The Anglican Church of Canada will maintain its traditional definition of marriage after a vote to amend the marriage canon failed to pass at General Synod 2019.
The 42nd General Synod voted against Resolution A052-R2, which would have amended the marriage canon to allow for same-sex marriage, after the resolution failed to pass by a two-thirds majority in all three orders. While two-thirds of the Order of Laity (80.9%) and Order of Clergy (73.2%) voted in favour, less than the required two-thirds (62.2%) voted in favour of the resolution in the Order of Bishops.
The final results of the vote, which took place on the evening of July 12 at the Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre, were as follows: The Order of Laity saw 89 members (80.9%) vote Yes and 21 members (19.1%) vote No, with one abstention. The Order of Clergy had 60 members (73.2%) voting Yes, 22 members (26.8%) voting No, and two abstentions. In the Order of Bishops, 23 members (62.2%) voted Yes and 14 members (37.8%) voted No, with two abstentions.
The announcement of the result left many synod members visibly in shock. A scream could be heard. Many members began crying, and one young delegate ran out of the room in tears.
General Synod’s rules of procedure may leave room for the subject of same-sex marriage to return to the floor. Questions about ways to vote again on the matter, as well as memories of General Synod 2016’s changing vote count, suggest the topic may not be closed until General Synod concludes its business on July 16.
For example, some delegates approached the microphone and asked about potential methods by which General Synod could reconsider a vote, to which Chancellor David Jones responded. But Archbishop and Primate Fred Hiltz pointedly drew the night to a close.
“Friends, notwithstanding that there are more people coming to microphones, I am just so conscious of pain in this place,” the Primate said.
Acknowledging the observation of a member of synod, he noted, “Our children are crying. And many of you are crying, for a variety of reasons. So I think it’s time to adjourn. It’s time to leave this hall in silence. It’s time for you to go and do what you need to do—to cry, or to gather with delegates from your own diocese; to gather with friends, to gather in circles of prayer, just to try and be attentive to one another.
“If there are proposals for revisiting the matter, there are provisions for how to deal with that,” he added. “If there are proposals for other resolutions on the same matter, there are provisions for how to deal with that. But it needs to be at another moment in this synod.”
Resolution A052-R2 to amend the marriage canon, as put forward at General Synod 2019, served as the second reading for the amendment following a first reading at General Synod 2016. The resolution declared that Canon XXI, On Marriage in the Church, “applies to all persons who are duly qualified by civil law to enter into marriage.” It would have changed the wording of the canon to replace all references to “man and woman” and “husband and wife” with “the parties to the marriage.”
The amended marriage canon, based on the resolution, would also have stated that “a minister may only solemnize a marriage between persons of the same sex if authorized by the diocesan bishop.”
Earlier in the day, General Synod members voted to amend the original Resolution A052 to add two paragraphs to the preface of Canon XXI. The first stated that “faithful members of the Anglican Church of Canada have different understandings and teachings about the nature of marriage,” and that Anglicans are entitled to hold different views provided they “recognize and respect” that others may, with integrity, hold different views.
The second paragraph stated that General Synod “recognizes that Indigenous communities have particular understandings about the nature of marriage as well as their own ways of making decisions,” and that Indigenous people “will continue to discern whether same-sex marriage would be acceptable in their communities.”
A motion to divide this amendment and vote on each paragraph separately failed to pass, with 153 members (66.8%) voting No, 76 members (33.2%) voting Yes, and three abstaining. The original motion to amend Resolution A052 with both paragraphs subsequently carried, with 206 voting Yes (89.6%), 24 voting No (10.4%), and two members abstaining.
Another resolution passed during the afternoon, Resolution A101-R1, that adopted the affirmations in the document A Word to the Church concerning the amendments to Canon XXI on marriage. General Synod voted strongly in favour of this motion, with 196 members voting Yes (84.85%), 35 members voting No (15.15%), and two abstentions.
According to Resolution A101-R1, General Synod “affirms the right of Indigenous people and communities to spiritual self-determination” in their decisions regarding same-sex marriage; affirms that bishops and synods in the Anglican Church of Canada hold diverse understandings of the existing marriage canon; and affirms that there is a diversity of understandings and teachings about marriage within the church, and that these are held with “prayerful integrity.”
The resolution also affirms the commitment of the General Synod to presume good faith among those who hold diverse understandings and teachings. Finally, it affirms the commitment of the General Synod to walk together and preserve communion with each other, in Christ, within the church and the Anglican Communion, and with ecumenical partners.
Canada is a large territory served by only 84 clergy? Luckily there are enough bishops, 39, to supervise. Sounds like the Anglican Church of Canada is adopting a new three legged stool; Scripture, Tradition, and Hysterics.
The hysterics, tho, have l o n g been practised.
Well….actually, the bishops rejected by 2 votes. Had it been 24-13 (change 1 vote), it is still a couple points shy of 66.67%.
Of course, the 2 abstentions may have been face saving- bishops who would have voted in favor if it had a chance to win (in which case, it would only have taken 1 changed votes of those who voted against 26-13). But with 14 votes against, best they could end up with was 25-14- still below the 2/3 threshold. This way, they get to sit on the fence, the preferred position on liberal bishops.
Makes no difference, since 3 years ago, the Chancellor made himself arbiter of all that is holy in Canada, and self determined that canons notwithstanding, any to people or beings or robots or whatever that wanted to get married could do so as long as the bishop said ok. Which, one surmises, 24 out of 39 already have- and those 24 are in the big cities and larger dioceses, so, essentially, gay marriage is a done deal. This is, essentially, the situation TEC was in as of 2015.
Given that Toronto (?) has a gay male bishop who is going to Lambeth, minus his legal male spouse, this failure to change the marriage canon doesn’t mean a whole lot. They’ll pass it next time.
They may still pass it this time. Recall that in 2016, it failed, but then, out of nowhere, it was discovered that someone’s vote was cast incorrectly, and …. it passed after all.
I think that the “legal male spouse” will be going- they just have to stay in college rooms that are not part of the official rental- something the University and some generous donors have already provided for. We will see whether the gay spouses attend any formal sessions, but one can expect them at any number of social events, even if they are actually restricted from official sessions.
One vote? Delegates ran out crying? If I were there, they really would be crying by being assaulted by flying Bibles. Our Faith isn’t going anywhere whilst we pander to this shower of s^&*t. (I beg Your pardon for the rudery).
I wish I could give you more than one upvote for that mental image… “being assaulted by flying Bibles.”
I’m generally in favor of careful treatment of Holy Scripture, but sometimes certain people need to be smitten by the Word of God…
This doesn’t matter at all except for traditionalists who can still hang on to feeble justifications for staying in communion with the ACoC house of bishops. General Synod adopted A101-R1 which gives the bishops the authority to authorise rites and basically define marriage as they see fit. The only thing that has been lost here is the ACoC’s ability to signal to the LGBTQ community and the rest of liberal protestantism. Assuming there are no last minute manoeuvres, in 6 years when a similar resolution inevitably rolls around, the authority of General Synod over theology and holiness questions will be immaterial. In the meantime, the barely veiled rage that the liberals feel towards the conservatives will likely mean reduced (if any) concessions next time around and perhaps reduced financial grants in the near term (as virtually every conservative diocese relies on grants). The Diocese of the Arctic’s three unnecessary and last minute suffragan bishops (do the math) will be remembered (even some conservatives winced at this overtly strategic act leading up to the synod). So, imo, an irrelevant battle has been won (as all the liberal dioceses will do as they see fit) and the war may effectively be abandoned entirely on an institutional level as every diocese does whatever it is they want to do with no concern at all for the decisions of General Synod regarding anything but single-use plastics etc. Oh, but they do want to signal, and that’s probably worth the continued war-effort.
>>”The only thing that has been lost here is the ACoC’s ability to signal to the LGBTQ community and the rest of liberal protestantism.”<< One thing "gained" is that the ACoC can toe the Canterbury line that "we affirm same-sex relationships and unions but we draw the line at same-sex marriage." For now (2020). After that, the deluge.
This would make more difference if the ABoC withheld invitations from those who violated their own canons and prayer book rubrics. and conducted SSMs regardless.
The vast majority of the ACoC has no interest in toeing this line. They know by now that formal changes to the marriage canon will not result in any discipline from Canterbury. But yes, some traditionalists will see this lost vote as a gain because they can justify their ongoing koinonia with the ACoC on the basis of the distinction between SSBs and SSMs. I don’t think the remaining traditionalists are under any illusions regarding the trajectory of the ACoC, but schism is hard, the ACNA hasn’t done itself many favours (imo) regarding theological and liturgical coherence, the ANiC is a mixed bag theologically and liturgically and furthermore it is under resourced (i.e., the ANiC has no ability to replace grants from the national church to the rural conservative dioceses even if the ACoC let them depart without litigation for property). The remaining traditionalists will hold on as long as possible, or justify somehow moving ‘the line in the sand’ further following the inevitable loss on this particular issue.
You are wrong about that. In their Message, the bishops have now collectively and explicitly endorsed local option (sources say that all the bishops, except the 4 bishops of the Arctic endorsed or at least did not object to the statement). The pressure on the bishops was overwhelming.
Is the precise voting information available online now? I’m curious to know specifics regarding how the bishops voted.
I misspoke above. What I was suggesting was that this vote allows Canterbury to claim that ACoC has not stepped over the line he is trying to draw between sexual unions and marriage. I may even be wrong that this fig leaf matters to him, as he is inviting TEC and others who have already shed it.
I totally agree. The weeping, wailing and and outright hypocrisy of individual bishops i.e.Niagara, is too much. The bogus and phony outrage of the marginal rejection of same sex marriage is a sham. The kowtowing to the LGBTQ agenda is an outright offence, if not an insult to believing Christians everywhere. Even the proposed archbishop and former bishop of Huron is into the act.
ACNA has never looked so welcoming.
As far as I am aware, most if not all liberal minded dioceses are on the ‘hand out’ as well, to survive. The traditionals do better because of a biblical prioity to support the tithe. The revisionists and the gay affiirming or living do not. For them it is more like grab and run. ACoC is bleeding red.
Keep voting until you get the “right” result and then declare the matter forever settled,
It’s the progressive way.
It’s quite unfortunate that people don’t realize that the ACoC is in the middle of a hostile takeover bid by die hard progressive forces. That’s just how it is.
And the liberal forces have been in the parishes a long time and have never taught parishioners to think theologically instead replacing thought with conformity to societal norms.
Agreed… but it is the end game of a hostile takeover bid. It might be awesome if the let’s stick with this ‘for the sake of the church’ traditionalists joined hands with a miracle from God to defeat the final victory? (just musing… it is biblically clear that the ACoC will be handed over to the desires of its own heart and long carried manipulation)
OK I have to admit I don’t follow what the resolution was. 62% of bishops vote in favour is recorded as being against the resolution? Please explain.