Having
just attended another 'information and reflection' session
outlining the divergent views on blessing same-sex unions in
the Anglican Church of Canada, I have come to two conclusions:
1.
We are awash in information and reflection — after
all we have been having them for years, and
2. The time
for action on the part of those who are authorized to make
a decision, diocesan bishops, is way overdue.
It
is not within the mandate of lay persons to make these
kinds of decisions: that is for diocesan bishops. While
they may be charged with keeping the unity of the church
and consultation with their fellow bishops, actually
there is no unity to keep. Consultations in the House
of Bishops probably go the way of information sessions:
everyone listens to other points of view and stays with
their own.
No
one who attends any information session or who reads
a position paper or report is under any delusion that
those for or against blessing same-sex unions or ordination
of gay priests or bishops do not have their minds made
up. Neither side will be persuaded to change. Actually
all this delay and indecision is leading not only to
frustration but entrenchment of positions. The longer
no decisions are made, the more rancorous the debate
becomes. We
may call for prayer, but each side knows that prayer
is for 'the other side' to see the light.
If we believe the Spirit is leading us, any other prayer
would not reflect commitment to our own beliefs.
At
the last Archdeaconry meeting I attended, for more information
and discussion on the same-sex blessing issue, the question
was asked: What price unity? The question was turned around:
What unity? There
is no unity between parishes in New Westminster, no unity
between Dioceses, e.g. New Westminster and the Arctic,
no unity between Anglican Communions in Nigeria and South
America and The Episcopal Church in the United States
and the Anglican Church of Canada. Each side considers
they are being faithful to the call of the Spirit.
We
are at the point where the people of each diocese should
call for a decision on the part of their bishop. The
only thing laity can say is; 'This is what we
would like to see decided. Are you prepared to listen
to our voice even if it is different from your own inclination?'
I
am sure that no bishop wants to be accused of causing
disunity, but the question stands: What price unity?
What price no decisions?The
Christian church would not be here if we had remained
a part of Judaism. We Gentiles would not be here had the
Church not made a decision to be inclusive. Every
church existing today, except the Roman Catholic, broke
away on a principle. Was every one wrong to say 'Here
we stand, we can do no other?'
If
we must have information sessions and reports, let them
be on what happens after each diocese has made its decision.
Some
have asked: why push the issue of blessing same-sex unions
when such an insignificant number ask for them. Do we
really want to get into statistics? How useful, statistically,
is it to search for one lost sheep when you have ninety-nine
safe and sound? Statistically,
how many people ask for blessing of their homes? Statistically,
how many couples who come to churches to be married have
or intend to have any connection with the church? Do
we deny them? Do we really want to play the numbers game?
Let
the issue of blessing same-sex unions in the Anglican
Church of Canada be decided by each diocese before General
Synod next year — or we will have more consideration,
reports, and debate.
Sheila
A. Welbergen
St. Chad's Anglican Church
Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA
stwelbergen@yahoo.ca
22 August 2006
It
feels as though there is a dialogue of the deaf going on
in the Anglican Communion at the moment. It is as though the
loudest shout and the most clout should win, irrespective of
the claims of Love, which is God. It reminds me of Thomas Merton's
'Monastic Revision of Psalm 132':
Ah,
what a thrill it is for us all / descendants of Adam
— / by way of Cain and the Marquis de Sade — /
to dwell together / and kick each other into heaven.
Each
side knows with remarkable accuracy what the Bible says
or does not say about homosexuality or the ministry of
women or the exercise of authority, and our understanding
is incompatible with the views of our interlocutors, pace
the fact that these three topics are fraught with deep
emotional and psychological connotations, which can obfuscate
rationality. So we genuinely cannot hear the voice
of those we have automatically designated our 'opponents';
our receptors are blocked.
Perhaps
it is time that we stopped arguing and excommunicating
and started truly praying together, regularly, in small mixed
groups. Not with long, rambling 'theological' prayers, but
in deep and humble silence, more like the Publican than the
Pharisee. This is the only way in which we will become truly
open to God and to his love and his truth in others. This prayer
is not about God approving our position and converting our
brethren or our opponents, but about being drawn into the heart
of God, who is, apparently irreconcilably, Three in One. Perhaps
our Church can hold at the one time, Peter and Paul, Barnabas
and John Mark, Basil and Augustine, Cranmer and Borromeo.
Only
the heart of God is wide enough for that!
The
Reverend
Gerry Reilly
Retired
Crewkerne, Somerset, UNITED KINGDOM
26 August 2006
