One area where there remains a real lack of clarity is the relationship between the two teachings on marriage in the Episcopal Church and our canons as they were revised in 2024. I engaged in a preliminary way in a series of essays right after the 2024 General Convention (see here) and, more specifically, a three-part foray into the matter of the two teachings. In the first of the post-General Convention essays, I explained that there were three resolutions passed by General Convention that altered the canons around the practice of same-sex marriage:
Resolution A092, Access to Ordination and Deployment
This resolution adds the following sections to Canon III.1:
Sec 3. No person shall be denied access to the discernment process or to any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two people. No right to employment, licensing, ordination, call, deployment, or election is hereby established. In dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) is unable, for reasons of conscientiously-held theological belief, to ordain a person who holds one of the above-named theological beliefs, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) shall invite another bishop of this Church to provide access to the discernment process for ordination.
Sec. 4. No priest or deacon shall be denied licensure or canonical residence in any diocese of this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two persons. No right to canonical residence or licensing is hereby established.
This change cuts in both directions. It limits the authority of bishops who remain convinced that marriage is only between a man and a woman such that one’s belief about marriage cannot be the basis for the denial of access to “the discernment process or to any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry.” But it also means that a bishop with an expansive view of marriage cannot discriminate against someone who holds a traditional view of marriage, including in consents after an episcopal election.
Resolution A093, Add provisions of 2018-B012 to canons
The fourth resolution from the task force enshrined in the canons a series of conscience protections for bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage that were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012 (see the TLC story on B012 from 2018). While B012 was a complex resolution that was understood to be a compromise, the fact that the House of Bishops passed 2024-A093 without debate seems to indicate that the charity of the compromise is widely accepted by the bishops. The text is as follows.
Added to Canon 1.19.3, is the following:
Bishops exercising ecclesiastical authority, or where appropriate ecclesiastical supervision, who hold a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, will in the case of remarriage after divorce invite another bishop of this Church to oversee the consent process and to receive any report of such Marriages, as provided in subsection c.
Canon III.12.3.a was also amended to add a new subsection that reads:
In dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, and there is a desire to use such rites by same-sex couples in a congregation or other community of faith, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) will invite another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral support to the couple, the Member of the Clergy involved and the congregation or other community of faith.
There are several important developments in these changes. But first it is probably helpful to note (especially for those outside the United States) that the practice in the Episcopal Church on the civil dissolution of a marriage and remarriage is not identical to that in other parts of the Anglican Communion. As Norman Doe explains, “the possibility of marital breakdown is rarely acknowledged in canon law” (Canon Law in the Anglican Communion, p. 284). Some churches (Korea, West Africa, Nigeria) permit individuals to seek an ecclesiastical judgment about the nullity or dissolution of a marriage and in those provinces where remarriage is allowed after divorce, the bishop is often required to give permission.
There are three important features of the two new additions to Episcopal canon law, as quoted above.
First, there are two main ways that these new canons about marriage can be implemented. One approach would be through Delegated Episcopal Oversight (DEPO), in which the diocesan bishop gives over the pastoral authority of the parish to another bishop. The other approach would be much more limited: the diocesan bishop would only hand over authority to another bishop with respect to all marriage or just to same-sex marriages, but in no other area.
Second, on the one hand, it meant that a diocesan bishop cannot forbid the use of same-sex rites within the diocese—the decision is in the hands of the rector. Ecclesiologically, this is a “presbyterian,” not “episcopalian,” approach to doctrine and order. On the other hand, through a rather untraditional approach to episcopal authority, the bishop with a traditional view of marriage is required to express the doctrine of this church that the bishop is the chief pastor of the diocese by not functioning as the chief pastor for a rite that expresses a theological belief that the bishop cannot espouse. This is especially noteworthy: The canons do not say that a bishop with a traditional view may delegate authority of same-sex marriages to another bishop: it says that the bishop will do so.
Third, the requirement that bishops with a traditional view of marriage delegate pastoral oversight of same-sex weddings to another bishop has several key theological and ecclesiological assumptions embedded within it.
(a) The Episcopal Church has two teachings about marriage.
(b) The bishop with the expansive view believes that marriage is between two persons, and thus there is no conflict with respect to traditional marriages. But the flipside is not true: there is an intractable tension between a traditional view on marriage and a same-sex marriage. The two are related, but the traditional view is not a subset of the other.
(c) The requirement that a bishop with a traditional view will delegate pastoral oversight to another bishop is premised on a series of theological (specifically, ecclesiological) assumptions:
[A]. The bishop is the chief pastor of the local church, called the diocese (BCP 513). This authority is expressed in the following ways:
[i] Proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus Christ in unity with the Apostles.
[ii] Guarding “the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church”;
[iii] Celebrating and providing “for the administration of the sacraments of the new Covenant”;
[iv] Ordaining priests and deacons and sharing in the ordination of bishops;
[v] “To be in all things a faithful pastor and wholesome example for the entire flock of Christ” (all from BCP 517).
This ministry is gathered up in the term “the high priesthood” (“and exercise without reproach the high priesthood to which you have called him”) taken from Apostolic Tradition (§3) and expressing the quite ancient teaching that the bishops contain the fulness of Holy Orders by divine gift, which is why they can dispense them. Now, there is no doubt that one piece of the history of the last 100 years within the Episcopal Church are various attempts and actions by the General Convention to limit or curb the authority of the diocesan bishop. Nonetheless, the theology of the Ordinal and of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a whole expresses the teaching of the bishop not only as Chief Pastor abut also as High Priest. The sentence that speaks of the bishops providing “for the administration of the sacraments of the new Covenant” indicates that every celebration of at least the dominical sacraments (and it is difficult to see why this does not apply to all sacramental rites) is a direct extension of the ministry of the diocesan bishop.
[B] By expressing the necessity that a bishop with a traditional view of marriage delegate pastoral authority for same-sex marriages to another bishop makes explicit what clearly undergirds the ordination rite for a bishop: as the chief pastor who shares in the high priesthood of Christ, all the sacramental rites within a diocese are an expression of the bishop’s pastoral authority. Thus, it would be not just improper, but a pastoral and theological contradiction, for a bishop with a traditional view of marriage to exercise pastoral authority over a rite which he or she believes expresses a wrong teaching.
(d) Another key implication of these canonical changes is this: no bishop can be denied consents because of holding a traditional view of marriage. This church has two teachings and both teachings are completely acceptable for any order of ministry, including the episcopacy. Thus, any consideration of a person’s view on marriage is canonically unavailable when determining whether to give consents to the election of a bishop.
The 2027 Prayer Book
These canonical revisions were made with a clear awareness that the 2024 General Convention was simultaneously taking the first step to add a gender-neutral marriage liturgy to the Book of Common Prayer. It will almost certainly be passed on a second reading and become part of the prayer book in Phoenix in 2027. The two marriage rites will sit side-by-side, a clear proof of the reality of the two teachings. A bishop does not have the authority to prevent priests from using portions of the prayer book.
Let’s imagine a bishop had a strong aversion to any doctrine of purgatory and thought that the optional prayer on page 488 that asks God to wash the faithful departed “in the blood of that immaculate Lamb that was slain to take away the sins of the world; that, whatsoever defilements he may have contracted in the midst of this earthly life being purged and done away, he may be presented pure and without spot before thee” expressed a doctrine of purgatory. Tough luck. No bishop is permitted to prohibit prayers or rites in the prayer book, especially a sacramental rite such as marriage.
At the same time, there are many rites that no priest can be required to use in a parish: Noonday Prayer; the Order of Worship for Evening; Compline; the collects and lessons for the Common of saints and Various Occasions; A Penitential Order when celebrating the Eucharist; the Decalogue; any of the forms of the Prayers of the People; any of the marriage liturgies; Thanksgiving for the Birth of a Child; Reconciliation of a Penitent. The 1979 prayer book added a second collect that can be used at Confirmation which, arguably, gives expression to a meaning of Confirmation at variance with the first. Such are the ambiguities of Anglicanism. It is important to recognize both these limitations.
But what we must keep in mind is that this church acknowledges that the gender-neutral marriage rite introduces a new teaching. In light of this, the Episcopal Church has made several concessions for any clergy who are unable to accept the theological claim that marriage is a rite between two persons, and not only between a man and a woman.
- First, this long-standing provision remains unchanged: “It shall be within the discretion of any Member of the Clergy of this Church to decline to solemnize or bless any marriage” (Canon I.18.7).
- Second, one’s view on marriage can never be a factor in “the discernment process or to any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry” (Canon III.1.3-4), including consents for bishops.
- Third, the requirement that bishops with a traditional view of marriage delegate pastoral oversight of same-sex weddings (including permission after a divorce for remarriage) to another bishop (Canon 1.19.3 and Canon III.12.3.a).
This is the approach that the Episcopal Church has taken with respect to marriage. While it does not leave either side with an ideal situation, this church has made clear legal space for both views on marriage in the hope that it will help pave the way for a lasting communion across difference and that God would bring about the unity of the Church in all things.
The Rev. Matthew S.C. Olver, Ph.D., is the Executive Director and Publisher of the Living Church Foundation, Senior Lecturer in Liturgics at Nashotah House Theological Seminary, and a scholar of early Christian liturgy.
