The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia has voted on a statement that Marriage [is] the union of a man and a woman. Despite being supported 143 to 98 overall the motion was lost on the vote of the bishops; showing that the Anglican bishops are out of touch with their congregations. The vote was. Laity 63 Yes 47 No Clergy 70 Yes 39 No Bishops 10 Yes 12 No Now the details. 20.3 Statements as to the Faith, Ritual, Ceremonial or Discipline of this Church made under Section 4 of the Constitution (Diocese of Sydney) In accordance with Rule V, the text of this statement, together with an Explanatory Memorandum, was sent to all members of the General Synod prior to the Synod. The Statement and Explanatory Memorandum are available at https://anglican.org.au/wpcontent/u...alceremonial-or-discipline-of-this-Church.pdf Rule V outlines the procedures for submitting, circulating and considering Statements Statement 1 - Marriage as the union of a man and a woman Archbishop Kanishka Raffel moving, The Rev’d Natalie Rosner seconding The motion is presented below in its amended form at the end of the business session Tuesday 10 May 2022. Pursuant to the authority recognised in s.4 and s.26 of the Constitution to make statements as to the faith, ritual, ceremonial or discipline of this Church, and in accordance with the procedures set out in Rule V, the General Synod hereby states: 1. The faith, ritual, ceremonial and discipline of this Church reflect and uphold marriage as it was ordained from the beginning, being the exclusive union of one man and one woman arising from mutual promises of lifelong faithfulness, which is in accordance with the teaching of Christ that, “from the beginning the Creator made them male and female”, and in marriage, “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Matt 19:4-5). 2. In 2004 (Resolutions 62/04, 63/04) General Synod did ‘not condone the liturgical blessing of same sex relationships’ nor ‘the ordination of people in committed same sex relationships’ recognising that both matters were subject to ‘ongoing debate in this church and that we all have an obligation to listen to each other with respect. 3. In 2017 the Commonwealth Parliament amended the definition of ‘marriage’ in the Marriage Act (1961) to mean ‘the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’, thereby making lawful the marriage of two persons of the same sex and presenting this church with a profoundly altered missional and pastoral context. 4. The solemnisation of a marriage between a same-sex couple is contrary to the teaching of Christ and the faith, ritual, ceremonial and/or discipline of this Church. 5. Any rite or ceremony that purports to bless a same-sex marriage is not in accordance with the teaching of Christ and the faith, ritual, ceremonial and/or discipline of this Church. The Rev’d Nigel Fortescue moved, Mr Robert Wicks seconding that the motion be put. Carried The Ven Angela Webb requested a Vote by Houses and was supported by at least 10 clergy members. That the motion be agreed to: Electronic voting: Laity 63 Yes 47 No Clergy 70 Yes 39 No Bishops 10 Yes 12 No Lost
It's the same story all over these days. Protestants, RC, EO -- progressive leadership is far out of step with the rank-and-file clergy and their congregations. It's an astonishing development, really -- an outright rejection of Biblical authority from the very same people tasked with enforcing it. From an Anglican perspective, I expect that GAFCON Australia will gather in the orthodox believers as it has elsewhere.
So I don't understand, did the motion fail? As in, do all 3 houses have to to pass, for the motion to pass?
I’m not sure how that system works, except to say that it looks like the bishops sit in a senate of sorts, which acts like an aristocratic body and has veto power over the more democratic bodies. in a normal, non-mirror universe, the senatorial chamber is supposed to act as a conservative brake on the usually more progressive rabble, but in this case the reverse is true. It’s the senate that is doing its best to drag the people into a revolution.
The Australians unfortunately copied the flawed American model in which a strong Senate with veto power is somehow seen as a good thing. There’s a reason most democracies limit the power of the upper chamber, when they have one at all.
But is the Anglican Church of Australia performing same-sex marriages? Is it amending their BCP to use gender neutral language on the table? It looks like any attempt to regularize same-sex marriage there would be checked by the clergy, even if a majority of bishops wanted it.
It sounds like they have the ability to bless SSMs that have been recorded by the State. I guess it would be up to the local bishop. The apparent lack of logic in a tricameral system in which one house outweighs the other two, is most puzzling. I wonder why it is setup that way (unanimity rule between houses but majority rule within them), with no veto override provision. It is a situation only our Australian brothers and sisters can explain.
I am very pleased about this. The laity who voted don't represent all of us - I wasn't asked my opinion for example. So I suppose it is only those laity who actually attend that get a vote. I think more of us would support what the bishop's have voted, so in my mind, they ARE in touch with us.
At this stage the official position is that the Anglican Church will not perform same sex marriages nor bless same sex civil marriages. In the past there have been motions to allow Anglican Clergy to bless same sex civil marriages but these have not passed, This motion was to affirm the traditional view that marriage was a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman. This was voted in favour of by a clear majority of the lay and clergy. It appears the 22 bishops have effective veto power over the vote of the other 220 General Synod representatives.
Wow…less than 10% is one heck of minority veto! If “one man, one woman” was the status quo, what would a new resolution have added (just curious)? It seems like there wasn’t a clear winner here. If the status quo remains unchanged now, what happens next?
I just found this explanation in QNews. ‘Tears and confusion’ as Anglican bishops go rogue on same-sex marriage At the Synod, the conservative Sydney diocese brought on a vote on a statement to affirm the church’s traditional position on marriage – a man and a woman only – and declare blessings of civil same-sex marriages within the church as “contrary to the teaching of Christ”. However in November 2020, the Appellate Tribunal, the church’s highest court, disagreed in a ruling and permitted the blessings of same-sex marriages in Anglican churches. This week’s vote at the General Synod easily passed through the houses of clergy and laity (unordained delegates). However the Anglican bishops voted against the statement by 12 votes to 10. It needed to pass through all three houses to be successful.
The Appellate Tribunal part was the missing element I was looking for. That definitely helps in understanding what’s going on.