By Gillian Schutte
The recent decision by the Anglican Church of Southern Africa to reject the proposal allowing blessings for same-sex unions is significant for both the Church and the wider society.
This decision, which denied local bishops the right to bless same-sex couples in congregations where such a ministry would be welcomed, is a step backward for many who had hoped the Church would reflect the growing calls for inclusivity.
Archbishop Thabo Makgoba’s appeal for compromise, which would have allowed for greater flexibility and pastoral care, was ignored, revealing a deeper divide within the Church on how it handles the modern-day realities of human relationships.
The rejected proposal was a carefully considered step, seeking to accommodate both those who hold to traditional views of marriage and those who recognise the need for pastoral care for LGBTQ+ members. It specifically distinguished blessings from marriage, maintaining the Church’s stance that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, the synod’s rejection of even this middle ground indicates an unwillingness to engage with the evolving needs of its members.
This decision also reflects an adherence to colonial standards that the Church should critically examine. Homophobia, often misattributed to African traditions, was in fact imported by European settlers and their conservative religious doctrines, which enforced rigid binaries. In pre-colonial African societies, the concept of Ubuntu embraced inclusivity, recognising the dignity of all genders. The misconception that homosexuality was foreign to Africa is rooted in colonial thinking; it was homophobia that settlers introduced. This decision by the Church shows a continued entrenchment of those colonial-era doctrines, failing to recognise Africa’s more inclusive cultural heritage.
The late Archbishop Desmond Tutu had a clear and compassionate stance on LGBTQ+ rights, famously stating that he could not worship a God who was homophobic. Tutu’s life was spent fighting for justice in all its forms, and his support for the LGBTQ+ community was a natural extension of that. His advocacy for human rights set a high standard for the Church’s moral leadership, and this recent decision risks undermining that legacy.
The proposal that was voted down was built on a respect for individual conscience. Drawing inspiration from Pope Francis, who has sparked discussion in the Catholic Church around blessings for couples who may not fit into traditional definitions, the proposal acknowledged that not all bishops would agree with blessing same-sex unions. However, it allowed space for those who did to act on their conscience and the needs of their congregations. The rejection of this compromise shuts down that possibility, suggesting a more rigid interpretation of doctrine over the needs of the people.
This decision also raises questions about the Church’s place within South Africa’s progressive constitutional framework. South Africa’s Constitution protects the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, including their right to enter civil unions, and guarantees their right to dignity. The Church’s refusal to bless same-sex unions, even in the limited context of civil unions, stands at odds with these constitutional values.
Religious institutions operate within their own frameworks, and the Church is entitled to maintain its doctrine. But when those decisions affect the dignity and rights of individuals, they raise broader ethical and legal questions. The South African Bill of Rights enshrines equality and freedom of choice, and the Church’s stance on this issue could be seen as infringing on those rights within its own community. While the Church may argue that it is simply maintaining doctrinal integrity, the impact on LGBTQ+ members cannot be ignored.
For many within the LGBTQ+ community, this decision feels like exclusion. The same Church that fought for freedom and equality during apartheid now denies them the same recognition and dignity. South Africa has made significant progress in recognising and protecting LGBTQ+ rights, and the Church’s position is increasingly out of step with the democratic values that have come to define the nation.
Archbishop Makgoba has been a consistent advocate for inclusion and human rights, much like his predecessor Tutu. In his address to the synod, Makgoba called for a practical solution that would recognise the diversity within the Church while still providing pastoral care to same-sex couples. His appeal was thoughtful and sought a way forward that respected the conscience of individual bishops and congregations. Yet, despite his leadership, the synod voted against his vision, revealing a conservative force within the Church that resists any move toward inclusivity.
This internal divide within the Church presents a broader philosophical challenge. The tension between tradition and progress is not new, but it feels particularly pronounced in this context. The rejection of the proposal to bless same-sex unions shows the Church’s reluctance to engage in such dialogue. Instead of moving toward inclusivity, it has chosen to hold onto a narrow interpretation of doctrine, even as that interpretation increasingly alienates members of its own community.
This decision also raises concerns about the Church’s broader influence on societal attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals. Their refusing to offer blessings, the Church may be tacitly endorsing the prejudices and hate crimes that queer individuals face in many parts of Africa, where church doctrines often shape social attitudes. As queer people are already endangered by hostile environments in many African countries, the Church’s failure to be inclusive further compounds the risks they face. Without explicit support, they remain vulnerable to violence, persecution, and marginalisation, often justified by religious beliefs.
The Church is at a critical juncture. It can continue to cling to a traditional interpretation of scripture, one that excludes and marginalises LGBTQ+ members, or it can embrace a broader understanding of human dignity and love — one that figures like Desmond Tutu so powerfully advocated. The rejection of the proposal to bless same-sex unions feels like a missed opportunity to reflect the values of inclusion and justice that are central to the Gospel.
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, social justice and race-justice activist.
** The views in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media