As the Church's discussion around marriage and same-sex unions now becomes determinative, it bears remembering that it is our Constitution and Canons, not the Book of Common Prayer, the determine the Church's theology of Holy Matrimony. The Prayer gives this theology expression, yes; but it does not determine it. Further, while it may be true, perhaps, that weddings have been celebrated religiously for thousands of years, yet even the most conservative estimate holds that Holy Matrimony is identified by any authoritative Christian voice as a sacrament no sooner than the sixth century, not defined papally as such until Innocent IV in the the early 1200's, and not is declared as such conciliarly until the Council of Florence in 1438. While some weddings may certainly would have been celebrated religiously before this time, many if not most were not. Certainly many if not most weddings throughout human history were not celebrated according to the Christian religion. So, the religious practice surrounding weddings either in history or today can hardly be leaned upon too heavily as determinative of the Church's current theological reflection and practice.
I would also suggest the the tradition of the Church's authority intermingling with the that of the State is about as old as Innocent's decree or that of the Council of Florence, at a time in history when, in medieval Europe, Church and State functioned almost as one. With the post-enlightenment emergence of marriage contracts effected apart from any overt religious authority, the necessity of the Church's involvement began to come into question. The question for today, it seems to me, is whether the Church shall continue to choose to be bound by the laws that govern the wedding and marriage practices of the State.
Rather than be limited by the laws that pertain to each State, thus fracturing the practice of the Church accordingly, I suggest that it is timely for the Church to now distinguish theology and practice from that of the State. The Episcopal Church will do best, in my opinion, to define its theology and doctrine of marriage or Holy Matrimony as a matter of priority. Then, the Church will do well to establish its practice as observant of the laws of the State so that in those states wherein same-sex marriage is not illegal, the officiating priest shall be required to inform the couple of same. Or in states where same-sex unions are legal but same-sex marriage is not, the officiant might require that the couple first have their civil service of commitment, then have a service under the rubric of the Church that is identified by the Church's distinct practice as a service of wedding or marriage. In every case, the Church's practice is consistent everywhere, rather than being fractured by the laws of the State. States don't in fact bless buildings, pets, jewelry, etc. (By the way the Church does not officially bless animal. This is a custom, but no liturgy for doing so is found in any official canon or publication of the Church.) This is an an excellent opportunity to make use of the U.S. policy of separation of Church and State to the best care of the Church's membership. The point is that the Church is not bound restricted to blessing only such relationships as the State is willing legally to recognize. We need now to recognize our liberty and responsibility with regard to same-sex couples seeking marriage.
In this regard, I suggest also that the Church will do well to move beyond discussion of 'same-sex union' but not same-sex marriage. To get stuck on this distinction is to favor a policy of separate but equal. U.S. history teaches us painfully that this approach is simply an entrenchment of bigotry. I think the Church must concede that etymologically the term 'matrimony' may be problematic. Historically, matrimony concerns the making of motherhood, or the identification of the mother of the man's rightful heir. Thus, it may be argued that, historically and etymologically, 'matrimony' is gender-specific. Technically, marriage is the civil or secular contract that is recognized by the State. It incorporates much the same language as a contract for real estate and other property law, e.g. 'to have and to hold'. However, inasmuch as 'marriage' and 'matrimony' are used interchangeably in both the BCP and in common parlance, the argument is well made that 'matrimony' has lost its gender-specificity through use and across time. In any case, the Church would make a mistake, in my opinion, to prescribe or 'allow' 'same-sex unions' for gay couples, but prohibit or disallow marriage. It is time for the Church to modify our canons and thus to declare that in this Church marriage is defined as the holy union of two persons called by God to spousal relationship with one another in life-long commitment to each other, to God, and to the Church. Short and sweet.
Regarding the fear among the homophobic community that clergy and parishes would be somehow required by the Church to host or officiate at such services of of blessing, one need only remember that the current canons of the Church stipulate, at Title 1, canon 18, section 4 that, "It shall be within the discretion of any Member of the Clergy of this Church to decline to solemnize any marriage." Thus, no clergy is required to officiate at the wedding of any particular couple; a member of the clergy may decline to officiate at the wedding of any particular couple.
The newest nonsense being proposed by the Episcopalian wing of the homophobic community is using the congregationalist theme of 'local option,' but somehow fails to recognize that this already exists as regards weddings. Their efforts twist a pastorally and ecclesiologically sensitive approach to a sacramental ministry and attempt to twist it to apply to a parochial or clerical preference for a particular version of the Prayer Book, for or against particular bishops and presiding bishops, and for the so-called 'adoption' of the Windsor Report or of the proposed Anglican covenant. They fail to recognize that a church-wide polity regarding same-sex marriage is similar to a church-wide polity regarding which Prayer Book is used legitimately in the Church's dioceses and congregations. In hierarchical Churches such as our own, canons apply church-wide. The single real attempt in our Church to provide for exception to this rule was experienced around the admission to Holy Orders of persons who are women. The miserable failure of this exception surely has taught the Episcopal Church not to make a similar attempt with regard to the inclusion of LGBT persons in the life and ministry of the Church and the marriage gay couples. The clerical 'option' included in the Church's canons about marriage is not about giving clergy or congregations choices to suit their personal tastes or bigotries. It's about protecting the sacrament itself from being misunderstood and mis-applied either by clergy who approach their ministry as customer-service or by couples who may be approaching their wedding as clients of the Church instead of as members of it. The homophobic community's proposal of 'local option' is merely a disguised perpetuation of the discriminatory policy of separate but equal, especially the Church's emerging polity of the recognition of same-sex marriage.
The need now for the Church to define for itself what it understand marriage to be is urgent. The Church must not be limited by rules of the State that do not themselves actually impose such limitation on the Church. Just as the Church is content to offer such blessings for animals, real estate, and material property for which the State has no official regard one way of the other, so also it is time for the Church to determine and declare that we now include the blessing of marriage without distinction of the gender of the persons involved, and inclusive of same-sex couples. It is time for this Church to reject separate and unequal, as well as move past proposals of separate but equal. The Church needs to institutionalize a polity and practice of inclusion of couples called by God to spousal relationship with one another in life-long commitment to each other, to God, and to the Church. We need to proclaim in deed and word that, in every State, this Church holds such love to be holy.
Jim +
No comments:
Post a Comment