Read it all here:
“Our children are crying.”
That was how Primate Fred Hiltz—paraphrasing the observation of delegate Michael Chartrand—described the pain in the room following the failure of the 42nd General Synod to pass a resolution amending the marriage canon, which would have allowed for the solemnization of same-sex marriage.
“Those words are going to haunt the Anglican Church for a long time,” says Sydney Brouillard-Coyle, a youth delegate from the diocese of Huron who identifies as gender non-conforming, queer and asexual. Though members of General Synod had long been preparing for upheaval after the vote on July 12 no matter the outcome, when the results finally came, the anguish it caused for LGBTQ Anglican youth almost defies description.
Waiting for the vote results to come in, Lyds Keesmaat-Walsh—a member of the Church of the Redeemer in Toronto who identifies as non-binary, agender and transmasculine, queer in their sexuality—and who, like Brouillard-Coyle, prefers they/them pronouns—was “overcome with fear like I have never known before, and I’ve gone through multiple coming-outs.”
When the results appeared, and it became clear that the resolution had failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the Order of Bishops, Keesmaat-Walsh, 20, felt a grief that they had only experienced once before, when a close friend was killed in a shooting.
“The sound that came out of my mouth was not a sound I knew I could make,” they say. “And I collapsed. I completely collapsed into Bishop Andrew [Asbil]’s chest. I’m very grateful he was there.”
As the tears flowed, seeing a delegate nearby that they believed had not voted in favour of the motion proved too much to bear. “I looked across the table … and I knew I could not stay in this room any longer. And I got up and I fled.”
The pain felt by queer youth delegates may have been particularly intense, but it was not unique. Across General Synod, pain and grief were the overwhelming emotions that followed the vote, both among those who voted for the resolution and those who voted against it.
Even as the church struggled with the aftermath of the vote, new developments suggested that the matter is far from over. Almost immediately after the vote, delegates came up to the microphone to ask what their options were for reconsidering a decision at General Synod. LGBTQ youth delegates led a protest at the next day’s worship service before the election of a new primate. And many voices indicate they will continue their struggle for the Anglican Church of Canada to recognize same-sex marriage.
Before anyone accuses me of not understating teenage girls, let alone “non-binary, agender and transmasculine, queer in their sexuality” girls, let me say, “you’re right, I don’t understand teenage girls”.
But I do have teenage granddaughters and I’ve learned to recognise a tantrum when I see one and I know that giving in to the tantrum is the wrong thing to do.
I remember one of my granddaughters, after wearing herself out shrieking, falling on my shoulder sobbing, “my life is over”. I can’t remember what caused her to make this radical diagnosis and I don’t suppose she can either. I patted her on the back and said, “there, there, it isn’t as bad as all that” while privately musing on whether tantrums were a necessary or contingent aspect of being a teenage girl.
In case anyone is thinking I am heartless and emotionless, let me reassure you, it is not so. Sometime after the rejection of the marriage canon amendment, I too, found myself crying, screaming and running out of the room in despair. It was when Roger Federer lost the Wimbledon final.
To be serious for a moment – now I’ve wiped the tears off my keyboard: adults are supposed to be calmer and wiser than teenagers. No parent in his right mind gives in to teenage tantrums; yet that is exactly what is happening at synod. Since the result of vote has caused so much pain, everyone is scurrying about trying to find a way of having another vote to produce the right result.
It is theology by tantrum :
Options for reconsideration
Following the vote on July 12, delegates went to the microphones and asked what options General Synod had for reconsidering a decision made.
There are two ways synod can do so, Chancellor David Jones explains to the Journal. In the first method, once the discussion of a matter has been concluded, members can ask for reconsideration, which would require a two-thirds majority of the house.The second method is that members could bring forward a somewhat different motion, but dealing with the same general topic. Because General Synod has now passed the deadline for bringing a motion, rules would require a two-thirds majority of the house in order to commit a late motion.
Since same-sex marriage is a question of doctrine, an objection might be why the Anglican Church of Canada would not require two readings at successive General Synods to re-examine the matter. The answer is that the amending formula, as stated in the Declaration of Principles, only requires two readings at successive General Synods if the resolution is a matter of doctrine in a canon.
The process that led up to the July 12 vote started at the 2013 Joint Assembly with a resolution, C003, to amend the marriage canon so that it would apply equally to all, i.e. both heterosexual and same-sex couples.
“If it hadn’t said ‘amend the canon,’ if it simply said [to] bring a motion that a minister in the Anglican Church of Canada may solemnize a same-sex marriage, it wouldn’t have needed two readings and it wouldn’t have needed two-thirds,” Jones says.
As the chancellor points out in a 2016 memorandum, Canon XXI on marriage does not define marriage, nor does it explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage.
Conservative synod members have criticized this memorandum. Royal, for instance, says that “accepting the chancellor’s memo sets us on a dangerous path as a church, because what it does is it allows us to do things that are not explicitly prohibited in canons. It’s an argument from silence…. That’s a dangerous precedent to set, and I disagree with the chancellor’s memo very, very strongly.” Parsons told the chancellor directly in 2016 that it was “wrong for him to put out that memo.”
Jones, however, insists that such criticisms “are assuming that the canon prohibits [same-sex marriage]. The canon doesn’t. Show me where it does. It doesn’t. Read the canon.”
In light of the canon text, church rules and the fact that 76% of people in the room on July 12 voted in favour of the resolution, Jones draws the following conclusion about the marriage debate: “I don’t think it’s over at all.”
He suggests a number of possible scenarios going forward. Since many dioceses already solemnize same-sex marriages, other dioceses “that have held back…will go ahead” and bless same-sex marriages. A motion could come before the present General Synod while it is still in session, or the matter may come before the next General Synod.
“It may come in a very simple format,” Jones says. “It may simply be that this General Synod declares that a minister may solemnize the marriages of any two persons authorized to marry by civil law.”
After reading over the article again, I started to suspect this whole episode was a concoction of Titania McGrath. But it can’t be; not even (s)he is that inventive.
Anglican Church of Canada Chancellor David Jones insists that criticisms of his 2016 memorandum on Canon XXI “are assuming that the canon prohibits [same-sex marriage]. The canon doesn’t. Show me where it does. It doesn’t. Read the canon.” OK, I’ve tried reading the canon and applying Mr. Jones’ interpretation.
Am I correct that Canon XXI on marriage does not explicitly prohibit polyamorous or polygamous marriages? Canon XXI(I)(3) prohibits incestuous marriages; XXI(I)(4) forbids marriages of persons under sixteen years of age; and XXI(I)(9) prohibits a person presently married to a “third person now living” from being married. Similarly, see Canon XXI(III)17) (“Conditions of Valid Marriage under this Canon”).
Would it be fair to say that there a “polyamorous” loophole in the Canon equal in size to Jones’ “same-sex” marriage loophole? Show me where the Canon prohibits polyamorous marriage? Is it merely a condition of the civil law? If the civil law is redefined to permit polyamorous marriages, what remaining obstacle is there?
Admittedly, the Canon mentions “two persons” entering into a covenant of marriage, but this does not expressly exclude the possibility of throuples or other plural groupings, each of which contain at least two persons. There’s also an ostensible requirement in Canon XXI(III)(17) of having an “understanding” by each of the parties of “the nature of the union and of the mutual relations of husband and wife,” but, if I understand Chancellor Jones, the mere mention of a “husband and wife” is still not a prohibition of marrying non-husband-and-wife groupings, but simply an illustrative and non-limiting example of one valid type of marriage. Or perhaps that particular clause was intended to refer solely to the “free and voluntary” consent of the parties to the marriage to play particular roles in the marriage–whatever they may be (e.g., “husband” and “wife”). But can we agree that this is not an express prohibition, is it? If Chancellor David Jones is correct, what objection, in principle, can be raised to the loving union of however-many persons who want to live however-they-want together in matrimony?
Good analysis. Do you have any way of contacting Jones to ask him this?
It’s all too funny really. Where will they all be when something truly threatening happens – like a flat tire or something.
Or you can’t go out, or no desert for you!
How about how they are regularly threatened or physically attacked on a bus, or at school, in real life? How about how many times they have been told by their own relatives they are going to hell?
Or are you saying the marriage canon is no more important than pie?
The least you could do is Google them, they are both pretty active.
Just after lunch on Monday, July 15, a statement was made by Hiltz, with Nicolls beside him, and with all the bishops standing, saying that they could feel the pain and the hurt, (etc. yada yada) and the statement pointed out that there was a document that had been approved, A Word to the Church, which allows the local option.
So without saying it, Hiltz said in effect that the bishops of Canada could go ahead and .marry. same sex couples, canon law is of no matter to what we do.
I guess that accords with the statement in the article above- the motion voted on was about changing canon law, but that wasn’t really necessary to allow a same sex couple to get .married. (Though Ajit John’s analysis seems written directly to this point.)
The youth delegate is in serious need of genuine Christian counselling. The Scripture are quite clear despite the general attitude of society. The ACoC has rapidly descended into the pit of apostasy and should be renamed to reflect its current beliefs – THE APOSTATE CHURCH OF CANADA.
The true Church is to call each and everyone of us to repentance – not to support their deception or continuation in sinful actions.
Many years ago, I was at a week long therapy group. The leader used the expression “a hysterical woman”. I asked him, “what is a hysterical woman?”. He answered, “a woman who exaggerates her symptoms”. I find it interesting, that an Anglican journalist, finds these teenager delegates, gets them to talk to him, and writes up an emotional account of their reactions to the Friday night vote. Part of the whole experience of debating a church controversy, is the sensational, novel, subjective aspects. It is part of the exaggerated drama…..Incidentally, I worked a shift at the Anglican Communion alliance booth, and a youth delegate came by on thursday, wanting to have information to support a no vote, (on amending the Marriage Canon).
Wow. I had assumed that those who would call themselves Christians would have a modicum of the compassion and love of Jesus. No one here has walked in the shoes of these young people and so you don’t know the challenges they have faced. You know about those moments when violence was threatened including that someone would ‘rape them straight’. You don’t know about those times when they have been bullied and excluded, treated as second class citizens whose existence has been named as abhorrent by leaders of the Church they so love. You can’t even honour their identities as non-binary highlighting how little you understand who they truly are. You don’t know their journeys and yet you feel so confident about assuming that this is all a temper tantrum. Are you feeling threatened by their pain? Do you realise the extent to which your attitudes contribute to that pain? Do you need to minimise their pain in order to justify your righteousness? Isn’t this the kind of behaviour Jesus called out when it was portrayed by Pharisees and Sadduccees? This is a sad day for the Anglican Church when adults feel justified in attacking the pain of our young people because they fail to truly understand their journeys.
I’ve had to think how to respond. Please re-read some of your comments which are abusive and dismissive of those you call “children,” (which makes it worse) not to mention elected church hierarchy with decades of experience, education and reflection. Wherever you are on this particular Canon, this is not how to talk to or about anyone. This, I presume, is not how your parents or church raised you (basic Sunday school eticate). Perhaps you need to review your upbringing, Bibles and a few articles on cyberbullying.
And it’s deSSert, not deSert.
It really does not matter what the civil law considers with respect to marriage as the WORD is quite clear. The Church to be Christian must take the stand of SCRIPTURE – not the opinion or position taken by so-called bishops that have willingly abandoned the GOSPEL to look favourable in the eyes of the world. Any church that claims to be CHRISTIAN must take a firm stand with respect to THE GOSPEL.
Is the WORD really clear on this? Studies have highlighted that the word homosexual doesn’t appear in Bible translations before the second world war and there is much study to highlight that the typical passages used to decry same-sex marriage were actually referring to far more abusive practices of the time like prostitution, pedophilia and pederasty as opposed to committed, loving relationships. Did you not notice that some of the leaders of the ‘no vote’ started to reference tradition and unity a bit more as the vote came closer? Perhaps because they too know that scriptural evidence is not as clear as they have lead people to believe. As for tradition – note: the Church Fathers who liked to talk about sex a lot in the early Church, didn’t mention homosexuality and same sex marriage either. But when it comes to loving unconditionally, there is clear evidence in scripture for that.
Read Leviticus 18:22 and related passages are quite clear and there is nothing in Scripture to refute these. While the word homosexual does not appear in the Bible there can be no question that such activity is forbidden and contrary to THE WORD.
With thanks;agreement in The WORD of GOD.
First-class sermon on the same subject can be heard/viewed at ‘Living Truth’, The Peoples’ Church,Toronto, summer series, aired on
Sunday, July 21, 2019, and proclaimed by The Reverend Dr. Charles Price:
upholding the Biblical, and Reformed/Anglican, doctrine that The WORD of GOD is Self-Authenticating, neither requiring nor permitting any other authority. + John 5:43.
One’s personal faith in its Divine Author as one’s + Saviour and LORD, Jesus Christ, by His Promised Holy Spirit, enables both this acceptance and interpretation of its unified and inerrant Holy Teachings.
+ “Search The Scriptures: for in them ye think ye have Eternal life; and they are they which testify of Me.” + John 5:39; + Luke 24:13-53. Amen.
Since you insist on taking that one passage literally (instead of recognising the context in which it was written and the actual practices to which it refers), I assume then that you take all of the Bible literally and thus are devoted in your tithes, do not eat pork, don’t wear mixed fabrics, are circumcised, have never been divorced, are open to taking an eye for an eye, and so on and so forth. If so, I commend you, you make a wonderful Jew. As a Christian, I happen to follow the One who had a habit of breaking the law and placing love first.
“Is the WORD really clear on this?” has been asked before + Genesis 3:1 –
with spiritually fatal consequences.
In His Sermon on The Mount + Matthew 5:17 Our LORD Jesus Christ, The Living WORD as The Divine Son of GOD,
affirmed His fulfilling all of The Law and its Commandments by His Sinless Life,
Atoning Death + and Glorious Resurrection:
“Think not that I AM come to destroy The Law, or The Prophets:
I AM not come to destroy but to fulfill.”
To witness The Anglican Church in Canada’s summoning other authorities for
their anti-Scriptural approval of a Scriptural defined sin, not only in violation of their own Articles, but of Holy Writ which said Articles affirm, is to contemplate what one Reformed Divine termed committing “the dreadful iniquity”.
Such words of witness and warning were offered by Bible-believing Delegates at the recent GS,
some of whom, in most repentant tones, confessed having been practitioners of this sinful lifestyle; but now, given that lawless spiritual state of affairs, consider themselves no longer welcome in the ACC, already having been “silenced”.
One of the most unfortunate aspects of this ‘conversation’ is the persistent suggestion that only one side has access to the TRUTH as though it is impossible to read the same text and come up with a differing opinion. Given your name is ‘abigail’ which is generally a female name – being respectful of the Bible suggests that you should be silent (1 Cor 14:34). Your comments should be mediated through your husband. Clearly you have an alternative understanding of that text. Why is it so hard to believe that there are those who seek to remain faithful to the Bible and yet still have a different opinion when it comes to acknowledging the faithful, loving, committed relationships of same sex couples?
+ John 14:6
The Sola Way into The Inerrant Truth of Holy Scripture is by its Divine Author:with Whom, not least of all with regard to issues of Biblical defined sin, there is only one side.
And you know with absolute certainty that the Divine Author would never speak a word of Truth that is different from what you understand in regards to sin. Too bad you are female and your wisdom cannot be shared in church.
The counterpart to the sermon referenced (by The Reverend Charles Price on ‘The Authority of Scripture’) is preached by his wife, Mrs.Hillary Price, “When GOD Moves In”, also based on + Ezekiel, ch. 8 ff., preached on Sunday, June 14, 2015, offering a most sobering account of The LORD GOD of Israel’s departing The Temple wherein His Divine Holiness will not, cannot, co-exist with a state of persistent unrepentant sin among His People.
As for the Divine place and purpose of women in The LORD’s Church, The Reverend Charles Price preached: “In The Beginning:Male and Female Created He Them” (Part 4), Sunday, December 23, 2007. Be Blessed.
This is a topic on which people genuinely disagree in “good faith.” The “yeses” and “nos” cannot both be right, but they can both be authentic responses to a personal reading and understanding of Scripture. Consequently, we need to “read together,” understanding where and why we differ in our conclusions. Reformed theologian James Borwnson has written an excellent analysis of the Bible’s overall framework for understanding human sexuality, and the key interpretations used by both the “affirming”:and traditional positions including the potential weaknesses of both.
https://www.amazon.ca/Bible-Gender-Sexuality-James-Brownson/dp/0802868630/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6tec4Jvu4wIVEZ6fCh0vOQm_EAAYASAAEgL8PPD_BwE&hvadid=256075935020&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9000146&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=12050286659097738801&hvtargid=kwd-377836349185&hydadcr=3244_10296725&keywords=bible+gender+and+sexuality&qid=1565093540&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Sad that you, David Jenkins, believe the only way to respond is by dismissing, bullying and belittling those you don’t agree with and to have power over them, let alone even know those you do this to. Sad that your god is so small.
David; you are a miserable little man.