Blessings now, because ‘it’s the right thing to do’
An interview with William Smalley
by Katie Sherrod

William Smalley, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas, announced in late June that he would authorize the blessing of non-married persons in his diocese. The policy applies to both heterosexual couples for whom marriage would involve financial hardship and homosexual couples. Smalley intends to retire on January 1, 2004, and says this policy will not bind his successor.

At the 2000 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, deputies and bishops passed legislation (D039) which recognized that, although the issue of human sexuality is not yet resolved and not everyone agrees with the traditonal teaching of the church on human sexuality, there are couples in the Episcopal Church who are living in lifelong committed relationships other than marriage that are free of "promiscuity, exploitation and abusiveness" and that are characterized by "fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God."

The legislation stopped short of authorizing development of rites of blessing, although it committed the church to "the prayerful support, encouragement and pastoral care" necessary to support such relationships.

Some dioceses are going ahead with rites, despite General Convention’s reticence. In October 2001, the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware announced a "new pastoral action" that empowers congregations within the diocese to bless partners in same-gender relationships. In Canada, Michael Ingham, bishop of New Westminster, said he would authorize the development of a rite of blessing for same-sex unions because 63 percent of those voting at New Westminster’s diocesan synod last June approved of such rites (two previous synods had also voted in favor of same-sex blessings, but Ingham refused to give his approval until such blessings received at least 60 percent of the vote).

Opponents of rites of blessing in the Episcopal Church, many of them liberal moderates, say such rites will cause schism. A coalition called Claiming the Blessing (CTB) says the time has come for the Episcopal Church USA to develop rites because the church’s future depends on it (watch for coverage on this in the November 2002 issue of The Witness).

K.S.: Why this decision and why now?

W.S.: This decision because, in my opinion, it’s the right thing to do. The "why now" gets a little complicated because I’m also a year and half away from retirement, which has some of the people here upset in terms of why I did it now. But I just think the time is right. The General Convention action [adoption of D039] allowed for this. We are blessing all sorts of things in the church and all sorts of people, but we have excluded some and I don’t think that goes along with the Gospel imperative that I see in the actions of Jesus, his compassion for all and the blessing of his presence for all people.

K.S.: What did you consider when you were making this decision? Obviously you gave it a lot of thought.

W.S.: Oh, a lot of thought and a lot of prayer for years.

K.S.: How did you balance the pastoral issues with the political ramifications?

W.S.: The two that I really wrestled with were embodied in the vows I took when I was ordained a bishop. One is a vow that I will guard the faith and unity of the church. That’s preceded immediately by the pledge that I will encourage and support all baptized persons in their life and ministry and celebrate with them the sacraments of our redemption. These two were where the real struggle was.

The Archbishop of Canterbury [George Carey] has recently focused on the faith and unity of the church – that’s the political issue. But to me the tough question was how do you uphold all people in their lives and ministries? That’s the pastoral issue. I just think the Gospel example here outweighs the other. We need to follow where Jesus, by his example, was leading us – the blessing of his presence for all people.

Certainly we did that with the whole question of divorce, which is very clearly stated in the Gospels as something you just don’t do. But the church’s pastoral considerations said we can’t do this, we’ve really got to take Jesus’ word in the context of today. Well, I think the same thing applies, not just for homosexual persons but for [heterosexual] persons for whom marriage is a financial impossibility because of pensions or disability payments that they would lose if they got married.

K.S.: How do you balance this with Scripture?

W.S.: There is an ongoing discernment of Scripture in the corporate body of the church and I think that’s what we’re about in this discussion. What is Scripture saying to us today?

To me, Sodom and Gomorrah were really about the abuse of people and about the radical violation of the biblical imperative to hospitality. I don’t think it was particularly about homosexuality.

The Romans text so often cited (1:26-27) was coming into a world where there was great misunderstanding between the view in the Holy Land of sexuality and the view in Rome and the Mediterranean world and the two were in radical conflict. Paul was attempting to bring those into line in some way for his time. But we’re in a different time.

K.S.: Do you view this as a provocative act or a prophetic act?

W.S.: Well, my primary concern was pastoral, for people. It will have the effect of being both prophetic and provocative, and certainly a lot of the mail I’ve received indicates both.

But that was not a primary intention. It was nothing like the Philadelphia ordinations [of eleven women to the priesthood in 1974] – perhaps I can force the church to move – it was nothing like that, though it is being interpreted that way.

K.S.: How will this play out in the real lives of the people of your diocese?

W.S.: Part of the issue for me comes when I look at some of our congregations where there are gay and lesbian persons who, as long as they adopt the policy that Bill Clinton was adopting of don’t ask, don’t tell, are very well accepted – even where there’s general knowledge that they are gay persons in a lifelong relationship. The attitude is, "We’ll visit in your home; we’ll share with you in the Eucharist and in full membership in the church, but please don’t tell us anything about your personal life." To me, that is really denying people a lot of who they are.

K.S.: What will you be blessing in a situation like this?

W.S.: I think we’re blessing people in their lives. I don’t think the policy says you must accept this as a viable lifestyle. I do, personally, but I don’t think the policy requires that. I think it simply says we can give God’s blessing to people.

The day after I told our Standing Committee that I was going to do this, I went to our senior high camp. They do a lot of fun things there and one of the things they do is make boats out of cardboard and cover them with plastic and then they race the boats in the water. And I was asked, "Would you bless the boats?" I said, "Well, sure, I’ll bless the people who worked on them and who are doing this." One of our staff members said to me afterward, "I could not come to that because we can bless all kinds of things in the church – animals on the feast of St. Francis, boats at a senior high camp, but we limit our blessings to people."

That to me spoke volumes about why I was issuing this particular policy. I want to extend God’s blessing as I think Jesus did to people, all people who came to him.

K.S.: The policy says that whatever liturgy is used in these blessings must not resemble the marriage liturgy. Have you had any examples offered to you?

W.S.: A parish sent me two liturgies and one was the liturgy from the [Canadian] Diocese of New Westminster, which really looks and sounds like marriage all the way through. I have rejected that, sent it back to them and suggested they look at the Book of Occasional Services and adapt something there or come up with something different. I want to preserve our viewpoint on marriage, our sacramental liturgy of marriage. I don’t want to see that used in other ways.