The Commission members, for their willingness into enter into the fiery furnace, for their desire to be of service to our church, for the labor of their hearts and minds, deserve our appreciation. The report requires close reading. As person who made a submission to The Commission, I'd like to share a couple of preliminary responses, tentative perhaps, formed after an initial reading. The section on theological rationale is very conservative. So it is ironic that it may be destined to be rejected by conservatives both in Canada and elsewhere in The Communion. The Commission (5.3.3.) makes significant use of the "grafting in" imagery from the NT, gentiles to Jews, in order to construct what The Commission terms an "analogy". It is disconcerting as it may contribute to a continued misplaced emphasis on difference between heterosexual and homosexual persons. There is also a possibility that this kind of theological application may inadvertently become another land mine on the tragic historical terrain of Christianity's relationship with Judaism. Note the following from section 5.3.3, "Finally, the inclusion of the new group does not invalidate the earlier covenant as wrong or no longer relevant ..." The reality is that Christian theology going forward from the NT has been used as the basis of attempts to do exactly that, i.e. invalidate the Hebrew covenant as wrong and no longer relevant---a past sin that is confessed by worshipers using the Canadian Good Friday Liturgy (BAS p. 316). The draft resolution (Appendix A) requires scrutiny. The Commission was required to come up with a conscience clause. However, the draft resolution really provides a conscience super fortress not just for individuals but for dioceses and parishes. General Synod will be the ultimate decider; but the text of the draft resolution signals the possibility of a fiasco in terms of a meaningful revision of a national Marriage Canon with reference to the global intent of the original motion (Appendix D).
Thanks to Thinking Anglicans for including the links to all the submissions The Commission received. They certainly cover the water front. It's been a very detailed process in Canada so far.
From this Report from the Anglican Church of Canada, it is obvious that the Indigenous Church is not about to break communion with the parent body - even though their culture may not agree with the proposed legislation. How different this is from the behaviour of ACNA!
Mind you, I suppose the opt-out clause might have something to do with it.
However, whether those in the Anglican Communion who will not countenance the presence of LGBTQI people within their churches will agree to remain within the Anglican Communion on the same basis - that of an 'opt-out' that would respect their conscientious objection to the acceptance of Same-Sex Relationships in other Provinces of the Communion - is shortly to be seen, in January 2016
When this came on my email yesterday, I took a quick look, and I need to take time to read the entire report.
As to the draft resolution itself, the scope of the conscience clause struck me, as it did Rod, as too broad, especially in the ability of a bishop to unilaterally ban same-sex marriage in his/her diocese. Even with a ban enacted by diocesan synods, should there not be a conscience clause allowing dissenting parishes a means to opt-in to marriage equality?
From the highlights of yesterday's General Synod meeting here in Toronto.
"On the subject of the conscience clause, commissioners determined that an opt-out clause would be the best approach to accommodate bishops, dioceses and priests who choose not to authorize same-sex marriages, along with an option for ministers to decline for reasons of conscience."
"Mind you, I suppose the opt-out clause might have something to do with it."
TEC has opt-out as well. No priest has to marry anyone. Bishops have to make a way for couples to marry, but it doesn't have to be in his diocese (all the conservative, marriage opposing bishops are male).
That did not appease ACNA, who had already left over the consecration of +Gene and the election of a female PB. So far, I haven't heard of anyone leaving since the marriage ruling in June/july at General Convention.
Canada's is an interesting document with an admirable attempt to take in all voices. I wish them all the best.
I know some of the people involved in this. I haven't read it yet, but plan to give it a good read soon.
"...but it doesn't have to be in his diocese."
When one sees the petition in the Diocese of Dallas, or the similar action in Albany, this is a very questionable assertion. Recall the pressure brought at the Cathedral in CFL.
The 'make provision' language will be tested all the way down.
I just read the summary of Day 2 of the CoGS meeting, and it appears that some members of CoGS had concerns (even broader than those I expressed above) about dioceses and parishes "having a conscience". I would not go quite that far; I think it is within reason for parishes to set policies on weddings in the church (many parishes do, in terms of requirements on membership).
Traveling from Albany to Rochester or Vermont to get married in the church is an inconvenience, but quite minor compared with having to travel from the Yukon to New Westminster. A diocesan-wide ban is unreasonable.
I hope I have made it clear--perhaps not--that it would be possible to see these carve-out arrangements as strategic 'gifts' (or in the case of TEC, faux 'gifts') whose point is to secure a compromise that will time out in short order anyway.
Expedience. Necessary stop-gaps.
I say this because I don't see any principled rationale being asserted.
I don't understand how TEC progressives would want to point to Trial Rite + 'make provision' as acceptable or as a sign of anything to emphasize. If this is a justice issue, then why force anyone to go anywhere but their home parish.
Conservatives I know don't buy this expediency/strategic idea.
I'm actually less troubled by episcopal fiat in this case than synodical legislation. Marriage in our non-established church isn't a "right"; bishops are custodians of the administration of the sacraments in their dioceses, and have relatively broad latitude to regulate them. (A bishop could, in theory, even choose not to authorize the BAS). Their regulations, of course, may or may not be continued by their successors.
But allowing synods to enact diocesan canons by majority (or supermajority) rule to the end of proscribing what the national church has allowed strikes me as having much more troubling ramifications in canon law. I wonder when we will hear from Archdeacon Perry on all this?
"If this is a justice issue, then why force anyone to go anywhere but their home parish."
It is a justice issue. It is also a theological issue. But in TEC, GC and the House of Bishops wanted to make provision for those bishops who aren't "there" yet. There are only 7 diocesans. I feel bad for the couples in those dioceses and I would have advocated for having an option in each diocese (by consent of the parish). However, you can not have it both ways, Christopher, bashing TEC for forcing gay marriage down everyone's throat and then bashing us for making an opt-out for the 7 laggards.
Each diocese in TEC, and my guess is Canada too, has parishes that would do inclusive marriage and those who won't. That's really good enough. All this machination is about appeasing control freak bishops so that they can prevent justice, even in parishes that want it.
I really appreciate Jim Pratt's perspective on the size of Canadian dioceses and the hardship that represents to couples. It does make their equation different from TEC.
Simply argue for what you believe is right and do the necessary constitutional amending and all will be well. If you want to have area superintendents who are under orders from majority votes in a triennial Convention, then make the necessary constitutional changes. The present one does not envision or allow this expedience. Trial rites require roll call votes and a super majority. Title IV requires changing the office of PB. GC must do two readings to change the constitution. Undertake to do these things and you will have the new church you desire.
I am sorry but I thought my point was very clear. Half-measures, and strategic feints to help out what you call 'seven laggards' is just sloppy. Go for full justice. Do the work necessary procedurally. Create the church and polity you believe are now required.
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.