A Response to “I Will Bless You and You Will be a Blessing”
by Leander S. Harding, Ph.D., Professor of Pastoral Theology at Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge, PA
the full text for “I Will Bless You…” is available at http://houseofdeputies.org/blessingexcerpts
the resolution mandating the creation of this ceremony is at http://www.episcopalarchives.org/SCLM/C056.html
Commissioned by Anglicans United & Latimer Press for distribution to all Deputies, Alternates and Bishops, General Convention 2012.
[Ed. Note: This is an essential read. The General Convention and therefore, The Episcopal Church, is about 10 days away from approving a commitment ceremony for same-gendered couples. Although it will only be approved for trial use for the next 3 years, there is little doubt that once approved, the ceremony will be ratified in 2015. Once gay marriage is federally approved, this will morph into the gay marriage ceremony. The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music created this ceremony using the Theological Committee for the House of Bishop's document presented to the House in 2010. They applied the very liberal and revisionist reinterpretations of Scripture in that document, not the accepted traditional interpretations and adopted them as the theological foundation for the ceremony now presented. Anglicans United asked Dr. Leander Harding, Trinity School for Ministry professor of Pastoral Theology to write a response. His response is below. We cannot stress enough that the adoption of this ceremony built on marginally accepted interpretation of Scripture will not prove to be of value to either the political cause intended or the whole of the Episcopal Church. Please pray for level heads and a non-emotional approach to this issue, especially in the House of Bishops at this General Convention. We acknowledge that ceremonies of this type will continue in dioceses across TEC, with or without a "national" liturgy. This is our final blog post until Indianapolis. Cheryl M. Wetzel]
The 82 page document is presented in preparation for the 2012 General Convention. The 2009 General Convention directed the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to develop theological and liturgical resources for blessing same-gender relationships (C-056). The first 62 pages give the theological overview developed by the Commission to support blessing same-gender relationships.
Sample liturgies are included in pages 63-79. A Declaration of Intention for Lifelong Covenant, p. 80, to be signed by the couple seeking the blessing, parallels that required by canon law for heterosexual marriages. Finally, the document closes with the two resolutions for the 2012 General Convention. A049 authorizes the liturgy for trial use during the next 3 years. A050 creates a task force on marriage that will explore the historical, theological, biblical and canonical dimensions of marriage.
There are several things to commend in the document. The work of the committee is evidently grounded in genuine pastoral concern. An attempt is made to counter scriptural objections, both to homosexual practice and same-gender blessings. The committee also makes a case for the toleration of disagreement, stating that these issues should not be the cause of further schism in the Episcopal Church because the report is given “in the fervent hope that disagreements over this biblical material need not divide the church.” (p. 57)
The report is straightforward and clear that the ultimate goal is a major change in our understanding of Christian marriage and a reappraisal of the significance of the biological family in God’s plan for humanity.
There are four sections to the theological introduction: The Church’s Call: A Focus on Mission, The Church’s Joy: A Theology of Blessing, The Church’s Life: Covenantal Relationship, The Church’s Challenge: Christian Unity and Biblical Interpretation.
God’s Desire is to Bless
The vision of mission outlined in the document centers on the concept of blessing (p.13 – 20). God wants to bless the children of Abraham so that through them He may bless all the people of the world. The blessing of same gender relationships is presented as an appropriate next step in extending the blessing of God to the world.
In this part of the report, I miss any sense of the necessity or drama of salvation. Jesus is said to pour his life out in order to bless us. Where is the sense of the atonement as a remedy for sin and evil? The mission of the church is presented as pronouncing blessing. Where is the sense that this blessing is available only through an encounter with God’s judgment; or after a personal response of repentance and faith in Christ?
This downplaying of the doctrine of sin comes across in the section on blessing (p.21-27). Three attributes of blessing are identified. The first is recognition of the goodness of God already present in the creation. This recognition is expanded to include human relationships. There is no recognition of what theologians call the Cosmic Fall, that is the doctrine that the creation as well as human beings, though fundamentally good, are fallen. If the creation is fallen, not everything that exists either in the creation or in the lives of human beings, can in God’s name be blessed or pronounced good. The document argues that same-gender relationships can and should be blessed because these relationships can be recognized as having qualities that are good. The virtues identified include monogamy, fidelity, holy love, and careful, honest communication.
It does not follow as self evident that if some virtues are present in same-gendered relationships the relationships themselves should be blessed. The question of whether the relationship is according to God’s will is being begged. The relationship may give evidence of proximate good and still not be – according to God’s word – ultimately good. There is also a theological problem with an understanding of blessing that is a celebration of already existing virtues. This concept is a form of Pelagianism, that the blessing of God is in some sense earned. The traditional nuptial blessing is not a recognition of virtue already existing, but a particular form of thanksgiving for and witness to mankind’s utterly gratuitous redemption in Christ.
The second element of blessing that the text identifies is a prayer for an intensification of the grace already recognized. The third identified element of blessing is the consecration or setting a part of the persons for a sacred purpose. In the case of same-gendered relationships this consecration is a sign of Christ’s redemption to the world. This alludes to the present marriage rite where the marriage of male and female is a witness to the reconciliation of the human race and the recreation of Adam and Eve in Christ. Here begins a striking character of this document: the way in which it both depends upon and seeks to deconstruct the symbol of male, female marriage (referred to in the document repeatedly as different gendered, in contrast to same-gendered marriage.)
In the section on covenants and covenantal relationships (p.28-53) the major theme is that the covenants that Christian people form with each other are a witness to God’s covenant with His people and with creation. Marriage between man and woman is presented as one possible covenant alongside many others. In place of the family, the text advances the concept of covenantal communities or households as a way of thinking about how contemporary people order their lives. Here there is an explicit de-centering of the biological family as a necessary step in commending same-sex relationships.
The Deconstruction of the Unique Vocation of Male and Female
In the course of the consideration of biblical texts, the deconstruction of the biological family becomes even more explicit. Pages 47 through 50 share an astonishing re-reading of Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1:26-27, pg. 47, we are told that, “Gender differentiation is attributed to the whole human species rather than to individuals.” The footnote refers to Talmudic commentaries that suggest the first human beings shared with God “all the possible gender characteristics.” Hence additional categories besides male and female are to be found in the creation story.
In Genesis 1:28, we are told that the command to “be fruitful and multiply” is given to the species as a whole – all mammals – and not to individuals. The intent of this exegesis appears to be to remove the obligation for procreation from heterosexual marriage and to make childbearing an option which may in good faith be refused. This is a dramatic change in the traditional doctrine of Christian marriage including the doctrine as taught in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
There is an inevitable logic at work in the report. If the ultimate goal is not same-sex blessing but same-sex marriage, the centrality of procreation to the traditional understanding of Christian marriage must be deconstructed. The authors are anticipating the redefinition of the term marriage that will move this church from a liturgy for blessing same sex relationships to a single, non-gendered marriage liturgy for all.
This theme of the inconsequence of the differing genders of the couple is continued in the exegesis of Genesis 2:7-22. The two creation stories are not treated as a canonical whole but each as self-contained with a distinct teaching. We are told that Genesis 2 is not about procreation but about companionship. God sees that it is not good that the man is alone and He makes a companion. We are told that the “sameness” of the companion is more important than the created femaleness of Eve. The point is “the priority of human companionship,” not the ordering of humanity into complementary genders of male and female. We apparently were designed for companionship, quite apart from marriage and/or procreation. One wonders about the implications of this exegesis for the dignity of women and motherhood.
There is a Gnostic feel to this exegesis. Gnosticism, a 2nd and 3rd century heresy, teaches that the human body plays no essential role in our humanity. In “I will Bless You…” the humanity of Adam and Eve are being oddly abstracted from their created, gendered bodies.
Scripture Selection as ‘Proof Text’
Here I must say something about the approach to scripture used in this report and by many proponents of same-sex marriage in the church. Exegetical proposals are put forth with regard to texts that are negative about homosexuality such as the story of Sodom in Genesis 19, the prohibition of homosexual sex acts in Leviticus 18 and 20 and Paul’s condemnation of homosexual acts in Romans 1. However, the unvarying principle behind quoting these exegetical proposals is that contemporary Christians through ‘the guidance of the Holy Spirit,’ have already judged same-sex relationships to be good and therefore, holy. The use of scripture here is therefore a kind of proof texting for a decision made on other grounds.
Revisionist exegesis explains that, if the scriptures describe homosexuality in negative terms, this is because the scripture does not have in view the same reality as we have today. This report repeats the often heard assertion that “scripture offers little material that would address modern notions of sexual orientation.” (p. 57) Thus the story of Sodom is really about inhospitality, Leviticus is really about power relationships, Paul is writing about heterosexuals who engage in homosexual relationships etc.
Serious and overwhelming scholarly objections can made to these revisionist readings. (See, “The View of the Traditionalists” in 2008 Report to the House of Bishops on Same Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church, Anglican Theological Review, 93:1). For any of these revisionist readings to be plausible one has to ignore the profound role and significance of male and female marital imagery in the whole canon of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and the way in which negativity toward homosexual practice by both Old Testament and New Testament writers is counter-cultural to the surrounding pagan ethos. None of these exegetical arguments matter for those championing the new definition of marriage because, supposedly the Holy Spirit has already revealed the truth about same-sex marriage to its proponents quite apart from the scripture. I am forced to conclude that the real purpose of this exegesis is not to establish biblical doctrine but to bolster decisions already taken on other grounds quite apart from the Bible and to provide an ideological and rhetorical tool with which either to mollify traditionalists or circumvent their appeal to biblical authority.
The designated authority here is not scripture but a group of interpreters who claim validity for their radically innovative readings of scripture on the basis of possession of a leading of the Holy Spirit denied to the historic church in the past and denied to the vast majority of the world’s Christians today.
“I Will Bless You…” represents an official turning point in the debate. This report is a frank argument for re-defining the existing institution of marriage. Male and female genders and procreation are optional and accidental ingredients in what is to become a new understanding of Christian matrimony. This teaching is to be supported by a reading of Genesis which astonishingly makes the creation of male and female for the purposes of procreation tangential to the story of Adam and Eve. If this radical re-definition of Christian marriage is successful it will represent a stunning victory for a disembodied and Gnostic version of Christianity.
Biblical Interpretation and Continued Christian Unity
The document concludes with a section on Christian Unity (p.54-62), in spite of differing points of Biblical Interpretation. This section openly acknowledges that there is disagreement over the interpretation of scripture. “In faithfulness to Christ, we acknowledge and respect those differences among us in the fervent hope that disagreements over this biblical material need not divide the church.” (p. 57) The process proposed for handling the disagreement is to model the continuing discernment on the apostolic council in Acts 15. This is the controversy within the early church, over the inclusion of the Gentiles in Christianity. This is an ironic choice. The judgment given was that the Gentiles once they had come to repentance and accepted Christ, did not need to keep the Jewish ritual law, but they must forsake porneia. These forbidden sexual practices include exactly the same-gender sexual activity being now promoted.
Nevertheless the pattern which the committee sees for handling disputes in the church is to continue to keep scripture “central” while attending to “the Spirit’s work in our midst.” (p. 62). By this, the committee means the testimony of committed same-sex couples giving evidence of fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives. No mention is made of listening to the testimony of those who have been able to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction or those who have found a life of holiness in singleness resisting the temptation to act on those attractions.
The church should indeed attend carefully to the work of the Spirit in our midst. To use St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians and the First Letter of John as our guide we can be sure it is the Holy Spirit at work in our midst when at least two conditions are met:
This report is deeply troubling. It envisions far more than a pastoral provision for same-sex couples. Proposed here is an entirely new teaching about the nature and significance of male and female marriage and the biological family. The Pelagian and Gnostic elements in the theological rationale used to support this radical new teaching signal a worrisome departure from classic Christian teaching about the nature of the creation, the fall, sin and redemption and the centrality of justification by faith. If this report is adopted there will be further severe damage to the already fragile unity of our church and of the Anglican Communion. If the report and same-gender blessings are instituted, I pray that there will be safeguards and adequate provisions made for those who cannot accept this new teaching.
the full text for “I Will Bless You…” is available at http://houseofdeputies.org/blessingexcerpts
the resolution mandating the creation of this ceremony is at http://www.episcopalarchives.org/SCLM/C056.html
Commissioned by Anglicans United & Latimer Press for distribution to all Deputies, Alternates and Bishops, General Convention 2012.
[Ed. Note: This is an essential read. The General Convention and therefore, The Episcopal Church, is about 10 days away from approving a commitment ceremony for same-gendered couples. Although it will only be approved for trial use for the next 3 years, there is little doubt that once approved, the ceremony will be ratified in 2015. Once gay marriage is federally approved, this will morph into the gay marriage ceremony. The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music created this ceremony using the Theological Committee for the House of Bishop's document presented to the House in 2010. They applied the very liberal and revisionist reinterpretations of Scripture in that document, not the accepted traditional interpretations and adopted them as the theological foundation for the ceremony now presented. Anglicans United asked Dr. Leander Harding, Trinity School for Ministry professor of Pastoral Theology to write a response. His response is below. We cannot stress enough that the adoption of this ceremony built on marginally accepted interpretation of Scripture will not prove to be of value to either the political cause intended or the whole of the Episcopal Church. Please pray for level heads and a non-emotional approach to this issue, especially in the House of Bishops at this General Convention. We acknowledge that ceremonies of this type will continue in dioceses across TEC, with or without a "national" liturgy. This is our final blog post until Indianapolis. Cheryl M. Wetzel]
A Response to “I will bless you and you will be a blessing,”
The March 7, 2012 document of The Standing Liturgical Commission on Liturgy and Music of the Episcopal Church
By
The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.
The 82 page document is presented in preparation for the 2012 General Convention. The 2009 General Convention directed the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to develop theological and liturgical resources for blessing same-gender relationships (C-056). The first 62 pages give the theological overview developed by the Commission to support blessing same-gender relationships.
Sample liturgies are included in pages 63-79. A Declaration of Intention for Lifelong Covenant, p. 80, to be signed by the couple seeking the blessing, parallels that required by canon law for heterosexual marriages. Finally, the document closes with the two resolutions for the 2012 General Convention. A049 authorizes the liturgy for trial use during the next 3 years. A050 creates a task force on marriage that will explore the historical, theological, biblical and canonical dimensions of marriage.
There are several things to commend in the document. The work of the committee is evidently grounded in genuine pastoral concern. An attempt is made to counter scriptural objections, both to homosexual practice and same-gender blessings. The committee also makes a case for the toleration of disagreement, stating that these issues should not be the cause of further schism in the Episcopal Church because the report is given “in the fervent hope that disagreements over this biblical material need not divide the church.” (p. 57)
The report is straightforward and clear that the ultimate goal is a major change in our understanding of Christian marriage and a reappraisal of the significance of the biological family in God’s plan for humanity.
There are four sections to the theological introduction: The Church’s Call: A Focus on Mission, The Church’s Joy: A Theology of Blessing, The Church’s Life: Covenantal Relationship, The Church’s Challenge: Christian Unity and Biblical Interpretation.
God’s Desire is to Bless
The vision of mission outlined in the document centers on the concept of blessing (p.13 – 20). God wants to bless the children of Abraham so that through them He may bless all the people of the world. The blessing of same gender relationships is presented as an appropriate next step in extending the blessing of God to the world.
In this part of the report, I miss any sense of the necessity or drama of salvation. Jesus is said to pour his life out in order to bless us. Where is the sense of the atonement as a remedy for sin and evil? The mission of the church is presented as pronouncing blessing. Where is the sense that this blessing is available only through an encounter with God’s judgment; or after a personal response of repentance and faith in Christ?
This downplaying of the doctrine of sin comes across in the section on blessing (p.21-27). Three attributes of blessing are identified. The first is recognition of the goodness of God already present in the creation. This recognition is expanded to include human relationships. There is no recognition of what theologians call the Cosmic Fall, that is the doctrine that the creation as well as human beings, though fundamentally good, are fallen. If the creation is fallen, not everything that exists either in the creation or in the lives of human beings, can in God’s name be blessed or pronounced good. The document argues that same-gender relationships can and should be blessed because these relationships can be recognized as having qualities that are good. The virtues identified include monogamy, fidelity, holy love, and careful, honest communication.
It does not follow as self evident that if some virtues are present in same-gendered relationships the relationships themselves should be blessed. The question of whether the relationship is according to God’s will is being begged. The relationship may give evidence of proximate good and still not be – according to God’s word – ultimately good. There is also a theological problem with an understanding of blessing that is a celebration of already existing virtues. This concept is a form of Pelagianism, that the blessing of God is in some sense earned. The traditional nuptial blessing is not a recognition of virtue already existing, but a particular form of thanksgiving for and witness to mankind’s utterly gratuitous redemption in Christ.
The second element of blessing that the text identifies is a prayer for an intensification of the grace already recognized. The third identified element of blessing is the consecration or setting a part of the persons for a sacred purpose. In the case of same-gendered relationships this consecration is a sign of Christ’s redemption to the world. This alludes to the present marriage rite where the marriage of male and female is a witness to the reconciliation of the human race and the recreation of Adam and Eve in Christ. Here begins a striking character of this document: the way in which it both depends upon and seeks to deconstruct the symbol of male, female marriage (referred to in the document repeatedly as different gendered, in contrast to same-gendered marriage.)
In the section on covenants and covenantal relationships (p.28-53) the major theme is that the covenants that Christian people form with each other are a witness to God’s covenant with His people and with creation. Marriage between man and woman is presented as one possible covenant alongside many others. In place of the family, the text advances the concept of covenantal communities or households as a way of thinking about how contemporary people order their lives. Here there is an explicit de-centering of the biological family as a necessary step in commending same-sex relationships.
The Deconstruction of the Unique Vocation of Male and Female
In the course of the consideration of biblical texts, the deconstruction of the biological family becomes even more explicit. Pages 47 through 50 share an astonishing re-reading of Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1:26-27, pg. 47, we are told that, “Gender differentiation is attributed to the whole human species rather than to individuals.” The footnote refers to Talmudic commentaries that suggest the first human beings shared with God “all the possible gender characteristics.” Hence additional categories besides male and female are to be found in the creation story.
In Genesis 1:28, we are told that the command to “be fruitful and multiply” is given to the species as a whole – all mammals – and not to individuals. The intent of this exegesis appears to be to remove the obligation for procreation from heterosexual marriage and to make childbearing an option which may in good faith be refused. This is a dramatic change in the traditional doctrine of Christian marriage including the doctrine as taught in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
There is an inevitable logic at work in the report. If the ultimate goal is not same-sex blessing but same-sex marriage, the centrality of procreation to the traditional understanding of Christian marriage must be deconstructed. The authors are anticipating the redefinition of the term marriage that will move this church from a liturgy for blessing same sex relationships to a single, non-gendered marriage liturgy for all.
This theme of the inconsequence of the differing genders of the couple is continued in the exegesis of Genesis 2:7-22. The two creation stories are not treated as a canonical whole but each as self-contained with a distinct teaching. We are told that Genesis 2 is not about procreation but about companionship. God sees that it is not good that the man is alone and He makes a companion. We are told that the “sameness” of the companion is more important than the created femaleness of Eve. The point is “the priority of human companionship,” not the ordering of humanity into complementary genders of male and female. We apparently were designed for companionship, quite apart from marriage and/or procreation. One wonders about the implications of this exegesis for the dignity of women and motherhood.
There is a Gnostic feel to this exegesis. Gnosticism, a 2nd and 3rd century heresy, teaches that the human body plays no essential role in our humanity. In “I will Bless You…” the humanity of Adam and Eve are being oddly abstracted from their created, gendered bodies.
Scripture Selection as ‘Proof Text’
Here I must say something about the approach to scripture used in this report and by many proponents of same-sex marriage in the church. Exegetical proposals are put forth with regard to texts that are negative about homosexuality such as the story of Sodom in Genesis 19, the prohibition of homosexual sex acts in Leviticus 18 and 20 and Paul’s condemnation of homosexual acts in Romans 1. However, the unvarying principle behind quoting these exegetical proposals is that contemporary Christians through ‘the guidance of the Holy Spirit,’ have already judged same-sex relationships to be good and therefore, holy. The use of scripture here is therefore a kind of proof texting for a decision made on other grounds.
Revisionist exegesis explains that, if the scriptures describe homosexuality in negative terms, this is because the scripture does not have in view the same reality as we have today. This report repeats the often heard assertion that “scripture offers little material that would address modern notions of sexual orientation.” (p. 57) Thus the story of Sodom is really about inhospitality, Leviticus is really about power relationships, Paul is writing about heterosexuals who engage in homosexual relationships etc.
Serious and overwhelming scholarly objections can made to these revisionist readings. (See, “The View of the Traditionalists” in 2008 Report to the House of Bishops on Same Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church, Anglican Theological Review, 93:1). For any of these revisionist readings to be plausible one has to ignore the profound role and significance of male and female marital imagery in the whole canon of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and the way in which negativity toward homosexual practice by both Old Testament and New Testament writers is counter-cultural to the surrounding pagan ethos. None of these exegetical arguments matter for those championing the new definition of marriage because, supposedly the Holy Spirit has already revealed the truth about same-sex marriage to its proponents quite apart from the scripture. I am forced to conclude that the real purpose of this exegesis is not to establish biblical doctrine but to bolster decisions already taken on other grounds quite apart from the Bible and to provide an ideological and rhetorical tool with which either to mollify traditionalists or circumvent their appeal to biblical authority.
The designated authority here is not scripture but a group of interpreters who claim validity for their radically innovative readings of scripture on the basis of possession of a leading of the Holy Spirit denied to the historic church in the past and denied to the vast majority of the world’s Christians today.
“I Will Bless You…” represents an official turning point in the debate. This report is a frank argument for re-defining the existing institution of marriage. Male and female genders and procreation are optional and accidental ingredients in what is to become a new understanding of Christian matrimony. This teaching is to be supported by a reading of Genesis which astonishingly makes the creation of male and female for the purposes of procreation tangential to the story of Adam and Eve. If this radical re-definition of Christian marriage is successful it will represent a stunning victory for a disembodied and Gnostic version of Christianity.
Biblical Interpretation and Continued Christian Unity
The document concludes with a section on Christian Unity (p.54-62), in spite of differing points of Biblical Interpretation. This section openly acknowledges that there is disagreement over the interpretation of scripture. “In faithfulness to Christ, we acknowledge and respect those differences among us in the fervent hope that disagreements over this biblical material need not divide the church.” (p. 57) The process proposed for handling the disagreement is to model the continuing discernment on the apostolic council in Acts 15. This is the controversy within the early church, over the inclusion of the Gentiles in Christianity. This is an ironic choice. The judgment given was that the Gentiles once they had come to repentance and accepted Christ, did not need to keep the Jewish ritual law, but they must forsake porneia. These forbidden sexual practices include exactly the same-gender sexual activity being now promoted.
Nevertheless the pattern which the committee sees for handling disputes in the church is to continue to keep scripture “central” while attending to “the Spirit’s work in our midst.” (p. 62). By this, the committee means the testimony of committed same-sex couples giving evidence of fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives. No mention is made of listening to the testimony of those who have been able to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction or those who have found a life of holiness in singleness resisting the temptation to act on those attractions.
The church should indeed attend carefully to the work of the Spirit in our midst. To use St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians and the First Letter of John as our guide we can be sure it is the Holy Spirit at work in our midst when at least two conditions are met:
- The Spirit causes us to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, and
- The Spirit gives us the most tender concern for the unity of the church.
This report is deeply troubling. It envisions far more than a pastoral provision for same-sex couples. Proposed here is an entirely new teaching about the nature and significance of male and female marriage and the biological family. The Pelagian and Gnostic elements in the theological rationale used to support this radical new teaching signal a worrisome departure from classic Christian teaching about the nature of the creation, the fall, sin and redemption and the centrality of justification by faith. If this report is adopted there will be further severe damage to the already fragile unity of our church and of the Anglican Communion. If the report and same-gender blessings are instituted, I pray that there will be safeguards and adequate provisions made for those who cannot accept this new teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment