This brave and intelligent book makes a historical argument that the Orthodox Churches should recognise same-sex relationships in some form. Citing lending at interest, service in the imperial state, and remarriage as examples, Stephen Morris points out that the Church has changed its teaching on some issues and has changed actual practice on others even while leaving official canons unchanged. He suggests the latter course in the case of committed same-sex relationships: the Byzantine rite of adelphopoiia (‘brother-making’) could provide Christian recognition and solemnisation for civil same-sex marriages without granting them the same status as marriage within the Church or enforcing existing canon laws against homosexual activity. Through his analyses of Byzantine sources from late antiquity to the modern era, Morris argues that ecclesiastical and monastic institutions have always recognised the existence of homosexual desires and acts, which they have usually punished less severely than transgressive heterosexual acts; and that canon law on multiple marriages has changed dramatically and illustrates historical flexibility in sexual ethics. The rite of adelphopoiia provided a means of binding men in ecclesiastically recognised relationships; these bonds formed kinship ties for networking purposes and were not supposed to include a sexual component, but were sometimes understood to do so. Successive chapters study monastic anecdotes and rules (ch. i); civil or secular law (ch. ii); canon law and penitential handbooks (ch. iii); John Chrysostom's frequently cited denunciations of same-sex behaviour (ch. iv); and the form and meaning of adelphopoiia (ch. v). For the last subject Morris relies on his own analysis and an excellent article by Claudia Rapp (whose book on the topic appeared at the same time as this one) rather than on the controversial work of John Boswell. Four appendices provide translations of some key sources, including Chrysostom's fourth homily on Romans and services for blessing second or third marriages and for adelphopoiia. Historical work of this kind requires not only the linguistic and philological skills to access and interpret the primary sources, but also understanding of recent theory and method in the history of sexuality and a willingness to acknowledge the complexity of earlier cultures in this area. Morris exhibits all these scholarly virtues. To be sure, this is history in the service of a theological argument for inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians, but it is well done all the same and should engage the attention of historians of Christianity and of sexuality as well as Orthodox theologians and ethicists.