Picking up a very good question asked in a comment responding to my post of a few days ago, If To Lose One Vicar is Careless, To Lose Two is What?, I offer my response as a separate post here (slightly redacted to shift genre from 'comment' to 'post'):
The question asked is this:
"If a majority of the Church decided to adopt Arianism in place of Trinitarianism;would you be happy to accept that stance?"
No, I would not be happy, is my general response to the question.
But my points of reflection if that were the majority wish would be:
(1) Am I required to adhere to Arianism as a licensed clergyperson?
(2) Is the will of the majority of the current church able to override the fundamentals of the constitution?
(3) Am I called as a Trinitarian to remain in this changed-and-changing church to bear witness to Arian Anglicans?
On analogy with Motion 30 I suggest that questions 1 and 2 are currently unanswered; and question 3 is a matter for continuing personal prayer.
But the vital 4th question, analogously speaking is this:
(4) Is a divide over the blessing of same sex partnerships a matter with the same clarity as the divide between Arianism and Trinitarianism?
As Bosco Peters points out [here], "It is unhelpful and erroneous to state, without qualification, that the Bible is clear that all same-sex relationships are sinful. The concept of homosexual orientation as exclusive, permanent, and unchosen, for example, is a relatively new understanding."
As long as a majority of Anglicans in our church do not see an analogy re clarity between Arianism/Trinitarianism and clarity between blessing SSP/not blessing SSP, then constant reference to the constitution of ACANZP and the 1928 Empowering Act as prohibiting Motion 30's charting of a series of possible ways forward for a divided church is undermined.
(Added note to original comment: My presupposition, incidentally, is that a majority in our church would not see the clarity that some critics of Motion 30 see, namely that the Scripture and tradition of our church prohibit blessing of, even praying for couples in lifelong, faithful, loving same sex partnerships. That is, our church could be categorised into those who are clearly for and clearly against such prayerful support and those who are uncertain and wish to not shut down ongoing reflection on this matter).
It might be more helpful to ask how our church, in keeping with its constitution and the 1928 Act is going to be inclusive of diverse commitments re responses to people in same sex partnerships.
The overwhelming approach of our church over decades now has been to find a way to stay together rather than to divide. Repeated suggestions that those on the liberal end of the diversity should leave to form a new church with a constitution which reflects their viewpoints is a bold challenge which will cut no ice with any legal tribunal opponents of Motion 30 care to take these matters to.
More constructive is to find a way forward. That, of course, is precisely what Motion 30 seeks to do.