"God has given us a new revelation not shared with our forefathers in the church." According to Fr. George Conger in an article written for Anglican Ink, this is what one bishop said about the move towards embracing same-sex marriage in The Episcopal Church. Regardless of where one stands on this matter, this is a striking statement to make. "A new revelation not shared with our forefathers." In other words, God has given The Episcopal Church a revelation that cannot be found in Scripture or Tradition, a revelation that Jesus, St. Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers, the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Anglican Divines, etc., did not have access to. Because only in our time has God been gracious enough to share it. And God has given this new revelation only to a select few among all the Christians currently living in the world. But how do we know this is truly revelation from God? By what authority and what criteria does a claim to new revelation get checked out and determined to be true or false? To his credit, this bishop apparently told Fr. Conger that "we must proceed slowly and with generosity of spirit" in case it turns out that the majority of bishops and deputies at General Convention are wrong. What might be the signs that we've got it wrong? How would we know? I note that this bishop made this statement in the context of Salt Lake City, a city founded in 1847 by Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders. Seeing as Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, claimed a new revelation not shared with our forefathers in the church, Salt Lake City may strike some as a fitting place for an Episcopal bishop to make a similar claim. It's possible that this bishop's take on what's happening in The Episcopal Church correctly represents a prophetic vision of how God is doing something new and unforeseen in our time through the actions of General Convention. It's also possible that what this bishop said expresses the hubris and false teaching, perhaps even the heresy, of General Convention's actions. I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide.
In a recent blog posting, I noted that an Episcopal priest at the 78th General Convention of the Episcopal Church compared the marriage rite in The Book of Common Prayer to the Confederate flag. According to this priest, just as the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate that must be taken down, so, too, the Prayer Book's marriage rite is a symbol of discrimination that must be jettisoned and replaced with a gender neutral rite. Unfortunately, the harsh rhetoric and loony comparisons continue. According to a Living Church article, for example, another priest speaking before the Special Legislative Committee on Marriage had this to say:
"It is time to let our yes be yes, and end what is nothing less than de facto sacramental apartheid," said the Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Church, Pasadena, a member of the marriage task force.
It is sad to see such ridiculous nonsense used to justify sweeping changes in the Church's faith and practice. But at least the implications of the Rev. Russell's language are clear: "If you disagree with us, then you are hateful, ignorant, discriminatory bigots and the moral equivalent of racists and segregationists." It is beyond question that racism and bigotry, and endorsing segregation and apartheid, are evil. The Church cannot and should not tolerate such evil. So if the Rev. Russell is correct, anyone espousing the traditional, orthodox understanding of marriage as currently contained in the Prayer Book's marriage rite is endorsing the sacramental equivalent of apartheid, and thus endorsing evil. Such persons should not be allowed to hold positions of power and influence in the Church. They should not be tolerated. If rhetoric like the Rev. Russell's wins the day, it's hard to see how there can be space for diversity and disagreement. If General Convention goes down this path, difficult days may lie ahead for anyone in The Episcopal Church who believes in and adheres in practice to the theology of the 1979 Prayer Book's marriage rite.
Even before the 78th General Convention officially started, things got interesting. According to a Living Church article entitled "Prayer Book Discrimination?", an open hearing of the Special Legislative Session on Marriage included some forceful comments in favor of clearing the way for gender-neutral language in authorized marriage rites. One speaker took aim at the Prayer Book's marriage rite as follows:
�How long are we going to allow documents like the Book of Common Prayer to contain language that is explicitly discriminatory?� asked the Rev. Will Mebane, interim dean of St. Paul�s Cathedral in Buffalo and a member of the Task Force on the Study of Marriage. �Demands for the Confederate flag, a symbol of hate, to come down have been heard. � It is time to remove our symbol that contains language of discrimination.�
So just as the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate, the rite for "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage" in The Book of Common Prayer is a symbol of discrimination. Just as we need to take down the Confederate flag because it perpetuates bigotry, we need to do away with the Prayer Book's current marriage rite because it, too, perpetuates bigotry. Fr. Matt Marino hits the nail on the head about this over at The Gospel Side:
The dean from Buffalo actually equated the language of the prayer book marriage rite (lifted directly from another "hate document," the bible) used in a church in which 3/4 of our diocese' have same-sex commitment ceremonies to the racially motivated murder of nine faithful Christians assembled in their church to study the scriptures? That is patently irresponsible, thoroughly insensitive, and wholly unexplainable to my African American friends.
I would add that if Fr. Mebane is correct, then every time a clergy person has used or will use this marriage rite to preside at a wedding, he/she has been or will be actively discriminating against persons created in the image of God. This violates the Baptismal Covenant promises to seek and serve Christ in all persons, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to respect the dignity of every human being. Such clergy persons commit sin for which they should repent. And as proof of amendment of life, they should forswear ever again using this marriage rite. Not only that, but if Fr. Mebane is right, clergy who use the Prayer Book's marriage rite are not only sinning. They are also running afoul of the the Episcopal Church's non-discrimination canon:
"No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons" (Canon I 17:5).
Using the Prayer Book's marriage rite is therefore grounds for disciplinary action. And if Fr. Mebane is right, then we have a conundrum to address regarding the theological warrant for marriage included in the Prayer Book's marriage rite. That warrant reads as follows:
"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" (BCP, p. 423).
If Fr. Mebane is correct that the marriage rite is a symbol of bigotry, then we are faced with two unpalatable options. The first is that the opening exhortation is a lie. God did not establish the bond and covenant of marriage between one man and one woman in creation, and Jesus did not adorn this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. So in addition to committing the sin of discrimination, clergy using this marriage rite have also been blaspheming by publicly proclaiming a lie about God and Jesus. The second option is that the opening exhortation truthfully represents what God did in creation and what Jesus did at the wedding in Cana. In which case God inscribed bigotry into the very order of creation, and Jesus endorsed that bigotry at the wedding in Cana. But if Jesus endorsed bigotry, then he was a bigot. And if Jesus was a bigot, then Jesus was a sinner. And if Jesus was a sinner, then he could not possibly be the Savior. What Fr. Mebane said can easily be dismissed as ridiculous. But that doesn't necessarily mean such ideas won't be taken seriously and acted upon by deputies and bishops at General Convention. Lord, have mercy.
