Synod Rejects Report (Press, 11 October 1980)

At the opening of the Christchurch Anglican Synod's annual meeting on 11 October 1980, an attempt to have a report on homosexuality rewritten was unsuccessful. A petition signed by 306 individuals from 17 parishes advocating for the complete abolition of the report did not progress to the discussion stage. The Synod, by a narrow voice vote, decided not to accept the petition for further consideration. The Rev. D. T. Manning, who chaired the action group that circulated the petition, argued that the report presented a one-sided view that promoted an anti-traditional Christian perspective, suggesting that homosexuality should be seen as an acceptable Christian stance. Manning criticised the report for inadequately addressing the subject, claiming it overlooked the potential for divine healing and transformation in people's lives. He further claimed the report was imbalanced in its scriptural references, bibliography, and pastoral guidance. While copies of the petition were distributed to all parishes in Christchurch, many congregations reportedly informed their members that the petition was not being circulated. Some parishes even returned the petition instead of supporting it. Those wishing to sign had to seek out other parishes to do so. Manning acknowledged that he did not anticipate the Synod would accept the petition; however, the primary goal was to ensure that alternative viewpoints were officially recognised within the diocese. Some Synod delegates expressed surprise that the Bishop of Christchurch, Rt Rev. W. A. Pyatt, did not call for a vote division regarding the petition's acceptance. In response to the petition's rejection, two members of the action committee planned to present motions that would address the report. These motions aimed to propose four articles that articulated opposing viewpoints to those contained in the diocesan committee's report. The Synod is also expected to acknowledge that a notable number of practising Anglican communicants were denied the chance to engage in open discussion and express opinions that contradicted the committee’s conclusions on homosexuality.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand