Open Hands Vol 6 No 2 - Confronted By Love: The "Holy Union" Controversy

Open Hands Vol 6 No 2 - Confronted By Love: The "Holy Union" Controversy

6

2

1990

Fall

-----------------------------------
Open Hands is published quarterly by the Reconciling Congregation Program, Inc., as a resource for congregations and individuals seeking to be in ministry with lesbians and gay men. Each issue of Open Hands focuses on a particular area of concern related to gay men and lesbians within the Church.
The Reconciling Congregation Program is a network of United Methodist local churches that publicly affirm their ministry with the whole family of God and welcome lesbians and gay men into their community of faith. In this network, Reconciling Congregations fmd strength and support as they strive to overcome the divisions caused by prejudice and homophobia in our church and in our society. Reconciling Congregations, along with their kindred More Light (Presbyterian), Open and Mfirming (United Church of ChristfDisciples of Christ), Reconciled-in-Christ (Lutheran), and Welcoming (Unitarian Universalist) congregations, offer hope that the church can be a reconciled community.
To enable local churches to engage in these ministries, the Reconciling Congregation Program provides resource materials, including Open Hands. Information about the program and these resources can be obtained from:
Reconciling Congregation Program
P.O. Box 23636
Washington, D.C. 20026
Phone: 202/863-1586
Reconciling Ministries with Lesbians and Gay Men
Vol. 6 No.2 Fall 1990
Exploring the Dilemmas ................................................................ 4
M. Burrill
A Covenant Written on Our Hearts............................................... 5
Tom Russell
Holy Union: One Church's Experience......................................... 7
Graeme and Jane Donovan
You Do, I Don't...............................................................................10 Mary E. Hunt
Two Couples Who Did..................................................................... 12
Tom Russell
A Risk and A Revelation ................................................................. 14
Peg Beissert
Churches Move...Cautiously .......................................................... 15
Mark Bowman
The Law and the Prophets: Precedents for the Church's Blessing of Extra-Legal Marriages ................................. 16
Melvin R. Woodworth
Social Change: Domestic Partner Legislation ............................... 17
Donna Jones
Sustaining the Spirit....................................................................... 18
Resources ..................................................................... ................... 20
Letters.............................................................................................. 21
RCP Report.................................................................................... 22
Two Couples
Social Change: Domestic
Who Did ........................12
Partner Legislation...........17
Open Hands
• 2
Confronted By Love:
The "Holy Union" Controversy
,'T
hose whom God has joined together, let no one put asunder."
With those words, many a couple have begun their lives as
married people joined to one another in "holy matrimony." But what happens to lesbian and gay people of faith who wish to commit to each other before God and the community of believers?
Our reconciling movement boldly declares that gay men and lesbians are vital parts of the family of God. But does that include celebrating lesbian/gay relationships, too? If it does, what do such celebrations consist of and what blessings, obstacles, and ramifications can we expect? To some churches, this is new ground to explore for the first time, while others have faced these challenges many times.
This issue of Open Hands looks at covenant celebrations within the church between same-gender couples, sometimes called "holy unions." In addition to exploring the theology of covenant relationships, we present stories of churches and individuals who have had experience with services of commitment. Through these interviews, narratives, and reflections, the complexity of this concern unfolds.
Covenants within Christian tradition are not taken lightly and samegender covenants are no exception. Controversy exists even within the lesbian/gay community concerning the desirability of such services of commitment.
In addition, gay/lesbian partnerships raise issues of justice in the larger
community. Inequities in insurance, income tax, and legal matters have
inspired some to work to pass domestic partner legislation in a number of
jurisdictions.
Our faith tradition is full of stories of people bound together in committed
relationships. This tradition continues herein as we explore the possibilities
and meanings of covenantal commitments....
Next Issues Theme:
Adolescents and Homosexuality
Reconciling Congregation Program Coordinator
Mark Bowman
Open Hands Co-Editors
M. Burrill Tom Russell
Editorial Assistants
Van Dixon Donna Jones
Graphic Design
Supon Design Group
Open Hands is published four times a year. Subscription is $16 for four issues ($20 outside the U.S.A.). Single copies, including back issues, are available for $5 each; quantities of 10 or more are $3 each. Permission to reprint is granted upon request. Unsolicited manuscripts are welcomed and will be acknowledged if they are scheduled to be published. Subscriptions, letters to the editors, manuscripts, requests for advertising rates and information, and other correspondence should be sent to:
Open Hands
P.O. Box 23636
Washington, D.C. 20026
Phone: 202/863-1586
Copyright © 1990 by the Reconciling Congregation Program, Inc. Open Hands is a registered trademark.
Member, The Associated Omrch Press ISSN 0888-8833
Fall 1990 3
Exploring the DileIIllllas
by M. Burrill
Human beings have a need for close relationships. In the creation story in Genesis 2, God recognizes the need for humans to have companionship. This drive towards intimacy plays itself out in this society by the "coupling phenomenon." From fairy tales to children's dreams of growing up, the plan is to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after.
Lesbians and gay men dream, too, of falling in love, fmding life partners, and living happily ever after. They sometimes desire a public acknowledgement or celebration of that partnership. A recent national survey of 1,266 lesbian and gay couples discovered 19% of the lesbian couples and 11% of the male couples stated that they had held a ceremony of some kind to recognize their relationship. (See page 24.)
In recent history, the church has been the usual environment for marriages. As more churches identify themselves as open to gay men and lesbians, and as more lesbian and gay couples are open about their relationships, the issue of celebrating commitment ceremonies between persons of the same gender increasingly confronts people of faith. Celebrating gayllesbian "unions" within the church has personal, social, religious, institutional, and pastoral implications.
Personal Issues
Gayllesbian couples considering a church ceremony grapple with a number of issues in the personal arena. To publicly celebrate a relationship means a larger degree of visibility for that relationship. The sometimes comforting cloak of invisibility falls away.
Lesbian/gay couples often struggle to determine whether such a ceremony merely copies heterosexual marriages or has unique significance for their lives. Through a commitment service, a couple could seek to legitimize a relationship spurned by society and the church. Some couples yearn also for the legal sanctions afforded marriages in this culture.
Social Implications
If a church moves forward to celebrate commitment ceremonies for lesbian/gay couples, it risks being unpopulal' in the community. Performing, encouraging, and supporting "lesbian and gay marriages" upsets the heterosexual status quo. Reconciling Congregations often weigh the pros and cons of proclaiming a public policy supporting covenant ceremonies or going quietly about their ministry, which may well include such ceremonies.
A church's involvement in commitment services, including marriages, perpetuates the two-by-two stereotype often to the exclusion of other relational options. The early Christian church vision of community is redefined in our age to refer to a loose conglomerate of twos and threes. Other options for living in community are ignored or stigmatized.
Religious Ramifications
Some churches offer gayllesbian covenant celebrations out of a sense of justice. Ifa celebration of relationship is offered to nongaylleshian couples in the form of marriage, why not to lesbians and gay men?
For churches in the reconciling movement, the decision to publicly support same-gender commitments often comes as a result of growth beyond the initial position of openness to gayllesbian people to that of actively nurturing and celebrating same-gender relationships. Churches involved with lesbian/gay commitment services grapple with their theology of covenant and marriage.
One unspoken dimension of this dilemma is sexual expression. Marriage has traditionally been seen as the bond within which full sexual expression is blessed. When churches publicly support and celebrate committed gay and lesbian relationships through a service of union, they are blessing sexual expression within those relationships. This brings sex into the open when it previously had been more comfortably ignored.
Institutional Complications
Churches and clergy responding to lesbian and gay church members' requests for commitment services have been told by hierarchies that participating in commitment services risks consequences. Being prophetic in such a political system as the church can have negative repercussions.
Pastoral Implications
Once a congregation celebrates a lesbian or gay relationship, it takes on serious pastoral responsibilities as well. Counseling, support, and recognition are all part of that role. The celebration is not the end but the beginning of a congregation's relationship to that couple as a family.
Lesb!an/gay couples suffer from invisibility much of the time. When couples break up, the congregation should realize that a divorce has just occurred and respond with love and care.
In the above-mentioned survey, although a majority of respondents claimed a Judeo-Christian fc.ith (53% of women and 620/0 of men), they also ranked the church as the lowest source of support for their relationship. The church was ranked as more hostile than family members, coworkers, and friends. Only four percent of the couples had sought relationship help from clergy.
The need for commitment services for gayllesbian relationships raises complex questions for the church requiring equally complex answers. As we respond to these questions in faith and love, we are reminded that love is our calling. We are created by a God of love and we respond by loving God and loving one another.T
M. Burrill is coeditor ojOpen Ha,nds.
. 4 Open Hands
~
~ S q, This kind of
by Tom RusseU
Our lives are filled with relationships of one sort or anothernuclear and chosen families, work colleagues, the people in the neighborhood or building where we live, acquaintances, special friends, housemates, church friends and school chums. These are just a few of the overlapping circles where some friendships are like dust in the wind, while others endure and flourish.
How is it then that we understand theologically our deep feelings in those relationships that we care most about, those that are intense, valuable, and longlasting, those where we are also intimate, sexually expressive, and vulnerable?
In the Christian tradition, we often look to the Bible to illustrate relationships which give meaning to our present situation. Whether or not they had legal status or a religious ceremony, Abraham and Sarah lived a long life together in covenant with each other strengthened by their mutual faith in God.
When the men in their lives died, Ruth and Naomi no longer had any legal ties to bind them together. Naomi, as the elder, encouraged Ruth to return to her own family across the river valley. Ruth refused and instead chose to remain as Naomi's companion. Despite differences in age and ethnicity, they made a promise offriendship and loyalty (Ruth 1: 16-17). While there is no mention of a sexual relationship in this covenant, the possibility cannot be excluded.
Fall 1990
biblical promise,
like the one
between David
and Jonathan (I
== Samuel 18:3), as
w~ll as the one
between Abraham
and Sarah, is understood
as a "covenant," that is, a solemn agreement or oath made verbally and,
sometimes, with symbolic action.
A major focus of Hebrew history and theology and later Christian interpretation is that God and humanity are in covenant with each otherhumans accepting the covenant oflove and responsibility that God offers. God is gracious and offers to continue to lead humanity from slavery to freedom, from exile to redemption. Subsequent covenants between humans are influenced by our faith and our understanding of the divine-human covenant.
The scriptures are full of examples of various types of covenants: 1) differing interpretations of the divine-human covenant, 2) warring tribes and nations settling differences, and 3) families and individuals agreeing on everything from payments and property to eternal fidelity.
The Divine-Human Encounter
Israel's self-identification as a religious community and as a nation was seen, and in some ways is still seen, in covenant relationship to God, much like a stern but loving monarch who makes agreements with the people who serve as protected vassals. The covenant at Mt. Sinai where God gives the people the Ten Commandments is a good example of this in the early Hebrew tradition. ( continued on next page)
5
In Christian faith, the core of the new covenant in Jesus of Nazareth can be summarized in John 3:16 and 13:34-35:
For God so loved the that God gave God's only Child, that whoever believes in that Child should not perish but have eternal life.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
Covenants as Treaties between Nations
The Hittite Empire (ca. 1400-1200 B.C.E.) and other conquering states usually forced vassal kings into covenant agreements of obedience and financiaIJrnilitary obligations to the empire, with the gods appealed to as witnesses to this contract.
A synonym of covenant in the Hebrew scriptures is the notion of ""oath" as the act of formally binding a contract. There are numerous examples of such oaths betweens individuals and peace treaties and alliances between rival ethnic and national groups.
One significant common factor in these early understandings of covenant is that they were agreements between unequal parties-between God and humanity or between a warring kingdom and a conquered state.
Covenant ofEquals
However, the covenants of David and Jonathan and of Ruth and Naomi, unlike those of conquered nations and social unequals, are ones of mutuality-a pledge of life-long friendship and loyalty, with apparently no formal contractualobligations. ""Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul." (I Samuel 18:3).
This pledge is made as equals who give their love to each other in trust. Some such oaths or covenants impose specific obligations on both parties, some have no stipulations.
A Covenant Written on Our Hearts
Many believers look to the words of Jeremiah for the embodiment of a covenant that embraces all people from the least to the greatest:
The days are surely coming...when I will make a new covenant...it will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors...that they broke.. .1 will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other ""Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. (Jeremiah 31:3lff.)
• 6
As followers of Jesus Christ, the Christian church has defme itself (ifthere is anyone defmition!) as the community of believers in covenant with God through Jesus Christ and in covenant with one another.
An ancient Christian faith saying is, ""God has become a human being that humans might become more like God." God's loving action and covenant in Jesus Christ draw us closer to God and closer to each other. Weare in dynamic movement, becoming more like God.
God is not simply love as an abstract noun, but the
divine Lover, who actively seeks us out and offers loving
relationship to us, and encourages us to form loving
relationships with other people as reflections and icons of
God's divine love.l
For a faithful people groaning under oppressive traditions imposed by a combination of the powers of religion and state, the Hebrew prophets and the teachings of Jesus were a license for liberation. This call to liberation legitimized the role of the individual and the community in determining the way their faith was manifested in their lives.
Rather than being a covenant only for the nation and its cult, the covenant written on our hearts helps us to draw the circle of community closer. Since it is not just my heart, but yours as well, I must hear you while asking you to hear me. This is a key element of community. Since this covenant is written on the heart of the greatest and the least, I must hear the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, the healthy and the sick, the Black and the White, the heteosexual and the homosexual. ""The commonwealth of God is not coming with things that can be observed...For, in fact, the commonwealth of God is among you." (Luke 17:20ff).
The fact that there are now individual congregations willing to offer their support, prayers, and respect to partners of the same gender who desire to covenant to live their faithful lives together demonstrates that there are a few who are listening to what is written on the hearts of the gay brothers and lesbian sisters of faith. It also suggests that many committed same-gender couples, despite the Church's general stubborn and negative response, are increasingly willing to more fully share their faith with their community. By so doing, we are faithful to the instruction of Jesus not to "'hide our light under a bushel." ..
I Robert Williams, Anglican Theological Review, Spring 1990, p. 150.
Tom Russell was a US-2 mission volunteer in New Mexico and mission intern in the Middle Eastfor the United Methodist Board ofGlobal Ministries and is now a member ofSt. John's of Baltimore City UMC in Baltimore, Maryland. This article was adapted and excerptedfrom a copyrighted and unpublished article by Peter L. De Groote entitled "Holy Unions. "
Open Hands
Holy Union: One Church~s Experience
by Graeme and Jane Donovan
We should have known that making the decision to conduct a holy union in our church would be the easy part. Mter all, Dumbarton United Methodist Church, in the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C., has spent lots of time and corporate angst in the last twenty years making decisions on difficult or controversial social issues, only to find their consequences to be beyond any "what if..." on our carefully thought-out list of contingencies.
There was the time, for example, when we decided to use the church as a pick-up point for homeless persons in the vicinity, a place where they could fmd a cup of coffee on a cold afternoon while waiting for a vehicle to take them to the city shelter for the night. We had agonized over everything from theft to lice, but it turned out to be our neighbors, the people who lived in the big houses along the street, who did in our plan. They said they would take us to court if we went ahead. That was that.
Several years later, when we voted to join the Sanctuary Movement and sponsor a refugee from Central America, we assumed we would be sheltering someone who, fearful of the dangers just escaped, would make every effort to blend in as quickly as possible-and stay out of trouble. We did not anticipate that our refugee would promptly set off on a cross-country speaking tour to call attention to human rights abuses in the region, or later be arrested and undergo deportation hearings (with fortunate results so far, but many anxieties along the way).
When we voted to become a Reconciling Congregation, we thought we had talked out every possible occurrence that could make us uncomfortable with the consequences of our decision. Later, we discovered that the decision-which we had reached after over a year of carefully planned studies and discussions in a deliberate and conscious process of consensus building-was no more than a beginning. The reality has been more decision-making, more agonizing, more facing up to our hidden prejudices and other inadequacies, and far more challenge and growth than we had imagined.
With all this in our recent history, perhaps it should
have come as no surprise that our decision to adopt a policy
allowing holy unions, and setting a date to celebrate the
union of two of our lesbian members, ended up as a major
story in The Washington Post.
D umbarton United Methodist Church is a small congregation of thoughtful, middle-class liberals. We take to heart John Wesley's teachings on social concerns and try not to shy away from the most difficult call, to be God's people in mission to the world. Knowing that we are part of United Methodism's "connectional" system, in which the church hierarchy can overrule us on occasion, had neve.t:.given us pause, because we saw our role within the denomination as one of bringing to the church as a whole the struggle to love our neighbors as ourselves, even
Fall 1990
as we at Dumbarton struggle. We have not always agreed with the bishop or The Discipline, but we had never before found our disagreements featured in a major metropolitan daily newspaper.
The morning of Friday, May 11, 1990, was different, however. Dumbarton members, our district superintendent, and our bishop awakened to the headline, "Methodist Congregation Blesses Lesbian Couple's Union," with their bran muffins and coffee. It was a big headline. And it wasn't the best thing for our immediate relationship with official United Methodism.
The decision to hold this holy union came several years after our becoming a Reconciling Congregation and, like most of our decisions, after much struggle and discussion. While we had always felt that becoming a Reconciling Congregation implied a commitment to seek ways for our community to bless the loving relationships of gay men and lesbians in the same way that the Church has blessed those of heterosexual couples for hundreds of years, we had not specifically addressed the issue in our earlier discussions. We needed to decide exactly where we stood on the issue of holy unions, and why. We also wanted to spell out a policy for the guidance of future pastors who might not have traveled the same road we had. And, of course, some in our congregation, while comfortable with the decision to become a Reconciling Congregation, found that the issue of holy unions resurrected doubts they thought had been laid to rest. Dealing with such doubts right away has always been an important feature of our decision making. Indeed, we can scarcely avoid doing so, since Dumbarton is a congregation of strong-minded people, the kind who will let their reservations, doubts, and disagreements be known in no uncertain terms.
So, although we had dealt with these concerns, at least enough to move forward as a community, the full glare of the public spotlight occasioned by the newspaper article raised yet others, not about our position on holy unions, but about what to do next. A number of news organizations, both secular and religious, wanted to know mOl'e about the rather too rare sight of a group of people trying to do a work of love in a loveless world. And most of them, truth be told, sensed here ""an angle," which was confrontation. Now, we had not set out to be confrontational. Ours was not an act of civil disobedience. It very quickly became clear, however, that acting upon our statement, actually allowing a celebration of holy union on our church premises, would be treated as an act of civil disobedience-and would be punished accordingly.
This crisis reflected the confused, inconsistent, and entirely inadequate treatment of sexuality in the United Methodist Discipline, which claims to affirm the sacred worth of both heterosexual and homosexual persons, while denying
(continued on next page)
7
Thefollowing storyis taken from the
Summer 1990issue of VISION ,
the newsletter of University UMC,
Madison, Wisconsin:
Recent publicity generated by a United Methodist Reconciling Congregation in Washington, D.C., brought press attention to University Church as well. Services of celebration for "committed relationships between persons of the same sex" had been conducted for 3 112 years with the knowledge of the Cabinet (the Superintendents and Bishop of the Conference). The publicity, appearing in the Wisconsin State Journal on May 18, 1990, precipitated the issuance on May 24, 1990 of a two page statement from the Cabinet. In bold print in that statement appears the following directive: "Mter review of the 1988 Discipline and the practices of University Church, we believe that offering the "Celebration of Holy Union" for same sex persons, is incompatible with the Book ofDiscipline, The United Methodist Social Principles, is outside the parameters of the original Resolution of University Church, and thus must be discontinued."
Full Text ofUniversity UM Omrch Resolution
(adopted at a church conference December 16, 1986)
Whereas, University United Methodist Church has a long tradition ofacceptance ofaU peoples regardless of sexual or affectional orientation as evidenced b)' the "Resolution Concerning the Openness ofUniversity United Methodist Church to AU Persons regardless ofSexual or Affectional Orientation;"
Whereas, committed relationships between persons of the same sex can be ofthe same quality, depth, and duration, involve the same challenges, and need the same supportfrom the community as relationships recognized by marriage;
Whereas, human companionship is essential in the biblical view ofhumanfulfrllment; and
Whereas, the Discipline ofthe United Methodist Church affirms that lesbians and gay men " .. . are individuals of sacred worth, who need the ministry and guidance ofthe Church in their strugglesfor humanfulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care ofa fellowship which enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Further we insist that aU persons are to have their human and civil rights ensured ..."
Now, therefore be it resolved that, in keeping with our tradition that lesbian and gay people are an integral part ofour ministry and community, we offer a service of celebrationfor lesbian and gay relationships;
That, ourfacilities be made availablefor such services; and
That, knowing that the Discipline gives pastors alone final responsibilityfor decisions concerning the performance ofreligious services in a congregation; we respectfully request that the pastor ofUniversity United Methodist Church ~fflCiate at such services as he/she deems appropriate, thus allowing couples to celebrate their continuing relationship with one another in the presence ofGod.
• 8
the latter the right to be themselves without incurring the
church's (official) displeasure. Itis hard, we suppose, for
such an official policy to do any better than it did in our
case, namely allowing churches to state that they will be in
reconciling ministry with all people, but woe betide those
who put flesh and blood on such a declaration!
Our first concern was for the two people over whose heads this furor had erupted. The whole thing was supposed to be for their benefit, not a vehicle for yet another round of societal disdain. The world was full enough of such ill will, as hard experience had taught them. Perhaps that experience had taught them courage as well, for in the discussions which followed, they were an example and an inspiration to us, of patience, gentleness, forbearance, and wisdom. Under circumstances which no heterosexual couple must endure, they demonstrated their commitment to one another, their concern for the community, and their determination to move forward along the path upon which they firmly believed God had set their feet.
The decisions Dumbarton Church have made have been fraught with suprises, serendipitous discoveries, graces, and graceful people. In the process of becoming a Reconciling Congregation, we learned new things about long-cherished members of our community and received new blessings from them, as we did also from newcomers who saw our struggles toward reconciliation as an invitation to join us. The lesson of our journeying is that loving is not an impoverishing but an enriching process, for lover as much as for loved.
In spite of these gifts, in the matter of holy union, Dumbarton received a setback, a firm ""No" from the institutional chlll'ch, which took considerable effort to turn into a ""Yes." The hurt and humiliation we experienced were in direct proportion to our inability even to protect our members from the pain. But after the first shock, the first round of new doubts, the community coalesced in a way that was stronger than ever before. We reaffirmed our statement on holy unions as a reflection of who we are as a congregation, as an expression of belief. Beating a tactical retreat on the narrower issue of venue, we t'ejoiced when a chlll'ch of anothet· denomination was found to host the ceremony. Members of our congregation decorated the sanctuary, took part in the service, and hosted the reception which followed. Though not performed in our church building, the service nevertheless took place within our community of faith. Both the union and those united were supported by the congregation. The sky did not fall.
We are now in a position to look back on these events, but we realize that foresight is never so clear. When we made the decision to perform a holy union, we did not anticipate all the outcomes. We sUl'Vived this crisis, but there was no guarantee that we would do so. Sometimes the sky does fall. Risky decisions would not be risky otherwise. Furthermore, we are on a journey. Just when we begin to be more comfortable with the landscape, it may change abruptly-and probably will, ifour experience is any guide. The hardest and most important things for us as members of a community are to face our own weaknesses and shortcomings, accept one another as finite persons equally in need of grace, and press on. From the short distance travelled so far, we can report that the journey is richly worth the effort..
Graeme and Jane Donovan are members ofDumbarton United
Methodist Church in Washington, D.C.
Open Hands
Dumbarton United Methodist Church,
Washington, D.C
An Understanding ofLesbian/Gay Holy Unionsl
Background Information
As a church that has, after study, prayer, and deliberation, designated itself a Reconciling Congregation-in ministry with lesbian and gay people and their families-we continue to grow in our understanding of equitable and inclusive ministry.
Through the Bible, we have come to know that Jesus Christ calls us to love both God and our neighbor. The church community is one place where we grow in relationship to God and our neighbor. When two people come together in life and spirit and develop a primary, committed relationship, the church is often asked to celebrate and bless the ""wedding" of their lives and spirits.
Marriage: Licensed by the State, Blessed by the Church
For heterosexual couples, that celebration takes place in Christian marriage. Marriage is licensed by the state, and the clergy who officiates is authorized to act as an agent of the state.2 As Bishop Spong notes, however, ""The church does not, in fact, marry anyone. People marry each other. The state, not the church, defines the nature of legal marriage. It does so by giving to the married couples the right of joint property ownership."3 Legal ramifications of marriage involve inheritance, legitimacy of children, custody rights, taxes, insurance, social security benefits, etc.
The clergy who officiates also acts as an agent of the church, and in that role is witnessing a couple's ""public vows to love each other, to live in a faithful relationship, and to be mutually supportive and caring in all of life's vicissitudes."4 Once the clergy person has heard the covenant vows that the couple makes ""before God and this company," s/he then adds blessings, prayers, and the promise of supportive community. This is a gift from the church to the couple.
Holy Unions: Neither Licensed nor Offered Blessing
For same-gender (gay or lesbian) couples, the state refuses to issue licenses or recognize legal rights or obligations. Some same-gender couples undertake legal paperwork-"living together" contracts, wills, powers of attorney, guardianship, documents of joint ownership, joint insurance policies, etc.-to duplicate some of the benefits of marriage. Some benefits, however-such as social security, income tax, and child custody--can be granted only by state laws and licenses.
Similarly, most Christian Protestant communities deny same-gender couples the opportunity to celebrate the wedding of their lives and spirits within the church. The gift has not been offered.
Congregational Policy
Dumbarton joins the growing movement of Christian churches that wish to offer the gift. We affirm the need for the church to celebrate, with a ""blessing of covenant" or ""holy union," commitments that lesbian/gay couples wish to makeand to celebrate them with the same serious and pastoral support that are afforded heterosexual couples in the service of marriage.
Definition ofHoly Union
A holy union is a religious celebration in which two persons ask for God's blessing; declare and affirm their faith, love, and commitment before God and the community; commit their common journey into the hands of God; reconcile themselves with God and with each other; and join their lives to the fullest of their capacity.
Elements ofPre-Union Counseling
The blessing of a gay or lesbian covenant should entail pre-union counse]jng. Although the content of such counse]jng would depend on the counselor's style and the couple's history, the same issues should be covered that one would cover in pre-marriage counseling with heterosexual couples: the meaning of covenant, communication, finances, household responsibilities, sexuality, relationships with children and extended family, careers, etc.
Content ofServices
The elements of a holy union are basically the same as any service of marriage: a time of gathering with or without music; a declaration of intent; appropriate prayers, scriptures, readings, and interpretation of the Word; the involvement of family and friends; covenant vows; an option on the exchange of rings or some other token of commitment; prayers of blessings; and the option of communion. The service can be as traditional or as contemporary as the individuals involved.
Celebrant
Holy unions are entirely a blessing and should be performed by a celebrant who understands and affirms the loving commitment being tmdertaken by the couple. Due to the controversial nature of celebrating holy unions, the pastor appointed to Dumbarton may choose not to be involved in the service himlherself, but is encouraged to help the couple find a suitable celebrant.
Resolution
In sum, it is the spirit of the Dumbarton congregation that the celebration of holy unions is a part of the ministry this congregation can offer to persons who otherwise have been denied the full ministry of the church. This means two things:
(1) for those within the Dtunbarton community, we offer holy unions as part of our community life; (2) for those not within the community, we offer use of church facilities on the same basis as we offer them for services of marriage.
I Policy of the congregation adoped May 3,1990, at Dmnharton United Medthodist Church, 3133 Dumharton Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20007
1 In many European countt;es, the legal (justice of the peace) procedures are hancUed separately fl'Om the religious celebration.
! Spong, John S., Livillg ill Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Hwnan Sexuality, New York: Harper and Row, 1988, p.200.
' Ibid.
FaIl 1990 9
Tom Russell interviewed Mary and Marcia and also Mauro and Christopher in the summer of1990, heard stories oftheir relationships, laughed with them, looked at photo albums and heard their visions and hopes for theirfutures together.
Cupid~s arrow often finds its mark unexpectedly. The May 1989 Gertrude Stein Democratic Club banquet in Washington~ D.C.~ was no ordinary political event in the lives of Mauro Montoya and Christopher Echols. Both men are leaders of the club and active in D.C. politics and the gay community~ yet they had never met~ only talked on the phone in planning the banquet. But both mark the banquet as the beginning of their friendship.
The romance began in June~ there was a 4th of July ""American Cafe" picnic on the Capitol mall watching the fireworks~ and by October the once forbidden ""L" word was employed. ""I love you!~~ ""Will you marry me?"
They lead busy lives of work~ politics and travel. Mauro is an attorney and executive dil'ector of Lifelink~ a people with AIDS coalition in D.C. Christopher is a computer software specialist on leave from his firm to assist in the
D.C. mayoral campaign of Sharon Pratt Dixon.
So~ with all the busy-ness~ it was no ordinary feat to grow in love and plan their sacred union! ""We both have such hectic lives~ so the preparations were both tense and wonderful. When we would fmally sit down to focus on the relationship and preparing for the ceremony, it was delightful.~~
""We talked a lot about whether or not to have a ceremony. Why would we want to imitate straight people? I wanted to make a public statement and a public commitment of my love for Christopher. Nobody can tell me that I can~t do that.~'
Originally~ Mauro wanted a ceremony, but not a religious one. Since Christopher is Episcopalian~ Mauro knew how much his partner wanted a Christian context for their wedding. ""I knew it would mean a lot to Christopher to have a priest bless our union."
The date was set and they asked The Rev. Jerry Anderson~ chaplain of the Episcopal Caring Response to AIDS~ to celebrate at their sacred union.
On June 23~ 1990~ after a frantic spring organizing political events in addition to their personal preparations for the ceremony, 200 guests gathered in the Rose Garden of the Friends Meeting House to honor the union of Christopher and Mauro. This was the first time the Friends Meeting House had been used for a same-gender wedding.
The Old Testament passage spoke of the love of David and Jonathan. The two friends who stood up with them during the liturgy were ""best persons." They made their vows~ exchanged rings~ prayed the Lord~s Prayer and a friend of theirs sang the prayer of St. Francis.
""We cried big time.
"'During the ceremony ~ when Rev. Anderson asked the congregation if they would support and encourage us in our union, everyone broke out into applause.
'''It was so wonderful! It~s helped a lot of people. In fact~ two other couples have since had unions as a result of ours."
The challenges of their sacred calling continue for' Christopher and Mauro beyond the ceremony and the early months of their life together.
Together they walk the path toward justice~ comfort, hope and healing for those who are HIV positive and those living with AIDS. Together they struggle for a better political order for all the people of Washington, D. C. And together they grow in the grace and power oflove.
• 12 Open Hands
The following excerpt from their
Covenant Statement conveys much of
their Christian faith and their spiritual vision
together with God in community:
[Marcia and Mary]join their lives as amzpanions, a couple, to form a family that emerges out ofa manifested deep
love given to each other over a nineteen yearjourney, that responds to their first and still primary love for God. They believe
that the Spirit has led them to the mystery and discovery oflove through each other and to the depth ofthat love's shared
expressions. They believe that in the formati?n ofthis family, love will be given the nurturing to bloom and grow. Together
they will provide an environment where each will become more hospitable, reach new horizons ofcreativity, missional e}fictiveness,
and spiritual depth through that love. They expect their love to reach out beyond themselves to the world and its need.
Mary and Marcia
Radiance and joy are the words that come to mind listening to Marcia and Mary tell their story of love and companionship. August 14, 1990, was the 6th anniversary of their "Covenanting Service" celebrated with friends and food, promises and prayers, singing and balloons.
Since they met in 1965 at a midwestern university, these two wonderful women have chronicled their journey over the years. They longed for each other's company and grew in their love despite the fact that they lived in different states for 19 years. They were able to see each other on average about twice a year--on holidays, Christmas, church camp, mission events, workshops, funerals, vacations.
Mary is a preacher's daughter and grew up in United Methodist parsonages. She is now a professional in the Church and both she and Marcia, who is a manager/ organizer for a not-for-profit group, feel that they cannot use their last names because of the professional risk for Mary in the United Methodist Church.
They've dealt with the non-acceptance of their relationship in another Christian group, too. When they approached the religious order to which they belonged with the news that they wished to become a family recognized by their community, there was great debate and finally a decision of "no consensus." As inclusive and progressive as that group was, they had never before wrestled with the issue of an open lesbian couple recognized as a family among them.
Although there was no consensus within their religious community, there was a subgroup of the members, dubbed the Lavender League, who whole-heartedly supported them and helped them plan for their covenanting service. Most of the Lavender League were also members of the Good Shepherd Parish of the Metropolitan Community Church in Chicago.
Marcia and Mary speak of what they had intended for their ceremony, "We wanted to publicly proclaim our love to one another rather than toast each other in private and proclaim ourselves life-mates. We did this before God and our community-in the context of the Christian church. This community supports us and continues with us in our spiritual journey.
"We send a family letter each year to the friends who were there with us at our covenant service-to let them know how things are going with Mary and me. There is accountability through the community for our growth as a family.
"We understood what we did as a covenanting event, rather than a marriage/wedding, as traditionally marriage assumes the union of heterosexual persons. We did not want to imitate the heterosexual wedding.
"We have joined in a Christian covenant, a distinctively different relationship than a state recognized legal commitment. While we believe same gender unions should become legally honored, that is not the primary pm·pose for family creation based on mutual faith. Our model is the Biblical understanding of covenant, a relationship with God not subject to state law. Socially, we refer to our relationship as "life-mates" and, indeed, envision a life-long covenant."
In preparing for their ritual Marcia and Mary wrote the story of their friendship and a covenant statement, discussed their "mission" as a family, the meaning of their shared lives and created a family symbol that helps to picture their values and shared vision. They also discussed budget and finances.
The Lavender League prepared the feast, a congregational dinner before the ceremony, and a reception and giftgiving following. There wet'e balloons and songs, prayers and promises and lots of good memories...sacred memories.
One of those memories Mary speaks of is the pastor who led the covenant sel'Vice. "We even had an ordained United Methodist minister. This was very powerful and significant for us. It felt right. We joked with our pastor because joining a lesbian couple was her first official act since her ordination a short time before. What a way to begin her ministry in the United Methodist Church!"'Fall
1990 13
A Risk and A Revelation
by Peg Beissert
ship stand up against the flack they would anxiety. I feared that the service I was
I approached the church with great
have to bear? And why, I wondered, why about to witness would be extremely
must they be subjected to that kind of offensive to me. Hmy situation became
oppression? too difficult what should I, as pastor, do?
The other question that bothered me Walk out? That dramatic action seemed
had to do with my own apprehensions almost as unbearable as it might be to
about the service. I told myself I should experience what was ahead.
have known this service would be tasteful, The church was located in the midst of
in good order, and meaningful as well. a gay community and many of its members Both Bill and Gary had been two of the were homosexual. The service was to
most dedicated Christians I had ever met. celebrate the union of two of its men.
In truth, Gary was an ordained minister It was a lovely evening. I sat quietly in
in another denomination and Bill a most the warm glow of candlelight. Friends of
devout church leader. They are quality
the participants entered, well groomed, I noticed, and if they spoke at all, it was in subdued tones. So far, so good.
What I most feared was that this would be some kind of parody on marriage. I am sure there were old stereotypes of gay people rattling in the back of my head that caused me to think this. In addition, I was recently widowed after a wonderful marriage. Any "put downs" of that institution would be more than I could handle.
As the church filled, the time to start arrived. It was not necessary that a pastor officiate since this was not a legal ceremony. All it could be was a celebration of friendship.
Bill and Gary, both dressed in dark suits, walked down the aisle together. During much of the service they faced each other.
The leader spoke about the meaning of the ceremony. He deplored the fact that such a service was not properly recognized in the church, nor in society in general. He lifted up the love and respect these two people had long held for each other. He prayed that they be sustained in their relationship because, unlike marriages supported by families of the bride and groom, such union services are not taken seriously by the community. Indeed, any rift in the relationship is often looked on as a good move to break up "this foolishness."
The participants exchanged promises of continued caring and of their willingness to be supportive and to assist in each other's growth.
And now, I thought, there will be a distasteful display of...of...of what? Probably prolonged kisses and overdone affection like I had witnessed as a pastor in a good many heterosexual marriages, creating only embarrassment. Instead, Bill and Gary simply gave each other a small hug and a smile, turned and walked back down the aisle together.
I saw the parents of both men leave then, followed by the witnessing community. I sat very still as the tears ran down my face. What was ahead for these two very special people? Facing a world that would deride them, could their relation-people with much courage.
Since that time, I have taken a role in quite a few union services. I have officiated when communion is requested. I have heard a man tell his partner, "Society does not understand; nevertheless, I love you and I want to spend the rest of my life with you."
If ever I have felt the presence of a loving God it has been in the midst of such moments when a deep and abiding love between two people is being expressed. When will the church catch up with God's leading?
Once when I was preparing a service for two women, I realized how very little I had to change the words in the ceremony I usually used for marriages. With the exception of "husband" and "wife," the focus was on trust in a relationship, on fidelity and love, on communication and support for each other.
The whole turmoil over homosexuality is reflected in the story of Adam and Eve. Those two wrestled with God for power. The continuing story of humanity and the divine centers on our desire to limit God. "You may only create one model of humanity, God. Let that be like the majority of us-heterosexual." Then we sit in judgment of each other, having made our own rules.
I once was in a huge aquarium. The walls formed the tanks and visitors walked up graduated ramps in the center of the building. There were fish: the skates, swimming like birds flying; there were fish that resembled miniature trees; and there were species that lay on the floor of the tank like dead stones. Why is it we can marvel at all this creativity of God in the natural world without desiring to change one bit of it? We applaud it and it delights us. But when it comes to human life we become rigid and deplore the slightest variances. God is inviting us to delight in the whole panorama of human creation.t
The Rev. Peg Beissert is director ofThe Lazarus Project, a gay and lesbian ministry, at West Hollywood Presbyterian Church, Hollywood, California.
• 14 Open Hands
Churches Move ... Cautiously
by Mark Bowman
Within a month after founding the Metropolitan Community Church of Los Angeles, the Rev. Troy Perry performed the first holy union there in November, 1968. The term "holy union" is closely identified with the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC), which defmes it as a rite within its bylaws. While most other faith traditions have been slow to respond to the desires of same-gender couples to bless their committed relationships, the UFMCC has carried on this ministry within the lesbian/ gay community for many years now.
The practice of same-gender union services is not a recent phenomenon in the church, however. Yale historian Dr. John Boswell has traced liturgies for same-gender marriages back to sixth-century liturgical manuals [see article in Open Hands, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 16]. These samegender weddings appear to have been commonly celebrated for several centuries. Only when European civil authorities enacted antihomosexual laws beginning in the 13th century did the church begin to rett'eat from its tradition of blessing same-gender love.
S'.
ome other modern faith traditions have followed the
lead of the UFMCC and openly celebrated samegender
commitments. The Unital'ian-Universalist Association has a national policy encouraging its J)astors and congregations to perform such services. One association leader estimates that about one-half of the denomination's 700 pastors have celebrated same-gender unions, ""and the rest haven't been asked yet."
The Society of Friends has been offieially performing same-gender ""celebrations of commitmcnt" since 1981. As a decentralized church, the Friends' rite of marriage is defined by the local meetings (congregations). The University Friends Meeting in Seattle, Washington was the first to bless a lesbian couple ""under the care of the meeting." About 30 other local meetings have subsequently agrced to bless gay or lesbian ['elationships.
The progression of this movement within the Friends' tradition reveals a common struggle within most other faith traditions-what do we call such acts? The initial service in 1981 in Seattle was to be called a ""marriage." However, when one member of the meeting objected, the couple eventually agreed to call their service a ""celebration of commitment." Some other meetings then defined the rite as a "'same-gender celebration of commitment." However, under pressure from some lesbian or gay couples who wanted their commitments equally recognized with those of heterosexual couples, some meetings defined the rite as ""marriage." Recognizing that the issue of naming the rite is as volatile in the lesbian/gay community (where there is also strong sentiment against ""milnicking heterosexual institutions") as it is in the church, many Fdends' meetings have decided to let the couple name the service themselves.
The mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic churches have been much more cautious in their recognition of same-gender union services. The Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) officially prescribe sexual activity only within heterosexual marriage. The Episcopal, Presbyterian (U.S.A.), United Church of Christ, and United Methodist churches do not have explicit policies which ban samegender unions, but their traditions assume such a policy.
Yet local congregations, clergy, and some judicatories are beginning to break with this tradition and bless samegender unions. Within the Episcopal Church, the Diocese of Rochester developed an official service of '"celebration and affirmation of a covenant relationship" 15 years ago. The Diocese of California has adopted a sitnilar policy and the bishops of Newark and New York have openly supported such covenanting services.
Across the denominational spectrum, many clergy are coming to the conclusion that blessing lesbian or gay relationships is their only compassionate response to the church's complicity in decades, even centuries, of undermining or destroying these same committed relationships. Other clergy note that they commonly bless buildings, homes, and other human institutions; therefore, how can they not bless a loving relationship between two women or two men,? The ""reconciling" local church movements within several Protestant denominations have spawned an increasing number of congregations that joyfully celebrate the unions of their leshian or gay members.
Whi,le no official national statistics are available, the UFMCC probahly celebrates over 10,000 holy unions each year and hundreds, perhaps thousands, more are perfot'med in other churches. This growing demand upon the churches hy lesbian and gay couples and the affit'mative
-response of more and more clergy and congregations
indicates a forthcoming change. Undoubtedly, policies
about same-gender unions will be hotly debated within the
larger denominations in the coming decade. Yet the
eventual outcome seems clear-the compelling nature of
love and covenanting in the Christian scriptur'es and
tradition will lead the churches to overcome fears and
myths and to celebt'ate the loving covenants oflesbians and
gay men. T
Mark Bowman i.5 coordinator ofthe Reconciling Congregation Program and a member ofChri.5t UMC in Washington, D.C.
Fall 1990 15
The Law and the Prophets:
Precedents for the Church~s Blessing ofExtra-Legal Marriages
by Melvin R. Woodworth
""Will I officiate at the wedding of two women or two men?" The question of celebrating gay and lesbian weddings is not academic. Indeed, it is the issue of the day for many clergy. Yet pastors nudged by the Spirit to extend the Church's blessing to a marriage unlicensed by the state are often unaware of their authority to take such action. The notion that clerical authority to perform marriages exists only within the limits of civil law is a recent one; historically, this has not been the case.
The early Christian Church was only peripherally involved in weddings. Marriage was considered a worldly institution best avoided by an ascetic faith. While priests often participated in marriage ceremonies, the regulation of contractual and physical relationships was considered to be the right and responsibility of the state. In 210 A.D. the Roman Senate legislated a change in marriage law. In order to make the greatest number of women available to men in the highest social strata, marriage between a woman and a man of lower social standing was made illegal. Pope Calixtus was outraged.
Christian men were lal-gely from the lower social classes while women were often of higher social standing. Church leaders wanted members to marry within the faith, but the new Roman law made this illegal for many Christian women. Pope Calixtus, asset-ting that marriage is a Godgiven relationship between Christians, claimed the right of the church to solemnize marriages, even those violating the new law.
As the centuries passed, the church claimed jurisdiction over marriage. When the Roman empire collapsed, the church made good its claim and became sole arbiter of marital matters. Tension between church and state over the control of marriage returned during the sixteenth centm'y, and in the seventeenth century the English government
Antimiscegenation Laws
The struggle to gain legal acceptance of lesbian/gay relationships has a parallel in the fight to repeal laws limiting interracial matTiages. Thesc antimiscegenation statutes were in force in 31 states as recently as the end of World War II. In the years which followed, churches in the U.S. played a role in theil-elimination by establishing study commissions, educating (~hurch members, and issuing statements uq,'ing the repeal or nullification of laws prohibiting interr-acial marriages. The United States SupI'eme Court refused two opportunities to address this issue, finally acting in the 1967 decision Loving v. Virginia to strike down the laws then remaining in 16 states.
References: Sickels, Rohert J. , Race. Marriage. and the Law, Alhuquel'tluP: Univprsily of New Mexico Press, 1972. Washington, JosPl'h R., Jr.• Marriage in Black and White, Boston: Bt'aeon Press, 1970.
made marriage a civil rather than a holy rite, claiming for itself the right to establish limits to marriage. The church, however, refused to recognize this shift of authority.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, marriage became a source of revenue for the crown. William and Mary required expensive licenses before a wedding could legally be performed, effectively barring most of the population from marrying. Priests responded by solemnizing marriages and granting certificates even when there was no license. During this period, the majority of English marriages were unlicensed.
Many Christians of the time conceded that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating and recording marriages in order to promote the common good and provide a means of arbitrating parentage and property issues. Most, however, held that the church had as much or more authority as the state to recognize and socially authenticate a marriage.
Recognizing that the very act of publicly announcing a marriage is a blessing, the church has maintained the right to make such public proclamation before God and the community of faith. Because marriage is a goal and process as well as a declared reality, the church has insisted on the right to be God's agent of blessing for marriages between Christians.
Tremendous prices have been paid personally, socially, and judicially, by couples and clergy alike, when the church has recognized marriages that the civil law did not. Fear of paying a pI-ice, however, should not dissuade a pastor from solemnizing an unlicensed marriage; this pt-ice is the cost of discipleship.
The Discipline ofthe United Methodist Church -1988
specifies that ""The decision to perform the ceremony [of marriage] shall be the right and responsibility of the pastor." (par 139f) Through the ages clergy have exercised this right and responsibility prophetically, bringing social change in accordance with God's will and in spite of societal criticism. Marriage between two women or two men has fallen out of practice in the church, but gay and lesbian Christians are increasingly declaring their marriages and requesting the church's formal l-ecognition of these relationships. The pastor has the right and the responsibility to grant these l'equests.~
A discussion of thf' confli!'! ht'lwef'n Pope Calixtus and the Roman marriage l'eform laws can lit' found in: Murstein, Bernarcl, Love, Sex and Marriage through the Ages, New YOl'k: Springel' Puhlishing Company, 1974, p. 9(). Lietzmann, Hans, A History ofthe Early Church, Clevf'land: World Puhlishing Company, 1953, p. 248.
El'nst, Wilhelm, "Marriage as Institution and the Contemporary Challenge to It" in ContempOl'ary Pf'l'speclives on Christian Maniage, e' Richard Malone and John R. Connery, Chieago: Loyola Univt'l'sity Press, ]984, p, 59,
Aclditional information about maniagf' lieenses ancl the Church's refusal to he hound hy tht'ir l'equil'ements t:an be found in Lacey, T. A., Marriage ill Chu.rch and State, London: R. Seotl, 1912.
Melvin R. Woodworth is a member ofthe Pacifu: Northwest
Annual Conference and pastor ofthe Redmond United Methodist
Church in Redmond, Washington.
16 Open Hands
Social Change: DOlllestic Partner Legislation
by Donna Jones
The societal equivalent of the holy union controversy in the church is the legal and legislative issue of domestic partnership. In many communities across the country, this movement is working to pt'ovide lesbian/gay couples and other I.l.domestic partners" with the same rights and privileges that married couples receive.
Domestic pat'tnership is generally defined as two persons living together who are not related by blood, at'e not man-ied, are eighteen years or older, are each other's sole domestic partner, and are mutually t'esponsible for thcir common welfare.
The need for domestic partner legislation becomes evident when one examines the changing demographics of the U.S. population. In 1988, pt'eliminary census data indicated that only 270/0 of the nation's 91.] million households (down from 40% in 1970) fit the traditional definition of family-heterosexual, married couple with children. Today's households are compt'ised largely of singlc parents, a stepparent Ot' pat'ents, extended families, unmarried male/ female couples, same-gendel' couples with and without childt'en, and one-person households.
Since many of our society's cmployment benefits and civil pt'otections al'e based upon mat'ital or blood t'elationships, these benefits are thereby denied to the vast majOl'ity of households in our country. Some municipalities and employers aloe working to change this dispat'ity.
Since 1985, there have been 12 cities which have adopted some kind of domestic pal'tner legislation: West Hollywood, Bed(e\ey, Santa Cruz, Los Angelcs, San Ft'ancisco, and Laguna Beach, all in CaLifot'nia; Takoma Pad(, Mat'yland; Madison, Wisconsin; Seattle, Washington; Ithaca, New YOl'k; New York City; and Washington, D.C. At present there al"C only two states that are considering domestic partner legislation-Illinois and New Yol'i(.
The city of West Hollywood initially approved a domestic pal"tner ordinance in Febt'uary, 1985, which covet'ed pat'ental, sick, and bet'eavement leave. Later, the city added health coverage for domestic partners. West Hollywood also allows any couple who satisfies the legal requirements, even those not residing there, to ['egister as domestic partners and be officially recognized within the
Fall] 990
boundaries of that city. Related benefits include guaranteed visitation rights in city jails and hospitals, and protection from housing eviction.
Berkeley's ordinance, passed in 1985 and in 1987, gives medical benefits and sick and bereavement leave to city employees who are domestic partners. An affidavit is signed only for health plan"purposes and is not a matter of public record.
In 1988, Madison passed an ot'dinance providing sick and bereavement leave for city employees. The city council also changed a zoning ordinance to expand the definition of family to include domestic partnet's, so that unmarried and um'elated adults with children could live together. The city is now considering laws that would extend benefits to domestic partners in public accommodations and also would provide insurance coverage for domestic partners of city employees. In the latter case, all insurance providers contacted so far have refused to provide such coverage, which is the problem many municipalities have faced.
Seattle's domestic partnership journey began with a 1988 briefing paper produced by the mayor's lesbian and gay task fOl"ce, which pt'ovided background and a rationale for extending benefits to domestic pal·tners. (This briefing paper has been used throughout the country as a tool to study domcstic partner issues.) In 1989, an ordinance was passed to define domestic partnership for city employees and to provide sick and bet'eavement leave fOI: domestic partners. The city is now planning to become self-insured so that it can begin providing medical benefits. As most cities have discovered, the majority of couples initially registering fOI' domestic pat'tner benefits have been heterosexual couples.
A nothet' way to obtain domestic partnet' benefits is through an employeL A small, but growing, number of employers and associations offer some fOI'm of domestic pat'tner benefits to their employees or members.
As another fon11 of recognition, the Human Rights Campaign Fund (1012 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005) has begun a National Family Registry. While such a registr ation has no legal status, it does I"ecognize lesbian/gay families in a formal mannel: and provides data for education and lobbying cfforts on behalf of lesbian/gay families.
Advances continue in this new realm of domestic partnerships. More cities are considering or enacting legislation and other jurisdictions are reexamining their current status. Local voters are deciding the fate of some cities' domestic partnet' ordinances. Having a consistent method of recognizing "'alternative families" across the country will be a slow, uphilJ battle. However, it may be the only way to obtain equitable economic and legal rights for all persons.~
Donna Jones is the co-chair ofthe Reconciling Congregation Task Force and member ofDlUnbarton UMC in Washington, DC.
17
Sustaining The Spirit
There are many possibilitiesfor adapting both traditional and nontraditional rituals for use in holy unions or celebrations ofcommitment. Here we present We take the vow of fidelity, which to us means to speak the truth with love, to share life openly, to stay close to a variety ofelements which have been used in different liturgies. Also note the Resources sectionfor other ideasfor rituals.
Planning a ceremony should be fun and can be a very meaningful experience ofthinking, hoping, dreaming, and even prayingfor the present and thefuture. Remember that this is a celebration!
Greeting
One: God has called us together here today
All: As a community of family and friends-and
friends who are family.
One: This is an occasion of joyous community.
All: Our purpose is to recognize, celebrate, and bless the working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of ___ and as they share publicly a covenant conunitment, one to the other.
One: For what has heen
All: We give thanks.
One: For these two people
All: We thank God.
One: And for the possibilities that God offers
All: We wait expectantly-and with joy!
A Pledge
reality. We take the vow of risk, to be vulnerable to a love that risks what we are for the sake of what we can become.
We vow to talk, even when it is easier not to, to keep sending messages, to listen, knowing we are committed to the path, even when we do not know the way.
We vow to walk in empathy and compassion. We vow to try together, to pledge this as a year of union, one ever renewable, season after season. We vow to grow together always, honoring our history, no matter what form our relationship takes.
....
We vow to release the need to manufacture hardship.
We vow to be happy, not to forget who we are and who we want to be.
We vow to laugh in joy and in our folly.
We vow to celebrate our sensuality.
We vow not only to share our joys and successes, but to accept each other's mood swings, sorrows, and failures.
In this, we vow to love the universe which feeds us.
We vow to appoint one another the guardian and greeter of each other's times of solitude. We vow to let that which is different between us exist and be itself.
With these vows, may you trust one another, trust life and not be afraid. Remember to be one another's best friend.
(adapted from The Lesbian Love Advisor: The Sweet and Savory Arts of Lesbian Courtship by Celeste West.)
Open Hands
• 18
Response to the Word
Blessed are those who are convinced of their basic dependency on God, whose lives are emptied of all that doesn't matter, those for whom the riches of the world just aren't that important.
The Reign ofHeaven is theirs.
Blessed are those who know that all they are is gift from God, and so they can be content with their greatness and their smallness, knowing themselves and being true to themselves. For they shall have the earth for their heritage.
Blessed are those who wear compassion like a garment, those who have learned how to find themselves by losing themselves in another's sorrow.
For they shall receive comfort.
Blessed are those who are hungry for goodness, those who never get enough of God and truth and righteousness.
For they shall be satisfzed.
Blessed are the merciful, those who remember how much
Blessing by the Community
The union of and has called us
together because it touches each one ofus. A new family is established in our midst and we all celebrate
that relationship. By God)sgrace) we who are family andfriends of and offer our blessing and commit ourselves to love and support
them as they grow in this Christian union.
A Benediction
Now let
the great powers
that are in you
radiating from the center of your selves
has been forgiven them, and are able to extend this forgiveness into the lives of others.
expressing the greatness of divinity of what For they shall receive
God's mercy.
you are
Blessed are those whose hearts aloe free and simple, those
dance in the rhythm between you who have smashed all false images and are seeking honestly for truth.
of divine-human power
For they shall see God.
and create beauty
Blessed are the creators of peace, those who build roads that unite rather than walls that divide, those who bless the to enrich your lives
world with the healing power of their presence.
For they shall be called children ofGod. and enrich the life of this community
Blessed are those whose love has been tried, like gold, in the
and enrich the whole of life.
furnace and found to be precious, genuine, and lasting,
those who have lived their belief out loud, no matter what
the cost or pain.
For theirs is the
Realm ofHeaven.
(from Seasons ofthe Heart, Macrina Wiederkehr, OSB)
Fall 1990 19
Resources
LESBIAN/GAY RELATIONSHIPS
Athey, Phyllis Jean Kinheart and Mary Jo Kinheart Osterman. The Lesbian Relationship Handbook. Evanston, Ill.: Kinheart, Inc., 1984.
Berzon, Betty. Pennanent Partners. New York: Plume Books, 1988.
Clunist, D. Merilee and G. Dorsey Green. Lesbian Couples. Seattle, Wash.: Seal Press, 1988.
Isensen, Rik. Love Between MenEnhancing Intimacy and Keeping Your Relationship Alive. Prentiss Hall Press, 1990.
Marcus, Eric. The Male Couple's Guide to Living Together. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
Tessina, Tina. Gay Relationships. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989.
West, Celeste. A Lesbian Love Advisor: The Sweet and Savory Arts of Lesbian Courtship. San Francisco, The Cleis Press, 1989.
All ofthese books give helpful advice for keeping and enjoying relationships. They include advice on courting, communication,family relationships, financial planning, and sex. Some include examples of liturgies or hints for planning a commitment service.
LITURGIES &UNIONS
Board of Church and Society. Christian Social Action. October 1990 (special issue on holy unions.) 100 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002.
•
Butler, Becky. Ceremonies of the Heart-Celebrating Lesbian Unions. Seattle, Wash.: The Seal Press, 1990.
•
Uhrig, Rev. Larry J. The Two of Us. Boston: Alyson Publication, Inc., 1984.
•
Unitarian Universalist Association, Office for Lesbian and Gay Concerns. A Planning Guide for Same-sex Services of Union. $3.00. Order from UUA, 25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108. 6171742-2100.
Williams, Robert. ""Toward a Theology for Lesbian and Gay Marriage." The Anglican Theological Review. vol. LXXII, no. 2, Spring 1990.
Women's Ordination Conference. Liberating Liturgies, A Collection of Women's Litw·gical Celebrations. 1981. Order from P.O. Box 2693, Fairfax Circle Center, 9653 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031.
The special issue of Christian Social Action explores issues regarding
•
holy unions from a mainline church
•
perspective. Uhrig talks about relationships and commitment service planningfrom his experience as an MCC pastor. Liberating Lituq,'ies
•
provides liturgies ofall kinds, especially designed for women. Butler brings us the stories ofseveral lesbian couples and their unions and includes some oftheir liturgies. The UUA guide practically discusses pre•
paringfor a service, gives 9 sample services, and a partnership contract. Williams provides some theological basis for lesbian/gay marriage in the Anglican tradition.
LEGAL ISSUES AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
Curry, Hayden and Denis Clifford. A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples. Berkeley, Calif.: Nolo Press Self-help Law, 1989.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Domestic Partnership Issues and Legislation. 1990. 666 Broadway, New York, NY 10012.
Curry and Clifford present the legal issues facing gay and lesbian couples in a concise, easy to understandformat and give many examples ofsimple legal documents that can be utilized. Lambda's resource is a wealth ofinformation as ofJuly, 1990, and includes copies ofordinances passed in many ofthe cities.
OTHER RESOURCES
The Lesbian and Gay National Family Registry, Human Rights Campaign Fund, 1012 14th Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20002.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., 666 Broadway, New York, NY, 10012.
• 20 Open Hands
Letters
A Biblical Stumbling Block?
Through the past few years, I have found Open Hands both helpful and informative. Especially, I have appreciated the sharing that many have done regarding their lives and the obstacles and transitions which have marked their passage in life. They are brave and commendable people!
I have come upon the homolhetero debate late, and have stumbled along, wrestling with various past and present experiences. I began, frightened of homosexuality, then realized that homolheterosexuality is more an appearance of chance than anything else: like being born male or female....
For me, logic and scientific evaluation had eliminated any reason to separate homosexuals from heterosexuals in human society. [But] I was still stumbling over theological and biblical issues. Biblically, a distinct line is drawn, homosexuals were out, heterosexuals were in. The biblical exegesis of the pro-homosexuals is unconvincing at best, misleading at worst. One author, arguing on some other subject, suggested, "ignore the biblical passages that are obstacles, just as we have always done." He held a lot of wisdom in this suggestion. Through the centuries we have dropped, ignored and otherwise abrogated passages that have been obstacles. A classic example is the fourth commandment.
Recently, I had a ""break-through" of my own. Writing an apology for my position, suppol·tive of homosexu..
als, in referring to the biblical passages condemning (at least in modern interpretation) homosexuality, I suggested that the authors wrote from their understanding, they did not
know that at least ten percent of humanity is homosexual, that it is an orientation of the person and not a chosen manner of life. Mter I wrote that, I began to think of many passages in the Bible, which reflected the author's understanding, which we no longer understand in that manner. The
Fall 1990 three-tiered universe of the early books of the Bible, the lesser position of women in society, etc., have given way to our present understanding of creation, sexuality, and human society. These writers, like ourselves, spoke from their understanding of the world as we do today. The key lies in their experience of God which redirected their lives. References to the world in which they lived which sometimes differs from our understanding does not change their witness. The biblical and theological obstacles, for me, were removed.
I have been shal'ing my journey with fellow ministers, and thought maybe you would find it useful for Open Hands.
Rev. Robert Simison
Wiehita, Kansas
Seminarian Connections
I am writing as a UM repl'esentative of a b'TOUP at Union Theological Seminary (NY) working for changes in denominational policies regarding the ordination of lesbians and gay men. This group is based on the assertion that we, as seminarians, have an important voice in our churches, being the future of the church in America.
Given Union's reputation as the liberal seminary of all liberal seminaries, we recognize that our voice alone can easily be dismissed as a minority voice coming out of a radical school. For this reason, we are concentrating our efforts this year toward reaching other schools and organizations.
What I ask for, first and foremost, is your support.. .. Fighting the system, as you are no doubt aware, can be a daunting task, and solidarity is important. Your prayers and simply your verbal recognition of our efforts would be incredibly meaningful to us hf're.
But on a mOl'e concrete level, we need contacts. We are working...on building contacts with other seminaries as well as with denominational and ecumenical organizations concerned with this issue. While personal contacts at other seminaries are helpful, they are by no means exhaustive. If you have information, therefore, about gay and lesbian groups at other seminaries or about any other groups working for gay and lesbian ordination, we would love to know how to get in contact with them.
I understand that contacts of this nature can be extremely sensitive, particularly in the case of a denomination that does not ordain "practicing" homosexuals. Bearing that in mind, I can only assure you that we will do our best to maintain the privacy of our contacts and trust your judgement regarding the people to whom you refer us.
James Wyatt
600 W. 122nd Street, #603
New York, NY 10027
[Editors' note: A conferencefor gay, lesbian, and bisexual seminarians is plannedfor February 15-17, 1991 at
Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. For information, contact Michael Musolf, 99 Brattle Street, Box 30, Cambridge, MA 02138.J
Open Hands in Prison
I have appreciated receiving Open Hands during the past year and wish to continue receiving it. However, I am incarcerated and have limited funds. I am enclosing as check for $10 in hopes that you will find that
sufficient to continue me as a subscriber.
I share my copies with several other men and we have used them as a resource for a monthly gathering of gay men for Bible study and support. Thanks for your resources and
support.
Michael R. Miller
Avenel, New Jersey
Your comments about Open Hands and thoughts you wish to share with other readers are most welcome. Send your letter to: Open Hands, P.O. Box 23636, Washington, D.C. 20026.
21
Rep Report
New Reconciling UMC Commission
The General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns passed a resolution at its October meeting declaring itself to be a "Reconciling Commission." This is the first time an official UMC national body has proclaimed its "openness to the full participation of all people, including lesbians and gay men, in its life and work."
One of the commission members, Rev. Patricia Farris, attended the February 1990 convocation of Reconciling Congregations. Her passionate report to the commission's April meeting resulted in a growing sentiment that the 40-member commission become "reconciling." A committee was appointed at that mC'l~ting to draft a statement that would c1eclare the commission's intent without conflicting with the UMC law which bans funding national agencies which "promote the acceptance of homosexuality. "
The resolution "On Becoming a Reconciling Commission" was adopted with 2 abstentions and no negative votes. The text of the resolution is printed on page 24 below.
NINETY-TWO
IN:9~
The Board of Directors of the RCP has launched an evangelism campaign-92 in '92-which intends to double the number of Reconciling Congregations from the current 46 in the next two years.
The campaign builds upon what is already happening in the RC movement across the country. Several Reconciling Congregations are already reaching out to other prospec•
22
tive RCs in their communities. Because of the widespread media attention related to "holy unions" and Reconciling Conferences this spring and summer, the number of inquiries to the national office has increased dramatically.
"We are launching a major evangelism campaign," said Rev. Kim Alice Smith, chair of the Board and pastor of Bethany UMC in San Francisco. "We think it is critical that other congregations hear the stories of new life and revitalization in Reconciling Congregations and that these congregations be invited to join our growing movement."
As a first step in this campaign, information about prospective Res is being gathered from friends around the country. These prospective RCs will then be linked up with either a nearby RC or an "RC Evangelist" to provide ongoing nurture and cultivation of the RCP in that congregation.
Ifyou have information on a prospective RC or are intet"ested in being an "RC Evangelist," contact the national RCP office.
St. Francis in the Foothills Named as UMC "Vital Congregation"
St. Francis in the Foothills UMC , a Reconciling Congregation in Tucson, Arizona, has been named one of the UMC's "Vital Congregations." St. Francis is one of only five UMC congregations across the country to receive such recognition as part of the Council of Bishops Initiative, "Vital Congregations = Faithful Disciples. "
St. Francis and the other Vital Congregations were honored at "The Gathering," an international event which drew thousands of United Methodists to Fort Worth at the end of October. This event also featured the premiere showing of a videotape about St. Francis and the other Vital Congregations.
St. Francis was chosen from a large pool of congregations that were nominated by their bishops. Final selection was made by the staff of the General Board of Discipleship.
Congratulations to the congregation of St. Francis in the Foothills on this honor and for its forthright witness to its ministry with lesbians and gay men.
United Church of Canada Affirms Ordination Policy
The General Council of the United Church of Canada voted to reaffirm its policy that all members, "regardless of sexual orientation," are eligible to be ordained as clergy.
This policy was first adopted by the General Council in 1988. Opponents of the policy, led by a group called the Community of Concern, subsequently mounted efforts to have it rescinded at the next meeting of the General Council which was in August, 1990. However, the policy was strongly reaffirmed with the support of 80% of the commissioners voting.
Mfirm, the lesbian/gay organization in the United Church, called on the denomination to move forward in implementing this policy. "Because of the controversial nature of the original report, the church has been reluctant to act on it," stated Bill Siksay, Mfirm spokesperson. "'Now with this clear vote of reaffirmation we call upon the "lmited Chlll"ch to take action on the ordination of qualified lesbians and gay men."
The United Church of Canada, with two million members, is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada. It is also the largest Christian church to adopt an official policy allowing the ordination of lesbians and gay men.
Open Hands
Does Cokesbury Exclude Gay/ Lesbian Books?
Allegations that Cokesbury, the official UMC book distributor, excludes books by lesbian/gay Christian authors have been made by Chris Glaser, Presbyterian gay writer. According to a story in More Light Update (the newsletter of Presbyterians for Lesbian/Gay Concerns), Glaser anticipated that his book Come Home, recently published by Harper & Row, would be listed in the Cokesbury catalog. However, the book was not included in the catalog and Harper & Row's efforts to get an explanation were not satisfied by Cokesbury, according to Glaser.
In a letter to More Light Update, Cokesbury spokesperson, Marc Lewis, writes that Glaser's book, Come Home, was omitted from the Good Books Catalog, ""due to lack of demand." However, he also indicates that Glaser's forthcoming book, Coming Out to God, will be listed in the Spring 1991 catalog.
Regarding Cokesbury policy, Lewis writes that Glaser's book ""clearly advocates a lifestyle that is contrary to the Discipline of the United Methodist Church. Books on controversial subjects are, however, always considered for presentation to our market."
Lewis was unavailable for r:omment in response to Open Hands ' calls requesting a clarification of Cokesbury policy and why the Good Books Catalog has generally not listed books by lesbian/gay authors.
Cokesbury is the largest distributor of religious books within the UMC and other mainline Protestant denominations. Books are chosen for its Good Books Catalog by a national advisory group. Cokesbury stores actually carry a much wider selection of books, with local store managers determining additional books to supplement those in the catalog. Therefore, some Cokesbury stores do carry books by John Boswell, Virginia Mollenkott, Carter Heyward, Malcolm Boyd, and other well-known lesbian/gay Christian writers.
Fall 1990
"Reconciling" Program Leaders in Different Denominations Meet
A first-tilne gathering of leaders of the lesbian/gay-affirming local church programs in five denominations took place October 26-28, 1990, in Chicago. The meeting involved leaders of the More Light (Presbyterian, U.S.A.), Open and Mfirming (United Church of Christ), Reconciling Congregation (United Methodist), Reconciled-in-Christ (Lutheran), and Welcoming Congregation (Unitarian-Universalist) programs. Together these programs represent 200 congregations that have made public statements that they welcome lesbians and gay men.
The meeting was intended to allow the different program leaders to learn more about what was happening in other denominations and to talk about opportunities for cooperative efforts.
Several areas for cooperation and mutual support were identified: -continuecl promotion and utilization of each other's resources;
-development of a joint bibliography and other print and video educational resources;
-designation of a nationwide interdenominational ""Reconciling Day of Worship" in 1992;
-a future national assembly of all local churches that officially welcome lesbians and gay men.
A significant topic of discussion during the weekc~nd was the possibility of collaboration in the publication of Open Hands. The four mainline Protestant programs were very interested in the idea of making this magazine an interdenominational venture. A proposal is being prepared for discussion and review by the various programs in the coming months.
All nine persons present agreed that the weekend was inspiring and informative and decided to meet again in November, 1991.
UMC Study Committee Completes Listening Posts
The UMC Study Committee on Homosexuality recently completed a series of ""listening posts," or field hearings around the country. These six gatherings were intended to allow UM individuals and congregations to give input to committee members as they begin to prepare their report for the 1992 General Conference.
The number of persons who testified at these hearings ranged from 25 at one to 48 at another, totalling over 200 persons. Unofficial reports indicate that the percentage of the testimony that affirmed full participation of lesbians and gay men in the church ranged from 95% in the Northeast to 70% in the South Central and Southeastern jurisdictions.
The listening posts revealed the faithful witness of Reconciling Congregations on issues related to lesbians and gay men. Members of at least 19 different RCs testified at listening posts around the country.
The full study committee received reports from the various listening posts during its November 1990 meeting. First drafts of its report were reviewed at that time. The committee's intention is to report to the general church the points of agreement and disagreement on homosexuality that members have found in the areas of theology, biblical studies, ethics, and science. Furthermore, it will suggest what the church can responsibly teach about homosexuality and the implications of its study for the policies of the denomination.
The committee will meet again January 31 to February 3, 1991, to continue its writing and will present its final report to the General Council on Ministries at a September 12-15, 1991, meeting in Dayton, Ohio.
Results of Survey of Lesbian/Gay Couples
Partners, a national newsletter for gay & lt~sbian couples, has released the results of its national surve)' of 1,266 lesbian and gay couples. This survey, conducted from 1988-89, is one of the largest surveys of its kind. The survey, which is cited in the article on page 4 above, can be helpful in many educational settings and provides information about lesbians and gay men that dispels many myths and stereotypes. A copy of the survey and full n~port can be obtained for $3.95, from Partners, P.O. Box 9685, Seattle, Washington 98109.
23
Reconciling Congregations
ARIZONA
Tucson
St. Francis in the Foothils
CALIFORNIA
Albany
Albany UMC
Berkeley
Trinity UMC
Fresno
WesleyUMC
Los Angeles United University Wilshire UMC
Milpitas
Sunnyhills UMC
San Francisco Bethany UMC Calvary UMC Hamilton UMC Trinity UMC
Santa Monica
Church in Ocean Park
Vacaville
St. Paul's UMC
West HoUywood
Crescent Heights UMC
COLORADO
Denver
St. Paul's UMC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington
Christ UMC
Dumbarton UMC
GEORGIA
Atlanta
Grant Park-Aldersgate UMC
ILLINOIS
Chicago
Albany Park UMC Irving Park UMC United Church of Rogers Park
DeKalb University UMC
Evanston
Hemenway UMC
Wheadon UMC
Oak Park
Euclid Avenue UMC
KANSAS
Mission
ecumenikos
LOUISIANA
New Orleans
St. Mark's UMC
MARYLAND
Baltimore
S1. John's UMC
MINNESOTA
Minneapolis Prospect Park UMC Walker Community UMC Wesley UMC
MISSOURI
Kansas City
Kairos UMC
NEW YORK
Brooklyn
Park Slope UMC
New York Metropolitan-Duane UMC Washington Square UMC
Oneonta
First UMC
OHIO
Toledo
Central UMC
OREGON
Estacada
Estacada UMC
Portland
Mctanoia Peace Community
PENNSYLVANIA
Philadelphia Calvary UMC Fi.'st UMC of Ge.'mantown
TENNESSEE
Nashville
Edgehill UMC
WASHINGTON
Seattle
Capitol Hill UMC
Wallingford UMC
WISCONSIN
Madison
University UMC
Sheboygan
Wesley UMC
RECONCILING CONFERENCES
California-Nevada New York Northern Illinois Troy
RECONCILING COMMISSION
General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns
RECONCILING ORGANIZATION
Methodist Fede.'ation for Social Action
On Becoming A Reconciling Commission
The General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns
October 16, 1990
RESOLUTION
Whereas, the purpose of the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns is "to advocate and work towards the full reception of the gift of Christian unity in every aspect of the Church's life and to foster approaches to ministry and mission which more fully reflect the oneness of Christ's Church in the human community" (par, 2002, 1988 Book of Discipline); and
Whereas, the Constitution of the United Methodist Church sets forth as our position on ecumenical relations, that "The United Methodist Church believes that the Lord of the Church is calling Christians everywhere to strive toward unity, and therefore it will seek, and work for, unity at all levels of church life"," (par, 5, 1988 Book ofDiscipline); and
Whereas, the General Confer~nce in 1988 adopted the Consultation on Church Union Consensus, recognizing the apostolic understanding that baptism with water effects or signifies the union of the one baptized with Christ, and in Christ with all members of his body, and thus is our basic bond of unity; and
Whereas, on the basis of our unity in Baptism, The United Methodist Church has committed itself "to be in ministry for and with all persons" (Par, 7lF, 1988 Book ofDiscipline); and
Whereas, the Consultation on Church Union Consensus ~ets forth our conviction that members of the Church fail as Christ's amhassadors in reconciling the world to God if we have not heen reconciled to one another; and
Whereas, baptized members of the United Methodist Church who are gay men and lesbians are often denied full inclusion in the life of the church; and
Whereas, some United Methodist congregations, as a visible sign of the unity God has given, have become Reconciling Congregations to declare their inclusion of gay men and lesbians as full participants in the life of their congregations; and
Whereas, the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns recognizes the action of these congregations as expt'essive of our purpose within the United Methodist Church and its ecumenical relations; and
Whereas, becoming a Reconciling Commission will affirm that humanity dividing issues will not be allowed to be church dividing issues; and
Whereas, the General Commission on Christian Unity and IntelTeligious Concerns has the ecumenical responsibility to work for unity in the church and renewal of the wholeness in creation (Eph, 1:10),
Therefore be it resolved:
That, acknowledging that we as members of the General Commission on Christian Unity and IntelTeligious Concerns hold diverse opinions regarding homosexuality and the Christian faith, and recognizing our own need for learning and growth, we affirm that through Baptism God has made us members of one Body in Christ and this is our hasic bond of unity; and
That, the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns proclaims itself to be a Reconeiling Commission, dedicated to openness to the full participation of all people, including gay men and leshians, in its life and work; and encourages respect, dialogue, witness, learning, and growth in mutual compassion toward that unity,
24 Open Hands