Anglicans in Canada and around the world have been waiting to find out what General Synod 2007 will do regarding the issue of the blessing of same- sex unions and specifically how it will respond to the St Michael Report. Well, the waiting is over: if Council of General Synod has their way, the blessing of same-sex unions will be approved and the SMR will have no role in determining the debate at GS2007.

The question posed to the Primate’s Theological Commission (PTC) was a simple one, is the blessing of committed same-sex unions a matter of doctrine? And the unequivocal answer which  was given is yes, the blessing of committed same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine. Moreover, in writing the SMR the PTC knew the implications of that judgement--that General Synod would be required to make any change by way of Canon or church law.

The CoGS motions which will now go before GS2007 recognise the conclusion of the SMR, yet while doing so they try to sideline the weight of that conclusion by muddying the water. The problematic motion is #3 which resolves that “the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada.” This motion is written to appear as if it is using the SMR to settle the question, yet it answers a question which the PTC never themselves asked or answered. The SMR does indeed determine that same-sex blessings are not a matter of core doctrine (which is to say, it isn’t in the Creeds themselves). What the SMR concludes is that same-sex unions are a matter of doctrine although not core doctrine, but this in no way implies that they are consistent with core doctrine. Nearly half of the SMR

goes to great lengths to demonstrate “primary lines of connection” between the blessing of same-sex unions and the “doctrines of salvation, incarnation, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, theological anthropology, sanctification and holy matrimony.” Surely a reversal of this magnitude on a matter this well connected with core doctrine will bring to the surface some serious inconsistencies.

Between this attempt to sideline the SMR and the various comments published in the official Highlights (see page # 5), it is clear that CoGS does not care for the conclusions of SMR and resents its intrusion into their domain despite the fact that the Report has the full imprimatur of a broad spectrum of Canadian theologians and bishops and has been endorsed by the Canadian House of Bishops. The fact is, CoGS has cast aside the expressed consensus of our theologians, House of Bishops, Primates of the Anglican Communion and Archbishop of Canterbury and is determined to press its will on the church with little regard for the Canons and Constitution or the devastation it will cause.

The role of CoGS is to implement the will of General Synod between sessions not to oppose it and force its own agenda upon the rest of the church. This CoGS seems to regard itself as some sort of progressive Magisterium. It needs to be reigned in.

What is more disturbing is the leadership of the Primate at CoGS. It was not so long ago that we printed in these pages an essay concerning the SMR by the Rev’d Dr. George Sumner. Dr. Sumner argued that by bringing the question to the Primate’s Theological Commission, “Archbishop Andrew Hutchison shifted the ground on which this difficult question is to be contested in a more theological direction, at some possible cost to the chances for his own preferred outcome. For this act,” Dr. Sumner wrote “the Primate deserves praise.” Well, the Primate apparently has changed his mind. It also represents an abrupt turnabout from his position taken at the Primate’s Meeting in Dar es Salaam, where he expressed his commitment to working within the structures of the Anglican Communion.

We cannot afford, at this time, to follow the course prescribed by CoGS. The stakes are too high to allow raw power politics to determine our future. Our church at parochial, diocesan, national and international levels is at the breaking point. To allow a small group of people to force a church into a premature decision by sidelining her bishops and theologians and by ignoring the mechanisms in place to ensure that important questions are handled properly can only increase the distrust, discredit the process and in the end divide the church. Clearly, it is time that the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada stand up and exercise their God-entrusted authority to govern the Church. There is so much more at stake here than simply winning or losing a particular motion at the next General Synod.