I have been asked about the decisions of the recent Synod of the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as reported in the media. I can only offer the following observations in what is an attempt to explain what seems to be rather confusing.
The Politics of Confusion?
Some Reflections on the Recent Decisions
of the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island
Truth, it is often said, is the first casualty of war. More often than not, there is simply confusion. In the ‘sex-wars’ within the Anglican Communion, confusion reigns supreme. The recent Synod of the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provides a case in point.
The Synod discussed and debated a number of motions regarding the issue of same-sex blessings. The four motions were, one might say, aggressive in their zeal for providing some sort of arrangement, blessing, marriage, or otherwise for same-sex couples. Most remarkable is the degree of confusion about the word, ‘marriage’.
The motions included keeping a roster of parishes and clergy “amenable to the blessing of same-sex civilly married couples”; providing a liturgy for “blessing covenanted or committed unions outside marriage”; requiring clergy to “cease acting as agents of the civil government in performing marriages until such time as the clergy of the Diocese may officiate at the marriage of all legally eligible persons”; and a motion that, on the one hand, called for the Bishop’s Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality [1] (2010) to become an Episcopal guideline, while, on the other hand, seeming to advocate the principle of local option.
Overall the motions are, well, intriguing, ranging from the blessings for those already civilly married, as if the Church were to bless whatever the state has allowed, to forcing parishes and priests to declare themselves on this matter as if such things lay within the purview of either. Not to mention the idea of the clergy going on strike and refusing to marry anybody until everybody in the Church is compliant with what the state has determined are legal marriages. Once again, in this view the church is seen as subservient to the state and not independent.
Curious and confusing. It is a twist on the unspoken concordat between church and state that has existed in Canada for over two centuries whereby the clergy function as unpaid civil servants in performing marriages that are then legally recognized by the state. Some, it seems, want the church to bless willy-nilly whatever is recognized by the state.
The motions were all defeated except for one, # 8. Its original wording is as follows:
that this Synod request the Bishop or bishops to adapt the Pastoral Letter of October 1, 2010 as a Bishop’s or Bishops’ Guideline. If a parish, after prayerful discernment, decides to move beyond the current level of pastoral response, to the blessing or marriages of same-sex couples, such a decision reflects the diversity of “local discernment, decision, and action,” and will be accommodated within the diverse pastoral practices of the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as we respond in our missional context.
The motion was passed in an amended form in which the words “or marriages” were removed. This motion has been the occasion of the media attention which claims that the “Anglican Church approves same-sex blessings” (Chronicle Herald, Saturday, May 28th) and that “Same-sex blessing passes” (Chronicle Herald, Sunday, May 29th). The media reportage claims that such provisions are operative only in cases where couples are already legally married, but nothing of that is in the motion itself. It does not appear that there has been any attempt to clarify exactly what was passed and what exactly it means. The media reports do not give the actual motion, the amended version of which only appeared on the Diocesan website Tuesday afternoon, May 31st.
With respect to the actual motion, however, the following observations may be pertinent:
First, while the Synod may discuss anything it wishes, its powers are limited by its own constitution [2]: “Synod may deliberate and decide on all matters affecting the interest of the Church in the Diocese, but shall have no jurisdiction over matters affecting the doctrine or worship of the Church”.
Secondly, the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island still understands itself to be a part of the Anglican Church of Canada which, at its national level, claims to uphold and honour the international moratorium on such blessings, as requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thirdly, no rites have been approved for the blessings envisioned by this motion; indeed, a subsequent motion “request[ing] the Bishop to provide for a liturgy for blessing covenanted or committed unions outside of marriage” was defeated.
Fourthly, the motion itself is confusing. The first sentence refers to the Bishop’s 2010 Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality advocating that it be regarded as an Episcopal guideline. That letter quotes the House of Bishop’s 2007 statement which makes it clear that there can be no nuptial blessings, no marriages, of same-sex couples in Anglican Churches in Canada but, nonetheless, attempts to provide a kind of pastoral response; to wit:
“When a civilly married gay or lesbian couple seeks our church’s reception of their civil marriage and asks their parish’s recognition, it may be possible, with their bishop’s knowledge and permission, to celebrate a Eucharist with the couple, including appropriate intercessory prayers, but not including a nuptial blessing.
“When a gay or lesbian married couple seeks to hold a reception or celebration in a church for their life in Christ, again intercessory prayers for their mutual fidelity, the deepening of their discipleship and for their baptismal ministry may be offered, not including the exchange of vows and/or a nuptial blessing.” (House of Bishops, April 20, 2007).
The motion at the Diocesan Synod seems to go beyond the very document which it has asked to be established as a guideline and to allow for the blessing of same-sex couples, though exactly what that blessing would mean remains quite unclear. If it is to be understood in accord with the Bishop’s letter, then the blessing would not be equated with a nuptial blessing and would specifically exclude any exchange of vows. This is not the way in which it has been presented in the media which has said little (a) about the motion itself or (b) about the matters to which it apparently defers. This is part of the confusion. If it is to be understood as going beyond the Bishop’s letter, then it would seem to permit blessings (that are or are not marriages?) as part of the diversity of pastoral practices in the Diocese.
Thus, there is considerable confusion about the words marriage and blessing and about the implied notion that marriage is whatever the state deems, as if marriage were somehow disconnected from the life and activity of the Church. There is a further confusion. Is the second sentence to be understood as allowing a parish to move to the blessing of same-sex couples, beyond the current level of pastoral response, or to allow a parish to move beyond the current level of pastoral response to the blessing of same-sex couples to some other sort of (as yet unspecified) pastoral response? The comma after ‘response’ in the actual motion makes the meaning unclear and ambiguous. Confusing.
Fifthly, the motion passed by the Synod has no coercive force on Parishes, though it appears to argue for local option over and against the moratorium in place in the Communion as a whole and within the Anglican Church of Canada at the present time.
In short, the whole matter remains confused and confusing about the understanding of such words as ‘marriage’, removed from the motion, and ‘blessing’, retained in the motion, and about the relation between the motion and the Bishop’s letter to which it refers, and about the status of the moratorium itself.
Much ado about nothing? Or is this the politics of confusion?
(Rev’d) David Curry
June 2011