The Anglican Journal is offering copies of its "Anglican Journal Daily" - a quotidien report from GS 2007 in Winnipeg. News, photos, tidbits etc. You can get more info here.
As well, the Anglican Planet has a new issue online, with various takes, interviews and analysis on GS 2007. You can view it here.
+ Jim Cowan, Bishop of British Columbia, has written a letter to his diocese with his reflections on General Synod 2007. I have not yet digested the whole thing, and so I won't post a snippet out of context.
Link to the pdf document here.
other letters from Canadian bishops can be found here.
thanks to an email tip.
I know that a number of Canadian bishops have not yet written formal responses to GS. I look forward to hearing more from them. As always, our first response is to uphold our leaders in prayer.
A Letter to the Canadian House of Bishops
In response to A Statement from the House of Bishops to the Members of General Synod (2007) and the request: “We call upon every member of the Anglican Church of Canada to continue in their faithful discipleship and the work of theological and scriptural reflection and dialogue.”
Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul,
June 29, A.D. 2007
“For you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s.”
1 Corinthians 3: 18-24
(Proper 2: Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles )
Dear Friends in Christ,
In the recent Statement from the House of Bishops to General Synod regarding the issue of blessing the relationships of those who share in the sacramental life of Baptism and Eucharist there is an expression of pastoral concern but, unfortunately, there is also a threat to the unique blessing which the Holy Eucharist is for the unity of the Body of Christ.
Anglicans agree that the Holy Eucharist is the sacramental source and summit of our participation, during this earthly journey, in the life of the one eternal Christ Jesus who is the Word of God and God’s singular blessing upon humanity.
All baptized Christians are called to and welcomed at the Table of the Lord. In this great privilege we come as those who repent of our sins and seek the grace of God in our lives. Christ is the Sacrament of God and so, in the Eucharistic celebration of the Sacrament we express our unity with the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the world (Solemn Declaration, 1893).
To suggest that in the celebration of relationships between individuals there is an additional blessing to be given or withheld apart from, or over and above the Sacrament of Unity is, I respectfully submit, to derogate from and potentially undermine what is the central act of Christian worship and blessing: the Holy Eucharist.
With respect to the solemnization of marriage, it is the development of Eucharistic doctrine which has given definition to the Celebration and Blessing of Marriage as we now have it. There has always and everywhere been, in the Church, a clear understanding that those who are in a state of grace (having received absolution from God through the confession of sin) are blessed in, by and through the Holy Communion which God shares with us in the one Person of Christ and which we share with one another as members of Christ’s one body.
All relationships, friendships and indeed Holy Marriage find their fullest meaning and blessing, for Christians, in this Holy Communion which is a celebration and renewal of the grace of Baptism. The dominical sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and Eucharist (Article XXV), constitute the fullness of sacramental blessing which is shared by all those in communion with Christ. Holy Communion for the baptized presupposes that the states of life of those participating are sanctified, affirmed and blessed by God. Nothing liturgically could or should be added without detracting from the unity of these sacraments which convey the life of Christ who in his person is the unique Sacrament of God’s blessing for all humanity.
The instruction to celebrate relationships in the context of the Holy Eucharist, while at the same time withholding the blessing of the Church upon such relationships, is both paradoxical and contradictory. Such celebrations would lead to confusion and leave liturgical acts widely open to misinterpretation.
The celebration of the Eucharist by the baptized community is the greatest sacramental blessing of the Church united, as it is, with the other great Gospel sacrament, Baptism. This teaching is made clear in the Anglican tradition (Article XXV). Withholding a formal pronouncement of blessing while at the same time celebrating eucharistically a relationship within the Christian Church sends mixed messages and denigrates the Sacrament by suggesting that there is another blessing to be had which is somehow disconnected from the Sacrament of Unity, the Holy Eucharist.
In the early Church it is attested that men and women seeking to marry one another would first declare themselves to the social community and then come to share in the celebration of the Eucharist (Notes on Marriage in the Early Church, Robert Berringer). Their participation in Holy Communion was considered to be an expression of and sharing in the single blessing which is the life of Christ in the Church, his body, given for the life of the world. Any blessing pronounced by a bishop or priest is always understood to be an extension or articulation of the single blessing which is Christ, who is one with us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
In time, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and over centuries, the official role of solemnization and recording of vows was assumed by the Church in many places. The Celebration of Marriage was instituted as “a public service of the Church” (BAS p. 526). For the first half of Christian history, however, many contend that the only blessing of Christian marriage and other relationships of professing Christians (holy orders, religious life, etc) was in the context of the Mass.
For good reason, only those committed to Christ in faith would celebrate their professions or states of life at the Eucharist with the clear understanding that only that which was inherently blessed by God and in conformity with sacred Scripture and tradition was to be celebrated in the Sacrament of Unity. Christ is the Sacrament of God. In the Holy Eucharist we share communion in Christ’s life and blessing. This is the single and unified source of liturgical blessing in the Christian community. No blessing may be added which is not inherently present within the dominical Sacrament of the Eucharist.
The suggestion that a further blessing may be added or withheld from those in a civil union or other relationship, apart from the blessing that is inherent in the Holy Eucharist, is to confuse the issue and to detract from Christ’s unique blessing. To presume that a bishop or priest might somehow add to the Sacrament or withhold pronouncing God’s blessing upon any person, state or relationship beyond what is celebrated in the Eucharist is to suggest a development of doctrine which is not within the jurisdiction of any single body of Christians.
As John W.B. Hill has pointed out in his essay, A Theology of Blessing and Liturgies of Blessing, “The mere pronouncement of a blessing can be seriously misunderstood if we forget that we are a eucharistic people. Blessing is not a power we wield but a gift we celebrate.” To be theologically consistent, then, the blessing of God celebrated in the context of the Holy Eucharist is complete. No other blessing may be added or withheld.
In summary: Provision for a celebration of relationships which presumes or indicates that the Holy Eucharist is lacking in some way and so may allow for or require a further blessing by a priest or bishop is fundamentally contrary to the received teaching of the Church. Such a provision inherently undermines the doctrine of the Church with regard to Sacrament. The concept of ‘blessing’ as set apart from or in addition to the expression of God’s love and friendship in the Holy Eucharist contradicts the nature of the Sacrament.
The notion of an additional blessing pronounced or withheld apart from the Eucharist celebrating a relationship is not in conformity with the formularies of the Church. For example, the BCP and BAS both allow for the celebration and blessing of a marriage outside of the Eucharist but the BAS rubric clearly states that “Where both bride and bridegroom are entitled to receive communion, it is desirable that the form of service in which the marriage rite is incorporated in the celebration of the eucharist be used.” (BAS p. 527). There is no provision, however, for the celebration of the Marriage Eucharist which precludes the blessing of the relationship because blessing is inherent within the Eucharist. To sever or undermine the unity of Eucharist and blessing contradicts the very nature of the Eucharist which is the fullest expression of God’s blessing.
In fact, Eucharistic celebrations of the sort proposed in the Statement would easily be misunderstood as attempting to do indirectly what has not been approved. At the same time, withholding a blessing, would indicate that such an extraordinary blessing (outside of the Eucharistic celebration) is in some way superior to, or in addition to the singular blessing of God in Christ which is celebrated most completely in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
For these reasons I respectfully request that the instructions for the celebration of the Eucharist for civil unions or other relationships in the Statement to General Synod (2007) be withdrawn.
John L. Hodgins
Chatham , Ontario
Note to self: as we consider the views of our bishops, our first response must be to uphold them in prayer.
UPDATE: 7 +David Ashdown, Keewatin: pastoral letter
UPDATE : 6 +Anthony Burton, Saskatchewan, has a letter posted here.
UPDATE; 5 +Claude Miller, Fredericton, has a pastoral letter: link here
[excerpt]: An editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press at the close of General Synod said "Canadian Anglicans took a hesitant, ambiguous step toward expansion of gay rights on the weekend." The editorial attributed our hesitancy to our desire to preserve the unity of a communion that includes "African and Asian branches [that] condemn homosexuality."
I challenge that stereotype. Our African and Asian churches no more speak with one voice than our Canadian church does, or our own diocese does for that matter. General Synod agreed with the St. Michael Report that blessing same-sex unions does not conflict with core doctrine of the Church and voted against granting permission for each diocese to make its own choice about blessing such unions.
We will continue to struggle with this issue because it is complicated and difficult, but to make it simple would be disrespectful.
UPDATE: 4 + Ralph Spence, Niagara; press release;
News Releases:
A Message from Bishop Ralph and Bishop-elect Michael regarding the defeated motion on same-sex blessings at General Synod
Dear Friends,
Today, two important resolutions came before the General Synod of our Church. The first proposed ýthat 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.ý This motion passed.
The second, proposed to affirm the authority of a synod and its bishop to allow rites for the blessing of committed monogamous same-sex unions. It passed clearly in the Order of Laity and in the Order of Clergy, but was narrowly defeated in the Order of Bishops.
We share in the profound sense of loss that many in our churches will experience in the wake of this decision, especially gay and lesbian Anglicans along with many of their family and friends.
Please be assured of our prayers and of our commitment to press forward in faith towards an ever more welcoming and inclusive church.
+Ralph, Bishop of Niagara
The Venerable Michael Bird (Coadjutor Bishop-elect)
UPDATE: 3 +Terry Buckle, Yukon, & Archbishop: Scott from Magic Statistics has his letter here
UPDATE: 2 +Derek Hoskin, Bishop of Calgary, writes his diocese: pdf here .
UPDATE: +Colin Johnson, Bishop of Toronto, writes his diocese: here is the pdf.
+ Victoria Matthews, Bishop of Edmonton, has circulated a letter to her clergy. It is also intended that a copy will be published in local media.
June 28, 2007
Dear Clergy,
The reporting about the resolutions voted on at the Anglican Church of Canada's General Synod has been confined to resolutions 186 and 187, both of which are narrowly focused on the blessing of same -sex unions, In actual fact, there was a very interesting development at our Synod which showed remarkable consistency and faithfulness.
Early in the Synod we were asked to vote to accept the Canadian response to the Windsor Report on relations within the Anglican Communion. Rather than signing on without question, the Canadian response is nuanced and carefully scripted. We voted that belonging to the Anglican Communion matters to us and we are committed to the ongoing conversation.
Next on the agenda was the St. Michael Report by the Primate's Theological Commission. Asked to give a theological opinion on whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, the answer was a clear "yes" but not of core doctrine. It was explained that core doctrine, sometimes called dogma, speaks of who God is and God's saving activity. In short it can be said to speak of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation. This core doctrine is the content of the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. Thus the Report concludes that the blessing of same-sex unions would be a matter of doctrine but it is not so important as to warrant schism. (It should not be communion breaking.) This resolution also passed easily.
Next came a series of resolutions about process. An attempt was made to require that resolutions 186 and 187 be deemed to have passed only if the received a 60% majority. However at this point tin the proceedings there was considerable confusion about the voting procedure requirements. It is possible people did not know what was being voted on. Whether they understood or not, the resolution to require 60% failed and a simple majority was now required for resolutions 186 and 187.
Resolution 186 states that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada. In other words the blessing of same-sex unions is not in the conflict with the proclamation of God as the Holy Trinity and as the Word made flesh. As one bishop later commented, even the most conservative African primate should be able to agree with that. This resolution passed by a slim majority.
Lastly, in an atmosphere that seemed more like filibuster than debate, a resolution was presented and passed asking the Primate's Theological Commission and Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee to prepare a report and educational materials in advance of 2010 General Synod about whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of the doctrine of marriage. Remember, the St. Michael Report said the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine but until now no one has been asked to try to actually develop a doctrine of same-sex unions. It also asked for a theological rationale to accompany the new Canon 21 on marriage, which is come before General Synod 2010.
in short, the Anglican Church of Canada General Synod consistently demonstrated that it is more interested in considering redefining marriage than continuing the debate about blessings.
The outcome of these various resolutions is that our Primate stays at the table of the Primates' meetings; it afford full membership to our Anglican Consultative Council members; and it allows time for further theological reflection at all levels of our church, including all bishop of the Anglican Communion at next year's Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, England.
In addition to the above, pastoral provisions provided by the Bishop's Letter of April 30th, 2007 ensures further inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the Anglican Church of Canada.
In Christ
+ Victoria
Bishop of Edmonton
Anglican Church of Canada
If any other Canadians know of Bishops' responses, I 'm sure it would be helpful to gather them together as we pray and think through where the Spirit is leading the Church.
This letter in Download letter_to_clergy.pdf
[Toronto: Church House]
In a move that many had predicted, a number of Canadian Bishops have appealed to African Primatial Archbishops to give them oversight of conservative clergy and laity. The move came in the wake of a contentious vote at the Anglican Church of Canada's recent General Synod. While a majority of clergy and laity voted in favour of a resolution to allow same sex blessings, the motion was defeated in the House of Bishops by a slim margin.
"What we have here is a situation in which the bishops no longer feel they can oversee such dioceses", read an official statement from the office of the new Canadian Primate, Fred Hiltz. "It is unfortunate that the Bishops have decided to go this route, as we thought that the issue could have been decided by a game of street hockey. I could have remained neutral and simply yelled out CAR whenever the need arose."
There is no word yet as to whether or not their African counterparts will grant the dissenting bishops new clergy and laity, although an announcement is expected later today.
idea seed Mad Priest
Despite any theological differences we may have, we are all united in the blogosphere:
No particular order or description; click and look around.
Delegates:
Neale Adams: Draw the Circle Wide
John Oakes: General Synod Blog
Nfld & Labrador Youth: E: \mmaus
Charles Wilson: my gs07 blog
Steve London: Our Hearts are Restless
Observers:
Preston Parsons: Baby Priest
"Essentials Live Blog": AEC Blog
I suppose that I will join the 3 dozen other Anglicans in Canada who will wish to ponder this one out. The rest of them are probably having a nap, as the legislative spirituality of General Synod can be draining to the soul. So what exactly is one supposed to make of this statement?
Those are just a few possibilities. I'm sure there will be more.
Canada's only Anglican bishop to authorize the blessing of homosexual unions said yesterday the refusal by his fellow bishops to approve the rite for the national church is the product of institutional inertia rooted in homophobia.
Bishop Michael Ingham of the Vancouver-area diocese of New Westminster said homophobia, hiding behind interpretations of scripture, remains an acceptable prejudice in Canadian Anglicanism.
"There are members of our church who staunchly defend that. In my view, [it] is a total misreading of scripture and a misuse of the Bible to oppress people. But they clearly want to continue to do that."From the Globe & Mail
which also has an interesting online poll
It is this sort of response which prevents us from being able to "agree to disagree". Those who uphold traditional teaching on marriage are simply reduced to the ad hominem "homophobic".
As they were considered a matter of adiaphora by Hooker in the Laws,
then might one also argue that episcopal crossing of boundaries is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of the Anglican Church of Canada?
Just a thought that came to me on the plane ride, with a variety of scenarios ensuing.
Moved by: Mr. Stephen Schuh from the Diocese of New Westminster
Seconded By: The Rt. Rev’d Michael Ingham from the Diocese of New Westminster
Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.
BE IT RESOLVED:
Notwithstanding any decisions taken by this its 2007 Synod, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada affirms that the present practice of the Synod and Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in authorizing the blessings of covenanted same-sex unions in eight (8) Parishes of that Diocese shall continue in the Diocese of New Westminster pending further resolution by General Synod.
The motion has just been withdrawn
Recent Comments