Liz Gandolfo wrote a wonderful article on Bishop’s visitation to St. Francis last month. Check it out here. The reason Fr. Taylor is doing a Spanish-language service at St. James is because of the astounding success of the work at St. Francis.

Having mentioned in my last post that I think conversations about and with Gay and Lesbian Christians are important, I thought it might be informative if I said something about how I arrived at the position I currently hold with regard to homosexuality.

I first had to confront the reality of Gay and Lesbian Christians in the early 1980s when I began my studies at Harvard Divinity School. Getting to know gays and lesbians as classmates and then as friends shaped my later experiences. I was a member of the Board of Directors of Ministry to the Homeless, which sought to provide a pastoral presence to homeless men and women on the streets of Boston. Its director was gay; he was also an ordained Disciples of Christ minister. I saw Michael’s gifts at work in Boston, changing the lives of homeless people, and the attitudes of other people. Michael later died of HIV/AIDS, a legacy of his life before he came to know the life that we have in Christ.

I remember a conversation I had with an old and very dear friend who was a graduate of the Mennonite Biblical Seminary. We got together at some point in the mid-80s, and our conversation turned to gays and lesbians. I recall quite clearly that my friend was advocating same-sex blessings while I was deeply opposed. As a single person at the time, it wasn’t clear to me that relationships needed the church’s blessing (this was long before I became Episcopalian). Since then, I have maintained friendships with gays and lesbians and I am aware of couples who have been together as long as Corrie and I.

The point is that my theological and pastoral understanding of homosexuality is rooted in my experience of individuals and families. When people ask me about the biblical verses that seem to reject homosexual behavior, my first response is not to try to interpret or explain those texts but rather to begin with experience. My reasoning goes something like this:

1) There are people who for whatever reason (is it biological, cultural, tied to their personal experience?) can find fulfillment in relationships only with members of the same gender

2) God has created us as sexual beings and as beings who live in community

3) God, the Trinity, is a relational being, and being created in God’s image, we also are relational

4) While I do believe some people are called to celibacy, denying one’s sexuality and sexual being is potentially very dangerous (the recent scandals in the Roman Catholic Church prove that)

5) The gift of love between two people is a gift from God. It is also fragile and needs the support of a wider community for it to flourish

6) Given all that, the Church has a responsibility to work toward the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in its life, and ultimately to find ways of recognizing and blessing the love that gay and lesbian couples share.

I am well aware that many people of faith would disagree with what I have said here, but I would encourage everyone to think about what I have written. It is my conviction that most people’s attitudes towards homosexuality are not based on biblical or theological grounds. Rather, most people have an attitude for which they seek supporting arguments in scripture and theology. I woucld encourage people to reflect on those underlying attitudes—where do they come from? On what are they based? Better yet, talk to your gay and lesbian neighbors, coworkers, and fellow church members. Ask them about their experiences and about their lives, and ask them as well about their faith journeys.

Have you received your invitation to the Lambeth Conference in 2008? No? Well, neither have I, for which I give God thanks. It is bound to be an exciting time. By then we will have a better idea of the future of the Anglican Communion. There is already considerably noise in the press about which bishops received invitations and which did not. The Right Reverend Gene Robinson did not receive an invitation. But of equal interest is that Martin Minns, who was consecrated a bishop by Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria, for CANA, the Nigerian Anglican Church’s offshoot in the US, was also snubbed. There are sound canonical reasons for excluding bishops like Minns; such reasons don’t exist in the case of Bishop Robinson. There the question is homosexuality. But the Archbishop of Canterbury has also stated that homosexuality will be on the agenda of Lambeth. I find it odd that the one openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion has not been invited to participate in those discussions.

It is clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury wants to keep people at the table, talking to one another, but that is quite difficult when one group refuses to sit down and talk with others. Bishop Henderson has expressed much the same sentiment. The last Lambeth Conference of Bishops committed itself and the Anglican Communion to a Listening Process that would try to understand and learn about the experiences of Gay and Lesbian Christians. That process was commended and encouraged by the Windsor Report and by later Primates’ Meetings. The Listening Process was intended to take place on a Provincial and Diocesan level. I do not know whether our diocese has made any such attempt, but it seems to me that conversations beyond simple acknowledgment of the presence of Gays and Lesbians in our Church are important.

The Bishop’s pastoral letter which Father Timothy read in service on May 13 was fully in keeping with the Bishop’s actions and statements since General Convention 2003. I appreciated his candor and the thoughtful, deeply-felt words in which he expressed himself. His commitment to both the Anglican Communion and to the Episcopal Church is remarkable, and the honesty and integrity with which he speaks and acts is commendable. I might disagree with some of the things he said in the letter, but I thank God that he is our bishop, leading our diocese.

I will take issue publicly with one thing he wrote, that the clergy, to a person, are anxious. I am not anxious. I have faith in God that in the end God’s will will be done and the Episcopal Church will be a community faithful and committed to God’s work in the world. Of that I have no doubt. There may be significant change, but I am certain that God will continue to be present in those changes, whatever they may be.

While Fr. Timothy read the letter, and while we worshiped at St. James, I was mindful of events taking place only a couple of miles away, at St. Francis. St. Francis is experiencing enormous changes; they will be commemorating their final (English language) service in June. But last Sunday, there were over 350 people present for the Spanish language service. The Bishop received into the Episcopal Church or confirmed around twenty adults. In addition, more than twenty children made their first communions. That is remarkable growth in a very short period of time. God is doing great things in our Church. Change can bring anxiety with it but, as we say in congregational development, change is going to happen, the question is, what kind of change, and how will we manage or approach it?

I’m always hopeful that TV programs will get at least some of the story right. I watched PBS’s “Secrets of the Dead” tonight, which told a story of the English Bible from the 14th century to the present. There was a great deal of oversimplification and some occasional howlers. I grant that it is exceedingly difficult to tell a complex story in an hour of television, but one would hope that the overarching narrative would be accurate. The film mentioned the importance of a Greek edition and new Latin translation of the New Testament that was published in 1516, but neglected to mention the name of the man responsible for that work, which became the foundation of every translation of the Bible into vernacular languages in the sixteenth century, and also the foundation of modern textual criticism. He was Erasmus of Rotterdam. The other grave error was the implication in the film that the English translations of the Bible in the 1530s empowered the laity to reject the Catholic Church and press for reform. In fact, the opposite was true. The English Reformation, we now know, was largely a product of a fairly small number of reformers and supporters, who for a time provided Henry VIII with cover to promote his own interests (the divorce from Catherine of Aragon, consolidation of power, and economic gain). Reform was largely unpopular and indeed there was violent resistance in the 1530s. England became a “Protestant” nation only midway through Elizabeth’s reign, say the 1580s.

The documentary also whitewashed Thomas Cranmer’s story. It made him with Henry, largely responsible for the Reformation in England (that’s an overstatement). As Archbishop of Canterbury he played an important role. His most important legacy is the Book of Common Prayer. But he ended his life in ignominy. After Mary came to the throne in 1553 and reversed religious policy, he was arrested and forced to recant. He clearly wrote and signed the papers of his recantation, but partially redeemed himself the next day, when he publicly renounced his recantation. The recantation was a public relations coup for the Catholics, and it was only through the Protestant propaganda machine (John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs) that Cranmer came to be seen as a martyr for Protestantism. I won’t say anything about him serving as an example of waffling for later Archbishops of Canterbury.