General Synod “holds the tension”

As a self-described “rampant lay woman” and a lover of group discussion and decision-making, I went to General Synod with a sense of real burden. While I personally want my gay and lesbian friends (and those whom I don’t know too) to have the opportunity to have their life-giving and long-lasting relationships blessed in their parish churches across Canada, I’m also a “systems” person. I had always hoped that General Synod, and the church in Canada for which it speaks, would embrace this action. And I knew that wouldn’t happen. So, I went, prepared for tough and sometimes rough debate, and decisions that would run the risk of a win/lose disaster. Some would triumph; others would leave upset, disturbed, and furious, many of them eyeing other church homes or no church life at all because of their defeat.

That didn’t happen.

What happened was that the debate/discussion/conversation was, on the whole, respectful. People were given a large chunk of time (the agenda got rearranged to allow for the utmost attention to the burning questions) and they used it well. They spoke their hearts and minds with clarity and vigour over close to three full days. To my count, only three or perhaps four speeches, both pro and con, bordered on the disrespectful. That’s a small percentage of the almost hundred speakers (although it must be said that some speakers chose to address us rather frequently, on every motion or amendment!) and a far smaller percentage than we endured in the previous Synod’s debate.

So, the level of respect for each other, for other points of view was there. As was a growing awareness, I believe, that the time was coming when we would make this decision to affirm same sex blessings in the Anglican Church of Canada.

What else made this work, despite the final answer that was not quite what some of us would have wanted?

§ The generous chairing by the Primate and the Prolocutor allowed people to speak, not always on the topic of the moment. People were not called to keep to the point, or rebuffed at the microphone. They were given freedom to speak what they wanted to say to the body gathered.
§ While much has been said about the Synod drowning in process, I think the process of amendments, of “friendly amendments”, of alternate routes, was mostly that . . . an attempt to seek the mind of the Synod and to discern what the Spirit was calling our church to do at this time.
§ So many aspects of the issues were expressed: our concern about justice and the call of Jesus to love one another; our concern to keep our faith on a Scriptural base, our worries about the impact of anything we did on the worldwide Anglican Communion, our geographic and theological differences in Canada, our sense of gay and lesbian ministries among us, and so on. We left few if any stones unturned.
§ The value of time well used. Last Synod, many aboriginal leaders spoke of the need for time to absorb the various aspects of this topic and come to discernment. This Synod, a few aboriginal leaders spoke out in favour of “local option”, and some spoke against it . . . but they had spent the three years in between meetings doing the discernment they had requested time for. That hard work they had done helped the Synod immensely.

In my mind, we did what Parker Palmer, in A Hidden Wholeness, calls us to do as a community of faith. We opted to “hold the tension” that we were in, to explore it further. We made some decisions along the way, some decisions of great significance, but we opted not to legislate same-sex blessings at this time. While encumbered with old ways of doing business (motions, voting by houses etc.), we somehow reached the point where we realized there was not consensus on any way forward and so did not go there, consensus being the capacity of all to feel they could live with any decision even if they did not agree with it. And, to defend the bishops who have been much maligned for closing down the decision, I would say that they realized the lack of consensus in the church that they are called to unify, and named it.

What now? What do we need to do?

1. I think we must return to listening to the stories of gays and lesbians, of the parents and friends of gays and lesbians, something we have long been committed to, but a stage we thought we had “finished” with. There are new people at General Synod every time . . . many said they had not studied the issue, so I suspect they had also not heard the stories. Old fogies like me who have been to so many meetings and Synods on this topic of homosexuality have retained the stories, but others have not. So, let’s hear the courageous stories from many people . . . loud and clear. Write the stories, tell the stories, come out of the closet, connect one with another so no one who goes to General Synod next time has not heard about the pain of exclusion, about the love of God that sustains.

And those of us who want action on this sooner rather than later must also be prepared to listen to those whose theological roots make it difficult to accept. Let’s hear their pain, their confusion, too.

The whole Anglican Communion is committed to a Listening Process. I think we thought we had “done that”, and were off the hook. But we have much more to do. Let’s not listen to more of the debate style of back and forthing our own views, but let’s listen to the real world that some of us know only too well, but others have forgotten and still others have not yet heard.

2. We have also been called to further study. (“O Lord, how long??!”) I hope that very little time is spent trying to pull together study guides . . . we have Hearing Diverse Voices, Seeking Common Ground from the mid-nineties that needs only a brush-up, and there are many more such guides out there. But we do need to engage our parishes in the study of these resources. We have allowed this topic of homosexuality and same-sex relationships to become an either/or debate . . . whose side are you on? . . . where it ought to be a thoughtful, prayerful, respectful discussion among Christians about how their faith can be lived out within a church and in a country where we are finally open about what we have hidden for so long.

Again, to quote Palmer, “How can we keep the circle open to diverse views while keeping it focused on difficult truths?” (p.81). It’s no longer good enough to avoid the topic . . . we must spend time together in our small groups, in our parish groups, looking at all the aspects we need to in order to feel that we are indeed a church united even though with diverse views. Our clergy cannot duck this; our bishops cannot duck this; lay leaders cannot duck this. What if bishops added on a session in each parish they visit for an open conversation using one of the exercises developed for this purpose, one of the ways they as a House of Bishops could bring the diverse voices together in the faith and in the church they love? Challenge the congregation to continue the dialogue . . . and lay out some ground rules for ways to respect each other within that ongoing conversation

3. We need also to respect the call for theologians to do further work, to help lead us toward a “theology of sex” as suggested recently by Bishop Michael Ingham. But we need to claim the ability of the Whole Body of Christ gathered to do theology. We do it differently; we do it with our awareness of the academic theological information we receive uniquely tied to our lived experience as Christians. When lay and clergy gather, we are called to do theology. We cannot hand this task over again and again to “experts” and expect them to do it for us. They can help, but they cannot do it for us.

4. There needs to be an increased attention to the historic nature of the Anglican Church. Not just the popular media, but the members of our church, have swallowed some absolutely inaccurate information about what our particular brand of the Christian faith stands for, has stood for, over the centuries. We’ve been catholics and protestants; we’ve been charismatics and aesthetes; we’ve been high church and low church and mixes of the two; we’ve been social justice advocates and holier than thou’s. We have “held the tension” over centuries, and to have it destroyed by fundamentalists who are wrong is not on! “Holding the tension” is the ongoing context of the Anglican Church throughout its history and ought to continue to be the modus operandi of our Anglican family. Sermons and educational series need to highlight our history, need to teach about our denomination. (And there are many books and programs to help us do that teaching and learning . . . no new study needs to be called for there!) We need to continue to “live the questions” as we have done in the past, not buy into the either/or state that our friends from the Global South and our “separatist” Canadian equivalents appear to be wanting us to accept.

5. The Church nation-wide needs to spend more time discerning what the Spirit is calling our church to do and be, and less time wondering how it will be seen elsewhere in the world. Not to ignore the Anglican Communion at all . . . that is important to us. But to responsibly name what is best for God’s people in this place, as Synod was challenged to do by Archbishop John Sentamu. Canada is a diverse, non-hierarchical country. We need to learn to be faithful and responsive to God’s call, whatever that may be, and go about explaining our response to others later. This needs to be done in the spirit of Anglican pluralism we have helped to shape through previous decisions we have made about our own life and the life of our partner churches in the rest of the world.


After General Synod, we as a denomination may have looked to the outside like a church of indecision, or a church divided. I saw it differently. And, while slightly uncomfortable “holding the tension” for somewhat longer than I would have wanted on this question, I am hopeful. Grace abounds in our church and much grace was in Winnipeg with us!

Suzanne Lawson, Toronto