In the sexual arena, the issue of gay unions is not the only one to consider, writes Colbert I King
What is it about Anglicans and sex? With millions of children starving around the globe, thousands dying each day from AIDS and sections of world capitals such as Baghdad and Washington turned into free-fire zones, bishops in the Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church in the US, have been summoned to an extraordinary meeting in England by their spiritual leader, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury. Once gathered, they will take up the subject of fleshly union between consenting Anglican adults of the same gender, one of whom happens to be an Episcopalian bishop.
One would think that Anglican clergy had better things to do with their time.
But since the "Primates of the Anglican Communion", as they are wont to call themselves, are going to spend the hard-earned money of their parishioners - of which I am one - flying off to London this fall, they might as well put their journey to good use and consider extending a little fellowship and intercession to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his African Anglican brethren. They have, truth be told, rather sticky sexual situations in their own back yards.
First, the archbishop. He isn't exactly a direct gift from God, having come to his job by way of a good word from the British prime minister and a final sign-off by the queen of England. In fact, on the Anglican table of organisation, Queen Elizabeth occupies a slot somewhere between the archbishop and the Almighty, inasmuch as Her Majesty holds the title of supreme governor of the Church of England, thus making her the person who appoints the top Church of England mucketymucks including archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals.
All of which would be rather nice to know but not essential to one's spiritual journey except that in the Anglican world, having the British royal family in the hierarchical loop poses a ticklish problem.
It is called Charles, the Prince of Wales, the queen's eldest son and heir apparent to the throne who is also the ex-husband of Diana, the late Princess of Wales.
His accession will create what might be regarded as an unholy mess for the archbishop, who presides over an Anglican Communion that teaches its members to abstain from having sex without the benefit of matrimony. Word of that theological prohibition may not have reached Prince Charles, the future king, who takes on the title of supreme governor of the Church of England when he assumes the crown.
Charles, you see, moved in with his longtime mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, about two weeks ago.
Yup, Camilla and the future supreme governor of the church now share a mansion - or as the old folks used to say, are "living in sin" - in London, in the late Queen Mum's house no less. It would be inaccurate to say the two are "shacking up," since the Queen Mum's pad is worth millions. Now the visiting primates may also wish to ponder that development as they poke their noses into the business of American Episcopalians.
After all, unlike Prince Charles and his girlfriend, America's gay and lesbian Anglicans do want the church's blessing on their long-term monogamous relationships.
Not that I care one whit what Charles does or with whom he does it. Besides, I thought the Declaration of Independence took care of our relations with the royals. But I am galled by the sheer hypocrisy of church leaders who would deny official recognition to same-sex couples in committed loving relationships while simultaneously giving a wink and a nod to a future Church of England overseer who thumbs his nose at the marriage convention.
Which gets me to my African brothers. Bishops of the Anglican Church in Africa, with a few exceptions, seem the most ruffled by the thought of sharing their exalted positions with newly-confirmed, openly-gay American Bishop V. Gene Robinson. They, along with their conservative counterparts in the United States and England, would probably take a walk if the Anglican Communion ever got around to sanctioning same-sex unions.
But how far does their puritanical streak extend?
Well, it seems they are on board with the idea of marriage between a man and woman in lifelong union - that "monogamy is God's plan", as delegates to the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Conference put it in 1988. But some of their flock on the African continent (and, it is said, one or two of the bishops themselves) are also into the practice of stretching God's plan to make marriage an arrangement between a man and several women - or polygamy as it is otherwise known. And what sayeth the Anglican Communion to that?
Well, coming together in prayerful union about 15 years ago under the eyes of the archbishop of Canterbury, the "visible symbol of Anglicanism", the assembled clergy decided that a polygamist who joined the church could keep his wives if his community went along with the arrangement, but that he couldn't take any more - a policy reaffirmed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
Recognising that they couldn't stop the practice - and not wanting to lose converts to the growing African church - the primates of the Anglican Communion bought the argument, posited by Africa's polygamy proponents, that it would be unkind for new converts to Christianity to discard their extra wives; that putting away the extras would cause social deprivation and be regarded as rejection of African culture. I can imagine trying out that line on Gwen, my wife of 42 years.
Ah, but the growing cultural acceptance of gays and lesbians in some Western communities and in Episcopal parishes cuts no ice with our African brothers. The concept of "pastorally sensitive compromises with culture" works just fine for them and their needs. To hell with everybody else. Of course it's all said with due regard for the redemptive power of unmerited suffering and for making the church a welcoming place for everybody.
If I were a bishop, I'd stay home ... and begin drafting a second Declaration of Independence.
• Colbert King is a Washington Post columnist.