Tag Archives: Church

Sermon, January 13, 2013: “With You I Am Well Pleased”

(Below is the text of a sermon delivered at Douglass Boulevard Christian Church on Sunday, January 13, 2013. I am cross-posting the text here from the DBCC Blog, which also has a podcast and downloadable MP3 of the sermon.)

“With You I Am Well Pleased” (Luke 3:15-22)

I must confess that I approach this text with a great deal of trepidation that stems from things in my own history. I will mention one of them: My own baptism. My own attitude towards baptism is very complicated, mainly by the fact that I was raised Southern Baptist, a tradition in which baptism is pretty much everything, second only to masculinity, another area with which I enjoy a complicated relationship. Unlike most of my peers, I was not baptized as a young child. I was baptized as an adult—specifically, while I was a Ph.D. student in philosophy, within a congregation of the United Church of Christ in State College, Pennsylvania. The pastor who baptized me—his name was Bill— would, about eighteen months later, be arrested at a McDonald’s in southern New Jersey for attempting to meet someone he thought was an underage boy for sex, but who was actually an agent of the FBI. I have lost touch with Bill, who ended up in federal prison for his offense. Baptism is a strange event, weaving the history of our faith together with all sorts of other stories.

In today’s Gospel lesson from the gospel according to Luke we encounter two strands of a story woven into the baptism of all Christians: The ministry of John the Baptizer, and the baptism of Jesus himself. In between the two, skipped over by the lectionary but no less important, is John’s arrest and imprisonment on the orders of Herod, the Roman puppet ruler of the Jews in Palestine.

We know remarkably little about John beyond the sketchy accounts we find in the four Gospels. What we have in the Gospels uniformly ascribes to him a prophetic role in foretelling and foreshadowing the role Jesus will ultimately come to play. Whatever a fuller picture of John would reveal, the picture that does emerge is that many people thought that John might be the Messiah, the long-awaited liberator from Roman oppression, but that John firmly denied it.  Instead, John the Baptizer proclaims that his baptism is a form of preparation for one to come, one who “will baptize with the holy spirit and fire.” We get a very stark picture of what John thinks will happen after that: The winnowing fork is in the Messiah’s hand, he says, and he has come to separate the wheat from the chaff, keeping the good wheat and throwing the spurious chaff into unquenchable fire. It is clear why so many people answered John’s call to repentance and purification. Certainly this sounds rather urgent! And yet, we are told in the very next verse that this, and John’s other similar proclamations, were a form of “good news” he was bringing to the people.

I don’t know about you, but I admit that for myself, it can be very hard to see John’s apocalyptic proclamation as “good news.” Let us be clear about something, then. John’s terrifying vision of separating the wheat from the chaff, and throwing the chaff in unquenchable fire, is not meant to sound like good news to us. For you see, John’s message is meant to sound like consolation to those oppressed by empire: Those under the yoke of Roman occupation, apartheid, and oppression, those for whom subjugation on every level is a fact of daily life. You and me, by contrast? We Americans live in the latter-day equivalent of Rome. We are not, by and large, the Johns and the Jesuses. We are instead the citizens strolling about the marketplace, feeling at home in our own country. We are (though perhaps not because we choose to be) the oppressors, the underwriters of occupation. We are, as little as we might want to admit it, more like the chaff than the wheat. The fires of the Holy One burn for us, and John tells us they burn unquenchably.

If you find this reality a little disturbing: Good. So do I, since it names me too. It is meant to get to us a little bit. Certainly it got to Herod.  Luke’s account leaves us with little insight into exactly how John got crossways with Herod. He says that Herod imprisons John on account of some rebuke or other John had given him due to Herodias, his brother’s wife, but we don’t know from Luke what the rebuke was. Whatever it was, it was enough to get under Herod’s skin to such an extent that Herod throws John in jail. We later learn that Herod has John executed, but at this point in the narrative he is simply sidelined.

Luke’s account then continues to relate the baptism of Jesus. The other Gospels also relate Jesus’s baptism. But Luke’s account is interesting. What is most fascinating about it is how it says important things by not actually saying them. The first interesting detail is that in Luke’s account, Jesus’s actual baptism doesn’t seem to be all that special. Jesus, we are told, is just one more person among “all the people” to get baptized. Recall how Luke puts it: “Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized…” Jesus’s baptism seems almost like an afterthought. He is just one more person, his baptism one out of an unnumbered multitude. Another even more fascinating thing: in Luke, John the Baptizer doesn’t baptize Jesus. Luke doesn’t say who baptizes Jesus; he doesn’t specifically say that John doesn’t do it. But since John has been thrown in prison in the preceding paragraph, we are invited to draw the obvious conclusion that, unless John baptized Jesus and everyone else in the prison yard during exercise time, someone else must have done the baptizing.

And then, the part we have been waiting for, the part that recalls the other stories the evangelists tell about Jesus’s baptism. Jesus, we are told, has already been baptized, along with everyone else, and he is off praying when—the heaven opens! And the Holy Spirit descends upon him in bodily form like a dove! And a voice calls out from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

And, well, that is pretty much it. The story stops. No reactions from the crowd, no expressions of fear or praise: Nothing. I think, though, that this lack of reaction is the point. What matters to Luke in relating this story is simply what the voice says: With you I am well pleased.

It is no secret that our faith has had, over the course of its long history, a strained relationship with pleasure. Pleasure is, among those who have called and still call upon the name of Jesus, a matter treated with deep suspicion, a notion too often associated with temptation, with sensual gratification at the expense of the intellect and the spirit, with sin and all else that stands between us and God. Certainly our pleasures can, when they get the best of us, not only separate us from God and from one another, but very nearly destroy us. But our tradition is clear that pleasure is in itself good. It is, I think, in part its attitude towards pleasure that makes early Christianity something unique and revolutionary, something more than just another technique for bringing pleasure under control. The Roman world was full of such techniques, popular among the wealthy citizen classes: Stoicism, Epicureanism, various species of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and still other -isms. For the sophisticated philosophical Roman citizen, the most high God is impassive, unyielding, the cold hand of fate, impervious to the body and to its passions. For Luke and the earliest Christians, though, God instead takes pleasure and delight. As Paul’s letter to the Colossians states, it is in Jesus that “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things” (Col 1:19-20). God is a God of pleasure and delight. God is a God who has, in Jesus, not promised to reconcile all things to herself if they will just do better. No, God has already reconciled all things to himself, and was pleased to do it.

This is not what people are usually told about God in church. What most people hear in church is that God loves us, but doesn’t seem to like us very much. The God we Christians have grown comfortable with is a God who stokes the flames of Hell, who separates sheep from goats, and reassures we good Christians that if we pack ourselves safely inside the asbestos-lined shelter of the church, we shall escape the fires he prepares for those who are less well positioned. This is especially the message the church preaches too often about baptism. Baptism, it seems, is a pure, cleansing fountain flowing from the foot of the judgment seat of God from on high, and, if we submerge ourselves in it, it will cleanse us of our blemishes and make us into the sort of thing God can stand to look at, even if only just barely.

The God who encounters us in Jesus the Christ, though, is not a God who begrudgingly approves of us. It is a God who is loves and delights in every last bit of us, down to the marrow of our bones and every hair on our heads. And it is this supreme delight God takes in us that can change us. It has the power to transform us, to call us into a new way of living. This new way of living arises out of gratitude for the pleasure God has taken in us and inspires us to take similar pleasure in all of those things with which which God has already reconciled. This pleasure, if we but respond to it and share it, is radical. It is life- and world-changing; it changes things like nothing else can. It is also terrifying, though, because there are no boundaries set around it. It has transgressed and crossed every boundary that has ever been set in front of it. For in whom is God well pleased? With whom has God reconciled? Simply everyone. And everything.

But too often we find this good news impossible to hear. Too often we find it easier to believe that God has only reconciled with people who look and act very much like we do. Some of us Christians resent that God is so spendthrift with his love and pleasure: They resent that they work so very hard to please God, and yet God ends up being delighted over people they don’t think are trying very hard at all, or at least aren’t trying like they are trying. But this kind of jealousy, this feeling that God is cheating on us with his other creations, is, when you get right down to it, more than a little silly; it speaks of nothing more than our fears and insecurities. The pleasure God takes in all of us is boundless; if God shares it with others, there is not less of it for me. In fact, there is more, if we allow the love God has for us to transform us and free us to love others with a love like that God has for them.

What, then, of John’s language of winnowing wheat from chaff and burning the chaff? Or, for that matter, of the frequent remarks Jesus makes in the Gospels that describe sorting out the good people from the bad? I admit that these are difficult passages for me to read. But I come back to them because they seem to capture something essential about God’s love of justice. While God loves us and takes pleasure in us, we still fail to love one another as God does; we still look with contempt and hate upon those whom God has looked upon with love and delight. Worst of all, we simply fail to see, or, even worse, refuse to acknowledge, God’s beloved. In our hearts, there is wheat, but chaff of various sorts—of injustice, of privilege, of ignorance and greed—clings to it. It is with the help of God and with trust in God that we can endure the hard task of winnowing out injustice and violence from our own hearts.

So what is baptism for, if it isn’t to make us presentable before God, if God delights in us and is reconciled to us before it even happens? It is, I think, a purification that we seek in order to be able to look at ourselves and to accept that God delights in us. The waters of baptism are not magic; they do not carry with them a special power to purify us. It doesn’t matter if the one who pours them over us is a deeply flawed, broken man, like my pastor Bill; it doesn’t even matter if no one remembers anymore who did it, as in the case of Luke’s account of Jesus’s baptism. The waters of baptism signify dying and rising: Dying to the selves we used to be, selfish, insecure, and afraid, and rising to the confident selves we can be in Christ, called up out of them by the loving voice of God. They are waters into which we must wade again and again, at least through the reminders we receive in communion and in the baptisms of others.

The waters of baptism are not a pure stream flowing from the highest heaven. They are mundane; they are brackish and murky. What floats in them, left there by centuries of people who have gone before us, are the dead things: the grief and the blood, the tears and the excrement, the contempt and the rot and the hate and the death. It is out of such muck as that that God lifts us all, one by one, over and over again, wipes us clean, stands us on our own two feet, and smiles. It is we children of filth, baptized by the unnamed, the reviled, and the imprisoned in the name of a crucified criminal, of whom God speaks, from the high heaven: “With you I am well pleased.”

May we, no less children of filth than any other, come to be pleased also in all those with whom God has reconciled.


Church, Queer Inclusion, and Relatedness: Four Reflections

A few days ago, Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), published a pastoral letter addressing the inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life of the church. You can read the letter here.

Watkins’ letter has many virtues, but it is a bit disappointing in that it does not take a decisive stand on any of the first-order issues of theology, ethics, Biblical interpretation, and sexuality that divide individuals and congregations in the CCDOC. Instead it attempts to strike a note of reconciliation among Disciples on all sides of the issues, emphasizing (in true Disciples fashion) that the communion table welcomes everyone. It is a position that manages to be so inoffensive that it is fated to satisfy no one completely. It sends people with an investment in clear theological and political ground home empty-handed, and it annoys all of those people who wish that the conversation would just turn towards anything else but this. Making statements like these is a thankless task, and the discussion I have seen of it bears out this fact.

For me, Watkins’s letter occasioned a fourfold set of thoughts that I will share here in no particular order. I don’t know how to bring my thoughts under a single guiding principle, much less to a point where I can give a simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down assessment of what Watkins says. My thoughts are more complicated than that.

So, in all their messiness, here are my four reactions.

1. The False Divide

There is a tendency throughout discussions of Christianity and LGBTQ folk to paint the following picture of how they relate to one another. On the one side is the church, with its internal struggles over the attitude it should take towards LGBTQ people, and on the other are LGBTQ people themselves, who are implicitly depicted as excluded from and marginalized by the church. From within this picture, we might expect statements like Watkins’s pastoral letter to bridge that gap or otherwise communicate across it.

This picture itself, which frames so much of the discussion of LGBTQ concerns in the CCDOC and in the wider church, bothers me far more than anything the letter did or didn’t say. While it is true that a lot of churches have marginalized and excluded queer folk, we are nevertheless here in church in worship and service, and I think we always have been. The picture of the church and the queer community on opposite sides of a gulf, with a debate on whether and how to bridge it, is just inaccurate, or at least overly simplistic.

That picture is also counterproductive and dangerous, in that it implicitly and presumptively identifies the church with straight people and straightness. This sets up a dynamic in which (presumptively straight) Christians appear to be debating one another over whether to share their blessings, privileges, benefits, and fellowship with poor, shivering, lonely queer folk outside. It’s a rather patronizing attitude when you think about it. It defines queer folk as victims, deprives us of agency, and fails to recognize that God may be– that God is– at work blessing us and the lives we already lead. There are those of us who want to live in Christian community with straight folks, who see it as our Christian calling to seek a wide community, but that can’t happen in a meaningful way if we are perpetually viewed as passive recipients of moral and theological charity. Community doesn’t work like that; at least not Christian community as I understand it. No one gets to occupy a seat of untouched moral privilege and come away from encounters completely unchanged and unchallenged. That goes for queer folk as well, of course. This point is intimately bound up with the transformation and redemption God seeks to work in us and through us all in community– the “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17) in us through God in Christ.

2. Justice, Power and Abuse

Much of the advocacy in support of full LGBTQ inclusion in church is done in the name of the church’s social justice concerns, and specifically in the name of speaking with a clear voice on equal civil rights for LGBTQ people. Many compare the current struggle for marriage equality to the civil rights movement and seek for churches to take the prophetic stances now that so many churches did then. If the church’s investment in LGBTQ concerns is supposed to be first and foremost as a matter of social justice and civil rights, then Watkins’s letter probably doesn’t further that cause appreciably. It may even be part of the problem to the extent that it fails to acknowledge that the current state of affairs within the church is frequently unjust.

Part of my above point that queer folk are already in and associated with church is that the issues of welcome and inclusion at stake are as much about what happens in our churches as it is about the face we present to the outside. The tragedy of LGBTQ people and churches is not always that the church doors are shut to us, but that often we started out in church but experienced breathtaking abuse there at the hands of our Christian brothers and sisters. That has not been my personal story, I’m glad to say, but it has been the story of too many others. In that context, Watkins’ conciliatory tone in her pastoral letter rankles a bit, almost certainly without meaning to do so. Christian communities are notorious for using the language of forgiveness and reconciliation to which Watkins appeals to turn a blind eye to abusers’ misconduct, officially erasing it, and then telling the abused and violated that the abuse is their fault and that the moral and spiritual burden is exclusively on them to reconcile with their abusers. Too often, when the powerful abuse the less powerful in church, it is the abused who are saddled with the exclusive burden of reconciling with their abusers. This is a pattern of (mis)conduct in the church that goes far beyond its treatment of queer folk, but the experience of many queer folk in churches is like this.

Let me be absolutely clear that I am not accusing Sharon Watkins herself of any such attitude, nor of condoning or approving it in others. I am just highlighting how, context considered, the language to which she appeals can have precisely the opposite effect than the one she intends. Christian churches need to look their history of spiritual abuse square in the face, own up to it, and exercise far more sensitivity to the contexts and power dynamics at play when they deploy the language of forgiveness and reconciliation. Everybody, queer folk included, has to be ready to engage in difficult, painful conversations to make a wider Christian community work, but it can’t happen authentically if queer folk have to bear all of the risks and the burdens in those conversations.

3. A Broader Conversation About Relatedness

If one expects the church to exercise a voice in the public debate over LGBTQ rights and in issue advocacy, Watkins’ letter doesn’t do that. It doesn’t address the issues prevalent in the wider public debate, foremost among them marriage equality, and it doesn’t position the CCDOC clearly in that coveted position of an alternative Christian voice to the conservative Christian voices that are clearly against equal rights for queer folk.

I have a hard time being critical of Watkins on this score, however, because I find so much of the politics surrounding this expectation confining. This is the part where I say some things that many people, including many queer folk, may find impolitic or misguided. I crave your patience, though, because I feel like this is an important and underserved point.

Let’s take the focus on marriage equality for a moment. Marriage equality is a matter of equal rights under the law, this is true, and so there is a pure civil rights and social justice case to be made for speaking out in support of it. Churches should have something to say about marriage equality. But access to marriage is not the only equal rights and social justice issue for the LGBTQ community. The nice gay couple may not be able to get married, and some churches are saying good things about why that’s a problem. But why aren’t more churches talking about (to pick but a single example) the issues of our trans* folk who run the risk of harassment and discrimination over simply using a public restroom? Some Christians and some churches are having those conversations, but not enough. I for one would love to have that conversation in church, and I would love to have it in a context that was prepared to give pride of place to trans* folk and their experiences.

Even if we stick with marriage equality for the time being, which is the big advocacy focus right now, it’s unclear to me why the actual rights at stake in that debate, especially the civil and economic rights that are bound up with the equal rights and equal protection issues, are one and all best respected by shoehorning same-gender couples into state-sanctioned marriages that mirror those of opposite-gender couples. This is one way to do it, obviously, but is it the best way, all things considered? Why is it important or in the best interests of queer folk to level the playing field that way? Why not instead reduce or eliminate the special rights that marriage confers on anyone, straight or queer? What compelling state interest does the state have in promoting marriage for anyone, and might those interests be better served in some way other than marriages? And (to come back to the church for a second) just what stake does the church have in the institution of marriage as it currently exists anyway? Have we even had that discussion? What would we learn about the historically contingent heteronormativity of the church if we had that discussion, especially if, as I argue to anyone who will listen, marriage is a thoroughly heteronormative institution as it currently exists? Is marriage an unalloyed good for either queer folk or for the church? Why do we seem to think we know the answer to that question before it is even asked?

A lot of you probably find my line of questioning here naively speculative or too radical and unrealistic. I admit that it is the road less traveled, and that in the short term, at least, marriage equality is the LGBTQ issue that has the best chance of gaining widespread traction. But at the same time, I am thoroughly convinced that there is a broader social conversation brewing of which the current discussions of marriage and family and gender roles in the nuclear family that dominate in Christian circles are only a symptom. It is a broader conversation about all of the forms of relatedness: a conversation about family (biological and chosen), about love and sex and gender, about community, about friendship and kinship and membership and everything else in between. All of the ties that bind are fluid and under reexamination. They always are to some extent, I guess, but my gut tells me that there are big shifts on the horizon. Yet not enough voices in the church (or in the broader social discussion) are speaking to that looming conversation; we are still on that small piece of it called marriage and family and sweating the question of what to do with that.

I think our faith has deep resources for speaking to this broader fluidity in the forms of community and kinship, partly because the church has lived through so many structural transformations in social institutions over the last two millennia. Churches are one of the last institutions to lay claim to a form of historical consciousness that extends further back than one or (maybe) two generations. Church is where we can encounter the living God who seeks to carry us forward into a better future.
For much of the American public, though, church may also be their most accessible point of regular access to historical memory and meaningful reflection in the form of art, song, poetry, and ideas. Think of the untapped spiritual and historical resources we could offer to help guide reflection on life in community and relationship if we apply ourselves to the task! That is a conversation I want to be a part of.

4. The Messy Work of Relationships

My final thought occasioned by Watkins’s letter is that it is possible to pin too high a hope on official proclamations from senior authorities. Those proclamations are, when they are robust and stake out much-needed moral territory, quite valuable and welcome. But I am not sure that they change anyone’s mind by themselves. They may be the occasion for the conversations and encounters between actual people that lead to real change. Or they may be a wedge that drives people apart and into enclaves where they go to gripe about how unreasonable the “other side” is being. They may do both.

I am convinced that the way forward for all of us lies less in the quality of our public pronouncements and more in the quality of our communities and relationships. Perhaps I think this because I am good at pronouncements and terrible at relationships, and we sometimes most value what we ourselves are not. What I do know is that, in a quiet and unobtrusive way, my Christian community and relationships have borne me up and saved me in a way that no proclamation ever has. It has done so by allowing me the space to be fully honest, or as near to it as I can manage, and giving others the space to be fully honest with me. If churches are able to be anything like this place of honesty for people, we shall ultimately not go far wrong.

A Step Along The Way

Last Sunday, April 17, 2011, Douglass Boulevard Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Louisville, Kentucky, assembled as a congregation for a meeting. I am an Elder of Douglass Boulevard and a past chairperson of the congregation. Our congregation had a discussion, and afterwards, by a unanimous voice vote of all members present, we adopted a policy that has garnered our quiet congregation national media attention. The policy is as follows. Our pastors and elders will perform, as they always have, church weddings for those who wish to be married in the church. Our denomination vests in them the religious authority to solemnize marriage vows before God and the community of the faithful, and they will continue to exercise that authority. However, our pastors and elders will no longer use the additional legal authority the state vests in them of executing marriage licenses on the state’s behalf as the state’s agent. Couples who so choose, and are comfortable with our church’s stance, may be married by our ministers, but those couples would, if heterosexual and otherwise authorized by current law, have to find someone else, such as a judge or county clerk, to sign their marriage licenses.

Our church took this step as a natural outgrowth of its commitment, also made by unanimous congregational vote in 2008, to become an “Open and Affirming” community of faith. That commitment specifically means that our congregation welcomes all persons, including gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons, out of our belief that God loves and fully embraces the complexity and richness of our sexual and gender identities. We neither demand nor require that GLBT persons hide their sexual orientation or gender identity in order to be full members of our community, including positions of leadership and ordained ministry. We may or may not always live up to the implied ideals of this commitment, but by taking the explicit public stance, we have made ourselves accountable to our brothers and sisters for our shortcomings.

As long as our church and its ministers and members are dealing exclusively with purely religious and community matters, we can feel responsible for how we live out our Open and Affirming commitment. But performing legal marriages implicates our ministers in a legal régime over which our church does not, and should not, exercise direct influence, that nevertheless runs directly counter to our church’s Open and Affirming stance. For the laws of the state of Kentucky, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, are specifically motivated by, and give state sanction to, the belief that GLBT persons are less than equal citizens. Kentucky goes even further than most states in that it amended its constitution in 2004 to ban same-sex marriage specifically. Denying GLBT persons in committed relationships the legal right to marry is more than just the denial of an honorific title, although given the historic social significance of the honorific title, that is bad enough. Under the law, married persons enjoy a host of rights and benefits that unmarried persons do not. Married persons pay less in taxes, can be beneficiaries of their spouses’ estates, have visitation rights in hospitals, and the list goes on and on.

Of course, straight unmarried persons also lack access to these same rights and benefits. The difference, though, is that they may, if they find an agreeable partner, avail themselves of these benefits at law at any time by marrying. The state will not ask any questions of them beyond their ages, whether they are members of the same family, and whether they are already married to someone else. The state will not inquire after whether they just met or have known one another for years; whether they are really in love; whether one partner is abusive towards the other; or anything else that has to do with the actual fitness of their relationship.

Many straight people marry unwisely, and many probably have no business being married to anybody. All the same, the state affords them an opportunity to forge an honest, meaningful long-term relationship with another person with whom they can share intimacy at all levels, including sexual intimacy, and the state rewards that choice with a host of tangible material and social benefits. GLBT persons can under current law only exercise this option by marrying persons with whom they are grossly incompatible due to the fact that they are unable to share genuine intimacy. It creates a powerful incentive to marry people with whom they must deal dishonestly and to whom they must deny the deepest parts of themselves. The state, in short, encourages them to deny, to others and themselves, their deepest longings and most powerful energies– just those parts of ourselves that the God we worship wishes to bless, embrace, and make whole.

Hence the conflict.

Our church and its ministers have chosen to respond to this conflict by opting out of the legal marriage régime. Legal and religious marriage are distinct, and rightly so. Religious marriage is a matter of which relationships God and the community of the faithful recognize, bless, and sanctify. Legal marriage is an institution the state maintains for its own purposes. Nothing beyond custom and traditional deference to political authorities requires that ministers participate in legal marriage. So our church and its ministers are choosing not to participate, on the basis that remaining faithful to where God has called us outweighs deference to custom. We are not sanctioning active disobedience to the law. If that were the case, we would sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and we are not doing that. Our stance is thus not quite one of civil disobedience. It is, rather, an attempt to live out our religious commitments honestly and with integrity. We cannot honestly preach God’s love and embrace of GLBT persons and then turn around and act as agents of unjust laws that institutionalize their status as second-class citizens.

Our policy has received far more media attention than any of us might have expected. As one might expect, the media coverage has missed some of the finer points of our stance. For instance, the coverage generally casts our vote as an act of “protest.” We do obviously disagree with the law as it currently stands, but our vote was motivated less by a desire to protest it than by the need to live out our commitments honestly. We are not temperamentally an attention-seeking congregation. Yet in another sense it is clearly an act of protest. In a culture like ours whose leaders and influencers are hardly models of intellectual honesty and integrity, living honestly and with integrity is itself an act of protest. Certainly it has been perceived as such, especially by those who are inclined to find fault with our church’s Open and Affirming stance generally.

Nor are we ceasing to perform marriages, as if our congregation somehow doesn’t take marriage seriously or think it important. Quite the opposite is the case. We are simply refusing to sign marriage licenses. Anyone who wants to get married in our church, and is also legally allowed to marry, may still do so with our church’s full blessing, provided that they find someone other than our ministers to execute the license fully. In many other countries, this is in fact the norm already. It just runs against the grain here in the United States.

I will not attempt here to provide a full theological and moral argument for our church’s Open and Affirming commitment. It is this commitment, rather than our specific policy regarding the performance of marriages, that animates the most criticism. I think I can provide such an argument, but it goes beyond my scope here. I hope to write more on this subject at a later date. All I seek to convey here is why, given the commitments our congregation has made, the step we took is a step towards honesty, consistency, and integrity.

All of us who are on The Way, as the Book of Acts calls it, are constantly stumbling along in faith. In this life we see “through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12). All we can do is move forward through the shadows on the strength of what has already been given to us. I write these words the day before Easter Sunday, a day when we are reminded that what we have given is a mysterious and powerful love that overcomes all of the world’s hatred and ultimately even triumphs over death. Our church believes in the power of that love to meet us where we are, just as we are, and bless, redeem and transform us. We at Douglass Boulevard believe that our recent policy decision is a step further along that Way. May we all, with God’s blessing, step carefully and faithfully along that Way together.