This is from the title of the report of the Episcopal Church's Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music concerning a proposed rite of blessing same-gender relationships. This is intended for study and discussion before the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which will be in July in Indianapolis. The report contains a "theological reflection" on blessing same-gender relationships, and the text of the proposed rite. This is not intended to be used for same-gender marriage, which the Episcopal Church does not recognize, but may be modified for use for those being married under civil law in those jurisdictions where same-gender marriages are allowed.
I haven't read the entire document, which is available from the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church website (linked to in an article on the Episcopal Digital Network site, which I saw on my parish's Facebook page). But what I read impresses me deeply, and makes me hope that the Episcopal Church will play a very helpful and constructive role in this issue in the churches and in society.
The theological reflection begins by quoting Resolution 2000-D039, which describes certain characteristics the Church expects of couples in lifelong, committed relationships: "fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God." This is followed by the observation that "[m]any in the Episcopal Church have witnessed these characteristics in the committed relationships of same-gender couples." The theological reflection continues with an argument for a "Theology of Blessing," as the Church responds with love and acceptance to gay and lesbian people, as the Church and society has a new understanding of gay and lesbian people and their relationships (no longer recognized as pathological by the scientific and medical communities, and increasingly visible and accepted in society).
Much of the theological reflection will be familiar to anyone who has read about these issues. Thus (p. 35), the story of Sodom (Genesis 19) is framed as about hospitality towards strangers, with careful arguments based on other Biblical passages concerning Sodom and its sins. But a particularly telling discussion in the theological reflection (p. 59) concerns how the Church came to a new understanding of what the scriptures say about slavery in the nineteenth century---before, the Bible was read as condoning slavery, but now no one reads the Bible in that way and no one believes slavery to be ethical or moral. A similar change in understanding has occurred in the Episcopal Church concerning ordination of women and concerning marriage after divorce.
The proposed liturgy for blessings of same-gender relationships is given towards the end of the document. The liturgy begins with a "gathering" of the assembly, which the Presider may address with the following words:
Dear friends in Christ,
we have gathered together today
to witness N. N. and N. N. publically committing themselves to one another and, in the name of the Church, to bless their union:
a relationship of mutual fidelity and steadfast love,
forsaking all others,
holding one another in tenderness and respect,
in strength and bravery,
come what may,
as long as they live.
I am so grateful to read these words, which are such a powerful affirmation of the goodness and permanence of same-gender relationships and love. As the Episcopal Church prepares to bless as well as welcome same-gender couples and their relationships, I hope and pray that this affirmation of fidelity and commitment in same-gender relationships gives hope and strength to gay people, as well as serving as a witness to the ambient culture of the validity and wholesomeness of same-gender relationships.
Comments:
I am, of course, a bit out of step with the theologizing and discussion w/i the Episcopal Church. The study groups seems intent on carving out a way to bless same gender couples differently from blessings for opposite gender couples.
A couple, regardless of gender, who has attained a relationship of “fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables them to see in each other the image of God” are, in fact, one — before they even apply for a license or a rite of the church. God’s presence has already been at work in/with/and between them. In fact, both the state (grantor of the license) and the church (grantor of the blessing) assume that the couple has come to something like this level of commitment as heard in the present day vows/promises exchanged at the time of a “marriage.”
I think the church should just dump the whole marriage thing. When any couple approaches a priest/congregation for a marriage, they should immediately be instructed that the church does not marry people, the church only has the gift to bless people who have entered into a covenant relationship (the quote above).
The legalities of marriage are the province of the state; if the state grants recognition and favorable taxing devices to same gender couples, well and good.
If not, qualified couples can fulfill legal requirements at the Clerk’s office. God’s blessing is not, however, dependent on the legal definitions or conditions imposed by the state. The Church should provide a rite of blessing to celebrate the Spirit’s work between any two people who publicly profess (after a period of guided spiritual discernment) their covenant commitment to one another. Using this rite, the couple’s congregation can invoke God’s blessing with joy and thanksgiving for their holy relationship.
Obviously I utterly opposed to clergy of any church taking on any function of the state by validating a marriage license after a “marriage” ceremony. This mixing of church and state should be discontinued as soon as possible. The current quasi-political flap about same-sex marriage would disappear if it were cast in terms of the state dictating what churches can or cannot do. It would clarify matters greatly if church and state would each tend to their own knitting.
That makes perfect sense, Tom—the realization that all the Church can do is recognize that a holy relationship of this kind already exists between two people. It reminds me of something that I thought of years ago when the first bits of progress for same-gender marriage were immediately followed by setbacks: Gay people should not wait for public approval of their relationships in the form of legalized same-gender marriage. They should claim their own relationships as they already exist—many of the legal benefits of marriage can be secured one at a time through other legal arrangements.