Posts
Earlier today, General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada debated and voted on two resolutions regarding same-sex blessings (SSBs). One passed while the other was defeated, leaving the situation as clear as mud. The approved motion, A186, states that SSBs do not conflict with the church's “core doctrine”, while the defeated motion, A187, would have allowed individual dioceses to authorise SSBs.
The outcomes of the two votes hinged, as expected, on the bishops. A186 passed the bishops by two votes, 21 to 19, while A187 failed by the same two-vote margin. Two bishops (or possibly more, but that appears doubtful) switched sides between the two votes, agreeing that there is no doctrinal problem with SSBs, but opposing their authorisation. Peter at Anglican Essentials blog informs us that Bishop of Edmonton Victoria Matthews was one of the two. The identity of the other is, at this time, unknown.
Thus, General Synod has reached the incoherent (to me, anyway) conclusion that, even though there is no doctrinal impediment to same-sex blessings, we’re not going to allow them. I fail to see the logic, unless this is a muddled attempt to mollify Canadian Anglicans who oppose SSBs, not to mention the rest of the Anglican Communion. If that is the motivation, I doubt that strategy will succeed.
In any case, New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham and his supporters will see Resolution A186 as approval for his 2003 decision to authorise SSBs in his diocese. Other Canadian dioceses inclined to conduct SSBs may well take the same view and decide to act accordingly.
As a result of today’s decisions, I think there will be a serious loss of trust between Canadian Anglicans who oppose SSBs and those who approve them. Council of General Synod presented the motions along with a concocted 60% majority requirement. These came to the floor of General Synod as three separate motions, with the artificial majority requirement being voted on first. Once that was disposed of, the stage was set for approval of SSBs with the bar set at 50% + 1. The whole scenario smacks of low cunning and dirty tricks.
Here are the texts of the two motions decided today, as recorded by Peter at Essentials Synod blog. Resolution A186 was approved:
That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of The Anglican Church of Canada.
Resolution A187 was defeated—but, no doubt, it or something very similar will be offered at General Synod 2010.
That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod,
a) with the concurrence of the diocesan bishop, and
b) in a manner than respects the conscience of the incumbent and the will of the parish,
to authorise the blessing of committed same sex unions.
Liberal lip service to the concerns of aboriginal Canadian Anglicans was exemplified again today. Between the debates on A186 and A187, General Synod received a report on residential schools. The Rev Joe Walker commented:
I find the timing of this presentation on aboriginal issues cruel with irony. It is well known that the native parishes are often among the most conservative. And yet it appears that once again the “dominant eurocentric paradigm” imposes its will on them.One of the things which folks may not appreciate is that only very few of the native anglicans in Canada will make public speeches, declaring their positions. If it has been spoken once, it will not be spoken again (unlike our battle-weary rhetoric wars).
Sadly, one native priest I chatted with at lunch anticipates that over half of his congregation will leave. Their young people face great brokenness (suicide and addiction rates are alarming) and the church has failed to provide them with guidance on the issue of sexuality.
Dean Sewap from Cree Pelican, the Diocese of Saskatchewan's Youth Delegate, who spoke so courageously to General Synod yesterday, has been elected to Council of General Synod. God be with you, Dean.
Thanks again to Peter for his yeoman live-blogging service.
Previous related posts:
[...] Day Six – News 6.1 MAGIC STATISTICS: SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway [...]
Two bishops…agreeing that there is no doctrinal problem with SSBs
The ACC has said no such thing. It has said that SSBs are not inconsistent with “core doctrine”. There are many doctrines that are not part of “core doctrine” that are nevertheless important elements of the Church, and particularly of its moral teaching — such as here. The usage of the concept “core doctrine” in the St. Michael’s Report, which was accepted by the Synod, is crucial here (and why Bishop Mathews could vote Yes to A186 and No to A187.
Under a logical interpretation: SSBs were contrary to the Church’s general doctrine (but not core doctrine) before this Synod. A186 has not changed this element of the church’s teaching at all. The refusal to authorize SSBs reconfirms this teaching.
Of course liberals will wish to spin this decision to encourage liberal dioceses to go ahead to authorize SSBs. The orthodox should not help them by accepting the misinterpretation of A186 that they wish to have accepted.
[...] SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway [...]
As somewhat of an outsider to this issue of Canadian Anglicans and Same Sex Blessings (SSB), what pray tell,
is a “Blessing”? ( I understand the same sex part. ) Is
it equivalent to the “church” telling a couple:
“You’re kewl with us in terms of your current
monogamous homosexual relationship”?
Is that the sense of blessing? I assume that then
“marriage” is equivalent to a Opposite Sex Blessing?
“You’re OK with us as far as your current
monogamous hetrosexual relationship”?
Is that correct?
Would it not be simpler and clearer, to have a motion
raised along the lines of:
“That this General Synod resolves that the same-sex
sexual activity, within the confines of a monagamous life long relationship is both wholesome and healthy
human state according to the will and mind of God”
or even simpler:
“That this General Synod resolves that all same-sex sexual activity is sin”
Toral,
Your point is not without merit, but I don’t think it’ll get very far. The 2005 St Michael Report postulated the novel distinction between “core doctrine” and other doctrine, but failed to define either. Liberals immediately claimed that non-core doctrine is ipso facto not worth having a row over, and SSBs are therefore acceptable. Whether others object or not, liberals will press ahead on that basis.
Also, I’m not aware of any conservatives making the argument you put forward. Anglican Essentials, Anglican Network in Canada, and other orthodox Anglicans agree that A186 is a victory for the liberal agenda. I find it hard to disagree.
Russell,
The fine semantic distinctions you mention are, in my view, part of the strategy utilized by liberals to push the same-sex agenda. Blessings are, I think, more than “we’re kewl”. They convey more than acquiescence—more like a celebration and affirmation of the wonderfulness of such relationships. They’re said to be less than a marriage, but is there any practical difference?
Your final proposed resolution was the position of the Anglican Church until recently. Unfortunately, it was never felt necessary to spell that out. Now that the pro-homosexual lobby has garnered enough power to turn the tide in its favour, of course, it’s too late.
[...] SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway [...]
[...] SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway [...]
[...] SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway [...]
[...] SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway [...]
[...] The Canadian and American churches wither on the vine as leaders push their pro-homosexual agenda. Two Canadian parishes have offered to bless same-sex couples, only weeks after the General Synod vote refusing to authorise such blessings. Diocesan bishops and our primate have apparently gone AWOL. So much for “leadership” at home. [...]
[...] And why did New Westminster abruptly withdraw that resolution after General Synod voted against authorising same-sex blessings? If you've made your decision and "moved on", why care what General Synod says about SSBs? Why do you need GS to bless a decision that you're so sure is right? [...]
[...] When the subject turns to General Synod’s narrow defeat of same-sex blessings, Abp Hiltz makes this enigmatic comment. "As difficult as it is," that the vote failed by such a slim margin, "it would have been just as difficult had it passed by two votes," Hiltz says. [...]
[...] June, the supreme decision-making body of the Anglican Church of Canada, General Synod, voted to reject a motion that would have allowed individual dioceses to authorise same-sex blessings. Despite [...]
[...] SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway Print This Post This entry is filed under Christianity, Sexuality, Anglican Church of Canada, Anglican. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave a Reply [...]
[...] once again, there’s the ambiguity created when General Synod passed Resolution A186 declaring SSBs do not conflict with “core doctrine” right before [...]