The document “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church” is now posted here. As the preface notes, “this project was commissioned in the spring of 2008 by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, to be overseen by the Theology Committee.” The postscript to the document written by the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops expresses gratitude for the work of the report, noting however that “their work is for study and reflection and does not constitute a position paper of the Theology Committee” (p.86).
The document contains statements by two parties or affinity groups offering two different interpretations of creedal faithfulness as the editor’s foreward notes (iv): the traditionalists write on Same-Sex Marriage and Anglican Theology while the liberals write on a Theology of Marriage Including Same-Sex Couples. Each affinity group then responds to the work of the other group and the editor offers an epilogue.
I rejoice that our work is now available for all to read.
When the document was presented to the House of Bishops on March 20, 2010, Willis Jenkins gave this introduction (posted here with his permission). Grant LeMarquand also gave an introduction. Willis Jenkins’ introduction helps to counter two blogosphere misperceptions to our work so far: nothing new and no points of agreement.
Dr. Good (BTW an out-of-the-closet lesbian) says:
[blockquote]The document contains statements by two parties or affinity groups offering two different interpretations of creedal faithfulness as the editor’s foreward notes[/blockquote]
And[b]that[/b] is the real Problem, right there.
As soon as the whole situation is presented in terms of two differing but equally honorable [i]opinions[/i], the battle for the soul of the church is already lost. There is the Word of God written and plain — however we may strive with hermeneutics — and there is the sophistry of deconstructing the text to make it say what it does not say.
As soon as we agree to enter into some kind of “dialogue” in which there are “opinions” about what is genuinely and authentically Biblical, we are agreeing that genuine and authentic Biblical morality is merely up for grabs to the side with the best rhetoric.
Please could we get a grip. We cannot “agree to disagree” (which was only a bad 70s pop song in the first place) because the Revelation of God to Abraham, Moses and the Prophets and the definitive Revelation in and through Jesus Christ the Only-Begotten Son is TRUTH.
There is a vast differenced between debating about how to unpack and live out the Truth, on the one hand, and trying to decide what that Truth is in the first place, on the other.
Jesus Himself said, recorded in the Gospels: ” a [i]Man[/i] shall leave his parents, and a [i]Woman[/i] leave her home and the two — husband and wife — shall become one flesh.” Unambiguous. “Thus,” He says, “it was from the Beginning.” One does not have to a Biblical literalist/reductionist to get that.
What we really need is to put Romans 1: 26 — 27 back into the Daily Office Lectionary. Also unambiguous. And, I’ll bet absent from either of the “sides” of the “debate.”
I would make two objections to this argument, to start with: the need to “expand” marriage to accommodate the inclinations of those who suffer from same-sex attraction is never really established nor is it ever explained that the assumptions herein make multiple partner marriage a fait accompli. First, as always with [i]soi disant[/i] “pro-gay” argumentation, it is taken as a given that God purposely makes some people homosexual and therefore intends that they enter same-sex imitations of marriage. This assumption is not defended. The rather obvious fact that homosexuality is involuntary is taken as sufficient – indeed self-evident – demonstration of divine intent and no effort is made to show how same-sex attraction differs from other unchosen debilities. This is simply irresponsible and a clear indication of the unseriousness of those presenting the case. Second, without anything distinguishing homosexuality/heterosexuality from bisexuality, it necessarily follows that marriage cannot be limited to two people. Since the same reasoning must result in the conclusion that God has created some people as bisexuals, the same call for fidelity and self-donation demands that this be done with members of both sexes for those of this orientation. I for one will be curious to see how this strengthens marriage.
I found the following helpful: “We do not plead for inclusion in marriage on the basis of rights, nor do we claim liberty for marriage on the basis of justice”
Thus the debate can be on the basis of scripture: this is a much better way than claiming Same sex marriage is a right! So now the Bible can be searched in its original context and applied to today. Since Christians believe that the important teachings scriptures are clear, there may be hope for a reconciling of thoughts. Of course both sides must agree that their long held positions may be found to be incorrect and they may have to change. If either side refuses to start with this assumption they can not really enter the debate.
As an aside: I do not see how a person who is already in a same sex relationship could really enter into debate on this. They have already decided what the answer is.
“As soon as the whole situation is presented in terms of two differing but equally honorable opinions, the battle for the soul of the church is already lost.”
After all these years, I still am amazed that the subject is even considered “talkable” ……….# 1 your hit the nail on the head….
# 2. Daniel Muth
[blockquote] The rather obvious fact that homosexuality is involuntary ..[/blockquote]
Obvious? In what way? To who? “unintentional” might be a better word than “involuntary”
The DSM may not contain homosexuality as a disorder due to political machinations, it does contain delusion as a diagnostic category. That would be the revisionist affinity group. I suppose the liberals could use the argumentative disorder diagnosis on the conservatives, since they actually have an argument and pursue it.
One cannot argue against wish fulfillment nor delusions. And, as noted, there are decades of proof of that condition. But not yet a single argument in theology that holds water better than a bottomless bucket.
#5 – I disagree with you. “Unintentional” does not mean the same thing and indeed would, I believe, be incorrect. Perhaps the difficulty is with the tendency among some to equate “involuntary” with “biologically determined”, which is not, as I understand it, at all the same thing. The clear evidence, again as I understand it, is that no voluntary action is necessarily involved in the reception of whatever biological markers may result in a susceptability to homosexual inclination, in any of the various pre-and post-natal environmental factors that play whatever determinative role, or in the developmental or traumatic events that result in persons being afflicted with homosexual inclinations, though, depending on the case, it could be involved in the latter two. Keeping in mind the staggering complexities that go into the development of the homosexual affliction, I freely accept that no one would choose to suffer from homosexuality, all the while being aware of Greenberg’s findings that the homosexual “orientation” is pretty much a modern western phenomenon that does not turn up in other cultures. This latter does not mean that anyone is necessarily acting voluntarily in accepting a societal norm.
Be that as it may, I hope you agree that the point still stands that, even if one uses – and you’re welcome to present opposing data – the stronger term that I do, the lack of rational calculation in developing the inclination is not necessarily indicative of divine intent and that simply making this assumption is irresponsible and indicative of a lack of intellectual seriousness.
As a member of (the conservative side of) this theological panel, I would point out that we take responsibility only for the portions that we wrote, and not for the spin put on it, including the line “The document contains statements by two parties or affinity groups offering two different interpretations of creedal faithfulness as the editor’s foreward notes.” We certainly acknowledge that both sides believed that their argument was an attempt at “creedal faithfulness.” but we do not believe that their attempt was successful. We do not believe that their are two equally honourable positions that can co-exist. For what it’s worth the conservative summary (parallel to Willis Jenkins’ summary of the liberal position)will be posted, hopefully sometime today on the Trinity School for Ministry website.
Grant LeMarquand
Dr. LeMarquand: That line caught my eye too. Thanks for the thorough and well argued work by you and your colleagues on the conservative side.
#7 -In all seriousness, I have never seen convincing evidence of “biological markers [that] may result in a susceptability to homosexual inclination” or pre-natal inclination towards homosexuality ( borne out by numerous twin studies). I have seen studies ( and anecdotal personal experience) that indicate post-natal environmental conditions, notably the lack of a strong father figure during childhood development, can have an effect tending an individual towards homosexual behavior. (It is perhaps incidental that since the advent of no-fault divorce the rate of homosexuality or at least it’s acceptance seems to have increased.)
Nothing points to the existence of a creature that could be referred to as innately a “Homosexual” as the term is employed today. The word was coined in the 19th century to refer to people who engaged in homosexual behavior, and has since come to be used with little support to refer to humans that are permanently conditioned through whatever mechanism to homosexual behavior and inclination, in the absence of evidence for any such mechanism.
[url=http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f]The Gay Invention[/url]
Needless to say, there seems to be a strong political component to this invention.
My point being, the evidence is NOT clear, and assuming that it is is begging the question.
In the context of this report, the difference between the two camps seems to be that one accepts “homosexuality” as an innate condition and therefore divine in nature, whereas the other, in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, believes that the affliction is one result of the fallen nature of man, that is not sufficient to impel the violation of scripture and elevate it to something holy.
#10 – Once again, “involuntary” does not mean the same thing as “innate”. I appreciate the caution while standing by my claim that it is “rather obvious” that the inclination is involuntary, even though it is far from clear how all the various biological (in fact, the twin studies do indicate some sort of biological contributor in at least some cases) and environmental factors play out. I also appreciate that most of the points you make are not in response to anything I have either said or implied. All the best to you.
I’d also like to thank Dr. LeMarquand and his “traditionalists” colleagues for their clear and thorough presentation. It’s written and argued in such a way that a person who is not versed in the subject can get an excellent overview of the issue.
I don’t quite know what to make of the “expansionists” piece. For instance, the following assertion is made early in the document: “The church learns how to bear witness by reading, eating, and praying with all those God has called to bear witness.” Is that a self-authenticating community? This sentence needs considerable unpacking. The fact that St. Stephen in the prior sentence is referred to as an apostle raises questions in my mind as to what the authors think about the apostolic office.
Please pardon my probable naivete, but does all of this mean that we have accepted the invitation to “continue the conversation?” If so, to what end?
Absorption by the PBorg, I believe, is the goal. Du vil kompli und du vil lik it, or elze ve hat vays of makin du pay.