Good morning, again, on the penultimate day of Synod. I’ve just got the orders of service and it looks like SSB will be dealt with at 10.15 CET this morning. Right now we are in a Eucharistic service.
To be honest, I do not know how they are going to get all resolutions dealt with; there is a list as long as your arm of resolutions to be considered. It’s going to be a packed couple of days.
The other day I captured a video of the Zaccheaus Fellowship speaking at Essentials. Unfortunately, though ironically appropriate, I did not capture the voice for some reason. So once again Zaccheaus has no voice – sorry folks.
If I have the time I will summarise the high/lowlights of Synod for you, sometime after it is finished probably….
Two things for you: 1) The additional C motions (produced by delegates here) are not on the website – I have a hjard copy should we ever get that far (unlikely). 2) A187 has an amendment proposed by Steven Koning (Dio Calgary) adding the follwing words “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.”
The full resolution would then read:
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 basically a concience clause to A187, IMHO it would be treated as friendly and accepted. Doubtful it would make much difference at the end of the day though.
Peter Ould in the comments on this thread said he has a chat room set up here if you want an IM style conversation this morning. I may not have time to join you at the moment 
.
Oh, while thinking about other links, don’t forget the Prayer room here: http://prayerroom.7.forumer.com/. Terms and conditions differ from this blog, it’s for prayers and not open for dissenting opinion.
Service is finished, we now have 25 minutes or so before we are in session.
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.
NB: ‘Consistent’ may now be ‘not in conflict’ – think that amendment was regarded as friendly and passed, not sure though. Update: It is so amended.
Abp joking about confusion…want you to think about economy of words…..be breif…..lots of resolutions to complete. Reflect on the content, useful could be accomplished in 2 mins. House be willing to reduce 3 to 2 minutes. House says yes.
Ah, report from nomination committee….CoGS members….not a hope of me typing them in time.
Now 16 sspeakers on resolution
Dio Arctic David Parsons – Two doors ahead of us. Are you 100% sure that H.S. says yes? If 1% unsure, then please wait. Why would H.S. speak to others with different voice?
Dio Fredricton – Speaking against. Church is becoming part of society, no speaking about sin. Homosexual lifespan is reduced.
Dio Athabasca. Makes us think about what we believe. We do not agree. SSB is very closely related to marriage, convinced SSU is new and different in life of church. Onus is on what is new to convince. Cannot vote for motion.
Dio Calgary James Robinson. Speaking against, telling story.
Dio Calgary Richard LeSeur. Speaking in favour. Can find water in oasis, oasis is gift of God. Standing at an oasis right now, talking about oppressed people now, task is to welcome this community, know the blessedness of their relationship. Church understrand their mission.
Dio Ottowa Peter. Nothing that we decide this week will change people going to Church. We still have differences after this Synod. Stand in favour, not a major step, just an incremental step – discern spirit moving in church. G/L can we just say prayers with them. This is just a transitional step before marriage.
Dio Calgary Gene Packwood. Point of information – could a future synod reverse A186 at a single synod if this is passed? Answer – yes. Will come back over and over again if defeated or passed. Speaking against motion. We are taking a momentous step – removing this from Synod. Scripture about itching ears (thats going to leave a mark).
Dio ? Robin Thompson – Speaking in favour. We have done study. Should be talking about marriage.
Dio ? – Spirit of boldness not timidity. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. We are doing best we can to offer dignity and integrity. Scriptural references of homosexuality miss the mark…I am a sinner, remarried…..two bishops at myu reception
Dio Fredricton David Edwards. Stand as changed man – hoped we would make definitive decision, changed becasue think spirit is saying ‘wait’. Talking about Acts 10, but chapter 11 is important, Peter had to go back to elders to explain what is going on, elders accept what spirit is saying. Today looks like we are going to use worlds way not Gods way. Please bear with one another.
Dio Toronto Steven Peake. Speaking against, will alienate theological conservatives.
Dio ?. Call on the church to protect us. Many of my friends were killed. Speaking to order of bishops – please stand up with us, do not perpetuate injustice, can’t afford to wait more.
Dio NWest Neale Adams. If a majoirty c/l determine blessings, threat is letting this dispute fester (they’re focussing on the bishops).
Dio ? Nowhere do I see homosexuality is good.
Dio Caledonia. Support motion. Accept people as they are, talking about suicide. Need to get on with gods work.
Dio Niagra. Gays lesbians standing alone. We love you, but. Draw the circle wide, others are saying but. We have confimed integrity and sanctity. Put this in perspective, motion should pass quickly, don’t tie in knots, lets do Gods work.
Those are the 16 speakers.
Point of order. Make clear to synod – resoluition is A186. Need to make this clear.
New speaker – We are decerning whether or not to allow litergy to celebrate blessing that is already there. Can’t withold blessing, we will be blessed as a Church.
Hearing two other requests, calling for the question. No motion to close debate.
Steve Schuh New West. Does SSB conflict with core doctrine. Not mentioned anywhere in 39 articles, solemn declaration etc. Understands Bible does not mean same sex acts (rather rape and prostitution)
Speaker Abp York Do not send conflicting messages. Identity as Anhglican Church. Suggest surprised about H.S leading us comments.
Move debate closed.
Procedural motion, amendment put in. No, the move to close takes precedence.. takes 2/3…will do this by counting.
C/L 152/92 ?
B 21/19 Fails
Motion fails debate is still open.
Dio Ruperts Land. Think A186 may be in conflict with SMR. Move in procedural motion…..postpone consideration until 2010 for proper theological consideration. Need to discern spirit, therefore should postpone. Refocus on the theological question.
Motion is done by majority
B Passed 22/14
C/L Failed 122/128
Motion fails – very very close. An interesting shift on the C/L side – looks like some there are wavering?
More speakers
Dio Edmonton Joe Walker. Who will lead church? Do we have mechanism to determine what is or in not in conflict? Don’t think statemnt of doctrine will help G/L overseas. We are not Anglicans here but pentecostals – everything is of the spirit all at once.
Dio Kootney. Make friendly amendment. after ‘core doctrine’ put ‘in the sense of being non-creedal’. Movers do not understand intent, reluctant to change motion. Will come to a vote.
Point of order.Some procedural stuff.
Now debate on amendment.
Bp Ingham. Double negative – should be ‘in the sense of being creedal’. Considered a friendly amendment.
Amendment to amendment 
oh my goodness ‘(in the sense of being creedal)’. Moved and seconded as amendment to amendment – friendly amendment to amnedment, therefore the amendment to amendment is incorporated. Are you getting this?
Putting q on amendment – carried.
Voting on the amendment now.
Motion is done by majority
B Carried
C/L Carried
Bp Toronto Move amended motion be put to q.
B Carried
C/L Carried
This is it…..the motion is done by majority……prayers…..
C/L 152 / 97 Passed
B 21 / 19 Passed
Motion Carried
FYI Victoria Matthews stood in favour…
Lord have mercy upon us.
A187 Blessing of Same Sex Unions
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
Speaker ? talking now about deep division. (And this is a move of the spirit????). All about local option.
Dio Ottowa Garth Bulmer speaking in favour. Sees what we have just done as a new covenant with G/L.
Breaking for lunch.
NB: the problem with commenting here is that Askimet, the automatic spam system is classifying some comments as spam. I have despammed where I can. Please try not to be Anon with pwd anon@anon because Askimet finds you suspicious. I cannot change the settings sorry.
This is the final resolution that passed as A186:
That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of The Anglican Church of Canada.
NB: This came down to 1 bishop. If 1 bishop had gone the other way it would have been 20-20. None of us are quite sure at the moment what that would have meant.
Back after lunch now.
Is this a sermon?
Yes – not taking notes just yet.
Well, I think so anyway, not exactly paying attention yet…
I don’t think she had any notes either;-) pretty free form
I’ll pick this up when we get into session. Right now I am trying to find the text for new resolutions.
Peter – Once again I’ve set up a chat room for folks if they want it – http://www.peter-ould.net/chat-room – Please feel free to advertise it as appropriate. I’m going to be online till later this evening UK time, so I’ll moderate it this time.
Sounds good Peter, thanks.
Peter. If the SSB resolutions passes, and I hope it does not, will Essentials split from the ACC and set up their own denomination?
Isn’t that the question, eh? Actually, that’s not something I can say, certainly not speaking in any way officially from Essentials. Personally I would say the “do nothing” option is unlikely to be on the table, though I doubt anything would be done without some prayer and discernment first.
It seems that the Church wants to make the”Cirlce Wide”, unfortunately for them , if you believe is scriptire you won’t be standing in it
There was a Conscience Clause when the innovation of the ordination of women was introduced, but then they abolished the clause. So on that issue clergymen are now no longer allowed to have a conscience…
There was a Conscience Clause when the innovation of the ordination of women was introduced, but then they abolished the clause allowing for people to have consciences. So on that particular issue clergymen are now no longer allowed to have a conscience…
Yes, the amendment was regarded friendly and passed.
My comments are not appearing on the blog.
Testing.
[...] – AND WE’RE OFF: General Synod morning session 24/6/07 [...]
Thank you for this service, Peter. For those of us without broadband this is wonderful.
My comments are not being posted.
Not all comments are being posted on the blog, Peter.
What I have been trying to post is that there once was a conscience clause with the question of the Ordination of Women. Now we are not allowed to have a conscience.
My count so far is that 2/3rds of the speakers are opposed, 1/3rd in favour.
Glad you are still going, Peter – the webcast has frozen.
bb
Does anyone know the outcome of the vote on the amendment to close debate?
Peter: I am disappointed that I am having trouble contributing to the conversation on this blog. I wonder how many others would like to add comments but are unable.
I am disappointed that I am having trouble contributing to the conversation on this blog. I wonder how many others would like to add comments but are unable.
Go to the chat room, it’s easier!
http://www.peter-ould.net/chat-room
Why keep debate open? Is there anyone else who wants to speak?
The close vote is encouraging.
A contributor referred yesterday to my prayer that there be a miracle today as praying for a Nineveh moment, an apt picture. It looks more and more like this GS last night witnessed a Babel moment as confusion reigned and language failed many.
In the confusion it seems reason was lost by many as we are now even closer to the brink of schism as a bare majority in each house can carry the day.
What an irony that this decision takes place on the feast of St. John the Baptist who came “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” Mark 1:4. Now in the enlightened 21st century we bless sin.
The closing lines of Lamentations seem appropriate this morning when praying for our church: “Restore us to yourself, O Lord, that we may return; renew our days as of old unless you have utterly rejected us and are angry with us beyond measure” Lam 5: 21-22
I must say, the close vote to defer the motion is encouraging.
Does it seem like they want to change the order of the resolutions, that with passing this one it opens the door to passing the other resolutions because the Synod has decided that SSU does not conflict with core doctrine. By moving this resolution until after the other resolutions, it will show that there is a split in the Synod – they could pass the SSU resolution and then pass this resolution – which would mean that the Church of Canada is split over doctrine. Which really is the issue.
Steve S., while your chat room may be easier, I want to support Essentials and show a strong presence on their blog. One cannot say who is not being counted among the faithful devotees of this blog. I hope Peter is able to fix the problem.
Steve S, while your chat room may be easier, I want to support Essentials and show a strong presence on their blog. One cannot say who is not being counted among the faithful devotees of this blog. I hope Peter is able to fix the problem.
It appears the strategy now is to filibuster the motion into the ground, delay or prevent a vote and dump it on the 2010 agenda so as to give 3 more years of endless disorder and chaos to gather the troops for the next assault since the yes-side clearly can’t get a majority however the vote is tinkered and tweaked.
One has to ask if you want to go thru another 3 yrs of bless the mess.
Ric
I think there still is hope concerning this matter.
I follow both ,as many do! The chat room is just easier and more flexible to follow the conversation in. I support the blog on Essentials also.
My point is that I want to be able to support both, and presently I am having trouble supporting this blog.
Ric,
Let’s remember how long it took for the church to come to its own in the first place…if there is anything we have, it’s ‘time’–that’s the gift of the Spirit. Nicea or Chalcedon didn’t happen overnight…that took centuries of endless disorder and chaos.
What are they voting on now? The amendment of wording or the actual motion?
Peter: What are they voting on now? The amendment of wording or the actual motion?
Are they voting on the amendment to the motion or the motion itself?
Are they voting on the amendment to the motion or the motion itself?
This Synod is at the point of Chaos. The Holy Spirit is not in attendance and there is no order or concencus. I s there no one there that can take charge?
Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
oaky if this motion passes what will it mean? Will it mean that the motion orginally defeated has now passed? I’m totally confused!
The way they amended the motion made it easier for it to pass. This motion still does NOT signify the result of the next motion.
Peter – Can you explain where we are at as the video feed failed a long time ago.
Thanks.
Thanks be to God!
I think Mr. Anonymous v.2.0 makes a valid point. BTW-does anyone have a copy of the text as passed
Some having problem commenting?? Don’t know what the problem is, will look into it what I have time.