CANADA: DEBUNKING LOCAL OPTION

By Douglas LeBlanc

Of the many legislative decisions to be made by members of the 37th General Synod, blessings of gay couples will attract the most intense media scrutiny. Amid such media attention, Synod members need to see the highest degree of clarity from those who propose such blessings.

The Rev. Canon Eric Beresford, General Synod's consultant on ethics and interfaith relations, has written a background paper on what Resolution A134 seeks. If Canon Beresford's paper is any indication, the resolution shrouds a radical proposal in the vocabulary of process, charitable dialogue, and changes of only slight increments.

Canon Beresford begins by making a distinction between same-sex blessings and same-sex marriage: "A same sex blessing would be a pastoral act that would publicly recognize a same sex couple and bless God for all the ways in which the life of the couple reflects love and faithfulness, companionship, care and concern in good times and in bad. . . . For many Anglicans, marriage also has a sacramental quality that goes beyond this[;] it teaches us something about the relationship of Christ and the Church. Some Anglicans who support 'blessing' would be uncomfortable talking about same sex marriage".

Compare this with A134's companion, Resolution A135, prepared by the Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee, which would authorize "resources for the church to use in addressing issues relating to human sexuality, including the blessing of same sex unions and the changing definition of marriage in society". Resolution A135 states the matter with a greater candor: the discussion about blessing gay couples is related to a "changing definition of marriage in society".

The civil culture, as reflected in certain courts and the mass media, often depicts gay couples as another form of family, which are now suffering the same opposition once faced by interracial couples. Some Canadian Anglicans, most notably in the Diocese of New Westminster, believe the church should endorse, with its pastoral blessings, this redefinition of marriage. That some advocates of gay blessings are "uncomfortable talking about same sex marriage" is a matter of feelings, not of determining facts. The discussion always has been about marriage, and that reality would become more explicit if General Synod were to approve A134.

Canon Beresford writes that A134 "does not address the substantive issues" of blessing gay couples, but instead is "the starting point of what is essentially a procedural motion which sets forward ways of living with disagreement and calls for further study". This understates the effect of authorizing dioceses to bless gay relationships as each sees fit. A134, despite Canon Beresford's belief to the contrary, codifies local option. Beresford favorably cites—as precedent—the vote of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, which said last summer that "local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same sex unions".

In other words, the Episcopal Church already has endorsed local option regarding gay blessings. To understand the effect of local option on gay blessings, consider the effect of local option on gay ordination. Although the Episcopal Church never formally endorsed local option regarding the ordination of noncelibate gay clergy, it allowed a de facto local option by never banning such ordinations in its canon law.

The results of this double-mindedness are now clear: noncelibate gay clergy have become rectors, reshaped hundreds of congregations, ascended in diocesan and national bureaucracies, and—in the case of Gene Robinson—joined the House of Bishops. In short, local option on gay ordination achieved what gay activists could not achieve through nearly 30 years of General Convention deliberations and votes. Local option established facts on the ground, and those new facts shaped the discussions of each successive General Convention. Local option was not merely a holding pattern. It was an active revision of church order and theology.

So, then, let the advocates on both sides of this debate address one another with loving clarity. General Synod faces a resolution that would affect the church's definition of marriage. Synod will vote to remain faithful to the church's historic, orthodox understanding or it will not. General Synod is asked, during this session in St. Catherines, to endorse local option on gay blessings. Accepting local option would increase the number of congregations willing to defy the consensus of the worldwide Anglican Communion. It would hasten the day when another resolution says, in effect, "Since various dioceses have approved local option on gay blessings, now is the time to prepare a formal rite for authorized blessings throughout the Anglican Church of Canada".

This is not a merely procedural vote to enable better study and dialogue. It is a vote for the best that gay advocates in the ACC can hope for in 2004. It is a resolution of despair, which assumes that local option is the most honorable way for a divided Anglican province to live in an ersatz peace. The best pastoral response to Resolution A134 is to give it a dignified burial in St. Catherines.

Douglas LeBlanc is a contributing editor for Christianity Today.