Canadian Bishops Have Their Cake and Eat It Too
by Barbara Gauther (received by email)
To the surprise of just about everyone — and the consternation of many — the Anglican Church of Canada’s General Synod rejected by a razor-thin margin the Marriage Canon Amendment which would have officially expanded the church’s doctrine of marriage to include homosexual as well as heterosexual couples, and would have established the authorization of same-sex rites of marriage throughout the denomination (similar to TEC’s Resolution B012, which was passed overwhelmingly by General Convention last year).
However the defeat of the gay marriage constitutional amendment does not mean that Canada has moved to ban same sex blessing rites (as did the United Methodist Church early this year, when it rejected the OneChurch plan that would have approved both gay clergy and gay blessings). Although the Amendment was defeated, Synod did vote overwhelmingly to endorse the status quo of “local option” gay marriage with the approval of the diocesan bishop. Unlike the Methodists, who insisted on maintaining the inherent integrity of doctrine and practice as set forth in the Book of Discipline, the Canadian Anglicans chose to strain gnats by upholding the official doctrine of marriage as between a man and a woman while at the same time endorsing “for pastoral reasons” the practice of marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Any amendment to the governing documents of the church requires a 2/3 majority vote in all three houses (lay, clergy, bishops) at two successive General Synods. The first reading of the Marriage Canon Amendment at the last General Synod (2016) was passed by a single vote in the House of Bishops after a procedual error in counting was discovered. At the second reading at General Synod this past week, the amendment once again secured the required 2/3 majority the lay and clergy orders (80% lay, 73% clergy) but the House of Bishops failed to garner the required 2/3 majority with only 62% in favor of the amendment. They were 2 votes short, and this time there was no procedural error to be found.
The bishops were taken completely by surprise and many were deeply disappointed, as Bp. Jane Alexander of Edmonton expresses quite eloquently in her letter to the diocese the morning after:
“I had thought that the affirmations from the “Word to the Church” and the overwhelming support across the synod for these affirmations heralded a new gracious space for us to walk together and allow room for our LGBTQ2+ brothers and sisters to receive the sacrament of marriage — an outward sign of an inward and invisible grace. An outward and visible sign to the world of equality and love and inclusion in the ceremonies of the church. An outward and visible sign that they were created equally and loved equally by God and by God’s church. I had thought that after the morning session of synod when we affirmed a self-determining indigenous church that it showed a gracious willingness to listen to what the Spirit was saying in this time an space. I had thought that acknowledging our different views indicated that we believed God was still speaking on this issue….
“I believe that as a church we have let down our brothers and sisters because we would not, or could not, live with ambiguity.”
The clergy were sad and dismayed, the laity stunned and distraught, with much weeping, wailing, and perhaps even gnashing of teeth. The headline in the Anglican Journal read “Church grapples with pain after marriage canon vote.” The synod coverage focused on the pathos unfolding as the votes were being tallied and the emotional chaos that erupted when the results were announced.
“Waiting for the vote results to come in, Lyds Keesmaat-Walsh—a member of the Church of the Redeemer in Toronto who identifies as non-binary, agender and transmasculine, queer in their sexuality—and who, like Brouillard-Coyle, prefers they/them pronouns—was ‘overcome with fear like I have never known before, and I’ve gone through multiple coming-outs.’ When the results appeared, and it became clear that the resolution had failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the Order of Bishops, Keesmaat-Walsh felt a grief that they had only experienced once before, when a close friend was killed in a shooting. As the tears flowed, seeing a delegate nearby that they believed had not voted in favour of the motion proved too much to bear. ‘I looked across the table … and I knew I could not stay in this room any longer. And I got up and I fled.'”
Some of the youth were so distraught that there was immediate concern for their emotional and physical safety.
“Outside the Grand Ballroom, a group of youth delegates were on the floor sobbing. In the chaotic conditions at that time, Keesmaat-Walsh variously comforted fellow delegates, responded to text messages on their phone from concerned friends and family—and frantically tried to find youth delegates who were less secure in their sexuality or had recently come out, but were nowhere to be found. Concern for the youths’ safety was very real. Speaking at the microphone before results were announced, Keesmaat-Walsh told synod members about the suicidal thoughts and self-harm urges they had struggled with after General Synod 2016, when due to a voting error, it appeared as though the first reading of the marriage canon resolution had failed. To their immense relief, their fellow youths were alive and well.”
The next morning, the youth planned a spur-of-the-moment protest at the worship service in Christ Church Cathedral before the primatial election. Just outside the door, the youth joined hands and togethe sang the the song they had been taught during their orientation at General Synod: “Love, love, love, love / People we are made for love / Love your neighbour, love yourself, and love your God.” Because some delegates had gone inside before the protest started and had not heard the chant, a trio resolved to enter the cathedral holding hands and singing so that everyone inside would hear them. They said later that they were unaware that Abp. Fred Hiltz was in the middle of speaking when they entered. And quite the entrance it was:
“Using vocal projection techniques they had learned as a ‘theatre kid’, Keesmaat-Walsh declared loudly, ‘I’ve never been more heartbroken.”’Then they sat in the pews. During the service… they decided not to receive the sacrament as a protest. As synod members filed forward during the Eucharist, they joined the line where Hiltz was offering the bread. Upon standing in front of the primate, they each kept their hands by their sides, took deep breaths and said, ‘In a church where I am not worthy of one sacrament, I am not worthy of any of them.'”
That was not the end of the story. Despite the drama, nothing had actually changed in the day-to-day life of the Anglican Church of Canada. The amendment had been defeated by two votes in the House of Bishops, and it was an end run by those same bishops that not also preserved but also expanded the pastoral practice of same-sex marriage in the Anglican Church of Canada.
Resolution A101-R1 asked Synod to adopt the affirmations that the House of Bishops had put forward in their “Word to the Church” and that resolution was passed overwhelmingly by General Synod. The main thrust of the resolution was to affirm the rights of indigenous dioceses to “spiritual self-determination” so that they would not have imposed upon them the cultural views and spiritual beliefs of the European interlopers who had taken over their lands. My hunch is that this amendment was designed not so much to protect the native religious expressions of indigenous Anglicans as it was to free them from being forced to comply with the decisions of the progressive European majority. The native indigenous populations are far more conservative when it comes to marriage and morality and they have proven remarkably resistant to the current trajectory of the Anglican Church of Canada — and they were likely responsible for the dissenting votes on the Marriage Amendment. In granting these indigenous dioceses “spiritual self-determination,” the hope of the bishops may have been that indigenous bishops and clergy would no longer feel compelled to pester the Church’s progressive policies.
But there was apparently much more to that resolution than just a concern for the church’s indigenous Anglicans. Buried deep within Amendment A101-R1 was also a critical canonical loophole put there by the bishops, which in effect overturned their negative vote on the Marriage Amendment. David Jenkins provides an astute analysis of this episcopal end run:
“As tax evaders are drawn to tax loopholes, so Anglican bishops are attracted to canon law loopholes. Although the resolution to change the marriage canon failed to pass at synod, resolution A101-R1, adopting the document A Word to the Church, did pass.
“The document has this statement:
Affirmation #2
Diverse Understandings of the Existing Canon
We affirm that, while there are different understandings of the existing Marriage Canon, those bishops and synods who have authorized liturgies for the celebration and blessing of a marriage between two people of the same sex understand that the existing Canon does not prohibit same-sex marriage.“In other words, bishops who are already marrying same-sex couples claim that they can do so because the existing canon does not prohibit them; so they can continue. And a motion affirming that idea has been passed.”
This “local option” loophole has been in effect since 2003, when Bp. Michael Ingram initiated the first same-sex blessings in his Diocese of nNew Westminster. The practice gradually expanded from there throughout the more lliberal sectors of the Anglican Church of Canada. There are currently eleven dioceses that are committed to providing “a generous pastoral response” on the part of diocesan bishops for their gay and lesbian members, a response which includes the church’s formal blessing for those in a committed same-sex union/civil partnership/marriage.
The rationale put forward by these bishops for jumping the gun receiving the official go-ahead from General Synod is quite simple. The marriage canon as currently written does not authorize gay blessing rites, but neither does it prohibit them. Thus, whatever is not forbidden by canon law is therefore permitted by canon law. In passing Resolution A101-R1, General Synod has duly authorized the “local option loophole” as legal practice in every Canadian diocese with the permission of the diocesan bishop. In essence what General Synod has done is regularize what had heretofore been an irregular practice. Now it is legal.
Those eleven dioceses that jumped the gun can continue to celebrate gay marriages in their churches with no fear of recrimination for not waiting until General Synod officially changed its Marriage Canon. Other dioceses will likely join them since it doesn’t really matter in practical terms that the marriage canon failed. It will of course matter to the LGBT+ community to not having official recognition, but they’ve not actually lost anything they have gained over the past two decades.
Thus it would appear that nothing has really changed. But it seems that the bishops have in the process managed to accomplish something very important indeed. The Canadian bishops have de jure preserved their ecumenical status and saved face internationally by appearing to uphold traditional doctrine of marriage by their rejection of the Marriage Canon Amendment. But with a single sentence in their statement afterwards, the bishops de facto overturned their vote by authorizing the Anglican Church of Canada to proceed with gay marriage rites in any diocese whose bishop permits it:
“We are walking together in a way which leaves room for individual dioceses and jurisdictions of our church to proceed with same-sex marriage according to their contexts and convictions, sometimes described as ‘local option’.” (emphasis added)
This is a brilliant move on the part of the Canadian bishops, whether intended or not. They have managed to find a way to both have their cake (maintaining official Anglican Communion status in compliance with Lambeth Resolution I.10) and eat it too (while proceeding to do whatever they please). David Jenkins reveals this episcopal sleight of hand:
“The Anglican Church of Canada voted down a motion to amend the Marriage Canon to permit the marriage of same-sex couples. The naïve among us might be tempted to conclude, ‘that’s it, then, no same-sex marriages in the ACoC.’
“That would be a serious underestimation of the influence of the juggernaut that has taken over the Anglican Church of Canada. The highlighted section of the [bishops’] statement [above] explicitly gives permission for dioceses to perform same-sex marriages: just as if the vote to change the marriage canon had passed.
“The vote was meaningless. Worse, it was a hoax, a deception, a lie, an exercise which, if it succeeded, would legitimise same-sex marriage; and if it failed, would still legitimise same-sex marriage.”
It was the ultimate win-win situation, the ecclesial equivalent of the old childhood trick of “heads, I win, tails, you lose.”
Nine bishops issued responses the day following the marriage amendment vote. Seven bishops wrote to reassure grieving members of their diocese that they will continue to bless same-sex marriages there. Two others informed their dioceses that they were willing to begin the process of granting permission for same-sex blessings if there was a demand for it.
For the LGBT+ crowd, the push to get the marriage canon changed to officially include them will undoubtedly continue and the road that lies ahead will be a long one. The time table has now been pushed back at least six years since amendments to constitution require 2/3 majority in all three houses at two successive General Synods. The marriage canon amendment barely squeaked through by 1 vote in 2016 and had now been defeated by 2 votes — both times in the house of bishops. The next time the amendment can be brought forward again would be 2022 and if it passes then by 2/3 in all three houses it would have to be passed again by the same margin in 2025 before it would become constitutional.
But “justice delayed is justice denied” and if you can’t get justice by following the rules, then the only just thing to do is change the rules. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there wasn’t a move to change the constitutional structure of the Anglican Church of Canada to do away with such antiquated measures as requiring a minimum of six years to effect major changes and then only with a super-majority of support from all three orders — lay, clergy, bishops. How pathetically patriarchal; how utterly undemocratic!
We’ll see how the rest of the Anglican Communion perceives it.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
