From LC.net:
The Diocese of Huron has overwhelmingly voted to grant permission to clergy “whose conscience permits, to bless…civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
In the house of laity: 227 yeas, 87 noes
In the house of clergy: 97 yeas, 36 noes
With almost 100% of those registered for Huron synod voting.
One priest, whose parish is “Essentials friendly” called the vote “heartbreaking.”
More when we get it.
UPDATE: Michael Daleys report, part 1, is here.
Kate here – a quote from that article above that I found compelling was this:
Don Alcock, founding member of the Zacchaeus Fellowship, a post-gay ministry, and a priest in Huron argued passionately against the motion. Alcock says he was saved from the sin of homosexuality. “You’ve shown me this is a sin, now take it away from me,” is what he said to God. That ultimately led to the repudiation of his previous lifestyle and eventual marriage to a woman he loves. His was, perhaps, the most poignant cry to the floor to vote against Motion 7. He said if the motion passed, he would no longer feel welcome in the Anglican Church of Canada and that he would “have no choice but to leave.”
UPDATE 2: More here. Bishop Howe seems to be waiting for ‘the fall at the earliest’, along with the other Bishops. Personally, I don’t know why they can’t say ‘after Lambeth’ and be done with it…..
UPDATE 3: According to the Journal:
The diocesan bishop, Bruce Howe, said he “gave concurrence” to the motion based on the large percentage in favour, but he added that he intended to consult with other bishops before acting on the vote.
…
Speaking to media after the vote, Bishop Howe said he would likely not announce his decision before the fall.
“The diocese made a very strong decision – over the 70 per cent mark … I’ll be on the phone this week with other bishops, but obviously nobody is going to do anything before the Lambeth Conference.”
and
Bishop Howe said he did not know of any parishes or clergy that planned to leave the Anglican Church of Canada because of synod’s decision. No parishes in Huron are members of the Anglican Network in Canada, a breakaway group. “One of our conservative parishes said to me, ‘We don’t like this, but we are not leaving the Anglican Church in the diocese of Huron,’” he said.
It’d be interesting to know a bit more regarding the makeup of conservative parishes in the Diocese of Huron.
and yes, I do think there are non-Biblical Anglicans.
If you take scissors and cut out parts of the Bible you do not like or do not agree with, it seems to me you are non-Biblical.
Hmm… let me think back. We tried “real Christians,” “true Christians,” “born-again Christians,” “Bible-believing Christians”…. The problem with all of these designations is simply that the “others” don’t believe they fit into the “non-real,” “non-true,” non-born-again” categories and therefore identify themselves as “real,” “true,” “biblical,” “Anglican,” “orthodox,” etc., as well, and then that brings us back to square one.
How about simply “the faithful” or “the saints” as the Scriptures call us? Of course that makes the “others” “unfaithful,” (or worse – adulterous) and “sinners” (which we all are) so…
“Re-asserters” and “re-appraisers” are probably good words, but I have to think too hard to figure out which is which.
I am not sure why we try so hard to find “nice” words… my conservative views have often been met with the not “nice” words: “you are so backwards; that is so old, so lame; we need to move forward, not go back…”
I vote for easier words like: “right” and “left”; “right” and “wrong”; “true” and “false”; “the Church” and “the world”….
The appeal of calling a spade a – insert optional vulgar expletive here – shovel is hard to resist. Thus: Christian and pagan.
I’m not sure if a person can really even be Anglican if they are non-Biblical, as a consistent philosophy, as the Prayerbook and Articles are quite clear that any definition of Anglicanism must include Biblical faithfulness. Perhaps Warren with his BCP handy will quote them for us?
From the Sixth Article of Religion:
HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Here follows a listing of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament.
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
Here follows a listing of the books commonly called the Apocrypha.
Arguing from the BCP and the Articles is moot. The Articles of Religion were relegated to historical curiosities by the US Episcopal Organization when they adopted their so called Book of Common Prayer in 1979. The Book of Alternative Services is a close copy of the US 1979 BCP, but doesn’t even mention the Articles, because the “official” prayer book in the ACoC is still the 1962 BCP which contains them. De facto, wherever there is mandated use of the BAS the Articles are not considered relevant.
I was told that forcing General Synod to pick between the two books would result in the BAS becoming the new BCP, thus reducing its already limited influence.
Bill (#55), to put things in evangelical terms (that I understand best), do you think it would be fair to say that the “statement of faith” for the ACoC is found in the BAS?
Although the ACoC may not technically recognize them from a legal perspective, I don’t understand why you would say that arguing from the Articles is moot. If they are a correct formulation of doctrine from a biblical perspective, they have validity in the same way that creeds and confessions have validity. For me, it is question of moral authority versus legal authority.
Do you know if the ACoC views the creeds as “historical curiousities” as well?
From what I’m told, seminaries stopped teaching the Articles sometime in the 70s. Don’t know exactly when, but Rev. Sinclair informed me that he did not receive any instruction in them at seminary. More recent candidates that we both know from St. Alban’s have tried to bring up the Articles in debates at seminary and were ignored or told that they no longer applied.
The reason I say that the Articles are moot is that our worthy opponents do not recognize them as having any authority. I do. Therefore, we are not debating secondary issues from a common foundation, we are evangelizing each other from our own theologies.
The source of authority is the main issue in this schism. I believe that most of the regular posters here believe in God, the Trinity, the Holy Scriptures and the Church as authoritative in some order. What they all have in common is these are objective authorities. As sinners, we all have problems with some of those authorities and interpret and reinterpret them much as a defense lawyer searches for loopholes.
When we have leaders of a purportedly Christian Church defying the objective evidence that generations of Christians have relied on, and reinterpreted six to mean ten, we can’t even have a good debate because “ten” means different things to each side. So when I say the ten commandments are important and they say the ten commandments are important, we agree on the surface, but not in the underlying concepts.
Bill (#57), your mention that the seminaries discarded the Articles in the 70s gives credence to my regular assertion that root problem in the ACoC goes back many decades and is not a relatively new phenomena.
This vote clearly proves that Bishops that are supposed to be Chief Shepherds have abandoned their vows and have become wolves out to devour the flock. Motions that are clearly contradictory to the Word should NEVER be allowed on the floor of any synod. It seems that the AOC is ready and willing to bow before the golden calf of political correctness for whatever political benefits it might receive. The apostate bishops should either repent or resign. As to any claim that certain issues are not part of the “core doctrine of the Church” simply reinforces the fact that the AOC is going down the road of apostasy. It may well survive being a church but NOT as a Church of God.
There’s blunt, and then there’s rude. This one crossed the line, Gerry. –admin (Kate)
My comments are undoubtedly blunt but having to deal with the actions of apostates such as Michael Ingham there is no other way to desribe the facts. Michael Ingham is clearly a general in Satan’s army despite being dressed in a puirple shirt and white collar. He repudicates the sacrifice of Christ by stating in his book that Jesus is only A WAY and not THE WAY. He considers all religions the same and chooses what he wants from the Bible only if said passages can be interpreted to suit his agenda. As Anglicans we not only need to have bishops that are truly “chief shepherds” but we must demand them and take action to depose those who denounce their vows.