As they say, it’s not over ’till it’s over, and we have 1 more day to go. We also have 50-odd resolutions, and there is not a hope that they will all be dealt with….they will be sent to CoGS for them to resolve.
One does wonder why, in the light of the number of resolutions, we spent quite so much time with the Lutherans, and why so much of the days are taken up with various presentations? Both have value, but when the days are so packed with other things that business cannot be done there is something wrong.
CoGS is, I understand, more conservative this time round (especially from the province of Ruperts Land), though only as a stronger minority in a predominantly liberal body.
Some things to watch out for tomorrow:
A189 That this General Synod request the Council of General Synod to consider a revision of Canon 21 (On Marriage) including theological rationale to allow marriage of all legally qualified persons and to report back to General Synod 2010.
Nothing will be binding from this, but it will indicate the direction. If it plays anything like A186, it could pass.
A022, in particular this clause: The Solemn Declaration of the Declaration of Principles belongs in a particular historic context and therefore cannot be altered or amended.
Some question whether the Solemn Declaration – The founding declaration of Anglicanism in Canada is being relegated to ‘historical context’ in such a way as the Magna Carta is, i.e. an important historical document that has no real reference to this day and age. That may be reading too much into the statement, but the question may be made.
B001 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.
This may pass due to a sympathy vote, however if the bishops are being consistent with the defeat of A187 they should vote this down.
I’ve said this before, but I think the most crucial resolution of the whole synod (in the long run) is the one dealing with governance. It is out of that direction of restructuring of the locus of authority in the ACC that everything else will eventually follow or not.
2 cents…
Can someone on the floor of synod ask the chancellor ” to what if any actions does the passing of A186 authorize or affirm or rightly lead ” or ” Can GS’s view that God desires to bless same sex unions be deduced from the passing of A186 on its own ?”. It seems to me that some naive or confused delegates may have voted to support A186 without realizing how it could be interpreted and used to legitimize something that they never intended it to do.
Some stats. Re A187 1. 57% of 137 laity supported A187 2. 54% of 116 clergy supported A187 3. 47% of 40 bishops supported A187. This resolution would have failed in all 3 houses if the original CoGS motion had been operative on 60% to pass. For what its worth!
[...] – ESSENTIALS BLOGGER: Information for Mondays’ session- PISKIE COFFEE: Synod Narrowly Defeats Same-sex [...]
Re post #3 James:
For what it is worth, 50% plus 1 is 50% plus 1. We have no right to set a higher standard for a single issue. Remember, overall this issued passed in that room yesterday with total votes for 160 and against 133.
If I was a Bishop of this church I would watch my step from now on. I know of some Bishops who hold a service to bless peoples pets. I would think twice about holding that service or something similiar from now on.
This is far from over.
Read the stats in the Governance motion and you see the ACC is pretty much over.
Lent & Beyond is down right now, so . . .
Our Father,
May all votes on reolutions regarding the governance, sacraments, and outreach of the ACC work to the establishment of Your reign on earth.
May the spiritual sacrifices Fred offers while primate of the ACC be holy and pleasing to You.
We ask these things in the name of Your son. Amen.
Thank you, Peter, for the fantastic work you have been doing (and continue to do!) during General Synod.
felis and Pauline,
Governance is not an area in which I have a great deal of understanding. I’ve read the motion, but it doesn’t mean much to me. Can you explain what you see in there that causes concern?
The issue about governance that is of concern is the suggestion that efficiency suggests the ecclesial provinces should be done away with. While the rationale for the resolution suggests a centralization of power is not the issue, that would be the overall effect. The rationale is on the GS 2007 site.
With declining attendance and finances, why should we continue our existing governance system? We probably shouldn’t, but, how much credibility does a body have when it suggests saving itself at the expense of other parts of the structure?
There is a pattern through the constitutional and governance resolutions that seeks to push more authority to General Synod (A022 for sure).
Oh my – that isn’t the motion I was looking at, I was reading A022. I’ll take a better look at the other one now. Thank you for bringing this to my attention – I’ve been focused on the other issues and this one just slipped by me.