The Anglican Church of Canada continues to be unable to reach agreement on the, to them, fractious issue of same-sex marriage between GLBTQ Anglicans (and anybody else, it is assumed).
The church recently concluded its tri-annual General Synod in Halifax during which clergy and the lay leadership dealt with church policy. One of the issues on the table was that of whether or not the church, as a whole, would permit individual dioceses (which normally have the authority to act autonomously in certain matters of policy) to bless same-sex unions.
The members resolved to continue to “engage in theological and scriptural study of human sexuality” and agreed to include “the voices of gays and lesbians” in that discussion. I would think so. This is, after all, an issue that directly affects us. However, despite the centrality of the issue in many gay and lesbian lives, it would appear we do not have the final say in how the church is to respond to us. That decision lies within the hierarchy and, given the number of years the church has been struggling with the issues of not just same-sex marriage but homosexuality in general, the hierarchy is not going to reach a consensus on this any time soon.
Meanwhile, gay and lesbian Anglicans are left in a sort of no-man’s land where they are told they are included in the body and bosom of the church, yet inclusion is tenuous. I suppose they are included as long as they don’t create too much of a ruckus about being queer. As long as we remain “nice little homosexuals” and accommodate the more sensitive souls within our respective congregations, to say nothing of the Communion itself, we are welcome. It’s rather like being told by family that we are loved and accepted so long as we don’t always go on about that homosexuality thing. And forget about bringing your partner to family gatherings, I mean, geez...do we really have to flaunt it in Aunt Millie’s face?
Actually...yeah.
General Synod was a nine-day event during which numerous small group discussions were held. Anyone who has ever attended a conference knows about these sort of discussions. Everyone sits around for hours drinking far too much coffee and debates the issue before them, each person having an opportunity to speak to their point of view and try and convince the rest of the folk of the veracity of that opinion. Eventually, sometimes, some sort of consensus is reached...consensus being a politically-correct term for I’ll cede on this point if you cede on that point. In order to reach consensus one must focus on The Greater Good and be willing to give up certain positions on an issue so that the group can “move forward”. It’s all about compromise. Quid pro quo - something for something.
Now compromise is not necessarily a bad thing and we could probably use more of it in world affairs. It beats the hell out of firing missiles at each other and bombing the beejeebers out of each others’ cities. But compromise also means seeking a middle road, one that everyone can at least live with, even if they can’t totally accept it in their hearts. Those who hold out for their positions are too often seen as intransigent and difficult, and just not being team players. There is too often a subtle psychological pressure to conform to the group. “Compromise” is sometimes a tricky thing...
Once the small groups have reached consensus, their recommendations are then brought to the large group, in this case the Synod itself. The larger group then debates the smaller groups’ recommendations and it, in turn, works towards its own consensus. It’s a slow, cumbersome and exhausting process but one the Worldwide Anglican Communion prides itself on having.
After all this, the church ultimately decided not to make a “legislative decision” after all.
In its statement, the Synod said “for many members of General Synod, there is a deep sadness that, at this time, there is no common mind.” The idea of common mind is central to the Worldwide Anglican Communion and is the base upon which it is built; it is at the core of what it means to be “Anglican.”
The Synod statement continued, stating “we acknowledge the pain that our diversity in this matter causes.”
The Anglican Church is adept at hitting the middle road in almost all its policies and certainly has long been good at turning a good phrase. What the church refers to as “diversity” is doublespeak for dithering. After all these years of discussion, campaigning by both sides of the issue, more discussion and lots of headache and heartache, the church still cannot reach a decision.
Part of that lies with the conservative African and Asian bishops who are vehemently opposed to any sort of accommodation for homosexuals, and homosexuality within the church. As was pointed out by Archdeacon Paul Feheley, Principal Secretary to Archbishop Fred Hiltz and the Canadian Primate, the debate at this Synod was “respectful” and the tone of the debate was “far less hostile” than previous years.
Certainly in previous discussions, the African and Asian bishops along with other conservative - one might even say right wing - elements within the Anglican Communion engaged in ultimatums, threats, and considerable anger, going so far as to threaten to split the church by leaving it and forming their own, more traditional, version of Anglicanism. This threat of schism has thrown the mainstream church into an absolute tizzy and it appears it is willing to do whatever it needs to do in order to prevent such a schism, even if it means hanging gay and lesbian Anglicans out to dry.
It should be noted that the African and Asian bishops engaged in some pretty nefarious arguments to drive their point home. In their view, homosexuality is a vestige of their oppressive colonial past, visited upon them by decadent white colonial masters. This is somewhat disingenuous on their part.
While colonialism was certainly not open to embracing indigenous traditions and customs and, in fact, actively and often savagely tried to stamp them out, to suggest same-sex behaviour within tribal cultures was unheard in pre-colonial times is incorrect. Tribal cultures often institutionalized same-sex behaviour through shamanism and coming of age rituals. While not “homosexual” in the Western sense of the word, and certainly not “gay or lesbian”, such behaviour did involve sexual activity between males (and, to a lesser and certainly a less documented extent, between females).
It should also be noted that the African and Asian bishops’ appear to be taking a somewhat ala carte approach to things. While claiming “colonialism” was evil and oppressive (and an argument can certainly be made for that), they choose to embrace and benefit from one of the key elements of their erstwhile colonial masters; the Church. There is an element of irony in condemning “vestiges of colonialism” while maintaining ties with the very church those colonial masters introduced; and, in fact, trying to recreate the church in the Victorian image of that era and refusing, at least in this instance, to move towards any liberalizing of the Communion.
At the last Synod held in Winnipeg in 2007, the Anglican Church in Canada decided, on a technicality, to not allow individual dioceses the right to decide whether priests could bless same-sex unions. The Anglican Church is premised on a congregationalist model rather than a strictly hierarchial model. What this means is, within the Worldwide Anglican Communion, individual dioceses have far more authority to self-govern than they do in, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church. To use a secular example, if the Worldwide Communion can be seen as a federalist body, then individual divisions within that body (which interestingly enough are referred to as provinces just as our political federalist confederation has) have the right to self-realization and governance within the general guidelines set out by the parent body. In turn, within individual provinces (the Anglican Church of Canada being one such province within the Communion), dioceses likewise are permitted a certain degree of autonomy.
To have the General Synod, which is responsible for policy guidelines, to essentially disallow diocesean authority in this matter is almost anathema to Anglican philosophy.
To further complicate matters, the 300 delegates at Synod agreed to the idea of disallowing dioceses to decide for themselves whether to bless same-sex unions or not. It should be noted, the blessing of same-sex unions by a priest is not the same as that priest performing a same-sex marriage. It is categorically not a wedding ceremony; it is merely conferring a blessing, a well-wishing if you will, on the two people involved in the relationship. But canon law requires separate majorities within the laity, priesthood, and bishopric. Adding to the confusion is the intermixing of the terms “blessing of same-sex union” and “same-sex marriage”, although in all fairness, this does not seem to be originating with the church but rather the media which appears to use the terms interchangeably. A blessing would be somewhat down the continuum from marriage and in no way would blessing a same-sex couple suggest the next step would be for the church to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies.
At any rate, what happened at the 2007 Synod was that while the priests and laity approved the proposal for the blessing of same-sex unions, Canada’s 40 bishops voted it down by a two-vote majority thereby sidelining the issue and leaving gay and lesbian Anglicans in a sort of no-man’s land. So when the hierarchy issues a statement that it “recognizes the pain,” one has to wonder first of all if that is true, and secondly, does it recognize the extent of that pain?
One may objectively empathize but unless one is a gay man or a lesbian denied this basic acknowledgment of one’s commitment to a partner, one simply cannot understand or recognize much. For some who desire to have their relationship recognized on some level, even a rudimentary one, and having the very church they are so heavily invested in, deny them that will cause emotional pain and conflict - it does not take a genius to figure out.
To then have certain elements within that church vilify and come out with outrageous arguments against not just same-sex marriage or the blessing of same-sex unions but against who you are, creates an atmosphere of pain and confusion. For supposedly loving Christian bishops to do that to people is truly perverse.
On a secular level, the whole issue of equal marriage in Canada has been resolved since 2005 when same-sex civil marriage was legalized. Those advocating for equal marriage were very clear, and continue to be very clear, that legalizing same-sex marriage did not in any way mean that religious institutions would have to marry same-sex couples. That is as it should be.
However, the Anglican Church of Canada indeed the Worldwide Communion itself needs to stop equivocating and make a stand. Either allow individual bishops to decide, in consultation with their parishioners and officials, to opt for either the blessing of same-sex unions (or full-out allow priests to conduct same-sex marriages within the church), or be very clear that the church does not permit it. Would I be happy to learn the church does not allow it? No. Could I accept it knowing other options exist? Yes.
Church authorities have the right to set policy according to their beliefs, their tenets, and their interpretation of Scripture. It matters not a whit if I agree or disagree, really. The principle at question then becomes, does a church (temple, synagogue or mosque) have the right to practice their religion as they see fit, and in Canada that right is guaranteed. It is not up to the State, nor would I want it to be, to dictate to religious authorities how they practice their religion.
What is so frustrating here is that the Anglican Church isn’t even really talking about same-sex marriage. This is still stuck at the level of blessing of same-sex union, light years removed from actually performing a marriage ritual within the church. I see no reason why a bishop cannot permit his priests, if they so choose and have the backing of their parish, to bless two men or two women who have chosen to enter into a loving covenant. It is, after all, “only” a blessing, a wishing the couple well and directing the smiles of God upon them. And God, if He exists, smiles upon those who love. That’s one level. On another level, it is simply a nice ritual and I see no reason why gay and lesbian couples cannot access it if they choose, and their congregation/priest/bishop/diocese accepts it.
However, I come from a secular humanist perspective and, as such, fully accept that how I see the issue may not be how the church sees it. Fine. While I would disagree, I would accept the church holding to the position that to bless a same-sex couple is tantamount to a tacit agreement that homosexuality is an “acceptable choice” (or however the church views it. I don’t view it as “choice” but I certainly view it as “acceptable”) and that goes against the teachings of the church.
That being the case, and I don’t know if here it is, then the church is totally within its rights to come out in opposition to supporting homosexuality. Do I have issues with those churches that do? Absolutely. And that is my right. What the Anglican Church is doing, however, is saying on the one hand that lesbians and gay men are welcome and accepted within the bosom of the church and, on the other, denying us their blessing. In some circles this is known as having one’s cake and eating it too. It is morally weak, ethically questionable if not outright wrong, and the church needs to grow a pair and take a stand and end this excruciating exercise in trying to make everyone - right wing, conservative, liberal - happy.
