Interesting to note that on the Anglican Essentials blog, some are suggesting that this resolution was actually moot after A186 passed, which declared that SSBs are not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Ang. Ch. of Canada.  Hmmm.  And how interesting that the two resolutions’ outcomes are mirror opposites.  By 1 bishop either way.

It will be very interesting, if the information is ever released, to compare the bishops’ votes on both resolutions side-by-side.  I’ve read that Victoria Matthews voted in favor of A186 but against A187.  I wonder if she is the only bishop that changed her vote.

Wow…choosing not to walk apart…by the skin of their teeth!

So where does this leave New Westminster?

Is this amendment the last word on the issue. I thought it was only a local option should the SSB thing passed.. Quite confusing, and I most certainly hope I’m wrong..

Here is the exact text of the resolution:

A187, Amendment D
That this General Synod affirm the authority and juristiction of any diocesan synod,
a) with the concurrance of the diocesan bishop, and
b) in a manner than respects the concience of the incumbant and the will of the parish,
to authorise the blessing of committed same sex unions

So, a vote for this was a vote to allow dioceses to make the choice about whether to bless SSBs.

The vote is really moot.  The previous resolution indicates that SSBs are not contrary to core doctrine of the Church of Canada.  That means they are trying to have their cake and yet be technically in comliance with the Lambeth Resolution.  Individual dioceses, kie in TEC, will be approving SSB’s but the Canadian Church as a whole can claim before the Global South Primates that the Canadian Church has not approved of SSB’s.  It won’t wash before the world wide Church any more than TEC’s claims are flying before them.  Good bye Canada, you are now part of the same tiny Anglican Communion that TEC has chosen to be a part of.  It will be officil later this fall.

A host of unanswered questions.  If it does not conflict with core doctrine but does with central non-credal doctrine what then?  The Primates Theological Commission has much to do.

Kendall:

I guess it actually failed by two? 50% plus one?

Elves,

She can’t be the only Bishop to change as that would have made a 20/20 split.

I am interested in what the Primates will think of this.  Here at T19 we often argue about spirit vs. letter.  I agree with David+ that this is intentional, but it does seem to meet the technical request

186 would mean local option in TEC.  TEC just did at as a pastoral care issue, while Canada says it doesn’t conflict with core doctrine.  I think that’s rather sneaky.  No wonder the liberals wanted to do that one first before 187.

bb

My question still stands, this was an “amendment’ to what?  Is this the final word on the subject, (and I understand it to be a ‘concience clause lol)?

What was it an amendment to, the “core doctrine”, or something else?
In the US, usually “amendments are passed, and attached to the “overiding bill”,
Still confused…
Grannie Gloria

I’ve corrected the text of the blog entry from one bishop to two bishops.  Sorry for the braino.  I was thinking that if the bishops had split 20-20 the resolution would have passed, but of course a divided vote counts as no.  Sorry.  The error was mine, not Kendall’s

—elfgirl

Gloria, the vote was on Resolution A-187.  So, yes, it was the final vote on the resolution.

Apparently there may still be some pending resolution B001 which would appear to be a vote on allowing the diocese of New Westminster (Michael Ingham’s diocese in the Vancouver area) to continue with their SSBs regardles of what other votes might occur at Canadian Synod.  Unclear if that will come to a vote or not.  We understand voting is over for today.

Here’s the text of resolution B001, which may or may not come up for vote tomorrow.

Subject: Blessing couples in covenanted same-sex unions

Moved by: Mr. Stephen Schuh from the Diocese of New Westminster

Seconded By: The Rt. Rev’d Michael Ingham from the Diocese of New Westminster

Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.

BE IT RESOLVED:

Notwithstanding any decisions taken by this its 2007 Synod, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada affirms that the present practice of the Synod and Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in authorizing the blessings of covenanted same-sex unions in eight (8) Parishes of that Diocese shall continue in the Diocese of New Westminster pending further resolution by General Synod.

(emphasis mine)

the full text with the justification & background is here:
http://www.anglican.ca/gs2007/rr/resolutions/b001.htm

I thought the significance of the St. Michael Report, accepted by the Synod in A184, was that blesings were a matter of doctrine (although not core doctrine).  As a matter of doctrine, they had to be decided by the whole church, i.e., no local option.  Therefore, the passage of A184 and the rejection of A187 means no local option (absent further developments).

For the record, the original text of A187, before it was amended, was as follows:
That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions.

So, yes as Gloria notes, a conscience clause of sorts was added.  But the vote tallies in the blog entry above are for the full amended resolution, not just related to amendment D.

My take from the floor of synod is that B001 will definitely be coming up on the agenda tomorrow.

This is a time for prayer for our brothers and sisters in Canada.  A very difficult and tension filled last few days, with deep pain all around.  May God’s strength and grace be with them all.

Grannie Gloria

The amendment was an amendment (actually 2 amendments) to the original language of A187

Interesting.  If I’m understanding this correctly, the ACC has effectively concluded that conducting SSBs is not a matter of doctrine, but rather of canon law—and for now, at least, they’re leaving the canon law unchanged.  That puts the matter in a similar boat as, for instance, the RCC practice on the celibate priesthood.

But canon law in the Anglican structure—at least in these necks of the woods—tends not to bite as hard as it does in the Roman world.  It will be interesting to see what practice “on the ground” will be in the ACC.

As one who agrees with the biblical teaching of the large majority of the bishops of the Anglican Communion at Lambeth 1998, I am pleased to see that the bishops of the Canadian church have voted to conform their practice to the Lambeth resolution. The vote in all orders was closer than the Episcopal General Convention 2003 vote to approve the consecration of Canon Robinson - at least in the House of Bishops. I don’t remember the vote in the House of Deputies. My impression is that the evangelical tradition is stronger in Canada than it is in the United States and also that clergy in the Canadian church are more obedient to church discipline than American clergy. We’ll see if I am correct on the last point.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC.

Ross

That’s not a correct reading.  Here is what they have said:

1. Same-sex blessings are a matter of doctrine, but not a matter of core doctrine
2. Same-sex blessings are “not in conflict with” the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada

On A187, they declined to affirm the autonomy of individual diocesan synods regarding the authorization of rites for same sex blessings.

So, it is a matter of doctrine and same sex blessing is not in conflict with the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada.  They are not affirming autonomy for Diocesan decisions, but are not denying it either (because it is not in conflict with doctrine, then no diocesan Bishop can be charged with abandoning the doctrine of the ACoC)

#23
Your second point is not precise.  What A187 stated was that blessings are not in conflict with the “core doctrine” (defined as credal) of the ACC:

That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of The Anglican Church of Canada.

I’ve been pondering this 186+187 = ? question for most of the last two hours and I think Brian’s last summarizes the situation pretty well. The one additional conclusion I reached resonates with Brian’s last parenthetical: +Ingham can do pretty much as he pleases. In fact, he is probably making a tactical error in supporting the B001 motion. 186’s passage indicates that at worst he’ll be castigated for his presumption.

Here’s a “snippit” from the Essentials Synod Blog, where there has been a great blow by blow description of the goings’ on.

“..... . I can probably summarise them in one word: confusion. This is a house that is completely divided against itself.”

I guess I understand now, but only hanging on to that understanding by my fingertips. LOL
Gloria

Actually Mark I missed that.  It is interesting then.  So, if it is a matter of doctrine that does not conflict with core doctrine, then theoretically that precludes any challenges being brought saying that the doctrine can not be approved as it conflicts with our core beliefs.  This seems to leave them in the same ballpark as TEC and the CofE.

Mercy sakes alive, Here we go again.  What is truth?  who do we believe? As an outsider, I wonder what Our Lord would have say about all this pontification and speculation?  The folks in the hinterland are confused.
HELP!!!!!
Is Our Lord still in control?

If I were a gay or lesbian Christian in the Anglican Church of Canada, I’d probably be pretty hopeful in that the vote was so close. By the time of the next Synod, the landscape of the controversy might be quite different: Society will probably be more at home with gay relationships, the Anglican Communion will have gone wherever it’s going to go, and those who are going to leave (this applies to TEC also) will have left.

Well, I for one am relieved by this decision, even though it’s troubling to see the deep division in the Canadian church.  And perhaps more than anything else—it’s troubling to see the way this has been carried out.  On the one hand, by accepting the St Michael Report, it would seem that Synod affirms that same-sex blessings are in fact a matter of doctrine, even though not “core” doctrine in the sense of being “creedal.”  I can see the logic of that, although it’s a terribly unclear way of putting it.  Of course we don’t recite “I believe in heterosexual marriage” each Sunday morning in the creed, and it’s also clear that someone like, say, Rowan Williams can contemplate the possibility of a sort of same-sex blessing without automatically becoming a pagan or Jack Spong or some other such apostate.

But—by saying that this is doctrine, which is surely correct, it then makes positively no sense to me to suppose that it can be decided by a simple majority up-or-down floor vote by whomever happens to show up in Winnepeg for a convention.  And especially not with the wider situation in the Anglican Communion, the well-expressed concern from many laypeople, clergy, and theologians, and etc.  This just CAN’T be the way to go about this.  If it had gone through, it would have left a terrible taste in the mouths of many.  This just isn’t the sort of way that Christians are meant to interpret Scripture and discern the Spirit. 

It’s my hope that the Canadian church will take a step back and think and pray long and hard about how doctrine is decided in the Body of Christ.  This could be an opportunity for a real re-thinking of the process—which is so clearly broken, at synod after synod in denomination after denomination.  Of course, this is what the ongoing Covenant discussion is about in the wider Anglican Communion.  We simply MUST find a way to do this together as Christians and as Anglicans.  Repeating a broken process over and over is only hurting and confusing people.

Tom Roberts, I believe you are correct. B001 was an error in tactics. I think it will be withdrawn, unless the agenda prohibits withdrawal.

B001 will prove the same watershed that B001 proved in the TEC ‘03 GC: withdrawn and they aren’t allowing the Synod to bring clarity by taking a stand, one way or the other.  Voting on B001 will put the spotlight forever on every bishop’s actual position for which the Communion will hold them accountable.

B001, how providential.

Another stunning victory for the revisionistas. My hats off. The defeat of 187 which sanctioned SSB’s in no way inhibits them. In fact, individual priests may feel even more comfortable carrying them out without fear of repercussions since they do not violate core doctrine. Remarkable.

It may be useful to refer to the discussion of “core doctrine” in the St. Michael report (http://www.anglican.ca/primate/ptc/smr.htm):

“Core doctrines have been understood (by the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Solemn Declaration, and the Lambeth Quadrilateral) to mean the credal and earliest conciliar explications of Scripture with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity and the person and work of Jesus Christ. “

That’s it. That SSBs are not in conflict with core doctrine so understood says nothing about whether they are in conflict with Church doctrine, in all its fulness, and so does not in any way authorize them. If SSBs were in conflict with Church doctrine before this synod (as they were) they are still in conflict with Church doctrine (as they are).

If this discussion seems legalistic or technical, realize that the liberals set this up so that a statement, which is technically correct, could be approved, so that they could spin it as meaning something that it does not. No reason to play along with them.

Good comments, Jordan, and also Toral1 in #33.  Surely for example the eucharist is central but not core in the sense of being credal as laid out in the Saint Michael’s Report.  Last time I checked, eucharist was pretty important.

Toral1, what is going to happen when the SSB’s continue in New Westminster or elsewhere?

It’s amazing that too many of us reasserters are trying to draw defeat from the jaws of victory.  It was extremely close, but WE WON. 

Maybe, if instead of taking the closeness of the vote as an indication that it will surely pass next time, the reasserters in the ACC should view this as a wake up call and mobilize!  The clergy and laity vote cannot really be indicative of the pulse of the average church goer.  It’s time to learn from the finetuned, tightly strategized way in which the LGBT lobby has taken over TEC and nearly taken over ACC and to mobilize. 

We may well have lost the TEC, (what was a slightly left of moderate HOD and HOB in 2003 has become through the rapid and not unexpected and in many cases prudent wholesale departure of conservative believers turned into a positively leftist radical HOD and HOB) but there’s still a church worth fighting for in Canada.  Let’s get the grass root campaigns going to retake the Church!

35 robroy Toral1, what is going to happen when the SSB’s continue in New Westminster or elsewhere?
Nothing.  But they will be illegal and contrary to the doctrine of the ACC.

Illegal? Has that been really decided? Has presentment charges been offered against Ingraham?

Basically, nothing has changed with all of this, except one has the leftiest of the leftists as primate. The status of SSBs has not changed except to decide they are not credal which apparently they never were. New Westminster and others will carry on. No presentments or inhibitions. They will be emboldened because of the new ABp and take heart they are not violating core doctrine, which is a silly technicality but one they will gladly exploit.

This is a curious situation, as the General Synod has now neither “affirm[ed] the authority and jurisdiction” of dioceses to “authorise the blessing of same-sex unions”, nor explicitly denied them that authority.
It is similar to the Australian situation, in which the General Synod decided that it could “not condone” the blessing of same-sex unions. It did not explicitly prohibit same-sex blessings, but everyone seems to assumes that that is what was intended.

#39 the difference is that ++Sydney provides ballast against precipitate change, whereas +Hiltzer will bob like a cork in +Ingham’s wake.

Responding to Tom (#40). The Archbishop of Sydney is not the Primate, and has no more authority than any other bishop.

True, but his see just happens to be the biggest in Australia, and therefore his opinions and policies weigh more in the balance. Again, compare that to the Canadian situation.
BTW, in the mode of ++Rowan, since when does any primate really have authority? I would assert:
1. when they take their provincial canon AND scripture and Tradition seriously, as in Africa.
2. when they speak coherently, as opposed to the Australian, US, or Canadian and probably the English cases

The Australian case is interesting due to ++Sydney’s historical role and the strong personality of the current archbishop.

But they will be illegal and contrary to the doctrine of the ACC.

They may or may not be contrary to the doctrine-it is really up to the diocesan bishop.  Since there is no chance of bringing a charge of violation of core doctrine, they are also no longer illegal in the sense that there is no real punishment.

I was an observer at synod on Saturday for the discussion around the motion on doctrine, and the counsel of the whole, where most of the “debate” on same sex blessings occured.  Victoria Matthew’s presentation from the Primate’s Theological Commission was, I thought, very telling.  She said the distinction between “core” and “non-core” doctrine was that core doctrine was creedal, and specifically had to do with the identity and character of the Trinity.  If I could have, I would have leapt over the barrier and taken the mic at that point.  My thought was, Does not the creed include “the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church”, among other things.  It seems to me the core vs non-core debate is a red herring.  If it must be creedal, most significant doctrine touches the creed at some point, even same sex blessings.  All one need do is define “holy” or “apostolic” and one is forced back to the Scriptures from whence these creeds find their language.

Finally, as an observer to synod, one thing the debate made clear is the depth of ignorance at the level of lay and clergy, nay, in the whole room, when it comes to the content of scripture.  Church tradition is simply not on the radar at all, and reason has been replaced with feeling on the synod floor.  There were many intelligent comments from all sorts of people, but overall it is clear that a mojority of the folks on the floor simply have no knowledge of how to read the Bible or its content, nor what tradition proper is, and its content.  Reason - I think it left the building with Elvis in the 1970’s!

Another quick comment - as a priest in the ACC, I feel the Lord was saying two things to me.  One, there is still hope.  There is still lots of work to be done, to teach, and to lead people to Jesus over the next few years in particular (so pray for those of us who are called to do so, even if the Network life raft is launched).  This ship is not sunk yet.  Two, the ACC is in big big trouble.  It is a house divided and infiltrated.  Jude is appropriate here.  We are a church in a state of apostacy, and rank with heresy at the highest levels, and we need to take this seriously.

Brian (#43)
Is the definition of doctrine now up to diocesan bishops?  What is “Doctrine” in one diocese is not doctrine in another?  Why stop at bishops - why not allow individual priests to determine doctrine or even individual christians?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder