In two previous articles, I discussed the handling of the LBGTQ issue by the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  In this post, I will conclude this series by examining the position taken by the Episcopal Church, the most progressive of the three.

The Episcopal Church has approached the LBGTQ issue with the fundamental belief that all LBGTQ people are God’s children and should be treated as such.  This belief seems to have carried more weight than Bible interpretation in driving the decisions made by the church, over a long period of time, to promote inclusion of LBGTQ people in the life of the church.  As will be seen later, the Episcopal Church did not reach a final conclusion regarding how to properly interpret the Bible on this matter.

As early as 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which is the governing body of the church, proclaimed its support of LBGTQ people by adopting resolutions that recognized them as full citizens who are entitled to pastoral care:

“Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Convention 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.” (Resolution 1976-A69)

“Resolved, That this General Convention expresses its conviction that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens, and calls upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality.” (Resolution 1976-A071)

By comparison, as previously discussed, the starting point of the Catholic Church was the affirmation that homosexuality is disordered.  In 1994, the General Convention went further, adopting additional resolutions to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and provide equal access to the rites and worship of the church, including ordination:

“No person shall be denied rights, status [in], or [access to] an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, [or] ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by [this] Canon.” (Resolution 1994-C020)

“No one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by these Canons. No right to ordination is hereby established.” (Resolution 1994-D007)

The significance of these innovations was in full display when, in 2003, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, was elected bishop by the Diocese of New Hampshire.  Progress continued after this event, and in 2009, the church expressed support for same-sex relationships.  In 2012, a liturgy was recommended for blessing same-sex couples.  At the same time, the church was urging the federal government to provide legal protections for domestic partners.

“No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.” (Resolution 2012-D002)

In 2015, same-sex marriage was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Following that decision, the General Convention amended the canons of the church to allow marriage for all genders (Resolution 2015-A036).

In 2003, the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church adopted a document titled The Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective (037_HoB_TheoCmte_2003.pdf (episcopalarchives.org)), which captured the state of theological understanding within the church on matters of sexuality.  Relevant elements of the document are examined here.

In the introduction, the authors present human sexuality as a complex aspect of God’s creation, and acknowledge science as a legitimate tool to understand it:

The word “disorder” is used here, but does not refer to the homosexual condition itself.  Instead, disorder may occur in society as a result of misuse of human sexuality, including male/female relationships.  The authors acknowledge that “A certain percentage of human beings experience and understand themselves to be homosexually oriented.”  Clarity is needed regarding their status in the church:

The purpose of theology, according to the authors, is “to discern and articulate the grace and truth of God revealed in Jesus Christ and to guide the Church in mission.”  They understand that God created humans in his image, but humans fell into sin and failed to “live into the fulness” of God’s gift and calling.  Through his activity on earth, “Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, has restored us to unity with God and each other and calls us to become agents of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18).  Empowered by the Holy Spirit, we are called to grow into, rejoice in, and herald God’s grace for all creation.”

In other words, like the Lutherans, the authors here emphasize God’s grace and believe it is available to all creation.  Within that theological context, human sexuality is introduced as follows:

Both pleasure and procreation are recognized as legitimate elements in sexual intimacy.  The authors therefore differ from Catholic theologians who only focus on procreation:

While agreeing with the Catholics on the importance of procreation, the authors refer to Paul’s advice to married couples in 1 Corinthians 7 to defend their view on sexual pleasure.  I made a similar argument in my assessment of the Catholic position.

Like the ELCA, the authors do not assume that sexual orientations other than male and female are disordered.  In fact, their desire is to affirm and support them:

In my view, the theological approach presented by the document leans toward equal treatment of LBGTQ people.  However, the rest of the document recognizes, with great concern, the sharp divisions existing within church membership between those who, based on their understanding of Scripture, consider homosexuality sinful, and those who are more open-minded about the issue.  Therefore, in order to maintain unity, no firm recommendations are made on matters such as how to deal with same-sex relationships.  The church history presented in the previous section indicates that such matters were resolved in time through resolutions adopted by the General Convention.