The House, Sex, and Blessings

Tonight I have, once again, the privilege and duty of attending the annual Auckland Diocesan Synod. So today I’ve been writing speeches. The one below is seconding a motion on that in-house debate about who is allowed in the Anglican house and who isn’t. As well as, of course, the supposedly vexed issued of same-sex blessings.

Dear Members of Synod,

In seconding this motion I wish to firstly affirm the resolution of General Synod in its desire to include all Anglican bishops and churches in the two instruments of unity, the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council.

Certainly in the metaphorical construct of the Anglican Church as ‘family’ it is contrary to family unity and wellbeing to reject the errant children and refuse to admit them to the familial dining table. For resolution to occur all family members need to be invited to the table, and invited to participate.

Now, from my perspective, the errant children are not the American and Canadian churches, but those who are seeking their exclusion. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians have always been part of the Church. Of course a number of you won’t share my perspective, nor do I expect you to. I do expect though that as Anglicans in Aotearoa with our history of working at numerous issues of difference, like race, gender, and sexuality, we would encourage the wider Communion to make physical room at its tables for those who see and experience life differently.

Secondly, the last clause of this motion gives me the opportunity to tell a little of the story of St Matthew-in-the-City and how I understand the notion of blessing.In the 1970s the then vicar, Maurice Russell, allowed a group of gay, lesbian, and transgender Christians to meet for prayer in the Thomas Chapel. In time this group grew into the Auckland Community Church and held regular evening services. The effect on the ministry of St Matthew’s was significant. We were seen as a safe place for gay people and as a result many joined our morning congregation. The clergy were also affected. Apart from becoming targets for those who found such hospitality objectionable, we were privileged to hear something of what it was like to be gay and Christian and how destructive hetero-sexual norms could be. We were also approached by couples that wished to affirm their love, commitment, and fidelity to each other, and be prayed for and blessed by a priest. And so it has been for nearly thirty years.

In recent times being blessed has become more controversial than being welcomed or prayed for. At St Matthew’s we understand blessing to be simply, and profoundly, about proclaiming the love of God.

To bless or not to bless is therefore on one level not a moral decision. It is not about approving the lifestyle or morality of heterosexual or homosexual couples. Just as by dining with a great variety of people Jesus was not making a comment about their morality. He was rather making a comment about God’s morality. God’s love included them. Once that love had been experienced they were then free to respond however they chose.

“Hey, Glynn, what about someone we find morally repugnant? Should a priest bless them?” My answer is simply “Yes.” Of course offering a blessing in some situations is not easy. Yet most times we do it.

Any couple, gay or straight, saintly, sinful or somewhere in between, should be able to come to a priest for a blessing. The priest is not making a statement about their morality, but about the unconditional love of God.