Well, at least according to a paragraph in the Anglican Journal:
Council of General Synod (CoGS) wrestled with the blessing of same-sex unions and marriage when it met here May 8 to 10 and in the end decided not to ask General Synod 2010 to amend the marriage canon to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples.
CoGS had a recent meeting; some of the official notes are here, here and here. The Primate's Theological Commission has put out a paper or two (alluded to earlier on this blog: Galilee Report, updates & papers here).
So what exactly does any of this mean in terms of the ongoing stuff in the Canadian Church? Not sure. There are several possible outcomes. Various bishops and dioceses continue to offer same sex blessings, while others (Ottawa, Toronto, Niagara) appear poised to begin doing so, regardless of any request for "moratoria" from the wider Communion.
Somewhere along the line, there is the possibility that someone will introduce a motion to amend the marriage canons anyway, or something to such effect. CoGS says it won't ask General Synod to entertain a motion regarding same sex marriage, but that doesn't mean that anyone else is prevented from introducing such a motion. My money is on the latter option. Actually, I anticipate something along the lines of what was introduced 2 synods ago; eg: this General Synod recognize the integrity and sanctity of those baptized persons who have entered into civil marriage.
Anyone who wants to figure out how the recent Big Anglican Meeting shakes down is welcome to try. We are all being processed to death. Here's what Bishop Mouneer Anis, President Bishop of the Anglican Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East had to say about the most recent international gathering to discuss the "Anglican Covenant":
There was manipulation. We had deliberated long about section 4. They put resolution A to detach section 4 and ask ABC to put a committee. When the resolution was put for voting, we praise the Lord it was rejected.
Then it was like a shock to bring the two main clauses of the resolution we rejected and put it in the resolution we wanted to vote on. It is absolutely wrong. We as members of ACC had decided that we do not want this resolution. We wanted the covenant to go straight to the provinces. This led to what seemed to me to be a lot of confusion on the role of the ACC. The ACC is not a synod to take decisions like this. All we are asking for is that this covenant be sent for a further three years, until 2012, so that every province will have plenty of time. The provinces can make amendments as well after it has passed. There will be time for discussion and reflection. There will be objections and amendments. Yet this body does not want to send it. It was very clear from the rejection of Resolution A they way that the majority in the house wanted to go. This was a shock and confusion and a manipulation.
This was deliberate. Resolution A was rejected and yet was brought back. Even if it is legal I see it as wrong. Also in the last few days, all of us were clear about section 4. Even the Church in Canada had said for the sake of the communion and unity we will receive this covenant. I personally think it is unfair to appoint people from three different provinces who are known to reject the covenant, - New Zealand, the United States and Scotland, - on the resolution committee. Part of this crisis is due to distrust. I must say that all what happened increased the distrust.
On another front, I had a conversation not that long ago in which someone tried to offer the reassurance that of course clergy wont' be required to officiate at same sex blessings/marriages. Well of course they won't. That assurance is actually, in my opinion, precisely not the point. Canon law already allows clergy to refuse sacraments on the basis of conscience. And yes, I have had a few couples to whom I've said that I would not be willing to officiate at their wedding. So saying clergy won't have to do SSM is really just an extension of what is already there.
The real question is this: if and when (and I'm assuming a when) SSM passes in the Canadian Anglican Church, will any voice of theological opposition to the practice be allowed/tolerated?
That to me is the real question.
What is the point of Anglicanism? Ruth Gledhill has an interesting column in the Times regarding Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who recently resigned his post in order to do more work with persecuted Christians. The Bishop himself hails from Pakistan originally. Here's an interesting part of the interview:
Bishop Michael spoke about the equal and opposite pulls in Anglicanism, towards the 'logic of Catholicism' or the 'logic of fragmentation'.
'The question now arises, which logic will prevail. It is quite possible that the logic of fragmentation will prevail and people will go their own way. Or it may be that the Anglicans will see their way to the Catholic Church, to God's will as expressed in Christ's highly prescient prayer for the unity of Christians across the ages and throughout the world.
'Anglicans to their credit have never claimed to be the one, true Church.' He noted that successive Lambeth Conferences had accepted that Anglicanism stands ready to disappear in the cause of Catholic unity, 'that is, it [Anglicanism] is not an end to itself but a means towards the greater Catholicism which is God's will.'
Recent Comments