| Churches in the United States seek to provide moral guidance for their members, but in the late twentieth century some denominations found it hard to offer clear moral teaching and to enforce policies in the area of sexuality. This study of the Episcopal Church between 1892 and 1997 sought to determine why the church's teaching on certain aspects of sexual morality became incoherent. Previous studies examined Pastoral Letters from the House of Bishops, resolutions from the triennial General Convention, and statements by the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Conference. This investigation found that the Episcopal Church also provided moral teaching in its canon law, in the Church's Teaching series published in the 1950s and replaced in the 1970s, and in the Book of Common Prayer. As Episcopalians grappled with contraception, remarriage after divorce, the ordination of women, and the moral status of same-sex relationships, the church's moral teaching became conflicted and confused. Underlying the debates over specific issues was a struggle to define the nature and mission of the Episcopal Church. Before the 1960s, prominent Episcopalians understood sexuality in terms of a vision that linked marriage, family, church and nation: an indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, each with clearly defined roles, was the basis of the family, and the family was the foundation of both church and society. After 1960, Episcopalians greatly modified their views on marriage, family and ordination, but did not integrate marriage, family and sexuality into a new vision of the Christian life. Similar developments took place in other churches, especially the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). For the Episcopal Church, another obstacle was a longstanding ambition to provide religious and moral leadership for the entire nation. Episcopalians found it difficult to take clear moral positions that might divide people rather than unify a nation. The Episcopal Church could not make up its mind about sexuality, not only because the issues were so complex, but because the church was deeply confused about its identity and its proper role in a radically pluralistic society. |
