Author: CCW

Some Thoughts about the Listening Process on the Presenting Issue of Same-sex Blessings in the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island

Inclusivity versus Comprehensiveness:

The first point to make about the question of same-sex blessings is that the debate reveals an interesting divide between the secular value of inclusivity and the sacred category of comprehensiveness. Anglican theology has often prided itself on the concept and idea of comprehensiveness, the ability to embrace a range of different but legitimate theological and liturgical positions. This is only possible on the strength and clarity about the foundational and creedal principles that define officially the Anglican approach to theology and ecclesiological unity. The secular principle of inclusivity derives from a more linear approach as distinct from the circular approach of comprehensiveness. This more linear approach is open-ended but in such a way as to be ultimately exclusive. As paradoxical as this seems, it remains the distinctive feature of the debate. The approach is open to an endless number of self-determinations of identity as asserted and claimed. God, however, is excluded from the consideration in principle. God can never be one more item in a list of items that are valued. This is a central principle of all the traditions of revealed religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Consensus of Discussion versus the Consensus Fidelium:

The second point to make about the question of same-sex blessings is that the debate presupposes a form of consensus that is false. However valuable and good the exchange of opinions and ideas, the sharing of emotions and experiences may be, such things are not determinative of matters of doctrine, whether we are talking about the essential doctrines of the faith such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, Salvation and so forth, the things that are laid out in the creeds, or whether one is talking about moral doctrine and matters of polity. Questions of doctrine are explicitly outside of the authority of the Synods, locally or nationally. The second clause of the Constitution of the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia makes this perfectly clear. One may discuss any number of things, from whether the moon is made of green cheese or whether the bishops’ knickers are purple, but such matters cannot be mandated to be believed. Synods have simply no authority over matters of doctrine essentially, morally or in terms of polity. To make the point even more directly, any attempt to coerce conscience and practice on the matter of same-sex blessings runs the risk of inviting constructive dismissal suits legally. The consensus fidelium is not something that each and every synod or parish or individual gets to decide on; we are already committed to a consensus fidelium expressed and embodied in our foundational documents. On this matter, there is a doctrine of Christian marriage to which we are committed, however much it has been compromised precisely by the overreach of Synodical and Episcopal authorities. This is leads to the third point.

The Archbishop of Canterbury as the Interpreter of the Mind of the Communion:

The third point is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in spite of his personal views, perhaps, on the issue at hand, has in his articulation of the problem in the Communion made it perfectly clear that it may be necessary to find, “ways in which others can appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which they have not agreed.” To which one must add, “and cannot agree and cannot be forced to agree.”

The Limits of the Terms of the Discourse:

There remains, perhaps, a fourth point which goes to the issue of the discourse itself. The categories in which the debate is conducted already constrain and limit the debate, removing it from the biblical and theological categories, on the one hand, (the Scriptures, Old and New, know nothing of orientation, just as there is confusion in the realm of biology about the clarity and adequacy of the category of “homosexuality”) and failing to recognize the essential social and political claim made by the more philosophically astute proponents of same-sex blessings that it is entirely and properly speaking a social construct, on the other hand. This would put the debate upon an entirely different footing, one far removed from the destructive polarities in which it is presently conducted.

Fr. David Curry
April 2009

Print this entry