\Around the time I became what was then called an intending candidate for United Church ministry in the early 1970's there were intense conversations with the Anglican Church in Canada about union. Eventually they fell through for a number of good reasons but I had many conversations with colleagues through the years about the value of having bishops as decision-makers rather than what sometimes felt like the cumbersome processes of the UCC.
In the past few days Anglicans have met in Vancouver for their General Synod, the equivalent of the UCC's traditional national General Council. At this meeting the delegates rejected a motion which would have amended the church's marriage canon to remove references to the sacrament being a union between a man and a woman — effectively allowing same-sex marriage.
The motion required 2/3rd's of laity, clergy, and bishops to vote approval. In the end 81% of Anglican laity and 73% of Anglican clergy said yes. Only 62% of Anglican bishops approved, meaning that only a handful of bishops --perhaps three or four - blocked what would have been a historic decision.
I find this very sad for a number of reasons. This synod elected a woman as Primate, which is important, and took steps toward more effective reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Yet the news reports have focused on what seems to be a regressive stance on same-sex marriage, one which will undoubtedly change in the years ahead. Meanwhile the message to the country is that Anglicans are not welcoming to LGBTQ2 persons. And the laypersons and clergy who are already part of the Anglican communion will continue to feel that they are treated as second-class members. I think of Anglican clergy I know who will be discouraged by this decision.
So, bishops? Maybe not.
Comments?
No comments:
Post a Comment