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.
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
Can Gene take over for awhile – or maybe he is busy voting – up and down, up and down.
Has there been a listing of how each bishop voted on 186?
I agree with BabyBue, is it possible to get a list of how each bishop voted on 186?
Not that I know of…
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.
Going to copy you intgo the text Joe…
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!
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.
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.
BTW Bishop Spence of Niagara spoke in favour in as close to a real stand as he ever will.
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”
A voice of reason from New West.
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”?
What? So we are now not allowed to see those at the microphones…hmmm
Whatever happeded to Bless the sinner not the sin?
fijimom – perhaps you mean Love the Sinner not the sin!
Dear fijimom: The yes side has intentionally blurred the two together.
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.
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
There’s the fallback! “A vote of no means a vote of not now”
Gerry O – yes, have it your way
Lawson has been at this for decades…..
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!,
Chris: I just e-mailed the anglican tech support and they said
Hello
Sorry, we do not have that capability.
Yours truly,
Brian Bukowski
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.
What happens if this rexolution is defeated?
Basically, the last speaker said the motion should pass because the Dioceses are now running the ACC.
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???
Someone please note how the Bishops are voting
Interesting that Hutchison almost skipped over Clergy opposed. It that telling?
#29 Deanne, it was a male priest.
Deanne: It was Stephen Hopkins. No surprise there.
Ahhh, from St. Christopher’s.
Thanks John & Dave.
So now we go around for another four years….
Defeated – barely. Now what?
Sorry for needing to play catch up but was that a “no” to local option?
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.
Yes, the local option motion was defeated by one bishop.
(FYI- in #37 I was referring to the voting, not anyone’s post)
Interesting Peter…
In particular Matthews flip flop: is it a stalling tactic that is deliberate? There has been so mush obfuscation on this issue.
“But that does not authorize services blessing thievery.” But neither does it deny? Just adds to the confusion.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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!
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.