Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, and finally the Day of Pentecost—these have all now come and gone. And the liturgical calendar has brought us to Trinity Sunday, which is both a day for looking backward, as we reflect on all the glorious activities of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit that we've been celebrating over these past six and a half months, and also a day for looking forward, as we seek to be equipped by the Triune God for fulfilling all of the moral and ethical commitments to which God is calling us.
On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit once again came upon us to renew us as members of God's Family, so that—as the apostle Paul reminds us in today's First Lesson—our identity remains solidly that of being God's own children. And from this point, we launch forth into an uninterrupted five-and-a-half-month stretch of what the liturgical calendar calls "ordinary time." And it's this time that's to be a season of moral and ethical formation in which we are challenged to let ourselves be directed in all that we think and in all that we do by this same, ever-surprising Spirit. You see, the Spirit, as our Second Lesson from the Gospel of John tells us, blows where it wills. And where the Spirit is choosing to blow in our time and place will not always be where it's blown before.
The branch of Protestantism to which our Presbyterian Church belongs has long described itself by using the Latin phrase "reformata et semper reformanda"—"reformed and ever-reforming." By that we have meant that it was not only way back when, during the 16th-century Reformation itself, that we Protestants felt free to break with church tradition in order to follow God's Spirit in the directions it was choosing to lead us. No, we Reformed Protestants are committed to breaking free from church tradition whenever we believe ourselves to have been called to do so by God's freely blowing Spirit.
It's this commitment of ours to being "reformed and ever-reforming," this commitment of ours to following the Spirit wherever it leads us, that's expressed in the words of today's first hymn, written in the mid-19th century by George Rawson, an English solicitor and also a Congregationalist layman. Please listen to his words again:
We limit not the truth of God
to our poor reach of mind,
to notions of our day and place,
crude, partial, and confined.
No, let a new and better hope
within our hearts be stirred:
O God, grant yet more light and truth
to break forth from Your Word.
"More light and truth to break forth from Your Word." That line has served in recent decades as the unofficial theme song of the More Light movement within the Presbyterian Church, the movement that seeks to persuade our denomination that the Spirit is calling us to welcome persons into all ordained offices of the church without regard to sexual orientation, just as we have been led by the Spirit in recent times to welcome persons into all ordained offices without regard to race or gender.
For the past fifteen years, Rutgers Church has been a leader in this More Light movement. And the fact of the matter is that it was the involvement in this movement of both this congregation and me, independent of each other, that led to my becoming pastor of this congregation ten and a half years ago.
Well, matters of consequence to More Light churches like ours will once again be coming before this year's General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, whose meetings in Birmingham, Alabama, begin this coming Thursday. Once more our General Assembly will be facing a choice between setting in motion a chain of events that can lead to the equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons within our denomination-a choice between that or not setting in motion such a chain of events. So I ask you to be praying mightily for the commissioners to this General Assembly during these next ten days.
Our focus on the gay-ordination issues coming to this General Assembly may have led many of us to miss the fact that also on the agenda of this General Assembly are two petitions of a very different kind, petitions that would also have a dramatic effect on LGBT persons. These two overtures ask that our denomination come down solidly on the side of opposing gay marriages, indeed of opposing even gay holy unions.
The Presbytery of Mississippi (Overture 10) is asking our denomination to affirm (quote) "that all 'marriage' contracts should be between one woman and one man" and to proclaim (quote) "that 'same-gender unions' are clearly in opposition to [both] Scripture" and our church's constitution. And the Presbytery of Redstone (Overture 27), in southwest Pennsylvania, is asking our denomination to state unequivocally that (quote) "no sexual union outside the bonds of marriage, such as in domestic partnerships or same-sex unions, is within the will of God or approved by this body."
These petitions, or overtures, to our General Assembly are coming, of course, at the very same time as the issue of "same-sex marriage" has also come to the fore in secular venues—in Congress and in New York State's highest court. Why is government involved?
Well, marriage in our society is: a civil contract in which the federal government bestows upon a couple some 1,138 new rights—such as Social Security and pension survivor benefits, immigration privileges, and taxation advantages; a civil contract in which New York State bestows upon a couple some 700 additional rights—including medical decision-making authority for a spouse, inheritance rights, immunity from having to testify in court against a spouse, control of a partner's body after death, and access to Family Court for matters like adopting children.
And when a minister, priest, rabbi, or other religious practitioner officiates at a marriage ceremony, she or he is acting as a registered officer of the state, one who is authorized to sign this contract on behalf of the government. And this officiating clergyperson is also a commissioned representative of God, one who is authorized by a religious organization to pronounce God's blessing on a couple.
As for the recent actions to oppose same-sex marriage in Congress, you know about them! The media have made it clear that last week Senator William Frist, with the support of President Bush, sought to have the Senate launch a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman and to ban judges from ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry and are entitled to the same legal rights as married opposite-sex couples. But this past Wednesday, the Senate, by a vote of 49 to 48, failed to end the filibuster against this proposed amendment, so the effort by conservatives to amend the constitution has been turned back, for the time being.
The case in our state courts you may be less familiar with. Up to now, the laws of New York State have been interpreted to forbid county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. But on May 31st the Court of Appeals, New York State's highest court, heard a challenge to this filed by 44 same-sex couples—a challenge asking the court to allow gay couples to gain through marriage the same rights and responsibilities that straight couples gain.
As Anemona Hartocollis put it in her article in the June 1st New York Times (p. B1), the issue confronting the court is this: "Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?" A decision in this case could come as early as the end of this month, but it probably won't come until well into the fall.
So the civil and religious issue of "gay marriage" and the theological issue of whether God's Holy Spirit may be leading our society in a a new direction on "gay marriage"—these are very much before us today, and I want to spend the rest of this morning's sermon sharing with you the way I think the Holy Spirit is trying to lead us.
Let me begin by stating three ethical and theological premises that underlie my views.
First, I believe, along with the Reverend Dr. James B. Nelson, a Christian ethicist, that "human sexuality is God's way of calling us out of separation and loneliness into communication and communion" ("Embracing the Erotic," in Reflections [Yale Divinity School], Vol. 92, No. 1 [Spring, 2006], p. 20) and that God is calling LGBT persons into communication and communion through their sexuality, just as God is calling "straight" persons into these.
Second, I believe, along with Dr. Daniel A. Helminiak, a pastoral counselor, that: "Appeal to the Bible should not sustain opposition to lesbian and gay relationships... As cogently as historical research is ever likely to do, biblical scholarship [now] shows that, understood in their original linguistic, historical, and cultural settings, the biblical texts were [simply] not addressing the questions [being raised in] our [own] day..." ("Sex as a Spiritual Exercise," in Ibid., p. 7).
And third, I believe along with the Reverend Debra W. Haffner, the Director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, that: "Scripture is less concerned with an ethic of sexuality than it is with an ethic of love. I believe that any use of Scripture that violates people's essential nature, excludes them from God's love, and impedes them from living according to their own conscience and integrity[-that any such use of Scripture] violates the very message [that lies at the heart] of [Jesus's] good news..." ("Sexuality and Scripture," in Ibid., p. 35).
In light of these premises of mine, you can understand, I think, why I'm moved by the following statement by Ludger Viefhues-Bailey, an Assistant Professor in Religious Studies at Yale University. He starts out with his tongue somewhat in-cheek, saying: "Given that we, gays and lesbians, are such a minority, and given that nowadays we don't promulgate the overthrow of capitalism through boundaryless copulation, but that we simply desire participation in the bourgeois institution of marriage, I am befuddled."
And then Viefhues-Bailey continues in all seriousness: "Are the schools in this count(r)y in such good shape that you have [time] to worry about [the possibility of my becoming married]? What about the state of medical care, human rights abuses, racism, fair labor practices, equal pay for women, and divorce rates? What about instilling a desire for the loving union with G-d through Jesus Christ, and the thirst to find divinity in prayer, meditation, and [affection]? Why is the love between two women or two men (and the many shades in between) such an obsessive topic for American Christians?" ("Homosexuality and Dr. Dobson," in Ibid., p. 50)
Yes, why all this ethical fuss when two mature adults in love simply want to make a civil, social, and religious statement to themselves and to God, in the presence of their loved ones and the wider community, about their commitment to one another? Like Viefhues-Bailey, I just don't understand it! For I believe that the Holy Spirit is leading us to affirm that a gay couple's commitment to love each other till death do them part is every bit as beautiful a thing as a straight couple's commitment.
As Joan Keener has already mentioned to you, on May 30th a rally of religious leaders and congregants in favor of "marriage equality" for all was held here on the Upper West Side, at Congregation B'nai Jeshurun. Both Lili Bohan and I were in attendance.
For me, the most heartbreaking part of that evening came during the speech by 71-year-old Wilhelmina Perry, a member of Riverside Church, when she described her experience during the final illness and approaching death of her partner of 30 years, Dr. Antonia Pantoja. Dr. Pantoja was the woman who in 1974 won the suit against the city that provided access to bilingual education for all Latino students who were struggling academically because of language difficulties, and in 1996 she received the Presidential Medal of Honor from Bill Clinton. But in 2002, Dr. Pantoja was dying of cancer, and instead of her life partner, Dr. Perry, being able to focus on providing her with care, comfort, and consolation during her final days, these two women had to spend hours checking over the many specially prepared legal documents that married couples don't have any need for and hours untangling the numerous legal obstacles to Dr. Perry's right to make medical and financial decisions for and with Dr. Pantoja. Indeed, at one point, Dr. Pantoja's family tried to take her back to Puerto Rico without ever informing Dr. Perry, the partner with whom she had been living for the past 30 years.
The civil issues surrounding gay marriage are clear. But what about the religious issues? Can Christians endorse gay marriage?
I've already stated some of the reasons I believe we can, but let me conclude my sermon by citing just a few of the endorsements of gay marriage expressed by other religious leaders in this state. And you can find the full collection of our statements on the website of the Empire State Pride Agenda (www.prideagenda.org, in the section called "New Yorkers for the Freedom to Marry").
The Reverend J. Andrew McTyre of Syracuse proclaims: "To deny any human rights to a particular group of people because of skin color, gender, economic status or sexual orientation is to ignore our faith's injunction to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with our God."
The Reverend Lee Ann Bryce of Rochester states: "I believe it to be a Christian imperative to stand with those who are victims of discrimination in our society."
The Reverend Diane Marquit, pastor of the "summer" church that Margaret and I attend in the Adirondacks, writes: "I cherish the day [when] wedding bells will ring out glad freedom for the oppressed..."
The Reverend Jennifer Crow of Rochester, says: "I believe that all people have the right to lead lives that express love, ... mutuality, and commitment—regardless of their gender."
The Reverend Steve Clumm of Schenectady observes: "I was married because of the gift of love that I found in my spouse and the love and presence of God that we have discovered together through both good and bad times.... I support same-sex marriage because I want others to be able to celebrate the presence of God as a part of their commitment to a life-long partner; I want others to have that 'God presence' recognized and supported by other people of faith..."
The Reverend Robert Gunn, of New York City, who preached here last January, affirms that: "...the source of all real loving comes from our common Creator God, and ... 'where love is, God is.'"
The Reverend Bruce Southworth, also of New York City, enjoins: "Wherever a deep, committed love blesses a couple, no matter one's gender, we should rejoice for God is present in that Love."
And yours truly states on this website: "Same-sex couples who wish to be married should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to do so and should be celebrated as examples of persons willing to undertake faithful, loving commitment to one another."
So now you've heard what I and other religious leaders think about gay marriage, and you've heard in what direction I think the Spirit is blowing in our time and place? What do you think? Let our conversations with one another begin!
Let us pray:
O God, help us as we enter into this season of "ordinary time." Help us to follow the lead of Your Spirit as we wrestle with such extraordinary issues. In the name of Christ, we pray this. Amen