General Synod
Jun. 24th, 2007 08:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jsburbidgeBeing a Canadian Anglican (well, Anglo-Catholic, if not Ultra-Catholic) I have been paying some attention to the debates at General Synod this week.
I'll defer making comments about the theology and ecclesiology of the issues; what I want to look at is how badly they now seem to be handling things.
They have:
This sets them up for the worst of both worlds. If the motion passes by under 60% there are going to be many people who are upset that such an important -- now officially doctrinal -- issue, which will certainly have the effect of causing significant defections of individuals, at least, was passed with such a low threshold (which the canonical restrictions are explicitly designed to prevent). If the motion fails with blocking by the bishops, then they are back to square one, with some significant disciplinary problems on the liberal side of the Church.
What the ACC needs is a reasonably strong vote one way or another: split or weak votes are, institutionally, very bad for them on divisive issues. And they have set themselves up for one or the other.
Later: They have now passed the substantive motion in principle (i.e. whether the blessings are consistent with core doctrine) with a 21/19 vote in the bishops (the laity were 152/97, which is just over the 60% which the defeated procedural motion would have required). This means that (if the vote on the practical implementation goes the same way) this will have been passed on a very slim margin in the bishops (not good, as discussed above). Since with a one-vote shift it could fail in the bishops, that would also lead to a negative result (although it would be somewhat inconsistent to hold that the practice doesn't offend core doctrine and then not to allow the practice as at least a diocesan option). This is likely to be ugly no matter what happens. Plus, this motion in itself could very well already bring the Global South bishops into conflict with the ACC (meaning that the concern regarding preserving communion with most of the rest of the Anglican Communion could now be irrelevant as a consideration on the following votes).
Note that although the practical motion failed (based on a blocking vote in the bishops only, a problematic sign -- and neither of the votes in the other houses were over the 60% mark) a diocese could in principle proceed now to authorize same-sex blessings because it would no longer be going out on a doctrinal limb (i.e. no longer making a completely ultra vires move) -- the doctrinal vote already supports them. This already implies (e.g.) that New Westminster is free of any threat of discipline.
The state of the matter is now essentially just muddy. There is a doctrinal declaration that SSB's are consistent with core doctrine, but no explicit affirmation of a diocese's ability to authorize them; but the motion on doctrine probably authorises them in principle in any case. And all of this is by very slim margins.
I'll defer making comments about the theology and ecclesiology of the issues; what I want to look at is how badly they now seem to be handling things.
They have:
- Voted to recognize the matter of same-sex blessings to be a matter of doctrine, but not of "core doctrine" (whatever that means, precisely), but then
- Voted to decide the issue on a straight 50% -plus one basis, defeating a motion for a 60% limit (which itself was watered down from the normal two-synod threshold for doctrinal change -- the Chancellor had disliked even that watering-down), meaning that they've effectively taken a huge non-canonical move to make exceptions for this one issue on the basis of popular pressure, after recognizing its doctrinal nature.
- Defeated a motion to refer to a commission -- but on a split vote, where the bishops supported the referral. This must reflect an assumption on the part of the clergy and laity that the substantive motions will pass, whereas the actual outcome suggests that the bishops may block the substantive motion.
This sets them up for the worst of both worlds. If the motion passes by under 60% there are going to be many people who are upset that such an important -- now officially doctrinal -- issue, which will certainly have the effect of causing significant defections of individuals, at least, was passed with such a low threshold (which the canonical restrictions are explicitly designed to prevent). If the motion fails with blocking by the bishops, then they are back to square one, with some significant disciplinary problems on the liberal side of the Church.
What the ACC needs is a reasonably strong vote one way or another: split or weak votes are, institutionally, very bad for them on divisive issues. And they have set themselves up for one or the other.
Later: They have now passed the substantive motion in principle (i.e. whether the blessings are consistent with core doctrine) with a 21/19 vote in the bishops (the laity were 152/97, which is just over the 60% which the defeated procedural motion would have required). This means that (if the vote on the practical implementation goes the same way) this will have been passed on a very slim margin in the bishops (not good, as discussed above). Since with a one-vote shift it could fail in the bishops, that would also lead to a negative result (although it would be somewhat inconsistent to hold that the practice doesn't offend core doctrine and then not to allow the practice as at least a diocesan option). This is likely to be ugly no matter what happens. Plus, this motion in itself could very well already bring the Global South bishops into conflict with the ACC (meaning that the concern regarding preserving communion with most of the rest of the Anglican Communion could now be irrelevant as a consideration on the following votes).
Note that although the practical motion failed (based on a blocking vote in the bishops only, a problematic sign -- and neither of the votes in the other houses were over the 60% mark) a diocese could in principle proceed now to authorize same-sex blessings because it would no longer be going out on a doctrinal limb (i.e. no longer making a completely ultra vires move) -- the doctrinal vote already supports them. This already implies (e.g.) that New Westminster is free of any threat of discipline.
The state of the matter is now essentially just muddy. There is a doctrinal declaration that SSB's are consistent with core doctrine, but no explicit affirmation of a diocese's ability to authorize them; but the motion on doctrine probably authorises them in principle in any case. And all of this is by very slim margins.
