House of Bishops' Teaching on Human Sexuality
House of Bishops' Teaching on Human Sexuality
Send mail to: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
[Note: This public draft went as such to General Convention, where it was
changed again. I do not have a copy of the changes in electronic format.t.
LC]
CONTINUING THE DIALOGUE
A Teaching Document of of the House of Bishops to the Church as the
Church Considers Issues of Human Sexuality
MEMBERS OF THE A104sa COMMITTEE
The Rt. Rev. Richard F. Grein, *Chair*
The Rt. Rev. Frank K. Allan
The Rt. Rev. Mark Dyer
The Rt. Rev. C. Christopher Epting
The Rt. Rev. Rogers S. Harris
The Rt. Rev. Richard L. Shimpfky
The Rt. Rev. Harry W. Shipps
The Rt. Rev. Vincent W. Warner
The Rev. Jane N. Garrett
The Rev. Barnum McCarty
The Rev. Warner T. Traynham
Mrs. Kit T. Caffey
J.P. Causey, Esq.
Ms. Mary Meader
CONTENTS
FOREWORD FROM THE COMMITTEE
1: THE DIALOGUE TO DATE IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Introduction
Background, 1976-1991
The 70th General Convention
2: DIALOGUE IN COMMUNITY
Communion in Faith
The Baptismal Covenant
3: THE BIBLE AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
Interpreting the Scriptures
Human Sexuality in the Scriptures
Homosexuality in the Scriptures
Conclusion
4: A TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF MARRIAGE
The Witness of Tradition
The Witness of Scripture
Post-Apostolic Developments
The Teaching of the Book of Common Prayer
5: THE DISCONTINUITIES
Adolescent Sexuality
Pre- and Postmarital Sexuality, Cohabitation, and
Extramarital Sex
Adult Bisexuality and Homosexuality
An Examination of Some Assumptions Concerning
Homosexuality
Homosexual Relationships
Homosexuals in Traditional Marriages
Fear and Violence
6: SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE
A Different Reality
Power, Not Sex
Clergy Sexual Misconduct
Sex as Commodity
7: PASTORAL GUIDELINES
Statements from General Convention
Guidelines While We Continue the Dialogue
APPENDIX: A REPORT ON THE HUMAN SEXUALITY DIALOGUES
Background
Data Gathering Process
What the Responses Tell Us
Summary and Conclusions
===========================
FOREWORD FROM THE COMMITTEE
===========================
The title given to this Pastoral Teaching states in a
succinct way what the document is all about: *Continuing the
Dialogue: A Pastoral Teaching of the House of Bishops to the
Church as the Church Considers Issues of Human Sexuality*.
The committee charged with writing the Pastoral Teaching
recognized early in our discussions that while we agreed on the
great majority of issues connected with human sexuality, there
were several issues which could not be resolved by even the most
carefully written statement.
The persons making up the committee, eight Bishops and six
members of the House of Deputies, are united in a common faith;
on the central affirmations of creed and sacraments, we are
joined together. On the subject at hand, we represent a broad
spectrum of viewpoints and experience which we know to be
representative of the Church as a whole. But within this
difference of perspective we shared a common
attitude--willingness to listen to one another even on
potentially divisive issues. This openness allowed us to come to
some level of appreciation of perspectives that differed from our
own. What we learned from this experience we want to pass on to
the Church.
Whereas the solution to our dilemmas lay beyond our ability
to grasp, we discovered we could remain together as a community
in dialogue sharing common faith. This Pastoral Teaching then is
not intended to offer a particular solution or some new unusual
perspective on the issues, nor have we changed the present
teaching of this Church on any of these issues. At the same time,
we do have a clear purpose: to encourage a process of dialogue
and to remind the Church that our strength is what we share
through our common baptismal covenant.
Thus what we hope to teach is about a way for this Church to
work together as it seeks a common mind under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit. In this teaching we have also tried objectively to
provide a history of our Church's discussions on human sexuality,
the traditional Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality
and marriage, differing perspectives by biblical theologians on
key Scripture references, and a description of what the 1991
General Convention called "discontinuities." We have also offered
a set of guidelines for our life together as we seek answers to
these important concerns so that when we are asked, "Where does
the Episcopal Church stand on issues of human sexuality?" we can
reply--we stand together seeking God's guidance.
Finally, the appendix contains a report from Bishop O'Kelly
[sic] Whitaker's committee, which guided the many discussions on
human sexuality. While those discussions are not to be considered
a referendum, the report offers many valuable insights on
attitudes held by Episcopalians. Importantly, it appears that
most found the discussion helpful and productive.
The committee was conscious from the beginning that it
worked for the House of Bishops. What we wrote was theirs to
accept or reject. Altogether we produced five drafts with
opportunities for the Bishops to offer reflections and critiques
and make the document their own. Throughout the process the
Pastoral Teaching was reviewed by ethicists and biblical
scholars. We were pleased to be able to use their many
suggestions to improve the Teaching. On the subject of human
sexuality, even the so-called experts do not agree.
In preparing this Pastoral Teaching, we were mindful that
its purpose, in the last analysis, is to assist persons, in
whatever their life circumstances, to live as faithful
Christians, growing and deepening in their life with Christ.
Nothing for Christians can take the place of a strong life of
prayer, the study of Scripture, and participation in the
liturgical and communal life of the Church. In every area of
human life, God calls us to fidelity in our relationships--with
God, with one another in the community of the Church, in our
personal lives.
As this Teaching makes evident, devoted Christians in our
faith community do not find themselves of a single mind on
various aspects of our lives as sexual beings. All the more
reason, then, for congregations and other gatherings of
Episcopalians to struggle together, as we have and as the House
of Bishops has, to listen for the voice of the Holy Spirit in the
midst of our life together, seeking forgiveness from one another
and from God for the ways in which deeply held emotions often
block genuine listening. What we must not do as we make this
journey together is question any one's faith commitment even when
we disagree with their position on these concerns. We must, as
the poet Rilke said, "learn to live the question, and perhaps one
day we will live into the answer."
The Rt. Rev. Richard F. Grein, Chair Committee for the Pastoral
Teaching on Human Sexuality
==============================================
1 THE DIALOGUE TO DATE IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
==============================================
Introduction
Issues related to human sexuality are high on the agenda of
virtually every Christian denomination in our day. There are many
reasons for this, of which the sexual revolution of the sixties
and seventies and the women's movement are but two. The relative
silence of the Church on matters sexual in the past and the
current wellness and spiritual-growth movements in the Church
have also played their part. When the power and centrality of
sexuality in our lives and its close association with
spirituality and the desire for intimacy with God and one another
are added, it is no wonder that issues of human sexuality are so
prominent in the Church today.
Of all the issues related to human sexuality, one has
occupied a central place in the entire discussion. Largely as a
result of the emergence of the gay liberation movement,
homosexuality (and specifically the debates surrounding the
blessing of gay and lesbian unions and the ordination of
noncelibate gay and lesbian persons) has played a key role in the
discussion by forcing us to look again at the meaning and role of
sexuality in general.
Certainly this has been the case for the Episcopal Church in
the United States of America. The 70th General Convention,
meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, in July of 1991, acknowledged its
inability to resolve the complex issues surrounding human
sexuality by means of the normal legislative process. The
Convention opted instead for a process of continued study and
dialogue across the whole Church before the 71st General
Convention to be held in Indianapolis, Indiana, during the summer
of 1994. One part of this process called for congregational and
diocesan dialogues, the results of which were to be reported back
through the Provincial structures.1 A second part mandated the
preparation of a Pastoral Teaching in time for the 71st General
Convention. A rehearsal of events leading up to this Pastoral
Teaching may be instructive.
Background, 1976-1991
At least as far back as the 1976 General Convention,
resolutions passed by the bishops and deputies began to frame the
parameters of the debate. One resolution acknowledged "that
homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal
claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance and
pastoral concern and care of the Church." In 1977, at a special
meeting in Port St. Lucie, Florida, the House of Bishops accepted
the report of its Commission on Theology, which stated, "The
Church is right to confine its nuptial blessing exclusively to
heterosexual marriage. Homosexual unions witness to
incompleteness." It further stated, "In the case of an advocating
and/or practicing homosexual," ordination is inadmissible
because, "It involves the Church in a public denial of its own
theological and moral norms on sexuality," and because, "it would
require the Church's sanction of such a life style, not only as
acceptable but worthy of emulation." In 1979, the 66th General
Convention adopted a resolution recommending that those having
authority in the ordination process recognize:
1. There are many human conditions, some of them in the area of
sexuality, which bear upon a person's suitability for ordination;
2. Every ordinand is expected to lead a life which is "a
wholesome example to all people" (*Book of Common Prayer*, pp.
517, 532, 544)[2]. There should be no barrier to the ordination
of qualified persons of either heterosexual or homosexual
orientation whose behavior the Church considers wholesome;
3. [T]he traditional teaching of the Church on marriage,
marital fidelity, and sexual chastity [is] the standard of
Christian sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are expected
to conform to this standard. Therefore. . . . it is not
appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or
any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of
marriage.
However, an indication of some real division at least in the
House of Bishops was shown by the inclusion of a minority report
signed in 1979 by 20 bishops and in 1988 by 29 (out of 175).
While joining their fellow bishops in affirming marriage and
celibacy as appropriate vocations, these bishops also affirmed
the "ministries of ordained persons known to be homosexual. . .
." They also declared, "Not all of these persons have been
celibate; and in the relationships of many of them, maintained in
the face of social hostility and against great odds, we have seen
a redeeming quality which in its way and according to its mode is
no less a sign to the world of God's love than is the more usual
sign of Christian marriage."
The report went on to state,
[W]here an ideally stable relationship has not, or has not
yet, been achieved, we are conscious of ordained homosexual
persons who are wrestling responsibly, and in the fear of God,
with the Christian implications of their sexuality and who seek
to be responsible, caring, and non-exploitive people even in the
occasionally transient relationships which the hostility of our
society toward homosexual persons . . . makes inevitable.
The minority rejected the idea that "either homosexual
orientation as such" or "the responsible and self-giving use of
such a mode of sexuality, constitutes a scandal in and of
itself." Since their examination of Scripture gave "no certain
basis for a total or absolute condemnation of either homosexual
persons or homosexual activities . . ." they stated their
inability to accept the 66th Convention's recommendation on
ordination and instead affirmed their intention to exclude no
person on the basis of a category but to select each candidate
for ordination on the basis of individual merit, "as a whole
human being and in the light of the particular circumstances
obtaining in this case."
Such a position made a debate not only on homosexuality but
on sexuality in general inevitable. For its part, the Standing
Commission on Health and Human Affairs sought to encourage and
inform the discussion in both areas. (This Commission, made up of
members from both Houses, is an Interim Body of General
Convention. The reports and recommendations of Interim Bodies
have no standing unless or until they are adopted by the
Convention. The Commission's reports are cited in this review
because they are representative of some of the perspectives in
the discussion.) In its report to the 1988 Convention, the
Commission cited significant changes in society as one reason for
the need to review sexual standards. It reaffirmed marriage as
the standard or norm in which human sexuality is to be shared and
at the same time acknowledged disagreement in its ranks as to
whether sexual intimacy in any other relationship can be called
"moral." It noted that "the majority of our Church is committed
to an attempt to call the society to the traditional sexual
standards. A significant minority, however, of this Church is
convinced that the time has come to begin a process that will
enable Christians to think through new moral and sexual options
in the light of new realities."
With respect to homosexuality, however, the report
specifically avoided making any legislative recommendations.
Instead, it confessed to the complexity and lack of clarity of
the issue and suggested that a greater measure of openness and
understanding were required before the Church could confidently
make any ultimate moral judgments. The Commission urged the
Church to create a context in which it could listen to homosexual
persons tell their stories and in which they would feel
comfortable in doing so. It observed that although many
heterosexual Christians say, when speaking of homosexuals, we
must "hate the sin and love the sinner," homosexual Christians
almost consistently report feelings of being hated rather than
loved by their fellow Episcopalians.
Finally, 52 bishops at the 1988 General Convention signed a
copy of a statement from the 1987 Synod of the Church of England
and asked that it be included in the Convention Journal. The
statement read, in part:
This Synod [of the Church of England] affirms the biblical
and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal
relationships is a response to and expression of God's love for
each of us, and in particular affirms:
1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which
belongs properly within a permanent marriage relationship;
2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal,
and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of
compassion;
3. that homosexual acts also fall short of this ideal, and are
likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of
compassion.
4 . that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all
spheres of morality, including sexual morality, and that holiness
of life is particularly required for Christian leaders.
Authority and Collegiality
Believing that the 1979 and 1988 resolutions regarding the
"inappropriateness" of ordaining noncelibate homosexuals to be
recommendatory in nature and therefore lacking canonical
authority, the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, with the consent of the
Standing Committee of the Diocese of Newark, and after written
notification to the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops,
ordained the Rev. Robert Williams, "a homosexual person living in
a public, avowed relationship with a person of the same sex" to
the priesthood in 1990. Following this ordination, the Presiding
Bishop and his Council of Advice reaffirmed the content of the
1979 resolution of the General Convention declaring the
ordination of "a practicing homosexual or any other person who is
engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage" to be
inappropriate. This statement was then reaffirmed by the House of
Bishops meeting in Washington, DC, in September of 1990.
The main focus of the statement, however, was the authority
of the General Convention resolutions and the accountability of
bishops within the Church. The conflict over sexuality had now
also become an issue of authority and collegiality. Those
affirming the statement disassociated themselves, not from the
gay and lesbian members of the Church, but from the actions of
the Standing Committee and the Bishop of Newark in carrying out
this ordination contrary to the stated mind of the Church.
In an attempt to provide healing and some measure of
reconciliation in the wake of these events, the House of Bishops,
still meeting in Washington, DC, released a statement calling the
Episcopal Church to dialogue and patience. The bishops once again
acknowledged their division on the issues and urged the Church to
respond to the call of the 1988 General Convention to disciplined
dialogue. "We call on you," they wrote, "to share our recognition
of the inherent faithlessness of a closed mind, one that blocks
God from illuminating old truths in a fresh way, from calling us
to new understandings or from leading us into new ways of
thinking."
The 70th General Convention, 1991
Two other highly publicized ordinations of noncelibate
homosexuals (in the Diocese of Washington and the Diocese of
Newark), and a number of other such ordinations carried out with
less publicity, escalated the concerns or hopes of many
throughout the Episcopal Church in 1991. It was in this climate
that the bishops and deputies gathered for the 70th General
Convention in Phoenix during the summer of 1991. In preparation
for that meeting, the Commission on Human Affairs had submitted
its report summarizing the results of diocesan dialogues to date
and making recommendations based upon the Commission's own study
of these issues. Although this commission report was never
approved, many of the issues it raised are pertinent to an
understanding of the ongoing debate.
In its report, the Commission noted that only 28 of the 99
dioceses had submitted reports on the commended dialogue during
the triennium, leading to the conclusion that fewer than half the
dioceses complied with the recommendation of the General
Convention. It noted that no strong consensus had emerged in the
dialogues, although there was considerable agreement on the need
for the Church to provide leadership in this area. Turning to its
own deliberations, the Commission agreed that while sexual desire
can often be misused, the Church needs to emphasize the positive
aspects of the fact that we are sexual beings. It agreed that sex
is rightly used in Christian marriage and rejected sexual
exploitation of the powerless by the powerful. It agreed that
homosexual orientation is not culpable or inconsistent with being
a Christian and opposed the argument that genuine conversion for
gays always involves a transformation to a heterosexual
orientation. It agreed that human beings are not meant to be
alone "and that homosexual relationships often provide such
comfort and support and exhibit commendable love and commitment."
It agreed that homophobia (the irrational fear of homosexuals) is
widespread in both our culture and the Church and should be
rooted out. It reaffirmed the 1985 [sic] Convention's call for
dialogue to better understand homosexual persons and dispel myths
about homosexuality.
Finally, a majority of the Commission made two
recommendations: "That the Standing Liturgical Commission study
the theological and liturgical issues involved in affirming and
blessing these covenants of gay and lesbian persons and begin the
process of developing liturgical forms for them."3
Further, a majority of the Commission recommended, "That the
Church acknowledge that it has for centuries ordained gay men and
has in recent years ordained lesbians from whose ministries it
has benefited, and that some of these persons have been and are
sexually active" and
[T]hat the Church be open to ordaining gay men and
lesbians otherwise qualified who display the same integrity in
their sexual relationships which we ask of our heterosexual
ordinands. We recommend this because we consider the opening of
the ordination process to gays and lesbians a matter of justice
when justice should no longer be denied. . . . Explicitly opening
the ordination process in this way is desirable to clear the
Church of the taint of hypocrisy, since the presence of gay men
and lesbians among the clergy is no secret. It may also be
necessary if the Church is to counteract the irrational fear and
hatred of gay men and lesbians rampant in our society; we cannot
effectively advocate civil rights for gay men and lesbians in
society at large if we appear to deny such rights within our
fellowship.
Beyond these recommendations, the Commission reiterated the need
for dialogue and the need for the Church to continue to inform
itself on gay and lesbian issues.
Summary
After this review, one may still ask where the Episcopal
Church stands on the two issues around which most of the debate
has centered, namely, the blessing of same-sex unions and the
ordination of noncelibate homosexuals.
In 1976, the General Convention affirmed the "equal claim of
gay persons with all others to the care and pastoral concern of
the Church." The House of Bishops, however, meeting in Port St.
Lucie the following year, accepted a report declaring that
neither blessing same-sex unions nor the ordination of
noncelibate homosexual persons was appropriate. The 1979
Convention reaffirmed the Church's traditional teaching on
marriage and sexual chastity and passed a resolution declaring
the "inappropriateness" of ordaining noncelibate homosexuals.
That resolution was ultimately dissented from by 29 bishops, and
some bishops have acted contrary to it, taking it to be purely
recommendatory and otherwise lacking the force of canon. Even in
the face of these ordinations, the Church has never clarified the
authority of that resolution.
The 70th General Convention
The last several Conventions have called for dialogue on the
whole issue of sexuality, with the 70th Convention specifically
acknowledging a discontinuity between the Church's teaching and
the experience of many of its members. The 70th Convention also
directed the House of Bishops to prepare a Pastoral Teaching on
the matter, the aim of which would be to promote dialogue and
provide direction. This document was to be produced by the time
of the 71st Convention in 1994.
The action of the 70th General Convention in Phoenix was an
attempt to give a pastoral response to the issues and questions
that had been raised. The Convention's action reflected that the
Judeo-Christian understanding of humankind's relationship with
God cannot be neatly packaged and easily handed on, but that
understanding develops through prayer, Scripture study, worship,
life in a community, mission, and in confrontation with the
realities of history. Such realities of history include the many
critical questions Church and synagogue have had to face at other
historical crossroads. In reality, theology is generally done in
response to questions raised either inside or outside the
community of believers that come to challenge the current
understanding of the faith.
The Jerusalem Church early faced the issue of whether and
how to overcome the religious barrier between Jew and Gentile
(non-Jew) so that the latter might be admitted to the Christian
community without first being circumcised. Instead, by requiring
abstention from sexual immorality and enforcing rules concerning
food and its preparation in order to enable Jews and Gentiles to
sit at the table and share a meal together, the early Church
created an identity for itself which was neither Jew nor Gentile
but Christian, an identity which called people together rather
than separating them. This was an accommodation on both sides for
the sake of community.
The critical questioning of history tests the limits of
understanding. Galileo's and then Darwin's theories forced the
Church to review and revise the theological understanding of
their time about the nature of the world. They required serious
and painful adjustments which in some ways we are still working
through. Today's questions are also often painful and raise
issues with which the Church would rather not deal. Many today
would rather not face the challenge to the Church's traditional
interpretation of Scripture raised by questions about human
sexuality. Some would even say these are not legitimate
questions. What is clear is that challenges are not new, that the
function of theology is to grapple with such challenges, and that
the questions being asked of the Church today, like some of those
of yesterday, may result in new insights and a deeper and more
comprehending faith.
So, the questions raised by history present challenges and
challenges require a response. In Phoenix, the General Convention
responded in a thoroughly Anglican way. A clearly received
principle from deep within the tradition was affirmed. The
historical challenge to that principle was acknowledged. And a
pastoral response was formulated--Resolution A104sa concerning
human sexuality:
*Resolved*, the House of Deputies concurring, That the
70th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirms that the
teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual
expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous
"union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind intended by
God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one
another in prosperity and adversity and, when it is God's will,
for the procreation of children and their nurture in the
knowledge and love of the Lord" as set forth in the Book of
Common Prayer; and be it further
*Resolved*, That this Church continue to work to
reconcile the discontinuity between this teaching and the
experience of many members of this body; and be it further
*Resolved*, That this General Convention confesses our
failure to lead and to resolve this discontinuity through
legislative efforts based upon resolutions directed at singular
and various aspects of these issues; and be it further
*Resolved*, That this General Convention commissions
the Bishops and members of each Diocesan Deputation to initiate a
means for all congregations in their jurisdiction to enter into
dialogue and deepen their understanding of these complex issues;
and further this General Convention directs the President of each
Province to appoint one Bishop, one lay deputy, and one clerical
deputy in that Province to facilitate the process, to receive
reports from the dioceses at each meeting of their Provincial
Synod and report to the 71st General Convention; and be it
further
*Resolved*, That this General Convention directs the
House of Bishops to prepare a Pastoral Teaching prior to the 71st
General Convention using learnings from the diocesan and
provincial processes and calling upon such insight as is
necessary from theologians, theological ethicists, social
scientists, and gay and lesbian persons; and that three lay
persons and three members of the clergy from the House of
Deputies, appointed by the President of the House of Deputies, be
included in the preparation of the Pastoral Teaching."
The resolution thus affirmed the principle that "the
teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual
expression is appropriate only within the lifelong, monogamous
union [of marriage] as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer."
In the context of Bible study, Eucharist, prayer, and sometimes
painfully honest debate, the majority of bishops and deputies
clearly upheld that this Prayer Book teaching is part of the
received Judeo-Christian tradition of the Church.
These same bishops and deputies also recognized the
historical reality--"the discontinuity between this teaching and
the experience of many members [of the Church]"--that the way
some followers of Jesus live constitutes a challenge to the
traditional teaching. The Convention declared its resolve to
"continue to work to reconcile" this discontinuity. It must be
said here that taking time to reconcile the discontinuity of
practice with the teachings of sacred Scripture and the received
tradition of the Church is not new. Christians have yet to
reconcile and resolve the conflict that exists between the clear
ethical teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount in
Matthew's gospel and the practice of most of us concerning, for
instance, war ("Love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you"), or the pursuit of wealth ("Do not store up for
yourselves treasures on earth where moths and woodworms destroy
them and thieves break in and steal").
Members of the Church seem to live rather comfortably with
the discontinuity of our material wealth--having a choice about
tonight's dinner, having access to an automobile or public
transportation, having more than one pair of shoes or a change of
underwear--and the way 90% of the people in this world live. We
expect interest on our savings accounts and our investments,
despite the scriptural prohibitions respecting money and
interest.
And perhaps the most obvious discontinuity we currently live
with in the area of sexual relationships is the practice of
divorce and remarriage which stands in the face of Jesus's
explicit prohibition against both the dissolution of and the
contracting of subsequent marriages found in the synoptic
gospels, in particular, Mark 10:2-9. As a Church, we believe
addressing the latter discontinuity, for instance, in the manner
in which we have, on balance, has resulted in a more faithful
Church, given all the factors that may be involved. (Data from
those who participated in the dialogues on human sexuality
generated by Resolution A104sa of the 1991 General Convention
indicate that among 15,342 respondents, 8.5% are divorced and 13%
are divorced and remarried.) In the case of other of the
discontinuities cited, instead of honestly struggling to resolve
them, we have forgotten that they are discontinuities with
Scripture at all. Just as sustaining challenges to current
understandings of the faith is not novel and not necessarily a
bad thing, neither is struggling with discontinuity novel or
without value.
While pledging itself to reconciliation of the discontinuity
between the Church's traditional teaching on marriage and the
experience of many of its members, the Convention recognized that
legislation is not the appropriate way to deal with issues of
human intimacy and that therefore it must acknowledge its
inability "to lead and to resolve this discontinuity through
legislative efforts based upon resolutions directed at singular
and various aspects of these issues." The gospel, the Convention
thus said, cannot be lived by law. If it is to become alive, it
must first be lived with human responsibility and divine
empowerment. So, having affirmed the principle (the received
tradition), having recognized the practice (the experience of
many members), the Convention then considered what the pastoral
response should be.
Finally, the resolution commissioned each Bishop and members
of each diocesan deputation "to initiate a means for all
congregations to enter into dialogue and deepen their
understanding of these complex issues" and directed the House of
Bishops "to prepare a Pastoral Teaching prior to the 71st General
Convention using the learnings from the diocesan and provincial
processes and calling upon such insight as is necessary from
theologians, theological ethicists, social scientists, and gay
and lesbian persons."
Clearly, it was felt that the Church needed more time to be
able to speak the truth in love, recognizing that for many, if
not for most, change will not be possible unless they see how
Scripture and tradition can be faithfully interpreted to support
a new position. The resolution admitted that we needed time to
make honest witness and testimony to one another and to trust
that, in the context of prayer and mission, the Holy Spirit would
lead the Church to the right place. Since the Church is basically
a community of witness, it seemed necessary to take the risk of
allowing people to tell their stories. Such stories need to be
told in the context of "baptismal discourse," where Christians
gather to speak to one another about the implications of the
Baptismal Covenant. This process must begin with prayerful
consideration of the Baptismal Creed and the five promises
contained in the Baptismal Covenant (BCP, pp. 304-305), one of
which is a promise to "strive for justice and peace among all
people, and respect the dignity of every human being."
Baptismal discourse confronts compromises that suggest that
Christians have to live "in the real world." Baptismal discourse
lifts up how Christians have chosen to perceive reality and
affirms that the "really real world" has been disclosed in Jesus
Christ. Reality is what God is doing in Jesus Christ, and that
reality has to do with living in community today in ways that
preview tomorrow's Kingdom of God.
"Let us dream of a Church," Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning
said at Phoenix, "that refuses to settle its disputes and
divisions by legislation, that refuses to accomplish with law
what only the gospel can do." And former Archbishop of Canterbury
Robert Runcie, speaking at the concluding Convention Eucharist,
invited the Episcopal Church to consider that the Holy Spirit
"leads us into all truth, as in everything else, through
relationship, by staying in discourse with those whose views may
appall us, without rubbishing their spiritual integrity."
"The Spirit of Truth," he continued, "is also the Spirit of
Love, the one who rescues faith from being turned into the poison
of bigotry. What I long for in your Church and mine [is] that we
shall presume our opponents' reasoning has something to do with
his or her desire to be loyal to the same Christ we want to serve
ourselves [and that] we shall recognize that what is and is not a
matter of fundamental loyalty to Christ cannot always be made
clear in a generation."
Notes
1 A brief report on these dialogues will be found in the Appendix
to this Pastoral Teaching.
2 In fact, the ordinal for bishops enjoins them to be a wholesome
example "for the entire flock of Christ" (BCP, p. 517); the
ordinal for priests specifies "to your people" (BCP, p. 532); it
is only the ordinal for deacons that uses the form "to all
people" (BCP, p. 544).
3 A minority report dissenting from the conclusions of the
majority was also filed.
=======================
2 DIALOGUE IN COMMUNITY
=======================
Communion in Faith
Since the 70th General Convention, some in our Church have
participated in the dialogues on human sexuality mandated by
Resolution A104sa. From the perspective of proportionality, the
number of participants (approximately 18,000) was not large, but
it was significant. The survey forms filled out by the
participants, while not intended to be a plebiscite or referendum
on these critical issues, will contribute substantially to the
ongoing conversation on human sexuality in our faith community.
It is our considered opinion that the dialogues should continue,
for, at this time, these are not matters which can be settled by
a poll or by voting resolutions.
The Church's greatest resource in addressing the complex
issues are committed communities of Christians where concerns can
be addressed in open dialogue, in a setting that feels secure.
Our greatest resource then is tied to the strength of our
communion with each other--a communion created and sustained by
the Holy Spirit.
The realization of the truth of God's revelation came to the
disciples as pure gift. On the night before his death, Jesus
promised the disciples that he would intercede with the Father to
send "another Paraclete" who would always remain with the
community. Communion with God will come as a gift of the Holy
Spirit, the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth. The Holy Spirit will
bear witness to the teaching and life of Jesus. The Holy Spirit
will "prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and
judgment about sin, because they do not believe" in Jesus (John
16:8). The Spirit of God will be the presence of God truthfully
telling the disciples of Christ; it will be the revelation of God
the Father and God the Son (John 14:17; 15:26, 27; 16:13). By the
power of the Holy Spirit a communion of disciples is formed, a
Church is founded that will describe itself historically as "the
temple of God" (I Cor. 3:16), "a chosen race, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, God's own people" (1 Peter 2:9), the Body of
Christ (I Cor. 12:27).
These images of self-definition from the Apostolic period
speak deeply of a holy communion with God; Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Anglicans understand that this communion (*koinonia*)
determines theologically our relationship with one another in the
Church. *Koinonia* is the property or state of having something
or someone in common. What is said to be held in common is not
specified by the word *koinonia*. If we are to talk about our
communion with one another, we must therefore also be clear about
what it is we have in common. For example, intimacy and
friendship, of necessity, are about something--they are rooted in
something shared, something held in common. Knowing this, the
author of the First Epistle of John writes to share his
experience of Christ: "That which we have seen and heard we
proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship
[*koinonian*] with us; and our fellowship [*koinonia*] is with
the Father and with his son Jesus Christ (I John 1:3). In the
same way, our communion is about having something in common,
sharing something in friendship and intimacy--our faith in Jesus
Christ.
Communion with God and one another is both gift and divine
expectation for the Church. The Church is that community in the
world which is already open to receiving the love of God and to
being enfolded into the orbit of God's life. Awareness of this
reality moves St. Paul to address the Corinthian community, the
most divided of all communities in the early Church, in these
words: "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are
sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with
all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, both their Lord and ours" (I Cor 1:2).
In baptism, by the gift and power of the Holy Spirit,
Christians die with Christ and rise to the new life. Thus the
baptized are united to God, the Holy Trinity, and brought into a
relationship of Holy Communion with all the baptized through the
ages, the Communion of Saints. The Church's response to and
experience of the gift of *koinonia*, holy communion, is in fact
the matter of the spiritual life.
The experience of communion is at once personal and
corporate and is linked to liturgy and mission. The daily
discipline and practice of liturgical and private prayer, the
nurture of biblical teaching and meditation, the celebration of
word and sacrament, the shared life of love and pastoral care, a
passion for justice and peace, are the essential elements of the
spiritual life that provide the necessary environment for the
people of God to experience *koinonia*, holy communion with God
and one another in the Body of Christ.
The Baptismal Covenant
Sometimes controversies over difficult issues make it easy
to forget the real depth of our communion in faith. Polarization
can lead us to believe that those things which might divide us
are greater than what unites us, the basis of our communion. Yet,
as we read in our quote from John's First Epistle, our communion
is rooted by faith in the proclamation of the mystery of Christ
which also unites us into the *koinonia* of the Triune God. We
find this basis of our communion within the Church clearly set
forth in the baptismal covenant:
*Do you believe in God the Father?*
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of
heaven and earth.
*Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?*
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the
right hand
of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the
dead.
*Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?*
I believe in the Holy Spirit
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
*Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and
fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?*
I will, with God's help.
*Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever
you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?*
I will, with God's help.
*Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of
God in Christ?*
I will, with God's help.
*Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving
your neighbor as yourself?*
I will, with God's help.
*Will you strive for justice and peace among all
people, and respect the dignity of every human being?*
I will, with God's help.
Because of this faith covenant, we can believe that that
which unites us in communion is far greater than any issue or
controversy over which our membership has disagreement. We do not
need to fall victim to the false belief that true unity only
exists where everyone agrees on everything. We are a diverse
Church with a variety of perspectives and opinions. Such
diversity can be advantageous as we wrestle with complex issues.
Further, our ability to live with ambiguity without being driven
to settle questions prematurely is not only a sign of maturity
but is also a measure of our security in faith. These are
strengths, not weaknesses. These strengths and our communion in
one baptism are also the means by which we can, with the leading
of the Holy Spirit, find solutions to the many concerns which
confront the Church. This was most clearly stated in the report
of the Section on Dogmatic and Pastoral Concerns of the Lambeth
Conference of 1988:
Communion with Christ also means communion with all those
who belong to Christ. Through the response of faith and of
baptism, Christians enter a living Body, the Church, of persons
committed to relationship with one another. In the New Testament
the implications of this are spelt out realistically and
concretely. It implies the task of the overcoming of divisions
imposed by culture, whether of race, class or caste, or sexual
discrimination (Gal. 3:28, "You are all one in Christ Jesus"). It
means giving material help to those in need (Rom. 15:27). It
means esteeming each and every believer for the gift which the
Holy Spirit has bestowed, to be used for the benefit of the whole
body (1 Cor. 12:13-30). Thus the Gospel establishes as the
normative pattern of the life of the community a relationship of
interdependence, a mutuality between persons.
As we move ahead in our ongoing dialogues on human sexuality let
us hold fast to the communion we share. Seeking always to
actualize the fullest possibilities of the communion given to us
in the one baptism we share, we will not allow disagreement about
any issue that is not a central affirmation of our Christian
faith to disrupt our communion.
Having such a rule of faith means our communities are built
on the strongest foundation. Having such a rule of faith means
dialogues which take place in such communities will be open and
honest--and the participants will have a sense of security. It is
in such settings that the Holy Spirit can lead.
===============================
3 THE BIBLE AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
===============================
The Bible is a collection of sacred scriptures composed over
a 1200-year period. It is made up of a variety of types of
writings. Much of it is in stories, reflections on human
circumstances and conditions in which God is frequently seen to
be directly or indirectly involved. Often the voices heard in the
Bible indicate that they are engaged in interpretation, seeking
to understand and make relevant and pertinent for their time the
traditions and experiences given to them.
These traditions are often about struggle--between order and
chaos, freedom and slavery, justice and injustice, life and
death. Amid suffering and evil, they tell of hope and the
victories of the power of God's righteousness and love,
especially in the resurrection of Jesus. Above all, the Bible is
about God's love and concern for God's people.
While there have always been different emphases with regard
to an understanding of the inspiration of the Scriptures, the
catechism of the Book of Common Prayer (p. 853) states the
essential Anglican and catholic view. Scriptures are called "the
word of God because God inspired their human authors and because
God still speaks to us through the Bible." On the one hand, the
Bible is fully an historical book. An analogy can be made with
the Incarnation. Jesus was fully a human being. "He had to become
like his brothers and sisters in every respect . . ." (Heb. 2:17)
Yet we believe God was mysteriously and wondrously present in
this circumscribed life. The Bible, then, is an historical book.
Its viewpoint is regularly limited by the understandings and even
prejudices of its time. And, we also believe, God spoke through
these very circumstances and continues to speak to us today. We
call Scriptures the Word of God because we may hear God's Spirit
speaking to us through the Bible, but the Bible functions as a
kind of icon, pointing its hearers through its words to the Word
of God--to the Divine--revealed particularly as the eternal,
incarnate, and risen Word of God.
Interpreting the Scriptures
Anglican and catholic theology has always understood the
importance and the necessity of interpreting the Scriptures.
Although some passages may or may seem to speak more directly
than others, there is still the task of setting them within the
larger context of the entire biblical drama and revelation. In
this sense, no one passage or verse can tell the whole story or
be interpreted in isolation. What gives the Bible its ultimacy is
its overarching narrative power for shaping our understanding of
life and of God's purpose and character--its telling of how God's
reign can be already present in a world which often seems
inchoate and broken.
The tradition of the Church, together with human reason
reflecting on experience, are the means of interpretation.
Tradition is a word used several ways in the Church, with
different levels of authority.1 The Tradition (capital T) is the
risen, living Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. The process of
tradition is the natural mechanism through which the Spirit of
God works in every place and in every age of the history of the
Church, the process by which the faith is transmitted from
generation to generation and from culture to culture. In recent
years women and others, whose predecessors might at first not
seem to have played that great a role in the Bible or tradition,
have helped bring a hearing of other voices within the Bible and
tradition. They have brought new perspectives and insights. The
traditions (lower case and plural) of the Church are our fallible
human attempts to express the living Tradition, in response to
the urgings of the Holy Spirit in our faith community, in
different times and places and cultures.
Reason has provided the means by which we express and
communicate God's revelation. Reason is the divinely implanted
faculty for receiving the divine revelation. Reason, however, is
much more than logical analysis. It is best understood as
prayerful. rational reflection on the Scriptures in the light of
human experience and sound learning; it is also prayerful,
rational reflection on human experience and sound learning in the
light of the Scriptures. Reason is one means by which the Holy
Spirit works to enable us to discern the mind and will of God in
our day. Reason is not a distinct source of knowledge unrelated
to the Scriptures, nor is reason infallible.
The Bible may regularly be used to critique tradition and
reason, but it never can be heard without them. It is not a
matter of whether we will use them to be part of the conversation
with the Scriptures. They are always present. The important
question is whether we will use them in a conscious, mature, and
prayerful way.
The biblical writings were formed in communities. While
individuals can read and study the Bible for themselves, and so
be edified and spiritually nourished, it is through the hearing
of and reflection upon the Bible in communities of faith that the
Bible has its most important role in convicting, guiding,
inspiring. The Spirit takes what is of Jesus, "declaring it to
you," and, indeed, brings deeper understanding of truth. (John
16:12-15)
The Scriptures themselves contain many voices and
perspectives. It is often pointed out that the four Gospels give
us a much richer view of Jesus because of their differences. This
diversity is true of all of the Bible. Religious practices and
even many beliefs vary and change from the time of a wandering
desert tribe to the era of temple worship, through exile and
return, with emphases on kingship, prophecy, priesthood, and
wisdom teaching. Even in the New Testament, written over a much
shorter period of time, we find that the church for whom the
Gospel of John was written was quite different from those
churches out of which the Gospel of Matthew emerged, and that the
church of Corinth was clearly quite different than the one to
which the Letter to the Hebrews was written.
What gives the Bible its unity throughout all these changes
and variations is its constantly recurring and passionate calling
to worship the one and only God, the holy God who is both
demanding of justice and righteousness while full of compassion
and mercy. This God calls the people of God to "be holy, for I
the Lord your God am holy." (Lev. 19:2) The calling to follow the
ways of God and to know God's holiness comes for Christians to
its fullness through the life, death, and risen life of Jesus.
Human Sexuality in the Scriptures
It is not, then, surprising that the biblical views about
sexuality are thoroughly enmeshed in cultural and historical
circumstances and describe some considerable diversity of
practice. Polygamy, for example, is not only known but at times
presented as quite acceptable. Women and children are virtually
or actually treated as property in highly patriarchal cultures
(although patriarchy seems to be viewed as the result of sin in
Genesis 3:16). Sexual mores are governed or influenced by various
taboos and concerns about ritual purity which are believed to be
important, sometimes for health reasons, and also in order not to
confuse lines of inheritance and the bloodlines of clan and
group. Procreation and the continuation of the people are,
understandably, important concerns.
Numerous biblical stories reveal a quite straightforward and
realistic view of sexuality. It is a powerful human drive which
can lead to sin and even disaster for individuals and the
community. Although the view of sexuality as bordering on the
sinful, which came later to play a strong role in some Christian
traditions, is not a significant part of the Bible, there is
certainly the recognition that sexual practice needs to be
restrained and controlled to be beneficial. Sexuality is,
therefore, always a matter of concern for the community and never
a matter just of individual choice or behavior or of concern only
to a man and a woman. In this context the nurture and right
upraising and teaching of children are a primary interest in
which both mothers and fathers are seen to have important roles.
From the beginning--from the early chapters of Genesis
onward--there is also a sense of mystery and awe that "male and
female God created them." (Gen. 1:27) There is not only the
marvel of being able to share in the process of bringing new life
to the world, but the wonder of the two different joining
together. Jesus speaks of this wonder when he says, "For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no
longer two but one flesh" (see Mark 10:7-8 and Gen. 2:24).
Never viewed apart from human animality, sexual behavior
also gains a purposefulness and character which, with all else
that is human, takes on a potential for self-giving love and
beauty. The Song of Songs celebrates its erotic aspects, and
there develops in the New Testament a strong sense of the
sanctity of marriage and its solemnity and mutuality. Although
not fully emergent from its patriarchal acculturation, the view
of marriage and the Christian household found in the Letter to
the Ephesians (5:21-6:4) describes both a tenderness and a
self-giving love that shares in Christ's way of loving.
It is, however, Jesus himself who moves both the solemnity
and mutuality of marriage to a new level in his teaching about
divorce (see Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Matt. 5:31-32,19:3-9). He
is clearly critical of the earlier biblical teaching. It is
"because of your hardness of heart that Moses wrote this
commandment . . . allowing a man to write a certificate of
dismissal and divorce his wife" (see Deut. 24:1-4). Instead Jesus
emphasized that the two became one flesh. "Therefore, what God
has joined together, let no one separate." Men, in other words,
are not to divorce their wives, leaving them in many ways
helpless in such male-dominated society. Whoever does this, Jesus
said, commits adultery against his wife when he marries another
woman, and also makes his former wife an adulteress, should she
be forced to join herself to another man as the only way to find
support and protection.
While it would be hard to weaken the solemnity with which
Jesus evidently viewed the marriage covenant, Jesus elsewhere
teaches about forgiveness and new beginnings. His remarkable
(astounding for his time) acceptance of women into his company
and ministry suggests that his prophetic attitude toward women
and his concern with male indifference and cruelty were paramount
in his teaching on divorce. Similarly his sharp saying, ". . .
that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already
committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28), seems
intended to challenge his male followers to control their
sexuality and so not need to inhibit the lives of women in order
to protect men from their own lusts.
The biblical books occasionally consider other forms of
sexual behavior along with abstinence. Eunuchs, either from birth
or due to castration, are heard of from time to time. Celibacy is
recognized as a proper vocation for those called to it, strong
friendships are exemplified, and a chaste life is held up for
all. While adultery is the worse sin because of what it does to
the marriage covenant and community, fornication is also
disapproved of, especially when it is linked to a general kind of
licentiousness often associated with the gentile world. It was
seen to show a lack of seriousness about the community, about the
vocation of marriage, and the care of progeny. Prostitution is
known and particularly condemned in connection with false and
idolatrous worship of other gods. A view of purity, on the other
hand, is upheld--one which sees sexuality as good when it is used
and enjoyed for the procreation of children, the benefit of the
covenant of marriage, and the strengthening of the community.
Homosexuality in the Scriptures
We now turn to seven specific passages in Scripture which
refer to homosexual practice. In doing so, we recognize the
danger inherent in isolating specific texts and acknowledge that
we must look to the witness of Scripture as a whole. We also
acknowledge that there is significant disagreement among us as to
how scripture is to be used and interpreted as we seek to apply
it to this complex subject.
Genesis 19:1-29
Interpreters will disagree about the "sin of Sodom." Some
hold that the offense of Sodom is to be understood with specific
reference to sexuality, others that the offense centers on the
theme of hospitality. But even if the story centers on
hospitality, there are those who contend that the homosexuality
issue clearly lies behind it and is not excluded by it. The force
of the word "know" (*yada*) cannot be overlooked so that the
sexual element is removed. The offense against hospitality is so
starkly evil precisely because it involves sexual behavior which
is taken for granted to be wrong. The violent aspect of the
gang-rape attempt is the issue, and Lot attempts to protect his
guests by making the atrocious offer of his virgin daughters to
the men of Sodom. The parallel story in Judges 19-20 tells of a
Levite who was a guest in Gibeah. The men of the city wanted to
have intercourse with him, so his host offers his virgin daughter
and his guest's concubine as substitutes. The men of the city
rape and kill the concubine. Chapter 20 recounts the vengeance
taken on the men of Gibeah for their actions. In both cases, the
proposed rape of the guest and the rape of the concubine is
called vile--a "vile thing" (19:23, 24) and a "vile outrage"
(20:6). We cannot claim it is this evil or that: it clearly is
both, with the sexual fault making more blatant the wrong of
inhospitality.
But many interpreters point out that the story of Sodom is
of little help in our contemporary discussion of homosexuality,
since the moral debate today revolves around lifelong, committed,
and stable relationships between people of the same sex. The
intent of the men of Sodom to humiliate Lot's guests, who were
angels sent by God in the appearance of men, by gang-raping them
would presumably be condemned by everyone.
There are those who would argue that the "sin of Sodom" is
not specifically a sexual sin but a general disorder of society.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 understands the evil of Sodom to be pride,
greed, and neglect of the poor, as does Isaiah 1:9-31. In Isaiah
3:9 the reference is to injustice, and in Jeremiah 23:14 the
prophets have become like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorra:
"they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands
of evil doers, so that no one turns from wickedness." Here as
elsewhere, homosexuality is not raised as an issue. Jesus, when
referring to the mistreatment of his own disciples, seems to
stand in a line of interpretation which views the sin of Sodom as
inhospitality (Luke 10:10-12; Matt. 10:14-15; see Luke 17:29 and
Matt. 11:23-24). However, while the disorder is a general one,
human sexuality is one of the specific manifestations of that
disorder and cannot be discounted.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
The Holiness Code in Leviticus explicitly prohibits male
homosexual intercourse: "You shall not lie with a male and with a
woman; it is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22) In Leviticus 20:10-16
the same act is listed as one of a series of sexual
offenses--along with adultery, incest, and bestiality--that are
punishable by death.
Some point out that these passages occur in a context of
teaching about ritual and moral holiness, a number of which would
not seem applicable to life today. Readers are told, for
instance, that it is an abomination to sow fields with two kinds
of seed or to put on a garment made of two different materials
(Lev. 19:19). Menstruation is seen as a sickness, and, if a man
and a woman have intercourse during this period, both of them are
to be cut off from the people (Lev. 20:18). A man maimed or
deformed in any way cannot be ordained as a priest (21:18-21),
and pork and seafood without fins and scales must not be eaten
(Lev. 11:7, 10-11). There are those who remind us that although
it is always good to pay close attention to wisdom from the past
(and Christians continue to follow a number of teachings from the
*torah* of the Hebrew Scriptures), many of the understandings of
earlier peoples about purity, order, and sex having to do with
property rights, are quite different from our own. When, led by
the Holy Spirit, Paul and Peter turned from the exclusiveness of
the Levitical code and accepted Gentiles into the Church, the
message of Christianity took on new power and invitation.
Others put more weight on the authority of the moral codes
of the Hebrew Scriptures. They point out that as Jesus criticized
food laws but upheld the Ten Commandments, mainstream
Christianity has always recognized the authority of the ethical
commands of the Old Testament. Thus, the Thirty-nine Articles of
Religion lay down that while Christians are not bound by the
ceremonial, ritual, and civil laws of the Old Testament, no one
is free from the commandments which are called "moral" (Article
7).
That part of Leviticus which has as its theme the necessity
for Israel to be holy because the Lord who is in the midst of
them is holy mixes together a wide variety of commands: dietary
regulations or laws against occult practices appear alongside
rules for honesty in commerce or injunctions to honor the elderly
and to love as yourself even the foreigner who lives in your
community. The fact is that the Old Testament does not make
distinctions between moral goodness and ritual purity in the way
the New Testament does. Yet portions of the Holiness Code were
used in the catechetical instruction preserved in some Pauline
epistles and in I Peter.
However, there are those who question not only the
appropriateness of the ritual regulations of the Hebrew
Scriptures for Christians but, since ritual and moral codes are
woven into one fabric, they also question the application of some
aspects of the moral code, e.g., punishing those guilty of
incest, adultery, and homosexual acts by being put to death.
An anthropological argument for this biblical prohibition
against homosexual activity has to do with ensuring offspring.
This prohibition, especially for males, is based on the
assumption among ancients that all potential human life is
contained in the semen. In this view, the woman is merely the
receptacle. Where the viability and continuity of the tribe is at
stake, any wasting of the semen--having sex with a menstruating
woman, bestiality, masturbation, or homosexual activity--which
precluded procreation is forbidden.
From a theological perspective, the climactic handiwork of
God was in the creation of male and female "in the image of God"
(Gen. 1:27). God's command and blessing is, "Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the earth." Any activity on the part of males
to thwart this command is seen as contrary to God's creative
purpose.
Romans 1:18-32
The most significant passage is Romans 1:18-32, in which
Paul views male homosexual behavior--and perhaps female as
well--as more evidence of the moral depravity which has befallen
Gentiles as punishment for their idolatry. Paul's warning in this
passage is not that wrongful practice leads to false worship, but
that false worship leads to wrongful behavior. The main concern
is with wrong worship, a concern central to the whole biblical
witness. Worshipping any god other than the holy God of
righteousness would lead people astray. As a result, "God gave
them up to dishonorable passions." There are two meanings for the
Greek word for "gave up" (*paredoken*). One translation is that
"God abandoned them," i.e., God stood back and let the false
worshippers have their own way. As a result, freedom is not grace
at all but self-imposed bondage. The other translation for
*paredoken* is "God delivered them over." The consequences, the
"dishonorable passions," are imposed by God as a punishment. For
Paul, the fundamental human sin is the refusal to honor God and
give God thanks (1:21); consequently, God's wrath takes the form
of letting human idolatry run its own self-destructive course.
Homosexuality, then, is not a *provocation* of "the wrath of God"
(Rom. 1:18); rather, it is a *consequence* of God's decision
either to "give up" on his rebellious creatures or to "hand them
over" to their own passions.
But just as Paul has his readers reveling in indignation at
the behavior of some, he reminds them of other kinds of
wickedness, evil, covetousness, and malice. There is envy,
murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, insolence,
God-hating, haughtiness, boastfulness, rebelliousness toward
parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness.
And so, as the second chapter of Romans begins, he administers
the final *coup de grace*: ". . . you have no excuse, whoever you
are, when you judge others, for in passing judgment on another
you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very
same things." In fact, no one can boast. All are called to
repentance. That is the point. "There is no one who is righteous,
not even one" (Rom. 3:10).
Some interpreters point out that Paul focuses on women
exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural (the only reference
to lesbian sexual behavior in the Bible), and men giving up
natural intercourse with women (Rom. 1:26-27) because it is a
particularly graphic image of the way in which the fallen state
of humanity distorts God's created order. God the creator made
man and woman for each other, to cleave together, to be fruitful
and multiply. In Paul's view, when human beings engage in
homosexual activity they enact an outward and visible sign of an
inward and spiritual reality: the rejection of the Creator's
design. They embody the spiritual condition of those who have
"exchanged the truth about God for a lie."
Others, however, hold that Paul is talking here about
heterosexuals who are committing homosexual acts. While it is
unlikely that Paul knew of what we today call "homosexual or
heterosexual orientation" (even the term "homosexual" was not
coined until the nineteenth century), we must be careful not to
minimize the main point of the text, which is God's judgment upon
idolatry--and this extends to every area of human relationships.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10
The early Church did, in fact, consistently adopt the Old
Testament's teaching on the matters of sexual morality and on
homosexual acts in particular. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy
1:10, we find persons who commit homosexual acts in lists of
persons who do things unacceptable to God.
In I Corinthians 6, Paul, exasperated with the
Corinthians--some of whom apparently believe themselves to have
entered a spiritually exalted state in which moral rules no
longer apply--confronts them with a blunt rhetorical question:
"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of
God?" He then gives an illustrative list of the sorts of persons
he means: "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers"--and for the next
two words we have no precise translation--"effeminate, abusers of
themselves with mankind" (KJV) or "sexual perverts" (RSV) or
"male prostitutes, sodomites (NRSV). The words in the Greek
original are *malakoi* and *arsenokoitai*, and herein is the
problem and the debate.
The word *malakoi* is not a technical term meaning
"homosexuals," for no such term existed either in Greek or in
Hebrew, but it appears often in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative
slang to describe the "passive" partners--often young boys--in
homosexual activity. In the Greek and Roman cultures it was not
unusual for men to have a same-sex partner, usually a youth or an
effeminate person. The word *malakoi* means "soft." The man was
not looked down upon as long as he was not the passive partner.
There was abroad in first and second century society a tendency
to regard women as weaker, less rational, and inferior to men. As
Peter Brown points out, a man "had to learn to exclude from his
character and from the poise and temper of his body all telltale
traces of 'softness' that might betray in him the half-formed
state of a woman."2 Some suggest that what Paul was talking about
in these passages is pederasty, a common practice in the culture
of his day, and in all likelihood prevalent in Corinth.
The rarely used word *arsenokoitai* may refer to a male
prostitute at the service of either sex. The Hebrew word *mishkav
zakur*, "lying with a male," in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is
translated in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) as *arsenos
koiten*. Paul's use of the term presupposes and reaffirms the
Holiness Code's condemnation of homosexual acts. Paul, as a Jew,
may have found homosexuality particularly foreign because it was
more widely known in the Hellenistic world and because it often
involved prostitution and pederasty.
Mark 10:6-8
Perhaps the most significant passage for our discussion is
when Jesus addresses the fundamental meaning of sexuality by
appealing to Genesis 1 and 2: "But from the beginning of
creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man
shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh'" (Mark 10:6-8). Thus,
heterosexual love is the normative expression of sexual love
according to the testimony of Scripture. Yet, Jesus' own celibate
life witnesses to the fact that while intimate sexual
relationship is a wonderful gift from God, it is, as Jesus is
presented in the gospels, not necessary in order to be fully
human.
For some Christians, the biblical verses cited above are
heard in the context of the larger Christian teaching about the
primacy of agape love and the radical, inclusive character of the
Christian community. They remember Jesus' reaching out to those
whom many religious people of the time had difficulty accepting.
They know how the Bible has been used to exclude people. For
others, these verses remain decisive against all homosexual
practice, or at least they raise questions of such weight that
they believe Christians should not affirm even the most committed
gay and lesbian relationships. They are also concerned that the
authority of the Bible, as they understand it, be upheld against
interpretations based on contemporary mores and understandings.
Conclusion
Throughout the Bible, sexuality is seen as an important
aspect of being human and of being the people of God. Faithful
living is all of a piece, and all human relations are meant to
find their deepest value in the context of their response to
God's love. "We love because God first loved us" (I John 4:19).
Sexuality is never to be considered apart from the call to
worship the holy God of justice and compassion and to respond in
community with lives of sacrificial giving, peacemaking, mercy,
fairness, honesty without hypocrisy, kindness, purity,
generosity, and courage. Clearly Jesus has strong expectations
that those who followed him in responding to the in-breaking of
God's reign would lead such disciplined and obedient lives--lives
that did not just follow natural impulses, but were to be
characterized by gracefulness. His disciples were and are to be a
different kind of people.
Notes
1 P. C. Rodger and Lukas Visher, eds., The Fourth World
Conference on Faith and Order (New York: Association Press,
1964), pp. 50-61; "Tradition and Traditions, Faith and Order
Findings, Faith and Order Paper No. 40 (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg
Publishing House).
2 Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Man, Woman, and Sexual
Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1988), p. 11.
===================================================
4 A TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF MARRIAGE
===================================================
It is our purpose in Chapter Four of this document to
present the traditional teaching of the Episcopal Church on human
sexuality and marriage. Since all Church doctrine must be rooted
and grounded in Holy Scripture, we first seek to discern in the
Bible the foundations of our understanding today. We will also
examine the tradition of the Episcopal Church as it is embodied
in the Declaration of Intention from Canon I.18(e) and the
Exhortation at the beginning of the marriage liturgy of the Book
of Common Prayer.
The Witness of Tradition
The present tradition of the Episcopal Church on human
sexuality and marriage is our expression, in doctrine and
worship, of the mind of Christ as we perceive it today from our
understanding of Holy Scripture, from our understanding of
earlier traditions of the Church, and in reasonable acceptance of
the best scientific knowledge of our day. Within this process of
tradition, Holy Scripture bears a special authority and status.
As we strive to interpret the Scriptures in our day, we need
to take seriously the Church's various interpretations throughout
history, with special attention to the early Church fathers, the
creeds, and the ecumenical councils. We also need to understand
both the historical context of the biblical writers and of our
present cultural situation through which we perceive and
experience what the Christian life of faith means. And when we
study and interpret Scriptures we need to be aware of our current
situation, contemporary experience, modern biblical and
theological scholarship, and the revelations of God's truth in
other disciplines of human inquiry.
The Scriptures, however, do not speak plainly or
unconditionally about all matters. The traditions of the Church,
therefore, also supplement the Scriptures. They are alive and,
therefore, always changing. These traditions are not a separate
or independent source of authority, but are a record of the
various and changing interpretations of Scripture and the
establishment of truth in areas with which the Scriptures do not
deal, so long as they are not contrary to the Scriptures.
Further, they include, for Anglicans, bishops' pastorals, the
actions of General Conventions and Lambeth Conferences, the
canons of the Church, Catechisms, and documents such as the
Articles of Religion.
Further, it includes the various editions of the Book of
Common Prayer and the Church's authorized hymn books. All these
are intended to inform us as we try to understand the Scriptures
and to interpret their meaning for our day. But, of course,
tradition is not self-evident and needs to be interpreted also.
Further, while they too are always changing, traditions do
provide us with the wisdom of the community over time and in
continuity with the past.
The Witness of Scripture
The witness of the New Testament on human sexuality and
marriage brings us the ideal of lifelong, monogamous,
heterosexual union as God's intention for the development of
women and men as sexual persons. Any sexual activity outside of
marriage, is seen as sinful. Holy Scripture also recognizes that
God calls some to celibacy for particular vocation and service.
These boundaries point toward an understanding of holiness
which is fundamental to the Church's teaching on marriage and
human sexuality, though some traditional boundaries are being
challenged by today's realities. The present teaching of the
Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage is our
expression, in doctrine and worship, of the mind of Christ as we
perceive it today from our understanding of Holy Scripture, from
earlier traditions of the Church, and in reasonable expression of
the scientific knowledge of this day.
It is our faith as Christians that all truth comes from the
one God. Facts discovered by reason are only one dimension of
this truth, as science seeks to explain what happens and how it
happens. By its nature, science cannot discover the meaning and
purpose of life. The *facts* of human sexuality and how it
functions are areas for scientific exploration. The *meaning* of
our sexuality may be known only in our relationship with God, and
most completely in our relationship with the self-revelation of
God in Christ. The Church looks first to Holy Scripture for the
standard of this revelation, then to the traditions which we have
attempted to express in terms compatible with reason, logic, and
the best scientific knowledge available. Scripture, reason,
tradition: three ways by which truth comes to us, but all truth
is one in God.
A Story of Creation
The first chapter of Genesis contains a creation story which
in its present form is a product of sixth-century Judaism, the
period of the Babylonian exile and return. It affirms the
goodness of all creation, including human sexuality, which is
emphasized in this account: ". . . it was very good." (Gen. 1:31)
Other aspects of sexuality presented here include creation in the
image of God, the simultaneous creation of female and male, and
the divine command for men and women to use their reproductive
powers to increase in numbers, to fill the earth and subdue it,
and to dominate the rest of creation.
The image of God in which we are made is not here defined.
We assume it must mean other than physical similarly, and include
powers of reflective and abstract thought and communication, the
gift of freedom, and the moral responsibility it entails. Perhaps
when we consider it in the light of Jesus' life and personality,
the image of God may best be described as our capacity to know
the love of God and to respond. Man and woman are created
simultaneously in this image. Equality of the sexes is clearly
implied, as well as complementarity. Female and male are of equal
dignity. They are interdependent, for together they are a
representative of the wholeness of the divine image. Here is the
foundation for the emphasis upon the companionship of sexual
union we will find in the next chapter.
Having made them equal and interdependent, the Creator now
commands the man and woman: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill
the earth and subdue it . . ." (Gen. 1:28a) Later we shall see
that the command to procreate can be and was interpreted in ways
destructive of human life and dignity and of earth's ecology. For
now, however, let us explore the more positive aspects of the
reproductive function of human sexuality.
Natural science has made clear to us the importance of
sexual reproduction in the evolution of life on earth. Probably
the Lord God could have created us in some other way. But the
fact is that sexual reproduction is the way God has chosen to
create all complex life-forms on earth. We are all creatures of
sexual reproduction, both in our species and in our individual
persons. Creation continues today, both on the biological and the
personal level. The word "procreate" means literally "forth to
create." Perhaps it is on the personal level that parents,
through faith in God, can begin to appreciate the miracle in
which they have been invited to participate. It is a miracle of
the creation of a new human person. This is an experience both
humbling and exalting, to hold a newborn child and to realize
that only God can make such a wonderful being, but that God,
through our sexuality, permits us to share in our Creator's act
of creating. "Be fruitful and multiply . . . ." It is a blessing.
An Older Creation Story
When a group of Pharisees asked Jesus his opinion on the
Mosaic law permitting divorce, Jesus responded: "But from the
beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no
longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together
let no one separate." (Mark 10:6-9) Jesus here quotes from the
older of the biblical creation stories, found in the second and
third chapters of Genesis. This account was written in its
present form two or three centuries before the account in Genesis
1.
In this creation story, for the man [*adam*], "there was not
found a helper as his partner." (Gen. 2:20b) So God takes a rib
from *adam* and from it creates woman. The man then says, "This
at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall
be called Woman [*ishshah*], for out of Man [*ish*] this one was
taken." (Gen. 2:23) Here *adam* is humankind, man in a generic
sense which includes both female and male in one. From humankind
the Lord draws forth the female [*ishshah*], leaving the male
[*ish*]. In this is found the biblical foundation and meaning of
human sexuality and marriage in the Jewish tradition: "Therefore
a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife,
and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both
naked, and were not ashamed." (Gen. 2:24-25) Having been created
from one flesh, in sexual union without shame woman and man again
become one flesh. Companionship joins procreation as a God-given
purpose for sexual intercourse. Marriage is endorsed by our
Creator for the mutual re-creation of the wholeness of humankind,
one flesh.
Realistically, the actual working of human sexuality in this
world does not always reflect the goodness intended by our
Creator. We live in a fallen world where sin distorts every part
of God's creation, including our sexuality. Sexual abuse,
exploitation, male dominance, rape, incest, pornography,
prostitution, promiscuity, pedophilia--all are facts of life. The
biblical explanation for these corruptions is called "evil
imagination," the misuse of our God-given creativity to imagine
and do that which is contrary to the will of God. Genesis
expresses it this way: "The Lord saw that the wickedness of
humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of
the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." (Gen.
6:5) The story of Genesis 3 is a dramatization of this doctrine
of evil imagination. Because humankind turns away from God, all
of God's best gifts, including human sexuality, are corrupted.
The pain of childbirth is attributed to the fall, yet woman's
sexual desire continues to be for the man. The dominance of men
over women is blamed on the fall: ". . . and he shall rule over
you." (Gen. 3:16b) These twin biblical truths, the goodness of
sexuality and of all God's creation, and the corruption of
sexuality and of all God's creation, are both dealt with in many
ways in Jewish and Christian traditions, in the Bible, and in
history.
Some Jewish Traditions
Non-theological factors drove much of the development of the
Jewish traditions of sexuality and marriage. The need for
increase in population to compete with the neighboring nations
made procreation far more important than companionship as a
purpose for sexuality and marriage. In the early part of Israel's
history, polygamy was accepted for those men able to afford more
wives, so that they might produce more children. Slavery was
accepted, and sexual relations between free men and female slaves
were assumed and regulated. It was a male dominated society in
which men alone had property rights, which included not only real
property but extended to the lives and bodies of women and
children as well. Divorce was a male prerogative, and female
barrenness was a cause for divorce. Adultery, seduction, and rape
were condemned as abrogations of the property rights of men.
The Song of Solomon is a folk song in praise of sexual love,
celebrating youthful passion, with no reference to God or to
marriage. Taking the form of a dialogue between a young woman and
a young man in love with each other, this book probably had its
origins in the early influence of the fertility cults of their
neighbors upon Jewish culture and was then assumed into annual
Jewish festivals and so into the Bible. It affirms that sexual
love is in itself good and beautiful.
Just the opposite tendency can be seen in the later Holiness
Code in Leviticus (Lev. 17-26). Here the priests of Israel were
struggling to differentiate themselves from the sexually
promiscuous practices of Canaanite religion. Incest, adultery,
homosexual relations, sexual relations with animals, child
sacrifice, resorting to mediums and wizards, sexual relations
during a woman's menstrual period, and many other "abominations"
are prohibited because these are the things the Canaanites do,
for, "You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you
lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to
which I am bringing you." (Lev. 18:3) For Christians, such
practices must be judged not by their Canaanite connections, but
by our understanding of the mind of Christ.
Jesus and the New Covenant
Jesus is not a reformer of Jewish sexual ethics. He is a
revolutionary. His teaching calls for a radical cleansing of
temple idols and a return to the foundations of God's intentions
in creation. Jesus overturned the Mosaic divorce law, rejected
men's prerogative to divorce at will, and asserted the will of
the Creator: "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them
male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father
and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one flesh.' " (Mark 10:6-8a) Companionship seems far too weak a
synonym for this doctrine of "one flesh," the primary purpose
intended by God for marriage and sexual union. The purpose of
procreation, which predominated in both Jewish and Christian
teaching, no longer stands alone.
Jesus rejects divorce absolutely. It may be a fact of life,
but divorce can have no divine sanction in the teaching of
Christ: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what
God has joined together let no one separate." (Mark 10:8b-9) This
teaching of Jesus is a call to radical new freedom in the reign
of God. It is part of a new vision which had power to survive
government persecutions and to prevail as the faith of the
Empire. Elaine Pagels has observed, "By subordinating the
obligation to procreate, rejecting divorce, and implicitly
sanctioning monogamous relationships, Jesus reverses traditional
priorities, declaring, in effect, that the other obligations,
including marital ones, are now more important than
procreation."1
If applied legalistically, this could be harsh, puritanical,
unloving, inhuman ethic. But Jesus never uses it that way. Think,
for example, of his gently dealing with the woman caught in the
act of adultery, and with the Samaritan woman at the well, who
had been married to five husbands and was living with one to whom
she was not married. The Church, in producing the New Testament,
remembered these as typical of Jesus always upholding the
absolute standard of the will of God, while gently accepting
people as they are. It is an example for the Church to follow in
both ethical teaching and in pastoral application.
Jesus then offered an even more radical teaching, going
beyond the Jewish tradition exalting marriage and family above
all else. Jesus told his disciples, "Not everyone can accept this
teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are
eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs for
the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who
can." (Matt. 19:11-12) Jesus does not prohibit marriage, and
marriage is not necessarily an impediment to entering the kingdom
of heaven. Marriage and family and sexuality are all good, all
gifts of God.2 Jesus' own human life is our supreme example of a
holy single life dedicated totally to God. Nothing in the world
can be more important than that hidden treasure, that pearl of
great price, the reign of God.
Paul, in those letters generally attributed to his
authorship, gives practical advice to Christians which generally
follows Jesus' radical teaching. In Romans 1, Paul believes
homosexual conduct is the defilement of the body that God gave
him, a body that is in some sense stamped with God's image. Paul
felt strongly about all types of sexual sin, but regarded the
homosexual lifestyle as infinitely worse than simple fornication.
This is a crucial teaching on homosexual behavior and is the
basis for much of the received tradition. Homosexual behavior is
one sign of creation falling away from God's intention for it. In
his first letter to the Church in Corinth, Paul advises, "A man
does well not to marry." (1 Cor. 7:1b) It seems better to him
that everyone should follow his example and devote all his time
and energy to the mission of Christ. "But because there is so
much immorality, every man should have his own wife, and every
woman should have her own husband." (1 Cor. 7:2) He forbids
divorce on the part of Christians, but if an unbelieving spouse
wishes to leave a Christian, so be it. Marriage is upheld as
honorable, but the kingdom always comes first. Therefore Paul
teaches it is better not to marry, but it is also better to marry
than to "burn with passion." (1 Cor. 7:9) This view was certainly
conditioned by Paul's belief in the imminent Second Coming. In
contrast are the radical teachings of Jesus and Paul. The letter
to the Ephesians (Chapter 5) and the Pastoral Epistles return to
extolling the virtues of the family, of companionship, and of
procreation.
Post-Apostolic Developments
While the teachings of Jesus and Paul concerning marriage
and thus human sexuality were in great measure shaped by their
belief in the imminence of the Kingdom of God, later generations
saw the matter in a different light. For example, when the
persecution of Christians came to an end at the beginning of the
fourth century, and with it a virtual close to the list of
martyrs, a new situation presented itself. As greater and greater
numbers of people presented themselves for baptism there was a
gradual lowering of Christian ideals and laxity in discipline
that inevitably follows mass conversions.3 This lowering of
Christian ideals brought forth a new hero to replace the
martyr--the ascetic.
The rise of monasticism coincided with the increased
secularization of the Church brought on by the end of persecution
and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion. In
this context the ascetic replaced the martyr as the hero who gave
up all for the sake of the kingdom of God. At the top of the list
of those things included in this spiritual martyrdom was the
maintaining of virginity and the valorization of celibacy. Thus
the list of virgins replaced the list of martyrs as the new
heroes of the Church.
We see then the gradual movement toward the recognition of
those leading lives without sexual activity as somehow living a
higher or more perfect kind of Christian life. True asceticism
meant living without sex. This asexual asceticism was eventually
to have a major influence on the doctrine of Original Sin--the
Fall. The scriptural basis for the development of the theology of
Original Sin is found in the Pauline teaching that "sin came into
the world through one man" so that "many died through the one
man's trespass" (cf. Rom. 5:12-21).
This doctrine underwent further development in the late
second century as the Church struggled against the dualistic
heresies. But in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, under
the influence of monastic asceticism, human sexual desire had
become a primary focus of the Fall. While most writers on the
subject believed that Adam and Eve had fallen from a kind of
asexual "angelic" state to a lower material mode of living in the
hierarchy of the created order, one theologian had a different
view. Augustine of Hippo came to believe that, even without the
Fall, Adam and Eve would have consummated their marriage and
brought forth children. The result of the Fall for Augustine was
not that men and women became sexual beings, but that "the
uncontrollable elements in sexual desire revealed the working in
the human person of a *concupiscentia carnis*, of a permanent
flaw in the soul that tilted it irrevocably towards *the flesh* .
. . . With Adam's Fall, the soul lost the ability to summon up
all of itself, in an undivided act of will, to love and praise
God in all created things."4 For Augustine, sexuality was a part
of creation and not the mark of an imprisoned soul. At the same
time, however, sexuality was forever flawed by the sin of Adam.
Sexuality, therefore, "spoke, with terrible precision, of one
single, decisive event within the soul. It echoed in the body the
unalterable consequence of mankind's first sin."5 It is this view
of sexuality that we in the Western Church have inherited and
which still informs our thinking today.
However today we note with commendation the many Christians,
both ordained and lay, who have taken vows of celibacy in order
to better serve their callings as Christians. Many such persons
serve with dignity and honor in our religious orders.
The Teaching of the Book of Common Prayer
The Augustinian understanding of sexuality was
institutionalized in the Church. The celibate, monastic vocation
was considered a higher calling than marriage. Marriage, though,
was still a good as it served the ends of procreation and
companionship while providing the remedy of sin. This is to say,
marriage provided a context in which sexual desire,
concupiscence, was properly restrained and served the human goods
of the procreation of children and the companionship between
husband and wife. This understanding of sexuality and marriage
was first fully expressed in the Fourth Lateran Council of the
Roman Catholic Church in 1214. It was, in turn, adopted in
Anglicanism in the 1549 Prayer Book.
The Declaration of Intention
This understanding has since been modified. Title I, Canon
18, of the Episcopal Church requires that the priest shall
ascertain that those to be married understand ". . . that Holy
Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman,
entered into within the community of faith, by mutual consent of
heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong."
Before being married, the woman and man are required to sign the
following declaration:
We, A.B. and C.D., desiring to receive the blessing of Holy
Matrimony in the Church, do solemnly declare that we hold
marriage to be a lifelong union of husband and wife as it is set
forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
We believe that the union of husband and wife, in heart,
body, and mind, is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the
help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity;
and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and
their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.
And we do engage ourselves, so far as in us lies, to make
our utmost effort to establish this relationship and to seek
God's help thereto.
As we have seen, this tradition of sexuality and marriage is
biblically based. It is especially grounded in the teaching of
Jesus that marriage is a lifelong union. This Church has chosen
to deal pastorally with those who divorce, but to be married, the
intention must be lifelong union.
The canon declares that the purposes of marriage are
companionship for mutual help, comfort, and joy; and for
procreation and nurture of children, when God wills that the
couple have children. This is the order of Genesis 2, endorsed by
Jesus. It is a reversal of those Jewish traditions which
considered the marriage a total failure if there were no sons,
and of those Christian traditions that have tended to consider
sexual joy to be sinful, and procreation to be the only
legitimate purpose of sex.
The Exhortation at a Marriage
The tradition of the Episcopal Church on human sexuality and
marriage is embodied in the Exhortation read by the Celebrant at
the beginning of the liturgy. Marriage is the union of a man and
a woman in a covenanted relationship established by God in
creation. Although the equality of the woman and man is assumed,
the "giving away" of the bride is still present as an option
which is may be used. Paul's teaching that the relationship
between Christ and the Church is like that between bride and
groom is cited to the honor of the marriage union.
Beginning the marriage service by reading the Exhortation to
the congregation makes a definitive statement as to our
understanding and teaching regarding marriage. The Exhortation is
based upon Scripture of the Old and New Testaments and it is
rooted in our tradition. Massey Shepherd, in his commentary on
the 1928 Book of Common Prayer services, says:
The Exhortation is a solemn and emphatic pronouncement of
the sacredness of marriage, both as a divine institution given to
humanity at its creation (Genesis 2:18, 24; *cf*. Matthew 19:5)
and as a society redeemed and hallowed by Christ to be a type of
that perfect love He has for His Church (Ephesians. 5:22-23).
As Marion Hatchett points out in his commentary on the 1979
Book of Common Prayer, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer's
Exhortation lists three reasons for the institution of marriage:
(1) for the procreation of children; (2) as a remedy against sin
(to avoid fornication); and (3) for mutual society, help, and
comfort. The American Prayer Books did not include these purposes
of marriage until the revision of 1979, and it was not until 1949
that the purpose of marriage was stated in a Declaration of
Intention. Although our present Prayer Book omits "to avoid
fornication" as one of the purposes of marriage, it does include
as God's purposes for marriage mutual joy, help, and comfort
given to one another, and the procreation of children.
The 1549 and successive English and American Prayer Books
state that marriage is honored or honorable. This elevates
marriage to the same status as was held by celibacy in the
sixteenth century. It should be noted that the milieu of the
early Church assumed an imminent eschatological end. In this
context, and along with a negative view of sexual intercourse,
celibacy was honored as an especially virtuous state, and
marriage was somewhat of a concession for those who were burning
with passion (1 Cor. 7:9). Clearly, the Book of Common Prayer
holds up the covenant of marriage as a gift of God, intended to
be entered into advisedly, reverently, deliberately, and in
accordance with God's purposes.
Anglican thought no longer considers the procreation of
children to be the sole purpose of sexual intercourse. As long
ago as 1958, the Lambeth Conference stated:
[T]he procreation of children is not the only purpose of
marriage. Husbands and wives owe to each other and to the depth
and stability of their families the duty to express, in sexual
intercourse, the love which they bear and mean to bear to each
other. Sexual intercourse is not by any means the only language
of earthly love, but it is, in its full and right use; the most
intimate and the most revealing; it has the depth of
communication signified by the Biblical word so often used for
it, "knowledge"; it is a giving and receiving in the unity of two
free spirits which is in itself good (within the marriage bond)
and mediates good to those who share it. Therefore it is utterly
wrong to urge that, unless children are specifically desired,
sexual intercourse is of the nature of sin. It is also wrong to
say that such intercourse ought not to be engaged in except with
the willing intention to procreate children.6
In fact, the one petition that may be omitted from the prayers in
the marriage liturgy is, "Bestow on them, if it is your will, the
gift and heritage of children . . ." (BCP, p. 429). Apparently,
the couple, even if not past child-bearing years, have some
choice in the matter. The ready access to contraception in the
twentieth century has made this choice a reality, and the Church
in its official teachings has urged its members to make that
choice responsibly. This is especially imperative in light of the
growing crisis of overpopulation, particularly in the Third
World, as it relates to the well-being of the family.
The words "one flesh" are not used in the Exhortation, but
the idea is clearly stated: "The union of husband and wife in
heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy,
for the help and comfort given one another . . . and, when it is
God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in
the knowledge and love of the Lord." Christian marriage is
clearly a covenanted relationship that includes not only the
woman and man, but also God and the Church. This is not a private
contract as might be drawn up by the individualistic secular
culture in which we live. God has determined the nature of this
institution, not we. Therefore the Church continues, in a
changing secular world, to develop norms for life-long marital
chastity and abstinence for the unmarried.
Notes
1 Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent (New York: Random
House, 1988), p. 16.
2 This teaching is reflected in the attitudes of present-day
members of the Church. More than 95% (over 14,000 persons) of
those participating in the human sexuality discussion
questionnaire agreed or strongly agreed with the statement,
"Human Sexuality is a gift from God and it is good."
3 J. G. Davies, The Early Christian Church, pp. 244-245.
4 Peter Brown, The Body and Society (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1988), p. 418.
5 Ibid., p. 3.
6 The Family Today (1958), p. 13.
=====================
5 THE DISCONTINUITIES
=====================
The 70th General Convention in Resolution A104sa, while
affirming the Church's traditional teaching, speaks of "the
*discontinuity* between this teaching [the traditional teaching
of the Church] and the experience of many members of this body."
Christian marriage, as we have seen in the previous chapter,
is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the
presence of God and the only context the Church has recognized as
appropriate for sexual intercourse. As witnesses to this covenant
and by promising to uphold the two persons in the marriage, the
parish community makes its own covenant with them, locating both
the ceremony and the marriage itself in the context of Christian
community and ongoing support (in intent if not always in
reality). But what of the large number of persons and couples
whose experience and relational status put them outside this
covenant and in the state of discontinuity referred to in
Resolution A104sa? Should the Church's agenda be set entirely by
Scripture and tradition? Some say "yes"; others think informed
reason and experience also have a role to play.
In this chapter we will look at the experience of those who
have received God's gift of sexuality but are outside the
covenant of marriage and we will also examine some of the
findings of those social and biological scientists and
psychologists whose work has challenged the traditional stance of
the Church with regard to human sexuality.
Adolescent Sexuality
Adolescence is a time of intense interest in sexuality and
of emerging sexual feelings, a time of curiosity and excitement,
of apprehension and fear. At this time of sexual exploration and
activity, which is natural and expected, the Church teaches that
abstinence before marriage is virtuous. Intercourse, however,
among teenagers is a problem. If adults refuse to acknowledge the
occurrence of this sexual behavior, they cannot teach healthy,
responsible behavior and decision making. Disconnected from these
realities, we leave our teenagers to deal with their sexuality, a
central aspect of their lives, with too little guidance from the
Church. How might we better help and teach our children?
In contrast to the experience of previous generations, a
large number of American teenagers are now sexually active.
Figures released early in 1992 by the Division of Adolescent and
School Health of the Centers for Disease Control show that 54% of
high school students have had sexual intercourse. Boys are more
likely than girls to have had sex, 61% to 48%.1 Other federal
findings indicate that the incidence of teenage pregnancy
continues to rise. In 1989, 36.5 of every 1,000 girls ages 15 to
17 had a baby--up 8% from the previous year.2
Such figures are not surprising when we consider the ways in
which young people are socialized to sexual activity in our
society. Young boys are pressured to "score" and young girls are
pressured to comply. For boys, sexual activity signals manhood.
For girls, the defining event of womanhood is menstruation. Girls
do not need sexual intercourse to convince them that they are
women. While capable of powerful sexual arousal, they tend to be
less interested in intercourse than in closeness and
tenderness--in being loved. Girls have the most to lose as a
result of pregnancy, but they are socialized to accommodate
themselves to male wishes and desires. They have also
traditionally been taught that they should preserve their
virginity for their husband, and so they find themselves caught
in the discontinuity of our society's mixed messages.
Masturbation is also a phenomenon of sexual activity, one which
has sometimes been seen as taboo or been associated with
childhood sexual explorations, adolescence, and immaturity.
Generally today in society, masturbation is recognized as part of
both adolescent and adult sexuality. Unless it becomes
compulsive, masturbation is not seen as physically and mentally
harmful, but as a normal aspect of sexuality.
According to a new study of 34,706 Minnesota students in
grades 7 through 12, more than one in four boys and girls enter
adolescence unsure of their sexual identity, and by age 18, all
but a few consider themselves either heterosexual or homosexual.
Our society, however, acculturates all youth to presume they are
heterosexual. Advertising, movies, romance novels, and virtually
all of our educational programs (secular and religious) presume
heterosexuality. For most of those adolescents who are
homosexual, the already difficult adolescent experience becomes a
nightmare.3
Unless gay/lesbian teenagers are fortunate enough to be
associated with an unusually sensitive family, or school, Church,
or community-center staff, they are likely to be surrounded by
evasion and silence and to be consumed by inner and outer terror.
Peer pressure leaves little space for anything but conformity,
and most of the gays and lesbians who successfully negotiate
their high-school years become expert at disguising their
sexuality. For those who do not hide their identity, school days
are filled with dirty looks, catcalls, half-whispered epithets,
and cruel jokes, if not outright violence.4
Unfortunately, too many do not successfully negotiate these
traumatic years. A study of youth suicide released in 1989 by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that "gay
youth are 2 or 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other
young people. They may comprise up to 30% of completed youth
suicides."5 Too many gay and lesbian youth face physical and
verbal abuse and rejection from both peers and family. Having
internalized societal negativity about homosexuality and not yet
having sufficiently strong ego development and maturity to
withstand the onslaught of abuse, gay youth are especially
vulnerable to simply giving up on life. When everything you hear
says that you are sick, bad, and wrong for being who you are, you
can come to believe it.
Some religious groups are prominent among those who depict
homosexuality as evil and sinful. Such religious beliefs may
cause parents to force gay and lesbian youth to leave home and/or
feel wicked, condemned to hell, and generally without hope. At
present, many religious leaders are the least likely persons to
be turned to for help in this situation and may be the least able
to be truly helpful even if they are asked for assistance by
youth and/or parents.
Both adolescent sexual identity and activity are pastoral
matters to be addressed with compassion and informed concern.
Through frank discussions, unhealthy behavior can be made
conscious, and thus subject to responsible decision-making. In
this way we help adolescents find the tools to make appropriate
decisions. Church leaders, lay and ordained, willing to foster
and facilitate such talk and learning within and among families
and in youth and young-adult groups can begin the process by
providing a safe environment in which young people can explore
their sexual identities. Our challenge is pastoral: to help all
youth, whatever their sexual identity and behavior, navigate the
difficult journey from adolescence to adulthood.
Pre- and Postmarital Sexuality, Cohabitation,
and Extramarital Sex
While the age at which teenagers become sexually active is
declining, the average age for marriage is rising.
-- Among women in general, the median age for first marriage
in 1991 was 24.1--up from 20.8 in 1970.
-- Among men, the median age was 26.3 in 1991 compared with
23.2 in 1970.6
Moreover, the number of people who are not married is increasing.
In 1989 there were approximately 40 million single persons over
the age of 18 in the United States, up from 21.4 million in
1970.7 *The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior* (1993) reports that
even among their respondents who classified themselves as "very
religious," 70% acknowledged that they had premarital sexual
experience. Among women who have never married, a 1992 survey
indicated that 23.7% are mothers, up from 15.1% in 1982, with a
particularly steep increase among educated and professional women
(from 3.1% in 1982 to 8.3% in 1992).8
Census figures indicate that, as of 1989, there were
2,764,000 unmarried and unrelated opposite-sex couple households
in the United States, as compared with 523,000 in 1970. Of these
households, 858,000 contained children under 15 years of age (up
from 196,000 in 1970).9 Most of these cohabiting couples had
never married but some, of course, included divorced and widowed
individuals. (Data from the human sexuality dialogues in our own
Church indicate that 87% of those responding know persons of both
sexes living together without marriage. More than 70% of
respondents said it was possible to be a faithful Christian and
live with someone of the opposite sex without marriage.) Within
the post-marital population of the U.S. in 1989, there were 14.6
million divorced persons (up from 4.3 million in 1970) and 13.8
million widowed persons (up from 11.8 million in 1970).10 These
statistics seem to indicate that many in our society--divorced,
widowed, old, young, inexperienced--enter into relationships
seeking to achieve intimacy without sacrificing independence.
Surveys indicate that many older persons today continue to
experience sexual intimacy, continue to find it an important part
of their lives. While frequency of sexual activity tends to
decline and arousal tends to need increased interpersonal
stimulation, older persons questioned say that their ability to
reach orgasm has diminished little with age. Research indicates
that more study needs to be done with regard to sex and the
elderly, but it is at least clear that older persons should not
be criticized for continuing to have sexual needs and
interests.11
According to the National Opinion Research Center's General
Social Survey, 71% of Americans believed in the early 1970s that
extramarital sex was "always wrong." In the late 1980s, the
percentage had increased to 76%. It is also the case that
adultery appears in the criminal codes of half the states,
although these statutes are seldom, if ever, enforced.12
Apparently there is at least some discrepancy between belief
and behavior, because affairs are not uncommon. A 1983 study
found that 11% of husbands and 9% of wives reported at least one
instance of extramarital sex in the previous year.13 And a 1990
survey indicated that 31% of married Americans had had or were
currently having an affair. On average these lasted almost a
year. Only 17% of the men and 10% of the women then in an affair
intended to leave their spouses. Even fewer (9% of men and 6% of
women) planned to marry their current lovers. Two thirds of the
men and 57% of the women said they didn't love their current
lovers; "just a sexual fling," was said more often by men than
women. Two thirds of the men and 40% of the women reported having
had more than one affair. The surveyors also concluded that,
"Adultery in contemporary America is as likely to occur in
Manhattan, Kansas, as it is in Manhattan, New York."14
Nevertheless, the Church and most of the population see it as
still reasonable to expect fidelity within relationships once
they are covenanted. Expectations about monogamous behavior,
however, are best discussed openly rather than being assumed
silently. Honestly admitting that all sexual behavior does not
take place within marriage can open up the possibility of
discussions about expectations during premarital counseling
sessions as well as during the course of marriage.
A generation ago, most Episcopalians probably believed the
Church's teaching confining sexual activity to marriage was being
faithfully followed by the majority of its members. Some still
believe this to be the case, but many know that it is not so.
(Too many sons and daughters are or have been involved in live-in
relationships without the benefit of marriage). In some parts of
the country, the vast majority of people marrying in the Church
have been living together long before the service or are
accustomed to sexual intimacy even if they don't live together.
It is increasingly common, in fact, to see references to
premarital sex being included within the protective cover of a
"stretched" covenant of marriage--it's all right, as long as
there is an "intent" to marry. Of course, many unmarried persons,
whether living together or alone, have no such intention.
The popularity of social arrangements does not make them
acceptable, but given the large number of single and cohabiting
persons (whether by choice or circumstance), the need to postpone
marriage for education and economic reasons, and birth control
that works when properly used, many think it exceedingly
optimistic of the Church to expect its young adults to refrain
from sexual activity. Many also see it as unrealistic to expect
all older single persons, divorced persons, and widowed persons
to refrain from sex. (Those who participated in our human
sexuality dialogues were about evenly divided on the question
whether single persons should abstain from genital sexual
relations, with about half saying yes and half saying no.) And
given the current fragility of marital relationships and high
divorce rates, some argue that it is undesirable for the Church
to pressure people into hasty marriages and remarriages in order
for them to feel comfortable about being involved in responsible,
intimate sexual relationships. Others continue to follow the
teaching that under no circumstances may Church people be
sexually active except within Holy Matrimony.
Adult Bisexuality and Homosexuality
The word "homosexuality" was first used in English in 1892;
before that the terms used were "sexual inversion" or "sexual
deviance." And not until the late 1940s, with the publication of
Alfred Kinsey's 7-point scale, was there any general recognition
among Americans of the complexity of sexuality. Based on his
observations of sexual behavior and experience, Kinsey saw
sexuality as a continuum rather than an either/or experience. He
conceptualized a numerical scale ranging from exclusively
heterosexual (to which he assigned the number 0) to exclusively
homosexual (to which he assigned the number 6). In between came:
(1) predominantly heterosexual, but incidentally homosexual; (2)
predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally
homosexual; (3) equally heterosexual and homosexual; (4)
predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally
heterosexual; and (5) predominantly homosexual and incidentally
heterosexual.
As Kinsey's scale approaches the half-century mark, it is
useful for its simplicity, but specialists have begun to see it
as an oversimplification. Over the years a number of other
variables and elements for measuring sexual orientation have
supplemented Kinsey's original model. Important among these
findings is the observation that sexual orientation may be
dynamic, not static, and that people, through inner-directed
processes, may change with respect to their sexual orientation
over time.15 Sexuality is experienced differently by everyone and
"may be as changeable and unpredictable as other human
appetites."16
Along with asexuality, bisexuality encompasses the middle
range of Kinsey's scale. There are probably relatively few people
who fall exactly in the middle, being equally attracted to men
and women, falling in love equally with men and women, and having
an equal number of male and female partners. In truth,
bisexuality covers a wide range of experience/attraction from
almost exclusive heterosexuality or homosexuality to occasional
behavior, and persons in prisons who act homosexually only
because heterosexual partners are unavailable. The issue is
complicated by the fact that many people who engage in sexual
activity with both men and women think of themselves as either
heterosexual or homosexual, rather than bisexual. And a bisexual
may recognize the possibility of being sexually intimate with
either males or females but choose to act upon only sexual
impulses with either same-sex or opposite-sex partners--or
neither. It seems likely that persons who are bisexual more
easily than others will be able to change their sexual behaviors
by acts of choice and will.
True bisexuals often feel discriminated against and
misunderstood by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Being truly
in the middle is a painful place. One interpreter has said that
bisexuals do not so much escape the gay/straight split as "manage
it"--or attempt to manage it--without having a consistent social
experience upon which to build a consistent social identity.17
However, as bisexuals grow older they tend to focus more and more
exclusively on one sex or the other.18
Recent studies indicate a high level of bisexuality among
women. One estimator has said that "on the basis of same- and
opposite-sex behavior in adulthood, approximately 15% of women
are bisexual and less than 1% exclusively homosexual."19 It is
possible, however, that pressure to marry may account for much of
the heterosexual and bisexual behavior in the young adult lives
of many lesbians. It is also possible that some of the dynamic
nature of sexual orientation reported by some researchers and the
element of change over time is, in fact, an aspect of the
fluidity in the middle range of the Kinsey scale. Current
research simply cannot provide certainty about these matters.
Homosexuality is one expression of sexuality, and the
homosexually oriented person is one who is consistently attracted
affectionally, romantically, and erotically to persons of the
same sex. Persistent patterns of homosexual attraction, enduring
experience of intimacy, and continuing manifestations of devoted
love are the most trustworthy signs of sexual orientation, not
simply genital activity.
20 Contrary to popular belief, simply having homosexual
fantasies, participating in oral and anal sex and/or having a
homosexual encounter do not in and of themselves strongly suggest
that one is homosexual. Heterosexuals may have both hetero- and
homosexual fantasies and homosexuals may have both as well. Oral
and anal sex are often associated with homosexuality, but, in
fact, both are widespread practices among heterosexuals. It is
also the case that the incidence of homosexual encounters on the
part of heterosexuals is quite high.
21 For both the heterosexual and homosexual person, the sexual
aspect of one's being is only one portion of a complex identity
and personality structure. Being primarily defined by their
sexual orientation and behavior is distressing to most gays and
lesbians, just as it would be for heterosexuals.
Determining the prevalence of homosexuality in the general
population is very difficult, in part because of the complexity
of determining who should be counted as homosexual. Should it be
only those rating 4-6 on the Kinsey scale? Or should 2's and 3's
be included? Furthermore, because of societal attitudes, vast
numbers of gays and lesbians hide their identities from even
those closest to them. (Contrary to popular stereotypes,
homosexual persons are not easily distinguishable from
heterosexuals.) How then does one determine the true prevalence
of homosexuality?
In spite of the difficulties, various estimating efforts
have been made. For many years it was estimated, based on early
Kinsey research, that up to 10% of the population may be
homosexual. Given a population of 250 million in the United
States, this means that upwards of 25 million people would fall
into this category. Dr. Paul Gebhart, who continued Kinsey's
work, suggested in the 1970s that a more likely estimate of the
number of exclusively and predominantly homosexual persons would
be in the range of 4% of adult males and 1-2% of adult women. Two
surveys released in 1993 produced disparate results: *The Janus
Report on Sexual Behavior* estimated that 9% of men and 5% of
women are homosexual, while the Alan Guttmacher Institute
estimated 1% for exclusively homosexual men.22 Existing surveys
do not provide information about the extent of homosexuality
among ethnic groups in the United States. Also, in Central and
South America, studies of actual sexual behavior, as distinct
from officially recognized behavior, simply have not been made.
Casual homosexual contact and experimentation are not
necessarily an indication of latent homosexual orientation,
although these experiences often precipitate such fear. The
estimates of incidental homosexual contact (one quarter to one
third of all males having had one same-sex experience leading to
orgasm since puberty) suggest one of the problematic areas of
dealing frankly and honestly with the subject of homosexuality in
our culture. It stands to reason that such anxieties will
influence, if not compromise, reactions to suggestions that
homosexuality be legitimized by the Church and by society. Of
course, anxieties and fears faced and worked through with the
help of priests, spiritual directors, and counselors can, in and
of themselves, foster growth in self-understanding and be a
channel of God's grace.
Homosexuality is found in all races, nationalities, ethnic
groups and social classes, and in all periods of history from
archaic civilizations to the present. But however universal and
ancient the existence of homosexuality, it is also clear that the
way in which sexual behaviors and orientations are lived out will
not be the same in all cultures and moments in history. Sexual
practices will not be the same, and the social forces that
encourage or discourage them will not be the same.
Anthropologists have shown us that many cultures around the world
accept some form of homosexuality (transgenerational,
transgenderal, or equalitarian), but the acceptance of one form
does not imply the acceptance of other forms.23
Attitudes about homosexuality have varied greatly at
different places at different times. (Among those who
participated in the human sexuality dialogues in our own Church,
80% agreed or strongly agreed that homosexuality is a genuine
orientation for some people and 66% said that gay men and lesbian
women can be faithful Christians. Oppression and tolerance have
waxed and waned over the centuries as a consequence of social and
economic developments, class anxieties and pressures, gender
stereotypes, and notions of unequal power relations, domination,
and exploitation. Ancient Greece, for example, countenanced
homosexual relationships between married men who functioned as
mentors and postpubescent youths. Important to this relationship
was the disparity in age and the fact that the youth was always
the passive partner. In the late Middle Ages, however,
homosexuality was increasingly suppressed, a trend which has been
linked to two distinct but related sources: a "growing
preoccupation with homosexuality" as "an indirect and
unanticipated consequence of the efforts of Church reformers to
establish sacerdotal celibacy" and a middle-class morality that
"became increasingly forceful in its opposition to a life-style
of luxury and excess as class divisions widened."24 In the first
instance, clerical celibacy and the all-male communities it
produced made homosexual activity more attractive and available.
In the second instance, homosexuality had become identified with
the wealthy and cultured classes. Historically, homosexuality has
been deviant largely to the degree that society, at any given
moment in time, defines it as such--in other words, the status of
homosexuality is historically and culturally conditioned.
Are homosexual persons born that way or are they the product
of their environment or some combination of these factors? This
vexing question, which is integral to our dialogue, remains
unanswered at this writing, in spite of active research efforts
in several fields, proliferating theories, and much interest from
professionals and lay observers of all sexual orientations. In
the physical sciences, researchers have explored hormonal links,
differences in brain structure, and the possibility of a genetic
component. The latter possibility has increased with the recent
announcement that researchers have located the chromosomal area
where they believe they will eventually isolate one or several
genes that may predispose some men toward homosexuality. A recent
study of the sexual orientation of twins suggests lesbianism also
has a genetic basis.25 Social scientists have offered
explanations that include environmental factors and the role of
social learning. Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University and
others emphasize the interaction between biological and
psycho-social factors. "Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and
bisexuality," says Money, "all have both prenatal and later
causes, which interact during critical periods of development to
create a long-lasting or even immutable sexuoerotic status."
Money also points out that it is incorrect to view prenatal
influence as biological and postnatal as nonbiological.
"Influences that reach the brain through the senses during social
communication and learning are just as much biological as those
that reach the brain through hormones circulating in the
bloodstream of a fetus." William Byne and Bruce Parsons propose
another interactional model "in which genes or hormones do not
specify sexual orientation per se, but instead bias particular
personality traits and thereby influence the manner in which an
individual and his or her environment interact as sexual
orientation and other personality characteristics unfold
developmentally."26 Some contend that the experience of incest,
sexual abuse, and rape are important determinants of
homosexuality. To date there is insufficient evidence to prove or
disprove the extent of this influence. It does seem clear that
the experience of abuse affects the choices of some bisexuals and
persons in the mid-range of the Kinsey scale.
The political stakes and anxiety levels are high with regard
to this issue of "cause" both in the Church and in society. Polls
show that Americans who say individuals cannot change their
homosexuality are much more affirming and supportive of gays and
lesbians. On the other hand, many would like some one thing,
social force, or group to blame. Mothers and fathers are always
handy scapegoats and all too frequently impose that unhelpful
burden on themselves. Many gays and lesbians report wanting
desperately to understand "Why me?" at some stage of their coming
to terms with the reality of their sexual orientation. Later in
their journey, they frequently cease to care very much about how
they got that way and focus instead on leading a happy,
well-adjusted life and, for Christians, a life focused on
relationships with God, partner, family, and the community at
large. Often, members of the Church community in seeking "the
cause" are really wanting "a cure." Might the Church's energy,
instead, be focused on the persons who need to be loved,
n