Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church Authors: Dr. John E. Goldingay Dr. Deirdre J. Good Dr. Willis J. Jenkins The Rev. Dr. Cynthia Briggs Kittredge The Rev. Dr. Grant R. LeMarquand Dr. Eugene F. Rogers The Rev. Dr. George R. Sumner The Rev. Dr. Daniel A. Westberg Editor: Dr. Ellen T. Charry Offered by The Theology Committee of the House of Bishops Lent +2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ii Foreword, by the Editor iv Same-Sex Marriage and Anglican Theology: A View from the Traditionalists 1 A Theology of Marriage including Same-Sex Couples: A View from the Liberals 40 The Traditionalist Response 68 The Liberal Response 77 Epilogue 84 Postscript, from the Theology Committee 86 This study document was presented to the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church at its spring meeting in March 2010. It has been edited in several places following the discussion. The responses of several pan-Anglican and ecumenical theologians will be added to this study in the summer, along with some further editing, before a final edition is published. i ii PREFACE For a generation and more the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion have been engaged in a challenging conversation about sexual ethics, especially regarding same sex relationships in the life of the church. The hope of this work is that serious engagement in theological reflection across differences will build new bridges of understanding. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988, 1998, and 2008 have urged the churches of the Anglican Communion engage in an intentional process of listening to the experience of gay and lesbian persons and exploring our pastoral ministry to them. There have been sharp disagreements. Communion has been strained. There have been repeated calls to listen carefully to one another, to undertake serious theological work and scriptural exegesis, and to repent of prejudice and injustice towards homosexual persons in church and society, as well as calls to uphold the classic teachings of the church on sexual ethics and marriage. These two papers and responses are a contribution to this on-going process. 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 committee subsequently appointed a group of eight distinguished theologians to undertake the study. They represent a broad spectrum of viewpoint and intentionally include a variety of theological disciplines, gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships, and both single and married heterosexual persons. The panel has met several times since the fall of 2008, shared a number of papers, and engaged in sustained dialogue. Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church is their work. It is designed to be a distinctively theological document, bringing to bear on the questions before us careful scriptural exegesis enlightened by reason and the witness of the theological tradition. It seeks to be faithful to the Anglican way of searching for truth and seeking the mind of Christ. All debates have at least two sides. Honest dialogue enjoins to listen to both viewpoints with genuine attention and respect. Such an approach has been employed by faithful Christian persons over the centuries, and is the way theological discernment is engaged by the church. Its purpose is both to encourage mutual understanding and to provide wise counsel to the church for its mission. In this vein, after much conversation, the eight theologians formed two affinity groups consisting of four theologians each and have prepared two main papers. One adheres to what it understands to be the church’s traditional ethical and sacramental teaching about marriage. The other revisits this teaching in order to call for the church’s recognition of faithful, monogamous same-gender relationships. Each affinity group has then prepared a formal response to the other’s work. Their study has been accomplished with a remarkable degree of mutual respect and charity. ii The purpose of this project is not to create a new consensus or make a recommendation to the church. It is rather to express as fully as possible two contrasting theological views, both rooted in the teaching of the church and in Holy Scripture, in order that we might listen to and learn from both sides of the debate. In keeping with our Lord’s parable about the scribe who has been trained for the Kingdom of Heaven, the theologians have brought forth from their treasure what is new and what is old. (Matthew 13:52). The Theology Committee is very grateful to our distinguished panel of theologians for their extraordinary and graceful devotion to this project. Very special thanks go to Dr. Ellen Charry, convener of the panel and editor of the work, and to the Rt. Rev. Joe Burnett, consulting bishop. We are indebted to the Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, Bishop in Charge of the Convocation in Europe, for suggesting that we undertake this study, for which he owes us all dinner in Paris one day. A number of ecumenical and pan-Anglican theologians have agreed to read and comment on these papers. The final edition will include their contributions. We offer this work to the church for reflection and response and in the hope that it will both help us live together more faithfully in the midst of difference and contribute to our corporate discernment in these matters. We trust that these papers will make all of us think carefully, regardless of our point of view. In this, as in all things, may we have the “power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge. .” (Ephesians 3.18-19). The Rt. Rev. Henry Nutt Parsley, Jr. Chair, Theology Committee of the House of Bishops Lent 2010 iii EDITOR’S FOREWORD This group was convened to offer a distinctively theological approach to the controversy before us. We acknowledged that our church’s doctrinal foundations are the catholic creeds and we gave special attention to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that we recite at the celebration of the Eucharist. Further, we agreed that most of the doctrinal concerns raised by the controversy over same-sexuality cluster under the third article of the Creed on the identity and activities of the Holy Spirit. These include the sanctification of believers (“the Lord the giver of life), the authority of Scripture (“who has spoken through the prophets”), ecclesiology (“one holy, catholic and apostolic church”), and sacraments and sacramental rites. Because the sexuality controversy is multi-layered, we realized that we could not address every aspect of it and organized our efforts around marriage. Marriage rather than same- sex blessings came to the fore because the former is lurking behind the latter. Gay marriage is currently contested in California, and legal in Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont and is being considered in Mexico City and the District of Columbia in the US. It is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. The question of the definition of marriage is also before the churches. In making these decisions we realize that our perspectives may not reflect the thinking of all Episcopalians. Our assignment, however, was not to express the mind of the church but to offer to the church theological terms for discussing the matter at issue and to look ahead at some implications of various courses of action that might be taken. We are not offering our work as a way forward. We are not offering a compromise position that might put the dispute behind us so that we move ahead together. We are offering two interpretations of creedal faithfulness that disagree. What we are doing—and on this we agree—is offering a word to the Episcopal Church, that it and the Communion may grapple a bit more sharply with important doctrinal questions embedded in the debates and their practical consequences a bit more sharply. Our work means to stimulate an ever-clearer grasp of the issues at stake. Within our creedal framework, we came upon some surprises. Some of us came to the table thinking that the disagreement is about sexual ethics or perhaps pastoral care. Some came with a practical approach; contextual changes in the culture mean that some theological changes should be made by the church to adapt to changing circumstances. Some came thinking that the central issue is hermeneutical—what guidelines do we follow for interpreting Scripture. The creedal orientation of our work, however, pressed us to locate all these presuppositions under the authority of the “deposit of faith” that sustains the Church in obedience to its Lord. By no means does this mean that the deposit of faith is inured to change, only that the terms on which change is considered be consonant with the historic faith. To put it sharply, we agreed that theology based on the Creed sets the terms for considering extra-theological perspectives that bear on the matters at hand. Neither modern science nor high-minded values, nor personal experience can authorize changes iv in Christian doctrine but change must be interpreted and treated within logically prior commonly agreed upon creedal categories. Christian belief and practice are not like a Kandinsky painting that can be thought of as right side up no matter which direction one may view it. To put this in terms of the three- legged Anglican stool, if Scripture and tradition constitute the deposit of faith, reason’s contribution—that includes philosophy, science, culture and experience—will be reviewed within the purview of the other two legs of the stool in the process of reasoned theological argumentation.