Sunday, September 30, 2007

Impressions of General Synod

It was clear from the outset that much of the interest of Synod was focused on the discussion of motions about the blessing of same sex unions. Those motions did not come to the floor until the fourth day of Synod debate, but previous to that, other discussions connected with the issue. Bishop Victoria Matthews presented the St. Michael Report of the Primate’s Theological Commission, outlining the Commission’s thinking on matters related to our understanding of doctrine. She said that the Commission had not been asked to reflect on the specific question of the blessing of same sex unions but that it was ready to do so and looked forward to exploring these matters in future meetings. The Synod accepted the Commission’s finding that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine but not of core (credal) doctrine, and should not be a communion-breaking issue.

I attended the General Synod as chair of the Windsor Report Response Group, to present to synod members the response to that report developed after wide consultation with Canadian Anglicans. The response, affirming our commitment to full membership in the Anglican Communion while suggesting areas where further work should be done, was endorsed by Synod and forwarded to the Communion office. A proposed amendment, to express unqualified support for the whole of the Windsor Report and calling for a moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions even in dioceses where it has been approved, was defeated. The defeat of the amendment, I think, was the first skirmish in the debate on same sex issues.

The discussion of the motions related to the blessing of same sex unions lasted almost four hours, extending the time originally allotted to this topic. Motions prepared by the Council of General Synod were debated and passed by the Synod: that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada, and that CoGS be asked to consider revision of the marriage canon to include the celebration of marriage of all those legally qualified. The debate reflected a wide variety of points of view and, in general, the tone of the debate was respectful.

Finally Synod came to the resolution deferred from the 2004 General Synod, which would allow any diocesan synod with the concurrence of its bishop to authorize the blessing of same sex unions. A motion to require sixty percent approval was defeated. This meant that the resolution would require only a simple majority in order to pass. I think that those in favour of the resolution were hopeful that it would pass, because the previous resolutions, including the one which said that the blessing is consistent with the core doctrine of the church, had passed with sufficient majority. It looked as though things were moving in that direction. However, that did not prove to be the case. In the end, the clergy and laity voted in favour of the “local option” but the bishops voted “no” by a narrow margin of two votes. It was a standing vote and all eyes scanned the delegates to see how their votes were cast. There was profound disappointment among supporters of the motion.

The information received in preparing the Canadian response to the Windsor Report indicated to me that about ¼ to 1/3 of Canadian Anglicans are strongly conservative on this issue, but about 2/3 of church members would fall in the middle and liberal parts of the spectrum of Anglican opinion. I think that this was shown in voting patterns at General Synods in 2004 and 2007. And I believe that a church that has voted to accept “the integrity and sanctity of committed same sex unions” (2004) and has said that the blessing of such unions is “consistent with core doctrine”(2007) is committed to moving forward on this issue. We have passed motions affirming the full acceptance of gay and lesbian members of the church and I do not believe that General Synod will retreat from that position. The church is now faced with a delay in passing a motion to allow dioceses to proceed to authorize such blessings, but I believe that such a decision will come. The instruction to CoGS to begin to revise the marriage canon certainly suggests to me that the process of moving towards this change is beginning.

A full day with the Lutheran National Synod members focused on the theme of water, looking at biblical resources and environmental questions, with an excellent keynote address by Sallie McFague of the Vancouver School of Theology.

Synod authorized the Faith Worship and Ministry committee to begin to prepare principles and an agenda for revision of liturgical texts. There was a rumour that there might be strong opposition to this proposal from those who are opposed to further liturgical change but, in the end, the motion passed with very little comment. First Nations speakers asked that they be part of discussions on new liturgies, with more effort being made to see that such liturgies are translated into their languages.

Other highlights of synod included the election of Bishop Fred Hiltz as Primate. It was a close race, and for a time was deadlocked with a majority of the laity supporting Bishop Hiltz and a majority of the clergy supporting Bishop Victoria Matthews. There was wide speculation about which order would switch its votes. If the synod failed to elect on the fifth ballot, the decision would then be made by the House of Bishops. In the end, Bishop Hiltz was elected on the fifth ballot and his installation took place as the last act of Synod. A farewell dinner was held to celebrate the ministry of Andrew Hutchison as Primate and to thank him for his ministry among us.

Patricia Bays, Ottawa

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"...about 1/4 to 1/3 of Canadian Anglicans are strongly conservative on this issue, but about 2/3 of church members would fall in the middle and liberal parts..."

If 1/4 are strongly conservative, where are the other 1/12 of Canadian Anglicans? If it is the 1/3 end of that range this sounds purely via media to me: 1/3 at each end, and 1/3 in the middle. It doesn't get more Anglican than that.

Of course, anyone who works with stats knows that surveys based on self-selection are usually too biased to tell us anything. Those who chose to respond self-selected, which biases the sample.

To find out the unbiased spread would require random selection of a statistically significant sample.