theology for gay people

Abstract: Contends that a covenanted relationship between two women or two men is a Christian marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman. Definition of marriage; Implications of a lifelong union; Satisfying the companionship aspect of marriage; Constructing a theology of marriage; Marriage as a sacrament of justice and incarnation.

 

TOWARD A THEOLOGY FOR LESBIAN AND GAY MARRIAGE

BY ROBERT WILLIAMS

   Increasingly, the issue of the appropriateness of a liturgical blessing of same-sex committed relationships is becoming an agenda item for church conventions at the parish, diocesan, and national levels in the Episcopal Church in the United States, as well as in other provinces of the Anglican communion and other denominations. These discussions are typically quite heated, and to avoid confrontation, discussion is often cut short by parliamentary action--some form of "tabling" the debate. In a good many cases, the discussion is cut short because, it is alleged, we do not have a clear theological framework for understanding such blessings. The "Blue Book Report" of the Commission on Health and Human Affairs prepared for General Convention 1988 took this approach:

  

The Commission is not ready to take a position on the blessing of same sex couples. This question does raise a myriad of other questions, such as the meaning of marriage, the meaning of blessings, the origin of homosexual orientation, etc.[1]

         

   I happen to believe that the concern about a "theological framework" in these debates is almost always a smokescreen, a parliamentary action to curtail a debate that threatens to get out of hand. The fact that we have no clear "theological framework" does not seem to deter us, after all, from performing any of a number of other liturgies (such as heterosexual marriage). We haven't had a clear theology of confirmation for centuries, yet we keep on confirming, over the protests of a number of theologians and liturgical scholars who would like to see the practice of confirmation, as distinct from baptism, ended. It is doubtful whether one could claim the Anglican communion has a clear or unified theology of the Eucharist, for that matter.

  

   Even if the concern about the lack of a theological foundation is simply a smokescreen, it is an effective one. With our excessive fear of conflict within the church, important and necessary discussion is brought to a premature end. In an attempt to prevent the curtailing of future debates on this topic, I would like, then, to offer one possible approach to a theology of same-sex unions.[2]

  

   A Rose by Any other Name

  

   Most discussions about the appropriateness of a liturgical blessing of same-sex unions--including the testimonies of those who argue for as well as against the idea--begin with the statement that a homosexual union is not a marriage.[3] Many supporters of the idea feel the very word "marriage" is so emotionally charged that it is better to diffuse that emotion by avoiding the use of the word.

  

   The title of this article, "Toward a Theology of Lesbian and Gay Marriage," was deliberately chosen. "Gay Marriage" is a term most people find startling, but, I believe, for reasons that are more emotional than rational. Not many years ago, the term "woman priest" had a similarly disturbing effect. our visceral reactions to such terms are instructive: They tell us more about our actual, "operational theology," than the rational statements we make. The thesis of this article is that a covenanted relationship between two women or two men is just as much a Christian marriage as that between a man and a woman; and the only way to overcome this visceral reaction to the term "gay marriage" is to make a point of using it frequently.

  

   Sometimes, in fact, objections to the word marriage for same-sex unions imply that what is being proposed is something better than marriage: "Marriage in our society is such an archaic, patriarchal nstitution. Why would gay men and lesbians want to buy into something that is so in need of reform?" While I wholeheartedly agree that the institution of marriage (and the liturgy) are in desperate need of reform, I must ask why, then, we continue to consign heterosexual couples to it. Any argument that can be made against homosexual marriage on this basis is also an argument against heterosexual marriage.

  

   Others, on both sides of the issue, seem to accept the circular logic that a homosexual union is not a marriage because marriage is, by definition, a transaction between a man and a woman. Bishop William Swing of California appointed a commission (as a result of some flurry at a diocesan convention) to study the issue of blessing same-sex unions; then rejected the committee's work, objecting particularly to the proposed liturgy they drafted. Subsequently, Bishop Swing published a liturgy he has authorized for use in the diocese. Called "The Affirmation of a Relationship," it is to be used between the Prayers of the People and the Peace in the Sunday Eucharist, and it is carefully designed not to resemble a marriage. (An angry gay priest in the Diocese of California recently told me he has recently refused to perform heterosexual marriages. "I'll affirm your relationship at a Sunday liturgy," he tells heterosexual couples, "but I won't do straight weddings until I can do gay weddings.")

  

   In a newsletter to his diocese explaining his rejection of the liturgy originally proposed by the commission, Bishop Swing wrote, "Thus far, everything I've seen appears to resemble a second class or derivative marriage. It appears to me that 'blessing a same-sex union is only a euphemism for 'marriage.'"[4] That the liturgy that was proposed by the California liturgical commission does resemble the marriage rite is clear enough; but why would Bishop Swing consider it a "second class" marriage--unless he defines a "first-class" marriage as being a heterosexual marriage?

  

   In their concern to affirm the goodness of marriage ("despite its obvious failures"), the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health (of which Bishop Swing is a member) has used the same circular logic, and in so doing has committed its gravest error. The report states:

  

The Commission affirms marriage as the standard, the norm, the primary relationship in which the gift of human sexuality is to be shared. There was no debate among us on this issues.[5]

         

   In the context, the Commission makes it clear the "marriage" they are affirming as the "norm" is heterosexual marriage. In another part of the report, the Commission decries the fact that an assumption that homosexuality is a sickness, an evil, or a perversion prevents meaningful conversation between heterosexuals and homosexuals at "the fully human level,"[6] and yet their undebated assumption of heterosexual marriage as "the standard, the norm" relegates not only lesbians and gay men in committed relationships, but also all single people--heterosexual as well as homosexual--to the realm of "substandard" or "abnormal." It is important to realize that the Church can affirm and strengthen heterosexual marriages without making that affirmation dependent upon contrasting them with alternative relationships or with the state of being single. The declaration of marriage as the "norm" is a significant barrier to an objective evaluation of other ways of being sexual.

  

   The definition of marriage given by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church[7], and the definition a man and woman must subscribe to in order to be married in the Episcopal Church do in fact define a marriage as a transaction between a man and a woman; but the type of reasoning expressed by Bishop Swing above sounds suspiciously like one of the objections we heard to the ordination of women: That a woman cannot be ordained because ordination is, by definition, something that is conferred on a man. If this is the case, we simply need to recast this canon in more inclusive language. We can adopt a position akin to that taken on the ordination canons in 1985, "This Canon shall be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, except that words of male gender shall also imply the female gender."[8]

  

   Expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples as well as opposite sex couples is a far better solution than creating a separate entity for the blessing of gay/lesbian relationships. Then we would still have marriage for some people, and something else for others. The implication is that the "something else" is something less. When the issue is one of social justice--and, given the Church's key role historically in promoting homophobia, any issue dealing with lesbian/gay issues in the Christian church is a social justice issue--we should be reminded of a lesson we hopefully learned in the black civil rights struggles of the sixties: the notion of "separate but equal" inevitably creates unequal institutions.

  

   Such a definition is not, of course, a theology; but it is a necessary starting point for constructing a theology. My contention is that we now have a legalistic definition of what constitutes acceptable conditions for a marriage, rather than a theology of marriage, because we have been slow to affirm the sacramentality of marriage. Instead, marriage has been one of the most blatant instances of the Church acting in service to the state, blessing what is essentially a legal contract, more concerned with property than with grace. Yet since the definition is in place, and we are accustomed to judging marriages not by how much grace they seem to exhibit, but by how well they meet the requirements of our legal definition, the definition must the dealt with first. My method here is, first, to examine the definition of what constitutes an appropriate marriage in the Episcopal Church, and to consider whether a marriage between two women or two men can meet these criteria; and then to propose a more positive theological approach to marriage that, I believe, is appropriate for all marriages--homosexual as well as heterosexual.

  

   A Working Definition

  

   Beginning with the definition of marriage in the canons of the Episcopal Church, and expanding its inclusivity so that it can describe same-sex as well as opposite-sex unions, I propose the following working definition of Christian marriage:

  

   Marriage is a lifelong union of two persons in heart, body, and mind, as set forth in liturgical forms authorized by this Church, for the purpose of mutual joy, for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; sometimes also for the procreation and/or rearing of children, and their physical and spiritual nurture.

         

   A Lifelong Union

  

   Among the stereotypes of gay men in our society is that we[9] are more "promiscuous" than heterosexuals, and that we cannot form lasting unions. Neither stereotype has much basis in truth. Sociologists David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, in their look The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop,[10] a study of 156 male couples over a five-year period, found an almost even distribution in their random sample among couples who had been together 1-5 years, 5-10 years, and over 10 years. of their 156 couples, 95 had been together more than five years; 20 couples had been together more shall 20 years. These statistics parallel or are slightly higher than the statistics of a random sampling of heterosexual couples, which, McWhirter and Mattison comment, is remarkable in light of the fact that the male couples have "none of the obvious binding ingredients" shared by heterosexual couples, whose relationships are encouraged by society.[11] McWhirter and Mattison's data was collected over ten years ago, before the AIDS crisis had changed sexual attitudes, and today most male couples are more committed than ever to forming lasting partnerships. Lesbian couples tend to be considerably more stable than either male couples or heterosexual couples, largely because women in our society are socialized to be monogamous.[12]

  

   "Promiscuity" is an imprecise word. If the word is taken to mean simply engaging in any sexual activity outside of a legally recognized marriage, then certainly all gay men and lesbians, with the exception of a handful of celibates, are, by definition, promiscuous. If, however, "promiscuity" is defined to mean engaging in brief sexual encounters with a large number of sexual partners, the empirical data again indicates that the statistics are about the same for homosexuals as for heterosexuals. In fact, Michael Schofield, in his study, Promiscuity,[13] concluded those who are "promiscuous" are largely those who are able to be. Single people, heterosexual and homosexual, who live alone or have access to a private space, are the most likely to have a large number of brief sexual encounters. Schofield writes,

  

This inquiry . . . reveals that there is no such thing as a promiscuous type. It is more useful to regard promiscuity as an activity which thousands of quite different people take part in at some period of their lives.[14]

         

   My experience in pastoral ministry with the lesbian and gay community, including extensive work with male couples, leads me to believe the goal of a "lifelong union" is one most lesbians and gay men desire. Virtually all gay and lesbian couples I have met intend their relationship to be lifelong; and the vast majority of single lesbians and gay men I have known are actively seeking a partner with whom to establish a lifelong union. I would have the same objections to blessing the marriage of a gay couple who did not intend permanence that I would to blessing the marriage of a heterosexual couple under similar conditions; but I find the majority of same-sex couples are quite ready to "solemnly declare" they "hold marriage to be a lifelong union." At the same time, we must take care that in the move to affirm same-sex marriages, we do not further marginalize gay, lesbian and straight single people. Most talk about "promiscuity" tends to do so, particularly when it is contrasted with the "norm" of marriage.

  

   The Purposes of Marriage

  

   An important change was made in the canonical declaration of intent from the 1985[15] to the 1988 version of the canons. Until 1988, the language of the declaration the couple must sign as a prerequisite to marriage, as specified by canon, used somewhat different language than the opening exhortation in the liturgy for the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage in the Book of Common Prayer. The wording has been changed, so that the declaration required by the 1988 canons does use the same language as the Prayer Book definition. Both the documents now assert:

  

The 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.[16]

         

   Earl H. Brill, in his discussion of marriage in The Christian Moral Vision, Book 6 in The Church's Teachings Series,[17] extracts for his discussion two themes from this list--"fellowship" (the word formerly used in the canonical declaration in place of "joy") and "mutuality." His categories seem useful here, although I find companionship a more precise word then fellowship--certainly a more inclusive word.

  

   Companionship

  

   The greater emphasis on the companionship aspect of marriage has characterized Anglican thought since the Reformation. Martin Bucer argued in 1551 that "mutual society, help, and comfort" should be listed before procreation in the exhortation, for it is the primary purpose of marriage:

  

three causes for matrimony are enumerated, that is children, a remedy, and mutual help, and I should prefer that what is placed third among the causes for marriage might be in the first place, because it is first. For a true marriage can take place between people who seek neither for children nor for a remedy against fornication. . .[18]

         

   Jeremy Taylor also spoke of companionship as the primary purpose of marriage:

  

The preservation of a family, the production of children, the avoiding of fornication, the refreshment of our sorrows by the comforts of society; all these are fair ends of marriage and hallow the entrance but in these there is a special order; society was the first designed, "It is not good for man to be alone;" . . .[19]

         

   The liturgical reform for which both Bucer and Taylor argued was instituted, but not for over 400 years. The first American Prayer Book, and all subsequent books until 1979 dropped the entire discussion of the purposes of marriage from the opening exhortation, although essentially the same information was included in the canonical declaration of consent (the wording of which was very much like the current form, except that "lifelong" was not included), which began to be required in 1949. Both the 1979 American Prayer Book and the English Alternative Services Book (1980) have finally heeded Bucer's advice, listing the companionship aspect before the procreation aspect (which is now in conditional language in the American Prayer Book). James B. Nelson, in his analysis of sexuality in Protestant traditions, sees the ranking of companionship over procreation as one of the "commonalities" of all mainstream Protestant approaches to sexual ethics:

  

Protestantism rather early abandoned procreation as the primary purpose of marriage and sexual expression. Instead of procreation, the fundamental aim became the expression of faithful love.[20]

         

   This aspect of companionship, variously referred to by other words such as society, mutual help, mutual joy, comfort, etc. is the beginning point for any theology of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. It is rooted in the Biblical tradition that God, seeing it was not good for the first human to be alone, created a companion for Adam.[21] Marriage, then, is seen as the gift of a loving creator, as a remedy for human loneliness.

  

   The desire to love and be loved, to be a lover and the beloved, is so central to human nature that when it does not exist in an individual, it is a remarkable exception. Those who seem to have the "gift" of celibacy, for instance, may be exceptions to the general human need for a lover; but they must meet their companionship needs in alternative ways, such as intensive community living arrangements. For the vast majority of people, however, this innate need for deep companionship is normally met through one "primary relationship."

  

   The Genesis creation myth affirms our need for companionship is not a flaw or a shortcoming, but a component part of our created nature. An earlier myth, a version of which is found in Plato's Symposium, speaks of the universal human quest for one's "other half." Plato's story, like the Genesis story, attributes the human condition to a fall from grace occasioned by hubris, by trying to be "like gods." Human beings, Plato's Aristophanes claims, were once double--four arms, four legs, two heads--and when they became arrogant, the gods split them in half, which "left each half with a desperate longing for the other."[22] Plato, writing in a society that held homosexuality in considerably higher esteem than ours, suggested what we would today call "sexual orientation" depended upon the gender of one's "other half"--some of the original, double human beings were male/male, some female/female, some male/ female.

  

   Plato's assessment of the human condition is, in many ways, more accurate and certainly more humane than most Christian theologies have been. With the Genesis account, it simply affirms that it is part of being human to experience a "desperate longing" for a lover; but unlike Genesis, it affirms some people will seek a lover of the opposite sex, others of the same sex.

  

   It should be obvious that gay and lesbian persons suffer as much from loneliness as do heterosexuals--perhaps even more so, due to our marginalized position in society. In fact, homophobia and heterosexism elicit such strong emotional responses that lesbians and gay men are often estranged from their natal families, and thus deprived of what is, for most other marginalized groups, a primary source of care and nurture. A theology of same-sex relationship images God saying to gay men and lesbians, as well as to their heterosexual counterparts, "It is not good for you to be alone," and providing, through a profound relationship with a companion (most commonly called a "lover" in the gay community) for their "mutual comfort and joy." In a gay or lesbian relationship, as well as in a heterosexual relationship, "each may be to the other a strength in need, a counselor in perplexity, a comfort in sorrow, and a companion in joy."[23] For a parish community to celebrate and bless such a relationship is simply to say to the couple, "We share your joy, and we see your love as a gift from a loving Creator."

  

   Mutuality

  

   Brill's analysis of marriage in The Church's Teachings Series, while acknowledging it "is a rather late development in Christian history," states mutuality is one of the "presumptions" for marriage in the current understanding of the Episcopal Church.[24] He gives specific examples of mutuality, such as the division of labor in household chores, and the equal consideration of each party's career decisions. Brill suggests many men have found it difficult to put such mutuality into practice. "Many men still expect their wives to wait on them, pick up their socks, cater to their whims, and make them the center of their lives," he writes.[25] 

   Ironically, if mutuality is indeed one of the "presumptions" for marriage in the Episcopal Church, it is a condition most lesbian or gay couples would find easier to meet than some of their heterosexual peers. McWhirter and Mattison speak of the process of "equalizing of partnership" of the male couples in their study during their first year together:

  

Tasks are assumed individually, usually because each person enjoys his partner's ability to show what he, uniquely, can bring to the relationship. There are no set 'husband' and 'wife' roles. Each man usually can perform all necessary tasks at some level of competence. Men together learn early that it is equally blessed to give and to receive, even when the temptation is to prove love by giving more.[26]

         

   Lesbian poet Judy Grahn writes of her social function as a "visible lesbian" living in a white, working-class neighborhood as including a certain modeling of mutuality for heterosexual couples:

  

Firstly, by my clothes and bearing I model a certain freedom for women. Secondly, as two women living together, my lover and I strengthen the position of every married woman on the block, whether she knows and appreciates it or not. (Her husband probably does.)[27]

         

   Of course, many heterosexual couples can and do achieve truly mutual relationships, too. Brill's assertion is that all Christian couples have a moral obligation to do so. Yet it is, as Brill points out, often difficult for heterosexual couples--heterosexual men, particularly--to overcome their societal gender-role conditioning in order to achieve real mutuality. Gay and lesbian couples, on the other hand, have little choice. Society has not defined role expectations for our relationships, and we must create our own systems for decision-making and divisions of labor. The result is that many gay and lesbian couples have achieved an expertise in mutuality of relationship. If homosexual and heterosexual couples had a forum for interaction (such as a parish couples' group) it just might be that heterosexual couples would find they can learn much from lesbian and gay couples.

  

   Children

  

   A significantly large number of gay men and lesbians are parents. Some have children from previous heterosexual marriages. Others are choosing to become parents, through such means as adoption or acting as foster parents. Increasingly large numbers of lesbians, particularly, are making use of alternative reproductive technologies (i.e., in vitro fertilization with donor sperm) in order to give birth to children.[28] Many gay men, too, are choosing to be parents through alternative reproductive technologies--often a lesbian choosing to become pregnant will choose a gay male friend as the donor, for instance; and a variety of shared parenting arrangements are made in such cases.

  

   The fact that many lesbians and gay men are choosing to become parents, coupled with the fact that many heterosexual couples choose not to have children, has significantly changed the relationship between marriage and parenting. The empirical data that shows that children raised in gay or lesbian households, or in single-parent households, are just as "normal" and "well-adjusted" (and just as likely to be heterosexual) as children raised in traditional, nuclear families relegates the concern for "the welfare of the children" to the realm of nostalgia or hysteria.[29] In fact, some of the most serious problems that do significantly affect the welfare of children, such as incest and child abuse, are found almost entirely in "traditional" mother-father households, almost never in single-parent or gay or lesbian households. One might just as well argue that children raised by lesbian parents stand a better chance of being "well-adjusted." The experience of growing up in a non-traditional household does appear to give children some advantages. Black lesbian feminist Audre Lourde asked her 14-year-    old son, Jonathan, what he felt were the positive and negative aspects of having grown up with lesbian parents:

  

He said the strongest benefit he felt that he had gained was that he knew a lot more about people than most other kids his age that he knew, and that he did not have a lot of the hang-ups that some other boys did about men and women.

   And the most negative aspect he felt, Jonathan said, was the ridicule he got from some kids with straight parents.

   "You mean, from your peers?" I said

   "Oh no," he answered promptly. "My peers know better. I mean other kids."[30]

         

   Since 1979, the marriage liturgy for heterosexuals in the Episcopal Church has made it possible for a couple who never intend to have children to participate in the liturgy with integrity. Most of the liturgy speaks of the companionship aspect of the marriage. The prayer for children,

  

Bestow on them, if it is your will, the gift and heritage of children, and the grace to bring them up to know you, to love you, and to serve you.[31]

         

is marked so that it may be omitted from the prayers. The only holdout is the phrase in the opening exhortation on the purpose of marriage, and it is couched in conditional language:

         

and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.[32]

         

   This clause, too, should be made optional--one of the needed reforms in the marriage liturgy. Consider a marriage between a man and a woman who are both over 70; or a marriage between a man who has had a vasectomy and a woman who has had a hysterectomy. While such couples could say they are willing to procreate children if "it is God's will," is it not a little ridiculous to ask them to make such a statement? (In fact, with such a casuistic approach, a gay male couple could just as well promise to procreate children together if "it is God's will!")

  

   Since the advent of greatly improved birth control methods, it is now possible to separate sex and reproduction; and the Episcopal Church has, for at least ten years, officially blessed the marriages of heterosexual couples who intend to be sexual but not to reproduce. If we define marriage as being necessarily a transaction between a man and a woman simply because of the possibility of procreation, then, it is time to change the definition to match the reality.

  

   Legality

  

   Another objection that is sometimes raised to same-sex marriage, that

   is not included in the liturgical or canonical definitions of marriage

   discussed above, is Title I, Canon 18, Sec. 2 (a):

  

No minister of this Church shall solemnize any marriage unless the following conditions are complied with:

   (a). He [sic] shall have ascertained the right of the parties to contract a marriage according to the laws of the State.

         

   The argument is that, since no state currently recognizes gay or lesbian marriages, no one ordained in the Episcopal Church can officiate at one without violating the above canon.

  

   This canon is, among other things, a direct violation of the principle of separation of church and state, a giving up of the church's authority to the state. This entire topic of the relative roles of church and state in the institution of marriage is a troublesome one. Dan Stevick, in his handbook on canon law, states flatly, 'The priest, in officiating at a marriage, acts as an officer of the community or state as well as of the Church."[33] A number of Episcopal priests already are very uncomfortable with the knowledge that in performing a marriage, they act as agents of the state. Many are calling for a clearer separation of the civil contract of marriage from the blessing and celebration of that marriage by the church.

  

   Canon I.18.2(a) was originally passed by General Convention l9O4 (the present wording in 1973)[34] in order to codify a long list of prohibited marriages. Simply requiring the marriage to be according to the laws of the state was an easy way to carry out these prohibitions without having to spell out in canon law exactly what relationships were not acceptable for marriage. The more appropriate solution, of course, is for the church to carefully delineate its own guidelines about whose marriages can be blessed, and not allow civil governments to make those decisions for us.

  

   There is historical precedent for the church recognizing marriages the state does not recognize. In the Roman empire, a marriage between a slave and a free citizen was not legally binding, but the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus indicates a female concubine could be accepted as a catechumen. Although not "legally" married, she was not considered to be living an immoral life, for--provided she treated her situation as a marriage--the church recognized it as such.[35] In the American colonial church, although slaves could not legally contract marriages, Anglican clergy often officiated at the marriage of two slaves.[36] And finally, interracial marriages were not legally recognized by some states until very recently.[37]

  

   Similiarly, the fact that the marriage of two men or two women is not yet recognized by any civil government in the United States[38] should not be a barrier for such marriages being blessed by the Episcopal Church. In fact, as gay activists continue to struggle for legislative rights, it is a very real possibility that states may begin to accord legal status to gay and lesbian marriages, and the Episcopal Church may once again find itself in the embarrassing position of having to change its outmoded canons in order to catch up with the state. It seems preferable that the Church take a more positive, prophetic role-setting an example for the civil government to follow, rather than vice versa.

  

   Safeguarding Society

  

   Another church-state issue is the curious clause in the canonical declaration of intent, up until 1988, that one purpose of marriage is "the safeguarding and benefit of society."[39] Although the statement has been removed from our current canons, the influence of the idea lingers It is unclear exactly what is the intention of this statement, but it seems to be derived from the quaint phrase that used to be in the exhortation in the liturgy itself, listing as one of the purposes of marriage "the avoidance of fornication." The 1552 Prayer Book added for those who "haue not the gift of continencie."[40] Ironically, although the Episcopal Church has (thankfully) seen fit to remove "the avoidance of fornication" from the reasons for heterosexual marriage--at least in the public statement in the liturgy--we seem to be witnessing a return to the mentality of "avoidance of fornication" in the discussions of same-sex unions.

  

   Unquestionably, the AIDS crisis has contributed to the sense of urgency with which the church is now viewing issues of human sexuality in general, and the blessing of same-sex unions in particular. It is perhaps reasonable to expect the widespread use of a liturgy for the celebration and blessing of a gay union could encourage committed coupling and, in the long run, have some effect on the incidence of AIDS cases. That effect, however, would probably be minimal, and a desire to control AIDS is a poor reason for blessing same-sex marriages. If the Church is to institute a liturgical blessing for lesbian and gay couples, it should be because the Church wants to celebrate and bless the life of that couple in the life of the Church--not in order to get them to make some sort of public promise to be monogamous, in the hopes that will somehow curtail the spread of AIDS. An indication of such an attitude is the comment of Bishop Swing of California, in his diocesan newsletter following his rejection of the work of the Bishop's Theology committee analyzing a liturgy for same-sex blessings, "I am much more concerned about promiscuity than homosexuality."[41]

  

   That a marriage should, ideally, be a sexually exclusive relationship, and that the Church has the right to refuse to bless the marriage of a couple that does not intend such exclusivity, is not in question; but if the Church is not to make a mockery of the word blessing, we must be very careful that what we are saying to the gay couple standing before us is, "We celebrate your love for each other;" not, "This is the lesser of two evils--certainly better than being single and promiscuous." We must hope the Church does not do the right thing for the wrong reason.

  

   If, on the other hand, the Church is concerned to encourage as many people as possible to live in committed relationships, a liturgical celebration of a same-sex covenant would certainly help do so. In the Episcopal Diocese of Rochester, New York, where same-sex blessings have been performed with official diocesan sanction for over 17 years, diocesan statistics show that those same-sex couples who have had a liturgical blessing of their union and the pre-ceremonial counseling that is a prerequisite not only have a higher "success rate" than same-sex couples who did not have the ceremony, but also a higher rate than married heterosexual couples.[42]

  

   There is another possible meaning embedded in the concept of "the safeguarding and benefit of society" that is equally problematic. That is simply the expectation that marriage somehow "stabilizes" society, and that the more people who are safely contained in monogamous marriages, the more stable the society will be. Actually, given the appallingly high incidence of domestic violence,[43] it could as well be argued that marriage contributes to the instability of society.

  

   The notion that it is the business of the Church to be concerned with "the safeguarding and benefit of society" should be questioned. St. Augustine refuted this concept several centuries ago in his opus magnum City of God. The view of the Church as the guardian of society seems to be a legacy of the Anglican past tradition of being the state church. In a nation in which the monarch is given the title "Defender of the Faith," the Church is certainly charged with the task of stabilizing the society. The question is whether in so doing the Church loses its primary identity. In a more pluralistic culture, we have rediscovered the importance of the Church as a critic and conscience of society. At times, the Church, to be true to its prophetic tradition, must challenge and goad society; and at such times it will be perceived as not safeguarding but threatening the "stability" of the society.

  

   The fact that the Church has acted primarily as the "agent of the state" in performing marriages is perhaps why we have not developed a satisfactory theology of marriage. The Christian marriage liturgy has been primarily a religious sanction added to a civil, legal contract--a contract more concerned with property than spirituality. We have not examined our theology of marriage because we have not had to. The heart of the institution of marriage has been the civil contract. The current question of blessing lesbian and gay marriages raises the issue that has long been ignored: Apart from the legal property contract, what is a marriage? It is not so much that we do not have a theology of gay and lesbian marriage as that we do not have a clearly articulated theology of marriage. A sound theology of marriage would be equally applicable to heterosexual or homosexual couples.

  

   Constructing a Theology of Marriage

  

   A Christian theology of marriage would, first of all, be rooted in the concepts of companionship and mutuality mentioned above. It would begin with the Biblical affirmation of Genesis 2: That it "is not good" to be alone, and that our loving God has provided means for us not to be alone, one of the most important of which is a committed, lifelong, ever-deepening union in "heart, body, and mind"[44] with a spouse. The very possibility that a relationship such as that we celebrate and bless in marriage can exist is a sign of the love God has for us. The condition of mutuality helps us affirm human dignity and autonomy, and avoid distorting our view of God from loving creator into a fearsome divine tyrant.

  

   I believe the process conceptuality, with its insistence upon God as divine "Love-in-Act," is helpful here. From a process perspective, since the world is made up not of static entities, but of actions, God is not simply love as an abstract noun, but the divine Lover, who actively seeks us out and offers loving relationship to us, and encourages us to form loving relationships with other people as reflections and icons of God's divine love.

  

   Marriage as Sacrament

  

   Traditionally, the Church has taught marriage is a sacrament. It is not, in the Anglican tradition, one of the "two great sacraments" that are "necessary for all persons,"[45] but is a sacrament, and thus defined as an "outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace."[46] of what, then, is marriage a sacrament? What is the "inward and spiritual grace" of which marriage is the "outward and visible sign"?

  

   The Catechism itself is distressingly vague, and seems to suggest the very fact a couple can stay married is itself the sign of the grace of marriage:

  

Holy Matrimony is Christian marriage, in which the woman and man [sic] enter into a life-long union, make their vows before God and the Church, and receive the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfil their vows.[47]

         

   I wish to suggest, building upon the Episcopal Church definition of marriage, at least three ways we can see marriage in sacramental terms--as a sacrament of redemption, as a sacrament of justice, and as a sacrament of incarnation.

  

   A Sacrament of Redemption

  

   In its aspect of companionship, Christian marriage is an outward and visible sign of our redemption. A recent writing by process theologian Norman Pittenger, Freed to Love: A Process Interpretation of Redemption,[48] attempts to interpret the traditional Christian concepts of sin and redemption in a way that can be both "appropriate to the Christian tradition as a whole," and also "intelligible: understandable in the light of our present knowledge and relevant to the situations in which men and women actually find themselves."[49]

  

   Briefly, Pittenger proposes, as an interpretation of sin, "the alienated and estranged condition (from self, from others, eventually from God)." Pittenger further describes the condition of sin as our feeling of "unacceptability," which in turn renders us incapable of loving others.[50] Redemption, then, is God's self giving (in Christ) as Love-in-Act, which, when properly understood and accepted, replaces our alienated and estranged condition with which a loving relationship; and restores our ability to love others "in Christ." Hence the book's title, Freed to Love.

  

   In his exposition of sin and redemption, Pittenger is, as he acknowledges, very close to the thought of Paul Tillich, who described sin (our inevitable state of existence) as separation, among individuals, from oneself, and from God[51]; and grace as reconciliation. The process concept of God as Love-in-Act, to use Pittenger's favorite phrase, provides a very different nuance than does Tillich's concept of God as "Being itself." Tillich's understanding of grace seems to emphasize the individualistic and internal aspects, while Pittenger's view of redemption is more interpersonal and corporate. Redemption, for Pittenger, has a personal, internal aspect--indeed, it begins as an individual experience--but it is necessarily manifest in loving relationships with others, primarily in the Christian community.

  

   If Pittenger's interpretations of sin and redemption are valid, then to be "redeemed," as Pittenger so dramatically phrases it, is to be "freed to love." To be redeemed is to become a lover. Marriage, then, the union between two human lovers in "heart, body, and mind"[52] is a sacrament of our redemption.

  

   Yet a sacrament, according to the classical definition, is more than a sign of grace; it is also a means of grace.[53] Marriage also fulfils this definition of a sacrament. The Christian Church is often spoken of as a "school for love." Marriage, and specifically Christian marriage, is another "school for love." Establishing loving relationships with other human beings is not an easy task. We have all been so wounded in our previous attempts to love and be loved, to be accepted and accepting, that we find loving difficult. This is precisely the condition of "original sin" that both Tillich and Pittenger describe as the inability to love. The point of Pittenger's reinterpretation of redemption is that realizing we are loved and accepted by God is the starting point for becoming freed to love others; but still, we have to start cautiously. For the vast majority of people in the world, the relative security found in a committed relationship with one "significant other" offers us a safe haven in which to practice love. (The security that can be developed in such a relationship is why sexual exclusivity is important--not as a limitation, but as a positive strengthening and building up of that one relationship, by reserving sex, one of the most intensive and most vulnerable acts of love, for that relationship alone.)

  

   In some sense, we must affirm the experience of the parish community as central in the Christian life; for it is the concrete experience of Christian love expected, as the Catechism teaches, of all Christians, through the "two great sacraments" of baptism and eucharist, while marriage is a sacrament "not necessary for all persons."[54] Yet whether or not marriage is "necessary for all persons," it is clearly desired by most persons. Most of US are so constituted that we need and want to build an intense love with one other person, "a haven of blessing and peace,"[55] from which we "may reach out in love and concern for others."[56]

  

   St. Aelred of Rievaulx, a 14th-century Cistercian abbot (who, it seems appropriate to point out in the context of this discussion, was homosexual[57]) developed a rather unique mystical theology of companionship that recognized just this fact--through a profound, committed relationship with one other person, whether spouse or "special friend," we actually increase our capacity to love, so that we are gradually able to offer Christian love to a wider and wider circle of others--but always with varying degrees of intimacy: "I take it for granted we cannot all enjoy each other," Aelred wrote. "our true enjoyment is bound to be restricted to a small number."[58]

  

   Aelred spoke of such a primary relationship, which he encouraged each of his monks to develop with another monk, as a necessary retreat from which to draw strength for the more general expressions of love:

  

It is in fact a great consolation in this life to have someone to whom you can be united in the intimate embrace of the most sacred love. in whom your spirit can rest; to whom you can pour out your soul . . . through whose spiritual kisses as by some medicine--you are cured of the sickness of care and worry . . . whom you draw by the fetters of love into that inner room of your soul, so that though the body is absent, the spirit is there, and you can confer all alone . . . with whom you can rest, just the two of you, in the sleep of peace away from the noise of the world, in the embrace of love, in the kiss of unity, with the sweetness of the Holy Spirit flowing over you; to whom you so join and unite yourself that you mix soul with soul, and two become one. We can enjoy this in the present with those whom we love not merely with our minds but with our hearts; for some are joined to us more intimately and passionately than others in the lovely bond of spiritual friendship.[59]

         

   Aelred saw scriptural precedent for such a relationship in the Johannine account of Jesus and "the beloved disciple," whose companionship he described as a "heavenly marriage":

  

Although all the disciples were blessed with the sweetness of the greatest love of the most holy master, nonetheless he conceded as a privilege to one alone this symbol of a more intimate love, that he should be called "the disciple whom Jesus loved. [60]

         

   The current marriage liturgy implies this notion of the growth of Christian love, from the particular to the general, in one of the prayers over the couple:

  

Give them such fulfillment of their mutual affection that they may reach out in love and concern for others.[61]

Parenting, then, is one--but only one--expression of this "overflow" of love, this reaching out from the security of the spousal relationship into a love for others.

         

   A Sacrament of Justice

  

   It is the relatively recent teaching that mutuality must be an aspect of Christian marriage that makes marriage a sacrament of justice. As noted by Brill above, for the Church to bless a marriage today, it must be a mutual relationship, not a dominant/subservient relationship; and gay and lesbian couples particularly are in a position to make such admittedly difficult mutuality a reality. In fact, lesbian and gay couples have much to teach the Church about how two adults who respect each other as equal partners can build a relationship of mutual love that is based on cooperation rather than competition.

  

   I do not mean to suggest all gay and lesbian marriages are ideal. Men in our society are conditioned to compete, and so a male couple, particularly, finds it very difficult to overcome their conditioning in order to not view each other, at some visceral level, as competitors. Even the attempt to establish equality can become competitive, "like boys who count marbles to make sure each has an equal number."[62] McWhirter and Mattison similarly suggest the fact men are taught to be "providers" is threatening to a male couple's relationship, as each partner will tend to want to "take care of" the other.[63] Establishing mutuality is a task, requiring a significant investment of energy; but lesbian or gay couples have two significant motivators to assist them: first, the fact that they are the same sex, and do not have culturally-defined roles to play in the marriage; and also the fact that, as marginalized people, lesbians and gay men are likely to be more sensitive to issues of dominance and control, and to consciously work to avoid them in their relationships.

  

   The insistence upon mutuality as a criterion of the validity of a Christian marriage does not imply the partners must make identical contributions to the marriage. Specific roles will emerge in an equal relationship, but they will be based upon individual preference and a natural "division of labor." Two individuals with widely diverse financial situations can establish a mutual relationship in which the partners contribute, not "50-50," but each according to his or her ability, recognizing that the partner who may have less money or less earning ability contributes to the relationship in other ways. Similarly, the partners need not be mirror images of each other in order to have a mutual marriage. There is some evidence, for instance, that among same-sex couples, an age discrepancy of a few years can be a strengthening factor.[64]

  

   If marriage is a "school for love," it is also a school for justice. The experience of living intimately with another human being, whose needs, wishes, and preferences daily confront and conflict with my own gives me practical experience in dealing with other decisions and conflicts on a larger scale--and so marriage not only is an icon of justice, it is also a means of justice. The mere fact of working out an equitable partnership between two adults with different needs, wants, abilities and gifts brings to the home level the communal (and Christian) principle: from each, according to ability; to each according to need (which is, after all, a paraphrase of Acts 4:34-36).

  

   It is the unfortunate western Christian association of marriage with legal contract, above all else, that works against developing mutuality in marriage. A contract, which is worded "if you do A, then I'll do B; and if you fail to do A, I am not obligated to do B," is not a valid foundation for a Christian marriage. The ultimate contract is the "pre-nuptial agreement," which many have recognized as violating the intent of Christian marriage, for it suggests conditions that take precedence over the marriage vows themselves, conditions that would release one partner from the marriage upon the failure of the other partner to perform according to the agreement--but a pre-nuptial agreement differs from a standard marriage contract only in intensity, not in type. A more appropriate foundation for a Christian marriage is a covenant, which, in contrast to a contract, says, "I will do A and you will do B," and the two clauses are not dependent on each other. If you do not do A, I am not released from my obligation, under the covenant, to do B.

  

   Most marriages in scripture, of course, were not based on covenants. Since, throughout most of biblical history, a woman was treated as a form of property, marriage was primarily a contract between a man and his wife's father, concerned more with exchange of property (including the woman) than mutuality. There are, however, examples of two friendship covenants of mutuality and justice between two people of equal status. It is inevitable, but still deliciously ironic, that they are both between people of the same sex--David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi.[65]

  

   As Metropolitan Community Church minister Larry J. Uhrig has pointed out, it is particularly ironic that the words of Ruth's covenant with Naomi have been quoted (or set to music) often by heterosexual couples at their marriage ceremonies, "while ignoring their context. "[66] The words are a beautiful expression of the type of lifelong, mutual covenant upon which Christian marriage should be based, but they were said, in the scriptural account, not by a husband to a wife, but by a younger woman to an older woman, a couple who decided to stay together even though the men to whom they had been attached had died, therefore dissolving the legal ties between them:

  

Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you; for where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die and there will be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if even death parts me from you.[67]

         

   A Sacrament of Incarnation

  

   One of the chief characteristics that distinguishes a marriage from other forms of intimate friendship is that it is expected and assumed to be a sexual relationship, as indicated by defining marriage as a "union. . tin heart, body, and mind."[68] It is in this sexual aspect that marriage is a sacrament of incarnation.

  

   The central doctrine of the incarnation of Christ is perhaps the most unique doctrine of Christianity, that which sets it apart from other world religions. Very early in Christian history it was realized the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ had important implications for the treatment of the human body. Margaret Miles, for instance, has asserted the early Christians "cared for living bodies and dead bodies because they understood that the Incarnation of Christ had once and for all settled the issue of the value of the human body."[69] Anglican reformation theologian Richard Hooker wrote, "The honor which our flesh hath by beinge the flesh of the Sonne of God is in manie respectes greate."[70] James B. Nelson has argued a Christian theology and ethic of sexuality should be based upon the principle of incarnation or "embodiment."[71]

  

   Mystics for centuries have made the connection between the longing for union with God and the longing for union with another person that is the sexual urge. In fact, our embodied sexual longings--the intense and inevitably frustrated desire to transcend the boundaries of our skin and be truly at one with another person--can be seen as an icon, even as a manifestation of, our desire to experience union with God. We do not ever achieve this union, either with another person or with God, in any lasting way in our present existence; yet we can occasionally catch glimpses of the eschatological promise of such union. A primary occasion for such foretastes of the Realm of God is the fleeting sense of union we can feel during sexual activity, and particularly during a shared orgasm. Beverly Harrison has observed orgasm is a "powerful metaphor for spiritual blessing and healing."[72] This orgasmic blessing, both its brief and occasional realization and its implied promise of eternal blessing, makes sex within marriage a sacrament within a sacrament--a rich sacrament of incarnation.

  

   Conclusion

  

   While from the point of view of the larger society, marriage is primarily a contract involving property, distinctively Christian marriage, a covenant relationship between two equals, is appropriately called a sacrament, for it is potentially a sacramental manifestation of God's redemption, God's justice, and God's incarnation. When freed from the unfortunate associations marriage has acquired, such as an overemphasis on procreation and on legal contract, Christian marriage is equally valid for heterosexual or homosexual couples; available to both as a sign of grace and a means of grace. When marriage is properly understood--as Martin Bucer argued over four centuries ago--as being primarily for companionship, not for procreation or parenting or "the avoidance of fornication," then its grace is operative equally for all couples who wish to enter into a covenanted relationship, whether they are a man and a woman, two women, or two men.

NOTES

  

   [1] Episcopal Church Commission on Health and Human Affairs Report, Final Draft, 1-25-88, p. 22.

         

   [2] It is not within the scope of this paper to debate whether homosexuality per se is a valid Christian lifestyle. As a gay Christian, I assume that it is. For those who seek more information on the topic of homosexuality, I recommend John S. Spong, Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality (New York: Harper & Row, 1988). and on the etiology of homosexuality, James D. Weinrich, Sexual Landscapes: Why We Are Who We Are, Why We Love Whom We Love (New York: Scribners, 1987).

         

   [3] The Metropolitan Community Church, a primarily lesbian and gay denomination with evangelical roots, has performed blessings of same-sex couples for several years. As a matter of policy, they insist upon using the term "Holy Union" for such blessings, to distinguish the church ceremony from the legal entity of marriage. Occasionally, MCC ministers do perform heterosexual marriages, for which they have legal authority, and they do call these "marriages."

         

   [4] The Bishop's Newsletter, The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California, VI:15 November 21, 1986. The Diocese of California has recently approved a liturgy called "The Affirmation of a Relationship" for use in the Sunday liturgy. It is very carefully designed so that it does not resemble a marriage in any way.

         

   [5] H&HA report final draft, p. 11. Emphasis in the original. It might be pointed out that if the Commission had "no debate" on this issue, it was probably not a sufficiently inclusive group to represent the variety of church opinion--a criticism made when a resolution was presented to General Convention 1988 requesting that an openly-gay person be added to the Commission. The resolution failed.

         

   [6] H&HA report final draft, p. 20.

         

   [7] Title I, Canon 18, Sec. 2 (b) and Sec. 3 (d).

         

   [8] 1985 Constitution and Canons, Title 111, Canon 5, Sec. 1.

         

   [9] I take quite seriously the insight from various revisionist theologies that the notion of an "objective" viewpoint is a fiction, and that it is more honest to declare one's biases openly. I write as a gay man who lives in a gay Christian marriage. The issue of the recognition of gay and lesbian marriages is not an issue about which I can speak dispassionately. Whatever customs and canons of scholarship may be violated in the process, it seems much more honest to me to use first person pronouns when discussing gay people.--RW

         

   [10] Prentice-Hall, 1984.

         

   [11] ibid, p. 206.

         

   [12] See Betty Berzon, Premanent Partners: Building Gay and Lesbian Relationships that Last (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1988), p. 160.

         

   [13] London: Gollancz, 1976.

         

   [14] ibid, p. 69.

         

   [15] 1985 canons, Title I, canon 18, section 3(d).

         

   [16] BCP, p. 423; canons 1988 Title I, canon 18, section 3(d).

         

   [17] Seabury, 1979.

         

   [18] Censura, "The order of service for the consecration of Matrimony;" "the first reason for matrimony," tr. E. C. Whitaker, Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, Alcuin Club Collections No. 55, 1974.

         

   [19] Jeremy Taylor, "The Marriage Ring," sermon XVII in A Course of Sermons for All the Sundays in the Year, Vol IV in Reginald Heber and Charles Page Eden, eds., The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, D.D.

         

   [20] James B. Nelson, Between Two Gardens, p. 66.

         

   [21] Genesis 2:18-24.

         

   [22] Symposium 191a, p. 543.

         

   [23] BCP, p. 429.

         

   [24] Brill, ibid., p. 99-100.

         

   [25] ibid, p. 100.

         

   [26] McWhirter and Mattison, Ibid, p. 31.

         

   [27] Judy Grahn, "Flaming Without Burning: Some of the Roles of Gay People in Society," in Mark Thompson, ed., Gay Spirit: Myth and Meaning (New York: Stonewall Editions/St. Martins Press, 1987), p. 7.

         

   [28] The Commission on Health and Human Affairs is perhaps more uncomfortable with alternative reproductive technologies than with homosexuality. It is intriguing that the two issues are so closely related--so many of the women choosing artificial insemination are lesbians that the lesbian and gay community often speak of the "lesbian baby boom."

         

   [29] See, for instance, Joy Schulenberg, Gay Parenting: A Complete Guide for Gay Men and Lesbians with Children, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985; or Cheri Pies, Considering Parenthood: A Workbook for Lesbians (San Francisco, Spinsters Ink, 1985).

         

   [30] Audre Lorde, "Man Child A slack Lesbian Feminist's Response," in Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde, New York: Crossing Press, 1984, p. 80.

         

   [31] BCP, p. 429.

         

   [32] BCP, p. 423.

         

   [33] Dan Stevick, Canon Law: A Handbook (Seabury, 1965), p. 150.

         

   [34] Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons of the General Convention, Annotated Constitution and Canons for the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Otherwise Known as the Episcopal Church, Adopted in General Conventions 1789-1979, Volume I--better known as "White & Dykeman" (New York: Seabury, 1982), p. 403-414.

         

   [35] Apostolic Tradition 16; see commentary by Gregory Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. If Hippolytus of Rome London: SPCK, second edition, revised Henry Chadwick, 1968, p. viii.

         

   [36] See, for instance, chapter 3 of Pauli Murray, Proud Shoes: The Story of an American Family (New York: Harper & Row, 1978).

         

   [37] I am not aware of statistics, but I would hope the Episcopal Church would have been willing to bless the marriage of an inter-racial couple even if it were not recognized as valid by the state.

         

   [38] Same-sex partnerships have recently been accorded full legal status in Denmark, and, several American cities, including New York and San Francisco, have extended "domestic partnership" rights to municipal employees in same-sex relationships.

         

   [39] 1985 Canons 1, 18, 4(d).

         

   [40] Book of Common Prayer 1552, published as The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI (New York: Dutton/Everyman's Library, 1968).

         

   [41] Swing, "Bishop's Newsletter," ibid.

         

   [42] Walter Lee-Szymanski, and Horace Lethbridge, "The Blessing of Same-Gender Couples: A Rochester, N.Y. Experience," published (photocopy) by the Episcopal Diocese of Rochester Commission on Homophile Ministry, c/o The Rev. Walter Lee-Szymanski, Calvary St. Andrews, 68 Ashland Street, Rochester, NY 14620.

         

   [43] For instance, statistics show one is at greater risk for assault, physical injury, and murder in one's own home than in any other setting. Rita-Lou Clarke, Pastoral Care of Battered Women (Westminster Press, 1968) p. 28.

         

   [44] BCP, p. 423.

         

   [45] BCP, Catechism, pp. 8S8, 860.

         

   [46] ibid, p. 857.

         

   [47] BCP, Catechism, p. 861.

         

   [48] Morehouse-Barlow, 1987.

         

   [49] ibid., p. 2.

         

   [50] ibid, p. 41-46.

         

   [51] Paul Tillich, "You Are Accepted," in The Shaking of the Foundations (Scribners, 1948), p. 154.

         

   [52] BCP, p. 423.

         

   [53] BCP, Catechism, p. 857.

         

   [54] BCP, p. 860.

         

   [55] BCP p. 431.

         

   [56] BCP p. 429.

         

   [57] This was the controversial but well supported claim John Boswell made in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 222; and the evidence does seem rather overwhelming. The House of Bishops agreed. When adding Aelred to the Episcopal Church calendar, his homosexuality was a part of the discussion.

         

   [58] Aelred, on Spiritual Friendship 3.35, p. 138.

         

   [59] Mirror of Charity 3. 109-110; tr. in Boswell, Ibid., p. 225-226. interestingly omitted from Walker and Webb's translation, op cit.

         

   [60] ibid. The translation is Boswell, p. 226. This passage, too, is omitted from the Walker and Webb translation.

         

   [61] BCP, p. 429.

         

   [62] McWhirter and Mattison, Ibid., p. 33-34.

          

   [63] ibid, p. 32.[ 64]

         

   [64] ibid., p. 35.

         

   [65] I am indebted to Larry Uhrig, cited below, for pointing this out.

         

   [66] Larry J. Uhrig, Sex Positive: A Gay Contribution to Sexual and Spiritual Union (Boston: Aylson Press, 1986) pp. 18, 60-62.

         

   [67] Ruth 1:16-17.

         

   [68] Title I, Canon 18, Section 3(d). BCP, p. 423. emphasis added.

         

   [69] Margaret R. Miles, "The Incarnation and its Meaning for Human Embodiment," Matriculation Address, September 1985, Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge. (Unpublished manuscript.)

         

   [70] Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity 54. 4.32.

         

   [71] The concept is most concisely expressed in Nelson's Embodiment, cited above, and more developed in his Between Two Gardens, also cited above. Nelson also explores specifically male sexuality and theology in The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality, Masculine Spirituality (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988).

         

   [72] Beverly Wildung Harrison, “Misogyny and Homophobia: The Unexplored Connections”, in Carol S. Robb, ed., Making the Connections: Essays in Feminist Social Ethics (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985), p. 149.

         

_________________

  

Copyright of Anglican Theological Review is the property of Anglican Theological Review Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Source: Anglican Theological Review, Spring90, Vol. 72 Issue 2, p130, 27p.