ACNS reports: Southern African synod to consider blessing same-sex civil unions:
The Anglican Church in Southern Africa is to consider blessing same-sex civil unions when its provincial synod meets next month. But the motion, proposed by the Diocese of Saldanha Bay, would not permit clergy to solemnise same-sex marriages. The motion says that clergy should be “especially prepared for a ministry of pastoral care for those identifying as LGBTI” but that “any cleric unwilling to engage in such envisioned pastoral care shall not be obliged to do so”…
The provincial website carries the same information here.
The full text of the proposed motion is copied below the fold.
The Province of Southern Africa encompasses: South Africa, Mozambique, the Republic of Namibia, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Kingdom of Swaziland, Angola and the British Overseas Territories of St Helena and Tristan da Cunha.
A MOTION on PASTORAL CARE in a CONTEXT OF DIVERSE HUMAN SEXUALITY
Presented to the PROVINCIAL SYNOD of ACSA in SEPTEMBER 2016
Whereas
The Anglican Communion has wrestled for many years to produce a comprehensive and mutually acceptable pastoral response to the issue of diversity in humansexuality, to homosexuality and to same sex unions.
And whereas
In 1998, Resolution 1.10 adopted by the Lambeth Conference called the Anglican Communion to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ, and called on the Communion to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation;
And whereas
Anglicans have historically chosen to use Scripture, Tradition and Reason and Experience when discerning God’s unfolding call to mission, knowing that these pillars provide a helpful space in which many voices can be heard and many insights shared, so that a loving pastoral response to those identifying as LGBT can be offered
And whereas
Provincial Synods of ACSA have asked the Bishops of our Province provide guidelines for ministry to those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual or intersex (LBGTI), but have been unable to complete these guidelines
And whereas
Lay and ordained Anglicans who identify as LGBTI, throughout the Communion and within our Province and Dioceses are in need of pastoral care and spiritual support and look to the church for help especially when wanting to enter into same-sex unions
Therefore, this Synod resolves
1. That a Bishop may:
1.1. provide for clergy to be especially prepared for a ministry of pastoral care for those identifying as LGBTI, accepting that any cleric unwilling to engage in such envisioned pastoral care shall not be obliged to do so;
1.2. provide for pastoral counselling of those identifying as LGBTI;
1.3. provide for the preparation for and the licensing of those in same sex unions to lay ministries on Parochial, Archidiaconal and Diocesan levels;
1.4. provide for prayers of blessing to be offered for those in same sex civil unions;
1.5. provide for the licensing for ministry of clergy who identify as LGBTI and are in legal same sex civil unions;
1.6. provide for the use of Liturgical Rites in regard to the above ministries.
2. That a Bishop may not
2.1. provide For the solemnization of same sex unions by clergy, in terms of the ACSA Canon on Marriage (Canon 34).
3. That the Archbishop be respectfully requested to establish an Archbishop’s Commission to:
3.1. Review, reflect on, research and share such theological, pastoral and prophetic principles emerging from this Motion;
3.2 Recommend further actions, both through Interim Reports, tabled at meetings of the Synod of Bishops, and through a final Recommendations Report which is to be tabled at the 2018 meeting of PSC, so that Recommendations, Measures and Motions can be put forward to the 2019 session of the Provincial Synod.
As a final position there would be issues to question but it positions itself as an interim policy and, in that context, it is a good step towards.
I’m going to be interested to see how they parse that, theologically.
I was amazed that the Dutch Reformed Church has accepted gay marriage….once a very conservative Calvinist body.
I hope and pray that they manage to pull off what we in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia have not YET managed.
“I was amazed that the Dutch Reformed Church has accepted gay marriage”
To be on the wrong side of history once could be considered a misfortune, but twice starts to look like carelessness.
“It also accepts that any cleric unwilling to take part in providing pastoral care to people who identify as LGBTI shall not be obliged to do so.”
No, no, no don’t do that, every cleric should be willing to offer pastoral care to all God’s children. Where is the” Ubuntu” When cleric pick and choose who they can offer pastoral care to?
The ACSA in general (and the Diocese of Saldanha Bay in particular) have painted a giant target (or, um, CROSS-hairs) on themselves, and I admire their bravery.*
[* Recognizing the proposed motion’s limitations, and that no one has a bigger target on themselves than LGBTI Africans already do.]
God bless and protect them in their efforts. God is Good!
“No, no, no don’t do that, every cleric should be willing to offer pastoral care to all God’s children. Where is the” Ubuntu” When cleric pick and choose who they can offer pastoral care to?” I know. Instead of automatically encountering discrimination it will be a lottery and, based on other countries, a surprising number of people on TA see that as satisfactory. It clearly can’t be, however, as no vulnerable person (and many LGBTI people are vulnerable) should be subjected to such a lottery of discrimination particularly within a church. If clerics don’t feel able to impartially minister to… Read more »
I think the motion and Archbishop’s comments are awkwardly worded – my understanding is that the kind of pastoral care being discussed goes further than simply being welcoming and caring. The Synod of Bishops has already issued guidance on that (http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/02/23/Bishops-welcome-same-sex-couples).
Davis is right: clergy may NOT pick and choose to whom they offer pastoral care. Even Lambeth 1998 1.10 requires pastoral care to all (though there are certainly different interpretations as to what is appropriate pastoral care to LGBTI individuals).
I think what they meant to say is that any clergy may decline to officiate at any liturgical rites authorized under the measure, and I hope they would revise it to clarify that.
Rites or pastoral care. What’s the difference? Isn’t that just semantics? Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
I don’t think so, Kate. Conscience is conscience is conscience. I may want a gay person to be cared for and valued, as a human being, but should still have the right not to bless their gay marriage if in good conscience I cannot accept that rite. Somebody else can bless it instead. I should not have to. My conscience matters too and right of conscience should be respected. At the same time I may have immense goodwill for the gay person. I just might not agree with the concept of two men marrying. Of course… in reality… I totally… Read more »
Indeed you do, Susannah. As a (hypothetical) cleric, you have the right to leave and find a church whose teaching accords with your conscience. I do not believe you have the right to remain within the church and discriminate in your ministry.
BTW unless we know that only “priests” (in your parlance) can marry or bless couples (rather than licensed lay readers too) in South Africa, we should avoid suggesting it is a rite restricted to ordained ministers.
‘optional pastoral care’ ?
Beggars belief.
Perhaps confusingly, there is an earlier, far longer, version of the motion online (http://www.stoswalds.org.za/innovaeditor/assets/2016%20-%20Prov%20Synod%20-%20Final%20Version%20Motion%20to%20Provincial%20Synod%20in%20the%20Context%20of%20Diverse%20Human%20Sexuality%20(1).pdf). This makes clear the background – of seeking to move forward on LGBTI inclusion while living with differences of theological opinion as on remarriage of divorced persons and admission of children to Holy Communion. As the United Reformed Church and others have shown when agreeing to allow ministers and congregations to celebrate marriages of same-sex couples, it is possible to move forward without mass dismissals or expulsions. The historic decision this year was made largely because representatives not yet ready to conduct such weddings did not… Read more »
Rod, it is all about semantics I think. There are three elements I suggest: 1 a civil contract between two adults for the purpose of inheritance, tax etc 2 prayers for the couple and their future 3 acknowledgement within the church that the couple is exclusive and nobody should attempt to seduce either of them Put that way, avoiding the loaded terms blessing and marriage, everything I suggest seems much less contentious. The only element of pastoral care for a couple is prayer and I don’t think that is a special rite. There might be special prayers for couples dedicating… Read more »
Reading back my last comment, I am reminded that Article XXV expressly states that marriage is not a sacrament. I think part of the problem is that the wording of marriage services has been corrupted over the years and gives an impression that the service is a sacrament. I think most couples think of a marriage service as a sacrament – I know I did until I stopped and read about the matter. I wonder if we adopted purer wording – for all marriages – which simply asks people to make a public commitment to each other and then prays… Read more »
So Kate, would you like to give us a definition of “consummation”? Presumably you’ve got a handy cut out and keep guide to sexual acts covering a wide range? Because otherwise, you’re going to need to deal with people with physical disabilities, gay couples and everyone else for whom penis-in-vagina-resulting-in-ejaculation sex isn’t on the agenda.
The law has fudged this issue. Divorce for non-consummation for same-sex couples is still on the books, but is extremely rare, and the same-sex legislation explicitly excludes it, for precisely these sorts of definitional reasons.
Article XXV of course says simply that the “commonly called Sacraments” are not “Sacraments of the Gospel” of “like nature” to those directly instituted by Christ. In typical Anglican fashion this is capable of several interpretations, so that Newman could write it “does not deny the five rites in question to be sacraments, but to be sacraments in the sense in which Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments”. This understanding seems to be vindicated in the Canadian Book of Alternative Services, where the prayer over the gifts in the nuptial propers reads in part “You have made N and… Read more »
On Article XXV, it is worth quoting a section “Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” That seems clear: irrespective of whether the state of being married is or is not a… Read more »
What BTW is the status of the 39 Articles? My guess is that for each national church it is down to them to decide but that they remain authoritative for the Instruments of Communion unless formally changed?
Kate — I don’t know why you would assume that the XXIX articles are authoritative for the “Instruments of Communion”. They never applied in Scotland or the US, and have been gently removed from any standing at all in almost every national church except the CofE and possibly the Church in Wales. They certainly have no standing in the Anglican Church of Canada except as an interesting statement of what the CofE (of which we are not a part) once believed a long time ago. I cannot imagine a situation in which, say, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal church… Read more »
John Are you certain the 39 Articles were never applied in the US because Biblehub claims they did form part of the early constitution (and doesn’t indicate they have since been removed)? http://biblehub.com/library/various/creeds_of_christendom_with_a_history_and_critical_notes/_82_american_revision_of.htm It is not history I have ever studied but it does seem plausible that the English bishops would tie apostolic succession (ie consecration of the first American bishops) to agreement to the articles. As to the Instruments of Communion, it at least started with the 39 Articles applying: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1867/resolution-8.aspx Unless it has been revoked, Resolution 8 of 1867 incorporated the standards of faith. Each church is allowed… Read more »
Kate, I would disagree with you on several points. In the American church, Matrimony and the other rites are identified as “sacramental” – that is, they can be outward signs of inward grace; but not “Dominical” as being (1)instituted by Christ, and (2) commanded of all the faithful (and so not “sacraments of the Gospel”). Indeed, there is an outward sign, and it is the couple themselves. So, in any sacramental event there is the “matter” of the sacrament, the created subject in which God acts: water; or bread and wine; or, in matrimony (as, incidentally, in ordination) the person(s)… Read more »
We don’t have the 39 Articles in Scotland. They were introduced into the Scottish Episcopal Church after the Synod of Laurencekirk in 1804 but dropped by a later General Synod in 1977. They play no part in the life of the church today at all.
Some interesting context – both troubling and encouraging to see the Lord working in the hearts of his loves :–
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hate-pastor-south-africa/#gs.WKl2wd8
Surely, nowadays, in the real life of most practising Anglicans, the once-seminal ’39 Articles’ have become what amounts to – in our days of enlightened ecumenical and pastoral sensitivity – the ’39 Artifacts’, to which candidates for ordination, in many Anglican Churches, are no longer required to assent.
One must also, in this and many other matters of governance, realise that the Provinces of the Anglican Communion are only bound to Church of England polity by filial ties of affinity and mutual respect – not constitutional allegiance.
It’s easy to dismiss the articles as anachronisms. But I think we should pause. Anglicanism was born in England as a middle course between Catholicism and Calvinism. The articles solidified the consensus as to the nature of that middle course. Historically there are grounds for viewing the articles as important as something like the Council of Nicea. I thoroughly agree that they should be reviewed. Everything other than Scripture itself should be subject to periodic review. Doubtless aspects of the articles would change if reviewed. But the intellectual and theological investment within the articles is very considerable and I believe… Read more »
“That seems clear: irrespective of whether the state of being married is or is not a sacrament, the marriage ceremony is not regarded as a sacrament within Anglicanism.”
The word missing here is “dominical”.
t’s easy to dismiss the articles as anachronisms. But I think we should pause. Anglicanism was born in England as a middle course between Catholicism and Calvinism. The articles solidified the consensus as to the nature of that middle course. Historically there are grounds for viewing the articles as important as something like the Council of Nicea. I thoroughly agree that they should be reviewed. Everything other than Scripture itself should be subject to periodic review. Doubtless aspects of the articles would change if reviewed. But the intellectual and theological investment within the articles is very considerable and I believe… Read more »