The failure of the vote to amend the marriage canon will make no practical difference to same-sex couples who want to marry in an Anglican church. Dioceses that are inclined to permit same-sex marriage are going ahead regardless of the vote.
That is still not enough for those in the church who favour same-sex marriage, as we saw from their extraordinary histrionics at synod when the results were announced. Nothing but complete affirmation will satisfy; just as at the end of Stalin’s speeches, the applause was unanimous and sustained because everyone was afraid of being the first to stop. I strongly suspect that, had the vote passed, the next hurdle for the alphabet crew would be to compel priests who disagree with same-sex marriage to perform them anyway in much the same way as the attempt to force Christian bakers to embellish their cakes with gay propaganda.
Although the vote didn’t pass, there will be another synod in three years. That gives the ACoC plenty of time to change the rules so that it passes next time.
From here:
One of Canada’s largest Christian denominations will spend the next three years considering whether to change its governance structure amid outrage that just two bishops’ votes stood in the way of having same-sex marriage recognized by the Church’s laws.
Some in the Anglican Church of Canada say the current system to alter doctrine and policy — which requires a two-thirds majority from three groups of delegates — unfairly gives the most voting power to a small group of bishops.
The denomination’s outgoing senior officers in charge of its tri-annual policy meeting said Tuesday that the Church will look at ways it can change its governance structure between now and the next General Synod in 2022.
Interesting stuff. The aim, it appears, is to limit the power of the episcopacy and increase the clout of the clergy and laity. This is a judgement on the bishops of course. Their leadership is so timid and vascillating that it hardly matters whether there is more or less of it. But enhancing the power and irresponsibility of the clergy and laity is hardly the answer.
In wake of the 2016 General Synod initial vote that endorsed ss ‘marriage’ the now Incumbent Primate assured the CBC that she (unlike some of her Episcopal cohorts in Dioceses Ottawa, Niagara, Montreal…) would honour the rules of ACC governance and forbear until the second vote took place in 2019.
What now? When in prideful doubt change the rules.
Perhaps Michael Coren’s July 15/19 ‘Epistle to The Globe and Mail’ could :”Lighten our darkness, we beseech Thee, O LORD”. The Biblical theology which grounds sound doctrine in “context and reason” is remarkable.
Michael Coren is a spiritual chamelion, changing episcopal, RC, and even Jewish cloths at whim. He is hardly an authority on the basic understanding of sacred scripture – referring only to twisted liberalist diatribes.
I wouldn’t hang my hat on a single word he writes.
“remarkable” implied the same reasons as you yourself adduce.
Yet an examination of the March 16, 2019 CoGS reasons, (with some of the same parties present at September 23, 2015 session) for ‘A Word to The Church’, in some of its anti-Scriptural to non-Scriptural reasons, could have been written by Mr. Coren.
Or, to quote the retiring Primate himself,
“We had a conversation from the point of view of human rights, justice, pastoral care, but we didn’t have a deep biblical, theological rationale, and that’s what General Synod, among other things, asked for.” AJ, Nov. 2015 p. 7.
Dr. Turner, inter alia, still waiting.
It has to be clear by now that on the grounds of premeditated willful violation of canon Law under-girded by an even more willul violation of Holy Scripture and related Episcopal vows, the ACC has a prima facie case for some ecclesiastical Court:off shore.
The Anglican church is in complete chaos, several of the “rogue” “renegade” priests are sounding off at their pulpits. Several of the disaffected priests are bypassing the feelings of their own congregations and are giving television interviews. The decision of Synod has been made fair and square, why are the rogue priests not being disciplined by Hiltz? Here where I live there are rumblings of individuals and groups of both opinions breaking off from the Anglican Church. Those who feel so strongly for the LGBTQ should join the United Church which has the “liberal” values and is now the “gay church”. Today I hear of another Anglican church in this diocese which is closing, we have had so many closures.
And yet God is still in control. I sometimes wonder just what he will do with the faithful Anglican diaspora that is resulting from all of this. There’s hope in that, even if all of this is very painful.
The hierarchy is still not thinking clearly.
I’m sure it must have occurred to others, but bishops who continue with same-sex marriages are now in danger of being deposed for holding opinions contrary to the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada, as if that doctrine had not been that marriage is between a man and a woman, there would have been no need to change the canon. The subsequent vote smacks of desperation, and it has no doctrinal force.
Furthermore, to change the governance structure, it will be necessary to change the canons, and that will take a two-thirds majority at two successive General Synods.
The new Primate Nicholls marched in the Gay Pride Parade in London Ontario last year or was it the year before, is the new Primate in contravention of the canons and the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada? Nicholls has shown herself to approve of the LGBTQ.
It’s entirely possible. The bigger question, though, is will anyone do anything about it?
You already know the answer to that.
The hierachy won’t, but that doesn’t rule out action by lay members.
At the September 23, 2015 special session of the CoGS Dean Peter Wall expressed concern about such “congregationalism…” the AC “has always been based on synodical and episcopal leadership and direction” (p. 7 ‘Anglican Journal’,
November 2015) – a perversely prophetic ‘Word to The Church’.
Egad! [That was, respectfully, for Gordon.]
That is such an interesting thought. But my question is: to what authority would these lay members need to appeal for a verdict? I cannot imagine any authority in the ACoC or in secular society ruling in their favour, no matter what justice demanded. With apologies for the cynicism.
According to the Canons of General Synod, the (ecclesiastical) provincial court of appeal. Of course, it would be difficult to find someone to hear the case, as almost all the senior members of the hierarchy have conflicts of interest here, but bringing a case would certainly put the cat among the pigeons, even if it failed. For New Westminster, there is also the complication of the (BC) Diocese of New Westminster Act, which limits the power of the diocese to make certain doctrinal changes, whatever General Synod may think, so it would take a lawyer (which I am not) to unpick the consequences of all this.
I should add that this is as much about accountability as anything else. The bishops lead, but they do not govern: they are directly accountable to the synods, and they are indirectly accountable to parishes, from which synod delegates come. If they think they can get away with things like this without consequences, they are likely to continue in the same vein. If they think they will face a fight every time, they may think twice.