General Synod 2007: In Plenary

In Plenary (Aftermath):
Stephen Andrews, elected Prolocutor of General Synod in Winnipeg, has suggested that the In Plenary feature devised to allow people to discuss issues in advance of General Synod, be extended to allow people to debrief following the gathering.

He has submitted the following article.

Why patience is required yet again
The Rev. Dr. Stephen Andrews

Well this is the second time we have found ourselves in this predicament. Three years ago the General Synod said that the doctrinal status of the blessing of same-sex unions needed further discussion and then affirmed the sanctity of same-sex relationships. Now the synod avows that the blessing of same-sex unions is not a matter of creedal doctrine and yet defeats a motion authorizing it. It is no wonder so many are confused by the church’s stance; indeed, not a few are angry that we have failed to give an unequivocal yes or no to this vexing issue.

The anxiety people are now feeling in the wake of Winnipeg is part of the roller-coaster ride of being a Canadian Anglican these days. We get ramped up for the next significant ecclesiastical event, in the hopes that a General Synod or a Lambeth Conference will put us out of our misery by declaring that our differences are irreconcilable, and then we are plunged into disappointment when we discover that the church is susceptible to timidity and muddleheadedness. Why are we so inconsistent? Why do our beliefs and actions so often contradict each another?

Political pundits will have their cynical answers to these questions, but I want to try to be generous and charitable. I think that we are genuinely perplexed about these matters, and that the plea for more time to study them was in earnest. The St Michael Report was helpful in locating the blessing of same-sex unions in the solar system of doctrine, but there is still the question of just how it orbits creedal doctrine. And this brings us to the now-famous Resolution A186 which was before General Synod. What were people thinking when they declared that “the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of the Anglican Church of Canada?”

I think that for many the reasoning went like this: if the blessing of same-sex unions is not a matter of creedal doctrine, how can it be in conflict with creedal doctrine? Moreover, while the St Michael Report never answers the question of whether the blessing of same-sex unions is in conflict with creedal doctrine, the fact that the Commissioners were of the opinion that this should not be a church-dividing issue may have led some to the conviction that the matter is essentially benign. Thus, they may have voted for A186 without declaring whether they thought that the blessing of same-sex unions is right or wrong (and clearly, some who voted in favour of A186 and against A187 thought that it is wrong, at least at this time.)

Now, this sort of logic will have to be pushed. It is possible to think of matters that are neither creedal doctrine nor in conflict with creedal doctrine, but which we would not wish to endorse (lay people celebrating the Eucharist, for example). And the status of “core doctrine” in our constitutions and canons still needs to be teased out. These questions will pull us further into the discussion on the nature of doctrine and Anglican identity, and they will hopefully be informed by the work of the Primate’s Theological Commission. Clearly, there is much on which to reflect further before the church should feel at liberty to act.

For all of its inadequacies, this outcome may have been a gift to our new Primate in his attempts to salvage bonds of affection in the Communion. And for us it may be the grace of God in giving us space to continue our discussions together. Let us hope and pray that we hallow this space by our unflagging efforts to hear afresh each others’ words, the words of Scripture, and the Word Incarnate. It has been said that the church acted out of fear in Winnipeg. Fear is never a virtue in the Christian life, to be sure. But, as it was for the disciples tossed about on a stormy sea, it is occasionally the precondition of divine intervention.

Stephen Andrews is President of Thorneloe University and was elected Prolocutor of General Synod in Winnipeg.

In June of 2007 the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada rejected a motion which would have allowed the blessing of the relationships of people of the same gender to be a matter of local option. This decision fueled the disappointment of many of us who believe that the moral centre of balance in issues such as this is not to be found in a rigid adherence to tradition or in a strict reading of inherited scripture. Many of us believe that the relationships of people of the same gender who are committed to each other in love should be treated as equal in value to the relationships of heterosexual persons. This is a matter not merely of justice (itself a paramount virtue in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures) but also a model of Christ-likeness, for it was the practice of Jesus to associate on an equal basis (eating and drinking together) with people who were rejected on moral grounds by the population at large, and especially by the religious establishment, and with its sanction.

The real divide, it seems to me, is not on the issue of same-gender relationships but between those who are prepared to live in a context in which disagreement in theory and practice is tolerated (even welcomed) and those who insist that their point of view must be the principle on which the thought and behaviour of all is based. I do not want to force the rest of the Anglican Church of Canada to think or behave in ways I believe to be right, but I do ask for that holy pluralism and inclusiveness which have been the hallmark of Anglicanism (in spite of moments of intolerance) since the century of our origins as a distinct branch of Christianity. I would not want any of those who voted against the resolution before General Synod to feel pressed to disobey their conscience, but I would like my conscience to be respected.

It is important to note that the resolution proposed at General Synod did not impose the blessing of committed same-gender relationships on the church. It simply made it possible for a diocese to permit it, as and where appropriate.

My reference to those who voted against the resolution introduces a second major point of concern. Altogether, 293 people voted on the resolution. Of these, 160 voted in favour, and 133 voted against. This means that approximately 55% supported the resolution and 45 % were opposed. On the basis of a popular democracy (one person : one vote) this might be considered a clear declaration of a body’s mind, even though it would leave room for careful attention to the sensitivities of the dissidents. However, the General Synod does not operate on the basis of a popular democracy. General Synod operates on the basis of what I would call an aristocratic or elitist democracy. Everyone gets a vote. But the power of the votes varies from one level of membership in the community to another.

General Synod, like many pre-modern societies, is divided into three orders (they were called estates in pre-revolutionary France). In General Synod each order holds a veto because a resolution cannot be settled unless it receives a majority in each order. This means that the decision not to provide for local option on the question of blessing same-gender unions was, in the end, taken by the 21 dissenting bishops who constituted 7 % of the total voting population of the Synod.

This seems to be a disproportionate amount of power to be placed in the hands of a numerically minute section of the community.

I do realize that some system of checks and balances may be advisable, if not necessary. Not every novelty that rises from the “lower” (I object to the spatial imagery but it reflects the reality of our organization) orders of a community should be accepted without opportunity for correction, revision, and perhaps even for modification in the direction of some more mutually-acceptable form. This is why bodies with names like Senate and House of Lords exist. There is an assumption of the value of conservative but creative wisdom. But if the House of Bishops of the General Synod is to function as a mechanism of review and restraint, should it not (like the Supreme Court of Canada) attempt to pursue some collective mind or at least indicate the reasons for dissent? As far as one can tell from a distance, the bishops, with their disproportionately immense power, did not know how the other orders would vote (or perhaps how one another would vote) until after they themselves presumably had decided how they would vote.

I suggest that if the House of Bishops is to function as a senate or Supreme Court it should clearly be so constituted. If, as appears to be the case, each bishop votes independently in accordance with his or her own conscience, should we not ask if justice is served by members of one order being given votes which are many times more powerful than those of other members of the Synod.?

This leads to the issue itself. What does blessing mean, and especially in the context of same-gender relationships? What would it mean if the resolution had been adopted and some dioceses, with the consent of their bishop, decided to act on it?

Western Christians have tended to treat blessing as though it added something to a person or an object which lacked whatever blessing is intended to convey. I once heard a wise rabbi say that the Jewish notion of blessing is very different. Jewish thought treats everything (everyone?) that comes from the creator’s hand as good. By the act of blessing the object is released for human use and enjoyment. This would apply to food (before and after it is eaten) as well as to human relationships. By blessing we do not confer a holiness otherwise absent but recognize and offer praise for inherent holiness.

Blessing often infers future fulfillment and realization of the potential implied in that which is blessed. Thus one Jewish prayer includes, “Blessed are you, eternal One, the God faithful in all your words. Be merciful to Zion, which is the house of life to us, and be a help to Israel, your people, who gives joy to Zion through her children.”[1]

A New Testament prayer (which is part of daily Morning Prayer in many parts of the Christian world) includes the words, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, he has come to his people and set them free .... In the tender compassion of our God the dawn from on high shall break upon us, to shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death, and to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

When we bless it is God who is blessed for the gift of that which we find to be a blessing. Our words do not affect the divine intention to bring all things to their perfection (“your will be done”). Our words reflect the praise we offer for the gifts of life, freedom and love. Those who join in that offering of praise share in the blessing

It would appear that the recent decision of the General Synod reflects the inability of the Anglican Church of Canada, functioning at its highest level of authority, to recognize the holiness of the commitment of couples who find that their sexual awareness and consequently their relationships are homosexual. However, the decision of the General Synod does not mean that the holiness of such relationships cannot be recognized or that God cannot be blessed for their commitment, affection, and devotion.

In neither bible nor church is blessing restricted to recognized officers of the faith community (priests, levites, apostles, ministers, bishops, presbyters, deacons, etc.).[2] Anyone may bless God for what they believe to be good. All that the church can do is indicate the extent to which someone blessing God for any gift is acting on behalf of the wider faith community.

What then can we do in the present situation? We have a number of tasks.

First, we must persuade our more conservative brothers and sisters that they should return to the inclusiveness and acceptance of difference which has historically characterized the main stream of Anglicanism. Because acceptance at the table is so central to the ministry and practice of Jesus himself, I believe refusing to eat and drink at the Lord’s table is the most serious act of violence to Christian faith that anyone can commit. Some might even argue that it is the sin against the Holy Spirit. We read in the first letter of John, “those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.” (4.30)

Excommunication has been used as a threat or weapon many times in Christian history. Seldom, I suspect, with positive effect.

Second, we must insist on a sound hermeneutic in our interpretation of scripture. It is not enough to take a strict and literal reading of a text, especially in matters on which we may already shoulder a prejudice. People who already find the notion of a homosexual relationship distasteful may find that it is relatively easy to read biblical passages on the subject in a way that supports their prejudice and not approach them with the objectivity they might bring to more neutral subjects.

The first step in biblical interpretation is to ask what happened (or is described as having happened) in a narrative text, or what a saying or prescript meant in its original context. The next step is to ask how that text has been received and interpreted in the course of the history of the faith community (as Jesus told his disciples, the coming Spirit would lead them into all truth; the implication is that they have not yet arrived at all truth). The third step is to ask what it means today. Only in a process of this kind can we identify the underlying principle or spirit of the text, which may appear to be different from the meaning suggested by a literal reading.

An example of this process is the question of divorce. Jesus clearly appears to have condemned divorce and remarriage after divorce. Over the centuries the western church tended to read the texts in question literally, although it found ways around them—like annulment—especially for the wealthy and powerful. (It was the refusal of the Pope to annul the first marriage of Henry VIII—a practice common enough for the king to have expected it to be automatic—that led to the break of the English church from Rome.)

More recently, however, students of the bible and its history have tended to see Jesus’ sayings on divorce in the context of a society in which women had no personal status and could only be the objects, not the perpetrators, of a divorce. Acceptance of this understanding of the social background in which Jesus addressed the subject eventually made it possible for many Christians who had preserved a strict reading of the texts to modify their position. This step was taken by the Anglican Church of Canada as recently as 1969.The prohibition of divorce was intended to protect women, not make their lives more miserable. Similarly, our task today is to liberate those whose lives are unfairly constrained by rules and regulations which do not contribute to their full and free humanity.

A similar approach must be taken to the texts dealing with homosexuality. In their social context men were expected to marry (women usually had even less choice in the matter) and the begetting of children, especially sons, was a sign of divine favour. In such a context a man’s refusal to marry and to maintain a conventional sexual relationship was seen as perverse. Preference for a sexual relationship with another man only added to the gravity of the situation.

On the other hand, the bible is not without a significant hint of bisexuality at least. In 1 Samuel 18 we read that Jonathan made a covenant with David, “because he loved him as his own soul.” And in 1 Samuel 20 we read, “Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.” And then, when Jonathan was killed in battle, David lamented, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan, greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1.26) We may only speculate on the details of their relationship.

Third, we must decide what we may do.

We may, of course, protest to our bishops. If they voted for the resolution, this may strengthen their resolve. If they were opposed it may encourage them to reconsider their position, especially in the light of significant opinion among thoughtful members of the church. Such protest should be courteous and straightforward, totally without emotional expressions of anger or rancour.

We can, however, do more. We can bless God for all that is good and fulfilling in a relationship. We may gather in groups and assemblies, with our gay and lesbian friends, clergy and lay people together, and bless God for all that is good in their relationship, praying that they may contribute to the justice and peace which God intends for all humanity. We may do this remembering that blessing is a communal and congregational act, and not a gesture of one individual towards another. As in every congregational act, one person may function as leader. But that individual does not confer a blessing but simply praises God for those in whose lives God’s blessing is already recognized.

We may, in fact, bless our gay and lesbian friends by blessing God for their commitment, mutual care and affection. What we may not do is claim that we are acting with the authority of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada.

In the course of time we may recognize that the failure of the House of Bishops to support the resolution on same-gender blessings was itself a gift rather than a blight. We may learn about the truly popular—perhaps even populist—nature of the church. Shortly before he was assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero said, “If they kill me, tell them they have wasted their time. A bishop will die, but the church of God, which is the people, will never perish.” The bishops may have helped us to realize that the church does not merely serve the people or include the people but is the people, i.e., those who recognize God’s agenda of justice and compassion.

If we gather from time to time to bless God for the beautiful relationships of our gay and lesbian friends we must not see our action as a mere gesture of strategic disobedience. In the spirit of Frederick Denison Maurice we must claim that the kingdom of God already lives in all humanity and it is the task of Christians to unveil it.[3]

Finally, it is vital in this and all controversial matters that we treat those with whom we disagree with the respect which we hope they will accord us.

Paul Gibson
July 2007

--

[1] Kol Haneshama, The Reconstructionist Press, p. 408.
[2] It is true that the form of blessing in Numbers 6.24-26 may have been restricted to Aaron and his sons. However, Rebekah’s brother and mother blessed her when she left to become Isaac’s wife, Isaac blessed Jacob, Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, in the story of Ruth the reapers of Boaz bless their master, Achior the Ammonite blessed Judith when she had killed Holofernes, etc. See also Occasional Celebrations, Anglican Book Centre, 1992, p. 120.
[3] In his book The Prayer Book (1849), Maurice wrote, “We forfeit our own right in [Christ] when we fail to assert a right in him for all mankind. The baptized Church is not set apart as a witness for exclusion, but against it. The denial of Christ as the root of all life and all society—this is the exclusive sectarian principle.”