The New York Times reports today that the primates of the Anglican church have given the Episcopal church eight months to ban all same-sex unions.
This is an interesting and unfortunate move for several reasons. For one thing, it changes the idea of what it means to be a member of the Anglican Communion. This is the first time that the primates have dictated to a province what it can and cannot do. When churches in Africa were dealing with the question of polygamous priests, other provinces let them work it out themselves. And in those areas where polygamy is still being practices (despite official claims to the contrary), those churches are being allowed to make the decision on how to proceed by themselves.
It is also telling that this decision focused on same-sex unions. Up until now, the argument has been that it was the consecration of an openly gay man as bishop that caused problems for the communion. After all, they said, a bishop is a bishop for the whole church, and other provinces have to interact with bishops from the US. They had a point about that. But now they are saying that they have the right to dictate our practice on same-sex unions. This is something they have been upset about, but it affects them only in the most minuscule way. It is something that is internal to the Episcopal church. We are not asking them to accept unions performed here, nor are we asking them to perform such unions. But they felt free to legislate on this anyway.
It seems that the Anglican Communion is becoming more of a top down organization, which is what some conservatives have been wanting, except, of course, when the top disagrees with them and tried to get them to change. Then the hierarchy is corrupt, they say. In their view, the Anglican Communion can legislate on internal matters to stop same-sex unions, but they won’t obey the communion when they say that bishops should stop crossing jurisdictions. When tho communion agrees with them, they go along with it, but when it disagrees with their approach, they feel free to ignore them. Of course, there are some liberals who do the same thing. These two are making it very difficult for those of us in the center.
On February 21st, 2007 at 8:36 am
To be fair Kevin, in the mind of the conservatives the issues surrounding same-sex unions is not an “internal matter” it goes to questions of doctrine and the authority of Scripture. Furthermore, for those holding liberal views on this matter, it is an issue of basic human rights and a question of who God created gay people to be. In both views this is a set of issues that the Communion as a whole is expected to take a position on.
The trouble, as you pointed out, is that neither end of this spectrum seems willing to abide by any ruling other than the one that they want.
On February 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am
I realize both sides expect the Communion to take a position on things, but that is part of the problem. The Communion was not set up to take positions. It was intended as a way to promote cooperation and fellowship between the different provinces.
The Communion does have doctrinal statements, namely the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds. The Elizabethan Settlement said that is enough. Unfortunately, people with an agenda often ignore history and communal structures.
On May 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Are there any provinces in the Anglican Communion that has polygamous priests?
And have they decided that it is right and fitting and an essential human right for priests to be polygamous?
On May 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
There are some provinces in the Anglican Communion that used to have priests, and according to some reports they still do.
Whether they decided that it is “right and fitting and an essential human right” is irrelevant. Even if they did, it is not the place of the rest of the communion to dictate to them their practice. We may disagree with them and have debates, but we cannot go on a power trip and force them to do what we want. That is not the nature of Anglicanism. Or at least it is not the way Anglicanism has been done since the English Reformation. It may be changing now, which is unfortunate.