CONTINUING THE DIALOGUE A Pastoral Teaching of the House of Bishops to the Church as the Church Considers Issues of Human Sexuality For Distribution to the House of Bishops 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 throuion 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 meaninn 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. Thtotal 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 ing 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 madeFurther, 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 interpretatf 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"), orer 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 pr 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 eologically 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 qu 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 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 oher 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 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 bput 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 remindsrebelliousness 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 prost, 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 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, ivine 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 nor 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 actof 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 towwas 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 xuality 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 eacation 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 biolo 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 Healtrs 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 orgass 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 anon" 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. Persisgenital 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 foe 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 tels 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, nurtured, cherished, accepted, and supported, including gays, lesbians and their families? Regardless of one's sexual orientation, the development of sexual identity, while intense in adolescence, is a lifelong process. Even if one is "certain" of one's identity in early adulthood, it is not uncommon to make unexpected discoveries about oneself later in life. Gay men and lesbians often, even as young children, have a feeling of being different from their same-sex peers. They often feel like "outsiders" in relation to peers and even to family. Progress in self-discovery for some people is slowed or thwarted entirely by patterns of denial fostered and exacerbated by Church and societal negativity. Women may identify their same-sex feelings as "special friendships" and men as "normal" male bonding. "Feeling in love" is a common beginning point for the struggle with homosexual identity issues. But, even if there are no such feelings, no actual change in sexual identity, the process of integration of identity for everyone goes on throughout adulthood. Often the process moves from a period of identity confusion through stages of increasing awareness, toleration, acceptance, and pride to a synthesis in which sexual orientation is seen as important but as only one aspect of the self. Self-disclosure becomes almost automatic as a greater security is felt in the identity, and interaction in the heterosexual world is experienced as generally rewarding. In the best of situations, Christians will see this process as one aspect of their lifelong spiritual journey. Clergy and Church friends can play an important role in creating a safe environment and supporting gay/lesbian parishioners through this critical life passage. Sometimes the Church as institution and Church people are more hindrance than help. Making an effort to understand the process of identity formation is one step toward learning how to care pastorally for gays and lesbians. An Examination of Some Assumptions Concerning Homosexuality Assumption #1: Homosexuality is a choice. While there is not yet agreement on its *cause*, recent research does not suggest that homosexuality is a *choice*. Dr. John Money puts it this way: "Despite popular assumptions, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are not preferences. Each is a sexuoerotic orientation or status. They are no more chosen than a native language is."27 "Choice" may enter the picture for bisexuals, who often attempt to choose either a heterosexual or a homosexual way of life. It is very difficult, especially considering the particular way in which women have been socialized to accommodate themselves to family and societal expectations, to determine what really is "choice" and what is social conditioning. But women's sexual orientation seems to have a fluidity that leads some researchers to speculate t is frequently the case that homosexual persons feel social pressure (both internalized and externalized) to repress or deny their sexual feelings. This can be very harmful because repression tends to intensify feelings; it can also cause depression, disassociation, and other problems. Social and religious pressures are especially problematic if homosexuals are counseled or pressured into marriages that may eventually fail or continue amid much emotional pain, leaving human wreckage along the way. Assumption #2: Gays and lesbians are marginal members of society, both in numbers and contributions. Any subset of American population that accounts for anywhere from 2.5 to 25 million people cannot be considered insignificant. (There are approximately 2.4 million Episcopalians in the United States.) Even though homosexual persons remain invisible for the most part, gays and lesbians are, in fact, everywhere. They may be your own child, your doctor, your lawyer, your psychologist, your carpenter, your electrician, your colleague at work. They are among the business people, teachers, social workers, nurses, and hospice volunteers of our communities. And they are in our churches--in the pew and in the pulpit. The business community is increasingly interested in homosexual couples as an important market--"double income, no kids"--although estimates of the number of children being raised by homosexual parents, the majority of whom are "invisible," range from 6 million to 14 million. Assumption #3. Gays and lesbians are psychologically "sick." In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, its official list of mental illnesses. The American Psychological Association adopted a similar resolution in 1975. In addition, researchers have failed to discern any demonstrable psychopathology in their homosexual samples, nor have they been able to diffe