Same-sex blessings defeated; 'not credal doctrine' passed

Tornadoes inside & outside Synod

By Sue Careless

Tornados were sweeping across Manitoba as 300 delegates from thirty dioceses gathered in Winnipeg this June for the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, the triennial parliament of

the church.

While the tornados wrecked havoc on homes and farms, a tornado of sorts swept through General Synod during the various debates on same-sex blessings, wrecking havoc and revealing a sorely divided church. At the end of Synod the one thing that was apparent to all was that the church they loved was deeply divided.

All votes on the same-sex resolutions were so close that instead of a simple show of hands to settle the matter, delegates had to rise to their feet to be carefully counted.

There had been complaints at recent synods that debate on controversial issues had been cut short but this was not the case in Winnipeg. As chair, Primate Andrew Hutchison allowed ample debate which was often passionate but always civil. Most delegates had hoped for a clear outcome around same-sex blessings, but GS 2007 seemed to create only more ambiguity.

For two hours on Saturday night procedural motions were debated on how high a margin was needed to pass both resolutions. The toughest—two-thirds majority in two consecutive synods--was defeated as was 60 percent in just one synod. The bar was set much lower: a simple majority of 50 percent plus one in only one synod.

By Sunday morning, June 24, Resolution A 186, the first of the two controversial motions came up for vote: “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 credal) of the Anglican Church of Canada.”

The motion was carried by a vote of 152 for, 97 against in the House of clergy and laity and by a vote of 21 for and 19 against in the House of bishops.

General Synod delegates broke for lunch on Sunday, assuming that the passage of the second motion allowing for the blessing of same-sex unions as a “local option” would pass with similar margins as Resolution A186. Resolution A187 read:

“That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of the diocesan bishop, and 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.”

That afternoon the laity voted 78 to 59 in favor of the motion and clergy voted 63 to 53 in favor. But then the House of Bishops rose and voted 21-19 against it. To the surprise of many, two bishops had changed their position from the last resolution. Since the motion required approval by each of the three orders to pass, it was defeated.

On the same day The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada defeated a motion at their biennial National Convention in Winnipeg to encourage Synods to develop ways “to best minister to people who live in committed same-sex relationships, including the possibility of blessing such unions.” The secret ballot resulted in 181 in favour and 200 opposed.

The next day Michael Ingham, Bishop of New Westminster, said that leaders in his diocese will have to study the resolutions to determine what the implications are for the Vancouver-based diocese, which currently allows same-sex blessings in eight of its parishes.

Ingham had submitted Resolution B001, which would give him a “notwithstanding” clause to allow same-sex blessings to continue in his diocese no matter what Synod decided on local option. However he withdrew the motion on June 25.

On the final day a related motion was passed that sought to revise Canon XXI on Marriage to refer to “all legally qualified persons,” which in Canada would now include same-sex couples. The resolution was adopted but because it is canon or church law, it still has to pass again in a second consecutive synod (in 2010) if it is to take effect.

It should also be noted that early in the Synod the St. Michael Report was accepted and that on the last day Resolution C003 requesting a “Study of Human Sexuality” was passed.

Primate Andrew Hutchison who chaired most of the Synod asked for silent prayer before each of the two same-sex blessings votes and warned that however they turned out, many people would be hurt. After the vote narrowly defeating local option, Primate-elect Fred Hiltz, who had voted for local option, told the press, “There is disappointment--a lot of pain. Some people will be saying, ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’”

It remains in the aftermath of the Synod storm around same-sex blessings to see what pieces can be picked up and restored and what is lost forever.

• Meet the new guys in charge

• Synod: No to Primates

• No BCP revision for now

• Council of the North free to fundraise

• Group silenced at Synod - speaks out in letters

• Synod asks if Church is over-governed