I was among those who cheered when the California Supreme Court opened marriage for gay and lesbian citizens. In fact, I was jubilant. But, immediately, I also wondered what the Episcopal clergy and bishops in California would do. For our church is not bound by the actions of the state. We are bound to the actions of General Convention.
Let's face it: The canons and Prayer Book of our church seem to be pretty clear: The Episcopal Church has not yet authorized a liturgy/sacrament for marriage between two men or two women. I don't see how we can ignore those canons and rubrics, while holding the schismatics accountable for their violations of our polity.
This ol' lesbian had serious misgivings when
All Saints/Pasadena promptly announced they would proceed with gay marriages. How can one parish stand against the canons and rubrics of our church? I don't get it.
I was worried that our California bishops might authorize gay/lesbian marriages before our whole church acts at GC09 ... as I truly believe they should and will. Our BCP currently enshrines the heterosexist definition of marriage. I think that's wrong, and I truly hope we will change it in Anaheim. I heartily welcome the call for our church to engage more deeply the question of what it means to be married and "in covenant." I hope it would lead us all to a deeper understanding of what is meant when we say, "I do." Meanwhile, if folks on "our side" violate our canons and polity without taking some disciplinary consequences, then I don't believe we have an honest leg to stand on when we deal with the schismatics. To state it more boldly: I don't think we can claim any integrity if we allow this double standard.
Mary Gray-Reeves, the
bishop of the diocese of El Camino Real, was the first to issue an official statement this week. (Also published
here.) She's laid out what seems to me a rather convoluted "just barely canonical" procedure whereby Episcopal clergy can bless same-sex marriages. (Isn't it interesting that one of the least "political" bishops was the first to announce this – instead of a higher-profile bishop like Bruno?) Not surprisingly, the
folks over at StandFirm and
T19 are livid. So are many of those commenting at the progressive blogs.
I'm happy about the California civil decision. But in the ecclesial realm, I think this sucks all around. We have many faithful gay and lesbian Episcopalians yearning to celebrate their marriages in the church they love. I want them to be able to do so. We have many people (including clergy) in California who want to move ahead. I do, too. But we are as bound by our canons and Prayer Book as are the schismatics.
So what's a good, conflicted liberal to do? I'll confess, this instinct appeals to me.
Maybe it's not right. But I sure do understand the impulse.
I'm reminded, too, of the
Episcopal priest who has decided simply to omit the Nicene Creed from the liturgy. That is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've never been in a parish that omitted the Creed. If I found one, I would have serious misgivings. Do I have questions about some parts of the Creed? Of course I do! Some of the mysteries articulated there are beyond my ken, so far. But I recognize it as what the Church believes and as the doctrines to which I assent and into which I wish to grow.
Some days, I do understand why the schismatics view us with alarm.
I expect to take some flak for these opinions. But I believe that we must have order, consistent order in this church of ours. If we discipline the schismatics who flout our canons and polity, then we ought also to discipline our friends who take a principled stand for what they understand as justice. Otherwise, we have mere anarchy.
Postscript: The day after I wrote this, StandFirm picked it up with a harangue, focusing on my use of the word "schismatic" in the penultimate paragraph. The comments went off on that direction.