An Interesting Exchange: “If you could dictate the vows that a same-sex couple were to take…”

I agree…the church should never ever bless sin.  Likewise, the government should never make sinful behaviors legal either.  The law becomes a “bridge” to add pressure to changing church teachings and the understanding of morality.  Believe me, the leadership of the homosexual movement understands this way better than you and I do.

Suppose an orthodox clergyperson has a gay couple who express interest in their congregation despite knowing the theology of the body that is professed by the congregation, for the sake of children for whom they consider themselves responsible.

Obviously what is publicly professed in homily and instruction about the appropriate context of sexual expression cannot be altered, but how would they engage with the family unit recognizing that it exists as a practical reality? Would they deny involvement altogether, absent a pledge of celibacy by the adults, or is there some other course that could legitimately be adopted?

I concur with this conclusion. 

Worth note is that the inquiry presented the issue (unwittingly?) framed in utilitarian ethics (i.e., ‘assuming such a couple and a blessing, what behaviors would be better than any alternatives?’) 

In one respect, it is appropriate NOT to fabricate a morality for the behavior of SS couples by attempting reference to the Bible because the Bible simply prohibits the behavior.  There are no biblical instructions for conducting such behavior.  Some SS proponents would like to dress up the issue with the trappings of marriage, but that is not only a category error but a legalistic fabrication of rules or standards for a circumstance in which there are no such rules. 

One might as well suggest that coveting (or fill-in-the-blank) would be acceptable if only done properly.

Reasserters who might entertain standards of behavior for SS couples (perhaps as an ill-considered form of damage control?) do their greater case no good, concede an incremental acceptability, and taint biblical objectives for marriage with artifical legalism. 

Certainly it is better not to join the wayward in their exercise of utiliatrian ethics, creating rules out of whole cloth - doing what is right and useful in their own eyes - rather than misleading anyone, or at least clouding the issue, with a misplaced appearance of biblical acceptability.

I pretty much agree with what has been said here.  This does raise questions about how we minister to those who have made a commitment to some sort of same-sex relationship, perhaps even have a legal “marriage” in one of the states that does that sort of thing… but is seeking God and wants to be involved in one of our churches.  (I know a priest who recently encountered this very situation.)

The move toward celibacy is going to be a step, obviously… but is there any room for the Church to accept some sort of chaste commitment between two persons of the same sex who are sharing significant aspects of their lives together, and consider that they have certain responsibilities toward one another?

This is an interesting question also for people like me, who are predominantly attracted to members of the opposite sex, but being single and committed to godly chastity, are therefore celibate (in my case, for the foreseeable future).  A couple friends and I are starting to experiment with “intentional community”; I know others who are exploring in similar directions.  What sort of commitments are appropriate in this context?  A “rule”?  Would a prayer of blessing for our shared life be appropriate as well?

I realize I’m broadening the question well beyond that of the original post, so if the tangent is ruled out of bounds, that’s fine.  But these are real situations that are turning up in some of our parishes.

Eve Tushnet, a Roman Catholic writer and self-described “celibate gay Christian,” has been exploring a Medieval tradition of covenanted friendship: a kind of non-biological kinship, with all the responsibilities and commitments that close kinship brings.  Obviously—or at least it’s obvious to me—if this were to become a sort of celibate alternative to “gay marriage,” it’s probably a doomed project as far as the wider church is concerned.  But as a (presently) celibate non-gay Christian, that ancient tradition intrigues me….

P.S.  Some may find this website interesting: http://spiritualfriendship.org/  Also check out Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill, a young Anglican who is attracted to other men and is seeking to live a chaste and joyful Christian life.

Jeremy Bonner:

Suppose an orthodox clergyperson has a gay couple who express interest in their congregation despite knowing the theology of the body that is professed by the congregation, for the sake of children for whom they consider themselves responsible.

It is easily possible these days for such a gay couple to find a church where their lifestyle can be affirmed while they’re still afforded an opportunity to pay lip service to creedal orthodoxy and the outward trappings of liturgical worship.  Why would they be attracted to a conservative congregation for the sake of any children involved unless they had first come to recognize the sinful nature of their relationship and the concern they have for them is based on that awareness?  If they have arrived at that conclusion, they would need to do something more about it than try to maintain their present arrangement while hoping that the children somehow learn to do otherwise.   

Obviously what is publicly professed in homily and instruction about the appropriate context of sexual expression cannot be altered, but how would they engage with the family unit recognizing that it exists as a practical reality? Would they deny involvement altogether, absent a pledge of celibacy by the adults, or is there some other course that could legitimately be adopted?

If our hypothetical couple decides to press ahead anyway while maintaining the status quo, then their involvement in the life of the Church should be limited to their ability to attend its services.  They should be denied admission to Holy Communion, both for their welfare and that of the congregation as a whole, and for the salutary example this will set for the children.  Imposing a vow of celibacy would be largely meaningless unless it also included separation of bed and board and recognizing a need to place the children in the hands of those more qualified to care for them, with the possible exception of a biological parent who is willing and able to raise them singly.

To even remotely imagine that pastoral sensitivity calls for accommodating a living arrangement where two men or two women are sexually active with each other, regardless of what other interests they may have, is nothing more than a polite and pious form of homophobia.  A person who experiences same-sex attraction is not beyond the pale of God’s transforming grace, or any less likely to be called to repentance and saving faith in Christ than some other miserable sinner.  The Church’s mission is to give witness to that fact, not to offer a stone to those who may have come in search of bread, or make the trip to hell a bit more pleasant for those who aren’t really interested in all of that but still want to go through the motions.

Substitute any number of other illicit combinations for “gay couple,” with or without children, and the result is exactly the same.

“Why would they be attracted to a conservative congregation for the sake of any children involved unless they had first come to recognize the sinful nature of their relationship and the concern they have for them is based on that awareness?”

In the case I cited above (which did not involve children) they could sense the presence and power of Jesus in the traditional congregation, in a way that they did not find Him present in other churches that might have welcomed their lifestyle.  I am guessing—and this is only a guess—that most people in an active homosexual relationship who come to repentance and restoration with Christ in His Church are not initially drawn by a sense that something is wrong with their sexuality, but rather by some other aspect of the Faith, of Christ Himself, that is so beautiful and compelling that eventually they are forced to ask, “If this is true—and I am increasingly convinced that it is—then what do I do about the fact that my lifestyle doesn’t line up with the teaching of this Lord and this Church?”

The Church cannot and must not play down any of Her teachings.  Anyone in flagrant, open, and unrepented sin should be asked to refrain from receiving communion—as a matter of pastoral care, for the sake of their own soul. 

At the same time, we have to make room for people who have not yet fully accepted the Faith—for whatever reasons, and from whatever background—to be part of our community in some sense, to ask their questions, to wrestle with their difficulties, to meet with Jesus.  Call it a “front porch,” call it the catechumenate, but whatever you want to call it, this is essential if we are to welcome people into the family of God, into the new life of repentance and obedience and fellowship with Him.

Getting back to the original hypothetical, I think the problem with many such attempts at argument is the underlying motivation behind the “Oh yeah, what would you do if…” This is usually done to steer the discussion away from the primary issue. In most revisionist arguments the hypothetical, if ignored, leads to the inevitable name calling and bomb throwing we have come to expect. If the hypothetical is followed, expect more of them to come.

This does raise questions about how we minister to those who have made a commitment to some sort of same-sex relationship, perhaps even have a legal “marriage” in one of the states that does that sort of thing… but is seeking God and wants to be involved in one of our churches.  (I know a priest who recently encountered this very situatio

As if they were any other couple asking you to condone that which God does not.

You can minister without condoning can you not? Just as you can minister to someone who has had an abortion without condoning the act.

If one were faced with a gay couple that had adopted a child from foster care, for example, it seems dangerous automatically to assume that such behavior was motivated purely by selfishness. That doesn’t mean one has to accept that adoption should be available to homosexual couples as of right, merely that where it has already occurred the generosity of spirit should be acknowledged. In such a case, moreover, it could hardly be a simple matter of “placing the children in the hands of those more qualified to care for them.” There is already a legal onus established.

Hi Jeremy Bonner

Counselling in such a case would necessarily include the calling the couple to repent of their sexual activity, move into separate homes, place the child in a two parent heterosexual family, and seek freedom from their enslavement to sexual sin.

RE: “but how would they engage with the family unit recognizing that it exists as a practical reality? Would they deny involvement altogether, absent a pledge of celibacy by the adults, or is there some other course that could legitimately be adopted?”

Hi Jeremy,

I’d engage with the family unit in the same way as any other non-married couple with children.  I would not accept them as members—there’s the whole flagrant, scandalous sin thing—but I’d be glad for them to attend and participate in the various teaching and worship opportunities there.  Obviously I’d offer them full pastoral care, and counsel, being clear what their commitments needed to be in order to become members.

But I think we try to push people towards membership too hastily anyway. There are plenty of things to participate in in a parish without being leaders or members.

I would (privately as well), ask for God’s blessing upon their friendship- the philaw aspect, the agape aspect, and the storge aspect.  I would ask for sanctification for each of them seperately for the other loves, eros and thelema. 

I would pray that their friendship would grow (note modal) into one like David and Jonathan, or Ruth and Naomi, or Jesus and John.  I would ask God to sanctify their desire so that it is first and foremost, wildly and limerantly focused on Jesus.  I would unapologetically apply texts from the Song of Songs (particularly the same door-knocking imagery that we find in Revalation) to their sanctification and their desire for God. 

Afterwards I would remind them that if they have same-sex attractions, that they are called to a life of celibacy but not of lonliness.  Beyond that, how I would handle fencing the Table under specific sets of circumstances e.g., I don’t really know.  I think I would have an answer if I was called to the priesthood.  Lately I have gained an appreciation for the work the Holy Spirit can do without us jumping up every five minutes and trying to play God.  I suspect that it’s something of a balancing act between active and passive discipline.

This is a really interesting question. Just off the top of my head, given the putative state of mind of the hypothetical couple, might one approach this non-sexually.  It would seem that the tenth commandment is being violated - they are coveting relationship (marriage) that they cannot have and their relationship would not be consistent with natural and moral law. If acceptance and especially self acceptance is so important to homosexuals, then Christian acceptance would be accepting that they should not covet marriage and live their lives as single people, perhaps as friends, but in a manner consistent with Jesus’ teaching and with Scripture.  If their sense of sin drove them to the church, then perhaps that can be played upon to lead them positively to Christ and life style consistent with his teaching. The couple could of course remain friends and cooperate in helping each other as all members of the Body of Christ are called to do.

Firinnteine:

The move toward celibacy is going to be a step, obviously… but is there any room for the Church to accept some sort of chaste commitment between two persons of the same sex who are sharing significant aspects of their lives together, and consider that they have certain responsibilities toward one another?

I disagree in the strongest possible terms with those who think that it is somehow permissible for two people who either have been, or might become, involved in an illicit relationship to go on living together, or even spend an inordinate amount of time with each other, provided they agree to avoid romantic attachment and sexual intimacy, or at least try.  They are playing with fire by providing themselves, and each other, with an ongoing source of temptation no matter how noble their intentions may be.  That is a sin rooted in pride and presumption more than it is in lust.  The arrangement is also sinful insofar as it can be a cause for scandal to others. 

The same is true for relationships of a supposedly platonic nature with members of the opposite sex.  I could move a 19 year old co-ed in here with me and insist that nothing is wrong as long as she keeps her hands to herself, which wouldn’t be difficult for most of them to do and no problem for me at all.  But we could hardly argue that we were avoiding even the appearance of evil and we are commanded to do exactly that.

The persons in question need to concentrate on the “aspects of their lives” that make them joint members of the Body of Christ, and not so much on a “particular friendship” that could easily prove to be a stumbling block to that larger life.  There must be a clean break with the past and no one is really ready for the demands of Christian discipleship until they’re prepared to make it. 

Moral lapses and personal failures are certainly not ruled out for anyone, and God’s grace is readily available to the truly penitent, no matter how many times we must call upon it in our guilty sorrow and desperation.  But it is surely better to leave such an undertaking alone altogether than it is to make a mockery of it from the start by seeing how close to the edge we can remain without going over it. 

At the same time, we have to make room for people who have not yet fully accepted the Faith—for whatever reasons, and from whatever background—to be part of our community in some sense, to ask their questions, to wrestle with their difficulties, to meet with Jesus.

I could not agree with you more on that point.  I would not be a Christian today if some saints of God had not helped to make that possible for me, short of some other miraculous alternative.  But, ultimately, the one who seeks must become one who has been found, or his experience with the Church may be no more than part of an interesting exercise in the study of comparative religion.

Call it a “front porch,” call it the catechumenate, but whatever you want to call it, this is essential if we are to welcome people into the family of God, into the new life of repentance and obedience and fellowship with Him.

Yes, we may call things this or that, but if we are going to call one of them the catechumenate, we will need to make sure that it is the real Jesus of History and the true Christ of Faith that people are able to meet with when they encounter the Church and its message.  Counterfeits are everywhere these days.

Of course true conversion does not usually begin with a suddenly heightened awareness of what is wrong with our sexual preferences, at least not at a conscious level, and that is not our fundamental problem anyway.  We may go on to discover that, in our struggles with the seven deadly sins, a disordered Lust is actually further in the background than we’ve imagined.  But we must still guard against “the little foxes that spoil the vines” when well meaning Christians allow the foundations of an orthodox view of human sexuality to be chipped away through a misguided sense of compassion.  The clever revisionists like to come after us one subtle step at a time and they are very good at what they do.  We need to be sharper than they are.

Firinnteine #5,

Dr. Wesley Hill is the new professor of New Testament at Trinity School for Ministry.  I think that (and pray that) everyone on all sides of the issue will learn much from him.

I agree completely with episcopalianated above…the attempt to carve out a sanctified space for “holy friendship” between two mutually attracted unmarried people (gay or not) is a fools errand. I am somewhat disturbed by Dr. Hill’s short article linked above in #5…he may be speaking more generally than I’m taking him…but to suggest “pastorally” that two gay men or a promiscuously inclined unmarried heterosexual couple might be able to live together in celibacy; that the attempt can or ought to be made is the furthest thing from pastoral I can think of. It’s like counselling Joseph to hang out and be friends with Potiphar’s wife.

If you want a “holy friendship” may I suggest the example of St. Francis and St. Clare.  In their example we see love and friendship between two people who centered that love and friendship on Christ.

SDB proposes an awkward question to say the least.  She is asking what aspects of a relationship or what activities within a relationship could be blessed, when the fundamental relationship in which those activities occur is not blessed.

Asking two people with a same sex attraction to live in the same household and remain celibate is like (as other commenters have alluded) having a heterosexual couple to live in the same house and remain celibate.  Even if the situation is not fraught with temptation, it does not provide a wholesome example of what a marriage should be to the world, the church, and especially to any children who may reside there.

As a sidebar let me add that the matter of same sex couples with children from a previous heterosexual marriage perplexes me no end and calls into question some of the arguments we often hear regarding the immutability of a person’s sexual orientation.  If a 50 year old man who was successfully married with children for 25 years suddenly “discovers” that he is gay, what does that do to the argument that he was “born that way”?  It may be that he has struggled with a same sex attraction for years, but how is that any different from the man who in mid life finds that he can really only achieve sexual satisfaction with young boys (a la Jerry Sandusky), or with animals, or adultery, or wife swapping, or by engaging in activities with other couples, or a prostitute, or a dominatrix, etc., etc.?  Are not all these simply cases of giving in to temptations (however longstanding or deeply seated) that disorder our God-given sexuality?  The Church, being faithful to biblical teaching, has always maintained that this is the case. 

But to answer SDB’s question, if there were a biblical basis for blessing a same sex relationship, then there would be no difficulty coming up with vows to do so.  The difficulty comes precisely from trying to bless something God has not blessed.  One might as well try to build a building in the sky, with no foundation and impervious to gravity.  It can’t be done.

“I was initially struck by the seeming dunderheadedness of the question.”

But it’s not dunderheaded. It’s a strategic “inch at a time” attempt. If it’s put politely and ingratiatingly with the appearance of trying to accommodate, how much compromise can we get away with getting you to agree to? I find this disrespectful rather than “nice”. “Nice” would be to say, “I see we have incompatible values. Good day”. This shows a fundamental disrespect for those with whom you disagree. “Give me enough time, and I can sell ‘em on the idea”.

I agree with #20 SpongJohnSquarePantheist.

From a reading on the Diocese of New York website it appears the Diocese of New York is working on just this issue regarding same sex marriage vows already.

http://dioceseny.org/news_items/229-clergy-may-conduct-same-sex-marriages-from-9-1

The link above links to a letter sent by Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk, XV Bishop Sisk of New York and also a letter sent from Bishop Coadjutor of New York, The Rt. Rev. Andrew Dietsche.  This is a posting on the Diocese of New York website.

An excerpt from a letter posted attributed to the Rt. Rev. Andrew Dietsche:

“My brothers and sisters,

I am delighted to give my support to the decision which Bishop Sisk has made to change the practice of our diocese regarding the marriage of gay and lesbian couples.  Clergy may now sign marriage licenses and officiate at the full civil and sacramental marriages of same sex couples.  It is so gratifying that the long-awaited day has come when same sex and opposite sex couples may share in the grace and blessing of full marriage equality!”

Additionally,

“Please remember that you must meet all of the canonical requirements of marriage, including appropriate pre-marital counseling in all cases, and the seeking of godly judgment when there have been earlier marriages.  We are not yet ready to provide a recommended liturgy for same sex marriage, but we will.  In the meantime we commend to you the blessing liturgy just approved by General Convention, which may be easily adapted to serve the purposes of marriage.”