In a move clearly designed to avoid an open conflict over the question of blessing same-sex relationships, the Standing Committee of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia have decided to postpone the 2020 General Synod and replace it with a “Special Session” that will deal solely with necessary legislation arising from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
The Special Session will be held at the previously scheduled time for General Synod, 31 May to 5 June 2020.
In addition to the Special Session there will be a “conference” where delegates can discuss the “range of issues this Church is facing in relation to human sexuality, same-sex relationships and marriage, and possible ways forward for this Church”.
The letter to bishops, administrators and registrars outlining these changes adds,
The Standing Committee will oversee the design of the conference. Conference papers will include ‘Marriage, Same-sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia: Essays from the Doctrine Commission’. This publication of essays is provided in response to resolution GS48/17 at the Seventeenth Session of the General Synod which requested the Doctrine Commission to “facilitate a respectful conversation in our church by means of a collection of essays on marriage and same-sex relationships that explores scriptural and theological issues….”
The conference program is yet to be confirmed but it is anticipated that the duration of the conference shall be at least 2 days.
The decision to defer all other business is a clear attempt to avoid a crisis over the pressing issue of same-sex marriage. As we reported yesterday, the bishops’ meeting has referred a number of questions about the issue to the Appellate Tribunal, specifically whether any blessing of same-sex marriage would be consistent with the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia but it remains to be seen whether this will be enough to prevent open conflict.
One bishop has told the bishops’ meeting that he will bring an ordinance to his synod this year to allow blessings of same-sex marriage. That bishop is almost certainly John Parkes of Wangaratta. He is about to retire and will therefore not be as fearful of disciplinary action as others may be.
It may, therefore, very well be that this matter comes to a head long before the “Conference” gets to its discussions.
The full letter explaining these changes is below:
You’re not alone in thinking this, but it’s not true. The fact is, there is no way for the church militant to constitute itself in this world which avoids continual temptation to a wide range of compromise, error, or heresy. This has been the case from the New Testament till now, and will continue to be the case. This is why the temporal church is called the church militant. It’s not militant in a triumphal sense (triumphal referring to a current attitude linked to completed and lasting victory — not referring to our hope in Jesus and his ultimate victory over the powers of darkness), but in the sense of being continually under attack from within and without.
All provinces have a “door open to further improvement” via their constitutional processes and synods (or conventions). If you have suggestions, make them, participate in the process. It is, however, a double edged sword- the same processes can be used to pervert and destroy the denomination- as they have been in TEC. The Church itself (the Church headed by Jesus Christ) will of course continue.
All I can recommend to you alphaTomega is that you do some research on the early days of ACNA and the construction of its constitution and canons- they have done what they could do to avoid the basic error of TEC- which is the lack of discipline over heresy, and doctrinal change by simple majority vote on a resolution at General Convention (which is arguably not constitutional even in TEC, but they have chosen to ignore those arguments).
In ACNA (and most if not all Global South churches) doctrinal questions are the responsibility of the house of bishops- and generally require a 2/3 vote to institute a major change. As an added safeguard, the decisions of the HoBs must be confirmed by further votes in synods and provincial assemblies.
You say: “…it seems to me that (1) laity, priests, and bishops who lack deep knowledge of theology and morals should not have a upper hand in decisions made on behalf of the whole church concerning faith and morals,”
OK, so which province are you talking about? Is this something you see as a problem in ACNA? What part of the constitution and canons of that province leads you to believe that the people making decisions may not be qualified? If it is ACNA we are discussing, why would you quote the ACNA catechism, as you did the other day, if it is inadequate (ie- does not lead to a “deep knowledge of theology and morals) Who defines “deep knowledge of theology and morals”? Are the scriptural definitions used by ACNA in its constitution, canons, and catechism inadequate? if so, how? Are only those who attend the alphaTomega School of Theology qualified?
You continue to cast suspicion and doubt, without any specifics whatsoever, and with no suggestions for improvements, other than the thinly veiled suggestion that only those who have taken whatever courses you teach are qualified to make decisions for the Church.
ACNA still has the two integrities with regards to WO working until the bishops on the pro side completely have their way even thought the scripture and study group found no justification. Just saying.
Reeb, I am not arguing that ACNA is perfect- it definitely is not. On WO and several other points. A year or two before ACNA formally came into being, I predicted that it would take 40 to 50 years to put the pieces of orthodox Anglicanism back together in North America (a comment on Stand Firm that ended up being quoted by an English bishop in an article he wrote for his blog, no less). While I think my timeframe is still valid, and I think there were errors made in terms of WO and well…just too many bishops, still, I think they made a good start, and that the “glass is more than half full.”
Beyond that, I know some of the younger men in the “central office” (so to speak). As well as having met or had correspondence with many of the “elders” who are now retiring or stepping back from the major responsibilities. I trust these good men, and I think that the coming generation has some good people in it.
I am also going to say that while I am in the “anti” group on the subject of women’s ordination, I have met and talked with several women clergy in ACNA. While I cannot condone their ordination, at the same time, each of them has demonstrated that they have a love of God and of His Church, and a place within the ministry of the Church. In my view, one of the errors of Anglicanism (and Protestant churches generally) is that it has not developed a ministry for women that complements the ministry of the male priest. Unlike most of the women clergy of TEC that I have met (who see women priests as an equal rights issue, or worse, a revelation of the “divine feminine”), I have found that the women clergy in ACNA are looking for a way to exercise their calling, and the only avenue open to such ministry is the priesthood. The church is much too focused on “priests” at the expense of ministry. The celebration of Holy Communion may be exclusive to men, but who anointed Jesus with oil, who entered the empty tomb?
At this point, my own thinking is that ACNA either needs to come to an understanding on WO, or it will come apart into 2 or 3 pieces- I am not sure what the timeframe is, but it is clear that they cannot continue with 4 and 5 overlapping jurisdictions.
It’s easy to become too cynical. Anglicans are starved for good news and must embrace it when we see it no matter the source. For example, the Bishop of Olympia within TEC is doing a wonderful and good thing. He is going on sabbatical in July. Some will say going away one year in seven isn’t as good as disappearing for seven and causing trouble only in one year. But, a blessing is a blessing.
ReebHerb,
I think you are onto something there. Perhaps we could put together a grant proposal for Trinity Wall Street to provide $5 or $10 million in funding for the TEC House of Bishops to do an extended theological study on evangelizing Antarctica. Send them all down there for, say, 7 years. No phones or other communications, as we would not want to disturb their meditations.
They and orthodox Anglicans are already poles apart.
As per usual. you are paying little to no attention to what I actually wrote, but taking issue with things I did not actually say. I do wonder, reading some of your posts, whether it might be that English is not your primary language, and some of the nuances are lost. If so, I apologize if my constructions are confusing.
On seminary faculty making theological determinations, as you must be aware (as it seems you are part of that group), the destruction of orthodoxy in the USA, Canada and England was driven by the heretical faculty of many of their seminaries. That said, ACNA and the Global South (in and out of Gafcon) have some extraordinary and gifted academics, and many of them have been hard at work since the Global South provinces were formed. I don’t know where you get the idea that they have been excluded. Of course, to participate in those discussions, one would need to join ACNA and sign the Jerusalem declaration.
So what is the point of developing a fiction that you could readily debunk by reading a bit of the history of ACNA or the Global South? Are you in a revisionist seminary, miffed that no one from ACNA is asking your opinion?
Wow, we sure are lucky that the gentle moderators are not very strict about keeping us on topic, and that Kendall’s elves are off somewhere enjoying a well earned retirement.
In an effort to get in a few words on topic in addition to my several essays below….
Given the substantial independence of Australian dioceses- it sometimes seems as though there are 30 distinct denominations each with a geographic jurisdiction- I am rather surprised to discover that the standing committee can wield this sort of power. To postpone a provincial synod and replace it on the calendar with a special session would seem a bigger deal than, say, disciplining an errant bishop- which seems entirely beyond the primate and house of bishops.
Has this always been the way of things in Australia? I am generally fairly well informed, but in terms of international Anglican news, this is the first time I can recall the standing committee of that province doing much more than reporting that it held a meeting and put such and such on the agenda for…. Or is this another indication of the recent trend toward over-reach by administrators (thinking of the past 20 years in which the “secretaries” became “Secretaries” then became “General Secretaries” and are now “Secretaries General” by printing new letterhead every couple years)
Little old naïve me (pardon the grammar) thought that only a meeting of the Synod could postpone a Synod meeting. Perhaps the Standing Committee has been given that power. Si?