General Synod afternoon session 24/6/07

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.

Debate closed

C/L Failed
B Failed

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:


Amendment D
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

Motion Fails

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.

This entry was posted in ACoC General Synod 2007. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to General Synod afternoon session 24/6/07

  1. Peter O says:

    The video feed is looking good at the moment – can you do another plug for the chatroom? http://www.peter-ould.net/chat-room/
    Thanks

  2. Pauline says:

    Can Gene take over for awhile – or maybe he is busy voting – up and down, up and down.

  3. BabyBue says:

    Has there been a listing of how each bishop voted on 186?

  4. Gerry O'Brien says:

    I agree with BabyBue, is it possible to get a list of how each bishop voted on 186?

  5. Peter says:

    Not that I know of…

  6. 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.

  7. Peter says:

    Going to copy you intgo the text Joe…

  8. chris nojonen says:

    Lutherans don’t have “canons”, but Rev. Susan Johnson has been one of the big guns in the eastern synod (assistant to the bishop)and is probably the most liberal choice the Lutherans could have made – too bad!

  9. Sinner says:

    Abp Andrew just popped over to see us and mentioned that somebody has said SSB has passed…..calling it misinformation

    You don’t get it! Saying SSB’s is consistent with creadal doctrine is actually the most important vote! It means with absolute certainly the church will authorise blessings sooner or later: it means with absolute clarity the Church has departed from Christianity, has rejected Lambeth 1.10 and has spat in the face of its first nations members. In spite of all their fancy words, the ACC are shown to be a group of white liberal racists after. And, really, noone is surprised.

  10. James says:

    James, Let’s pause #9. I would prefer to say that “not in conflict with the creeds” is next to meaningless. The creeds don’t mention biblical sexual ethics at all, (raping someone is not in conflict with the creeds either ! ). I hope someone out there asks them if it is in conflict with biblical sexual ethics etc. , then we’d see their real statement even though we’ve seen it on an ambiguous motion which should have been defeated hands down on principle even if the creeds don’t mention sexual ethics.

  11. Dave says:

    BTW Bishop Spence of Niagara spoke in favour in as close to a real stand as he ever will.

  12. Dave says:

    Peter; re: (and she knows how?)Bless you for levity in this time of trial! I can imagine God saying ” Ya…that’s for me to know along with numbering every hair on your head”

  13. Wil+ says:

    A voice of reason from New West.

  14. Dave says:

    Interesting tact to take: Pass it so we can get on with the “work of the church”. What about “Oppose it so we can get on with the work of The Lord”?

  15. Dave says:

    What? So we are now not allowed to see those at the microphones…hmmm

  16. fijimom says:

    Whatever happeded to Bless the sinner not the sin?

  17. Gerry O'Brien says:

    fijimom – perhaps you mean Love the Sinner not the sin!

  18. Dave says:

    Dear fijimom: The yes side has intentionally blurred the two together.

  19. Wil+ says:

    fiji…
    In conversations will many on the pro side these past months, they don’t believe its possible. They believe its all or nothing and no matter how hard we tried to explain otherwise they wouldn’t buy it.

  20. Chris Collin says:

    My rural Ottawa connect speed is too slow for the video. Is there anywhere to get an audio only feed? Even the audio is not working for me :(

  21. Dave says:

    There’s the fallback! “A vote of no means a vote of not now”

  22. fijimom says:

    Gerry O – yes, have it your way

  23. Gerry O'Brien says:

    Lawson has been at this for decades…..

  24. Peter, just dropping in to let you know I’m praying for you and the entire situation there. Not sure I understand what’s happening though, but I’m trying to figure it out! :-)
    May The Lord be with you and His will be done!,

  25. Dave says:

    Chris: I just e-mailed the anglican tech support and they said
    Hello

    Sorry, we do not have that capability.

    Yours truly,

    Brian Bukowski

  26. Toral says:

    Since we have already affimed SSU consistant with doctrine, then failing to pass an affirming motion for local option would possibly be moot?

    No. It’s been affirmed to be not inconsistent with core doctrine in a creedal sense. Neither is the statement “Stealing is good.” But that does not authorize services blessing thievery.

  27. fijimom says:

    What happens if this rexolution is defeated?

  28. Dave says:

    Basically, the last speaker said the motion should pass because the Dioceses are now running the ACC.

  29. Deanne says:

    Did anyone catch the name of the last speaker from the Diocese of Niagara? I just got in and read Peter’s update but there was no name. I’d like to know who said “…our diocese is ready…my parish is ready…” I’m thinking Lynne Corfield???

  30. Gill says:

    Someone please note how the Bishops are voting

  31. John K says:

    Interesting that Hutchison almost skipped over Clergy opposed. It that telling?

  32. John K says:

    #29 Deanne, it was a male priest.

  33. Dave says:

    Deanne: It was Stephen Hopkins. No surprise there.

  34. Deanne says:

    Ahhh, from St. Christopher’s.

    Thanks John & Dave.

  35. Dave says:

    So now we go around for another four years….

  36. Jude says:

    Defeated – barely. Now what?

  37. Deanne says:

    Sorry for needing to play catch up but was that a “no” to local option?

  38. Dave says:

    Don’t get me wrong. I am not in favour at all. I just wish we could have had a motion to drop the whole thing once and for all just as passing this would have ended it once and for all.

  39. Jude says:

    Yes, the local option motion was defeated by one bishop.

  40. Deanne says:

    (FYI- in #37 I was referring to the voting, not anyone’s post)

  41. Malachy Egan says:

    Interesting Peter…

    In particular Matthews flip flop: is it a stalling tactic that is deliberate? There has been so mush obfuscation on this issue.

  42. Peter says:

    “But that does not authorize services blessing thievery.” But neither does it deny? Just adds to the confusion.

  43. James says:

    I am not a canonist but do have an LL.B. and some synod experience.

    My guess is that the motion on doctrine rendered the succeeding motion moot, since any vote on SSB in a diocesan synod would no longer be ultra vires the diocese, because it would no longer be a diocesan determination affecting doctrine. The succeeding motion in its phrasing (“affirm”) was clarifcatory in its phrasing rather than establishing any rights or powers inand of itself.

  44. Jude says:

    Peter,
    I also feel the A187 was not really necessary after the passing of A186. If it’s not inconsistent with the doctrine of the church, what is stopping us from doing it?
    In Niagara I’m pretty sure we’ll be doing this all again in November (our synod). Bishop Ralph and Steve Hopkins made it pretty clear that they think Niagara is ready. Well, 67.7% of Niagara, anyway.

  45. Is this moot. Well not yet. ACC will no doubt argue that whilst it reserves the right to change its mind in future it has listened to the voice of the Anglican Communion (if only just) and chosen not to go ahead. The fact on the ground is that SSBs (except in the 8 NW parishes) have NOT been authorised, which at least gives some breathing space. Let us hope it is space for the Holy Spirit to move.

  46. fijimom says:

    Peter it seems that the clouds of confusion are getting thicker. It would seem that some would allow that this outcome will allow them more time to “convert” the “conservatives”.

  47. Steve says:

    Best for all to be careful here, the no side won a very hollow victory. Overall it carried 160 to 133. It being defeated by 2 votes in the house of Bishops will not sit well when it passed in 2 other houses. Look to see our governance structure changed to gut the power of the Bishops and instill some respect for a democratic process.

  48. Jude says:

    RE #45 – still to be heard B001
    Blessing couples in covenanted same-sex unions
    Notwithstanding any decisions taken by this its 2007 Synod, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada affirms that the present practice of the Synod and Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in authorizing the blessings of covenanted same-sex unions in eight (8) Parishes of that Diocese shall continue in the Diocese of New Westminster pending further resolution by General Synod.

  49. Malachy Egan says:

    Fred Hiltz, the great professional fundraiser, better get straight to work because there will be more bureacacy in the next four years and more legal wrangling than anyone can imagine. And that means no money for Jesus Program, minimum possible for Residential Schools victims… You get the picture!

  50. John K says:

    There must have been at least two bishops who changed fro “Yes” to “No”. Who was the other one. Thanks be to God for them both, even if it only postpones things.

  51. Pauline says:

    I could have handled it either way, but now the subject is in the open and it can be discussed. In our Diocese many didn’t know anything about it until about 4 weeks ago, even though we have been trying to bring it up for discussion. Now everyone knows and we can plan for the future. I predict many Parishes will still go into the Network and all that will become known. The liveblog and General Synod streaming has changed the face of the ACC. No more secrecy.

  52. I think there is absolutely no confusion about these two motions passing (in one case) and failing (in the other). The bishops did not “flip flop”. There is a majority opinion that SSU are not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada. The voices which suggested, however, that it would be inadvisable to proceed further given the divisions within the ACC on the level of its parishes and dioceses was clearly heard by a bishop or two (and we don’t know whether there was only a single bishop moving from one perceived position to another – the dynamism may have been larger than that). I have followed the debate online most of the evening (here in Scotland) and was tremendously proud to be a Canadian today. I was proud of those clergy who moved towards the clear favourite of the lay house. It did not represent a lack of zeal or principle on their part. We understand these processes to be dynamic and that surprises are to be expected. So much of the division in our church has been as a result of ‘clergy in caucus’ – and a movement within the house of the laity towards a particular candidate should be remarkable. The idea that we crystalise our entrenched positions and defend them to the last man standing is alien to Canadian General Synods – alien (in my experience) to electoral synods within the Canadian church. We do not like to fight. Gratuitous strife is not our way. Oh, and btw, the request by one of the commentators above for a list of bishops and how they voted seems a terrible thing. Given the sort of debate we have witnessed today – the kindness and condescension demostrated – the idea that such could be turned into a ‘name and shame’ list by an American blogger seems unfortunate – albeit perhaps quite typical.

    Robert Warren
    Canadian abroad
    Diocese of Edinburgh

  53. Jude says:

    fijimom – works both ways, doesn’t it?

  54. Deanne says:

    I’m really confused at what has been passed and what has been defeated.

  55. Andrew Goddard says:

    Is B001 still going to be voted on? Is it not likely this will pass if allowed to be voted on or will the HOB block this too?

    BE IT RESOLVED:

    Notwithstanding any decisions taken by this its 2007 Synod, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada affirms that the present practice of the Synod and Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in authorizing the blessings of covenanted same-sex unions in eight (8) Parishes of that Diocese shall continue in the Diocese of New Westminster pending further resolution by General Synod.

  56. fijimom says:

    Yes Jude. Glad you caught it.

  57. Richard says:

    If Deanne is confused one can’t help wondering how many others who voted, both lay & clergy, might have been confused as to exactly what they were voting for !

  58. fijimom says:

    Re #52 I appreciate your comments. They make things much clearer.

  59. Jonathan says:

    Hi there all,

    I was sitting in the room as the vote was taken. There is a real divide in this church. I believe that the only way forward will be to look at have parallel jurisdictions in North America. I think that those who believe that same sex blessings are what we are called to by God hold this position with great commitment. I categorcially disagree with their theological reasoning but I know they hold their position with as much commitment and belief as I hold to mine. A position that many who read this blog also hold.

    I believe that the best way forward is to agree that we see this differently and always will. I look forward to seeing what will come out of the Covenant. Will this allow us a way forward where we can respect each other as we agree to disagree?

    I am quoting from Rowan William’s letter of June 27th 2006:
    “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion”

    The idea of a ‘covenant’ between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an ‘opt-in’ matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were ‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other ‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example.

    I look forward to seeing how this will play out in the days to come.
    Jonathan

  60. Pageantmaster says:

    Thank you so much Peter.
    God Bless.

  61. Malachy Egan says:

    Re: #52 Your perspective is valid, but only in a perfect world. However you are supporting the ‘old school [boys]‘ way of dealing with things in secret!
    Again: there are way, way better things to spend charitable dollars on than this. It would not surprise me if all this CCRA, who watch these things carefully because goverment needs more money too, do not start placing restrictions upon the churches as to what is ‘charitable’ and what is just the cost of doing business.

  62. Gill says:

    Re#52. First I am not an American blogger but a Canadian via England who has absolutley no idea how my bishop stands. I would suggest that I am not the only Anglican who does not know how their Bishop stands and would like to know. I do not think that it is ‘a name and shame list”, but an honest question in a time of personal turmoil, which might lead to leaving the Anglican Church, church that we chose to join forty years ago. I found your comment very hurtful.

  63. Brian says:

    I will be looking for some guidance and direction from Canon Charlie Masters and Bishop Don Harvey as I determine my future within the Anglican Church of Canada. I am glad A187 failed, however, it saddens me that A 186 passed. If the Diocese of New West is allowed to continue Blessing Same Sex couples and other Dioceses decide to move in this direction then it will be inevitable that the Primates will have suspend our membership in the Anglican Communion. If this happens, I will be forced to move to a branch of the Anglican family which is still in full communion with the majority of the world-wide Anglican Communion.

    To Jesus be glory and dominion now and always. Let us remember when Canada was officially named by Queen Victoria as the Dominion of Canada it was based on the Psalm that God should have dominion from sea unto sea. Our secular governments and now our church is trying to abate this by going against the will of God as contained in Holy Scripture.

    Let us fall on our knees and repent and return unto the Lord our God and our Saviour. Amen.

  64. Malachy Egan says:

    #59 Jonathon

    Yes sir, on the money!

  65. Deanne says:

    Brian,

    You’re not alone. We are in the same boat.
    Looking forward to hearing what Charlie has to say on Monday. Wall, well…he’s speaking too. ;)

  66. Dave says:

    I have to agree with Jonathan (59). The decision can be put off over and over again but the fact remains that we have a church divided and I really don’t see once side ever convincing the other to change. Both believe thay are right, so I believe we need to accept that and find a way to move on. However, it saddens me that there are so many interpretations of God’s word. If we call can’t agree on the word, how can we ever agree on anything? I also question the synod process in which such an important decision can be made by so few. Will the ultimate decision reflect the wishes of the 1000s of Anglicans who are not there to be heard?

    DB

  67. Liz says:

    Sadly, no, it will not. But we need to find a way to move forward from this Synod even if it is to agree to disagree on the Word. I am praying for some clarity to be given on these motions and how they will affect the life of the church before the end of this Synod. We need to know so we can prayerfully discern what the next step is for all of us.

  68. Pingback: Day Six - News 6.1 « CaNN: General Synod 2007

  69. Pingback: Magic Statistics - “I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.” — Robertson Davies » SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway

  70. Pingback: Local Option Checked at the Brink: General Synod 2007 « GENEralities:

  71. Angliken says:

    Ref. #69 and similar comments:
    “… Resolution A187 was defeated—but, no doubt, it or something very similar will be offered at General Synod 2010.” ——

    I’d be surprised if it takes until 2010. Given the new Primate’s well documented views and the general trends within the ACC I would expect a move to get CoGS to provide a policy / procedure that would allow diocesan bishops to grant permission for the blessing of Same Sex relationships/unions on a case by case basis or even on a parish by parish basis before 2010 on the grounds that GS 2007 A186 has determined that doing so is “… not inconsistent with core doctrine …” and it is “an urgent matter of pastoral care” etc. etc. Indeed I have already picked up on such comments and I’m sure others have as well.

    I only hope this increasingly “divided house” finds a way to resolve or settle its differences without resorting to the courts as we have seen in the U.S. That way lies total destruction given the smaller resources of Canada in general. May God give us grace to go our separate ways (if we must) with true mutual love … or at least respect and understanding … without acrimoniously striving to strip congregations and communities of property and resources etc. etc. That way, perhaps in some not too distant future, there may be healing and reconciliation. However, the more acrimonious this currently irreconcilable division is allowed to become the less likely there will be healing or reconciliation in any near future. This is made difficult, however, by the way both sides seek to claim the moral high ground by villifying the other side. Thankfully, so far, in the video news media I’ve seen, it has been the pro SSB spokes people who have been most guilty of this, but I’ve heard conservatives do the same in the past.

    I guess it’s up to the Bishops, who are clearly divided into three ‘camps’ (some strongly ‘pro’, some clearly ‘contra’, and a few clearly waffling back and forth), and to the international Primates (who will need to resolve the implications of the inconsitency of the way the votes went on A186/A187), and to the Network/Common Cause leadership (who will need to consult with the Primates). This will all take time.

    I am not sure whether the historic pattern of Canadian diplomacy leaves me hopeful or whether the growing new tendency toward administrative centralisation and liberal facism (two unrelated trends) leaves me filled with despair. I guess only time will tell.

    As others have said, may God have mercy on us. How many of you took note of the BAS collect and readings for this Sunday (Proper 12 year C — BAS p. 363/364)? I further wonder how many have wondered about the implications of 1Kings 19:15-18 for our generation? This Sunday I combined these readings with Nehemiah chapter 1 in my sermon. O Lord, forgive us, we have sinned. May all the exiles be allowed to come home in the fullness of Your time.

  72. Sinner says:

    The global south primates most certainly will take notice! This resolution means nothing! absolutely nothing: any number of priests and bishops wil now bless whoever and whatever they please in any number of combinations – and there can be no discipline and enforcement because 186 declares that gay blessings are not heresy – and that the teaching of 5000 years of Christianity, the words of the Gospel, of Jesus himself, the judgement of Lambeth 1.10, and the voices of the first-nations peoples and the Global South are the heretics!

    Yesterdays vote on 186 is the only one that matters: by that vote ACCanada have removed themselves from the Anglican Commnion and Christ.

  73. James says:

    Again, A186 means nothing technically. Just an observation that creeds don’t talk about sexual ethics. Its danger is in its interpretation and how it will be abused. Encourage everyone to give no power to the meaning of A186 and to show its mis-interpretation for the error that it would be.

  74. Jonathan says:

    Hi there Andrew G.

    We miss here in Winnipeg. Thanks so much for the wodnerful insights and encouragement you gave to us last week when you were with us prior to Synod and then until Thursday. You were a gift to us all.

    Regarding B001. It has been removed. Perhaps the Bishops spoke wiht Michael last evening and they encouraged him to think of what was best for the ACC. To debate and vote on this motion would have caused more confusion.

    The word about the Council of General Synod is that there are now between 12 and 15 theologically orthodox members elected. This is such a change from the last time when we had only two.

    Let us keep the focus and look for Essentials Canada to become ever more engaged. It has been great to be here in Winnipeg. For those f you reading this from accross the country, know that Essentials will beomce ever clearer in our mandate and mission.

    I look forward to how as we work together as a movement we see how the Holy Spirit directs us.

    It is great to be part of this and I thank God for all who have given so much of themselves to the Chruch and the cause that is at the heart of Essentials. This is to call the ACC back to its orthodox heritage.

    MAy it be so.

    Amen,

  75. Michael says:

    ACC is a sinking ship. For more than three years I have been telling my friends that there would be no winners in the homosexual debate. More study? more debate? more pain? more frustration? The end result will be the same; the ship is still sinking. May God help us all!

Leave a Reply