BREAKING: Authorization for Same-Sex Blessings Fails in Canadian Synod

Thanks be to God!

The blogger raises an important point, was this vote moot in light of the vote on 185?

Regardless, I am grateful that this failed.

This just means another four years of mush, obfuscation, fudge (as commenters on the Anglican Essentials Synod blog have said) and SS blessing services will take place anyway in parishes and dioceses so inclined. A yes-vote would have provided some much-needed clarity and goosed blissfully-unaware pewsitters into paying attention. Voting no by the slimmest of margins is far from encouraging; we’ll have to keep on voting on this til we get it right…
By the way, the difference between SSBs and SSMs may be huge to theological experts, but the average person invited to a flower-decked church where a priest says pretty things over a male or female couple will come away with the impression—as they’re meant to—that they’ve been to a wedding.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I just read that it had passed the HOB by one vote after an amendment that stated that SSM is not creedal doctrine.  I hope that Anglican Essentials is right instead of VOL.

Here we go again!  Seems our Canadian friends don’t get it either.  The “Globe and Mail” has this as a lead item on their site.  I’ve commented, but again, am sad that there are so many lemmings intent on self-destruction.  This is not a liberal versus conservative issue it’s a ten commandments versus ten suggestions issue.  Looks like our African brothers may having a lot more members in their branch of the Anglican Comunion!

The Canadian Church’s HoB has done what its order of chief pastors should do in a time of doctrinal division and that is to hold the line against change while a discernment process is ongoing.  Their HoB chose to walk together with the Anglican Communion rather than acting unilaterally.  I pray that it is God’s will that the HoB, TEC, might follow their Canadian brothers and sisters lead and in turn lead the TEC toward the same path.  May God grant wisdom and grace to us all.

Very sad.  I find the fact that the bishops were the ones who killed this to be telling.  If there’s anyone who still believes that this is all about full inclusion, that progressive bishops really do care whether or not they treat lesbian and gay couples on the same terms they treat heterosexual couples, this pretty much puts an end to that idea.

I’m depressed by this, but I’d be lying if I said I was surprised.

Cheers,

TH

I’m sure that the Progressives simply view this as “two steps forward and one step back.”  After all, they’ve obviously studied the Louie Crew playbook on leveraging your agenda over the course of time. They already know that the next time will be the charm for them.

OOPS!  I was wrong.  I was referring to the vote on creedal vs. core doctrine.  So sorry.  Just another senior moment.

Ah, exactly the same way that the decision back in the ‘70s to ordain women failed.

I bring this up not to turn this thread to WO (it has its own thread now - so, please, discuss that topic over there, not here) but to suggest that—judging by that analogous historical precedent, which gives us a useful parallel—what we shall see in response is that various Canadian clergy go ahead and celebrate SSBs anyway (as some have already said they would) in defiance of this ruling; that there will be no will (or adequate votes) to censor those who do so; and that, in fact, at the next Canadian meeting, the issue (what with intensive lobbying from the LGBT crowd) is again brought up for a vote and approved.

After all, the vote wasn’t on “should SSBs be expreslly forbidden?” but on “should they be expressly approved [yet]?”, yes?

I have to wonder, too, whether some of the votes among the bishops would have been different if Lambeth ‘08 wasn’t coming up—and if they weren’t anxious to prevent having Global South jurisdictions and bishops start springing up north of the 49th parallel. And, if so, will those considerations car

No matter the vote, the Global South will look to the previous vote and say Canada doesn’t see anything contrary to the Christian faith in SSBs and will cut off their ties with Canada as they have done with the USA.  Canada will not get away with having its cake and eating it too.

..ry equal weight next time around?

pax,
LP

(I have no idea why it cut me off…)

Well, I for one am not celebrating.

This is very, very bad.  Passed in both C and L houses—and only failed by narrowest margin in house of B?  This volcano isn’t extinct, or even dormant—it’s going to erupt again, and soon.

Bishops who lead?  Even by the narrowest of margins!  This is new to North America and no doubt a blow to ECUSA/TEC.  It would seem that Hutchison has a much control over his HOB as Schori.  His reassurance to Schori that it was all about her and ECUSA/TEC’s goals must seem very hollow now.  Thank God for the two bishops who did not bend the knee to solo cultura.

Yes, it should be a wake up call to Canada, but I rather doubt it.  We all know how well it has worked in ECUSA/TEC.

May strengthen the ABC’s hand in dealing with the scions of Belial in purple who shall no doubt leap and weep and gnash their teeth as they lacerate themselves in September!

Don’t worry, TH, it will happen in the end. This is the Canadian way; you don’t ever make a clear, unequivocal decision about an important issue. You have a “process of discernment” or “dialogue” for a few years and when everybody is just about asleep, you go ahead and do what you were going to do anyway.
I’m depressed by this, for completely different reasons than TH, and I’d be lying if I said I WASN’T surprised.

Tom Head,

I hate to belabor this point, but gay and lesbian couples are being treated exactly like heterosexual couples.  All sex outside of marriage is fornication and, thus, sinful.  Christian marriage is, and always has been, one man and one woman.  There has never been anything such as a marriage between two men or two women.

The standards of conduct are the same.  Sex outside of marriage is sinful.  If people have a problem with that standard, we will help to support them in working to keep the standards.  We will understand when they fall.  However, we cannot bless their intentions to fail from the standards.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Good points, LP, especially about the effect of Lambeth.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I just read that it had passed the HOB by one vote after an amendment that stated that SSM is not creedal doctrine.  I hope that Anglican Essentials is right instead of VOL.

If I understand the votes correctly there were _two_ votes.

The first was on “is SSB core doctrine.” The motion saying that it was _not_ “core doctrine” passed.

The second was “should clergy be authorized to perform SSBs (or SSMs?) at this time.” The motion saying that they should be authorized to do so _failed_ by the slim vote in the house of bishops.

In other words, the Canadian church has said “this isn’t an essential issue but, for fear of causing unpleasant divisions, we aren’t going to officially authorize SSBs (or is it SSMs?) yet.”

So I think both VOL’s and the AE reports are correct—they’re just reporting different votes.

pax,
LP

Sex within ” marriage ” is also sinful, when it is “re-marriage” after divorce. That was the traditional Anglican teaching.

Isn’t it interesting how many of those claiming to standing for Bible fidelity are in many cases divorced and re-married or sympathetic to a position regarded as sinful by the Anglican Church in Canada a few decades ago.

The tradition they are defending is in effect only thirty years old!

At least some Canadian bishops still follow: the dictates of their hearts, the faith once delivered, and scripture.  Praise the Lord.
blockquote>The standards of conduct are the same.  Sex outside of marriage is sinful.  If people have a problem with that standard, we will help to support them in working to keep the standards.  We will understand when they fall.  However, we cannot bless their intentions to fail from the standards. </blockqoute>, and well said, Phil.

Exactly, nothing has changed and nobodies got any strong “talking-down-to-others points”...perfecto…let the “blessings” continue.

Thanks be to God

Sex within “ marriage “ is also sinful, when it is “re-marriage” after divorce. That was the traditional Anglican teaching.

Yes—or, at least remarriage after separation from a sacramental marriage. (A purely secular ‘marriage’ not being a real, Christian marriage in the eyes of the Church and thus the 2nd legal marriage being, in fact, the first (sacramental) marriage.)

And it’s very true that the rejection of traditional teaching on marriage was one of the first steps in the whole process of rejecting Christian teaching on gender and gender roles that has brought us to this point—which is, probably, not the last stop in the progression! (I’m still not sure whether to expect ‘consensual polyamory’ or ‘consensual ephebophilia’ to be the next thing which is brought forward for approval—ephebophilia probably, as that’s less doctrinally difficult [the appropriate age for marriage being a social judgement, Scripture & Tradition being silent on it].)

The pro-SSBers do indeed have a strong case for accusing the “moderate revisionists” (i.e. the “traditionalists” still in PECUSA or the Canadian Anglican church) of having a double-standard for having accepted revisionist teachings on gender & sexuality on some issues but rejecting them in the case of SSBs.

pax,
LP

I am almost totally confused, a state one sometimes finds oneself in.
This was an “amendment’ to what?  The “creedal doctrine” was a statement, not a bill..

So this, a “Concience Clause”, for all practical purposes, became the main vote?  How does that work, or was it supposed to be that way?

Glad I’m not up there, at least here, “amendments” are passed and attached to the original bill, BEFORE a vote is called.

Or am I totally lost?
Grannie Gloria

Dear LP,

The Church of England and the Anglican tradition emerging from it has never officially regarded marriage as a sacrament. In fact the 39 articles of Religion repuduiate that view.Cranmer was going to allow divorce and re-marriage, but the accesion of Mary Tudor stopped that. The Anglican canons ( 1604) kept the ban on re-marriage after divorce and were only recently repudiated in the Church of England. In fact divorce was only allowed in England from 1857 , AND THE RARE CASES THAT OCCURED HAD TO be passed by a private act of Parliament.

Anglican Essentials in Canada has been largely co-ordinated by Jim Packer, a ” reformed” Anglican evangelical theologian.

He does not accept the traditional Anglican view that re-marriage after divorce is sinful, as he would accept the reformed view ( never accepted by the Reformed Churcjh of England)that a marriage can be a destroyed by adultery of one of the partners.

However he has never spoke nout against the fact that the Divorce legislation in the Anglican Church of Canada allows for no-fault divorce and re-marriage.

If men like Packer were genuinely concerned about the defence of the holiness of marriage in the Anglican Communion they would have spoken out as much against heterosexual immorality. For after all,  the Word of God excludes the adulterer as much as the homosexually active from the Kingdom of God.

The sickening thing is that Anglican Essentials will be falling over its self claiming their prayers avoided a disaster, when in effect the ship has already sunk.

All this does is set the stage for the next corrupt Synod. 

A)  It doesn’t violate “core doctrine”(I’d beg to differ), but B) we’re not going to do it right now(only by a vote), not because it’s anything we don’t believe in but instead because we’re only trying to save our bacon in the Anglican Communion(Wow, what integrity).  This way, we can go to Lambeth so we can talk about it more; i.e. the listening process by which we talk everything to death until everyone agrees with us. 

At the next Synod, it will pass. “Sola Cultura” it is; it’s just postponed a little. 

Count me out. 

Phil’s post outlines the standard, and it’s the one I adhere to and the one I’d defend if I was a priest. 

And, sad to say, despite much outside effort to the contrary, CS Lewis’s little demons continue to choose their own Hell. 

In my view, it’s foolhardy, but my prayers are with them.

Gloria, we’ve tried to clarify it for you over in the comment thread on T19.  The vote was on RESOLUTION A187 which would have authorized dioceses to allow SSBs.  Yes, there was an amendment added before the final vote to allow the conscience clause.  But the vote total above was the vote on the resolution itself.

A186 stating that SSBs do not conflict with core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada was also a resolution.

I believe even in TEC’s General Convention, the parliamentary procedure works the same way.  Amendments may be proposed and accepted or rejected in the course of discussion of a resolution.

By the way, haven’t seen any commenter here pick up on the fact that there’s a resolution (B001) which is scheduled for vote tomorrow which would approve New Westminster’s current practice of blessing SSUs regardless of any other vote at General Synod.  Basically, Michael Ingham asking for an exception to be made for his diocese.

As the Saturday Night Live church lady would have said “Isn’t that Special?!”

We’ve got the text of the resolution over on T19 in the comments to the breaking news thread about resolution A187

PS—robert ian williams, I also agree with you, as I’ve never believed heterosexuals get a free pass, and we share the same views on divorce/remarriage/adultery.

I guess Ingham is just another “prophet” for whom the exception should be made, right?!! 

Sooo…does this mean that by the slimmest of margins, God is not doing a “new thing” in the Anglican Church of Canada, but He is in TEC?

The pluriform truth wind has not yet swept from South to North like the hurricane force winds of 4 July 1999.  But it is gathering force.  Obviously God the Holy Spirit needs to listen to ECUSA/TEC and the ACCanada a bit longer before getting right.  At least, that’s the feeling in the NorteoAmericano sectors…...............

But as they are not in conflict with core doctrine, then they are not exactly ‘banned’ either, just not ‘officially authorised’....and given that two houses voted in favour and the bishops were divided, I can’t see any discipline being taken, particularly given the legal situation in Canada.

Halfway there and heading in the right direction. And a sympathetic primate, of course.

Halfway there and heading in the right direction.

Yep, straight toward the iceberg.  Don’t worry!  The ship’s unsinkable!

Obviously God the Holy Spirit needs to listen to ECUSA/TEC and the ACCanada a bit longer before getting right.

Looks like we’ve been negligent in informing the Holy Spirit that when TEC and ACC talk, the Holy Spirit is to listen…and obey!

The Church of England and the Anglican tradition emerging from it has never officially regarded marriage as a sacrament. In fact the 39 articles of Religion repuduiate that view.

On this matter, like all anglocatholics of the Continuing church type (and, thus, also like the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox), I accept the normative interpretation of the patristic church as more authoritative than the Reformation or historical Anglican formulae where the two differ.

The Affirmation of St. Louis, the declaration of principle for the genuine “Continuing Church” movement (as opposed to other extramural Anglican groups - such as the REC or CEEC which are often lumped together, inaccurately (or, at least, colloquially), under that same moniker) states:

“We repudiate all deviation of departure from the Faith, in whole or in part, and bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order…”

among which essential principles it then lists:

“The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern…”

And “The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Penance and Unction of the Sick, as objective and effective signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ our Lord among His people and as His covenanted means for conveying His grace. In particular, we affirm the necessity of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.”

It concludes (having listed several other principles): “In affirming these principles, we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them.” This includes the 39 Articles.

.

This unambiguous anglocatholicism, which has always been one of several strains within “greater Anglicanism” since the “English catholics” and “Henrician Anglicans” of Anglicanism’s very first generation, is, quite frankly, incompatible with that “angloprotestantism” which seeks to make the Reformation more authoritative than the apostolic Church and attempts to re-define and limit Anglicanism by making the 39 Articles (with a strict angloprotestant interpretation) its be-all-and-end-all and an authority second only to Scripture.

Now, certainly, this angloprotestantism has also always been a tradition within Anglicanism—especially after the continental Calvinists of the 2nd generation of Anglicanism fled to England and imported their theology into the young “English Catholicism” during its formative years. It is, nonetheless, ultimately incompatible with the anglocatholicism with which it has, for centuries, uneasily shared the same roof.

.

So I recognize that we will most certainly differ in our understanding of the sacramentality of marriage and of the clear Scriptural and patristic distinction between a “Christian/sacramental” and a “non-Christian/non-sacramental” marriage—as well as in our belief about whether not a “sacramental” marriage can be dissolved. (“What God has joined, let no man put asunder.”)

Nevertheless, I think we can agree on the fact that Christians who are motivated by a desire to be faithful to the Bible ought to be at least as concerned over the issue of divorce & remarriage as they are over the issue of homosexual activity, and agree that Anglicanisms “slide” on this and other issues of gender and sexuality was simply an earlier manifestation of the same spirit which has brought us the latest installment of this revisionism in the form of SSBs.

.

pax,
LP

Merseymike -I think you’ve got it about right. Despite the vote of A187, Canada took several steps towards full affirmation of SSUs in the last two days, and will not be disciplining those that take it upon themselves to move forward on their own. In addition, tomorrow brings the vote on B100(?) to formally allow New Westminister to pursue the local option on their own.

It was defeated by Canada’s unique polity.  TEC/Integrity must step back and not interfere in Canada’s autonomy.  To cricticize this outcome would be to violate foundational standards of Christianity, right?

In addition, tomorrow brings the vote on B100(?) to formally allow New Westminister to pursue the local option on their own.

Call me a dunce, but… how can they give a “local option” to NW that they’re not giving to anyone else?!

B001 as explained on T19 is a resolution by+Ingham and another lay synod member to allow Westminster to be “grandfathered?” and not have to abandon SSB’s.

B001 was an error in tactics. I think it will be withdrawn, unless the agenda prohibits withdrawal. Why?

B001 will prove the same watershed that B001 proved in the TEC ‘03 GC: withdrawn and they aren’t allowing the Synod to bring clarity by taking a stand, one way or the other.  Voting on B001 will put the spotlight forever on every bishop’s actual position for which the Communion will hold them accountable.

B001, how providential.

C.B. - I think you are wrong.  The Canadians voted that while SSB’s don’t violate the core creedal doctrine of the Church, they DO violate the current non-creedal doctrine of the Church.  Granted, there is no definition of creedal doctine vs. non-creedal doctrine, but constitutionally doctrine may only be changed in Canada by successive 2/3 majorities in General Synod.  Then GS turned DOWN a motion that would have permitted local option.  That is why Ingham is presenting the motion tomorrow, which basically says “even if GS votes that we can’t do this, we want special permission to do it anyway.”

If the NewWest motion passes, it will make a mockery of GS and will most probably induce global schism.  If the motion does not pass, then the rogue authorization of SSB’s (even by New West) without discipline will seriously undermine any claim the Canadian Anglican Church has of being “heirarchical” thus undercutting any claim against departing parishes.

As a conservative, I am not comfortable with what the ACC voted so far, but I would have to say that it must be regarded SO FAR as a defeat for the liberals (but that depends on the New West motion tomorrow).

FYI:

A186 Passed
That this General Synod resolves that 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.

A187 Failed
That this General Synod affirm the authority and juristiction of any diocesan synod,
a) with the concurrance of the diocesan bishop, and
b) in a manner than respects the concience of the incumbant and the will of the parish,
to authorise the blessing of committed same sex unions

My opinion is here: http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2007/06/24/a-house-divided-against-itself/

Hope that helps a bit….

As I said on Titus: Another stunning victory for the revisionistas. My hats off. The defeat of 187 which sanctioned SSB’s in no way inhibits them. In fact, individual priests may feel even more comfortable carrying them out without fear of repercussions since they do not violate core doctrine. Remarkable.

I am wondering whether this close victory wasn’t rigged from the get go. The simpleton orthodox walk away thinking they succeeded, exclaiming hallelujahs.

Very similar to the early invitations. The simpleton orthodox thought it was a big victory that VGR wasn’t invited but ignored, initially at least, the fact that all that consecrated him got invitations.

Fool me once, shame one you. Fool me 23,529 times, I am really a numbskull.

How big a win do you need?

Seriously people, did you think Canada would charge forward and vanquish your foes?  Get real.  A 1-0 hockey game is a win.  It doesn’t matter who won in the corners, it only matters who put the puck in the net!  Today in Canada, the local option was defeated - yes, by the slimmest of possible margins - and the next general Synod will likely be considering an Anglican Covenant! Why be so defeatist? Is this the beginning of the end or the stemming of the tide?  Consider that the province most likely to join TEC declined to do so, thank God, praise the faithful, and remember that God likes to be revealed in unlikely victories (to reread Kings.).

Dear LP,

The eastern Orthodox Church accepts re-marriage after divorce.

“Second generation Calvinists”....the founding generation of Anglicans from 1559 were solid Protestants.

Divorce and re-marriage riddle the continuing Anglian movement, and Anglo-Catholics in England have largely accepted re-marriage after divorce.

There are some evangelicals who hold that re-marriage after divorce is adultery. These include Gordon Wenham ( author of “Jesus and divorce”...who brilliantly shows the teaching of the Church of the first five centuries, staunchly opposing re-marriage)  and David Holloway of Reform.

Yet to hide this division, the conservative evangelicals leave out the issue out of all their definitions of marriage!!! Look at the Covenants they have drawn up, and you can bet your bottom dolllar that the Anglican Covenant will also side-step this issue!

This is all an appalling witness of the Gospel to those mixed up in homosexuality who will think, ” One law for them, and another law for us.”

Ed McNeill: They have elected the “leftiest of the leftists” as ABp. Yes, they have said that SSBs aren’t authorized, but they have not said they are not permissible. Big difference. They will carry on in New Westminster and other places with greater gusto. The status of SSBs hasn’t changed from last week to the present. A victory for the orthodox? I wouldn’t be donning any party hats.

robert ian williams wrote:

“Divorce and re-marriage riddle the continuing Anglian movement, and Anglo-Catholics in England have largely accepted re-marriage after divorce.”

So very true.  Here in the USA, of the major Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, the “Anglican Province of Christ the King” has at least two diocesan bishops who have been divorced and remarried, and the “Anglican Church of America” has three (two diocesans, one retired diocesan).  I am not aware of the situation of the bishops of the “Anglican Catholic Church.”  My late friend (and fellow Touchstone contributing editor) Fr. Lou Tarsitano told me in some detail, shortly before his death in January 2005, that every bishop of the “Anglican Province of America” had been divorced and remarried at least once, and some of them more than once.  I omit any mention of the smaller (and in some cases more dubious) bodies, some of whose bishops have betimes been jailed for sexual offenses.

Here’s a question for any lurking revisionists: now that SSBs have been turned down by due process of the church, will you continue to work and militate for SSBs?  Or will you devote your time instead to addressing poverty, disease, and the environment?

Because that’s the “real work” of the church, according to you.  And all this wrangling over sex practices totally distracts from that work.  It’s what you’d have said to us, had you won the main vote and we’d said that we’d fight on.  “No, no, that issue’s all settled now!  Let’ s get on with the Real Work of the church!”

So… will you do that?  Or was all that about poverty etc just more hot air blowing from your camp?

JamesW - I’m not sure what you base your opinion on. Anglican Essentials says on their website “By saying that same sex blessings is consistent with Anglican doctrine, the door is open for same sex blessings in dioceses across Canada – despite the defeat of the motion affirming local options.”

Both A186 and A187 were voted on on the basis of a simple majority. 2/3 was not needed to approve or defeat either. Hence, as Anglican Essentials says A187 was defeated by “the slimmest of margins.”  Consequently, I think you are mistaken.

Divorce and re-marriage riddle the continuing Anglian movement, and Anglo-Catholics in England have largely accepted re-marriage after divorce.

I can’t speak to specific cases or circumstances. I don’t know them.

I <u>do</u> know that—at least officially—the APCK (and, I think, the other Continuing jurisdictions) stands behind the traditional catholic notion of sacramental marriage. That is to say, because some marriages are sacramental and binding life-long while some are merely legal & social, a man who is remarried after a merely “legal” marriage (e.g. one which was over before he converted to Christianity and was baptized) or one who is remarried after an annulment (i.e. the first marriage was formally & carefully investigated and found, for some objective reason, not to have been sacramental) has, in the eyes of the Church, only been married once. And this same rule applies for clergy as it does for laity. (The difference with the RCs being, of course, that Anglican clergy can be married.)

Now, this is not to say there haven’t been abuses. Perhaps there have been. Perhaps there haven’t. As I say, I know nothing about any individual cases. Nor is this even to say that this is a good idea—I know some who, holding this same theology of sacramental marriage, argue that for reasons of expedience & witness (rather than dogma) a divorced-and-remarried man, even if the first marriage wasn’t sacramental, shouldn’t be ordained. Maybe they’re right; maybe not. Again, I don’t know nor am I presuming to say.

All I mean to point out is that in terms of the question of “permissiveness”, the main branches of the Continuing church (from what I know) at least _technically_ and in _theory_ (i.e. according to their teaching and canons) are as strict on this as the Romans.

.

The Orthodox, from what I understand, are the only jurisdiction which has married clergy and holds to the patristic interpretation of “husband of one wife” (i.e. no more than one sacramental marriage ever, even if the first wife dies).

Their remarriage practice for laity however (at least as it has been explained to me by a Greek Orthodox priest) abandons Scriptural teaching—a 6th (7th?) century canon intended to limit remarriages for laity after the death of a spouse has been cited to permit remarriage after divorce from a “sacramental spouse” even while that first spouse is alive, despite what Scripture explicitly teaches.

.

pax,
LP

Ed McNeill: There is a quote from an Anglican Essentials spokeswoman in the Winnepeg Free Statesman (article available at Titus) who said “She said people who love scripture might look to the Catholic Church or other organized religions instead.” Ouch.

And the BBC gets it completely wrong: “The Anglican Church of Canada has decided against offering blessing ceremonies to same-sex couples.” Another sad commentary is that Victoria Matthews, the orthodox best hope is quoted as saying

the crucial ‘no’ vote by bishops did not mean ‘no’, so much as “not now” because beyond any religious objections to gay blessings, the Anglican leadership are acutely aware that moves in Canada and the US to liberalise Church views on homosexuality have threatened to split the international Anglican family.

so this is merely a way to keep those precious Lambeth invitations, don’t ya know. Some orthodoxy.

I think this is a narrow win for orthodoxy only for the following reason: it arguably avoids decimating the likelihood that discipline will be administered to TEC.  If only one province (USA) is out of compliance, it is arguably easier to expunge the USA and replace it with an orthodox province based on Common Cause in a single swoop as opposed to having to deal with two provinces, one of which does not have any real provision for orthodoxy similar to AMiA/CANA/etc.

In order to get an orthodox province in the US, it has to be clean and surgical or the primates won’t do it.  They don’t have the institutional infrastructure to much of anything inside provinces, which is why AMiA/CANA/Kenya are so critical.

If there is a solution in the US, it can be repeated in Canada a few years down the road much, much easier than if they have to fight a battle on two fronts at the same time.  It is a virtual certainty that Canada will go for the GLBT agenda at the province level at some point in the future, but it is of tremendous importance that it not happen now.  Basically, *if* TEC gets replaced with Common Cause or something similar, the Anglican Communion goes with a covenant and the provinces can opt in or out as they like.  If Canada opts out later, so be it.  If they opt in, then at least accountability is clear.

JamesW: the 2/3 rule applies only to canonical changes that involve doctrine, discipline or worship. That is why it was not necessary in the present instances, since no canonical change is involved; and will be invoked (eventually) if the resolution to send the matter off for further study and a possible change in the canons is approved. The approval of this referring motion only requires a simple majority.

LP wrote:

“All I mean to point out is that in terms of the question of
“permissiveness”, the main branches of the Continuing church (from what I know) at least _technically_ and in _theory_ (i.e. according to their teaching and canons) are as strict on this as the Romans.”

This is certainly true of the APCK and ACA (and I think the APA) as well, insofar as all the bishops concerned got annulments—or gave one another annulments—of their previous marriage before embarking on the next one.

In the APCK, however, their canons, from their foundation in 1979 till the early 90s, their canons forbade the ordination (or, if already ordained, advancement in Orders) of anyone who had been divorced and/or had his marriage annulled.  This was changed “by stealth” at a certain point to secure the advancement of a certain priest to the episcopate—just as, and for the same end, the rule whereby the APCK bishops had to submit three names to a diocesan synod which had as a purpose the election of a bishop (if the synod chose none of them, the right to appoint the bishop reverted to the bishps themselves) was modified to require the submission of “up to three names” and the priest in question whose advancement was desired from on high was the only name submitted to the diocese which elected him (previously he had been refused for another diocese when his name had been one of three submitted)—a situation which resulted in the schism in the APCK that resulted in the foundation of the “Diocese of the Holy Cross” jurisdiction.

LP also wrote:

“The Orthodox, from what I understand, are the only jurisdiction which has married clergy and holds to the patristic interpretation of “husband of one wife” (i.e. no more than one sacramental marriage ever, even if the first wife dies).”

The “Oriental Orthodox” (Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, South Indians and Syriacs) also follow it.

And also:

“Their remarriage practice for laity however (at least as it has been explained to me by a Greek Orthodox priest) abandons Scriptural teaching—a 6th (7th?) century canon intended to limit remarriages for laity after the death of a spouse has been cited to permit remarriage after divorce from a “sacramental spouse” even while that first spouse is alive, despite what Scripture explicitly teaches.”

It was the common teaching in the East (and not unknown in the West) from the Fourth Century onward that no Christian ought to be married more than three times (St. Gregory of Nazianzus called the first marriage “legal,” a second “indulged” and a third “deplorable”—and any more “swinish” and “gluttonous”); this became Canon Law at the Council in Trullo in 691/92.  As to “remarriage” after divorce or separation (for divorce was very easy for man or wife under Roman Law) the Eastern bishops were basically against it, but not with the same unanimity that Western bishops displayed from an early time: some were willing to allow it in the case of adultery (after five years had elapsed) and a few in the case of desertion (after ten years had elapsed).  It all came to a head during the reign of the Emperor Leo the Wise (886-912) who wished to contract a fourth marriage, after the divorce of two previous wives and the death of one: there was a tremendous uproar (which involved at one point a row between Rome and Constantinople) and the upshot was indulging the emperor, but making the “three marriages at most” rule absolute for the future for everyone—and also deciding that while divorce (in the sense of “ending” a “true marriage” in the lifetimes of either party to it) was an impossibility, a kind of church blessing of a “marriage” after a “divorce” could take place, on the understanding that what was actually happening was a kind of semi-polygamy: the previous marriage continued to exist in some sense, but the divorced party or parties were adding a new spouse to the previous one (with whom, of course, one could no longer licitly have sexual relations).  This was a very clever way of getting around the Lord’s strictures on the matter—but my impression is that today almost all Orthodox defenders of remarriage after divorce have forgotten the origins of the practice, and recycle instead the same post-Erasmian (for Erasmus was the originator of the argument) rubbish about lifelong marriage being “an ideal” but since we all fall short of “ideals” in one way or another remarriage can be tolerated, or that since marriages are based on love and “love can die,” marriages can also “die” and in that case remarriages can be allowed.

Resolution B001 has just been withdrawn:

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.

B001 has been withdrawn. What a surprise. The liberals have won the day in Canada. Reason, I agree with you that it is a good thing for the orthodox in the Anglican Communion outside of Canada. The TEc is isolated. For those in Canada, my condolences.

This will hold only as long as it takes the Canadians to elect two more gay-friendly bishops. It’s a matter of time.

Winnepeg Free Press - New primate “Hiltz said the few parishes who were previously granted the right to bless same-sex unions in the church’s New Westminster diocese will continue to do so.” A186 makes B001 unnecessary.

Further, The Anglican Journal reports “Bishop Victoria Matthews of Edmonton, who chaired the theological commission, said “We heard time and again that for many people saying ‘no’ [to A187] meant not at this time.”

Canada took a major step forward in this process. The rest is mostly a matter of timing.

Reason and Revelation - If you are looking for the Primates of the AC to make a distinction between TEC and Canada on this matter, I think you are on very weak footing. TEC currently has a moratorium on electing bishops on same-sex relationships. Like Canada, it has not officially “affirmed” SSBs. Like Canada, local options will continue. Where’s the difference?

“Not at this time” does not mean “yes, but not now”.  It can just as easily become a “regretful no”.  rob-roy, my thought is that the next GS will have to more clearly decide whether to remain in the communion or not by voting on a new Anglican Covenant.  The covenant will hopefully make it clear that these sort of doctrinal changes cannot be enacted by one province independently of the rest of the communion.  It will require a commitment to interdependence.  My hope is that in the ACoC the HOB will continue in its tradition of moving together.  Michael Ingam in New Westminster broke this tradition, but otherwise the HOB in Canada has maintained this group discipline, and this distinguishes the ACoC from TEC where bishops do what they want regardless of what decisions are made nationally.

The standards of conduct are the same.  Sex outside of marriage is sinful.  If people have a problem with that standard, we will help to support them in working to keep the standards

The standarts of conduct are the same, the outcomes, if one were to follow this letter of the law radically different. For people with a same sex orientation there would not be…ever…the possibility of a romatic companion without either violence to their person or without sin . Not the same for other heterosexuals.  So the whole…“it is not good for man to be alone” idea is for all except for them. Same standart ...all write with your right hand…never mind I am left handed…tough it out buddy, God will help you!
As far as sex outside of marriage…okay…sure! Isn’t marriage for same sex couples now legal in Canada? So what ‘s the hang up?

seraph

I agree with Ed here.  Liberals pass vague motions and then attempt to insist on certain interpretations of them.  Conservatives enjoy being the loser and so let the liberal interpretations go.

C.B. - you need to read the St. Michael’s Report (which was accepted) and A186 and A187.  Speaking together, the GS voted that:
1. SSB’s are a matter of doctrine (St. Michael’s Report).  Changes to doctrine require a 2/3 vote over successive GS’s.
2. A186 restates the St. Michael’s Report that SSB’s are not inconsistent with the “core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of The Anglican Church of Canada”.  The SMR states

Core doctrines have been understood (by the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Solemn Declaration, and the Lambeth Quadrilateral) to mean the credal and earliest conciliar explications of Scripture with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity and the person and work of Jesus Christ.

3. A187 states that GS does NOT affirm the authority of local dioceses to conduct SSB’s.

Now, do I agree with the SMR and A186?  No, absolutely not.  I think that the distinction between core and regular doctrine to be ill thought out.  Sure there are arguably different levels of doctrine - someone who confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior but who erroneously approves of SSBs is more of a brother or sister in Christ then one who denies Jesus is Lord but opposes SSB’s.  But the SMR doesn’t address this issue sufficiently at all.

But having said all that, let’s be clear about what the SMR and A186 say.  They do NOT say that SSB’s are consistent with Anglican doctrine.  They merely say that SSB’s are not inconsistent with core creedal doctrine.  Arguably drunk driving, spousal abuse, tax fraud and a host of other actions are also not inconsistent with core creedal doctrine.  But that doesn’t mean that the Church can go ahead and bless them as “good.”

And GS has stated that local dioceses do not have the authority to bless SSB’s.

I think that this was a very narrow win for the conservatives.  The enemy army came very near to capturing the objective, but they failed.  The enemy army escaped, it was not destroyed and it will come to fight again.  But I think this was an important, if uncomfortable victory.  Why?

1. It has (as stated above) isolated TEC.  C.B. - there IS a big distinction between TEC and the ACC.  The ACC has passed a motion in its GS disapproving of what New West has done, and by the plain meaning of the resolution, Ingham should stop SSB’s from taking place in his diocese.  TEC has indicated that it will give no assurances at all to the primates.

2. A lot can happen internationally in three years - especially right now in the AC.  Three years from now there will be a much different international context.  It is my guess that either the Anglican Communion will have broken up (in which case conservative Anglicans will be leaving the ACC to join the new GS based global communion) or a new Covenant will be up for consideration that will make it very clear to the ACC that to move forward with SSM (and it will be same-sex marriage by then) would be to leave the AC.  Accordingly, to move forward with SSM would involve the inevitable division of the ACC.

3. If the Diocese of New West ignores the GS and continues to do SSB’s, then the vaunted “heirarchical church” argument is significantly weakened; and Ingham and New West are much easier marks for Rowan Williams to exclude from Lambeth.

Isn’t marriage for same sex couples now legal in Canada? So what ‘s the hang up?

You’re joking, right?  Or do you honestly think the Church is obligated to get in line with the secular world?

Bestiality’s legal in Sweden.  Does that mean the churches there are required to approve it?

There are legal consequences, though, as the CofE have found with regard to civil partnerships.

JamesW - I guess Anglican Essentials and all the other conservative Anglicans in Canada need to be told that A187 did NOT fails by the “slimmest of margins” but a very solid margin, seeing as a 2/3 votes was needed.  I hope you are making every effort to inform them of there error.

As far as your Number 3. “A187 states that GS does NOT affirm the authority of local dioceses to conduct SSB’s.” Is it your logic that because A187 did not pass, then it’s opposite did? Wow!  Please let Socrates know.

James W—as I read the canons of the ACC, only canonical changes concerning doctrine come under the 2/3 rule.

MM, your comment makes no sense.  Please elaborate.  Are you suggesting religions can be somehow forced to recognize relationships that contravene their scriptures?

C.B. - I realize you are a liberal and that if a vote does not go your way, that doesn’t bother you - you’ll go ahead and do whatever you want anyway.  Are you suggesting that A187 was a completely meaningless resolution?  If so, then why was it presented?  What do YOU think A187 meant?  The point is not so much whether Michael Ingham will continue his agenda.  The point is that IF HE DOES and he is not curtailed, then he is making a public mockery of General Synod.

C.B. - if we are business partners, and I say to you “C.B. do you affirm my desire to invest 100% of our capital in x activity?”  and you reply “no, I do not” and then I go ahead and do it anyway, what will your response be? 

TSH - thanks - I get your point.  You are suggesting that if SSB’s are brought in without canons, there is not 2/3 x 2 requirement, but if the canons need to be changed, then there is the requirement.

Same-sex marriage is popular in Canada—even among Conservative Party voters, Harper can’t generate enough support to make it a live issue—so this does surprise me a little.  The ACC is substantially to the right of Canadian mainstream culture, clearly, since the secular government has approved marriage, it polls extremely well, and the church can’t even agree to a flimsy non-wedding union blessing for folks who take advantage of Canada’s laws on this matter.

Now of course no churches should be required to perform weddings, gay, heterosexual, or otherwise.  But it does seem odd to me that the ACC is taking a position that is so out of step with the rest of the country.  Who performs ceremonies for same-sex weddings in Canada?  There aren’t that many Unitarian churches up there.  Justices of the peace, I guess.  Shame the ACC is missing this huge opportunity to bring new families in, but then evangelism has never been progressive Anglicanism’s strong suit, as evidenced by the fact that the Episcopal Church has taken every possible opportunity to screw up its own evangelism in the LGBT community.

Cheers,

TH

Yes, that’s how I see it ... and I’m now trying to get formal confirmation that a189 (referring the matter for eventual canoncial change) was indeed adopted early this morning without much discussion….

...which, given the massive free publicity they got from +Gene’s consecration, is like trying to shoot fish in a barrel and missing.  Seriously, consecrate your first gay bishop and spend the next four years squirming and apologizing and looking for a compromise?  Good grief, people, get a grip.  Either you think same-sex relationships are sinful or you don’t.  If you don’t, then for the love of God own up to it and make whatever sacrifices are necessary to do the right thing.  I don’t understand why 815 is being so cowardly about this.

Cheers,

TH

TSH - While you are at it, find out if SS Unions under A187, is the same as SS marriage under A189.  The question is can SS unions be added without changing the cannons regarding marriage. Changes to marriage under the cannon definitely would require the 2/3 vote.

JameW - While A187 was about officially affirming SSUs, there has been no vote to officially outlaw them either. This is the trouble that the Gobal South Primates had with the position of TEC which neither officially outlawed them or affirmed them. In light of A186, those going forward with a local option now are in the position that Bp. Walter Righter was in.  They may be brought up on charges, but very little will come of it because SSB are not in conflict with core doctrine. Likewise, courts are not going to be that impressed by an argument that ACC failed to “discpline” those who pursued SSUs, on the same basis.

Tom quoth:

Same-sex marriage is popular in Canada

Oh, is it really?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html

even among Conservative Party voters, Harper can’t generate enough support to make it a live issue—so this does surprise me a little.

Actually, Harper’s problem is that he’s in a minority government, and is outnumbered in parliament by the Liberal, NDP and Bloc parties—all of them radical left-wing parties.

The ACC is substantially to the right of Canadian mainstream culture, clearly, since the secular government has approved marriage, it polls extremely well,

Once again, Tom, check the linky:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html

and the church can’t even agree to a flimsy non-wedding union blessing for folks who take advantage of Canada’s laws on this matter.

But the GLBTQIWhatever contingent doesn’t WANT same sex “blessings”.  They say it would make them second-class citizens.  They want the whole schmeer—marriage.  Why are they wailing and gnashing their teeth over something they don’t even want?!

Now of course no churches should be required to perform weddings, gay, heterosexual, or otherwise.

I’ll hold you to that one…

But it does seem odd to me that the ACC is taking a position that is so out of step with the rest of the country.

Because it’s the church’s job to do everything society does?  Funny how that argument doesn’t wash with you folks when Peter Akinola uses it…

Who performs ceremonies for same-sex weddings in Canada?  There aren’t that many Unitarian churches up there.

But the United Church of Canada does them (though admittedly they’ve been dwindling in membership and had to shut a lot of parishes ever since they decided to… oh wait, you wouldn’t want to hear about that).

Justices of the peace, I guess.  Shame the ACC is missing this huge opportunity to bring new families in,

Umm… right.  Those big, big gay families.

but then evangelism has never been progressive Anglicanism’s strong suit, as evidenced by the fact that the Episcopal Church has taken every possible opportunity to screw up its own evangelism in the LGBT community.

People who, for the most part, choose not to reproduce: now there’s a bountiful mission field.  Certainly one worth rejecting the rest of the Communion for…

CB: the SSB option (at least as a local authorziation) would not require a change in the canons, hence no 2/3 x 2 process. A189 is referring studying the possibility of amending the marriage canon to allow anyone who can legally marry in Canada (which includes SS couples) to be married in church. Studying it only requires a simple majority—which apparently has already been adopted, though the official site still isn’t updated. That’s my take, anyway.

TSH -Thanks. That’s my take too. Local option for blessings for SS “unions” needs only simple majority. While changes to the canon to include SS “marriages” for those SS couple who are legally married under Canadian law would require 2/3 vote at two synods. So at the very minimum SS “marriages”  could not be approved before 2013.

C.B. - Remember we are talking about a “Church” and the “Church” just passed a resolution which stated that the General Synod could not affirm local dioceses authorizing SSB’s.  I am sure that liberals can and will find a way to ignore whatever vote they don’t like and to enforce whatever vote they like.

If you read the DES Communique, you will note that there were three requests of TEC’s HOB.  If the HOB agreed to them, they would be no more “legally binding” then the GS motion A187.  The point is that the GS still believe (or perhaps hope??) that North American liberals have some degree of integrity.  That is if they agree - as members of a church - not to do X, they won’t do X.  Now, I agree, that North American liberals may not have that degree of intergrity, and you make that point admirably.

The Canadian GS has stated that they can NOT affirm that dioceses have the right to authorize SSB’s.  If Ingham continues his rogue actions, then it is clear that he is acting on his own, and quite apart from GS approval.  If TEC’s HOB would pass mind of the house resolution akin to A187, then they would have positively met one of the DES Communique’s request.

BTW - if anyone thinks that the debate in Canada will end with SSB’s, they are gravely mistaken.  The fight will be for same-sex marriage to be recognized in the Church.  SSB’s have always been just the foot in the door.

Tom Head - I am a Canadian and it is my opinion that Canadians generally do whatever they are told.  Currently, the same socio-political-economic elite controls the courts, the majority of MP’s in Ottawa and the media.  Despite that, only about half of Canadians approve of SS “marriage.”

Give me that same level of control and I can guarantee you that in 5 years 90% of Canadians would oppose SS “marriage.”

I doubt it. People get used to things remarkably quickly - civil partnerships are simply not controversial here any more.

Folks—

I actually put together a table of poll data on Canadian attitudes re: same-sex marriage, from 1996 to 2005.  Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

Canadians may in fact do what they’re told, but my experience has been that people exposed to “the gay lifestyle” in a non-negative context tend to develop a warmer view of same-sex relationships.  That has certainly been the case with me.  I’m posting here on this issue right now because of the wonderful examples I’ve seen in my own life of same-sex relationships.  I find it hard to be inspired by any definition of marriage that does not include these relationships.

And I think that it’s no coincidence, likewise, that Canadian public opinion vis-a-vis same-sex marriage changed in a positive direction after it was legalized, just as public opinion vis-a-vis same-sex marriage in Massachusetts changed after it was legalized.  Before Massachusetts, the idea that New York and California would legalize same-sex marriage seemed impossible.  Now it seems inevitable.

I am heartened by this.  I understand that others are not, and that is of course your right.

With respect to church blessings, I think the freedom to decline to perform a wedding is a basic First Amendment right.  Churches can still decline to marry interracial couples, or infertile couples, or couples under 40 or couples over 60 or what have you, if they so desire.  That is what freedom of religion means.  So I certainly am not suggesting that the government intervene and force your churches to perform weddings your church leaders do not wish to perform, no matter how much I wish your minds and theirs would change on the matter.  You have a right to your beliefs—and, indeed, an obligation to live by them.  And I am likewise obligated to live by mine.

Cheers,

TH

Strongly agree, Tom. I would simply like churches who do want to carry out those ceremonies to be allowed to do so. I would not expect those who do not to have to do so.

JamesW - Please quote me the resolution which passed the General Synod that “stated that the General Synod could not affirm local dioceses authorizing SSB’s.”  There is no such resolution that can be quoted, because no such vote ever took place. 

The failure of a positive affirmation of A187 does NOT equal the affirmation of a negative. Such a position would not hold up in any court of law, or logic analysis.  In the abscence of a preexisting resolution that condemns SSBs, just because they were not officially affirmed, does not mean that they are automatically denied.  Silence does not prove a negative or a positive.  Likewise, you can decriminalize behavior without formally legalizing it.

In reality, action won’t be taken because the majority vote was in favour in two houses - not worth taking the chance.

Tom, what’s the source for your data?  Who did the “polls” you cite?  I linked directly to my source, which was a professional and unbiased one; now I’d like more information on yours before I comment.  But it doesn’t match up with any polling numbers I’ve seen on the subject.

my experience has been that people exposed to “the gay lifestyle” in a non-negative context tend to develop a warmer view of same-sex relationships.

Anecdotal evidence now.  Good grief!

In any case this is all completely irrelevant.  We’re not talking civil rights issues here, but rather what is pleasing to God. That is the only context for this discussion.

Oh, and by the way, here’s another… interesting poll from the same civil liberties site you post on.  Seems your leftist colleaugues are just fine with legalized prostitution:

http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?poll_id=0607390613&linkback=http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_auto.htm

Nice.  Is that next on the agenda for TEC?  They’ve gotten on board with every other leftist issue, why not that one too?  Hey, they could even run brothels out of churches!  It’d help with the building maintenance costs, and I’m sure there are TEC bishops who’d be totally cool with it…

It wasn’t an online poll, st. anon; I believe my source was Angus Reid, but I don’t have my notes handy.

I think Austin, the About.com Guide to Atheism and Agnosticism, would be deeply amused by your claim that he represents the agenda of the Episcopal Church.  There is of course a good diversity of viewpoints on About.com.  In fact, my pro-gay marriage article was a response to this one, which may be more to your liking:
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/thefamily/a/marriageamend.htm

Cheers,

TH

And I repeat, Tom, why not prostitution?  TEC has embraced every other pet cause of the Left: it is anti-Israel, anti-capitalist, pro-“eco-justice”, pro-gay, pro-abortion-on-demand, pro-radical-feminist, pro-illegal-immigrant… legalized drugs and prostitution are all that’s missing at this point.

But I’m sure they’ll get around to it.

Explaining the Episcopal Church isn’t my job anymore, st. anon.  I haven’t been to an Episcopal service, near as I can recollect, since 2005.  I have a great many Episcopal friends; I also have a great many Southern Baptist friends, but I would not claim to speak for the Southern Baptist Convention.

“Why not prostitution?” reminds me very much of the liberal argument that ends “What’s next?  Burqas?”  The truth is that the left:right division is of our own making; there are of course parts of the “left-wing agenda” with which I do not personally agree, and if there is no part of the “right-wing agenda” with which you disagree, just wait.  You don’t strike me as stupid, so I’m sure one will crop up sooner or later.  I will do you the favor of assuming that you make up your own mind about issues one by one, just like I do. 

As far as legal prostitution goes, it’s not something I’ve thought very much about—but if you want to engage me on a general multi-spectrum issue debate, you should probably do that on my civil liberties blog.  Or maybe you can comment in Austin’s thread.  Austin’s a kind and very reasonable guy, and was a huge help to me when I was just starting out on About.com; I think you’d like him. 

Cheers,

TH

C.B.  - Okay, so we take your view.  SSB’s are already authorized to be done in Canada.  That is why they spent so much time on it this year.  Have you not taken the time to look at the history of this in Canada?

Aside from Michael Ingham, who is seen as a rogue bishop even by many Canadian liberals (why have no other Canadian bishops permitted SSBs?), it has been quite clear that to observers that SSB’s have not been permitted in the Anglican Church of Canada absent a vote authorizing such in GS.  The GS vote did not so authorize.

Tom - I have known a lot of partnered homosexuals, but I remain as opposed to gay “marriage” as ever.  I think that what you are observing (the gradual public acceptance of a thing after being subjected to repeated propaganda over the course of a period of time) would be applicable to many things.  We live in a consumerist society in the West, and all too many people have let their values be determined for them.

JamesW - You appear to be still trying to cast this as an either or proposition. SSBs have not been formally “authorized,” neither has there been a formal statement of prohibition. What A187 attempted to do was to make a formal agreed statement of “affirmation.”  The statement did not pass. No agreed upon statement one way other the other exists, because there is not consensus one way or the other. You may also try to cast Ingham as a renegade, but he has broken no rule or canon by offering SSBs (not marriage). If you think he has, please quote it.

C.B.

No Canadian I know (I’m a dual citizen) would buy your contention that SSB’s are permitted by the acts of GS.  You must be an American to so completely misread Canadian decision making.  It is a simple issue of community rights vs. individual rights.  This is likely hard for citizens of the USA to understand but nearly the entire rest of the world place community rights at par or above an individual’s right.  Only in the USA is an individual’s rights seen as more important, which is why among other things the TEC HOB is full of renegade bishops who do what they please with little respect for communal decision making.  Think about it.  Are there any Canadian bishops echoing the clamor of the revisionist TEC bishop’s following GC2006 refusing to go along with the decisions that were made?  Today? I would be shocked if there were.  In Canada, in the Church, decisions matter. Community matters.  Communion matters.

The sad thing is that there are about 14 million baptized Catholics in Canada, and they are infected by liberalism too.

C.B. - Like Ed, I am a dual Canadian-US citizen.  I still wonder at how thick-headed some American Episcopalians are about Anglican church governance.  In the US, the attitude amongst liberal Episcopalians is that “we can do whatever we can legally get away with”, as if decision making in the Church was akin to a defendant in a tax fraud trial.  Please hear me on this - it is THIS ATTITUDE THAT HAS CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION!!!!!

In Canada, it has always been understood that SSB’s were not to be done in the Church until the General Synod (community at large) had approved it.  To date, this approval has never come.  THAT is why Michael Ingham is viewed as a RENEGADE.  Sure, there are some liberal Canadian bishop that like Ingham for doing what their own sense of decorum won’t allow them to do, but the fact that you have Bp. Spence of Niagra (very liberal bishop and diocese) refuse consent for SSB’s or the very liberal bishop of Toronto refuse consent for SSB’s is because both of them respect communal decision making.

I just can’t wrap my mind around this liberal American mindset in which “whatever you can legally get away” with is equated with “the spirit led quest for justice.”  And you guys wonder why there is a constitutional crisis in Anglicanism and why the Covenant has to be so specific!

As a Brit with global connections - my mum is Canadian and my wife Australian - I find all this bickering rather sad.  Looking at the bible as a whole, the behaviour patterns that God wishes for humanity are positively modelled in a number of ways and on a number of occasions.  It is clear, even from a very cursory glance at the bible, that same sex relationships are not modelled in such a positive way at all.  That said, we need to remember that gays and lesbians are no less humans than anyone else, and that - whilst we may not agree with their choice of lifestyle (in the same way that we don’t agree with the lifestyle choices of other members of society)  - we must still accept them as equally human as anyone.

Sometimes, I am saddened by the way in which gays and lesbians of my acquaintence seem to believe that I can’t accept them as human, without accepting their behaviour choices - yet insist that we ought to accept others in society, even if we don’t accept their particular behaviour choices.

I believe that, until both sides of the argument get their houses in order, and begin to appreciate the positions of their ‘opponents’ (even if they don’t agree with these positions), nothing will be resloved in any way.  Rather than pointing out the mote in your opponents’ eyes, look to the plank in your own.

Andy, above, makes some good points.  Fistly, that there are many gay of all nationalities who lead good productive lives, help their fellow human beings and have strong faith.  Andy is also correct in stating that there are extremes on both sides as well.

Until there is some respect by, thankfully few in the gay community, for those of us who do favor legal rights for all couples regardless of orientation, but who strongly feel that marriage is a religious institution and has and should be between one man and one woman then we will continue to have the present situation escalating.  The same goes for those intolerent souls on the other side who condemn gays to the eternal inferno.  Let’s remember “Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged”.  We are all supposedly Christian, so let’s act like it.