Friday, March 04, 2016

The Canadian House of Bishops' Statement on the Marriage Canon

The bishops decided, Alexander said, that they should communicate their own dividedness on the issue in advance of the next meeting of CoGS, scheduled March 10-13, because “in many ways the House of Bishops is a microcosm of the church, so it’s not just us who were feeling ripped in a whole lot of different directions about it, but it’s going to be the same for everyone who comes to General Synod.”
Sharing their own struggles “might be helpful as they [CoGS members] were thinking about process,” she said.
- See more at: http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/-bishops-statement-an-attempt-to-be-forthright-and-honest#sthash.gRMGiEbl.dpuf
The announcement came first in a statement on the 29th of February from the Canadian House of Bishops to the Council of General Synod following the bishop's meeting (Feb 23rd-26th) in Nova Scotia.  With respect to a first reading of a revision to the Marriage Canon to be discussed at General Synod in July of this year, it was ascertained, during the bishops' meeting together, that:
...the draft resolution to change the Marriage Canon to accommodate the marriage of same-sex partners is not likely to pass in the Order of Bishops by the canonical requirement of a 2/3rds majority in each Order. 
 The bishops' statement continued on to state:
We continue to wonder whether a legislative procedure is the most helpful way of dealing with these matters.
This was followed by an article in the Anglican Journal on the 2nd of March which served as a springboard not only for those variously dismayed or encouraged by the the fact that fewer than 2/3rds of our bishops might vote to pass such a revision but also for those who felt that the process of Synodical discussion was being "torpedoed" by a bishops' straw poll released five months prior to General Synod as well as for some who believed the bishops' statement to be an example of good sense and fair warning.

If the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada as a whole proves differently minded from the House of Bishops at the end of a long and honest debate this summer, then the House of Bishops would be faced with a quandary.   It will be interesting to see what transpires. It’s not a critical moment which can be palliated ahead of time or felt by degrees or introduced gently in increments. It is in July and not at the end of February that a failure to achieve a 2/3rds majority in the Canadian House of Bishops would need to be demonstrated with opinions revealed and the rationale behind those opinions expressed (in the lead up to the vote) on the floor of Synod by bishops on both sides of the issue along with those caught in the messy muddle in the middle.

This is as it should be.

The bishops decided, Alexander said, that they should communicate their own dividedness on the issue in advance of the next meeting of CoGS, scheduled March 10-13, because “in many ways the House of Bishops is a microcosm of the church, so it’s not just us who were feeling ripped in a whole lot of different directions about it, but it’s going to be the same for everyone who comes to General Synod.”
Sharing their own struggles “might be helpful as they [CoGS members] were thinking about process,” she said.
- See more at: http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/-bishops-statement-an-attempt-to-be-forthright-and-honest#sthash.gRMGiEbl.dpuf
The bishops decided, Alexander said, that they should communicate their own dividedness on the issue in advance of the next meeting of CoGS, scheduled March 10-13, because “in many ways the House of Bishops is a microcosm of the church, so it’s not just us who were feeling ripped in a whole lot of different directions about it, but it’s going to be the same for everyone who comes to General Synod.”
Sharing their own struggles “might be helpful as they [CoGS members] were thinking about process,” she said.
- See more at: http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/-bishops-statement-an-attempt-to-be-forthright-and-honest#sthash.gRMGiEbl.dpu
The bishops decided, Alexander said, that they should communicate their own dividedness on the issue in advance of the next meeting of CoGS, scheduled March 10-13, because “in many ways the House of Bishops is a microcosm of the church, so it’s not just us who were feeling ripped in a whole lot of different directions about it, but it’s going to be the same for everyone who comes to General Synod.” - See more at: http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/-bishops-statement-an-attempt-to-be-forthright-and-honest#sthash.gRMGiEbl.dpuf
The bishops decided, Alexander said, that they should communicate their own dividedness on the issue in advance of the next meeting of CoGS, scheduled March 10-13, because “in many ways the House of Bishops is a microcosm of the church, so it’s not just us who were feeling ripped in a whole lot of different directions about it, but it’s going to be the same for everyone who comes to General Synod.”
Sharing their own struggles “might be helpful as they [CoGS members] were thinking about process,” she said.
- See more at: http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/-bishops-statement-an-attempt-to-be-forthright-and-honest#sthash.gRMGiEbl.dpuf
I was told by one of my undergraduate professors that "in many ways" almost always precedes a statement of dubious or uncertain value.  It should really be interpreted to mean "in not very many ways".  Bishop Jane Alexander of Edmonton has stated, that "in many ways the House of Bishops is a microcosm of the Church”.   This needs to be tested.  If it's true then  it must be taken for granted that our Bishops will be participants in the synodical process, that they will listen and that they will gather in small groups with priests, deacons and lay people to whom they bear some accountability for their public reasoning.  They will navigate points of view which are not their own.  They could, potentially, change their minds.  In a synodical system the constituent parts do, in fact, speak for the whole in terms of the passage of such a canonical revision.   Legislation will not pass unless it passes at every level.  At the very least, though, the other two houses must be allowed make up their mind.

I think an expression by the House of Bishops to the CoGS that, as it stands in the context of its closed door meeting at the end of February, a 2/3rds majority should in no way be assumed in July, or is even unlikely, probably constitutes due diligence on its part.  I’m glad such a statement was made.  It seems a fair "heads up" to those involved in preparing the discussions.

But that’s as far as it goes.

that they should communicate their own dividedness on the issue in advance of the next meeting of CoGS, - See more at: http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/-bishops-statement-an-attempt-to-be-forthright-and-honest#sthash.gRMGiEbl.dpuf
The statement by the bishops and the follow-up article in the Anglican Journal gave voice to suggestions for something other than a legislative process – something other than the open discussion, the private conversations and the voting by orders which have accompanied every other change in liturgy, doctrinal development and ecclesial practice undertaken by the Anglican Church of Canada. 

A gulf between the mind of the bishops and the rest of General Synod would be a valuable datum should that prove to be the case in July.  As uncomfortable as it might be it would nonetheless be the truth.  It would be good to know.
The bishops decided, Alexander said, that they should communicate their own dividedness on the issue in advance of the next meeting of CoGS, scheduled March 10-13, because “in many ways the House of Bishops is a microcosm of the church, so it’s not just us who were feeling ripped in a whole lot of different directions about it, but it’s going to be the same for everyone who comes to General Synod.”
Sharing their own struggles “might be helpful as they [CoGS members] were thinking about process,” she said.
- See more at: http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/-bishops-statement-an-attempt-to-be-forthright-and-honest#sthash.gRMGiEbl.dpuf






Thursday, March 03, 2016

Lent 4 - Year C                                                                       
Luke 15:1-3. 11b-32                          




Put yourselves in the shoes of one of the characters in this Sunday's parable of the Lost Son:  Which boy are you, then?  You might identify more with the father  – your choice could well reflect the things which have happened to you in the course of your life.  When the Pharisees gathered at the margins of the crowd listening to Jesus speak they noted with dismay how many outcasts and misfits had gathered to listen.  Jesus set the Pharisees more or less this very task:  Who are you in this story?

One of the two boys went off the rails, taking a piece of the family fortune with him.  He came back recently with his hat in his hand after months of indignity, pain and deprivation.  Life “off the rails” proved a dreadful combination of place and circumstance which the boy still cannot describe without tears.  

The father welcomed the lost younger son.  This he did joyfully, extravagantly and with generosity.  He didn't spare his own dignity and even endured being cast as an old fool for the way he ran out on bandy legs to meet the boy when he was still a fair way down the road.  Ridiculous?   Old and foolish?  The only feeling he can remember was the palpable joy and anticipation at having the boy whom he loved and thought he’d lost back at the family table.  That was feeling enough for one day.

The old man now reasons gently with his older son who is mightily put out by his father’s public welcome of the prodigal and is boycotting the homecoming party.  His father was forced to get up and leave the festive table to go outside where his son was lingering under a tree, livid with rage and humiliation.  He speaks slowly to him.  It’s not that the older boy is stupid, mind.   There is, nonetheless, something quite basic that he has not understood. 

What should a father share with a son ?  What does a son inherit?  Is it an inventory of barns, grazing lands, outbuildings, servants and equipment?  When we are strong and in control we might concentrate the goods of the father in our own possession without sharing much of his character. What sort of inheritance is that?  The estate is ours by right.  A jury of our peers would agree.  So what?  If the point of our belonging is that somebody else does not belong, then what does that say about us?  Cold calculations always cast the realm of feelings to one side but this story cannot be divorced from the father’s feelings for the one who is lost - it is the heart and engine of this parable.  It is love and not right which makes the world go round.  

Children are a perpetual worry.  The day of great risk for the prodigal is over.  As we speak now he is in the house wiping a bit of grease from his chin and raising a cup to his lips.  He has been restored to the table.  It is love and concern for the older brother which motivates the father's second trip of the day and all his hushed remonstrations in the garden with a son who, curiously, has everything and nothing at the same time   

The day of risk for that boy has just begun.