
What is the relationship between morality and the 
Eucharist? Do our actions, outside of the church building, define who we are in 
Christ? Essentially, does our bodily relationship with self and others affect 
our communion with the Other? These are the issues addressed by Fr Philip 
LeMasters in his book, 
Toward a 
Eucharistic Vision of Church, Family, Marriage and Sex. Given that 
“same-sex unions” is the hot topic of the day, this review will center on 
chapter six of the book.
Midway down the opening paragraph of the chapter, “An Orthodox Response to 
‘Same-Sex Unions,’” we read: “The question of Christianity’s proper stance on 
homosexuality is the most controversial and divisive issue facing churches in 
North America today” (p.79). This is a quote with which few Christians can 
quibble. Fireworks among foes and arm wrestling among friends might be found 
further down the page:
There is no question about the teaching of the Orthodox Church on 
homosexuality; namely, sexual relations between persons of the same sex are 
“sinful and contrary to God’s will. Orthodoxy maintains the living Tradition of 
the Church on the question of homosexuality. The Scriptures, writings of the 
Father, lives of the Saints, and the Liturgy provide no basis whatsoever for the 
endorsement of sexual relations between two people of the same sex under any 
circumstances. Consequently, there is no debate on this question in the Church 
(p.79).
Much has changed in America in the ten years since the book, 
Toward a 
Eucharistic Vision of Church, Family, Marriage and Sex, was published 
(2004). For instance, in an Illinois Senate Debate that year, Barak Obama 
stated, “I don’t think marriage is a civil right.” He went on to state that gay 
people have rights …but marriage was not among them.[1]
One need not be a political news junkie to understand that Obama’s views have 
changed. When running for President in 2008, Candidate Obama stated: “I believe 
that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”[2] On May 9, 2012, Obama 
told an interviewer that he supported same-sex marriage.[3] Then, in 2015, one 
reads: “Calling state bans on same-sex marriage ‘incompatible with the 
Constitution,’ the Obama administration Friday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme 
Court in support of couples who are making challenges in Kentucky, Michigan, 
Ohio and Tennessee.”[4]
Granted, 
Toward a 
Eucharistic Vision of Church, Family, Marriage and Sex is not about 
politics or the evolving belief of the President of the United States. But with 
such attention directed from the nation’s “bully pulpit,” is it any wonder that 
many Americans – even those within the Orthodox Church – are questioning the 
Church’s teaching on human sexuality?
Traditional media outlets – radio, television, movies – and, especially, 
social media, not to mention politically-correct public school systems, have 
indoctrinated the next generation of Americans with the notion that love knows 
no boundaries, and neither should laws regulating marriage. The speed at which 
we have reached this erroneous notion is dizzying. These days, to question this 
mandated mantra is viewed as backward, hate speech, bullying. It is for this 
reason that this book, especially the chapter on “same-sex unions” is a must 
read by those who seek to understand why the Church believes as She does.
Detailing commonly heard arguments of “orientation” and even citing those who 
make a good case for the same, LeMasters lays out the timeless position of the 
Church that “a homosexual relationship is [incapable] of bringing human beings 
to participation in the Trinitarian love of God in ways that are truly parallel 
to marriage between a man and a woman” (p.81). The foundation of God-pleasing 
union detailed throughout the book is our union with God in the Eucharist. With 
this in mind, LeMasters asks, “Is a homosexual relationship of the sort that may 
be a foretaste of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb?” (p.81) He is here referring to 
the eschatological imagery which permeates the Church’s scriptural witness:
From Genesis through Revelation, there is a continuity of God’s purposes for 
the man-woman relationship that is a unique means of our participation in the 
life of the Trinity. When man and woman die to self in the conventional love of 
marriage, they live eucharistically and participate in the very life of God, 
even as they prepare for the Kingdom. The fulfillment of God’s intentions for 
our nature as man and woman is possible only in Christian marriage. Hence, 
relationships which do not fulfill our nature as man and woman before God may 
not be instruments of grace or a means of participating in God’s reign. For this 
to happen, grace would have to become the foe of creation; in a dualistic 
fashion, nature and grace would then be enemies, rather than dynamic categories 
which together shed light on our standing before God as creatures who have 
strayed from the Lord’s purposes for us and who need a spiritual healing which 
is beyond our own ability to effect. Manachaean dualism once more would rear its 
ugly head” (p.85).[5]
Gnosticism believes that the spiritual cannot mix with matter; it does not 
matter what you do in the sensible realm as long as you understand the spiritual 
realm. Gnosticism – with its emphasis on knowledge as the key to power, science 
and religion – is dualism. It leaves men free to practice immorality.
Those who argue that the biological distinctions between the sexes amount to 
no more than spiritually irrelevant plumbing have fallen prey to the Gnostic 
dangers of radically distinguishing the person from the body. A faith which 
places so much weight on the Body of Christ – in connection to the incarnation, 
the resurrection, the Church, and the Eucharist – must never dismiss the 
importance of the bodily differences of man and woman, as they have been 
revealed to have tremendous importance in the economy of salvation from the 
biblical period to the present. It is unthinkable for the Church to bless unions 
which are so clearly perversions of God’s intentions for man and woman 
(p.85).
A May 2015 Gallop poll reveals that 63% of Americans now find “same-sex 
unions” to be morally favorable (up 23% since the year 2000); furthermore:
The substantial increase in Americans’ views that gay and lesbian relations 
are morally acceptable coincide with a record-high level of support for same-sex 
marriage and views that being gay or lesbian is something a person is born with, 
rather than due to one’s upbringing or environment.
The public is now more accepting of sexual relations outside of marriage in 
general than at any point in the history of tracking these measures, including a 
16-percentage-point increase in those saying that having a baby outside of 
marriage is morally acceptable, and a 15-point increase in the acceptability of 
sex between an unmarried man and woman. Clear majorities of Americans now say 
both are acceptable.[6]
If you couple this with the recent Pew Research Center findings that 71% of 
Americans identified as Christian in 2014 (down from 78% in 2007), one must 
assume that even those within the pews have redefined their moral beliefs based 
on a mandated politically-correct agenda rather than the faith “once and for all 
delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).”
Referring back to the chapter’s last quoted paragraph, above, no other 
conclusion can be reached than that many have indeed fallen into a Gnostic 
division of the body from the soul on the path to salvation. In other words, 
physical morality plays no part in the salvation of the soul. Such a belief is 
contrary to the witness of scripture, the fathers, and the saints of the Church. 
This deviation denies the witness of the Incarnation and distorts – nay destroys 
– a proper understanding of the Body of Christ as a communion of believers 
united in the Eucharist. Thus, as with any heresy, grace is denied.
God’s grace enables us for us the eschatological fulfillment and restoration 
of our nature, for the sharing of God’s reign through our participation in the 
life of the body of Christ. A homosexual relationship is not a fitting vehicle 
for coming to share more fully in God’s holiness. Regardless of arguments about 
whether homosexual activity is in any sense natural in our fallen world, 
Christians know the true nature of our sexuality if from what God has revealed 
about our creation and salvation as man and woman. Since grace restores and 
fulfills, but does not destroy our sexual nature as man and woman, to 
participate in homosexual relationships is to place oneself on a trajectory away 
from God’s gracious purposes for our sexuality. Hence, one who is not called to 
the vocation of heterosexual marriage should remain single and chaste, and take 
up the unique forms of ministry available to the celibate 
(p.87).
As with any review, there is a temptation to quote all the good stuff; alas, 
I have done some of this above. Yet, to fully understand the nature and import 
of 
Toward a 
Eucharistic Vision of Church, Family, Marriage and Sex more than select 
quotes – or even the cited chapter on “same-sex unions” – is needed. While the 
issues discussed in the book have been politicized in contemporary society, they 
are not political but moral issues which have been politicized. Above all, 
Christians are called to remain true to the Faith revealed to us by God in the 
scripture, the fathers, and the witness of the saints. Fr Philip LeMaster’s 
book, 
Toward a 
Eucharistic Vision of Church, Family, Marriage and Sex, explains and 
maintains this high calling.
Image Source
____________________________________________
[1] Available: 
http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-in-2004-homosexuality-not-a-choice-but-i-dont-think-marriage-is-a-civil-right/ 
(accessed May 27, 2015)
[2] Available: 
http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-in-2004-homosexuality-not-a-choice-but-i-dont-think-marriage-is-a-civil-right/ 
(accessed May 27, 2015)
[3] Stein, Sam (May 9, 2012). “Obama Backs Gay Marriage”. Huffington 
Post.
[4] [March 6, 2015] 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/obama-nationwide-same-sex-marriage/ 
(accessed May 27, 2015)
[5] Manichaeism: Manes (215-275) was a Persian and a Gnostic. He contrasted 
light and darkness, and maintained that Satan had hidden in man the particles of 
light, and that Jesus, Buddha, the Prophets, and Manes had been sent by God to 
help in the task of freeing men from the material and sensible world into the 
Light of Being. Manichaeism had a hierarchy, which distinguished the sensible, 
intellectual, and divine light. Manes was a proponent of knowledge of divine 
things, rather than faith. (Taken from an unpublished manuscript by the Rev. Dr. 
Charles Caldwell, 2010.)
[6] Available: 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-left-key-moral-issues.aspx?utm_source=Social%20Issues&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles 
(accessed May 27, 2015)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/orthodixie/2015/06/review-an-orthodox-response-to-same-sex-unions.html