Angst of the Anglican Church in Canada

There, the synod has concluded. It has taken its vote.

"Should the church allow priests to bless same-sex partnerships?
Laity: For, 78; against, 59
Clergy: For, 63; against, 53
Bishops: For, 19; against 21

Close, but as the wag says, no cigar. Politics in love and war and churchly decisions being what they are. Human relations, and fears and suspicions being what they are. The laity and the clergy voted for blessing of same-sex partnerships; the bishops, where the buck stops, those who take the heat, hadn't the heart to unbalance their near futures.

For most, their collective hearts were in the right place; inclusiveness and loving kindness to be proffered to their brethren. For a majority of the delegates had earlier approved a motion declaring same-sex blessings as compatible with the church's "core doctrine". If that isn't validation that the majority is accepting and ready, then what is?

If the vote result isn't a sad indication that caution ruled the day, that what else can it be construed as? Ironically, the very day of the vote was the very day that the largest Gay Pride parade raucously took place in downtown Toronto, that gay town. And don't imagine that there weren't Anglican clerics in full vestment there to render loving support, my daughter-in-law among them.

Confusing, is it not? Newly-elected leader of the Anglican Church in Canada, Bishop Fred Hiltz clearly feels that way. "On the one hand we said it is a matter of doctrine, on the other hand the church is not prepared to proceed immediately with the blessing of these same-sex unions. It gives one pause, to think how it is we actually make decisions", he declared.

The comfort of conformity has been shattered, the smug confidence of traditional views of the church unsettled by this near miss, and many long-time Anglicans are wondering on the one hand what has gone wrong with the moral vision of their church. Communalism is all very well and good, but the scriptures, they lament, do not support same-gender relations.

While those who would and will accept the ordination of gays and the blessing of same-sex unions, who unquestioningly respond to the inclusiveness of warmly embracing the formerly societally rejected are now themselves dejected. But unbowed. They will prevail. Eventually. The Bishop of New Westminster in British Columbia declares it will be business as usual; priests under his supervision will bless same-sex unions.

Those accommodating clergy elsewhere within Canada who have been surreptitiously blessing and marrying gay and lesbian couples may continue to do so, without the anticipated legitimization of these ceremonies. The status quo, the uneasy but determined movement to inclusiveness will continue to live on. The bitter dissent of the umbraged righteous, quoting unforgiving scriptural rejection will fester.

The threat of the comfortable pew being overtaken still conspires to encourage a break even within the two North American 'provinces', Canada and the United States - where the Episcopal Church faces the very same opposition from those unwilling to give up strictured social mores, to see their church values upended.

"We are a divided house", bemoaned one delegate. "We don't agree how to interpret tradition and scripture and what the Holy Spirit is saying to us as a Church. Therefore, we need to wait."

Deliver us from insecurity, from doubt, from apprehension. Restore compassion and kindness. Be a light unto the world.

Question: Why would monumental non-conformists be so consumed with conforming to another kind of norm? Aren't human beings just the most confoundedly incoherent beasts imaginable?

Why not do as you wish, as long as you harm no one. Why expect a way of life considered by others to be offensive to be validated by them? Why shout your demands from the rooftops? Who does it really interest, whom does it concern? Be yourself, and be glad. Avoid those whose values affront yours.

Confrontation is the bane of human existence.