Covenanting and Blessing of a Life-Long Lesbian Union

The opening paragraph of the Celebration and Blessing of A Marriage in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer states, "The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in Creation, and Our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee." Many, among whom I now include myself, believe this bond and covenant, this manner of life, needs to be broadened to include unions with two husbands or two wives and not reserved only for unions between a husband and a wife. Some in as mainline and staid a denomination as the Episcopal church have already decided the issue.

Recently, two Lesbians, one of whom is the daughter of a parishioner at St. Anna’s Episcopal Church where I serve as rector, invited me to the covenant and blessing of their life-long union at St. Luke in the Fields, a venerable Episcopal parish in West Greenwich Village in Manhattan. The people in the Village are a diverse lot, very much like those in the French Quarter and downtown neighborhoods of New Orleans that St. Anna’s serves; not overwhelmingly Gay and Lesbian, but certainly Gay men and Lesbians are represented and tolerated in greater number than in most American neighborhoods, so I wanted to experience first hand something that may become a part of my own turf, at least in terms of ministering to those who come seeking the Church’s blessing of their relationships.

Contrary to a popular notion by most who know me and the parish I serve, I am not a fire-breathing liberal, certainly not one who enjoys the excitement of pursuing either secular or ecclesiastical, even those whose objectives I support. Priests are called to love and care for everybody, the sort of promiscuity for all, but for no one in particular that Madeline O’Hare used to rail against, but I do seem drawn to those who find their lives messed up in ways that priests in suburban parishes do not confront, at least not as often and as openly as in places like downtown New Orleans and Manhattan’s Greenwich Village.

A congregation with a great deal of diversity: in age, sexuality, race and economic circumstance does require a pastor that can distinguish between permissiveness and moral rectitude, leaving no one behind, to use a phrase that has become a cliché for inclusiveness. But some phrases taste sweeter in the speaking than the biting off. Human diversity brings with it diverse religious tastes, especially when looking to Scripture as a recipe for what truly nurtures the diversity of human life. Conservatism for some demands a blander diet than for others.

To extend the metaphor hopefully short of its cloying, Pastors who insist that their tastes alone bring spiritual growth, risk alienating those who must first trust a pastor’s tolerance before they will ask for and respect spiritual guidance. Tolerance means acceptance even if someone makes bad choices. It also helps if pastors personally can admit to making the occasional bad choice, and as we have recently been reminded, pastors do make bad choices. That is the nature of human life and growth.

The blessing by the Church of domestic unions between persons of the same sex has for me consumed a great deal of thought, reflection, and prayer over the past several years. I have been approached in the past by both men and women who wanted me to "marry" them to someone of the same sex. On each occasion I have declined, sometimes because I did not feel that the two people were able to make a lifetime commitment required by such a union–a decision I have also had to make from time to time with heterosexual couples. Also, I was and still am disinclined as a catholic priest, to act outside what my church permits. My authority as a priest derives from the church that ordained me, and I believe that faithful catholic priests can not rightly do anything not sanctioned and permitted by the bishop whom they promised to obey. No matter how much I might disagree with the positions my bishop might take, catholic bishops are the successors to the Apostles, and Christian orthodoxy is by canon and tradition their turf not mine. I want no part of that responsibility. I am prepared to work out my own salvation as Paul tells me I must, but I do not want to enforce canonical doctrine on someone else at the expense of an individual’s conscience.

My choices are to obey the bishop or join a church with congregational polity, and I chose and still prefer the polity of episcopal catholicity. I have never raised the issue of same-sex unions with my bishop, the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana. I know, however, even though he is a pastoral and reasonable man, I also know him to be an orthodox conservative Episcopalian, and a traditional Anglican Catholic. Which does not mean that when I disagree with his positions I do not say so, and he is pastoral and kind enough to tolerate my sometimes unorthodox opinions. My actions, however, conform to his rules.

The aversion to same-sex unions by self-proclaimed orthodox Christians is based on Scriptural prohibitions against the practice of homosexuality, but Scripture speaks of the practice of homosexuality only as a perversion of heterosexuality, which Scripture presumes is universal for humanity. Scripture knows nothing of homosexuality as a naturally occurring phenomenon and if virtually everyone in the modern world, except of course the invincibly ignorant, now accept this as scientific fact how can the literal reading of scripture be an adequate source for making moral choices based on 1^st century scientific ignorance. If even the most recalcitrant now accept that the earth revolves around the sun, how can they continue to insist that homosexual acts are perversion–not normal or usual perhaps, but hardly perverse. Personally I long ago dismissed 1^st-century Scriptural prohibitions against active homosexuals as being just as silly, and frankly just as fruitless, as prohibiting a woman from speaking her mind in public. Silly and fruitless arguments provide no contribution to public debate and are eventually relegated to the fringes of public opinion where they belong. Islamic as well as Christian moral theologians might want to consider this if they intend in the long run to be relevant in the evolving self-knowledge of the human race.

Scripture is time specific, literally true only for the era in which it was written and for the culture to whom it was addressed. The modern era must interpret Scripture by taking into account modern knowledge—given Christians believe by that Advocate Christ promised to the church when he ended his earthly life, whose coming the Church celebrates at Pentecost. Modern knowledge must be taken into account, otherwise the Gospel is not good news. It repels with its anachronistic prohibitions more that it attracts with its promise of freedom.

Until recently, however, I was not convinced that the Church’s blessing of same-sex unions was a valid expression of the Gospel, especially in the face of such strong and widespread resistance, the vehemence of which has incited schism and has precipitated actions so contrary to Anglican tradition that they mock the very genius of the tradition, which for three hundred years has provided for theological diversity, unlike the single voice with which the Pope speaks for and to Roman Catholics. Anglican theology, although sometimes pretty messy in its diversity, provides freedom for individuals to make their own moral choices, informed, we hope, by that same Advocate promised by Christ. Without that freedom of choice we receive no grace making right choices.

Therefore when I had a chance to witness a union between two good Christian women whom I know well, whose integrity is unquestionable and whose commitment to each other and their son is absolute, I wanted to be present when they made covenant with each other in the midst of a Christian congregation that knows both women even better than I do. I could not have been more deeply moved. The liturgy was splendid both in its words and execution. No one, especially no Anglican could have mistaken it for anything but a Christ-centered, love inspired ceremony in the best traditions of Anglican liturgy.

The covenant began when the presiding priests asked the two women "What do you seek?" and they answered, "We ask a blessing from this community on our covenant?" The priest asked them, "Who sponsors you in this commitment?" We, the congregation stood and responded in unison, "We do in the belief that God has blessed Anne and Brenda by calling them into this covenant with each other." The liturgy continued with the priest’s asking the congregation to promise to support them and to pledge to recognize them as a family, and we gave our affirmative response. The women exchanged vows of life-long commitment to each other, and at the end the priest asked God for His blessing on their union. My apprehension of something bizarre was vanquished. Dignity, simplicity, purity of spirit, and humbleness of intent were evident in its every aspect.

I have been many places where I was absolutely convinced of the presence and blessing of the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, and I have come go trust my perception of that presence. None of these experiences excelled Anne and Brenda’s union in being filled with that Spirit.. Both brides were beautiful, their father and son were handsome. All present were aglow with happiness.

After the service we, the brides, the wedding party, and the congregation proceeded on foot a block or so up Hudson Street in West Greenwich Village to Ruby Fruit, the restaurant were the reception was held, reminding me of the humble simplicity of a wedding procession in a small European village. As we processed, the crowds along the sidewalks parted to let us pass and applauded as we went by. What a great contrast it was as a Christian testament to the confused Jesus Freaks who show up regularly at the admittedly ribald New Orleans parades, tightly circled for defense like Custer’s Last Stand surrounded by and evil they perceive and project, carrying placards proclaiming God’s wrath and condemnation. Surely there is no doubt about which testament better proclaims Christ and His love of diversity.

I have no doubt that Anne and Brenda’s union was established by God, and adorned by His presence.