Why local option legislation floundered in Halifax

Analysis by Sue Careless

On the face of it the odds would seem to have favoured General Synod 2010 passing legislation approving at least a “local option” for blessing same-sex unions. The time seemed ripe, especially given the recent history of the two previous synods.

In St. Catharines, GS2004 voted “to affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed, adult same-sex relationships.” 

Then in Winnipeg, GS2007 declared 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.” Still a later motion for what would amount to a “local option” for blessings same-sex unions failed, but only by two bishops’ votes.

Although the “local option” motion failed on the floor of General Synod in 2007, over the next three years it became the de facto practice in five dioceses (New Westminster, Huron, Niagara, Montreal, Toronto) and two other areas (the Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior, and the Military Ordinariate).

In 2008 the House of Bishops did issue a pastoral letter urging “gracious restraint,” and asking that dioceses would not bless same-sex unions until General Synod had met in 2010 to resolve the matter. This may have deterred some dioceses but not the seven jurisdictions noted above. 

Neither did the Primate, the Council of General Synod nor the House of Bishops discipline those seven bodies exercising the local option, even though they were all clearly breaking one of the moratoria requested by the global Anglican Communion.

So, going into GS2010 in Halifax the expectations were that the momentum for national legislation permitting local option was now so great that it would finally pass. After all since the last synod a considerable number of potential conservative delegates had left the Anglican Church of Canada and joined the Anglican Network in Canada. What conservatives remained were thus fewer in both number and influence. 

So why did local option legislation fail?

First, the very fact that such an exodus from the ACC had occurred after Winnipeg may have caused many liberals to fear another even larger exodus if local option legislation passed this year. It would have been a pyrrhic victory.

Second, the inclusion of more First Nations voices in the discussion groups, encouraged by their own national bishop, Mark MacDonald, may have given them more confidence to say this is not a priority for most of their communities.

And third, just days before the Halifax Synod the Archbishop of Canterbury had issued a Pentecost Letter and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion a memorandum both warning of removal from international committees of representatives from any national church which “formally” authorized public rites of same-sex blessings by its Synod or House of Bishops.

In addition the Primate’s Theological Commission could come to no agreement on same-sex blessings, nor could the powerful Committee of Faith, Worship and Ministry, nor the influential Council of General Synod.

Moreover, since the last synod, 13 dioceses have had changes in episcopal leadership and many of the new bishops were theologically conservative so any vote in the order of bishops for local option would likely have failed again. 

So forces both within the national church and outside it came to bear. There were probably far more delegates in favour of same-sex blessings, at least in the order of clergy and laity, but for the sake of church unity the time did not seem right.

Hence, no legislation regarding same-sex blessings was passed by Synod, but neither was any discipline applied. The teaching of the Anglican Communion (Lambeth 1998 1.10) was upheld.

Yet ironically the “Discernment on Sexuality” statement that passed, declaring “there is no common mind,” may still allow some dioceses to interpret “different local contexts call at times for different local discernment, decision and action” (para.4) as de facto allowing local option. The statement will likely be misused. Only time will tell.

Immediately after the passage of the sexuality statement there was a motion “that all Dioceses, ACIP, Military Ordinariate, and Religious Orders engage in theological and scriptural study of human sexuality in the coming triennium, with the full range of theological opinion in the Canadian Church.” The phrase “in conversation with gay and lesbian voices” was added as an amendment which later passed.

Then the Rev. David Parsons rose to propose a further amendment: the inclusion of “and the voices of ex-gays.”  Parsons’ amendment was put to the floor and was soundly defeated by the clergy and laity. The order of bishops, however, voted 17 to17 and because theirs was a tie vote, the amendment was lost.

“Inclusion,” “inclusivity” and “diversity” were constant buzz words at the Halifax Synod. It would seem everybody was to be included – except former gays and lesbians.

***

Resolution A115 Discernment on Sexuality reads in part:

Our conversations affirmed the full inclusion of gay and lesbian members in our churches, aboriginal voices in our midst, and the wide range of perspectives on the issue of same gender blessings across all dioceses. Our dialogue has been a positive and helpful step in our discernment. At this time, however, we are not prepared to make a legislative decision. Above, in and through all of this, and despite all our differences we are passionately committed to walking together, protecting our common life.

We acknowledge diverse pastoral practices as dioceses respond to their own missional contexts. We accept the continuing commitment to develop generous pastoral responses. We recognize that these different approaches raise difficulties and challenges. When one acts there are implications for all. There can be no imposition of a decision or action, but rather we are challenged to live together sharing in the mission of Christ entrusted to us, accepting that different local contexts call at times for different local discernment, decision and action….

For many members of General Synod there is deep sadness that, at this time, there is no common mind. We acknowledge the pain that our diversity in this matter causes.