In the next few weeks, the eyes of the Anglican Communion will focus intently on the 2009 General Convention.

The great question before the Convention, as it was in 2006, is how its decisions will determine the course of The Episcopal Church’s relationship with the Anglican Communion and the Church universal. And once again, this question is itself expressed in the form of questions about human sexuality, and, in particular, about the role of non-celibate same-sex relationships within the Church.

The official position of the Anglican Communion, affirmed repeatedly since 1998, is found in Lambeth Conference Resolution 1998.1.10, which states:

“while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions....”

The pressure on the bishops and deputies constituting General Convention 2009 arises from the reality that they constitute, as well, a microcosm of our American culture, and our American culture is divided on the presenting questions about human sexuality. Yet those who control the political machinery of The Episcopal Church seem united in their belief that the official teaching of the Anglican Communion is wrong. It seems possible that General Convention 2009 may pass resolutions committing the Episcopal Church to positions that contradict the teaching of the Communion.

This presenting question is one of those troublesome ones that historically polarize communities. A large part of that polarizing effect has to do with different approaches to ethics.

Some believe that ethics is a matter of when to say “Yes” and when to say “No.” Sometimes saying “No” to the claims of others about important matters seems to be the way to security. This is the way of the Essene sect of ancient Israel who rejected the apostasy of those who controlled the Temple at Jerusalem and formed a monastic community near the Dead Sea. It’s been the way of many groups throughout Christian history, and, most recently, it is the approach chosen by conservatives who departed the Episcopal Church to form the new Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

Another approach is not to reject the difficult claims of others outright but rather to ask, “if what you claim about human sexuality is true, then what are we supposed to do about it?" That is, some assume that it is up to us to figure out the single right thing that we are to do with the reality of same-sex affinities, as though, if only we could figure the single purpose of such affinities, we could then do that one right thing. Some such arguments, presented by both liberals and conservatives, are masked in Christian language but are in fact grounded in Stoic premises about natural law, and thus scarcely warrant the designation, ”Christian.“

For some, that one right thing is to embrace same-sex relationships throughout our culture as equivalent to heterosexual relationships. For others, that one right thing necessarily finds a welcoming place for such relationships within our culture but maintains the uniqueness of what Christians know as Holy Marriage.

But there is a third approach to Christian ethics. This approach does not assume that our ethical task is to say ”Yes“ or ”No“ to the claims of others; neither does it assume that our task is to find that one right purpose for each of the mysteries of creation in order to make creation turn out right.

Our task, rather, is to transform the fate of the lost and disconnected gifts of creation we encounter in our lifetime into a destiny consistent with the destiny of all creation that is revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. We must struggle to understand them within the story of God. This approach asks neither, ”Is same-sex affinity good or evil?“ nor ”what’s the single right purpose of this affinity that we find in nature?“ Rather, it asks, ”how can we understand this mystery in a faithful way? How can we see this affinity as a gift through which God blesses the Church so that the Church is the blessing to all the nations she is intended to be?“ It sees the goodness of God as the only given and seeks to understand all things in that light.¹

In other words, the ethical questions before our bishops and deputies are less about the reality of same-sex affinities themselves than they are about how such mysteries fit into the great drama of how God nurtures and sustains his people.

These are difficult questions that are intrinsically part of our life together. We can't avoid them by shutting down the conversation or by talking of other things. We must face them.

Let us therefore bathe our bishops and deputies in prayer as they gather in Anaheim to answer them.