web analytics
blessing same sex couples

Baptist Loophole for Same-Sex Couples

blessing same sex couples

Update: Bishop Kelvin Wright, Bishop of Dunedin (NZ), has responded to this post on his excellent website. After reading my post, do go and read his here.

Motion 30 in NZ Anglicanism, that we can currently liturgically recognise committed same-gender couples, and that set up a working group towards formally blessing such couples, four months ago had questions formally posed to the Judicial Committee whether there are unconstitutional issues involved. We were told,

Under the canons, the Judicial Committee must give notice of the application to any ‘interested parties’ and invite any written statement on the questions submitted.
This will occur over the next few weeks.

We seem to have heard no more either about the meetings of the working group, nor about the formal questioning, nor have I seen the invitations mentioned. Transparency, of course, people are pointing out, was part of the issue how we got to where we are.

I am not in any way preempting the Judicial Committee’s determination, but I can see that there may be conflicts with elements embodied within the constitution.

But there are precedents that may present a workaround.

A Baptist minister was also an Anglican priest in good standing. His name is unimportant, as I will point out below that he is far from being an exception.

Obviously, in his role as Baptist minister, while vowing and signing his allegiance to Anglican doctrine and discipline, he followed Baptist practice of rebaptising, and presiding at the Lord’s Supper using forms unacceptable to Anglicans.

This was all totally public and known to the bishop(s).

This loophole models a way to sign and vow to Anglican doctrine and discipline on marriage whilst, in practice, blessing and marrying committed same-gender couples.

The loophole is not an exception; it is relatively common. In cooperating parishes (churches that are run by two denominations with the minister appointed now from one, then from the other denomination), Anglican priests regularly lead Holy Communion using what is acceptable, for example, to Presbyterians, but forbidden to Anglicans. They do so, not as Presbyterian clergy but as Anglican priests, often in Anglican-owned buildings, wearing Anglican vesture.

But wait – there’s more!

Anglican clergy vow and sign that they solemnly make the declaration affirming “allegiance to the doctrine to which clause 1 of the Fundamental Provisions and clauses 1 and 2 of Part B of that Constitution bear witness”. This is the foundation of the questioning whether motion 30 is unconstitutional.

The Book of Common Prayer 1662 is part of those clauses. It includes a service called “A Commination“. But our canons and statutes explicitly forbid the use of that service, A Commination. How can NZ Anglican clergy solemnly make the declaration affirming allegiance to the doctrine that a service, which is forbidden to be used, bears witness to?!

All this, along with ordaining women, allowing divorce and remarriage, and administering communion to the unconfirmed, provides several examples and models how the church and its clergy have been able to separate what is enshrined in our constitution from the practice allowed in our church.

In short, if the Judicial Commission determines that motion 30 is unconstitutional, there may be a workaround with strong precedence.


Related news is that

the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) has [unanimously] urged the Anglican Church of Canada not to amend its marriage canon (church law) to allow the marriage of same-sex couples, saying such a move would “cause great distress for the Communion as a whole, and for its ecumenical relationships.”

Rev. Tobias Haller blogs a response here.

The Anglican Church of Canada, of course, was one of the first to ordain women – including to the episcopate. One wonders if at that time IASCUFO might have urged the Anglican Church of Canada not to to allow the ordination of women, saying such a move would “cause great distress for the Communion as a whole, and for its ecumenical relationships.” One wonders how IASCUFO might respond if the CofE consulted it about its recent innovative decision to ordain women to the episcopate? One wonders if Henry VIII had listened to IASCUFO’s approach whether there would be an Anglican Communion with an IASCUFO at all.


Please do not take my reporting various examples of people working around our formularies, canons, and statutes as my agreement with or endorsement of those workarounds. This post is taking at face value General Synod Te Hinota Whanui’s unanimous claim that “those who believe the blessing of same-gender relationships is contrary to scripture and doctrine” and “those who believe the blessing of same-gender relationships is consonant with scripture and doctrine” both have a place in our church. This post is not about debating that, it is part of enabling that to be realised. If you want to discuss that claim, this is not the post to do that. There are plenty of other sites that vigorously discuss that.

Similar Posts:

6 thoughts on “Baptist Loophole for Same-Sex Couples”

    1. Thanks, Bishop Kelvin, for your wise response. I encourage readers here to read your reflection, and will update the post so that those who don’t read comments see it. Blessings.

  1. While I’m sure there are many a Catholic priest who plays fast and loose with various liturgical forms (among other things) one can’t help but be glad that the complexity that you are facing on this and many other issues in New Zealand and other parts of the Anglican Communion is not part of the everyday experience of the Catholic Church.

    My prayers will continue.

  2. When all is said and done, our church will need a workaround if we are to stay together. I believe the general thrust of your post, that we have more workarounds being worked around than we are aware of and thus we should be able to find one more is an important marker on our journey.

    However specific examples such as you cite may or may not be helpful as precedents. The banning of the Commination service is an example of upholding an orthodox theology (God is judge, sinners face future judgement, we all should repent and amend our lives) while changing our minds on whether a specific form of setting out this theology should be part of public worship.

    This could be a precedent for us changing our minds on what forms of service are part of our public worship. But it could also be precedent for acknowledging a theological belief (e.g. that same sex partnerships are blessed by God) while denying that it should be given expression in an approved form of worship.

    1. Thanks, Peter, for being in general agreement with my post.

      I don’t think you can press your Commination points too far as you would merely end up with a priest or bishop being able to bless or marry a committed same-sex couple using any appropriate form agreed to by those participating.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.