To follow on from the post that the Diocese of Rupert’s Land had passed a SSB motion, here is the response from Bishop Don Phillips (received by email).
Motion B9 – passed by 57.5% in the laity and 58.1% in the clergy
That this Synod, upon the passage by General Synod of an enabling doctrinal resolution, request the Bishop to allow clergy, whose conscience permits, to bless the duly solemnized and registered civil marriages between same-sex couples, where at least one party is baptized, in parish churches whose members have, by resolution, authorized such ceremonies to take place; and to authorize rites for such blessings.In my Address to Synod on Thursday evening I said that,
“We are in a period of discernment – locally and throughout the Anglican Communion. Part of that discernment involves local Synods “testing” for the mind of the Spirit at work in their midst. The faithful decisions that our Synod makes in prayer and conversation will be simply that – the discernment of the leadership of the Anglican Diocese of Rupert’s Land – nothing more and nothing less. Those decisions must not be viewed as a kind of judgement on other parts of our Church, or on those in our midst whose personal discernment is different. Certainly my intent, in attempting to serve you faithfully in Episcopal ministry, is to continue to love, honour and support all of the faithful, Spirit-led ministries in our diocese.”
While it is clear that this resolution can not be implemented until General Synod has acted, in addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked the bishops of the Communion to exercise “gracious restraint” and observe the 3 moratoria dealing with the blessing of same-sex unions, the consecration of bishops in gay-partnered relationships, and cross-border pastoral interventions by other provinces and dioceses. And our Primate, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, speaking at the meeting of the House of Bishops in October, 2008, asked the bishops and their dioceses to respect due process through General Synod on the blessing of same-sex unions, and, echoing the Archbishop of Canterbury, to exercise “gracious restraint” and honour the 3 moratoria until General Synod 2010. It is my intention, along with the other bishops of the Province of Rupert’s Land, to observe the moratoria as requested. The bishops of our Province plan to issue a letter to this effect in the next week or two.
And as the Chancellor has indicated, even if General Synod passes an enabling doctrinal resolution, the resolution we have just passed is a request to the bishop. Therefore, before it could become practice, the bishop would need to decide to act on the request, cause rites for blessings to be prepared, and authorize their use. It is with this understanding of the resolution as a request, and being advisory in nature, that I will concur with this resolution.
All these resolutions seem to worded to assume SSB will be passed at next GS and this is already a done deal. Gracious Restraint is just plain false advertising. 9½ years to the next (and possibly last Lambeth) so they don’t have look anyone in the eye till then and Fred XIII & company will only rant about incursions every chance. Come on guys, there must be a bishop you can ordain that will offend the Communion.
…”‘testing’ for the mind of the Spirt at work in their midst.”
Do these folks have a special book of slick phrases given to them at consecration? I mean this is just the kind of idea that keeps biblically and theologically illiterate Anglicans in a fog. I mean, it sounds good. I think it could even work well as a headline in the Journal. But testing the mind of the Spirit… At local synods no less, on an issue clearly spoken to by the Spirit through the prophets already in Scripture, an issue with national, global, and ecumenical implications! Can anyone hear that snake hissing sound?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there was anything in the wording of the moratoria about General Synod being able to strike them down at will? And if there were, wouldn’t that also mean that border crossings can proceed unchecked once Synod has “acted”? After all, if they’re not holding up their end of the bargain, why should the orthodox?
If the synod has produced “faithful discernment”, I have to question just what kind of teaching led them there.
Over and over again we say this: two thousand years of consistent church teaching and scriptural authority needs to be abandoned. I suspect that a computer phrase is appropriate “garbage in, garbage out”.
Peace,
Jim
We seem to have fogotten that the church is not a democratic institution – God is not shaped or influenced by a majority vote at any synod. We try to discern HIS mind and will, not the other way round. If Jesus were to have a vote among his disciples as to whether he should die on a cross, there would be a unnanimous vote of NO. In fact he seemed to have continually bucked any sort of majority vote against what he should do or be, from the Religious establishment of the time. Time and time again, a single voice of prophesy is the one that called for church reform, not the majority decision. We are not so much trying to discern his will, as trying to impose our will on Him, and it will not work.
What he said! # 5 – exactly
“testing” for the mind of the Spirit at work in their midst
Should that be a small “s” spirit?
Thank you Rev Mac #5. Right on!
#8 The really sad thing is, Bishop Phillips almost certainly doesn’t think so.
Hey, Don’ Panic, have you seen the latest ANiC newsletter? Somebody has
stolenborrowed your moniker.[5]
Rev Mac,
I subscribe to your sentiments completely. However, in the absence of Old Testament prophets to lead us, the Anglican church has opted for a particular form of democracy that utilizes synods.
When the discernment process shifts from the divinely appointed prophets to delegates, the training becomes crucial to the faithful continuance of the church.
It’s very easy to blame an Ingham or a Hiltz or a Bird. The question is: who voted them there and who supports their agenda in the courts of the church?
It starts at the top. Even today there are a handful of seminaries that are scripturally based. The anointed leaders of the ACoC are often woefully lacking in scriptural reverence and this is seen in the trickle down throughout the laity.
The church has not been teaching the Gospel and it is no wonder that synods display such an appalling record of faithfulness.
Hence: garbage in, garbage out.
Peace,
Jim
Looking at the first ANiC synod, it effectively operated by prayerful consensus. Why can’t we continue to do that? If we don’t achieve consensus the decision is deferred.
On another point, I think that electing bishops has been pretty much an unmitigated disaster, to the point where we are suprised when godly people are elected. Why do we have to elect them? There must be a better way.