Sunday evening, the Anglican Church of Canada voted to say no to the blessing of same-sex unions.
There was never any question about whether or not the church would perform marriages for same-sex partners. But blessings? Well, considering the church has no problem blessing candles, pets, plots of land, etc., you might think church members committed to monogamous, long-term relationships with one another - especially those who contribute to the life of the church in so many ways - would be eligible for a little hands-on blessing. I guess not, even with the Episcopal elephant to the south having already said yes.
It was the bishops who vetoed the idea, even though they confusingly accepted that same-sex unions have a legitimate theological basis.
Is it any wonder that parishioners wonder what the ACC stands for?
From my vantage point on the far left of the so-called debate, it is a simple question of social justice and a willingness to jettison biblical authority when it conflicts with human rights issues. I can understand those on the right with a different view of biblical authority - we will simply end up in disagreement, but we certainly understand each other. But this confusing decision by the bishops leaves no one satisfied and allows the chasm to widen even further.
I am deeply disappointed. But at least the decision has reinforced my personal belief that the ACC is alienating just about everyone. Far better, in my view, to split with the worldwide communion and even with those on the right opposed to same-sex unions, than to say yes to the theological justification and no to implementation. That's just, well, idiotic.