Taken from here, FYI.

Report from General Synod: A Federation View

July 9, 2007

The results of the recent General Synod will be examined, interpreted and spun in many different ways. We believe that Anglicans in the Anglican Church of Canada, despite pressure from within and without, and under the scrutinizing eyes of the media, have decided to remain Anglican Christians for at least another three years and to invite theologians and church leaders from inside Canada, and from the wider Anglican Communion, to help us in finding our way through the current dilemma and confusion concerning issues of human sexuality facing our church and all other churches working in the context of our western culture.

In the end we believe the issue is not homosexuality but sexuality, creation, faith and reason, even the idea of revelation itself. Big questions that seem far from those of the blessing of same sex unions but this is the ‘presenting question’ of our day.

So what did the General Synod decide?

It discerned that our Anglican Church of Canada is a very divided house and proceeding with any decision based on such division would be disastrous. It was decided that the church needs more time and information to make an informed decision. Not everyone felt that way. Although people on both sides were already very clear on a personal level, we were divided as a church, so the decision was to consult further before making a decision.

We believe this was a wise decision made on good faith. We do not believe it was either a cop-out or a compromise but rather it expressed a consensus that our house (although not the individual members) was not ready to decide. General Synod has asked for more expert opinion before proceeding with a decision that could either radically advance or inhibit the work of our church in Canada and around the globe.

On the controversial subject of same-sex blessings there were two main resolutions dealt with: Resolution 186 and Resolution 189. With the permission of Dr Diana Verseghy, President of the Prayer Book Society of Canada, we are including her explanation to PBSC Council members of what was involved in the passing of the one and the defeat of the other motion. We feel her explanation is both clear and fair and describes our read on the situation.

In view of the confusion surrounding the interpretation of the “core doctrine” resolution that was passed at General Synod, and also in view of the spin that is being put on it by the secular press and others, I would advise that we need to step back calmly and reflect upon what the motion does and does not say.

In the first place, it is important to note that the wording of the resolution was significantly changed from its original form. The original version ran as follows:
“That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada.”

The amended version runs:
“That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being credal) of the Anglican Church of Canada.”

It needs to be clearly recognized that the motion, as carried, does not say that same-sex blessings are OK. The original, affirmative wording is replaced with a neutral statement, simply observing that SSB do not violate our credal formularies. In fact, this does nothing more than echo the resolution that had been passed earlier in Synod on the St. Michael Report:
“That this General Synod accept the conclusion of the Primate’s Theological Commission’s St. Michael Report that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, but is not core doctrine in the sense of being credal.”

The St. Michael Report specifically states:
“Core doctrines have been understood (by the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Solemn Declaration, and the Lambeth Quadrilateral) to mean the credal and earliest conciliar explications of Scripture with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity and the person and work of Jesus Christ.”

And:
“We are agreed that the blessing of same-sex unions is not a matter of core doctrine in the sense of being credal. The determination of this question will not hinder or impair our common affirmation of the historic creeds.”

The plain sense of the resolution as it was finally passed is simply a restatement of this. It does not address the rightness or wrongness of same-sex blessings at all. There is obviously much confusion on this point in the minds of many (that was also evident on the floor of Synod while the resolution was being debated!), but we need to keep hammering this clarification home.

To conclude, I cannot see that the passing of this resolution of itself gives any cause for the Canadian Church to be seen by the wider Communion as “walking apart”. The narrow defeat of the “local option” resolution likewise means that we are still properly to be counted as members of the Communion (if only by the slenderest of margins!) It remains to be seen, of course, whether “local option” will be pursued in individual dioceses in defiance of the General Synod vote. Such dioceses would indeed be leaving themselves open to some sort of individual chastisement by the Communion.

However, the Canadian Church as a whole cannot be grouped with that kind of unilateral action.

Credal core doctrine has to do with what God has done for us in Christ- the work of our salvation in place and time by Jesus Christ. All other doctrine (unfortunately called “adiaphora” by the St. Michael’s Report) is about how we respond to that work and become part of God’s unfolding plan of bringing healing, through the gospel, to the entire world. The doctrine of the Church, sacraments, behaviour and morality, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc. are all about how the Word becomes flesh in us and the work of Christ becomes visible in the world through the Church. It is not ‘core doctrine’ as the St. Michael’s Report defines it- that is, not explicitly named in the creeds- but it is essential doctrine and essential for the proclamation of the core doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ.

At this point many readers may want to utter the good and biblical lament: “How long, O Lord, how long? Another three years?” We say, “Amen!” No one wants to go on with the painful struggle. But what is the alternative? Denial of one sort or another: denial of the problem or denial of the divisions that exist.

We believe God has granted us life as a church for at least three years together – to work at the gospel work. We choose to receive this as a period of grace to grow in our knowledge and love of Him and one another- for the gospel’s sake. Is that a waste of time?

What would we say if we had a loved one who is dying of cancer and the doctor says: “We have a treatment that will keep her alive for another three years? It will be difficult but it will be bearable and it may also turn things around so that she does have at least a slim chance of going into remission, surviving and maybe even recovering. Do you want us to try it or should we let her die because it is so painful for you all at present?” How many of us would say of our loved one, “No, let her go: It isn’t worth it?”

I think the members of General Synod said, whether we were individually aware of it or not: We want to have one last try at saving our church as we have known it. It may not be possible but we need to know we have tried. If it doesn’t work then, “God’s will be done”. But not until then.

General Synod said to all our dioceses and to our church as a whole: Don’t go ahead with our own plans. Wait for one another. Consult more widely. Deepen your relationships with God and one another. Three years isn’t much time to do all this!

Yes, there remains significant division in our house. But GS called for a deeper reflection (with the help of the Primates Theological Commission) and wider consultation (giving time for input and response from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates and the Anglican Communion). When the question comes up again the church will be much better prepared to make a definitive decision one way or another. Then Anglicans will have to determine whether they accept the church’s decision, or not.

There is then no change in current teaching of our church on human sexuality. Marriage remains between a man and a woman in life-long union, and sexual relations are intended solely for marriage.

General Synod committed our church to walking more fully and closely with one another- not to allow individual dioceses to act independently of the whole body until we have made up our minds together.

GS ’07 also did some less controversial and more encouraging things in our time together (that didn’t get as much media attention):
• It reaffirmed its commitment to the work of the Council of the North
• It reaffirmed and increased the role of Aboriginal Anglicans in the work of our church
• It reaffirmed its partnership with other Anglican Churches in the world (especially in Middle east)
• It deepened our relationship with our full communion Lutheran partners the ELCiC (who also resolved not to proceed with same-sex blessings at their bi-annual national conference held in Winnipeg at the same time as our Synod).
• It received encouragement and challenges from ecumenical visitors and observers and some wonderful teaching from the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu.

Of the Essentials contribution at GS ’07 one appreciative Synod member said he spoke for many in saying that Essentials provided a critically needed haven and presence, the support of a community of like-minded Anglicans standing in defence of orthodoxy. He felt that without the program of delegate back-grounding and preparation and the generation of coordinated floor strategy, things would have turned out much worse. He added that whatever Essentials spent on GS 07, it was well worth every penny! (Please note and act on this information, as our treasurer is desperately depleted of funds at this point!).

In summary, we are reminded of a very appropriate verse from the Psalms that addresses our current situation:

“It is good for me that I have been in trouble, that I may learn thy statutes,
The law of thy mouth is dearer unto me than thousands of gold and silver.”

If the troubles of the Anglican Church of Canada have pushed us to a deeper sense of desperation and so need for and appreciation of God’s revelation as the basis of authority for the life and teaching of our church, then it will all be worth the struggle. We will all benefit from this present trouble. If we are faithful, the result will be a church much better situated to bring the good news of Christ to our nation. We are not responsible for what others do or do not do. We are not responsible if others break faith with what was actually decided at General Synod. We are not responsible if others decide to act unilaterally. Those who are responsible will have to deal with such matters if they occur. We need to act on what has been agreed upon not on how people interpret what was agreed upon.

Archbishop Sentamu, at the conclusion of his sermon for the Installation of our new Primate, The Most Rev. Fred Hiltz, charged the members of Synod, the gathered clergy, worshippers and our church with the task that was left to us after this momentous General Synod: “Now get to the work of spreading the gospel!”

To this, we at Essentials Federation add our loud: Amen! Let us work while it is still day.

The Members of the Executive Committee of
Anglican Essentials Federation