It has been an amazing day. Best to read the statement in the context of the video - go to www.anglican.ca to check out video (both live and archived) from the floor of General Synod. We kinda value our transparency here in Canada!
Rod Gillis posted the following comment in a thread that wasn't Canadian, so I am showing it below.
"I think one could differ sharply with Eileen Scully about the state of transparency in Canada. Many of us value synodical government. Some of us among that number evaluate the outcome of General Synod, and the process utilized to achieve that outcome, as a step backwards. One characteristic of what has taken place at Canada's General Synod is that it was based on the premise that open debate was not to be trusted, was not subject to finesse and management, and juxtaposed " heated passion" with "respectful dialogue". It's a false dichotomy. Democracy is as messy as it is transparent; it just happens to be outside the comfort zone of most churches. While I'm sure the majority of delegates to GS will recount a feel good experience, to some of us at least, it is, with more appeals to "study" the issue, simply a cop-out. Question: Who are we we most committed to, the foreign prelate off shore or the gay and lesbian person in the pew next to you? Rhetorical affirmations to the contrary, The Canadian Church has answered the question in favor of the former.Pardon me for engaging in a small bit of prophetic diakonia of my own."
Rod Gillis 2010-06-11 00:53:18
It's a non legislative decision to affirm local discernment and will be interpreted differently in different dioceses. Some bishops are saying this effectively non-legislatively affirms their ability to move forward with blessing of same sex civilly married couples; others also affirm this and say they're pleased that it does not endorse such as the General Synod teaching to which they would be bound. Others, further will want maintenance of moratorium. The transparency is in continuing to hold together with respect that there is and is going to be continued disagreement. Only time is going to tell what the actions of some dioceses are going to be.
Eileen, from all reports the meeting of General Synod was subject to a close management of debate from before the get-go, and now post GS spin doctoring. I hear it was a love-in, as we used to say. There has been lots of talk about a statement that does not have "winners and losers", but in fact one of the winners is the Canadian House of bishops as a group. They emerged from the previous synod in 2007 as the spoilers who effectively vetoed a decision by lay and clergy delegates to allow dioceses a local option. Now,of course, the heat is off because the responsibility for our current situation has been taken on by GS. Transparency goes to the root of the procedures utilized. Replacing open debate from the floor with filtered small groups is at the heart of the transparency issue. I fully expect this "process" will be used next time. The condescending description of debate by advocates of conversation minding is alarming. Transparency is related to trust, and the message is GS delegates can't be trusted with open debate and opinion on the floor, rather big brother needs to hold their hand. It's a sad day for governance by synod. When you add this to the growing trend in the Communion towards a hierarchical ( which means patriarchal) church, and I include Canada in that based in part on our recent GS, we are losing something very precious.
If we wanted an honest statement on where the Canadian Church is on sexuality issues, we had that prior to GS 2010 i.e. a majority of clergy and laity in favor, a slim majority of bishops opposed, and dioceses in the urban corridors moving as their context dictated. Your comments above seem to indicate that we still have that, except its buried in this new statement under a lot of group hug rhetoric.
When I first heard the statement read out I was very upset. I felt it did not go far enough (I still don't think it does.) And originally I did not believe that it did reflect the discussion of my group. But after a short bit of sleep that night I sat down and took another look at it.
I remembered a fair amount of the discussion in my group being around the idea that we did not want local option coming in as legislation. And yes, this is not fair to our GLBT brothers and sisters. But, to push for it would also not be fair to our brothers and sisters who are not able to support it at this time.
I guess that we want our cake and eat it too. We want to have local option and we want to stay together as a national church. There was a lot of talk about paradoxes in what was being put forward. The statement very accurately reflects where the Canadian Church is right now.
If we had pushed the local option bit I believe it would not have passed and the door would still remain closed. The House of Bishop's statement from 08 would have remained in effect as our guideline and limits. In supporting this statement we have opened the door to the possibility of local option while still moving together as a church. It allows us more time for discernment and that will be a discernment more people will listen to with open hearts.
No, the statement is not ideal from our point of view and we all realized that. But it does accurately reflect what happened and that is really all it says it does.
Love and Prayers,
Thanks Anne Marie (Nicklin) for your post. It’s reflective and irenic. I'm grateful for your comments. It’s interesting to read the comments coming forward from GS delegates in the wake of Synod. Posts on several sites indicate that the Statement is tacit permission for continuing the local option. However I'm not on side with what GS has done. GS does not exist to make life more comfortable for bishops, or even delegates. The process used has a strong streak of paternalism in it. "There, there, let me guide you through this conversation so you are not wounded by the subject matter." Its bishops as IN LOCO PARENTIS. No thank you. I’m an adult now your grace. I think you express the dilemma well, "We want to have local option and we want to stay together as a national church." The statement is strong on the peace and unity of the church perhaps, but it does not hunger and thirst for justice for those excluded. Who benefits most from this approach? Going back to Gutierrez and the Medellin Conference, social teaching has proceeded on the basis of the "preferential option for the poor." We are called to see the struggle for liberty through the experience of the oppressed. In any struggle between privilege and oppression, the oppressed have preferential priority on the basis of the claims the Gospel makes upon us. The principle can be applied to members of the gay and lesbian community within the churches. The GS Statement is really about giving priority to institutional harmony. It sees the issue first and foremost from the perspectives of bishops, National Staff, and a majority who are not members of the gay and lesbian community.
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.