Currently it is morning prayer.
Next on the agenda is the Nominating Committee report, a partner reflection, then onto resolutions (the suggestion is that A189 will come up first, followed by a Bishops’ statement).
B001 has been withdrawn – this is the blessings of SSU in New West. Figure they think it is a risk that it may fail in light of the failure of A197. Better from their point of view, I suppose to leave things amiguous.
Presiding Bishop of TEC will be arriving shortly.
A189 Revision of Canon 21 on Marriage
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.
Moved by Peter Elliot and seconded by Chancellor.
Voting already…..motion carried pretty easily. No debate, kind of odd, but what do I know?
Bishops’ Statement
Speaking Patrick Yu Dio Toronto on behalf of Bishops.
Related to A224 House of Bishops Statement on Pastoral Care of Same-Sex Couples. That this General Synod welcome the statement of the House of Bishops of October, 2006 urging the church to show pastoral understanding and sensitivity to all same-sex couples, including those civilly married, and committing the House to develop pastoral strategies to give effect to the acceptance of gays and lesbians to whom we are already committed by previous General Synod and CoGS resolutions, House of Bishops guidelines, and Lambeth Conference statements.
Not debating reolution right now, just a statement. HoB meeting Tuesday. This will be fragile meeting, we will need your prayers. We are tasked with implementation of resolution. We represent diverse views.
Statement of HoB here.
Pertinent section here:
We are committed, as bishops in Canada, to develop the most generous pastoral response possible within the current teaching of the church. We offer the following examples of possible pastoral responses:
When a civilly married gay or lesbian couple seeks our church’s reception of their civil marriage and asks their parish’s recognition, it may be possible, with their bishop’s knowledge and permission, to celebrate a Eucharist with the couple, including appropriate intercessory prayers, but not including a nuptial blessing.
When a gay or lesbian married or committed couple seeks to hold a reception or celebration in a church for their life in Christ, again intercessory prayers for their mutual fidelity, the deepening of their discipleship and for their baptismal ministry may be offered, not including the exchange of vows and/or a nuptial blessing.
IMHO this statement simply adds to confusion; it’s not SSB, not quite, but very close. It in effect this answers the question of the rightness or wrongness of same-sex relationships. After all, we would not say these kind of prayers for relationships that we consider sinful.
Now moving A224 to floor.
Speakers addressing it, will catch up now.
Bp Yu. Would urge calling the question.
Parishes central interior. Resolution is not connected to memorial? Process question.
Abp not clear on this. Now talking about how memorials are considered – special provision for this memorial. Allows bishops to respond as pastorally and generously as possible. Motion is only associated, not directly linked. Links back to Oct 2006 statement, not to memorial. (Are you any clearer yet?) (Does anybody know the difference between the memorial and the Oct 2006 statement?) (I’ll find the two texts when I can).
Speaker ? Speaks in favour of resolution.
Speaker ? Want to see resolution C003 right after this resolution.
Dio New West Steve Schuh – Priests and bishops witholding sacramental ministry, this resolution would prevent them doing so? (This is a question I think). Chancellor said it is just semantics.
Move to close debate, question called.
Point of order – did not hear.
Mover moving close on debate, debate is closed.
Voting
Bishops: All in favour.
Clergy/Laity: All in favour.
Motion carried.
Bp Ingham – Point of info. Inaccuracies re diocese – 10 parishes are not leaving. Theological conservatives not abandoned. Majority of theological conservatives have remained in diocese. Only small minority exempted themselves. Want Synod to get right idea.
Abp Andrew – talking about reconciliation committee.
A190 ACC-13 Resolution 4
Original was this:
That this General Synod does not ratify the changes in the Schedule of Membership in the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council as proposed in ACC-13 Resolution 4.
This has changed to be clearer:
(summary of new resolution – I do not have full details yet)
ratify ACC-13 resolution 4 section a-d
not ratify ACC-13 resolution 4 section e.
Basically this is opposing the primates (predominiantly conservative) to be members of the ACC (more of a liberal body). ACC resolution 4 here.
Bp Sue Moxley is speaking on this. Role of laity and women decreased.
Seconder noted that ACC resol;ution 4 requires 2/3 of provinces to agree with. Abp Andrew notes there has been significant re4sistance already.
Voting
Bishops: Passed (almost unanimously)
Clergy/Laity Passed (80% I’d guess)
Motion passed
A021 Declaration of Principles and Constitution – Amending Procedures
Amended slightly, amended version below.
That first reading be given to the resolution that the Declaration of Principles be amended
1) by deleting sections 3, 4 and 5 thereof ;
2) by renumbering sections 5 to 11 to be sections 3 to 9; and
3) by amending all cross-references to sections 6, 7 and 8 to refer to sections 3, 4 and 5 respectively.
Speaker ? expressing some concern. This answers questions we did not pose. Ongoing concern. We came to place in last synod that things are not working, but this is not what we asked
Bp Ferris. Oppose resolution. Present plan overcentralises our authority. Diminishing dioceses. Changes around solemn declaration cause for concern.
Dio Yukon Lee Titterington. 2004 resolution, commend working group. Would ask how these changes are going to enhance work and mission?
Canon Falby answers question. Only deals with duplications of rules.
Speaker ? Talking about relational matters over business matters. Too big a diocese, bishops will not know people. Relational body, these changes could do damage.
Bp Phillips Dio Ruperts Land. Considerable confusion and concern. Appreciate clarifications, but in explantory note, concerned abouit making synod procedures easier to change. Maving amendment that this resolution be referred to CoGS.
Abp Andrew makes this aware that this is first reading.
Motion to refer…voting
Bishops…carried
C/L….carried
Motion to refer carried
Effect is that nothing can happen here until 2013.
A022 Governance – Procedures for enactment of Canons and amendment of the Declaration of Principles, the Constitution, and the Canons
Note 11, a, (i) as I mentioned before:
The Solemn Declaration of the Declaration of Principles belongs in a particular historic context and therefore cannot be altered or amended.
Mover speaking.
Dio Algoma – has some concern on this motion. May be more efficient but not more effective. Don’t like drop of constitutional safeguards.
Dio Athabasca Fraser Lawton- Suggest A022 has nuances I would like more time to consider re Solemn Declaration. Cannot vote for motion as it stands. Changes are not always meant to be easy, there is wisdom in this.
Dio Toronto Steven – Concern about Solemn Declaration – ‘continuing to be a part of principles’ has been removed. Declaration is now like a poster on the wall, only historic context, no longer informs us
Bp Anderson Dio Caledonia. Profound concern re confusion. Purpose of rules and regs is to ensure poeple can make informed decisions. Offensive and condescending attitude – nobody consulted us at all – big city arrogance. Urge to refer it to CoGS for further work and consultation
Motion to refer. Voting.
Nope, now having debate on whether we are referring.
Dio BC John Steel. Concern that we are pushing this back another 3 years. Think we should proceed now and then discuss over next 3 years and decide properly on second reading.
Dio Athabasca. Needs to be referred.
Dio Edmonton. In favour of referral, need to digest this some more.
Dio Niagara Wendy Newman. Speaking against referral. Need to give heads a collective shake. Have never seen anything like our difficulties in moving on with anything. Are we a church of commitment or committees?
Voting on motion to defer…this is under dispute…counting heads (this seems to be a liberal/conservative split – liberals opposed to deferral).
Bishops Carried
Clergy/Laity Carried
Motion to defer carried. A061 is companion resolution so should be withdrawn.
Committee membership
Talking about members on committes now. I have it on good authority that 12-15 people on CoGS are now Essentials-friendly. That would maker a much stronger minority there.
Move that the membership be accepted. Some discussion going on.
Voting….carried in both houses.
A188 Governance – Consultation with Dioceses
That the Primate, after consultation with the House of Bishops, be requested to initiate discussion with the provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada regarding:
1. the possible reform of the provincial organization of the Anglican Church of Canada, and, in particular, whether the effectiveness and efficiency of the Anglican Church of Canada would be significantly improved by:
a. entirely eliminating the four provinces from the organizational structure of the church and transferring the powers and authority the provinces presently hold to the General Synod, or
b. maintaining the existing provincial structure for some part of its present purpose and transferring part of provincial power and authority, for example part or all of provincial legislative authority, to the General Synod, or
c. reorganizing the dioceses into groupings with greater common goals, concerns, needs and interests than the collections of dioceses forming the existing provinces.
2. the possible reform of the diocesan organization of the Anglican Church of Canada, in particular by:
a. adjusting diocesan boundaries to reflect modern transportation patterns and population shifts created by social and economic changes,
b. reducing of the number of dioceses within the Anglican Church of Canada,
c. implementing any other change that might improve the effectiveness, efficiency, or economy of the operation of dioceses.
In summary: The desire here is I think to dissolve provinces and increase General Synod authority. (My Q is, to increase efficiency why do we not dissolve GS and just have provincial synods? 
)
Mover – This motion is not to make changes but to initiate discussions. Seconder Bp Lawrence Moosonee, please do not refer. This is an enabling motion.
Bp Dio Algoma. Are we concentrating power in the center? Could we not be thinking about transferring GS powers to provincial synods?
Dio BC Bp Jim Cowan. Does not like provincial synods, underwhelmed. We are overgoverned. Urge to support
Dio Toronto. Friendly amendment 2c after ‘might’ ‘enhance the mission’. Accepted as friendly.
Dio Saskatoon Bp Andrews. Like to look at structures. Likes provincial synod, do not want to dissolve.
Bp ? – If we pass reolution is simply about discussions is good. Doesn’t like the extra sections as to what exactly we are looking at.
Speaker ? See value in reveiwing where we are at.
Move close for debate. Procedural stuff now. Question called.
Voting on A188:
C/L Passed
B Passed
Motion is carried.
Now having a Canadian Council of Churches presentation
A226 Principles for Revision of Common Worship Texts
That this General Synod direct the Faith Worship and Ministry Committee to prepare principles and an agenda for common worship texts revision.
IMHO this is like putting the wolves in charge of the sheep pen, but then I’m an opinionated blogger so I can say things like that .
Mover (Richard Leggett) saying this isn’t an actual revision, but just looking at process. Thinks this is the time to do this. Seconder also speaking to this, will make friendly amendment – not ‘common worship texts revision’ but rather ‘revision of our contemporary language worship text and the creation of fresh worship expressions’. Friendly amendment accepted. Will change if I got that update wrong, wating to change on the screen.
Speaker ? We are not just using books for worship….Internet etc.
Speaker ? Re native ministry, don’t want to have to retranslate the prayer book.
Dio Niagara – Support motion
Dio Arctic – Up in North we only have portion of prayer book, BAS translations not correct, some of the words are backwards.
Dio Keewatin – Book is old now (21 years) Shortcmings are obvious, we need to do this again.
Richard Leggett. Should translate as widely as possible. Need to hear all voices.
Debate closed.
Point of Order – need revised wording.
Voting….carried almost unanimously.
A213 Millennium Development Goals
NB: Find all details on resolutions here.
Movers, seconders and speakers on the MDGs. All speaking in favour
Calling the question….voting…carried
A263, A264 on no-debate list.
A263 Amendments to the Long Term Disability Plan Pre-2005 Document
Voting…..carried
A264 Adoption of the new Long Term Disability Plan and subsequent amendments to the Regulations
Voting…..carried
A020 The Declaration of Principles – Eligibility of Clergy (no debate)
Voting…..carried
A040 The Constitution – Eligibility of Clergy
Voting…..carried
A210 International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Mover speaking.
Voting…..carried
We are done with the morning session. One more to go (hallelujah).
Hi, What was 197 about? I’ve lost track!
No big surprize re B001. If it were defeated they would have trouble justifying continuing the blessings, but would have done so. But with A186 declaring that it isn’t outside the teaching of the church, NW doesn’t need any further affirmation that what they have been doing is OK with the rest of the communion.
I think he meant A187 – affirmation of local option.
I can’t find 197 on the motions list.
Again , don’t give 186 power it doesn;t have. Someone at synod should clarify that it affirms nothing relevant to human sexuality, because “creedal sense” only refers to Trinitarian Doc.
Thanks so much Peter. God strengthen you all. Did Bp Yu misspeak when he referred to the Oct 06 statement? Did he mean the April 07 statement?
This is just another attempt at agenda by stealth except it has more verbage.
There have been 3 attempts -the front door, the back door and now through the basement window.
And also to keep up the pressure until 2010 which is the primary objective since pro-side lost this time. That was already made clear before the start of the votes.
The reaction was expected with cries of being cheated (by 1 vote) and we will get it next time.
If they had won, it would have been uncontrolled self-satisfied triumphalism and running a broom up the main mast to show they had finally swept the orthodox opposition aside.
Perhaps we should take at look at “Global South” and what they are already starting to say on their site……. I think that with the passing of 186, the ACC has already bypassed boundaries that will allow us to stay in the Communion….now I see that the presiding bishop of the TEC is comint to Wpg today…..I wonder will she make a triumphal entry to open arms of the present of present elect Primates? Likely, it appears to me that all are likely sharing the same sleeping quarters and that North America is on its own in the worldwide Church of Anglicanism…..I would make a motion that the ACC change it’s name to the “Church of Canada”, because to me it is no longer and Anglican Church…..it is a dead church as of yesterday.
[...] ESSENTIALS BLOGGER: General Synod morning session 25/6/07 [...]
Hey, if Dioceses are going to continue to rationalize (i.e. close) parishes, then why not rationalize Dioceses and Provinces. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – is it not?
4James Again , don’t give 186 power it doesn;t have.
Agreed. A186 purports to be a doctrinal definition – but it can’t actually be one, since that requires the 2/3 majorities at two synods. So in reality it’s nothing more than an opinion poll of the members of synod, with no authority beyond that.
It’s almost noon on Ontario. I’m getting set up to listen to the CBC interview with Charlie Masters and Peter Wall.
Listen live online http://origin.www.cbc.ca/listen/index.html#
(I think you want to pick an Ontario station – the interview is on Radio One on Ontario Today)
http://www.cbc.ca/listen/streams/r1_toronto_32.html
It’s on now. I know it works for sure if you pick “Toronto”.
Peter Wall just pointed out that the moritorium on allowing new congregations to perform blessings was for the period since last GS to this one and has now expired.
re revision of common worship texts sounds like the tinkerings that went on with the Lutherans’ new worship book….and peace to God’s people on earth stuff. I have read through it.
….they also raised Mary Magdalene to an Apostle….but sorry I digress…
De-sexing eveything so that those who are gender non-specific won’t be offended by accommodating both doctrine and the English language in apologetically pussy-footing about to avoid charter challenges.
Same groups that have Christmas trees demoted to holiday bushes.
but no apologies to those ‘conservatives’ who may themselves be offended regardless of what Bp Ingham says or implies.
I am pleased that they are leaving the Prayer Book alone.
The reason why B001 was dropped was because the Primate elect has already said to the news media that New West can ‘of course’ continue blessings in the parishes that have already being doing blessings.
Just checking in. I haven’y needed to go to the gym over the lasr few days. Got my exercise ging up and down stairs so often to computer!! A264 was not debated. Can anyone tell me what the motion was. This could affect us, and so need to know. Thank you. If some parishes do separate will tis affect the disability pension of a priest in that parish. Up very late last night discussing all the implications of yesterdays vote, both for us personally, and for the Church as a whole. I keep hold of Gamaliel’s remark to the Sanhedrin in Acts- “If it is not of God it will die” .
After reviewing various newspaper articles on the outcome of yesterday’s vote, I’m beginning to think that there is some wiggle room in this strange solution. Not against “core doctrine” means that SSB does transgress non-credal, 39-Article type doctrine, especially with regards to marriage. Blocking SSB blessings is a victory for the conservative side, albeit a hollow one. It is seen as a temporary setback by the liberals – it will return until “the Bishops are converted” (Ingham).
We’re in an undecided situation, much like the results of the last federal election that fortells years of minority governments. Yet only 57% of lay were for the motion, and 54% of clergy, not over 60% or 66%. Did the bishops conspire to have 48% for, 52% against? The swing vote was Victoria Matthews, over the core doctrine issue – this looks too much of a coincidence for the chairman of the St. Michael’s committee to act this way. Looks like organization, in a funny way.
Perhaps the Lord would have us wait in a steady state of indecision indefinitely! (The Lord is not the author of confusion? (1 Cor 14:33) I wish we could hear from the prophets!) This apparent chaos could be seen as a via media – a statement to the world that we as a church are conflicted, wrestling with conflicting views on how to read scripture and how to carry out His mandate in this world. Law versus freedom, love versus literalism, flexibility versus doctrinal backbone? It shows that doctrine can’t really be decided in this case by majority vote – the Holy Spirit must give us consensus, a shared view, something apparently not possible in human terms. Like protracted discussions over native issues, you can’t solve this problem in a day or a few years – we can expect this to stretch out for years, so we learn to live with it – the church in post-modern times. It would seem to me that the split would be a worse solution than the attempt to live together and wait for God’s solution of this issue. He can do it – we can’t.
Archa,
Anglican Essentials Canada Inc.
Box 266 · Milton
ON · Canada
L9T 4N9
Tel.: 1-866-883-7328
E-Mail: info@anglicanessentials.ca
Call or email the office in Milton and they’ll get you connected in your area.
That may have been Federation info. Network has the same mailing address but different phone/email
Anglican Network in Canada
Box 266 · Milton · ON · Canada
L9T 4N9
Tel.: 1-866-351-ANIC (2642)
E-Mail: info@anglicannetwork.ca
the official tally sheet still hasn’t updated the passage of a189 you report right at the beginning of this post, or the withdrawal of b001. I missed the beginning of the session, so heard nothing on these. Any explanation why they aren’t updated on the tally?
2 points.
I agree with #7 Gerry about change of name, but step further. I can’t say Church in reference to this organization anymore without a sour taste in my mouth.
Does A189 mean we finally have their true agenda out in the open?
A189 Change to the Marriage Canon this study of the rationale to allow the marriage of all legally eligible people is the new focus of the liberal camp. It will take two sessions of General Synod to accomplish, but the passing of this resolution opens the door to a change in the Marriage Canon 21 at the General Synods in 2010 and 2013 to allow Same Sex Marriages.
This is the new plan and strategy of the liberals. This is totally against everything Scripture says about Marriage and as such is an abomination in the sight of Almighty God. It is also a way of getting
Synod to approve Same Sex Blessings as a compromise for not moving to a full Marriage of Homosexuals and Lesbians. However, we all know that the liberal element in our church wants to get in step with society and follow society’s lead rather than to do what the Church has always done down through the ages to stand over against society and to recall society to the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than to water down the Gospel in an attempt to make it more palatable to society. When you water down the Gospel message in an attempt to make it more acceptable to our modern society, you make it more irrelevant and thus the church continues on its downward slide to oblivion. The liberals have not recognized this because they are blind to the leading of the Holy Spirit and the Authority of Scripture.
May we all have the strength and fortitude to stand firm in our faith under the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
“not ‘common worship texts revision’ but rather ‘revision of our contemporary language worship text and the creation of fresh worship expressions’” ….that opens a frightening door
and another potential windfall for the book publishers facing an already saturated market with the BAS. Again take a look at the loot flowing into the coffers with the Lutherans new book Oct 06 when there was really nothing wrong with their LBW 1978.
re Solemn Decl of 1893 I am somewhat confused over what they did with it (to it) dumped, relegated or sent off to a cmttee to be disposed of quietly in private?
by getting rid of ‘historical’ documents they not only rid themselves of possible appeals to precedent (part of common law tradition) but also to the content of the documents ie in this case to Scriptural bases, creeds and ecumenical councils….and then they talk about “core” values and defending them to the last mouse pad.
another twist in that is valuing communion with the rest of Anglicanism & Canterbury and then disposing of the document which outlines it.
But then we already have a good idea of the value these people have on that score.
HOW could we possibly demote the importance of Provincial Synods given the confusion that reigns at this General Synod?! I’m not opposed to redefining boundaries for Provincial Synods if needed, but to illiminate them in favour of General Synod? How will our voices ever be heard?
Re B001
I am glad B001 did not go ahead but I suspepect Bsp. Michael Ingham withdrew the resolution in order to avoid any specific ruling that would prevent him from performing same sex blessings. Bsp. Ingham is a master at spinning ambiguity in his favor. So I expect he will continue doing whatever he wants anyway.
[...] why did New Westminster abruptly withdraw that resolution after General Synod voted against authorising same-sex blessings? If you've made your [...]