly of the industrialized world – the U.S., Canada, Scotland, South Africa, and maybe even the Church of England itself.

The second track, it should be noted, is the track with the most money, begging the instant question about which track would, in reality, end up the first track. Even David Anderson sees that point and raised that issue in his Sept 4 newsletter:

"Opposing Dr. Williams is Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the pronouncer of heresy on the historic faith, the Presiding Bishop of the competing Anglican Communion, who will assume that if she is in a tier or track, it will be the favored and most blessed one."

The question of which track will end up the favored first track should give Rowan Williams pause about his two-track proposal. He is setting about to create a supposedly “separate but equal” system of church life. While at first glance that may seem of interest only to those bishops who crave invitations to Lambeth and tea with the Queen, there are real-life consequences to this for real people.

It is as basic as mosquito nets.

By creating two tracks, the archbishop would be sanctioning a great tragedy: the developed world could find an excuse to abdicate its responsibility to the poorest regions of the world; and the government-church power structures in the poorest regions could avoid enlisting assistance from the developed world.

Sanctioning two tracks will make it more difficult than it already is for church relief workers to operate in the undeveloped world. Lest you think this is theoretical objection, our Virginia diocesan missionary in Sudan last summer was ejected from that country at the behest of the Anglican bishops there because she had the temerity to suggest that the Sudanese people really do not care who marries whom in America. Her ejection was met with silence by Canterbury and the rest of the Anglican Communion. That is not a good sign.

I would also suggest the Archbishop of Canterbury’s proposal of two tracks further degrades his own position. His legitimacy rests entirely on the idea that he is an “instrument of unity.” In the name of unity, he is now proposing disunity. Unity cannot be won with a piece of paper called a “covenant,” nor can it be won by coercion from the top down based in a class system of multi-track communion members. I do not recall that Jesus had two tracks at his table, nor did he require signatures on a legalistic covenant to share at his table.

Sadly, Rowan Williams appears not to have learned the lessons of his own truly inspired leadership last summer at the Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops. He was at his best when he got the bishops to sit and listen to each other and their individual stories without ginning up reams of toothless resolutions. Rather than pounding on tables, the bishops discovered true unity in their shared discipleship of Jesus Christ. All of us share in that call as a people of faith, and we can discover this unity, one day, one prayer, one disciple at a time. Even bishops can find that unity, and they don't need a piece of paper or a railroad track to find it.

The photo of mosquito nets is from Oxfam, an amazing organization. For more information about Oxfam, please click HERE.

Cartoon by Dave Walker; apologies to the USC Trojans.

Lutherans vote for full inclusion

You might not have caught the news from Friday: The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), meeting in its national convention, voted to allow non-celibate gays living in monogamous relationships, to serve as pastors. The debate reportedly went all day, with emotions high on both sides of the issue. The vote was close.

The debate echoed the debate in our own church, with those against expressing concern that Scripture is being violated. The feeling by those voting in favor of full inclusion was summed up by The Rev. Mark Lepper of Belle Plaine, Minn., who said, “Let’s stop leaving people behind and let’s be the family God is calling us to be.”

To read the New York Times story on the vote, click HERE.

Earlier this summer, our Episcopal General Convention voted to open all orders to gay people, acknowledging the fact that already exists. The ELCA vote could have an impact for the Episcopal Church because of the agreement we have with the ELCA to allow their pastors and ours to serve in each others' churches. The vote could make it easier for Episcopal clergy who are gay to serve in a Lutheran church.

The vote in the ELCA was close, and we can expect that individual congregations will leave much as many have left our church. Please keep the Lutherans in your prayers.

Photo by Dawn Villella of the Associated Press

Beyond the Episcopal world: Churches involved in sexuality issues

Sorry to intrude upon the Monday Funnies, but I want to share this from the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Our arguments over inclusion and sexuality may garner the most headlines, yet other mainline churches are immersed in the issue as well. Consider this from a story in today's Star Ledger:

* The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (4.7 million members), whose weeklong meeting in Minneapolis begins today will vote on whether non-celibate gay people can be ordained as Lutheran clergy, and on a statement saying same-gendered relationships have a place in the church.

* In July, the United Methodist News Service announced that the United Methodist Church (11 million members, 8 million of whom are Americans) is on track, based on early voting results, to reject an amendment that would let any professed Christian become a church member. Conservative opponents viewed the proposed change as implicit acceptance of homosexuality.

* In June, the Presbyterian Church USA (2.3 million members) announced the rejection of an amendment that would have let non-celibate gay people become clergy.

To read the full story, click HERE. The Monday Funnies are below...

General Convention: Same-sex blessings and what it means for Virginia and St. Paul's

ANAHEIM -- As you may have heard elsewhere by now, and on this blog earlier today, the House of Bishops Wednesday approved a resolution that would allow for the development of "resources" for same-sex blessings, and authorize those bishops who are so willing to provide a "generous pastoral response" to gays and lesbians.

What does that mean for us?

This morning I had a conversation with Virginia Bishop Shannon Johnston here at convention and asked him that question.

Bishop Shannon, who voted for the resolution, told me that he will allow us to develop a same-sex blessing ceremony as part of a "generous pastoral response" to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the Diocese of Virginia. If we do such ceremonies at St. Paul's, we will do them only with the permission of the bishop, and we will be asked to provide information on how it works so that the wider church can study what we do. We will not be doing this in secret or being sneaky.

The resolution must still pass the House of Deputies, expected to happen later today, and then it will be the law of the Episcopal Church. It is worthwhile reading the full text of the resolution by clicking HERE.

Let me add a few observations: I watched the House of Bishops debate yesterday and I was much impressed by the respectful tone. No one was throwing the Bible at each other, and all seemed to talk of how conversation among the bishops had broadened understanding. Bishop Stephen Charleston said the House of Bishops was learning again how to have a conversation.

At one point, Presiding Bishop Katharine asked the bishops if they would like 20 minutes to talk among themselves about the resolution, and so they broke into small group discussion (which we could not overhear). When they reconvened, they worked together to wordsmith the resolution. "Working on the minutiae of language is valuable," said Charleston. "This allows the House to breath."

As for St. Paul's, I am aware some of our gay brothers and sisters would like to have their partnerships blessed by the Church. We are now approaching the day when we can do that openly and wonderfully, and I give great thanks for that.

General Convention: Reunions, receptions, worship, light sticks

ANAHEIM - General Convention Wednesday was a swirl of reunions and receptions, worship, music, light sticks and heavy doses of church polity and politics.

For me, the most moving experience was our

worship at mid-day. Bishop Stephen Charleston gave one of the most moving homilies I have ever heard.

He called himself a "Ten-minute prophet," saying he had only 10 minutes to convince us that our highest priority as a church and as human beings must be "saving this planet our island home" from the immediate threat of global warming.

"For years now the environmental movement has told us that there is a clock ticking, a clock, ticking, a great organic ecological clock that is ticking away the time of our lives to that when we no longer will be able to reverse the damage that we have done to this planet through our own greed, negligence and ignorance," he said.

Charleston was bishop of Alaska and is a Native American. He went on to be the president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Boston, and is now the assisting bishop for the Diocese of California in San Francisco.

And he said it is no accident that God has called our church to show the way. "The Episcopal Church comes to its decisive moment in history," he said. "Let your mind be open to the truth of what I have spoken."

At communion, Lori and I were among those privileged to serve bread and wine. We were at "Station 6," and I had a basket of bread and Lori administered a chalice of red wine. Many old friends came to our station, including Bishop Jerry Lamb and his wife Jane.

Another old friend, Carl Wright, who is a chaplain in the Air Force, came to our station, and after receiving communion, he asked for a blessing. I was very, very touched by so many familiar faces coming to my station. My soul soared.

We also looked at the exhibit hall, and were especially engrossed by the "Discovery Center" displaying various Christian education materials. The center was the brainchild of our friend Nancy Tennyson, and the photo is of Lori at the center.

This afternoon I sat in the visitor gallery of the House of Bishops as it took up a proposal for same-sex blessings. A group of 26 bishops Tuesday night worked on a resolution calling for the church to develop theological and liturgical resources and report back to General Convention in three years, and in the meantime provide "generous pastoral response." Among those in the working group was Virginia's Bishop Suffragan David Jones.

The resolution did not exactly endorse same-sex blessings, but it opened the door to exploring what that might look like in the future. Bishop Jones and Bishop Shannon Johnston both voted for the resolution while Bishop Peter Lee voted against.

There was a group of bishops who said they preferred to handle same-sex blessings without legislation, but their effort to sidetrack the resolution was not successful. The resolution ultimately passed the House of Bishops with 104 yes votes, 30 no, and two abstaining. The resolution moves back to the House of Deputies for a final vote.

Tonight we attended a Diocese of Los Angeles event that celebrated the Book of Genesis. As we heard the biblical story of creation, we got to wave light sticks. The photo is of our friend Stephen Carpenter and his light stick.

More tomorrow!

Monday Funnies

Before we get to the business at hand (the Monday funnies), just a quick reminder that tonight we will assemble at 6:15 pm at U Hall to advocate for affordable housing in Charlottesville. If you can make it earlier, we will provide a light dinner 5 pm at St. Paul's and then carpool to the big meeting. This gathering is organized by a coalition of congregations under the auspices of IMPACT, and you can read about tonight's effort elsewhere on my blog by clicking HERE. You can also read more about the issues on St. Paul's IMPACT blog.

Now, to return you to our regularly scheduled program. As you know, there is a lot of kaffuffle in our church these days over such weighty issues as gay rights, the ordination of women and all that. So here are a few solutions floating around the internet (and I have no idea the identity of the authors), and the latest installment of Dave Walker's 'toons. Welcome to the Monday Funnies...

Why We Oppose Men's Ordination:

1- Because man's place is in the army.

2- Because no really manly man wants to settle disputes otherwise than by fighting about it.

3- Women would not respect men dressed in skirts.

4- Because men are too emotional to be priests. Their conduct at football matches, in the army, at political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force and violence renders them unfit to represent Jesus.

5- Because some men are so handsome they will distract women worshipers.

 6- If the Church is the Bride of Christ, and bishops are as husbands to the Church, all priests should be female.

Ten Really good reasons to oppose Gay Marriage

1- Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. That's why infertile couples and old people can't legally get married.

2- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 

3- Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears' 55-hour, just-for-fun marriage, will be less meaningful.

4- Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; for example, women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5- Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because majority-elected legislatures, and not courts, have historically done a swell job of protecting the rights of the minorities.

6- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

7- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

8- Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

9- Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer life spans.

10- Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name, are preferable, because separate-but-equal institutions are constitutional.

The stance on gay marriage is changing

I have a few items to bring you today. First, from our U.K. friends at Ekkelesia, a story published today about how the stance is shifting in favor of gay relationships among some evangelicals. 

That shift appears to be generational. The New York Times this weekend took note that a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under the age of 30 favor some form of legal status for same-sex unions. Ekkelsia in a story this morning noted:

Four Evangelical groups who believe the churches need a positive change of heart and mind on homosexuality have said condemning hate groups is not enough. They want Christian acceptance of gay people.

They have called on churches and Christian organisations condemning an American anti-gay hate group to face up to their own discriminatory policies and behaviour - and to embrace conversion.

To read the full story, click HERE.

As mentioned above, The New York Times this weekend noted the cultural landscape on LGBT issues is changing. The Times ran two op-ed pieces that are worth your time and discussion. In the first, jointly written by David Blankenhorn (a conservative) and Jonathan Rauch (a liberal), is titled A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, and suggests a way of compromise. The second piece, by William Saletan, a writer for Slate, is titled This is the Way the Culture Wars End. Both pieces are food for thought and discussion, and may point a way forward.