What great work you've done in these two pieces, George! I hope this brief, constructive pair of essays receives really wide readership in our Episcopal Church and around the Xommunion. Readers here can help that happen by sharing the link with friends and networks. While some in the communion claimed the American Church didn't do it's homework in biblical, moral, or pastoral theology, what I think had actually happened was big work in all those areas had been done, but public voices in the controversy following Gene Robinson's election confirmation and the New Westminster affirmation of same sex blessing rites didn't address all the questions as you have here. So we had books and treatises that the broader media ignored and public statements that sometimes seemed to imply that history, scripture, tradition or any theological rationale didn't matter if we declared full inclusion was simply "a matter of justice."
You've gathered the pieces coherently. It says we really have been reading, thinking, listening to our sisters and brothers - LGBT and conservative. Thank you. And friends, let's share this widely! Donald

George,
As usual, you have done good work. I do not entirely agree with your prescriptions for the General Convention and Prayer Book revision, but I heartily concur in your conviction that civil and ecclesiastical roles should be separated once and for all. I have been advocating this since my earliest days in ministry in the very early 60's and have included this conviction in every premarital instruction that I have participated in. The Europeans have it right: go to the courthouse and get married and then seek the blessing of the Church at a nuptual mass, or whatever plays that role.
Thank you for your thoughtful treatment of these serious matters.
Donald,
Bless you, you are far too generous. The Episcopal Church has done very little to to educate or even discuss these matters with their membership. It is not that the consecration of Bishop Robinson has overshadowed the hard work that the Church had done; there was no hard work done, and the huge over-reaction to the Bishop's consecration is owing to a Church caught unawares, and unprepared. The Episcopal Church has been entirely irresponsible in these matters, and cannot make a case that they had discussed these matters for years and that the Church was making an informed decision. I am a professional ethicist, and all the claims notwithstanding, this was a badly botched business. Too bad, and inexcusable.

Phillip Cato

Does anyone know of some good works of historical analysis of marriage liturgies? I know about Kenneth Stevenson's book on the nuptial blessing, but I'm not familiar with many other related books/articles/essays in English.

I want to reply briefly to two different lines of comments raised in response to my essays.

First, in the early 1990’s, many Episcopalians, at the urging of General Convention, engaged in conversations about human sexuality. One widely used resource was “Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith,” originally published by the Evangelical Lutheran Church but adapted for Episcopalian use. The agenda for such sessions may not have explicitly addressed eligibility for holy orders. However, that issue represents a logical and reasonable extension of deciding to affirm that the Church should fully embrace persons with a same-sex gender orientation, even as the Church fully embraces heterosexuals. With respect to sexuality, ordination does not alter what constitutes a wholesome lifestyle. The lament I have heard for the last ten years from Episcopalians is not that the Church has failed to discuss sex but that people are tired of always discussing sex; the time has come to move on to other element’s of the Church’s mission.

Second, celibacy, like marriage, is a topic subsumed under the broader penumbra of human sexuality. In these essays, I intentionally addressed only the topic of marriage. Doing so obviously entails a variety of presumptions about human sexuality that a more complete treatment of the subject would explore.

From a sacramental/ritual perspective, one thing that intrigues me in the history of Christian marriage is that the oldest liturgies we have (like Jewish wedding liturgies) were built around blessings by the congregation rather than vows by the couple.

I got confirmation on this from asking friends who are liturgy scholars and asked them about it because I'd observed that the Jewish wedding liturgy didn't actually have vows. So I was wondering where our understanding that the vows make the sacrament was original or where it might have come from.

Not original and earlier Christian wedding liturgies were more like Jewish liturgy today was what my liturgy scholar friends told me.

I'm guessing from that the growth of an understanding of individual conscience and personal commitment that we've seen over two millennia of Christian history has led us to vows as we came to appreciate of the value and holiness of each person and of 'personal commitment.' I also note that 'making a personal commitment to Jesus Christ,' evangelical language about conversion is a stretch beyond New Testament language of faith. And I notice that 'I broke my wedding vows' seems like a too narrow description of infidelity. Closer to the damage done is 'I betrayed my spouse and the gift of love that God gave us.' But were fascinated with 'keeping my word' because we think of morality in such individualistic terms.

I suspect the other reason that individual promise-making (as in ordination vows, baptismal promises, and wedding vows) gradually replaced the community's offering of blessing prayer (that acknowledges the blessing of God already at work) was that monastic vows through the middle ages became the normative model for Christian life. Celibacy (yes, following on some threads from the New Testament) was considered inherently 'better' than committed, sexually expressive love. The introductory speech in the BCP marriage rite makes most sense if we hear behind it a celibate priest apologizing for participating in a sacrament that's *really* about containment of sin. The medieval triumph of monasticism as a 'better way' made heroic sanctity better than the simpler knowledge of a community feeling, knowing and embracing God's blessing on something as ordinary as the love between two people.

What's the got to do with blessing couples (same sex or otherwise)?

Much of the pastoral theology I hear in the frustrating 'defense of marriage' approach invokes the vows as a God-given defense against the peril (and likelier than not sinfulness) of our sexual desire.

Starting with the church praying a blessing over a God-initiated blessed gift (the couple's spiritual and physical love) makes a much stronger statement of the good gift of our bodies and of the tenderness, passion, and joy that we can share in committed love.

I think most of these questions are implicit in George's very good presentation. It's not just re-thinking committed same-sex relationships we've got to do. It's rethinking commitment and blessing.

Releasing information for the Church's education programs on issues of sexuality and having that education program actually take place are two very different things. It simply did not happen, at least in the eight or ten different congregations of which I am aware. Yes, we have talked endlessly about sex, but that talk has been in the context of heated disagreement and controversy over the church's policies regarding same-sex relationships, and ordination requirements. But this "education" program was about as successful as the Decade of Evangelism. Nice idea, but it never happened. And the fact that it did not happen is, in large measure, the reason there has been so much acrimonious controversy. As a Church, we are flying blind, and prejudices and prejudgments are substituted for informed choice and civil disagreement.