The Anglican Church of Canada and homosexuality

The St. Michael Report, 2006

Sponsored link.

Background:

As of mid-2007, members of the Anglican Church are divided into three groups:

There has been considerable discussion within the Church to create a local option plan, in which each diocese would have the freedom to decide whether to bless same-sex relationships within their boundaries. This would greatly increase the number of second class members. No significant consideration is currently being given to whether the Church should allow such couples to actually marry in the church.

The mid-2004 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada requested:

"that the Primate ask the Primate’s Theological Commission to review, consider, and report to the Council of General Synod, by its spring 2006 meeting, whether the blessing of committed same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine." 

This is an important matter to settle. Changes to church doctrine require a more complex and lengthy procedure: approval by a two-thirds majority at two triennial General Synods. This is a very difficult bar to reach.

The full name of the report is: "Report of the Primate’s Theological Commission of the Anglican Church of Canada on the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions." It was presented to the Council of General Synod in 2005-MAY. It is commonly referred to as the St. Michael Report in appreciation of the efforts by Anglican Sisters at St. Michael's House in Oakville, ON who housed the commission members.

The commissioners came from many of the church's 30 dioceses and held diverse theological positions. The Chairperson was the Rt. Rev. Victoria Matthews, the bishop of Edmonton, AB. 

Points raised by the Commission:

The Commission's report defined "committed same-sex unions" as: "committed, adult, monogamous, intended lifelong, same-sex relationships which include sexual intimacy."

The Commission recognized that:

"... there is a range of interpretations given to the term ‘doctrine’, and that doctrines develop and change over time.  We agree that the blessing of committed same-sex unions is not a matter of what is often referred to as a ‘core’ doctrine, in the sense of being credal doctrine. ... any proposed blessing of a same-sex relationship would be analogous to a marriage to such a degree as to require the Church to understand it coherently in relation to the doctrine of marriage." ₁

Their second of 42 points is that:

"The blessing of committed same-sex unions is tied to the question of how all sexuality, as a feature of our bodily existence, participates in our redemption – our entering into the life of holiness to which Christ, through his incarnation, his life, death, and resurrection, is always calling us.  Every discovery in human learning, scientific research, and socio-cultural development must be understood in the context of the fundamental reality that all we do and are, including our sexuality and sexual acts of intimacy, is a response in faith to the person of Jesus Christ.  Thus, insofar as a monogamous, intended lifelong, committed same-sex union will be a relationship that will either enable or impair our participation in the life of God through Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, it is inextricably linked to the core mystery of the triune God, and how we experience God’s saving mercy.  More categorically, it seems to us that this issue is fundamentally related to the doctrines of salvation (soteriology), incarnation, the work of the Holy Spirit (pneumatology), our creation in the image of God (theological anthropology), sanctification, and holy matrimony." ₂

Their eighth point is that:

"Doctrine is formed whenever the Church, as the Church, makes a statement about who God is and how God acts, and insofar as the blessing of a same-sex union constitutes such a statement about God and how God is active in relation to that union, it must be considered as a doctrinal matter. ..."

However, they differentiate between core doctrines and "what may be termed adiaphora doctrines." The latter has been defined as matters "upon which disagreement can be tolerated without endangering unity."

They noted instances in history where the Church has reversed its approval of certain established practices: