Sue Careless
The Interim
Just three days after the Anglican Church of Canada declared homosexual relationships holy, 22 primates representing 70 per cent of Anglicans worldwide, called for the Canadian church to be expelled from their international communion.

On June 3, the Canadian church’s governing body, General Synod, voted in St. Catharines to “affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships.” That evening nine of 39 Canadian bishops issued a statement declaring General Synod had erred in calling homosexual relationships holy. “… General Synod’s opinion is in error and contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the undivided Church, the clearly expressed conviction of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference of 1998, the overwhelming ecumenical consensus of the Church inside Canada and abroad, and the 1997 Guidelines of our own House of Bishops.”

They also “regretted” that their synod had acted prematurely, before the international Lambeth Commission could release its report in October on these matters.

The nine bishops (three of them aboriginal) expressed “sorrow” to the indigenous churches “whose voices were ignored” and appreciation to the Global South “who have implored our Church unsuccessfully to abide by the mind of the Communion.”

International reaction was swift. The same day Archbishop Drexel Gomez, primate of the West Indies and a member of the Lambeth Commission, wrote: “It is completely unacceptable to Bible believing orthodox Christians that same sex unions are described as holy. Such language is reserved for marriage alone. The attempt to give ‘committed adult same sex relationships’ the same theological status as marriage exacerbates the crisis in the communion and will reap devastating consequences.”

Then on June 6, 22 Global South primates declared that both the ACC and the Episcopal Church of the USA, which consecrated an openly gay bishop last year, should be ejected from the Anglican Communion, unless they repent.

Gregory Venables, primate of the Southern Cone (South America) said in the joint statement that ‘sanctity’ was inappropriate. “It’s saying that God has agreed to bless same-sex unions as the word carries the implication that this isn’t just right, but that it is God’s will and he has set it apart for the human race.

“It’s rewriting the Christian faith. There’s nothing in the Bible about the sanctity of same-sex relationships.” Referring to the Canadian and American churches, he said, “We would like to see them expelled. This is going against Christian teaching and they should repent or shut the door behind themselves.”

At an earlier press conference, the acting primate, David Crawley, said that while churches can leave the international communion, none can be expelled.

Ecumenical relations would also be put at risk. Invited guest Dr. Richard Schneider, president of the Canadian Council of Churches, warned that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches would view the blessing of a union as the blessing of a marriage: “To bless is to identify that which is holy, sacred to God. In bilateral discussions, decisions that you make are going to be understood as doctrinal and are going to cause seismic movements within the dialogues. There is a lot at stake.”

Orthodox Anglicans were aghast since sanctity means “holiness of life, saintliness, sacredness, the state of being hallowed.” The Book of Common Prayer twice uses “sanctify” in its marriage service.

When debate resumed the next morning, a youth delegate, Catherine Roberts, from the diocese of Moosonee, tried to modify the wording to read, “Affirm and love those persons who are in committed same sex relationships.” She hoped to affirm the person without decaring the behaviour holy but her amendment was defeated.

By only a show of uncounted hands, synod ruled “committed adult same sex relationships” holy. Garth Bulmer of the diocese of Ottawa, who moved the motion to affirm the sanctity of gay sex, said sanctity had no doctrinal meaning in this context but was merely being used as a “pastoral” term.

However, just hours earlier synod had voted for theologians to determine whether blessing gay unions was doctrinal. How could synod vote one way and then on virtually the same matter, reverse itself? Robert’s Rules of Order state that the meaning of a motion may not be confusing. Some think a strong case could be made that Motion A 134 section 6 is illegal or out of order and could, therefore, be challenged.

The Archbishop of Canterbury had issued an immediate press release commending the Canadian church for delaying the blessing of gay couples but, as of press time, has been silent about the sudden switch to declare gay sex sacred.

The Canadian church’s new primate, Andrew Hutchison, told the press that since the national body did not explicitly vote against blessing gay couples, the country’s 30 dioceses could still do so if they wished. The dioceses of Niagara, Ottawa and Toronto are expected to bless gay unions shortly. Nor is New Westminster, which blesses gay unions, expected to be disciplined.

Resolution A 134 also called for continued dialogue and study “intentionally involving gay and lesbian persons.” Orthodox Christians urged the addition of “ex-gays and lesbians” in the dialogue process but their amendment was defeated. This confirmed for some former gays and lesbians and celibate homosexuals that the church was not listening to their voices.

Sue Careless will have commentary on these developments in the next issue