St. Bede's Episcopal Church
1601 South St. Francis Drive | Santa Fe, NM 87505 | 505-982-1133
Reflections, by Marcia Blake, April 2006
St. Bede's parishoner Marcia Blake describes her letter on a deeply sensitive subject, and the responses she has received:
A “pastoral letter” that I sent to all the members of the House of Bishops has, unexpectedly, brought me enormous joy. The letter expressed my profound grief and pain over some of the recent actions of the H of B — but I was washed completely when I received a number of deeply touching notes in response to it.
The letter:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
In the Pastoral Letter from the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church March 2006, “The Sin of Racism: A Call to Covenant,” we are reminded of our Baptismal Covenant: “Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being? I will with God's help.” (BCP p 305)
The same pastoral letter also says, “Jesus came among us to bring an end to that which divides us, as Paul so clearly identifies in Galatians 3:28, ‘in Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female.'” The letter further states that “...we, the bishops of the Episcopal Church, invite all members of our Church to join us in this mission of justice, reconciliation, and unity. This is an expression of our commitment to the fundamental covenant each of us entered into at the moment of our baptism.”
At the same time, however, I am remembering the Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops, from the House of Bishops' Spring Meeting, Camp Allen , Texas , March 15, 2005 . That statement says, “The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church ‘to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges' (Windsor Report, para. 134).” It also says, “Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly.”
The March 2006 pastoral letter begins with references to a 1994 pastoral letter, “The Sin of Racism,” which “acknowledged the painful reality of the consequences of racism.” The 1994 letter stated that “the essence of racism is prejudice coupled with power. It is rooted in the sin of pride and exclusivity which assumes that ‘I and my kind are superior to others and therefore deserve special privileges.'”
I submit that the essence of any prejudice is “rooted in the sin of pride and exclusivity,” and that it is long past time for the Episcopal Church to acknowledge the painful reality of the consequences of all such prejudices. Homophobia is at least as great a sin as racism or any other prejudice, and we cannot claim to respect the dignity of every human being in a Call to Covenant regarding racism while at the same time denying full relationship with and full communion to people who happen to be homosexual. The Episcopal Church cannot have it both ways.
If we do not love all human beings, if we continue to judge and label and patronize and exclude those whom we designate as “different,” we are ignoring the central teaching of Jesus and cannot call ourselves “Christians.”
I am a “cradle Episcopalian,” baptized on 2 January 1948 and confirmed on 15 December 1957 . I am now 61 years old and still an active communicant of the Episcopal Church, a member of St. Bede's in Santa Fe , NM . As a girl and a young woman, I repeatedly experienced deep anguish over the Episcopal Church's exclusion of women from true and full communion. In 1976, I began to believe the church was changing, and I had hope for women, for people of every color and ethnicity, for people of every sexual orientation — in short, for anyone who wasn't a white male heterosexual citizen of the USA .
Hopes Have Been Repeatedly Dashed
All too often since then, however, my hopes have repeatedly been dashed. I have long felt that, because of my profound belief in the essential dignity and equality of all humans, I am standing outside the church, knocking on the door and hoping it will open — to me and to all of my brothers and sisters.
I have remained a faithful communicant of the Episcopal Church in spite of its repeated failures to follow the teachings of Jesus, and in spite of the crushing disappointments and rejections I have suffered at its hands. Now, however, I feel that if the Episcopal Church does indeed bow to the demands of the Windsor report — in order to be present at Lambeth or for any other reason — I must, at last, leave it. I have MS and am in very ill health. When my life ends and Jesus asks if I was faithful to my Baptismal Covenant, I want to be able to answer, “Yes.”
These are indeed “pervasive sin[s] that continue to plague our common life in the church.” I do lament their corrosive effects on our lives, and I most humbly beg God's grace and forgiveness.
But I have a sad feeling that I am permanently consigned to do my begging from outside the doors of the Episcopal Church.
In Christ's service,
Marcia Blake
Responses to Marcia's letter to the bishops:
“I appreciate and share your concern for all members of God's human community and I will continue to speak out and work for the justice and dignity the Baptismal Covenant calls us to embrace. I hope you will too!”
“Thank you for your challenging and faithful letter to the Bishops of the Episcopal Church. ... The issues you raise are being discussed in my generally conservative congregation. When the issue is made personal rather than abstract, I notice that people tend to behave more in accord with what we say we believe. Thank you for making it personal. I hope it will be alright to share your letter with a discussion group I am leading.”
“Thank you for your eloquent and heartfelt sentiments. I am sure my brother and sister bishops will be the beneficiary of your prophetic witness.”
“Thank you for your letter and for sharing thoughts that come from deep within. I have shared in some of your frustrations with our church over many years. But I believe that we have been on the front lines of the issues around inclusivity and sexuality. I don't believe it will be the intent or action of General Convention to retreat from that place. To do so would be to sacrifice our integrity as a church engaged in this issue for the last 40 years.”
“Know that I too want a church open and welcoming to all. It takes us a long time to get there (it did with Gentiles, people of color, women, etc.) but we will. Hang in there with us. And trust in God's power to redeem everything!!!”
“Unfortunately I will not be at the Convention. (I don't think retired bishops should go—in fact I wish the so-called Primates would just go away. They have no standing in our polity.) Know that many of us share your concerns and insofar as possible, your pain.”
A Disagreeing, but Constructive, Response:
I'm not quite certain how you obtained access to the bishops' email list, but I want to thank you for your thoughtful post. There are assumptions in it that I have to challenge. First, you seem to equate rejection of homosexual behavior with rejection of homosexual persons. They are not the same.
I am totally against alcoholic behavior. I do not reject alcoholic persons. I have among my friends a woman who has a compulsion to steal things she doesn't need, and could pay for. I reject that behavior. I do not reject her as a person. One of my priests has been convicted of child molestation. I totally reject that. I do not reject him as a person.
My best friend in high school was gay. (I didn't know it until years later.) The man whose example led me to pursue the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church was gay. I have been good friends with Louie Crew, founder of Integrity, for 30 years. Gene Robinson is a friend.
I do not reject, nor am I “prejudiced” against gays and/or lesbians. If it were up to me (which it is not) their behavior would be simply between them and God.
The problem is that many of them are asking (and in many cases demanding) the “blessing” of the church upon their relationships and behavior. The church cannot bless what God has forbidden.
Your second assumption seems to be that everyone has a “right” to experience sexual intimacy in whatever context he or she finds it desirable. Sorry, I can find no support for that contention in scripture or in the church's tradition.
Most men are “naturally” promiscuous. God does not bless that. Some people have fetishes toward animals. God does not bless that. Some are attracted to their own siblings or their parents or offspring. God does not bless that. Some find sexual stimulation connected to violence and abuse. God does not bless that.
God has said that unless you are called to marriage (one man, one woman, in Christ), you are called and required to be celibate.
Thirdly, I think you betray an assumption that a person with homosexual orientation cannot change. But study after study has shown the opposite - especially among women. Masters and Johnson said that if there is a sufficiently high motivation, as many as 60% of homosexually oriented persons can successfully change their orientation.
And that is with no Christian motivation or help!
So, I must reject your argument that to oppose the blessing of ”same-sex unions” is “discrimination”. It is ethics.
Marcia's rejoinder:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful, and thought-provoking, response to my letter.
I think that the essential difference between my thinking and yours may lie primarily in your comment that rejection of homosexual behavior is not the same as rejection of homosexual persons. I, on the other hand, feel that when rejection of a “behavior” leads to the non-inclusion of the person, it is a rejection of the person. (As a Person of the Female Persuasion whose first career was in aviation publishing and whose second career was in high-tech publishing — and whose experience of the Episcopal Church has been one of second-class status until at least 1976, if not later — I have experienced at first hand various degrees of that feeling of rejection, many times.)
In addition, because I do not consider homosexuality a “behavior” (see below), I feel that rejection of an individual's homosexuality is just as prejudicial as rejection of an individual's color of hair, or eyes, or skin.
You also said, “Your second assumption seems to be that everyone has a ‘right' to experience sexual intimacy in whatever context he or she finds it desirable.” Here you have made an assumption about my assumptions, and your particular assumption is quite dissonant with my actual beliefs.
Later, you said, “Thirdly, I think you betray an assumption that a person with homosexual orientation cannot change,” and added, “But study after study has shown the opposite...”. You are correct in attributing that assumption to me — though it is more than an assumption; it is a belief I have come to after reasonable study, research, and living. Because of this, I do not consider homosexuality to be a “behavior” any more than I consider heterosexuality a “behavior.” Unfortunately, we could quote study after study to one another — all “authoritative” — and never resolve this issue to our mutual satisfaction.
Homophobia is a Prejudice
You closed with, “I must reject your argument that to oppose the blessing of 'same-sex unions: is ‘discrimination'.” Actually, that is not what I argued, not at all. I said that I think homophobia is a prejudice, and that I feel it is wrong for the Episcopal Church to claim to respect the dignity of every human being in a Call to Covenant regarding racism while at the same time denying full relationship with and full communion to people who happen to be homosexual (for example, in refusing consecration to a bishop who is homosexual). I also feel it is wrong to attempt to “game the system” by withholding consent to and delaying consecrations until the General Convention of 2006.
I think you and I must probably “agree to disagree,” but I am very glad and grateful that you took the time to write such a thoughtful letter to me.
(He responded to this with, “Good response! I will join you in agreeing to disagree, and in gratitude for thoughtful conversation. I hope I will meet you at some point.”)
A Constructive Disagreement from a Lawyer:
“I read your pastoral letter to the bishops with interest. You and I are quite clearly on different ends of the spectrum with respect to the issues confronting the church. As you seek to live out the baptismal covenant as relates to respecting the dignity of every human being, we too are trying to live into that same covenant and are frustrated by the apparent willingness of others not to “continue in the apostolic teaching” as enjoined by that same covenant. I don't know if there is a way through this mess but I do pray that God's healing touch be upon you.”
Marcia's closing thoughts, at Easter:
I still have much pain over these issues, but surely God has reached into my life once again to console me. May the Holy Spirit fill all of us as we keep watch during this holy weekend and then once more enter into joy at the Great Redemption!
Love,
Marcia