not too much

In agreeing that the blessing of same-sex unions is a 'matter indifferent,' the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada would appear to have approved blessing, despite efforts by some bishops to stop it. "Put simply", says the Revd. Canon Eric Beresford, President of the Atlantic School of Theology, in the Globe and Mail (9 Jul 07), "the vote leaves the church in a state of confusion."

I'm not convinced that such so-called 'confusion' is a bad thing.

Beresford writes:

The doctrinal grounds for allowing such blessings were passed, but the motion that would have allowed for an orderly approach to the change was defeated. While it is likely that the negative vote cast by the bishops (refusing to approve the rite) was motivated by a desire for the unity of the church, it is unclear whether this will now be the result.

To grasp the depth of the problem created, we need to understand what it means to say that something is a "matter indifferent." Anglicanism has since its very beginnings sought to hold together a diversity of ways of being an Anglican. The Elizabethan settlement sought to hold together all but the most radical Protestants and all but the most committed Catholics into a single church. In order to do this, the range of commitments that were required of Anglicans was kept to a minimum.

Anglicans were to hold to the historic creeds shared by all Christians, the two sacraments believed to be established by Jesus (baptism and holy communion), the tradition of leadership by bishops, and those things that could be "plainly proved by scripture." This does not cover everything that individual Anglicans might believe is important, but the point is that no Anglican can have their view compelled on anything outside this core. Things outside this core came to be known as "matters indifferent." This means they are not essential to Anglican identity and Anglicans can and, as a matter of fact, do disagree about them. I am no better or worse an Anglican for any position that I take on a matter indifferent, and my view cannot be compelled one way or another.

So then, to say that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter indifferent is to say that it is a matter about which Anglicans might reasonably disagree both in theory and in practice. It is to say that it is a matter which cannot be the basis of discipline . . .

Which, I submit, is precisely the point. If there is disagreement, which course of action should be permitted? Beresford again:

[P]riests are bound by oaths of obedience in "all things lawful and honest." The question is going to be whether or not it is lawful to require obedience from a priest on something the general synod of the church has declared to be a matter indifferent. Further, if it is a matter indifferent, the question is going to be whether a priest can lawfully be prevented from blessing, or entering into, a relationship that the 2004 general synod declared to have "integrity and sanctity."

. . . On the one hand, [the General Synod] has been unwilling [at the behest of the bishops] to affirm the right of dioceses to make pastoral provision for the blessing of same-sex unions where they might need or wish to do so. Although, technically, this does not take away the right of a diocese to proceed on the grounds that the defeat of a motion is not the affirmation of its contrary--it seems unlikely that many dioceses will not proceed as dioceses.

On the other hand, the synod has also ruled that the blessing of same-sex unions in not contrary to "core doctrine." Further, in its response to the St. Michael report, it has affirmed the conclusions of that report, which stated that blessings were not core doctrine but rather had the status of "adiaphora," meaning a matter that is not essential to salvation, or not essential to our identity as Anglican.

If this is true, it becomes unclear what could be the basis of a decision to discipline any priest who in blessing a same-sex union acts on the basis of a matter indifferent even if he or she does so, on a matter of significant controversy, and without the authorization of the church.

All to the good, it seems to me. If a matter is 'indifferent', then there should be freedom.

"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend". (Mao Zedong, 1957).

Would it were so in Australia.

Of course the Hundred flowers campaign may well have been an entrapment, to identify and eliminate dissidents!