General Synod 2007: In Plenary

Our new Prolocutor, with whom I shall enjoy working and debating on COGS, has articulated the uncertainties and confusion following General Synod. Certainly there is a fuzzy kind of logic around “core doctrine” and our assertion as a church that the blessing of same-sex committed lifelong unions is not in conflict with our core (read creedal) beliefs and teachings. Dr. Andrews has sited us at a place where we are yet again going to have to wrestle with the issue over the years ahead. He should feel some sense of satisfaction however in that General Synod has indeed placed him where he and his colleagues were heading in their letter to the House of Bishops of Good Friday 2007. We are indeed treating sexual ethics as doctrinally significant, and our Bishops did act in the rejection of A187 to treat this matter as ecclesiologically significant; in fact the whole church did so, when we passed A184. The problem that I see from A184 is that we can declare that this should not be a communion breaking issue all we like, but it is up to those in the Anglican Communion who disagree with Canada to show us whether we are just wishful thinking. And for Rev. Andrews and colleagues who thoughtfully represent the conservative side of the issues, there is not only the gift of time to our new Primate, and the Anglican Communion, there is unequivocally the gift of time to their fellow conservatives in our church who repeatedly asked for it on the floor of General Synod.

In his paper at the “Faith Seeking Understanding” Conference at Huron University College, Dr. John Thorp warned the Church that the St. Michael Report was asking the wrong question and therefore naturally arrived at the wrong answer. He foresaw the potential quagmire into which we now find ourselves, and for me, and I suspect many others, offered the clearest way forward. For laity not skilled in the nuances of theology, sometimes there is a virtue in simple but still valid arguments. I wished more had listened to Dr. Thorp.

Like Dr. Andrews I also wondered if the delegates to GS acted out of fear or not. While there were fears on both sides, either that we would act, or we that would not act to accept blessings of same-sex committed lifelong unions, I prefer to believe we acted more to be in love and charity with our neighbours. And that is particularly notable when gracious magnanimity is granted despite one’s point-of-view having been rejected. While I may still disagree with Dr. Andrews and his colleagues on the issue, I believe that the great strength of Anglicanism is that we can still worship together at the Lord’s Table and truly respect each other in our differences. Perhaps the worst thing we might do after Winnipeg is for any of us to lose our energy or heart; after all when Jesus stilled the storm, the disciples didn’t give up fishing because they feared the next one. What is more I suspect that on their next trip out they were better prepared!

Dr. Randall Fairey, member of COGS, Diocese of Kootenay

While I appreciate Dr Andrews' comments, I find it a little easy for 'strait people' to tell 'gay people' that they have to wait. In this case in particular, Dr Andrew's life is not on hold and waiting doesn't cost him anything. He doesn't have to struggle to make ends meet while the church decides whether or not it'll ordain him. He doesn't have to hide his relationship until the church decides whether or not it'll accept him and his spouse as real members. He doesn't wake up in the morning and go to sleep in the evening with the pain that being rejected causes. Waiting costs Dr Andrews' nothing, and while his life and ministry are moving forward, there are others who are still stuck in a holding pattern as they 'wait' for something most people feel is inevitable.

'The church' has asked gay people to wait a little longer for a time when they will, in fact, be treated like people, and contrary to Dr Andrews' view, that is unacceptable no matter what the cost.

Nathan Brinklow
Deseronto, ON

I certainly will take our new Prolocutor's word when he states: "I think that we are genuinely perplexed about these matters, and that the plea for more time to study them was in earnest." Personally, I don't feel the need for more study, but like Mr. Brinklow think the time has come to move on with this issue - as the laity and clergy urged. Given that, I do think the onus is on those who say they need more study to indicate what further study is needed (given that shelves of books have been written on the topic), and estimate how long it will take.

I recall that in 1975, before we decided to ordain women, the House of Bishops, cautious as always, urged more study. The clergy and laity at that time didn't agree we did, and sufficient bishops were persuaded it was time to move ahead. This time the bishops are more cautious (although barely so) and Dr. Andrews approves that. But I do wish he or others would answer the question: how will we know when we have studied enough?

There are many nuances if you want to look for them. But the blunt upshot of GS in this matter is that the Synod membership is rather gung-ho for ss blessings and the bishops are holding back. Will this situation prevail? I don't think so. Certain dioceses and parishes will find ways of marching on. When we have a lot of ss blessings across the land, authorized or not, then is the time for the patience which the prolocutor recommends. In the meantime the PTC and the CofGS and all the other groupies can work away at the details. Cheers Harold

Patience is a virtue.
Strike while the iron is hot.

With the lack of a firm decision, virtue is disappearing from our patience. And I suspect the iron might be quite cold by the time we get around to striking it. The decreasing numbers of people in the pews suggests that virture and heat has dissipated from the Church's moral leadership. And that is not good.

Many of us on both sides of the issue have mixed feelings about the results of General Synod. I can see some Conservatives up in arms about the rejection of the matter as "creedal", but nevertheless doctrine. I can see anger among liberals at the stodginess of the House of Bishops for going contrary to both the clergy and the laity in this instance. If the reason for the "no" vote by certain bishops is to allow them time to bring their flock into the mainstream of current Anglican thinking and into the reality of current biological and genetic knowledge, then I can understand to some extent their position. If, on the other hand, it is a flat rejection of the realities of homosexuality and committed homosexual relationships, then I would be sorely disappointed. Nevertheless, by not allowing individual dioceses to determine their own course it places a restriction on what the so-called liberal dioceses see as a just, moral, and ethical path in the application of pastoral ministering. I only hope and pray that those dioceses and their membership are willing to exercise sufficient patience and tolerance until the next general synod, and that the next synod will finally put this matter to rest.

A couple of comments, not specific to Dr Andrews paper but to the problem in general.

First, like Mr Brinklow, I really believe this is a matter of justice. One of the bishops was quoted as saying we needed to know more about the theology of the question. I think Micah answered that quite well: "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

Another bishop complained that to do this would require clergy to break their ordination vows to be in communion with the Church of England. I never took such a vow, having been ordained in the American Church. I did promise to remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I would suggest that that might be different from the Church of England. I would also suggest that the foundations of the Anglican Communion are historically somewhat different than many assume. The first non-British bishop [Samuel Seabury of Connecticutt] of the Communion was ordained by Scottish Non-Juring bishops who would not take an oath of allegiance to the Hanoverian British Crown. The first call for a communion was the Chicago Quadrilateral adopted by American bishops and later adopted at the first or second Lambeth Conference. It then became the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Although it assumed a continuing relationship with Canterbury, neither the original nor the later Quadrilateral specifically mentioned the Church of England. It spoke of Apostolic Succession.

I also find it interesting that Archbishop Andrew's counsel to take seriously our baptismal vows seem to have been ignored, particularly the one which promises to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being." It is difficult for me to see justice in the position taken by the bishops and it certainly does not, in my mind, respect the dignity of all human beings.

I deeply believe in the importance of the Anglican Communion. I chose to be an Anglican/Episcopalian as an adult and in the midst of my seminary training. I accept that there are many who disagree with my theological positions but I do not deny them either their membership in Christ's Holy Catholic Church nor communion at the table. I just wish that those on the other side would offer to me the same courtesy.
Arthur E. Gans
Winfield, BC.

Confused?...indeed! Angry?...you bet! Apart from the merits of the debate itself, there is the crucial element of governance and democracy. Is the proposition that the Holy Spirit really only moves among the Bishops and that the clergy and laity are peripheral to the matter? And, oh, what about the United Church of Canada that has resolved this issue in the context of justice and inclusiveness. No Holy Spirit moving there? I guess in any corporate structure, the folks at the "top" do become isolated and maybe even arrogant. The Bishops have marginalized themselves as a body and a force of influence within the Church. On the outside of the Church, it reinforces the notion of a Church leadership that doesn't walk Main Street. Irrelevant? Certainly out of touch with those who struggle through the church door every Sunday, and those who lead worship. Too bad!

Rev. Michael Canning, Lennoxville, QC
I too am perplexed with the outcome of this General Synod. We have truly been taking baby steps in our decision making process ... sanctity at one and not in conflict with core doctrine at another. One wonders what the next baby step will be or will it be ONE LARGE STEP FOR HUMANKIND to paraphrase one who landed on the Moon many years ago. We truly were allowed to be totally distracted over one issue that all other issues became miniscule in comparison. Justice after thirty plus years of discussion of those who wished to discuss or no discussion of those who wished not to discuss ... seems unjust to me. Respecting the dignity of every human being is our baptismal clarion call. We spent so little time on the Millennium Development Goals yet they speak loud and clear where our emphasis should have been. We need to carry on doing the work of Christ in our world which includes everyone on the journey. I would hate to think that the one word we hear back from the world about our nine days together is that we are an exclusive church. I would have liked that we ended with our mission strengthened and that the words of Micah would be our clarion call for all to hear and all to respond.
Blessings and peace for all,
Michael

I am disappointed in the Prolocutor's message! It appears to be the same old Ecclesiastical Rhetoric we have been handed in the past. What the bishops don't seem to realize is that they are playing with the lives people here, or perhaps to do realize it, but chose to sit the fence one more time.

What is God's Blessing ... exactly that ... God's Blessing! The bishops hold no patent on it, nor do they have the right to withhold it from anyone!

Have they conveniently forgotten the Sermon on the Mount, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

In all honesty, I am ashamed to be identified as an Anglican, I am ashamed of our bishops and their apparent approval that the church remain a homophobic institution. The bishop's are the stumbling block that keeps us from moving forward. The clergy spoke .. the laity spoke but the bishop's, for whatever reason chose not to listen!

So, the best that our homosexual brothers and sisters can expect from the Anglican Church of Canada, is another three years of wandering in the desert, praying for that day when you will be treated as equals and recognized as full participants in the sacramental life of the church.

The 'circle' has not been drawn wider but drawn tighter by the exclusionary practices of the Anglican Church of Canada.

Br. John-Anthony
Victoria, BC

I responded to the St. Michael's Report a number of years ago. Simply, the only thing the bishops understand is money. Therefore until such time as the bishops confirm that our church is inclusive to all christians, I will withhold any further offerings. I am quite sure that a substantial money offer will quickly clear the path to inclusivity for all christians. How sad but very true.

We Anglicans should be proud of our Protestant heritage. Once before we stood up for our beliefs and were told we were excluded from our bretheren. If the "African" Churches object to us, well, that would be too bad. But unity can demand a price higher than we believe should be paid. Let us decide for ourselves and allow those who have not understood today's world decide for themselves. The Bishops have made a sad mistake. Not for the first time we must let them know they have a limited time to re-examine their ideas.

When I was at Dalhousie Medical School, umpteen years ago, I was a member of Dalhousie Christian Fellowship, or Inter Varsity. At the same time I was active in St. Paul’s in Halifax, teaching Sunday School, etc.. Everything was going swimingly, with prayer meetings Tuesday mornings at 7 in a classroom, and Friday night pot lucks at the home where I was boarding, after which we had a Bible study, or discussion, or a speaker. That was until some members told us that we had to belong to a ’Bible believing church,’ and St. Paul’s, in their eyes, was not one such. The issue became so heated that many uncharitable words were spoken on both sides, and we almost came to blows. The chief protagonist of the other side was a law student, Harry, who used to go to Liverpool, England, every summer to study under F.F. Bruce, and he himself was a very gifted and able Bible teacher. Sadly, he and his group left DCF after that, and we missed his teaching. Schism is very, very painful.

Some years later, after we were both married and graduated, and I had moved to Moncton, Harry was invited to speak at a weekend Ashram at Trinity Church, Halifax. An Ashram is a retreat which E. Stanley Jones introduced into Western Christianity from India, with the understanding that Jesus Christ is the guru, not the speaker. It begins with the Open Heart, at which anyone with a grudge against another brings it into the open for reconciliation. Bible teaching follows. It ends with the Over-flowing Heart, in which the Holy Spirit, of Jesus the Lord, (at an Ashram one addresses oneanother with “Jesus is Lord.’) fills everyone present; but the degree to which the heart is filled is dependent on the degree to which it’s first emptied of all bitterness and past grudges. Because of this I was reluctant to go, because Harry was the speaker, as I had not made up with him after the great ‘rupture,’ but my wife wanted to go. All the way driving to Halifax, I was thinking how I could get through the Open Heart without making an utter idiot of myself. I thought I could make it up with Harry privately before it began, but, as luck would have it, we were late, and I tried to slip in at the back unnoticed, but I felt certain that Harry had seen me, because it seemed that he was speaking directly to me. At the Open Heart I felt lifted to my feet, as if against my will, and before I knew it, I was confessing to Harry that I had said things to him, and about him, that I regretted, and I said I was sorry. He very graciously accepted the apology. What followed I could hardly believe my ears. He confessed that he had discovered that many things he once thought were fundamental to the faith were not so. The old relationship was resurrected, and blessing flowed at the Over-flowing Heart.

I relate this story to show that what we sometimes think to be fundamental, or essential, to the faith, is not always so. My fear of Bible-believing Christianity then was that I would have had to accept an anti-scientific interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. It’s not Evolution that is the problem, any more than two plus two makes four, but the absense of faith in some of us who think that Evolution is the best theory that fits all the evidence, so far revealed to us.

Actually, St. Paul’s has a direct link to the Evolution story. Dyson Hague, rector from 1890 to 1897, later went to teach at Wycliffe College, Toronto. There he became engaged in debate with Modernist theologians, and wrote three of the Fundamentalist Essays of the first part of the 19th century. I believe that our present debate with post-Modernists over the position of homosexuality in the church is similar to that earlier debate. In both the authority of Scripture had, or has, been challenged. But evolution and homosexuality are both peripheral to the faith. They both generate a lot of emotion and hot air, and when we focus on them, they become a stumbling block to people coming into the faith. Our Church Fathers long ago decided what was the essential Faith to stand up, and to fight for, when they wrote the creeds, and, I believe, that they should be the gold standard of orthodoxy.

I voted for resolution A187 and like many others, I was very disappointed and perplexed by the result. I do think though that we need now to look to the future, listen to what God is now inviting us to do and reflect on strategies for getting there. I understand the need to debrief and even perhaps vent a little about what happened. But I doubt it will be very helpful for any of us if we get stuck in debating the vote and wringing our hands over it, wishing things had turned out differently. What we have is what we got. We now must get up, roll up our sleeves and get back to doing what we believe God is calling us to do.

Blessings

Kawuki Mukasa

Thank you, Stephen, for the chance to continue and clarify the discussion.

I would venture to suggest that a credal doctrine is one that separates us from our sisters and brothers who are not Christians, and a non-credal doctrine is one that separates and clarifies belief within the Christian family; this can be either between or within a denomination.

In the North, the fallout from the residential schools has taught us, painfully and expensively, that love and good intentions can tempt us into being allies of secular society, with the very best of motives, leading to consequences which are neither pleasant nor predictable.

Our discussions at synod should neither prevent us from cooperating with Christians and secular agencies on both sides of the issue as we return to our local communities nor should they be used to stiffle the authentic voice of the global south and aboriginal elders. Instead, we need to turn to the scriptures to find out what what the Spirit is saying to us there.

John Rye, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan

Fr Gans refers to a baptismal vow: "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being." Try as I might, I cannot find these words in either the Ministration of Holy Baptism for Children or Holy Baptism to such as are of Riper Years.

I do find "Do you here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh, so that you will not follow or be led by them? Answer: I do."

Pat Bryan
Port Hope, Ontario

…and God watched over us humans when:

* We “owned” slaves
* We separated “coloured’s” from “whites” every day, without any thought of wrong doing
* We said “Get to the back of the bus, Rosa Parks!”
* We elected people of colour to positions of importance and authority

…and God watches over us now:

* We say homosexuals are “sick” and can be changed back to real people
* We deny their friendships, for fear that others may think we are “queer”
* We “allow” Gay persons to worship with us, we “just don’t talk about it”
* We ordain Gay priests (whilst we look away), then ask the same Priests to use the Synod's words to explain acceptance and inclusivity at the Lord's table...

Lord, what happens? Where is that tipping point? The place in time where attitudes and perceptions change?

How does God find a place in our "human" judgement?

For our brothers and sisters wandering in the wilderness, my “straight” self and many others are walking right alongside you. You are not wandering in this void, this wilderness, alone.

Thanks be to God.

Joan Dunn, studying M.Div, Trinity College, Toronto

I did some calculating re the vote numbers for GS 2007.

Lay members of Synod 137

Clergy members of Synod 116

Bishop members of Synod 40

If the normal procedure had been followed in the voting and the required percentage needed to carry the motions was 66 2/3 %, the following numbers would be as follows:

Lay 137 X 66 2/3 = 91

Clergy 116 X 66 2/3 = 77

Bishops 40 X 66 2/3 = 26

It's clear to me that the 2 motions referring to the blessing of same sex couples would have been defeated by Synod members in all houses.

Are my calculations faulty or can someone tell me why the normal procedures were not followed according to former General Synod rules on such a major divisive topic. That it was divisive is clearly apparent in the final vote of Synod members. Was the purpose of GS 2007 to cause a schism in the Anglican Church of Canada and ultimately in the World wide Anglican Communion?

Canon Jim Slater, Winnipeg. MB

Thank you Stephen for your thoughtful analysis and a glimpse of insight into our corporate angst post GS'07. To be sure, many on each side of the divide on this topic had hoped that GS'07 would yield clarity and an end to ambiguity. Instead we got a chance to keep as many on board Good Ship Anglicana as possible while we do some challenging work of listening and study.

The key issue for us to engage with in this triennium is the one raised in Windsor (141) "In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received."

Or, as the issue is put in the St. Michael Report: "It is now for the church to decide whether or not the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian Doctrine.

Surely the matter is of importance and urgency - the stakes are very high - all the more reason that we take the time to get it 'right.'

My prayer for our Church will be that we are able to engage these questions seriously using all the resources at our disposal -- and that whle this task is being undertaken, we might show the world that we can love one another while holding divergent views on this important matter.

Vicars Hodge

I have been an active participant in the debate over same-sex relationships over the last dozen years, at the parish, the diocesan and the national levels.

Time and again, I have heard pleas for more time for discussion, or more time for theological reflection. In the prelude to this gathering of General Synod, I heard such appeals from the members of the Primate's Theological Commission, or from a group of 26 theologians from various theological colleges across the country. I have a simple question: what was stopping them?

I would welcome any and all opportunities to continue the discussions, be they at the diocesan or national level. And I would hope that at every such forum, the voices of gay and lesbian believers, be they clergy or lay, would be welcomed.

Ron Chaplin
Parish of St. John the Evangelist
Ottawa

I have wait for over 40 years for the Church to come to a decision to accept gay and lesbian people. They say they do but accept for a few brave priest and congregations who are gay positive I don't see it. The decision made at
General Synod is another slap in the face of people like myself. My first reaction was that the Bishops did not want to give up their trip to England. I hope to God I am wrong. Enough is enough. There will always be people who want more time to study the issue. It is just a means of delay. I am not a Proud Anglican. I am a hurt and disappointed Anglican.

Rev. Robert Gorham, Court Chaplain. Newmarket Court of Justice. Newmarket, Ont.

I sat through the Synod debate and was perplexed by how few people actually spoke against same-sex unions. This was especially true of the bishops. We heard reasons to postpone the discussion or to enlarge the majority needed to pass it. We heard dire warnings about the collapse of the beloved Anglican Communion. But almost no one stood to tell me that my 16 year union was inherently sinful and could not be blessed. I still feel that the failure to do so was dishonest and cowardly. A week after the debate is over, I remain convinced that this is not about Scripture or the Anglican Communion. This is about institutionalized hatred.
Scriptural morality? Scriptural injunctions against divorce come from the lips of Jesus Himself, but somehow this is not as important as condemnation of sexual practices in the ancient world which are in no way applicable to modern same-sex marriage.
The Anglican Communion does not even whimper when the Primate of Nigeria openly supports laws in his country which would jail homosexuals and their supporters for up to 5 years; but the whole Anglican world will dissolve in pieces if a priest here pronounces a blessing on my legal marriage!?
Bishops: this is about hatred and hypocrisy. It is not about scripture or the unity of our Anglican family. Every gay Anglican knows this. You will have difficulty convincing us otherwise.

A humble long standing since birth 81 year old Anglican and lay person is puzzled. Much of the rhetoric centres on being just, fair and inclusive to all. I have not heard comment related to " ...Be fruitful and multiply". A man and woman in their vows 'becomming one' through being fruitful and multiplying'. Same sex proponents must thank God they had parents who were. A now lost sect, the "Shakers" believed as
same sex advocates do. Refrain from propagating.
Same sex for many of us was practiced in early formative years. It was for me my early introduction to the gift each of us are given. The ability to propagate. That early secretive introduction behind a park house in Toronto was enlarged to be inclusive and welcome the company of Women as I matured. I suspect that many Women had a similar early formative experience. I thank God every day that I and my wife have three children and six grandchildren who will, I pray " Be fruitful and multiply". Those not so inclined can be "Shakers" and as they did die out.

I, for one, am pleased with Dr Andrew's words here. For those who wish the process was faster, I am sympathetic. I have seen first hand the damage caused when gays and lesbians believe (not totally correctly, in my opinion) that they are rejected by the Church. And as a matter of justice...yes, calling upon Micah can get our blood pumping for sure. HOWEVER, it would be equally unjust to push quickly ahead on SSB while leaving a large portion of our faithful "genuinely perplexed about these matters" (to quote the Prolocutor). If SSB is God's will for the Church (and the house seems pretty split on this question...it was far from a landslide decision on A186, 61% of Clergy & Laity, and 53% of Bishops supported it) then it will only be true justice when we as the whole Church (or at least the clear majority, i.e. 2/3rds in both houses) stand together for SSB. The negative comments expressed towards the bishops for holding this back ('how dare they stand in the way of the people'), could be argued against the whole of General Synod for pushing this forward...'how dare you make such decisions (by simple majority) without thoroughly and slowly (yes, slowness is a virtue sometimes) explaining to the whole of our Canadian Church (gathered in the pews) what this will mean and how we can "own it" as we talk with others.' In truth, though 30 years have passed while this issue has been debated, the Canadian Church has not really been talking about it. Rather, it has been a select few from each camp. The time has come to really and earnestly bring this before the WHOLE of the Church -- even if that takes patience. As Dr Andrew's said, "Let us hope and pray that we hallow this space by our unflagging efforts to hear afresh each others’ words, the words of Scripture, and the Word Incarnate."
blessings in Christ Jesus,
Paul

The diversity of comments suggests that there is a great scope of thought in the church. Indeed, the votes on A186, 187 were all close enough to suggest the church is not of one mind - 62, 53, 56%. I wonder also why we continue to insist that the Holy Spirit acts through a majority rules model of decision making (50% + 1), and not a consensus model - something like the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

For Fr Andrews, I am afraid that all this has left me even more muddled. So is 'core doctrine' only the creeds? If so, which creeds? Which doctrinal statements contained in those creeds are felt to be core - all of them? - some of them? Is it just the Trinity and the Incarnation, or do we Christians consider the resurrection and forgiveness of sins 'core' as well? Does theological anthropology enter the dialogue through the doctrine of creation?

Introducing the phrase 'creedal doctrine', which appears to be used as a synonym for 'core doctrine' does not help me.

Perhaps the first task of the Theological Commission should be to define the term they introduced to this discussion (through the St Michael Report).

I submit to you my personal thoughts, as a cradle Anglican, active in current parish for approximately forty years.

My position on this issue is quite straight forward with the use of an example that I had the privilege of being involved with many years ago.

In our church community there was once a lady who was a long time standing person in the parish, acting in different leadership roles as well serving as a lay reader for many years. It became known in the church community that the act of adultery had occurred with this person. The Incumbent and the Warden of the Parish had a meeting and quickly came to the discussion that this person needed to step down from the position as lay reader role. This all took place in a very private and respectful way thus allowing the process of healing to start. I am happy to say at this point, many years later, this persons standing in the parish is strong and is back into not only her previous leadership role as layleader, but is pursuing the office of Deacon and eventually Priest. This persons marriage has been restored and her husband and two wonderful adult children are a very strong Christian family serving in many leadership roles in church and community life.

My point, to make this story quite clear, is that sex within a homosexual relationship seems to be in the same vain as the adulterous relationship.

I believe that there are many women that are liviing together that are in a companionship relationship that are not sex motivated. I think this is also true with some male relationships. I think for these we do a disservice when we use the word, same sex relationship. Perhaps our terminology should be "same gender" to in some way give respect or protection to those that are not sexually active.

It is my opinion, that the word "sex" , when we try to change what our scripture teaches, is when we get into difficulty. When we hold to its teaching, we allow healing to occur, and this is one of main calling as Christians. Wrongful sexual activity has always been with us and I expect it always will be. But we have our Victory in Jesus and He is the great Healer. It is only when we hold fast to the righteousness of His Word, that we start to realize healing in our own broken lives and when we share with Jesus Victory in our fallen people in our broken world.

With God's Richest Blessings,
M. Norman Marrow

Thank you Dr. Andrews, for your summary, and especially the notion that "the status of 'core doctrine' in our constitutions and canons still needs to be teased out". I believe part of the confusion rests in our lack of understanding what that term means in relation to the whole of the Anglican vocation as a church. It is particularly difficult when such a term appears to be a recent entry in the Anglican lexicon.

I am one Anglican who was very disappointed by the vote of the House of Bishops at the General Synod.I received all the emails and watched the pod casts each day with great interest. I appreciated the amount of information that was available to someone not attending the Synod.
I was raised in the social gospel view of scripture and action by my parents so for me it is quite simple. We are all Gods' children who deserve to be treated equally and with justice. Being heterosexual or homosexual is not the issue but how we treat each other is. People are born with whatever sexual orientation. We know that now with science.Gay people also have children , many using new advancements in treating infertility and their children and families need to know that we are all gods' children and all are accepted. Again it is our behavior towards each others and our acceptance that differences are okay, that should be our mantra as Christians. What about those of us who have dear friends who may be Jews, Sikhs, Muslims - we can accept that they too are Gods' children and they us.
Thank you, Go in god's peace and love, Nancy Bosomworth, St. John the Divine, burnaby BC

Here I go again ...

In follow up to my posting earlier, I would like to speak to the comment of the Rev'd Paul Donison. While I do not know Mr. Donison, I assume that he's heterosexual as he is the Rev'd Donison. I would suggest he try to 'sell' his comments about gays not being rejected by the church to those who have been refused ordination because of their sexual orientation, i.e., those whose lives are too sinful to be priests as opposed to those whose lives aren't (please read with a healthy amount of sarcasm).

I have to agree with many who have written, in that the bishops have shown themselves to be out of touch with the move towards inclusion that the church is making. The spirit is speaking, and the spirit isn't speaking with a divided voice - some people are choosing not to listen. With others, I am convinced that those calling for more study are either waiting to find a rabbit to pull out of the hat (with no thought that the 'more study' might actually lead them to deepen their understanding) or they are giving in to more conservative tendancies and abandoning the understanding they have come to through their own study, leaving gays in limbo yet again. I have no respect for either.

Absolutely no one is trying to change what scripture teaches. Nothing is static, including our understanding of scripture. We are all on a journey towards deeper understanding, but unfortunately many of us never make it beyond a sunday school understanding of theology.

Nathan Brinklow
Deseronto, ON

What really shocked me about the outcome of this debate was just how divided the house of bishops was. I expected perhaps as many as one third to vote against the resolution. In fact, the house of bishops was almost equally divided on the issue.

The real crisis now is that the confidence of Canadian Anglicans in the hierarchy of the Church has been severely shaken. We can no longer look to the bishops for leadership on social justice issues. Furthermore, postponing the decision until the next General Synod means that the Anglican Church of Canada cannot move on to other important issues.

I am not convinced that this particular issue is either going to go away or to be resolved any time soon. The Lambeth Conference next year may well put the kibosh on the whole discussion. It may even be that some of the bishops voted the way they did in the expectation that this might happen, especially given the current North/South divide within the Anglican Communion. In that event, the Canadian bishops could then simply say that Lamebeth had spoken. The matter was settled.

I believe that we are already moving into a very conservative era, in parallel with the other "Abrahamic" faiths, namely, Judaism and Islam. Liberalism in matters of religion is now suspect in many quarters. Those Anglicans who remain active in the Church are by and large the elderly or the socially, politically and theologically conservative. The liberals of yore still remaining in the Church are increasingly a minority, while their children and grandchildren have largely left the Church.

There is a sense that the Anglican Church of Canada is increasingly out of touch with contemporary Canadian society. I was asked recently Why the Anglican Church is preoccupied with the blessing of same sex unions when the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament have already redefined marriage? Perhaps we should instead by addressing the question of whether to bless civil marriages? The question was certainly telling and an answer was clearly not expected!

Time is certainly not on our side. We simply do not have the luxury of spending another decade discussing an issue that we have already spent thirty years on and that civil society has determined.

William Converse, Montreal, Que.

Although there have been a lot of comments here and in the press about how divided the House of Bishops were, one thing not often reported is that 25 minutes before the vote was taken there was a motion to postpone. That motion was defeated in the house of clergy and laity by a slim majority (10 votes, or 5 people). It was obvious that it was not just the bishops who were divided.

As I mentioned at synod the need for study is not primarily about new material - it is about the verb and the need for people on all sides of the issue to engage with discussions within there parishes, dioceses, etc.

I still believe that what was said as GS was not a "No" but a "Not yet" (as frustrating as that is for some).

George Power, Shawnigan Lake, BC

William Converse [above] and many others were surprised that the order of Bishops was almost equally divided. In fact, much of the weight of that division falls on either of two numerically small dioceses, The Arctic [3 Bishops] and Saskatchewan [2]. I guess it's one of those anomalies that just happens from time to time in most institutions. Now that it has happened, however, could not steps be taken to limit in the future, potential for the embarrassment of bishops who might once again find themselves likely to be seen as taking a decision for the entire church, while merely exercising episcopal authority over only a handful.

I think Mr Bryan is being a tad mischievous: the baptismal vow quoted is obviously from the Book of Alternative Services, i.e. the baptismal rite the Anglican Church of Canada actually *uses*.

Canon Slater asks why "normal procedures" weren't followed. He seems to assume that a two-thirds supermajority would have been "normal procedure". In fact, this is only required for canonical changes. Altering the rules to require a two-thirds majority would have itself required a two-thirds majority (!) and Synod declined to raise the bar even to sixty per cent.

In scrolling down through the above posts, I really couldn't find much being said that was based either on the BCP or on the Holy Bible: Most was rhetoric stated by supposedly learned persons....the only one that made a statement was that of Pat Bryan as part of her blog says:

Pat Bryan:
I do find "Do you here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh, so that you will not follow or be led by them? Answer: I do."
Pat Bryan
Port Hope, Ontario
Posted by Pat Bryan | July 3, 2007 10:01 PM

I was thinking....maybe this has something to do with Port Hope, ON since that was my home town, but then I remembered one of the Anglican Priests from 5 or 6 decades ago that preferred to teach the young people how to roll the dice rather than how to glean knowledge from the Scriptures.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS CHURCH??? I would suggest that the Clergy and Bishops (Thank God they voted the way they did on 187) start reading the Scriptures again and maybe even go to a bible school. Perhaps they could start by reading studying the complete teachings on the Priesthood of Melchizedek and the Sons of Zadok as opposed to the Eli System in the Church.

As of today and years gone by, the Eli System runs the Church and it should now be called the Church of Ichabod (The Glory is gone).

If the ACC does not turn from the path it has taken, it will not take the next 3 years to find out where it will end up and that is not where I want to be.

I have found this discussion of the Winnipeg Synod on same-sex blessings helpful and informative. There are so very many issues wrapped up in this debate. I had hoped the Local Option would prevail, as I worship in a diocese where it has for several years. However...on to the future.

Thoughts:

1) I am incredulous that Sexuality has become the core of the Gospel for some people, who would prefer schism to accommodation in community. Yet, a non-Anglican friend recently asked me, "What would Henry the VIII do?"

2) I think we are dealing with age-old cultural taboos, over the centuries wrapped in divine intention. As one poster noted, divorce was condemned more in the New Testament than same-sex relationships.[And of course, the Old Testament is full of dubious sexual relationships.]

3) I agree with John Rye that we should listen more closely to the stories, the reasons and the perspectives brought to the debate by our Anglican brothers and sisters in Canadian Aboriginal communities, as well as in Africa and Asia. It is wrong to dismiss their views out of hand as a North/South divide.
He also is right to remind us of our involvement in Indian Residential Schools, when Anglican missionaries proclaimed that their English language, their culture, their religious interpretation of the Gospel, was the Only Way to be civilized. Anglicans pressed Ottawa to eradicate 1st Nations legal and spiritual traditions, like the Potlatch and Sun Dance. During the same period,in Africa, our Anglican forbearers demanded that converts renouce their multiple wives.
So do we North American Anglicans today, inheritors of this missionary tradition, still believe that the "Holy Spirit" is with us -- that WE are inherently more progressive and in tune with the Will of God, than Anglicans in other cultures?

4) I hope the Lambeth Conference next summer will explore the history of the Anglican Communion, which includes the extension of the British Empire and the worldwide Anglican missionary movement of the 18th-20th centuries. The Communion is the fruit of those colonial endeavors and I respect the views of Anglican leaders in those communities today. Iwould welcome a wide-ranging debate -- grounded in history and culture -- as well as theology, on these knotty issues.

5) Contradictions, paradoxes and conundrums....if we Canadian Anglicans really engage some of the broader questions swirling around same-sex blessings in the next three years -- both at home and worldwide --I will be satisfied that patience was called for, that the Church has been strengthened. If, however, both liberals and conservatives play either/or, right/wrong games with each other, then....not only is schism likely, but alot of us lay folks are going to feel "Who cares?" and move on, regardless of the result.

Godspeed. Cynthia McLean, Vancouver BC

Stephen Andrew’s reflection on the results and, perhaps, consequences of the General Synod votes on the blessings of same gender relationships is what we have come to expect from him: clear and reasoned. But then again, I am not one of those life is still ‘on hold’ as the General Synod dithers about making it possible for dioceses and parishes to debate upon and decide whether or not such blessings ought to be allowed.

Stephen concludes his comments by agreeing to the possibility that “the church acted out of fear in Winnipeg.” He then goes on to give a positive spin to that ”fear” by suggesting that the fear the disciples experienced on a stormy sea was a “precondition of divine intervention.”

I would look to another scriptural reference as a possible help in interpreting the General Synod’s decision: “When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among the . . .” (John 20: 19).

I was present at General Synod for the debate and the voting. Two of the most powerful speeches were made by priests of the Canadian Church who related the experiences of gay and lesbian people in the South American and African countries from which they had come. They both spoke of ‘legal’ discrimination, acts of violence, and murder perpetrated against gay and lesbian people. They then urged the General Synod to approve the process for dioceses to consider same gender blessings not simply as a Canadian church matter but as a sign, perhaps a symbol, of solidarity and hope for gay and lesbian people who live in places where their sexual orientation puts them at risk of death.

We often say that it is from the edges of the church that God’s will is discerned. These two priests spoke of gay and lesbian experiences at the edges of church and society. Might they just have been bringing the presence of Jesus into General Synod’s fear? And, should that have been the case, the results of the voting would suggest that many members of Synod (and especially certain bishops) did not recognize him.

The words of a Leonard Cohen song come to mind: “There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” There was a “crack” at General Synod. Unfortunately, the light did not get in.

Bryan D. Bjerring, Arnes, MB

Dear Anglican Readers,

The Time Has Come

My wife and I are members of an Anglican parish in Calgary, Alberta. We are dismayed with the outcome of the June 27, 2007 General Synod for the reasons described hereunder.

As an a priori statement, it is our belief that one’s religion should offer solace, comfort and spiritual help for its members, in times of trouble. It should equally celebrate with them, in times of joy, including at the time two individuals unite in marriage. We write today about the latter aspect, ie. about blessings and marriage celebrations.

Normally my wife and I do not ‘weigh in’ on doctrinal debates within the Anglican faith or become involved in church politics, of any sort. Today, however, we feel that we must put forward some views and perspectives on the same sex union resolutions that were discussed at the June General Synod.

We begin by giving some context. I am a cardiologist and my wife is a nurse and a lawyer. We have a combined family of nine adult children, two of whom are gay.

These latter two are loved and treated particularly well by their siblings who recognize that this world can still be a very cruel place for them.

The oldest of our two gay children is an Episcopal minister in Clearwater, Minnesota. She and her spouse were not able to legally marry in that state but an Episcopal parish rector offered to and did perform a very moving blessing ceremony for them, five years ago. Our daughter is pleased to know that her Canadian home land is much further ahead than the United States with respect to the entrenchment of the legal right to marry, as well as requiring employers to extend equal employment benefits to spouses of gay employees.

The youngest of our two gay children is an oil company consultant in the field of government relations and policy making. He will be married to his partner in Kananaskis, Alberta, in August of 2007. Presently, no Anglican priest can marry them or bless their civil marriage, as a result of the Synod decision.

Both of our gay children have very caring and loving spousal relationships that would be the envy of many heterosexual couples in today’s society.

The following are our views on the question of blessing ceremonies.

1. The Anglican faith has been ‘all over the map’ on the question of allowing gay blessing ceremonies, and such should stop.

As long ago as 1997, Anglican bishops apologized to Canadian gays and lesbians for the prejudice and oppression church members had directed towards them. Nevertheless, one year later, the world’s Anglican bishops overwhelmingly approved a motion saying that “homosexual practice is contrary to scripture.”

Further, we have a situation in the world today where the USA Episcopal church does allow its clergy to perform blessing ceremonies - even though gays cannot legally marry in that country. Ironically, the Anglican bishops of Canada have now disallowed the performance of such ceremonies, in a country where same sex marriages are an irreversible legal right.

Delegates at the 2007 Synod approved a historic motion that said same sex blessings did not violate core doctrines of the church but, immediately and paradoxically thereafter, banned blessing ceremonies for gays and lesbians.

It would appear that the Anglican bishops are trying to avoid a rift in the ranks of the Anglican faithful. We respectfully suggest that a veritable chasm has been created by the results of this vote and that it cannot (and perhaps should not) be bridged by an equivocal middle, any longer.

2. We would be part of one camp that advocates treating gays no differently than heterosexuals with respect to the offering of a blessing ceremony.

Heterosexuals, homosexuals, white persons, native persons, black persons etc. all need to be thought of as people first and treated, accordingly, with the same fundamental human dignity that all persons on earth deserve. The only difference between heterosexuals and gay persons is their sexuality which - in the bigger scheme of things, is but a small part of ones’ life.

For those who interpret scripture as saying homosexual acts (and perhaps, persons) are aberrant in nature we say look to both the first and second greatest commandments for the answer. There, it is made clear that one’s love of God cannot be whole without love of one’s neighbor which, by necessary implication, includes gay and straight members of the Anglican faith and society, worldwide.

Our camp says that one’s sexual orientation makes one no more or less a child of God. To the contrary, it is prejudice and oppression of another human being on that basis - or on any basis, which threatens one’s standing in God’s fold.

3. How do we explain to our grandchildren why two of their aunts and uncles are marrying same sex partners?

We have taught our children and grandchildren that all people have an important job in life, and that is to try to find a life partner who will enter into a relationship of love and caring with them, until both walk into the sunset of life. This should be the goal we tell them – no matter what, and no matter who they eventually choose.

Both of our gay children have been successful in this regard. Our son and his soon-to-be spouse do not need the blessing of a formalized religion but would be pleased to be part of a congregation that welcomed them and treated them like every other loving couple in the pews, making their way through life.

Perhaps women in society are more tolerant and understanding with respect to the need to integrate and welcome gay persons fully into society and into the church. This may well be because women, themselves, were not recognized as persons in Canada until 1921.

We also tell them that gay persons have been identified to comprise 2 to 10 percent of the world’s population. Also, our observations are that gay and lesbian persons do not choose to be so (who would?) any more than heterosexuals consciously choose their sexual orientation.

We further tell them that the latest and most plausible theory regarding what causes one to be homosexual versus heterosexual is simply that, at the time of embryonic sex differentiation, their respective mothers - either had too much of her own natural testosterone (lesbian female results), or too little of it (homosexual male results).

Finally, we advise them that we know of no doctor, nurse or lawyer who would support a discriminating view with respect to the acknowledgement or treatment of gay persons - or of any person, in society today.

4. Why would we as a religious denomination want to bless same sex unions?

It would acknowledge gays as the people that they are and their unions as blessed before God. The Anglican faith that we love, would be inclusive and not exclusive in this regard.

In our view, the people of the world and formalized religions have a lot of work (and apologizing) to do with respect to the past and present treatment of gays as persons. Heterosexuals should just imagine how painful it is to go through
life not being able to hold the hand of the person that you love or ever hug or kiss in public.

Gay persons are men and women just like you and I, but-for the gender aspects of their sexual relationships. As individuals and as married couples, they deserve to have their bond of marriage treated with the same dignity and respect that we all want and deserve in society.

The blessing ceremony would be a spiritual support and encouragement for monogamous relationships. From a health care perspective alone, why would any thinking society or religious denomination want to discourage versus encourage the state of monogamy, particularly with regard to gay men?

It has been our observation that the majority of those opposed to same sex blessings have never met or known a homosexual individual or couple.

Perhaps the two Anglican bishops who created the “No” decision at the General Synod would benefit from meeting with some well spoken gay and lesbian couples in their parishes who could tell them what it would have meant to them to have their marriage blessed by an Anglican priest. I suspect that their answer would be no different than that of any heterosexual couple expressing the same desire for a marriage or blessing ceremony, because they are, after all … just people.

Yours sincerely,

Maureen and John Morgan and their Family
Copy: Anglican Diocese of Calgary
Rev. A. Tucker & Rev. Dr. R. Darcus