Comments on: Information for Mondays’ session

By: Jude

Jude — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:57:32 +0000

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.

By: Fr Matt

Fr Matt — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:43:24 +0000

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).

By: Jude

Jude — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:55:05 +0000

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?

By: Lois

Lois — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:42:14 +0000

Thank you, Peter, for the fantastic work you have been doing (and continue to do!) during General Synod.

By: Jill Woodliff

Jill Woodliff — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:33:57 +0000

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.

By: Pauline

Pauline — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:30:19 +0000

Read the stats in the Governance motion and you see the ACC is pretty much over.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:46:29 +0000

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.

By: Day Seven - News 7.0 « CaNN: General Synod 2007

Day Seven - News 7.0 « CaNN: General Synod 2007 — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:46:57 +0000

[...] – ESSENTIALS BLOGGER: Information for Mondays� session- PISKIE COFFEE: Synod Narrowly Defeats Same-sex [...]

By: James

James — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:47:38 +0000

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!

By: James

James — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:07:37 +0000

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.