Good afternoon. We start again at 2pm. I will do my best to keep you updated but might need to slow down on all the details, getting pain in my hand (grumble, grumble, whinge whinge 😉 )
Abp Andrew just popped over to see us and mentioned that somebody has said SSB has passed…..calling it misinformation…..not that it’s easy even for Anglicans to get their heads around all this…..have spent significant time trying to expain to secular press what is going on here…..
Lutheran guy speaking…introducing Revd Canon Susan Johnson. Now speaking…committed to being parners….bless you. Bp Hiltz up now, standing with Susan (ps Bp Hiltz voted FOR A186 – no great surprises there).
Break in debate on A187.
Residential schools report.
Talking about agreements and healing funds. May only briefly summarise this one. This is all about the ACC liability for residential schools in the 50s/60s, major issue at the turn of the centuary. ACC liabilities now limited. Partnerships in healing for abuse. Truth and Reconcliation commission.
Delegate Rev Joeseph Walker just commented on this:
I find the timing of this presentation on aboriginal issues cruel with irony. It is well known that the native parishes are often among the most conservative. And yet it appears that once again the dominant eurocentric paradigm imposes its will on them.
One of the things which folks may not appreciate is that only very few of the native anglicans in Canada will make public speeches, declaring their positions. If it has been spoken once, it will not be spoken again (unlike our battle-weary rhetoric wars).
Sadly, one native priest I chatted with at lunch anticipates that over half of his congregation will leave. Their young people face great brokeness (suicide and addiction rates are alarming) and the church has failed to provide them with guidance on the issue of sexuality.
Now Qs on residential schools.
A187 Blessing of Same Sex Unions continued
That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions.
Abp Andrew admonishing us re time – 33 to speak – will take over an hour without amendments
Amendment remove ‘same sex unions’ replace with ‘civil same sex marriage’ (!) Current resolution is descriminatory apparently.
Abp Andrew – is this amendment or is it substantial change? Will seek advice. Assessors – amendment is in order.
Speaker ? Think this is premature – should take smaller step with SSB.
Dio Quebec. Does not support.
Dio Montreal. In favour, does not preclude marriage Canon.
(IMHO I do not *think* this will pass)
Dio Saskatoon – in favour
Speaker ? Against
Speaker ? Supports, nothing changes re local choice.
Debating original motion
Dio Niagara speaking
Missed some speakers, slow blog.
Bp Ferris. Speaking against. We would be voting an alternative juristiction for many folk who could not support, impared communion between dioceses, contrary to just about everything Anglican
Move new amendment ‘GS grant authority to any diocesan synod’. Friendly to clarify? Question to assessors. Amendment is in order. Affirm is better word, amendment withdrawn.
Steve Konig, Dio Calgary. Withdrawing his (different from previous amendment) amendment that provided that adequate provision is made by the diocesan synod for those clergy and/or parishes who do not agree with the way such authority is exercised. Apparently there is a revision to amendment? More confusion….
Now back to the original amendment, we are going for it….friendly amendment…accepted.
Back to revised motion:
That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions provided that adequate provision is made by the diocesan synod for those clergy and/or parishes who do not agree with the way such authority is exercised.
This is a safety valve amendment, sop to conservatives, personally don’t think it’s going to cut it.
More speakers, will catch up in a moment.
Dio Edmonton – member of PFLAG, speaking in favour. Her daughter was lesbian before she was born (and she knows how?)
Dio Fredricton. Reading BCP. Those coupled together other than how God does allow are not joined together by God. Judges Everyone did as he saw fit….were probably doing according to their concience…we need to submit concience to God.
Richard Leggett New West – Nobody here has monopoly on fidelity to God.
Back in one moment…
Dio Ruperts Land. Church blesses everything….RVs, weapons of war. God blesses not us. We are not doing work of Church while we are arguing this.
Dio NW John Oakes. Opposing motion, cannot support on theological grounds. Consider costs of taking this move. We will alienate conservative Anglicans (that’s not a bug, that’s a feature – ed). Think seriously on concequences.
Dio W Newfoundland John Paul Westin. Family, all are able to take car but only once we have concensus. Continue in conversation. Lutherans held back on this, so should we.
Dio Edmonton Steve London. Bonds of affection and trust severely strained. Deal with as entire communion. Do not act unilaterally.
Looking at motion put on screen, appears a little different. Will type:
That this General Synod affirm the authority and juristiction of any diocesan synod,
a) with the concurrance of the diocesan bishop, and
b) in a manner than respects the concience of the incumbant and the will of the parish,
to authorise the blessing of committed same sex unions
Said it was confusing earlier with all the different amendments flying about, but this is what we are debating.
Bp Miller – speaking against, concerned with how people will read this back in diocese. Notable, as this is a liberal voting bishop.
Dio Fredricton.. Holy apostolic church throughout the world. No = not now.
Some thoughts for you. I wonder, since the ACC passed the last motion A185, does it matter if this one should fail? Since we have already affimed SSU consistant with doctrine, then failing to pass an affirming motion for local option would possibly be moot? After all, failing to pass an affirmation is not the same as a deny – and A185 would provide diocese plenty of ammunition for a diocesan synod? Like I said, my speculation for your consideration, I’m no church lawyer so I may not understand the full ramifications.
Now, back to speakers.
Speaker ? Cart before horse.
Dio ? Patricia Bekker Vote no on resolution. Freedom in Christ. Local option = alternative juristictions.
Dio Kewaitin Larry Beardy? Missed this one, sorry.
Dio Niagara Our diocese is ready, my parish is ready. Talking about St Peter performing act of sacramental reality. Our gift to commuinion is ourselves.
Dio Arctic Ben Arreak. Not supporting. Didn’t get to the point unfortunately in the time.
Speaker ? We are not one on this issue. This motion is means we can continue to live together while seeking to remain in unity. Allows diocese to do pastoral care as they are called to do.
Speaker just made my point in speculation/thought above.
Think the question is being called.
Point of order (Dio Toronto I think). Would like to vote by orders – i.e. bishops, clergy, laity. Rules say order l-c-b. Six signatures collected, do not think this is open for debate.
Debate closed. Prayers for spirits leading. Voting.
Laity 78 / 59 Passed
Clergy 63 / 53 Passed
Bishops 19 / 21 Failed
FYI Victoria Matthews voted AGAINST this time.
Interesting….. The question still in my mind regarding speculation above – is this moot? Thoughts in comments welcome, if I can get a definite understanding
I’ll post it here.
I will be back in a while, other than presentations that I will not blog, there is no other business today.