After further amendment, Resolution A186 was eventually passed, June 24, by a narrow majority in the Order of Bishops (21-19) and by a larger vote in favour by clergy and laity (152-97). A186 resolved that "the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being credal) of the Anglican Church of Canada." But even with the addition of a "conscience clause" amendment, Resolution A187, which would have affirmed "the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, a) with the concurrence of the diocesan bishop, and b) in a manner which respects the conscience of the incumbent and the will of the parish, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions," was defeated in the Order of Bishops (by a contrary vote of 21-19), although approved by narrow margins in the Orders of Laity (78-59) and Clergy (63-53).
Following these contentious debates, Resolution A189 was passed fairly quickly on the morning of June 25, requesting "the Council of General Synod to consider a revision of Canon 21 (On Marriage) including theological rationale to allow marriage of all legally qualified persons and to report back to General Synod 2010." However, although the time-line for such an initial report was just three years, resulting recommendations for change, if any, were obviously at least two General Synods away from the possibility of full implementation.
In a further major development early June 25, it was announced to Synod that another of the potentially most controversial resolutions, B001, scheduled to be moved by Steve Schuh and Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster, was being withdrawn. B001 would basically have asked Synod to affirm that "notwithstanding any decisions taken by this its 2007 Synod...the present practice of the Synod and Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in authorizing the blessings of covenanted same-sex unions in eight (8) parishes of that diocese shall continue in the Diocese of New Westminster pending further resolution by General Synod."
In a subsequent interview with Douglas Todd of the Vancouver Sun, Bishop Ingham stated that his diocese would be making a decision "in the next few weeks" about how to proceed following the withdrawal. "We'll have to look at what the General Synod said and what its implications are for us," he told Todd. But he also gave assurances that "we remain strongly committed to supporting gay and lesbian members of our church and in the wider society. Our support...is undiminished."
Two resolutions were subsequently passed affirming elements of statements from the Canadian House of Bishops of October 26, 2006 and April 30, 2007. A224 resolved "that this General Synod welcome the statement of the House of Bishops of October, 2006 urging the church to show pastoral understanding and sensitivity to all same-sex couples, including those civilly married, and committing the House to develop pastoral strategies to give effect to the acceptance of gays and lesbians to whom we are already committed by previous General Synod and CoGS resolutions, House of Bishops guidelines, and Lambeth Conference statements."
Synod later effectively closed its debate on issues of human sexuality and same-sex blessings, when it narrowly approved an amended version of original resolution (C003) moved by this blogger and Rev. Ajit John of the Diocese of Toronto. The first three clauses of the final motion resolved, with one amendment noted in parentheses, as follows:
In light of the statement of the House of Bishops to members of General Synod dated April 30, 2007, that this General Synod 2007:
1. Ask the Primate to request the Primate's Theological Commission [to consult with dioceses and parishes] and to report in advance of General Synod 2010 on:
- The theological question whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine;
- Scripture's witness to the integrity of every human person and the question of the sanctity of human relationships.
2. Ask the Primate to request the Anglican Task Force to report in advance of General Synod 2010 on the implications of the blessing of same-sex unions and/or marriage for our church and the Anglican Communion.
3. Support and encourage dioceses to offer the most generous pastoral provision possible within the current teaching of the church to gays and lesbians and their families.
A fourth clause, added as an amendment moved by Bishop James Cowan of British Columbia, further requested "the Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee to develop a process to engage dioceses and parishes of the Anglican Church of Canada" with a view to a wider study of issues of human sexuality in light of "Scripture, reason and tradition," as well as "current scientific understanding."
The amended Resolution C003 was approved by bishops in a vote of 19 to 17 and by clergy and laity by a somewhat larger margin of 127 to 117. The divisions of June 24 over failed Resolution A187 were thus somewhat reflected in the debate over C003. But the net result was that while rejecting "local option" for dioceses to authorize same-sex blessings, General Synod also called for further time for study and consultation on all the major issues at the heart of current differences.
Thus even whilst affirming the blessing of same-sex unions not to be "in conflict with the core doctrine" of the church, in the very narrow sense of being "credal," Synod effectively left open and committed the church to further study of the more specific and arguably most central theological question, i.e., "whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine." At the same time, having declined to "walk apart" from Anglican Communion standards, to use a key term in the Windsor Report, by endorsing such blessings, Synod also requested further exploration of the implications of moving forward with them and/or with same-sex marriage for the Anglican Church of Canada and its relationship with the Communion. Finally, in view of the vote against same-sex blessings, neither Resolution A224 nor C003 affirmed any further pastoral provision for gay and lesbian Anglicans beyond what is already permitted by "the current teaching of the church" (C003) or consistent with previous standards and statements (A224).
Two key questions obviously remained in light of Synod's passage of such a complex range of resolutions and decisions: 1), whether the Diocese of New Westminster would move from its existing partial moratorium on authorizing same-sex blessings in any further parishes to imposing a full moratorium throughout the diocese; 2), how the wider Anglican Communion would respond to Synod's deliberations. Both were clearly yet to be resolved at the time of writing. But well-placed commentators saw strong reason to believe that the outcome of General Synod 2007 would not be anything like as unfavourable for the Anglican Church of Canada's standing in the wider Communion as many had feared and/or prognosticated.
6 comments:
Thank you, John, for your fine blogging and faithful work as a delegate to Synod. I agree with you that the ACC has not chosen "to walk apart," despite what some "radical conservatives" are saying in the blogosphere. I have no doubt that many of them were looking to Synod for further reasons for schism. However, the divided Synod did not produce those clear reasons. Instead, Synod declared that SSB is a theological/doctrinal issue worthy of real and careful theological study and discussion, in addition to (narrowly) rejecting the SSB "local option" resolution. So, as a "conservative," I see (with you I think) that the glass is, in fact, half full...
Dear John: Whie your assessment is accurate, it is clearly one sided. There is a further question unresolved. How many parishes and clergy in the Canadian Church will now act to bless same sex unions in spite of their Bishops. The Bishop of Toronto has already had to discipline the former Bishop. Do we want a return to the nineteenth century scandals of clergy and even saintly Bishop Edward King brought up on trial for making changes in liturgical practice aginst the rules of a Book (1662 BCP). The action of the House of Bishops inevitably weakens their status at home while raising it in some places abroad. Other places abroad will be greatly distressed by the fear evident in the Canadian House. Acts grounded in fear may not reveal the future of the Church. Have you seen the Globe and Mail Editorial for today (Tuesday)? John Bailey
Can we conclude that the assembly in any way withheld consent or permission? The motion voted down gave an opportunity to "affirm", not an opportunity to grant permission. Is declining to affirm, lile declining to permit, withholding permission? Not generally.
Since it's not "core" doctrine, and it's not forbidden, who's to say that New Westminster can't continue, and others can't begin?
I would say that the church has decided to walk apart, for two reasons. First, Michael Ingham wasn't disciplined for authorizing same sex blessings; and it was declared that same sex blessings were not in violiation of core doctrine of the church - something that is clearly contrary to scripture.
I am surprised that so many of your respondents have chosen to remain anonymous. Are they ashamed of what they have written?
Gail Holland,
Holy Trinity, Trinity Square
Toronto
There are a number of reasons why posters can be anonymous, Ms H, and some of them are reprehensible.
But some reasons are not; I opt out of posting with my own name as I have a government job which involves a certain amount of interaction with academics. Neither my employment nor my opinions would be helped by confusing the two. Others may be in a family or professional situation where differences on sensitive issues could be damaging and the best time for raising them may not have yet arrived.
Anonymity or semi-anonymity imposes a further duty to be careful and charitable in one's writing, and to avoid anything which is libellous or offensive.
Post a Comment