Same-sex blessing proposals opposed

Bad theology boosted by bad process, say critics

CW Staff
— Vancouver —

Anglicans in Vancouver are a long way from agreeing about church blessings for same-sex unions.

The recent release of a discussion paper and proposed liturgy to bless same-sex unions (CW, Jan23/01) has prompted a sharp rebuke from conservatives who say the rationale is theologically suspect and the process of dialogue taking place in the diocese is seriously flawed.

In a January 26 declaration, Vancouver Region Essentials Committee task force restates a longstanding concern that the “dialogue” initiated by Bishop Michael Ingham two years ago is “a manifestly unfair exercise in persuasion.”

The statement lambastes the discussion paper for “selective borrowing from the minority of pro-gay theologian-advocates, ignoring the prevailing weight of critical scholarship, while giving preeminence to the voices of contemporary experience over reason, tradition and the primacy accorded Scripture in Anglican theology.”

The Essentials task force also takes the diocese to task for funding and distributing a video (Gay and Lesbian Anglicans Speak About the Proposed Rite for Same-Sex Unions) that presents only one side of the dialogue. “The voice of those who have left the same-sex lifestyle was rigidly excluded despite attempts to have this represented in the interests of balance and exclusiveness.”

The group sees the video as evidence that the diocese is not simply facilitating the dialogue, but actively working “to achieve and persuade a desired outcome.”

The task force, whose members include prominent Anglican layman George Egerton and Regent College professor Don Lewis, lament the division that results when churches wander away from the dictates of Scripture.

“At a time when sexual exploitation, gender confusion and family breakdown are being experienced by increas-ing numbers of Canadians, churches should be offering light in this darkness and a witness to

the distinctives of Christian marriage as taught by our Lord,” concludes the statement.

In a more technical dissection of the discussion paper, Ottawa-area theologian Edith M. Humphrey also finds cause for dismay. “We are told, in short, that [the same-sex blessing] is not to be construed as a sacrament. Yet the sacramental language found throughout the ceremony contradicts these cautions and explanations,” she says.

“The ceremony joins to the Eucharist what the church for ages has rejected. It names God as the one who blesses an act for which repentance is required. It replaces God with an idol, and rends the church,” writes Humphrey (http://prayerbook.ca/cann0217.htm).

Ingham, meanwhile, is asking that the issue of the blessing of same sex unions not overly dominate the selection of lay delegates to the Diocesan Synod in June. “It is important that people be selected for their wisdom, spiritual maturity, and good judgement, rather than for their position on any single issue,” he wrote in a letter to all clergy and church wardens.