Religious conservatives in North America originated a refrain during last year's United States presidential election campaign. "How would Jesus vote?" asked people on the outer fringes of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. The question may usefully be adapted in considering the dilemma that faces the Anglican Communion, the worldwide network of Protestant churches, 35 of whose 38 primates gathered this week in Newry, Co Down, to discuss gay ordination. "What would Jesus say about gay priests and bishops?"
No one can answer that question for sure. But it is possible to approach it by bearing in mind that the God extolled by the Anglican Communion is a God of love, not hate; a God of inclusion, not exclusion; a God of tolerance, of understanding, of forgiveness. Where does this God and this Jesus fit into the debate over homosexuality that has led to the Anglican churches of North America becoming semi-detached from the main 78 million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion, the third largest Christian denomination in the world?
Anglican churches have traditionally been practitioners of democracy and devolved authority. Their congregations have a strong say in the selection of their priests and those priests, by virtue of lay involvement in the running of parishes and the existence of a married clergy, are close to their congregations. The Anglican Communion has thus been adept at reflecting the views of its members. It has also been adept at negotiating the compromises necessary to hold together a group that numbers both radicals and conservatives within its ranks, and whose existence is nurtured by the very looseness of command that is a hallmark of Anglicanism.
Some of those diplomatic skills were evident yesterday when it was announced in Newry that the US Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada would remain withdrawn from a key body, the Anglican Consultative Council, until 2008 when the next Lambeth Conference will be held. But what will happen in 2008? The question of sexual ethics will be on the agenda still and the key issues confronting the church now will not have changed. The matter of gay priests, gay bishops (the issue for the US church) and the blessing of same-sex unions (the issue for the Canadian church) will not have gone away.
Anglicans have adapted well to seismic change in the past - female ordination being a notable example. Noisy extremes on either side of the gay argument help little, but those who have had to fight for their rights have always had to wrench them from the unyielding grip of those who would deny them. Greater societal tolerance of homosexuality must find a mirror within the churches. How can it be tenable for Anglicans to hold that it is acceptable to be gay but not be recognised gay, not lead a life of love shared with another person of the same sex? If the churches are to make a fallible call on this issue, better that it be on the side of increased tolerance.