Man as Male and Female

The Sacrament of Baptism is the same for both male and female. The same is true of Confirmation, Communion, Penitence and Unction. That is equality in four of the seven sacraments. Holy Scriptures declare the intent that male and female are not identical. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh; so that they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:7-9). There are many references to the Body of Christ and the equal dignity of all its members. But American Christians wanted more than such equality and dignity. New approaches to sexuality, marital ethics, family pluralism, “gender” roles and child socialization emerged. These led to distinctive rights and moral standing of individuals and not as members of natural groups like the family. This commitment caused the erosion and overthrow of received doctrine in favor of cultural modernity.

The change to use “man and woman”, “he and she” and “brothers and sisters” was innocuous. But then women objected to God being referred to as “the Father”, “the King and “the Lord”. They thought that God as an approachable Deity, had to be conformed to humanity’s perceptions. They argued that the dominance of the patriarchs in Holy Scriptures simply reflected the culture of the time. They felt Holy Scriptures should be re-interpreted to reflect the culture of our times. They felt that social, psychological and anthropological study provided superior accounts of humanity than the doctrines of the Bible.

In 1973, ECUSA canon law was revised to place divorce and remarriage in a pastoral rather than a legalistic context. It affirmed what had been occurring for the prior decade. Prior to this point, bishops had the authority to allow re-marriage of church members in church based on a judgment of nullity of the first marriage. This change allowed the parish priest to make the decision totally without canonical guidelines. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy as indicated by the number of bishops practicing serial monogamy today. The prevalence of divorced members was so taken for granted that marital status of a person was not taken into consideration for candidates for priests, rectors and bishops. This laxity led to, “If the Church has set aside the laws of Christ and the canonical law tradition in order to be pastorally sensitive to the divorced, why can’t it have the same attitude to those who are “homosexual persona” and also have needs?” What group will next use this argument to circumvent standards?

In the 1970’s people began marrying later often to finish college, marriages fell apart, divorce rates rose dramatically and pre-marital sex became the norm with the use of safe birth control. Conformity to inherited social roles in and around marriage was replaced with a growing focus on self-fulfillment, intimacy, fairness and emotional gratification. Acceptance of singlehood, unmarried cohabitation, childlessness, divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing increased. Formerly fixed relations and roles between marriage, procreation, conception, child birth and parenting were literally shaken apart. With sperm banks, frozen embryos and in vitro fertilization it is possible for a new born child to have five different “parents” – a sperm donor, an egg donor, a birth mother, and the adoptive couple who raise the child.

Changes resulted from five significant developments. First, ECUSA embraced abortion rights. Second, the 1979 Book redefined the purpose of Holy Matrimony. Third was a gradual move to recognize a permanent sexual “orientation” on the part of some persons. Fourth was the tacit acceptance of cohabiting. Fifth was the changed attitude to the place of children. Marriage is now a means to personal satisfaction and fulfillment in terms of friendship, companionship and sexual enjoyment, and the having of children is optional. Personal satisfaction is required. Commitment is optional. Once this change is accepted, the next question is, “Why should not persons of the same-sex enjoy sexual intimacy and companionship?”

One reason broad-minded couples with children attend the mainline Churches, including the ECUSA, is to expose their children to religious and moral teaching that they hope will bring meaning and purpose to their lives. The teaching today is quite different from that expected in the 1950s. The modern approach has a child-centered focus which treats children as autonomous moral agents even before they have to opportunity to acquire moral or ethical values. ECUSA treats them as full communicant members of the church and they receive communion from the earliest years.

Relationship is one of several key words being redefined by common usage. It came to be used to describe that which in the 1950s would have been called “fornication” or “adultery” or even “sodomy”. Such forms of relating began to lose their immoral aspects and became a “relationship.” Gender is another key word now used to replace the word sex. Sex used in line with its Latin origins from the sexus or secus meant to divide or to halve. Sex is the division of the human race into two kinds, male and female. Sex quit being an objective state of being and came to describe the activity of sexual intercourse. Gender was then called out of the field of grammar to refer to the biological identity of a human being as either male or female. Finally sex became more than activity. It indicated the internal wiring or passion of the body that produces the desires for intimate activity. This required the word “orientation” to describe those whose attentions were directed to the same “gender”. Today, “gay” is used to further control the image of same-sex couples. It portrays an image that cannot be true within God’s order.

The 1928 BCP defines Marriage in the Reformed Catholic tradition. Matrimony was ordained by God for three purposes which are to be seen as a whole, not as in order of importance. It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to praise his holy Name. It was ordained as a remedy against sin and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body. It was ordained for the mutual society, help and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. This clarifies Christ’s teaching of the two becoming one flesh. As one flesh they come together permanently for both intimacy of friendship and of procreation. Further, by so doing they place themselves in a union where they can avoid fornication.

The 1928 BCP requests the same promises from both men and women in the “Order for Holy Matrimony”. This alleviates the biggest complaints about the traditional marriage service. However, the word love requires clarification. The service does not refer to romantic love, it refers to the dedicated commitment of doing continual good to and for the other within the relation of intimacy and faithfulness.

W. Bradford Wilcox wrote “Soft Patriarchs, New Men. How Christianity shapes Fathers and Husbands” (2004). He says, “If the father is consciously imitating the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in word and action, attitude and relation, then the patriarchy is not oppressive but generous and gracious. It is not abusive or authoritarian headship but, to use his chosen expression, it is “soft patriarchy,” where the father is the servant leader.”

The neo-traditional order of family life is found amongst conservative Christians in all branches of the body of Christ. It is not the patriarchal ordering of the American family in the 1950s with strong lines of demarcation between what the husband’s and wife’s roles were. Rather, it is a fresh attempt in the face of modernity and post-modernity, and in the complexity of western culture, to live out practically God’s ordering of human relations as given in the Book of Genesis and as confirmed by Jesus Christ and his apostles.

For more details, read “Episcopal Innovations 1960 – 2004” by The Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, M.A., D.Phil.

(Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA 2006)