Constructive Engagement: Marriage Amendment #3

Yesterday the 154th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minnesota was adjourned. The theme was the hospitality of God, which provided an interesting background for a resolution that addressed our state’s proposed marriage amendment. Because that resolution wasn’t sent out beforehand, there wasn’t much time to consider it, and I didn’t have a written copy of it. As soon as the text of the resolution, which was passed without amendment, becomes available, I’ll post it here so that you may consider it yourself (together with this and this).

Nevertheless, it stated that the Episcopal Church in Minnesota opposes the proposed marriage amendment and would allow an organization to use our name on its website as part of its work to defeat the amendment next fall at the ballet box. Some delegates were fine with the first part of the resolution but not with the second part. Other delegates were fine with the spirit of the resolution but not with the actual wording of it. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

I was the first delegate to speak to this resolution on the floor of the convention, and I think it’s important for people to know what I said and why I voted against the resolution. So here are my comments to the chair of the convention:

Right Reverend Sir:

The truth is that I will be voting against the marriage amendment.

The truth is that most of the people at St. Stephen’s Church in Edina will probably be voting against the marriage amendment – most but not all.

The truth is that the Episcopal Church in Minnesota includes more than those who work at 1730 Clifton Place and more than those who are delegates to this convention. It includes both the gay and lesbian children of God in my congregation and those who disagree with me and with the gay and lesbian children of God in my congregation about the marriage amendment.

The truth is that the only way that anyone’s mind is going to change about this issue – which I presume is the end goal for most us – the only way to do that is to have conversations with those who disagree with us and to have those conversations in congregations that are sanctuaries, where people on both sides feel safe enough to be honest with one another. That last point about providing sanctuaries for both sides was advocated very eloquently by my friend and colleague Michele Morgan at the fall clergy conference, and she has kindly given me permission to state that publicly.

So I stand before you to speak against the resolution as it is currently worded because it is not a truthful statement about the Episcopal Church in Minnesota, which includes all of us.

The circle of love around the Lord’s Table is always greater than we imagine it to be and, therefore, must include our neighbor who disagrees with us about the marriage amendment. Loving our neighbor isn’t always easy, but that’s how minds and lives are transformed. This I believe.

You can read all of the reflections in this series here.