Then it’s no secret that some Anglicans within four parishes who continue to protest the actions of the 2002 Diocesan Synod, but have stayed within the diocese, may leave the Anglican Church of Canada. We hope not. We don’t think it’s necessary. Both we and they would be impoverished by a departure. But again, change seems likely.

Churches seldom find change easy. But it seems that change they must to remain vital and alive in this world. The hard part is determining what things should be changed-and what must remain the changeless core of our faith. May God help us as we continue to try to discern the one from the other.

Read it all.

Davies-Flindall has not always felt strongly in favour of same-sex blessings. She started “with the question” and soon associated advocating for this issue with her humanitarian work through the Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund.

“I hear stories of people who feel deeply about a church they think of as their own, but don’t feel accepted in it,” she said. “People said ‘I love this

church but I can’t stay.’ It made me understand that I need to look more seriously at the argument.”

The issue is around same-sex blessings rather than same-sex marriage because when it first arose, the latter was not legal in Canada, Oulton said. Same-sex blessings involves the church blessing a civil union that was legalized elsewhere. The issue has affected many Protestant denominations, he said.

Oulton will not say if he is for or against same-sex blessings, only that the church should proceed “very carefully.” Any movement needs broader consensus, he said.

“The push is very divisive at this stage of the game,” he said. “My feeling is that we need to continue to have the conversation. It’s trying to sort out the mind and will of God, which is complicated at the best of times.”

He also felt that people were frustrated with the votes at General Synod.

“I don’t think we did what we were asked to do at all,” he said. “People were very frustrated. I really believe it’s critically important we encourage diverse people with diverse viewpoints to stay at the table.”

Read it all.

Sadly, we are now faced with a much less clear situation. Events are now likely to unfold in a way that is piecemeal in a context that is very uncertain. All this means that it is going to be harder, not easier, to maintain peace and unity within the church.

The synod has left us in a confusing and parlous state. On the one hand, it has been unwilling to affirm the right of dioceses to make pastoral provision for the blessing of same-sex unions where they might need or wish to do so. Although, technically, this does not take away the right of a diocese to proceed on the grounds that the defeat of a motion is not the affirmation of its contrary ”” it seems unlikely that many dioceses will not proceed as dioceses.

On the other hand, the synod has also ruled that the blessing of same-sex unions in not contrary to “core doctrine.” Further, in its response to the St. Michael report, it has affirmed the conclusions of that report, which stated that blessings were not core doctrine but rather had the status of “adiaphora,” meaning a matter that is not essential to salvation, or not essential to our identity as Anglican.

If this is true, it becomes unclear what could be the basis of a decision to discipline any priest who in blessing a same-sex union acts on the basis of a matter indifferent even if he or she does so, on a matter of significant controversy, and without the authorization of the church.

Read it all.

Bishop Tony Burton of the Diocese of Saskatchewan in Canada has written his clergy following Canada’s General Synod. Here’s a key section:

We talked a lot at the General Synod about the implications of baptism, that Christ has grafted us into a whole new set of complicated relationships in his body to which we needed to respond. Nobody was in doubt that the body is fevered and disoriented at the moment. Our place in the Anglican Communion was never very far from our minds.

From one perspective this was a General Synod at which nothing happened””at least nothing of obvious consequence, blazing illumination or historic moment. The Synod tidied and tweaked and consolidated earlier initiatives, rekindled some old missionary loves, and decided, somewhat grudgingly, to give its troubled marriage to the Anglican Communion another chance. A few trial balloons were floated and referred away to committees. We elected an honorable man as Primate in a vote for continuity. We welcomed a new National Indigenous Bishop as a harbinger of good things to come but he had already been with us for a while and was already a much-loved member of the family. We had lunch with our Lutheran relatives. No nettles were grasped, no Rubicons were crossed, no sacred cows were slain, no blood was left on the floor, nobody stormed out.

In short, it was a miracle.

It takes only one match to begin a conflagration in a dry forest. [1] Our Communion has been drying out for a long time. In Winnipeg, we were all smokers, and a few of us lit up, but we went home with the old growth intact, hoping for rain.

This was a disappointment to many people for a variety of reasons. On the left and the right, there were plenty of people who wanted to witness the final rupture, the definitive apostasy, the moment of liberation, the beginning of a new world, clean and free from that bearded old wood.

It came close. After having passed a much-amended procedural motion which ended up stating the obvious (that same-sex blessings are not in the Creeds), the bishops defeated by two votes a motion to allow local dioceses to authorize the blessing of committed same-sex unions. Whether one agreed with this decision or not, there is no question that it bought time for the Anglican Church of Canada to find a way to walk together with the Anglican Communion. Encouragingly, from the beginning of this debate to the end of it, there was nothing but good will shown to Anglicans with same-sex attractions. Their full membership and inclusion in the Church, which derives from baptism, was simply not at issue.

Our condition as a Church and Communion remains grave. The doctors quarrel among themselves. We agree on neither diagnosis nor cure. Can the doctrine of Christ be separated like a yolk from its egg? Perhaps on our knees, in fear and trembling, in a theological environment galaxies away from the aridities of this present generation, but surely not by a vote of hands in a political forum.

The full letter is here.

The dust has barely settled and already, different interpretations of the decisions General Synod made last month about human sexuality have led one parish to publicly offer blessings to same-gender unions, and another to say that it would not deny a parishioner’s request for a same-sex marriage.

During its seven-day meeting in Winnipeg, the church’s highest governing body approved a resolution saying that same-sex blessings are “not in conflict” with the church’s core doctrine but defeated another that would have given dioceses the power to offer them in churches.

There is enough ambiguity in those decisions that it is left open to dioceses and churches to offer same-sex blessings, said Rev. Jim Ferry, who was fired for being involved in a homosexual relationship in 1991. He has since been given some duties at Holy Trinity church in downtown Toronto.

Read it all.

A kind reader e-mailed us the link to a new entry on the diocese of Saskatchewan website. It is a letter to the Canadian House of Bishops concerning its statement on pastoral care to same-sex couples in response to the Canadian General Synod’s call for further theological reflection on these matters.

Here’s how the diocese of Saskatchewan website introduces the letter:

In a letter that is likely to lead to calls for review within the House of Bishops of its April Statement on pastoral care to same-sex couples, theologian John Hodgins argues that celebrating Holy Communion for civilly married same-sex couples, while withholding a nuptial blessing, severs and undermines the unity of the Eucharist. Fr. Hodgins’ courteous letter is exceptional both for the force of its argument and its impartiality regarding the same-sex issue. His concern is with the nature of the Church.

Here’s an excerpt from the letter:

In time, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and over centuries, the official role of solemnization and recording of vows was assumed by the Church in many places. The Celebration of Marriage was instituted as “a public service of the Church” (BAS p. 526). For the first half of Christian history, however, many contend that the only blessing of Christian marriage and other relationships of professing Christians (holy orders, religious life, etc) was in the context of the Mass.

For good reason, only those committed to Christ in faith would celebrate their professions or states of life at the Eucharist with the clear understanding that only that which was inherently blessed by God and in conformity with sacred Scripture and tradition was to be celebrated in the Sacrament of Unity. Christ is the Sacrament of God. In the Holy Eucharist we share communion in Christ’s life and blessing. This is the single and unified source of liturgical blessing in the Christian community. No blessing may be added which is not inherently present within the dominical Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The suggestion that a further blessing may be added or withheld from those in a civil union or other relationship, apart from the blessing that is inherent in the Holy Eucharist, is to confuse the issue and to detract from Christ’s unique blessing. To presume that a bishop or priest might somehow add to the Sacrament or withhold pronouncing God’s blessing upon any person, state or relationship beyond what is celebrated in the Eucharist is to suggest a development of doctrine which is not within the jurisdiction of any single body of Christians.

As John W.B. Hill has pointed out in his essay, A Theology of Blessing and Liturgies of Blessing, “The mere pronouncement of a blessing can be seriously misunderstood if we forget that we are a eucharistic people. Blessing is not a power we wield but a gift we celebrate.” To be theologically consistent, then, the blessing of God celebrated in the context of the Holy Eucharist is complete. No other blessing may be added or withheld.

In summary: Provision for a celebration of relationships which presumes or indicates that the Holy Eucharist is lacking in some way and so may allow for or require a further blessing by a priest or bishop is fundamentally contrary to the received teaching of the Church. Such a provision inherently undermines the doctrine of the Church with regard to Sacrament. The concept of ”˜blessing’ as set apart from or in addition to the expression of God’s love and friendship in the Holy Eucharist contradicts the nature of the Sacrament.

The notion of an additional blessing pronounced or withheld apart from the Eucharist celebrating a relationship is not in conformity with the formularies of the Church. For example, the BCP and BAS both allow for the celebration and blessing of a marriage outside of the Eucharist but the BAS rubric clearly states that “Where both bride and bridegroom are entitled to receive communion, it is desirable that the form of service in which the marriage rite is incorporated in the celebration of the eucharist be used.” (BAS p. 527). There is no provision, however, for the celebration of the Marriage Eucharist which precludes the blessing of the relationship because blessing is inherent within the Eucharist. To sever or undermine the unity of Eucharist and blessing contradicts the very nature of the Eucharist which is the fullest expression of God’s blessing.

In fact, Eucharistic celebrations of the sort proposed in the Statement would easily be misunderstood as attempting to do indirectly what has not been approved. At the same time, withholding a blessing, would indicate that such an extraordinary blessing (outside of the Eucharistic celebration) is in some way superior to, or in addition to the singular blessing of God in Christ which is celebrated most completely in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

For these reasons I respectfully request that the instructions for the celebration of the Eucharist for civil unions or other relationships in the Statement to General Synod (2007) be withdrawn.

John L. Hodgins
Chatham , Ontario

You can read the full letter here.

From this morning’s perusal of Anglican Mainstream, we find this.

“Marriage is to do with the church’s relationship to her redeemer. What could be more core doctrine than that?” Nazir Ali

At the fourth Chavasse Lecture at Wycliffe Hall on July 4, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester responded to a question about the recent motion at the Canadian General Synod.

Q. Can you comment on the motion that the Canadian General Synod has passed asserting that blessing of same-sex relationships is not a matter of core doctrine?

A. First, the Book of Genesis affirms that humanity is made in God’s image, male and female together, and is given a common mission which they fulfil in distinctive ways. As Karl Barth said, this makes marriage and the family the most visible sign of that image.

Secondly this is clarified further in the teaching of Jesus. Mark 10 1-9 (“The two will become one flesh”) is set as the gospel for the wedding service, and when I preached at wedding services in Pakistan many Muslim women used to come to enquire further about it as they had never heard about this way in which the relationship between men and women is ordered.

Thirdly, Ephesians 5.32 (“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church”) is the only place where the word ”˜sacrament’ which is the translation of the Greek word ”˜mysterion’, is used in the New Testament. It affirms that marriage is a sacrament of Christ and the church. Fundamentally this is to do with the Church’s relationship to her redeemer. What could be more core doctrine than that?

The motion for further study and conversation was passed by clergy and laity, 129 to 99 and by the bishops, 19 to 17.

“This provides a way for this badly-divided church to dialogue about these important matters,” said Martin Taylor of the diocese of Montreal. George Power of British Columbia said, “What I heard (on the permission issue) was not a ”˜no,’ but a ”˜not yet but very soon.’ This will encourage people who are opposed and need to start a process of discussion.”

“We are asking to develop a process to engage the church,” said Bishop Cowan, who said the conversation must include human sexuality as a whole.

Opponents said the church has already produced many studies on the topic in the last 30 years. “We don’t need another study on human sexuality. There are libraries on this topic. We need people to read them,” said Bishop Ingham, who added that the theological commission was intended to “stimulate theological thinking,” not be a “theological watchdog.”

Among other motions touching on the issue, synod also defeated calls that the issue be decided by a greater margin than usual ”“ 60 per cent or 66 per cent. The usual synod rule ”“ a simple majority of 50 per cent plus one ”“ applied, although a tie would have defeated a motion. The addition of a “conscience clause” that would have protected clergy and parishes who do not agree with same-sex blessings was also defeated.

Read it all.

Well this is the second time we have found ourselves in this predicament. Three years ago the General Synod said that the doctrinal status of the blessing of same-sex unions needed further discussion and then affirmed the sanctity of same-sex relationships. Now the synod avows that the blessing of same-sex unions is not a matter of creedal doctrine and yet defeats a motion authorizing it. It is no wonder so many are confused by the church’s stance; indeed, not a few are angry that we have failed to give an unequivocal yes or no to this vexing issue.

The anxiety people are now feeling in the wake of Winnipeg is part of the roller-coaster ride of being a Canadian Anglican these days. We get ramped up for the next significant ecclesiastical event, in the hopes that a General Synod or a Lambeth Conference will put us out of our misery by declaring that our differences are irreconcilable, and then we are plunged into disappointment when we discover that the church is susceptible to timidity and muddleheadedness. Why are we so inconsistent? Why do our beliefs and actions so often contradict each another?

Political pundits will have their cynical answers to these questions, but I want to try to be generous and charitable. I think that we are genuinely perplexed about these matters, and that the plea for more time to study them was in earnest.

Read it all.

Peter, from the Age to Come blog, who provided such wonderful service live-blogging the Canadian General Synod for the Essentials blog, continues his excellent work re: the Canadian Synod.

His latest post at Age to Come is a roundup of the Canadian Synod resolutions with brief commentary. Most of the attention here and other US-based Anglican blogs was on two resolutions. So, give Peter’s roundup a quick perusal to see what else happened.

Here are two items that caught our attention:

A224
House of Bishops Statement on Pastoral Care of Same-Sex Couples

PASSED

The pertinent part of the pastoral response is as follows:

We are committed, as bishops in Canada, to develop the most generous pastoral response possible within the current teaching of the church. We offer the following examples of possible pastoral responses:
When a civilly married gay or lesbian couple seeks our church’s reception of their civil marriage and asks their parish’s recognition, it may be possible, with their bishop’s knowledge and permission, to celebrate a Eucharist with the couple, including appropriate intercessory prayers, but not including a nuptial blessing.
When a gay or lesbian married or committed couple seeks to hold a reception or celebration in a church for their life in Christ, again intercessory prayers for their mutual fidelity, the deepening of their discipleship and for their baptismal ministry may be offered, not including the exchange of vows and/or a nuptial blessing.

My question is whether this assumes the answer to the question of ”˜a gay or lesbian married or committed couple’ in a pastoral form? I.e., if it was assumed that these relationships were contrary to Gods purposes then the pastoral response would take different form.

A190
ACC-13 Resolution 4

The intent of this motion was to deny the Primates membership in the ACC, and was passed quite easily. Again, perhaps last day fatigue setting in.

The Primates are not known for being favourable to the ACC ”˜new thing’, and as such the ACC as a whole is not favourable to the Primates. Hence, the resolution refusing to ratify their membership in the ACC (2/3 of provinces have to ratify for the change in membership to be effective).

Earlier today we posted Bp. Terry Buckle’s (Yukon) clergy letter in response to the Canadian General Synod. One of our commenters very helpfully let us know that Felix Hominum blog is tracking other bishops’ statements.

Here’s the link: http://joewalker.blogs.com/felixhominum/2007/06/victoria-matthe.html

Bishop letters are posted for:
+ Victoria Matthews, Bishop of Edmonton
+Colin Johnson, Bishop of Toronto,
+Derek Hoskin, Bishop of Calgary,

Great work Joe. Thank you.

Scott at Magic Statistics blog has the full text of Abp. Terry Buckle’s post-General Synod letter to Yukon clergy. Here’s an excerpt:

There were resolutions dealing with the blessing of same sex unions. These resolutions brought about much debate from General Synod Delegates. A resolution was passed that stated:

“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.”

However a resolution failed to be passed which stated:

“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.”

Another resolution coming out of this discussion was passed in relation to the Marriage Canon of our church. This resolution as passed states:

“That this General Synod request the Council of General Synod to consider a 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.”

The passing of these resolutions has now affirmed that the blessing of committed same sex unions is doctrine but not in conflict with the core or creedal doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada. This means that the blessing of committed same sex unions is considered doctrine of importance but not of the greater importance of creedal (core) doctrine: (Like the Divinity of Christ for example)

The above mentioned resolution that failed to pass has prohibited dioceses from proceeding at this time with the blessing of same sex unions.

The passing of the resolution on the revision of Canon 21 on Marriage has requested the Council of General Synod to consider a revision of the Marriage Canon and to provide a theological rationale to allow marriage of all legally qualified persons. The Council of General Synod is to report back to General Synod 2010.

The resulting consequence of the voting results of these resolutions leaves many with a sense of confusion and uncertainty as we seek to keep together and work together as a church over the next three years until General Synod 2010. Our church is hurting, it feels torn, people are weary of the matter and in the days ahead we will see how the rest of the Anglican Communion reacts to these resolutions of the Anglican Church of Canada.

Read the full letter at Magic Statistics

From the Halifax Daily News:

A Halifax reverend is disappointed the Anglican church continues to shy away from blessing same-sex unions.

Rev. Malachy Egan of the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Spryfield said the Anglican church is a den of hypocrisy. “The Anglican church, in my opinion,” he said, “is very much a gay church.”

Last weekend, bishops, clergy and laity of the Anglican Church of Canada gathered in Winnipeg for a General Synod, part of which included a vote on the blessing of same-sex unions within the church.

The allowance of such blessings was lost by two votes, a decision that will not be revisited for another three years.

Rread it all.

They also reviewed their statement from their most recent meeting, last April, which said that the bishops “hope” that the sacraments of baptism, communion and confirmation would not be denied due to sexual orientation. Several bishops said they received criticism over the use of the word “hope” and the word should be stronger. However, they decided not to begin editing their statement and agreed each bishop could issue statements to their clergy that more strongly-worded. Some bishops have already done so.

The statement also urged bishops “to develop the most generous pastoral response possible (to same-sex couples) within the current teaching of the church” then cited such examples as celebrating a eucharist with a civilly-married gay couple; they may not perform a nuptial blessing.

“I have no problem with a ”˜generous pastoral response’ but I don’t and cannot accept homosexual behavior,” said suffragan bishop Larry Robertson of the Arctic. “What got missed is people who are same-sex attracted but choose not to pursue it. They feel totally left out and misunderstood,” said Archbishop Terrence Buckle of the Yukon.

However, Bishop Burton said that “part of what bishops do” is “respond pastorally to different situations.”

Read it all/.

Read it all.

Thus even whilst affirming the blessing of same-sex unions not to be “in conflict with the core doctrine” of the church, in the very narrow sense of being “credal,” Synod effectively left open and committed the church to further study of the more specific and arguably most central theological question, i.e., “whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine.” At the same time, having declined to “walk apart” from Anglican Communion standards, to use a key term in the Windsor Report, by endorsing such blessings, Synod also requested further exploration of the implications of moving forward with them and/or with same-sex marriage for the Anglican Church of Canada and its relationship with the Communion. Finally, in view of the vote against same-sex blessings, neither Resolution A224 nor C003 affirmed any further pastoral provision for gay and lesbian Anglicans beyond what is already permitted by “the current teaching of the church” (C003) or consistent with previous standards and statements (A224).

Two key questions obviously remained in light of Synod’s passage of such a complex range of resolutions and decisions: 1), whether the Diocese of New Westminster would move from its existing partial moratorium on authorizing same-sex blessings in any further parishes to imposing a full moratorium throughout the diocese; 2), how the wider Anglican Communion would respond to Synod’s deliberations. Both were clearly yet to be resolved at the time of writing. But well-placed commentators saw strong reason to believe that the outcome of General Synod 2007 would not be anything like as unfavourable for the Anglican Church of Canada’s standing in the wider Communion that many had feared and/or prognosticated.

Read it all.

The same schools of thought will tussle again over the same and related questions in preparation for next year’s Lambeth Conference, to which all the bishops of the church are invited. Liberal Anglicans can be pleased that the great majority of lay and clerical synod delegates supported their views, blocked only by bishops on one point. Conservatives can be pleased that the Canadian church kept its practice more or less in line with that of the worldwide church. Since both sides have reasons for encouragement, mass defections seem unlikely.

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, has suffered mass defections because conservative parishes, finding no acceptance of their views at the top levels of the church, have withdrawn from the national church and put themselves under the authority of conservative bishops from Uganda and Nigeria. The factional struggles within the Canadian church have so far come nowhere near the level of rage seen in the Episcopal church.
Time may be on the side of the liberals in the Canadian church. The bishops, by a small majority, clung to the orthodox policy which the clergy and laity were willing to change. Bishops are, however, drawn from the ranks of clergy and they may not forever resist the pressure for change coming from below. Their duties make them more sensitive to the worldwide church, but they have not yet shown the Anglican rank and file why African prelates deserve more consideration than Canadian reformers.

Read it all.

One, entitled “Bishop says diocese will study General Synod decisions” begins thus:

Leaders of the Diocese of New Westminster will have to study this week’s resolutions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, and determine what the implications are for the diocese, Bishop Michael Ingham said Monday (June 25).

On Sunday the General Synod, which includes all the Canadian Church’s bishops and about 250 clergy and lay delegates from 30 dioceses, failed to agree with a resolution that would have had the General Synod “affirm” the authority and jurisdiction of diocesan synods and bishops to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions.

The vote was extremely close, with the clergy and laity approving the motion, but the Church’s 40 bishops turning it down by 2 votes – 21 to 19.

However earlier in the Synod, a motion passed which resolved 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.”

Some theologians and Canon lawyers at the Synod suggested that the effect of the two resolutions would not mean the diocese’s current practice has to stop.

Read it all.

The second, entitled “New Westminster Anglicans to continue blessing gay unions,” starst this way:

Canada’s first Anglican diocese to bless gay unions has withdrawn its request to be exempt from the national church’s rules forbidding priests from performing same-sex ceremonies.

For the time being, however, it’s “status quo,” bishop Michael Ingham said Monday of the situation for B.C.’s New Westminster diocese.

Anglican churches in the diocese will keep sanctifying civil unions for same-gender couples in committed relationships. But “I have to go back to Vancouver and think about what it means to the diocese,” Ingham said, adding he would listen to church community members and then make a statement “in a few weeks.”

In a move that surprised church delegates heading into the general synod on Monday, Ingham backed off from asking the national church to allow the New Westminster diocese to let its priests continue blessing same-sex unions.

Read it also.

Canadian Anglicans further isolated the U.S. wing of the church with their narrow weekend vote against allowing church blessing of same-sex unions.

But those within the U.S. branch of Anglicanism ”“ known here as the Episcopal Church ”“ pointed to the slim margin of the Canadian vote as a sign that the two churches are not that far apart.

“Naturally I’m disappointed,” said Rev. Susan Russell, the California-based president of the U.S. branch of Integrity, which advocates on behalf of gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church.

“The fallout will not only be for the faithful gays and lesbians in the United States, but all ministries of the church because it will only further drag out this issue to the detriment of larger questions which should be dealt with.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

Read it all from ACC News.

Bishop Michael Ingham, whose Vancouver-based diocese of New Westminster authorized rites for same-sex blessings in 2002, said, “No one can take comfort from this vote because the majority voted in favour of local option. For many, there would be a sense of betrayal.”

Bishop Sue Moxley said she was “just really disappointed” that the house of bishops “would be holding back when it’s clear other people are ready to go.” She said some dioceses might simply go ahead and allow same-sex blessings.

Bishop Victoria Matthews of Edmonton, chair of the Primate’s Theological Commission, said, “I don’t think there were any winners. We know that people on both sides ”¦ leave tonight with a profound sense of sadness that the body of Christ is broken.”

Read it all.

Watch it all and also look at an earlier report there.

Bishop Ingham, however, said the vote won’t make anyone happy. “A majority of people voted in favour. I think everyone’s a loser. Traditional Christians can’t take comfort in the vote and those who want to move on are held back by a small number of bishops. I think we need to look at the composition of the house of bishops and whether it properly reflects the Anglican Church of Canada.” There is a predominance of bishops from rural areas while the Canadian church is predominantly an urban church, he said.

“It was a vote to continue the (worldwide Anglican) Communion conversation and it was a vote of support for those bishops who said we will face difficulty in our dioceses. It puts us in a position of being asked to wait,” said Bishop John Privett of Kootenay.

However, observer Gordon Youngman, of the diocese of British Columbia, said the decision means “the Anglican Church of Canada is effectively paralyzed for the next three years.”

Read it all.

Chris Ambidge, national spokesman for an Anglican group that supports same-sex unions, said the national meeting sent mixed messages to Anglicans across Canada and was confusing to everyone who voted.

“What is wrong with having rights of blessing when you’ve already said it’s OK?” he said. “I just don’t understand that.”

Primate-elect Frederick Hiltz said the vote’s outcome showed that several bishops still want to wait and study the issue further. He said there will be an ongoing conversation about same-sex unions and that it will likely come up again at the next national meeting. Hiltz said the few parishes who were previously granted the right to bless same-sex unions in the church’s New Westminster diocese will continue to do so.

“The reality is we have a very divided Synod over this issue and that’s respective of a very divided church,” he said. “There’s no doubt that many people are disappointed as a result of the vote.”

The split threatens to divide Anglicans on either side, even forcing them to leave or switch churches.

Cheryl Chang, a spokesperson for Anglican Essentials, a group which opposes blessing same-sex unions, called Sunday’s vote a “divisive tragedy” for the entire church.

Although opponents of same-sex unions ultimately won, Chang said doctrine devotees believe blessing same-sex unions contradicts the church’s core doctrine. She said people who love scripture might look to the Catholic Church or other organized religions instead.

Read it all.

A razor-thin majority of Canada’s Anglican bishops yesterday overrode the wishes of their laity and clergy and vetoed a resolution that would have allowed for blessings of homosexual unions.

The bishops’ action will spare the Canadian church from censure by leaders of other branches of the global Anglican Communion, almost all of whom are vehemently opposed to blessing same-sex unions and permitting priests to be in open homosexual relationships.

But it will anger many Canadian Anglicans, particularly in large urban centres, and isolate the U.S. Episcopal Church, which alone in the worldwide Anglican Communion has approved a liturgy for same-sex blessings and appointed an openly gay bishop.

The resolution put to the Canadian church’s triennial general synod, or governing parliament, in Winnipeg, would have permitted blessings of committed same-sex unions in parish churches with the concurrence of the local bishop and “in a manner which respects the conscience of the incumbent [parish priest] and the will of the parish.”

Read it all.

The ACC news story is here..

By the slimmest possible margin in the order of bishops, Resolution A187 which would have allowed dioceses to choose to approve SSBs has been DEFEATED.

The vote was by orders. It only failed by the vote of TWO BISHOPS in the house of bishops.

In Favor / Opposed
Laity 78 / 59 Passed
Clergy 63 / 53 Passed
Bishops 19 / 21 Failed

Motion Fails.

The original motion:

Resolution Number: A187

Subject: Blessing of Same Sex Unions

BE IT RESOLVED:

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.

The final amended form of the motion

That this General Synod affirm the authority and juristiction of any
diocesan synod,
a) with the concurrence of the diocesan bishop, and
b) in a manner than respects the conscience of the incumbent and the will of the parish,
to authorise the blessing of committed same sex unions

.

Details here:

Read it all.

Read it all.