It is interesting to me that the Canadians are engaging the theological questions on the front end of this vote via the Saint Michael’s Report.  I know of no TEC equivalent of the Saint Michael’s report in which we wrestled with the key theological questions to decide the theological status of these relationships BEFORE we voted to sanction them, do you?

No, though you certainly tried to get General Convention to do that, in your Minority Report of One, as I recall.

bb

Anyone have the final wording of the amended resolution.  There was something in there about it not being a communion-breaking issue if I understood what was going on correctly.

Here’s what Fr. Jake has posted:

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this General Synod accept the conclusion of the Primate’s Theological Commission’s St. Michael Report that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, but is not core doctrine in the sense of being credal, and that it should not be a communion-breaking issue.

bb

My congratulations to those on the ACC news team who are making the live video feed available, so far it has been working quite well overall.

Was there not a document produced just before or just after GC1997 which might qualify as a theological consideration?

“...but is not core doctrine in the sense of being credal, and that it should not be a communion-breaking issue.”

This is a determination within the very small confines of the Canadian Anglican Church.

It is not a determination of a ‘full synod’ composed of all of the primates of all of the national churches of the Anglican Communion.

It is much more like the determination of the Confederate States of America that they have seceded from the United States of America.

That is, it is a one-sided declaration by a dissenting minority within the Anglican Communion.

And, it can be construed by others within the Anglican Communion that the Canadian Church is preparing to ‘walk away from the Communion.’

As I understand it, this (the SSB question) must now be decided at Synod, since it is doctrinal, which will require a 60% vote by all orders. Odds anyone?

the snarkster

The next motion in this series sets the per cent support required for the motions concerning SSB.  Usually, for a matter of doctrine, the canons require 2/3 majority, in each house, at two Synods.  The coming motion sets the bar at 60% at this single Synod.  You can argue that motions 3, 4 below are not doctrinal, which is the approach the movers are taking.  However, it is hard to accept that stating something is consistent with the creeds is not a doctrinal statement, and allowing Diocese local option is not a fundamental change in present ecclesiology.
The up coming motions:

2. That resolutions 3 and 4 below be deemed to have been carried only if they receive the affirmative votes of 60 per cent of the members of each Order present and voting, and if a vote by dioceses is requested, only if they receive the affirmative votes of 60 per cent of the dioceses whose votes are counted.
3. That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada.
4. (The resolution deferred from 2004) That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of same-sex unions.
5. That this General Synod requests the Council of General Synod to consider revision of Canon 21 (On Marriage) including theological rationale to allow marriage of all legally qualified persons and to report back to General Synod 2010.

“1 Corinthians 5, 1-2: It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife.
And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.”

So doesn’t this mean that based on the wording of the final amended resolution as passed, Saint Paul was mistaken in this passage to recommend the action he did?

Isn’t ‘the forgiveness of sins’ credal?  Has ACoC already removed this phrase from the Apostles’ Creed?  Or has ACoC previously declared the Bible wrong in its definition of what sin is?  Until they take one of these actions, this looks core to me!

Another group is trying to redefine Christianity.

‘Christians’ are defined in the NT.  Those of us who claim that description have to keep that label.  Do the others really want to continue sharing our label?  Why?

Why do they want to share the label?  Credibility, acceptance, self-justification.  If the organization says that I am justified in my actions, then why do I need to worry about what God thinks?  It is the old struggle of the mind of mammon over the mind of God.

I have some trouble accepting any of these resolutions, for the core issues are all doctrinal, and ‘core doctrine’ is a made-up nonsense category.  Parsing doctrine into different categories is a strategy to make things that are biblically unacceptable seem rational and good for the church.  So, according to the St Michael report, now we have ‘a very few really really important doctrines’ and the remainder (and majority) that we can take or leave as we wish (doctrines of adiaphora - things indifferent).  This is so far removed from any true Christian theology that it is not even worth debating. 

BTW, three of the co-authors of the St Michael Report have now released a
statement that ‘core doctrine is problematic’.

The lie grows in item 3, when the Synod may go way beyond the St Michael Report’s flawed conclusion.  So they accept the report’s conclusion, but are considering disregarding it hours later.

There is far more of lawyers in this business than there is Torah (Law).

Oops.  That statement from a group of theologians has been posted several places already, but here it is again.  Revs Wang, Thorne and Andrews are all members of the Primate’s Theological Commission.

It would appear that the Primate’s Theological Commission is as effective as the Theology Commission of the ECUSA HOB in 2003.