Monday, June 25, 2007

Blind Guides

It was SO CLOSE!
Anglican bishops veto same-sex blessings

A razor-thin majority of Canada's Anglican bishops on Sunday overrode the wishes of their laity and clergy and vetoed a resolution that would have allowed for blessings in church settings of committed homosexual unions.

...It needed a triple majority of bishops, clergy and laity to pass. The laity voted 79 to 59 in favour and clergy voted 63 to 53, but bishops voted 21 to 19 against.

Bishops who voted against the resolution told synod delegates that a yes-vote would have violated the oath Anglican priests take on ordination to remain in communion with “the Church of England throughout the world.” The 77-million member Anglican Communion, Christianity's third largest denomination, traces its roots to the Church of England.

Sure. Sounds perfectly reasonable. They don't have anything against homosexuals - it's just about keeping the international Anglican community happy. Uh huh...

I call bullshit:
Canada's Anglicans won't be sanctioned for same-sex vote

"No scenario could emerge" from this week's Anglican General Synod that would lead to the Archbishop of Canterbury expelling the Canadian church from the 76-million-member global Anglican denomination, says Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion.

The right-hand man to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said in a face-to-face Thursday interview:

"There's no question the Anglican Church of Canada is a valued member of the Anglican communion. There's never been a scenario considered that would lead to the exclusion of the Anglican Church of Canada."

Another telling quote from the Globe and Mail article:
One bishop said that such a “de facto impairment of the communion” would have been a costly choice for the Anglican Church of Canada, which, although it has 800,000 members on its parish rolls, has only about 130,000 adherents who regularly attend worship services.

There you have it. It's not about what the majority wants, or even what's right. It's about pandering to that 60+ core demographic who still show up every Sunday and fill the collection plate.

Do these people read the same Bible I do? You know, the one where Jesus hangs out with prostitutes and tax collectors and lepers and centurions, and berates the 'righteous' who think they can behave like utter pricks to their fellow human beings and still get into heaven as long as they stick to the letter of the law and pay their stinking tithes?

Man. I get it, and I'm not even a Christian.


  1. You're reading it wrong. What they said is the church can't officially sanction it but that it's not against doctrine.

    If it's not against doctrine, it's not an excommunicable offense. Therefore if individual ministers want to do it, it's not "illegal".

    So, individual nministers can conduct same sex marriages, they just can't do it "officially" in the name of the church.

    It's the first step. First you de-criminalize it, then you legalize it.

  2. I'm quite sure I'm reading it right. I just hadn't mentioned the vote on the earlier resolution because it really doesn't change much. Anglican ministers (ok, one in particular) have been performing same-sex marriages and have not been expelled for it. All this means is that they don't have to worry about it any more. And yes, that was a small step forward.

    However, the fact remains that the Anglican Church of Canada had an opportunity here to take a meaningful stand in favour of tolerance, inclusion and justice, and the bishops blinked.

    For an inside view, read the article in the Anglican Journal.

  3. Regarding your original post: Well Said!!!