The Episcopal Church will now allow priests to conduct services blessing same-sex relationships. The denomination’s House of Bishops approved the policy Monday, and delegates to the national convention approved the measure on Tuesday becoming the largest U.S. religious denomination to approve such a ritual.
What’s your response?
Is this an appropriate theological response? Is this a good compromise?”
Epistemology and hermeneutics has become so subjective in some denominations that the resulting theology is little more than improv. It seems a rather futile exercise to draw firm lines at “monogamous” and “committed” when you’ve given up ground to heterodoxy in your faith and practice. All churches and their networks are flawed, but I should want my church to introduce me to God as He is and has revealed Himself, not as a grander projection of myself in the quest to render this cultural moment absolute.
In his recent work, On the Meaning of Sex, J. Budziszewski interacts with a prevalent unexamined assumption that sex doesn’t have to mean anything, that we can assign any value to it we want: “Yes, we can associate sex in our minds with anything we choose… [just as] I may associate friendship with betrayal because my friend was untrue. I may associate birth with death because my child was stillborn. I may associate emptiness with intelligence because I have read too much Sartre. Even so, the meaning of friendship as such is not betrayal, the meaning of birth as such is not death, and the meaning of emptiness as such is not intelligence” (p. 7).
I will add that the meaning of same-sex union as such is not blessing even though pockets of the church want to confer the well-being of God (blessing) upon it. If God has reliably revealed His way and will in Scripture, then to bless what He does not bless is the ultimate associative fail.