Door open to critical changes to General Synod membership & votes
By Sharon Dewey Hetke
WHEN GENERAL SYNOD 2019 defeated the proposed change to the Marriage Canon, there was much anger directed at the House of Bishops. Resolution A052-R2, which would have changed the Marriage Canon to include same-sex marriage, required a two-thirds majority in each of three houses – laity, clergy and bishops – at two consecutive synods. The Resolution had passed first reading at General Synod 2016; but while it surpassed the two-thirds mark in both the Houses of Laity (80.9%) and Clergy (73.2%), it failed in the House of Bishops, gaining only 62.2%.
In the aftermath of the vote in 2019, some who were sorely disappointed in the result commented on the recent election and consecration of several Suffragans in more traditionally-minded (and largely Indigenous) dioceses.
However, as the Indigenous church has grown (both numerically and in terms of its standing in the structures of the Church), and given the massive geographical areas covered by northern dioceses, others felt that these comments were unfair, and that some Indigenous bishops were being treated as obstacles to “progress.”
And then, several days after the Marriage Canon vote, General Synod passed Resolution C005, as amended. It reads:
Be it resolved that this General Synod: Direct the Council of General Synod to review the composition of the membership and the rules of order and procedure of General Synod and bring forward any recommended changes for consideration at the 2022 General Synod.
While it would be careless to assume that C005 is solely aimed at a preferred outcome the next time a progressive Resolution comes to General Synod, it is indeed to C005 that some progressives are attaching their hopes for future decision-making.
And indeed, the amendment to C005 to include the words “and the rules of order and procedure” opens the door to even broader revision than did the original wording, including a reevaluation of the practice of voting by Houses. Speaking in favour of the amendment, Canon David Harrison said, “I think some of us have felt that we haven’t had the kind of mechanisms that we might need, as the Order of Clergy or Order of Laity, to speak into this synod as the Order of Bishops has.”
General Synod delegate, the Rev. Gerry Laskey (Diocese of Fredericton), also addressed the Resolution and said, “I believe bishops are an integral part of the church; they are defenders of the faith by their ordination vows, and I think that anything we might be thinking about downplaying their role in our synod would be a huge mistake.”
Others have expressed concern that coming changes will have the effect of denying votes to Assistant, Area or Suffragan Bishops.
COGS’ Governance Working Group has been asked to take the lead in this work, and at their November, 2020 meeting, Chancellor David Jones led a survey that presented various options of how the composition of General Synod might be adjusted, and examined the proportional method currently used to determine how many clergy and lay delegates a diocese can send to General Synod. (Details on the proposals put forward and survey results can be found at www.anglican.ca/wp-content/uploads/COGS-highlights-September-12-2020.pdf.)
A discussion at the same November meeting looked at issues around the “rules and procedure” of General Synod. Currently Motions dealing with changes to doctrine or to changes in the procedure of General Synod have to meet a high bar. These matters are set out in the ACoC’s foundational document known as the Declaration of Principles. Changes in doctrine or in procedures at GS, it makes clear, can only be passed by a two-thirds majority in each of the three Orders (rather than by a vote by “whole House”), at two successive synods. Changes could also require the assent of Provincial Synods.
In short, if the Governance Working Group chooses to bring forward changes along these lines at General Synod 2022, such changes would themselves require the same high bar (two-thirds majority in each Order, voting at two successive sessions of the General Synod).
Some are wondering what problem these solutions are meant to solve. A broad review of the Church’s governance might have started with a survey asking Canadian Anglicans (or recent delegates to General Synod) what issues might be a source of unfairness, or unsustainability.
While there is an undercurrent of conversation around the defeat of the Marriage Canon, there are also conversations about the financial implications of the Church’s current practices. Is it time to end the practice of holding General Synod in the top hotels of Canada’s most expensive cities? This alone contributes to a disparity in access, particularly for those diocese or delegates who have fewer financial resources. Delegates have also enquired about increasing the diversity of General Synod, and have asked for translation of General Synod and COGS materials into Indigenous languages.
The Governance Working Group will respond to Resolution C005 by bringing forward specific proposals at the March 2021 meeting of COGS. TAP
