The Anglican Church of Canada holds its general synod every three years.
Resolution C003 is a motion for the 2016 synod requesting a change to the marriage canon to include the marrying of same-sex couples. Eleven dioceses – New Westminster, Ottawa, Huron, Niagara, Toronto, Montreal, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, Edmonton, Rupert’s Land, Quebec and British Columbia – already offer the blessing of same-sex unions. All offer liturgies for this blessing and all are careful to point out that the liturgies are for the purpose of blessing not marriage itself.
The cynical among us might question whether there is any significant difference between the two and wonder at the depths of hypocrisy to which these dioceses are prepared to stoop in order to deceive gullible congregants: after all, if a church is willing to bless a same sex-marriage why would it refuse to conduct the marriage? The answer lies in how Anglicans effect change: gradually. A rector who wishes to move a piano from one side of the church to the other does it an inch at a time; it may take a year but no one notices.
There can be little doubt that the Anglican Anglican Church of Canada will end up marrying same sex couples. I for one will welcome it; at least it will be a forthright and undeniable capitulation to the Zeitgeist – stupid and flagitious, perhaps, but with less circuitous guile.
Take note, conservative Anglican frogs determined to remain in the Anglican Church of Canada come what may: the water is almost boiling.
From here:
Resolution C003
Subject: Preparation of motion to change Canon XXI on Marriage; Direction to COGS
Moved by: Ms. Michelle Bull, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI
Seconded by: Ms. Jennifer Warren, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI
Be it resolved that this General Synod
direct the Council of General Synod to prepare and present a motion at General Synod 2016 to change Canon XXI on Marriage to allow the marriage of same sex couples in the same way as opposite sex couples, and that this motion should include a conscience clause so that no member of the clergy, bishop, congregation or diocese should be constrained to participate in such marriages against the dictates of their conscience.
Source: Member
Submitted by: Ms. Michelle Bull, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI
Does this motion contain within it any financial implications? Yes No X
If yes, has the General Synod Expenditures Committee considered the implications? Yes No
EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND
It has been 6 years since General synod last debated this issue. Since then, some dioceses have proceeded in a manner they deemed necessary to meet the local pastoral and other needs with respect to the blessing of same sex civil marriages. It has been over 10 years since such civil marriages were legal in Canada. The general public has become much more accepting of same sex unions since we last discussed it. This is also true of the church, though not, of course, universally so.
It seems like a good idea to ask COGS to draft this motion, so that it will be done correctly and with the benefit of appropriate legal and theological advice as to wording, so that the motion will do all and only what we wish it to.
We believe that it is necessary that there be a conscience clause so that anyone who is not in favour of same sex marriages will not be constrained to participate in them. It is not our intention to force everyone to conform in this matter, but only to allow those who wish to allow same sex marriage in the church to go ahead.
PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTION (G)
In the normal course, an ordinary motion must be passed by a majority of the Order of Bishops, and by a majority of the Orders of Clergy and Laity voting together.
Six members of General Synod may, prior to the question being put, require a vote by Orders, with a majority of each Order being necessary to pass.
If a question passes on a Vote by Orders, any six members (two from each of three different dioceses) may require a vote to be taken by dioceses. A motion passes if a majority of dioceses (or a tie) vote in favour.
Source: Section 5 of the Declaration of Principles and sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules of Order and Procedure
Note: If Resolution A030 is given second reading, the required majority will be all Orders voting together.
The ‘piano story’ has always been one of my favorites; I first heard it in the Irish Catholic Church. As a child I always wondered what would happen when the wretched thing inched into the centre point and everyone started falling over it…
Now, so many years later, that is exactly what has happened and it has joined/become the elephant in the room; problem is that there is no middle ground.
Hiltz, Ingham and his sidekick Elliot et al have handled this matter about as badly, dishonestly and extravagantly as they possibly could. The ACoC has become the focus of derision and contempt to the point where its own extinction is imminent. Ingham’s ‘scorched earth policy’ in New Westminster [with the full connivance of Hiltz] represents all that is un-Christian.
And, of course, human nature being what it is, Hiltz pushed and after a short natal process, the ANiC began to shove until the issue surpassed the monologues beloved of the Rev Pamela Guyatt and became largely monotonous. Dare I say, the ‘Rectum Monotonies?’
I was a dedicated seminarian a lifetime ago, and I am a passionate historian and I puzzle over scripture as much as any person. Of the six hundred or so Rabbinical laws about two hundred and fifty come from Leviticus, written while the Jews were held in slavery and had begun to assimilate the practices of their captors: they range from the savage to the ridiculous [try Leviticus 11.6 for dumb] but none have reached the popularity in modern times of Leviticus 18 22-30; in fact the others are largely ignored as irrelevant today.
The ANiC said, “No thank you” and voted with their feet. You are all pretty sore because Hiltz continues to wage his war of petty attrition… But, pushing back is not going to make things any better.
Nobody and nothing will miraculously change, and the situation will not improve unless all parties respect the other [respect, not agree with!] and worship as they see best without criticizing the ‘opposition’. Hiltz has by and large won the fight for the Anglican brand name, so unless the schism continues and becomes world-wide, which is, I agree, a distinct possibility, the ANiC might think about renaming the ship.
And, before someone says, “We have to correct the sin…” remember that is what pope Urban II said before the first crusade.
Shalom!
I am not surprised by such a motion to try to change the Marriage canon. Personally I would like to see all clergy getting out of the business of marrying people in their churches.
Marriage existed long before there were governments or churches. In the earliest church marriage seems to have been largely a civil or family affair. The celebration of Jewish marriage took place in the home. Today all marriages are performed in civil ceremonies in many European countries.
Universal civil marriage is not a novel idea. In 1974, the Rev. Harry Robinson, an outstanding Anglican preacher, said: “There should be one civil marriage ceremony for everybody” (The Toronto Star, September 28, 1974, p. H4). Professor Eugene Fairweather, a world-renowned theologian, wrote: “Christians do not need to get married in church…. Our customary marriages rites stem from the customs of pagan Rome” (The Anglican, January 1987).
I believe that there should be one civil marriage ceremony for everybody in Canada. By means of a marriage license the state alone regulates and acknowledges the life or death of a marriage. Divorce is granted by the state, not the church. I would like to propose the abolition of the Marriage canon (not marriage itself).
Marriage remains the first and most basic of all human institutions.
I’ll second that! Then, miraculously there is nothing to fight about!
1.
Even if Urban II’s solution may have been wrong, that doesn’t mean his analysis was.
Every day I pray that my children never fall under the sway of the likes of Ingham, Hiltz and their merry cohorts.
To stay silent is to condone apostacy. The challenge is to do it in Christ’s spirit of love.
Jim, then we need to make noise about the following: http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in-leviticus-and-their-penalties.html
Christ’s spirit of love is also summed up here:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Follow this and your kids will be just fine.
To the best of my knowledge, the second greatest commandment appears only once in the Old Testament, at Leviticus 19:18, which is right in the middle of the Holiness Code.
Ah, Malachy, you’re just trotting out the old shellfish argument, aren’t you? That’s not Malachy, that’s malarky.
Leviticus is clear that the laws are only for the Jews – it explicity says that the “foreigners among you” are exempt. Except for a few things, where foreigners were not exempt, including the sexual laws.
That of course was the background for the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Some said that the laws constraining the Jews (including those that you reference) should be extended to all Christians, but the council decided to stick with the Word of God as given in Leviticus. Thus the laws that you reference were explicitly not for non-Jews when written, and remain so today. The sexual laws, notably, have always been imposed upon Gentiles.
Michael:
The Irish are the last race where racial slurs are considered publicly acceptable; ‘malarkey’ like ‘hooligan’ is a play upon Irish names. Use it in a Dublin pub however, and you may get a less friendly reprimand.
The Council of Jerusalem in AD 49 would make an excellent doctoral thesis: the opinions of theological academics regarding it and Acts 15 are as polarized as anything within the Holy Bible with few holding the middle ground..
All of which leaves the average bigot [definition can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry ] free to feed cafeteria style as you did, and then trot out “Clarity” tempered with vagueness as the eleventh commandment.
You purposely ignore my original hypothesis that “Nobody and nothing will miraculously change, and the situation will not improve unless all parties respect the other [respect, not agree with!] and worship as they see best without criticizing the ‘opposition’.”
All brands of Anglicanism are doomed to extinction because the homophobic and the homo-friendly will never stop shoving their agenda in each other’s faces…
Sadly those that remain will bring spices and a potluck side dish in true Anglican Tradition.
Gays will show up to get hitched in a photo-op setting and never come back again. Same with christenings. But the money for the service will offset the decline in gifts.
The ACoC is a willing victim of the left to demystify, undermine and toxify the remains of the church.
All that is left if a yard sale of the furnishings and the condo development posters.
A while back I did a small bit of research to see for myself what God says through His Holy Bible about homosexual behavior. If memory serves I found nine passages that spoke directly to the issue, some in the Old Testament, some in the New Testament, and all of them gave indication that homosexual behavior is sinful.
Add onto to this that there are two passages that I am aware of in the Gospels in which Jesus Christ talks about marriage (a response to a question about divorce, and likely two accounts of a single event). In both passages Jesus reminds us that “male and female He created them” and it is for that reason that a man shall be joined to his wife. Pretty clear indication that marriage is strictly a heterosexual thing, and thus I am left with the understanding that there simply is no such thing as a homosexual marriage.
Yet for some reason the Anglican Church of Canada seems to have forgotten these rather basic and obvious truths.
Well said, AMP.
I spoke to a nice older English person when I want to school in the West End of Vancouver about the above.
He said in a nice calm voice, ‘Oh, it’s possible, but, there can be no procreation’.
The procreation when there is a lineage that is created with ancestors and descendants is a fullness.
Yes, there is a fullness when there are children produced.
One other person who is a lesbian once said to me, ‘I see a nice fullness when there is a man and a woman together’
AMP
The word sin was told by a Presbyterian minister at a book launch at the Central Branch of the Vancouver Public Library.
His book launch for his book was 300 person was the room filled to the full capacity.
He said, ‘Sin, means -missing the mark- is when an archer tries to hit the bulls eye and misses’.
KARI Radio 550 am mentioned, ‘The Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Word of God’
Hell John,
Not sure what your point is?
I would agree with the last statement as the Word of God is the Holy Bible.
But the metaphor of “missing the mark” implies that a person is making an attempt to “hit the target”. The implication being that if you never take the shot you will never miss. Would this mean that someone who is not a Christian, say perhaps an aithiest, who never tries to live without sin is by their non-attempt “successful” (if that is the correct word to use here) in not sinning at all? If this is what was meant than would you agree that it is a rather strange concept?
Seems more accurate to say this. That those actions which God has identified as being against His Will are sin. Thus stealing would be sinful, even if you are not a Christian, even if you make no attempt to not do it (a strange double negative?).
From what I have observed (admittedly limited) it seems to me that people who I might label “revisionists” have a fundamental problem with the very concept of sin. It is almost like a spoiled child being told that he cannot have something he wants, for example “no snacking before dinner”. The spoiled child refuses to accept this rule and tries to find ways around it. (Maybe not the best metaphor, but if accepted in its basic intention still useful.)
AMP
Comment 8
‘Marriage is still a heterosexual thing’
Following that is hitting the mark
To not follow that is to miss the mark
Just since you’re mentioning this kind of thing and the sayings that come aloong with it thought I’d define.
Sin is mentioned in the Church of by Christians not always mentioning the etimology of the word.
What is God’s plan and what is not is spoken to us by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God and -to miss the mark on this- is sin.
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/
Everybody take a look at this web sight is about Exodus International’s changes on Benediction Blogs On is done by former member of Parliament Dennis Gruendig is a Roman Catholic and friendly towards Evangelical Christians
This is about the ex-gay movement and the therapy it involves