“What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7)
Since the last General Convention, it has become commonplace to say that the Episcopal Church has two doctrines on marriage. Matthew Olver has written helpfully on the situation in several essays (see here and here). Both the traditional view that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and the more recent view that marriage is between two persons (regardless of sex), are effectively enshrined in both our canons and liturgies—or will be, pending the second reading of the prayer book revision in 2027.
For many who hold the traditional view of marriage (including me), there are some key aspects of this new “religious settlement” that come as a relief: the continued presence of the current marriage rite in the revised prayer book, some clarity on the meaning of memorialization of the 1979 BCP, and canonical safeguards for traditionalists in discernment toward ordination. But for some others of a traditional viewpoint, the revision of the prayer book to include a gender-neutral marriage rite is a bridge too far. The church’s formal endorsement of a novel doctrine, to say nothing of the ambiguity of having contradictory teachings, makes some feel that their position in the Episcopal Church is untenable.
It is primarily to this second group of sisters and brothers that I address these reflections, and more specifically to traditionalist clergy who question whether they can continue to “conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church,” as promised in their ordination vows (BCP, 538). This is also an attempt to articulate my approach to the new situation; I hope it will be helpful to others.
I want to be clear: my goal in this space is not to argue with those who hold the new teaching, but to offer encouragement for those who are troubled in conscience, especially as they persist in their work and ministry. They are my principal audience. I am especially concerned for young converts who wonder if they made a terrible mistake.
Before looking more closely at the ordination vow, we should  first observe an important distinction between descriptive and normative claims. A descriptive statement is simply a neutral observation, such as “It is raining outside” or “Most cars run on gasoline.” But a normative statement, as the name implies, makes a claim about a standard of what is correct or ought to be the case. For instance: “Your blood pressure is too high,” “The death penalty is morally wrong,” or even “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.” (Indeed, the late British philosopher Antony Flew said, “no true Scotsman” is fallacious precisely because it swaps out a descriptive definition for a normative one.)
As a descriptive claim, then, the Episcopal Church has two doctrines on marriage. This is true, and any outside observer would acknowledge as much.
But that does not mean it is necessarily true in a normative sense. And this opens a larger question: normatively speaking, what is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, to which clergy vow to conform? And what might be the standards for determining it?
Many Episcopalians would simply look to General Convention as the highest authority for deciding on the church’s doctrine. After all, it is this body that has the power to revise the Constitution, Canons, and Prayer Book. But this approach does not hold up ecclesiologically. As the Preamble of our Constitution states, we are but one member of the Anglican Communion, which is itself “a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”
Doctrinal matters that pertain to the substance of the Christian faith are, by our constitution, outside the scope of General Convention’s authority, which properly pertains to matters of church discipline and public worship within our limited portion of the larger Church. For example, General Convention does not have the authority to declare a fourth Person of the Trinity, any more than it has the authority to declare the world to be flat.
But this fact points us in the right direction. Going back to the promises made in ordination services, the vow to “conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church” is a response to the question posed in these words: “Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them?” (emphasis added). We believe that our doctrine is not our own, but that we have received it, via the Church of England, from the Church universal through the centuries, even going back to the apostles.
Such an understanding finds historical expression, for instance, in the Preface to the first American Book of Common Prayer (1789), which states that “this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship” (BCP, 11). Likewise, even at the time of the Reformation, when many doctrines and practices were brought into question, Thomas Cranmer, John Jewel, and later Richard Hooker argued for a fundamental continuity between the reformed Church of England and the faith of the ancient and universal church.
All of this assumes, of course, that the substance (or deposit) of the faith was revealed in Christ himself, who charged the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with proclaiming, preserving, and transmitting that faith until his return. Following the early modern period, Anglicans have characteristically been cautious about amending teaching or practice. Among Western Christians, especially other Protestant traditions, this caution has been our well-known signature. For centuries our default setting has been to seek conversation and consensus (consider the role the Colenso affair had in birthing the structures of the modern Anglican Communion). But even in moments of change, there has always been a sense that the apostolic faith and life we have received is not ours to alter.
One of the joys of Christianity is that our faith and life is predicated not on humanity’s best spiritual aspirations and ideas about God (which are always subject to change), but on the claim that God moved toward us, revealing himself in Christ. In short, God found us, even when we were not looking. This is central to our soteriology (“while we were yet sinners,” Rom. 5:8) and likewise our approach to receiving the teaching and life of the Church handed over (tradere) to us from our mothers and fathers in the faith (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3).
If we have not received our faith and life in this astounding way, as a gracious gift, if it were all (or even part) our own construction, we would all be wasting our time—church would be a game of self-deception and dress-up, a hobby at best.
I have argued here for a normative understanding of the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, defined by what it has received from the Church catholic. Now, I have presented this in very broad terms, which do not immediately weigh in on the question of marriage. But there is simply no question that the Church historically has only solemnized marriages between a man and a woman (with the presumption of openness to natural procreation). Let me underscore that this is a statement of objective, historical fact that should raise no eyebrows.
What then has the Episcopal Church received specifically about marriage? That is the question when we look at those ordination vows. It would seem reasonable to consider this reality—along with the anthropological assumptions that it entails—to be the substance of the doctrine of marriage that the Episcopal Church has received, and thus remains its doctrine, normatively speaking.
When I was ordained, this is how I understood, and continue to understand, the Oath of Conformity, that the doctrine of the Episcopal Church is nothing more or less than the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
It is my hope and prayer that those clergy who hold the traditional stance on marriage would understand the situation this way as well, and have confidence that this sacred heritage remains the normative meaning of our church’s doctrine. This is a comfort to conscience as we persist in ministry—in forming disciples, nourishing people with the good news and the sacraments, leading parishes in witnessing to the risen Jesus.
For clergy and laity who accept the newer understanding of marriage—who I freely and readily confess now make up the large majority of Episcopalians—the claims I have made here will likely sound strange (though none of them are original). To be clear, my aim is not to pick a fight, but only to articulate my position. I do not pass judgment on those who disagree, but only commend them to God and to their own consciences.
I can accept the current ecclesiastical arrangement as a concession to the majority, even if I believe that majority to be in error. The Church has erred and self-corrected before, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it can do so again.
The Rev. Matthew Kemp, Ph.D. is vicar of St. John’s Episcopal Church and Redeemer Lutheran Church in Centralia, Illinois. He has taught theology at universities in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Kansas. He and his wife, Alethea, have five children.
