Good evening. I’m here a little early to stake out my position; say a prayer or two for an aching hand – far too much of this blogging malarky! 
A185 Revised Voting Requirement for Resolutions A186 and A187
That resolutions A186 and A187 be deemed to have been carried only if they receive the affirmative votes of sixty percent of the members of each Order present and voting, and if a vote by dioceses is requested, only if they receive the affirmative votes of sixty percent of the dioceses whose votes are counted.
Not sure of the revision yet.
Chancellors opinion that this should be done by Canon. CoGS adopted for this motion, chancellor supported this decision in the end.
Revision is that we must suspend the rules of order, some complicated procedural thing to make this happen properly. This to enable A185 to be debated.
Requires 2/3.
Point of Order James Robinson Dio Calgary. Request formal ruling on whether this will becided by resolution or by canon. Referred to assessors. Not sure of significance. Assessors – our view point raised is not a point of order – point of process. Ah, right, hmm?
Requires 2/3 non-debatable (this is the motion that rule of order be suspended to allow A185 to be voted). C/L 80-20% in favour B almost all in favour.
Now we are onto A185 itself.
We have an amendment to this resolution. Delete 60% with 2/3 and add ‘two successive general synods’.
Mover is speaking in favour of amendment….want to raise the bar on this. Seconder Sheila Vanderputten…..concern for seriousness of the matter. Tumultuous times in Church, two different sides, chasm between. “Should’ not be a communion breaking issue, however it is.
Debating Amendment.
Dio Algoma (Bp Ron Ferris). Need to achieve constitutional clarity. should proceed by Canon, because of doctrinal issue.
Dio Algoma. Supporting this amendment, missed some of that
Dio Moosonee? (Bp ?). In effect defeats motion and turns it back to Canon. Thought is that if this is Canon it will not pass – will then not be possible to maintain discipline. Division will be even deeper. Hence this alternative.
Dio Yukon (Lee). Speaking in favour of the amendment. Need this for clarity.
Dio ? Need to get a grip on this.
Dio Niagra. Find conversation very sad. World is looking to us for leadership. We need this conversation, don’t need amendment, this is out of fear.
Dio Ruperts Land (Matthew). Need to act now.
Dio Calgary (Gene Packwood). Support amendment, serious error to ignore advice of HoB (doctrine of our church does not clearly allow further action). Valuable to menain in communion.
Dio Kootenay. Mind and heart changed, now prepared to support the amendment.
Dio Calgary (James Robinson). CoGS member, in favour of this being decided by Canon. No precedence for 60%. 2/3 is there to stop us tearing ourselves apart.
Point of Order – Colin Johnson Dio Toronto, 2/3 not normal route with diocesan involvement for Canon.
Mover speaks again…bit of history, break my heart if we have train wreck here.
Question called. Calls for simple majority both houses – voting on amendment.
C/L – will do this by counting, though looks opposed to amendment……failed
B also done by counting……….failed
Amendment therefore fails overall.
Back to the original motion.
Debating motion
Dio New West Richard Leggett. Speaking against motion – always vote against motion to suspend rule of order. Should be 50% or 2/3.
Dio Montreal. Speaking against motion – same sort of concerns. Existing rules good enough.
Can ForcesBp ? – Speaking against, have existing rules we use. We are just passing enabling motions, nothing will happen tomorrow, diocese would have to vote for it too.
Dio Toronto. Speaking in favour. Need to say this with some authority, to say clearly. Need to do something, this issue is not going away.
Call for the question.
Point of privilege – time of prayer first please.
NB: From our point of view at this point we want this to pass otherwise (we think) it’ll be back to 50% to pass SSB motions…..it’s very tight.
Question asked for number of votes.
Another question again…bit of dissention and confusion here…..
C/L…we will need to count this…….failed 143/105
B……..carried 30/11
Point of order – dont understand procedure…apparently this is a procedural motion that requires 2/3 vote.
Another question…shouldn’t be asking questions in the middle of the vote. More dissent…..
This is beyond confusing…..now the Abp is vexed…..
I think…..that A185 just failed and that we are back to 50%, but nobody seems to be too clear on this one…….
We have resolution that A186 is by secret ballot……motion defeated.
A186 Blessing of Same Sex Unions – Core Doctrine of ACC
That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of The Anglican Church of Canada.
Currently speaking to this, I’ll catch up…amendment suggested ‘consistant’ to ‘not in conflict’. Is this friendly amendment? Yes. Think therefore it is included.
Speaker ? against motion.
Dio Algoma Ron Ferris. Motion of referral. Shouldn’t do this in 3 min bells. Should refer to theological commission….this one is going to vote, simple majority……stand for count…..
Bishops……in favour 21/16
Clergy Laity……opposed 95/150
Motion of referral fails
Don’cha just love Church politics?
Back to debating the motion. Missed some of the speakers, playing catch-up now.
Speaker ? Opposed.
Dio Calendonia Henry Dunbar. Speaking against motion – beleive it is in conflict with core doctrine. Jesus dealt with things compassionately but directly. Cannot agree with this
Dio Montreal (Chris) Want to be faithful to themes of love in scripture. Will be voting against? Doesn’t matter which way we vote Christians will die. Please a time of prayer on this.
Bp Caledonia. Perplexed as bishop, determine mind of God at Synod. Sense a willingness not to hear the word of God – i.e. through Lambeth conference, by theological commission, by theologians. Not just be passion. Is our faith anchored in more than just emotion?
Dio Montreal.. Releif that this was not referred. We are not making decisions for dioceses. Make this decision now. Are we ready for this as Church? Many of us including me voting for this. Vote our concience.
Dissent now. Motion that debate be closed. Moved and seconded, no debate. 2/3 majority so to do in both houses.
C/L fails
B fails
Carry on with debate.
Abp suspending debate.
Dio Niagra – motion to continue debate – change agenda so to do. Putting to house, 2/3 majority required. Motion failed.
12 more speakers to go tomorrow. We are not going to decide this issue today, sorry folks.
Confirmation, the SSB will be decided by a simple majority, making it more likely that they will pass. The question may well be what the bishops do, can they get 50% of bishops? It is not over until it is over…..more Anglican fun and games tomorrow…….
I understood at the start that it was to be 60% to pass the CoGS resolutions……the 66% was to amend a motion……again, confusion seems to be the order and it appears that the chair (Primate) doesn’t seem concerned about any of it…..
[...] Yikes. The resolution to require sixty percent to pass the Same Sex Blessing resolution fails. Final vote to be tomorrow. [...]
Kendall, is 21-18 for referral a typo or a correction to the 21-16 reported above? In either case, I agree that this might possibly be a useful indicator of how the bishops will line up on the main question.
I believe the bishops voted 21 to 18
60% or 50%, it doesn’t matter. The Lutherans defeated a same sex motion by 200 to 181, but that doesn’t matter either. Some might see the Lutheran result as encouraging, but is it? Nearly half the delegates have abandoned the authority of Scripture and the faith once delivered to the saints, to “feelings” and subjective opinion. Whichever way the vote goes tomorrow, the same may be said of the ACC. Thank God for the faithful remnant. Thank God that He will not allow His true Church to die.
#35 -m Mark Johnson
This is a blog. And a live blog at that. Father Harmon is asking questions of the people who are commenting or may happen to know. It is what these things are for.
This is madness. How can they decide, first of all, that this is a matter of doctrine, and then decide that this is something that can be concluded by a simple majority one-time floor vote? And by means of… Robert’s Rules of Order?
This can’t be the way that we’re supposed to discern the Spirit and interpret the Scriptures. If it passes this way, it will leave a bad taste in the mouth of lots of people. The very idea that matters of doctrine can be decided by a simple majority floor vote of whoever volunteers to go to a conference…
Jordan, I totally agree………….
But no one can argue that they did not try – there was a motion to have the issue decided as canonical at 2/3 of all houses in two synods, then a motion to require at least 60% in all houses and both were defeated. To all outward appearances we have insisted on a simple majority vote.
My hope is that all the delegates will be free to go along to worship and receive communion tomorrow morning and so be prepared before God to cast their vote……. and I pray God they realise how very important is their vote; May He who created them ‘male and female’ [ Gen 2. 24 ] be changing hearts , lives and minds as they worship Him!
John K, you said of the Lutherans that “Nearly half the delegates have abandoned the authority of Scripture and the faith once delivered to the saints”. Well, let me tell you, they haven’t abandoned the authority of Scripture or their faith, just as we who are what you would probably call liberal haven’t either.
We love Jesus as our Saviour, we worship God as our Lord, we believe in the Bible as God’s Word to us. And we live faithful lives.
Is it so easy to denigrate the faith of others instead of respecting the fact that their faith has led them in a different direction than yours? Jesus said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” He also warned to examine the log in your own eye before you look for motes in others’ eyes.
So please remember that we take our faith every bit as seriously, deeply, and passionately as you do. We love the Lord every bit as much as you do. We follow Jesus and his Word as closely.
And don’t judge. Leave that up to God.
Thanks for this account of the evening session…I tuned into the live feed on anglican.ca too late and had no idea what had, or hadn’t be decided this evening. In prayer…
+57 Jordan. You sound surprised and I have no idea why. Your mother the Anglican Church whether in Canada or the USA has gone mad. Period. It has been coming on for some time. Surely you have noticed.
If I accept homosexual behaviour as sacred and holy then I would have to turn my back on my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. I would have to say to him that His death upon the cross as the atonement for all sins was not enough to release His grace to transform all the desires and behaviours which are not of him. If you love me you will obey my commandments.
I pray for clarity tomorrow.
I’ll have to back Gillian up on this one #61
I have long been uncomfortable with the “us” and “them” mentality of many of the people with whom I have interacted on this issue, both liberal and conservative. There seems little chance that we are all right, but that doesn’t mean the “other side” is evil or heretic or fundamentalist or homophobic or any of the other terrible things we’ve all been called. [called each other] When I have heard my peers talk about “them” I can’t help but wonder what a similar group in another gathering is saying about me at that very moment.
“They” don’t seem to see some things the way “we” do, and we think they are mislead. Some things are minor and we can ignore the difference or live with/around it. Some things are harder to ignore.
I am absolutely astonished at how the synod has been abused! I was baptised 7 months ago (age 46) and am staggered by what is going on… I choose to follow Christ, not the whims of our culture.
I will be praying through the night that scripture still means something in the ACC.
Peace be with you all.
More prayers have been posted at Lent & Beyond (http://lent.classicalanglican.net/).
I agree with #57 that this is so unGodly. Before live blogs we did not know what was going on but now we do – if ever there was a Spirit of Confusion present it would have to be here at this Synod.
I’ve never participated in a live blog before and feel like I’ve shared the day with all of you right here in my living room. But it’s late now in Ontario, so I’ll toddle off to bed. You can stay up a while longer if you’d like. The couch pulls out and there are extra pillows and blankets in the closet. I’ll leave the light on in the hall.
See you tomorrow.
God Bless.
Jude writes:
It doesn’t mean the other side are evil or heretic
Sorry – it does mean precisely this. And also, racist.
My name is Dean Sewap from Cree Pelican, the Diocese of Saskatchewan. If this is passed I would feel that to be faithful in my walk with Jesus, I would need to leave the Anglican Church.
The question for the ACC is a very simply one: do they love Jesus and their brothers and sisters who are First Nations or Africans – or are they racist heretics? I wish wholeheartedly the choice was not that simple: but it is.
Remeber folks what I said about Sinner. Now, I’m off until tomorrow…
[...] what follows, I rely on the amazing and dogged work of Peter, who blogged the afternoon session in detail at Anglican Essentials [...]
70 James, Why did the bishops vote down 66% but not 60%. If they want to refer it, you’d think that they would hold to the highest possible standard if the referal failed? Also, it seems that the simple majority of Bishops can stop this motion in its tracks , as they have been stopped at least twice tonight. Pax
I’m so confused.
When they voted to accept the St. Micheal Report, didn’t that mean that they accept it as doctrine? Doesn’t that require 66.6? Or was that just they accept it as being submitted, but not meaning anything?
Let us pray that the spirit of confusion that was there tonight will be bound tommorrow.
Having followed this debate for over 6 years (long ago concluding civil unions in a democractic society is reasonable), talked, studied, prayed for guidance, and being unconvinced by ssb arguments…now, regardless of the vote, I think my family and I will leave the church. If defeated, it will keep coming back. Ultra liberal Anglicans love meetings, synods, process etc.. as long as it is bending their direction.
This is just a symbol of a deeper problem in the church which seems indistinguishable often from Unitarianism.
Rather heavy hearted after being loyal, active, life long Anglicans. Our whole family feels the same way. Of course being in NW makes it more difficult.
Thanks for the blog.
The blessing of same-sex unions is going to be passed today or in 2010. It will be no surprise to me. ACC has been on decline since 1966. Most Anglicans don’t study the Bible as God’s Word. ACC may die, but God is eternal.
This morning (Sunday) after rising, I opened my Bible at random and asked, “Lord, let my eyes fall on your Word for today”. The following is where it opened and my eyes fell on V.14.
Ephesians 4:13-15
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
Isn’t this interesting. Perhaps there is a message in here for the House of Bishops…..I find it exceptionally interesting how, now, all of a sudden, it looks like the Bishops can make this decision with a 50%+1 vote……incredible.
Oh well, like they say, “it ain’t over til the fat lady sings”. She will sing on this day, but what will be the song….one of joy or one of lamenting……. May The Holy Spirit truly infill those who are fence sitting today.
I didn’t sleep very well last night. If GS passes the motion to bless same-sex unions, it will be a very sad day for all of us.