An update to this post:
Received by email:
It was a close vote. The debate went for the full 30 minutes, and was charitable for the most part, except one well-known agitator in the Melbourne Diocese in Australia claiming the motion and its motives were “disingenuous” – that was a low point. The vote by voices wasn’t able to decide whether the motion had passed or been defeated, so someone asked for a count of the house. It turns out there was just a quorum of people – in Melbourne Diocese only a third of Synod (284 people, I think) is required to be present for a quorum – there were 325 Synod members present who voted on the motion (either for or against). On a count of hands 175 people were “against”, 150 people “for”. The motion was lost by 25 people. It was a close vote!
The saddest aspects to the vote are twofold: i. a decent number of Synod members had little idea of what the motion was really about (that is, they were confused by the whole thing and they aren’t aware that ACNA-affiliated parishes are being dragged through the courts to acquire their properties), even after some careful, but informative speeches from the mover and seconder of the motion; and, ii., to lose the motion by 25 people is disappointing, given that there were a number of people absent from Synod who would have voted in favour of the motion if they were there – this is one of those “luck of the draw” situations, where you don’t know the exact timing of the hearing of the motion.
If all the facts are true this is a perfect argument for the “disingenuous” nature of currect Synod operations. I submit that until we adopt a procedure whereby all motions must be passed unanimously, or tabled for further action we leave a thin edge for the wedge.
I hope arguments follow, but please do not forget the “Factor of Faith”.
I am surprised and disappointed there is no dialogue on this subject. Any reasons?
#2: Usually we are silenced by discouraging news. However, I don’t think we have need to be discouraged: democratic votes are not usually related to the Lord’s favour.
We know this fact well in New Westminster.
I hear that Australia’s Sydney Diocese passed their ACNA motion! That’s great news.
Irena I take it from your statement – “democratic votes are not usually related to the Lord’s favour” that you agree with my #1
Stuck: If we need 100% in favor or against votes, doesn’t this lead to what is called dictatorship? Only a dictatorial government can achieve unanimous agreement ALL of the time.
Irena: methinks you to be more right than wrong on the idea that democratic votes usually go against the Lord’s favor. Seems that has always been the case ~~~~ unless all the voters or at least the majority of the voters are “Christians”, then it goes to the Lord’s favor of course. Unfortunately todays society thinks themselves in North America to be Christian but have been so far led away from the truth that they are not. How unfortunate and sad.
Stuck in Toronto #5: Not necessarily. Even a unanimous vote does not guarantee the Lord’s favour. Adam and Eve were unanimous!
Having said that, I will agree that, in a group of Christians, unanimity is a beautiful thing.
# 6 Gerry, Dictatorship and Monarchist Government is always unanimous “all the time”. Were the requirment for unanimity in Synod operations does not garantee “all the time” when a motion does not pass it is tabled. The procedure or follow up on a tabled motion is varied. My personal choice is to put it off until the next synod. This leaves time for healthy discussion, debate, and prayer. If the next Synod (second reading) fails to reach unanimous agreement than the Bishop in Charge would strike a committee of pro and con persons based on the same percentage as the second vote. Thes folks would be tasked (like a jury) to determine unanimous consent. Any and all arguments can be submitted to said committee during the interim. The result -unanimous or hung, is presented during third Synod (reading) if vote is not unanimous than the Motion is tossed.
Irena
“Adam and Eve were unanimous!”; were they? wasn’t there a third person missing? I would welcome any biblical example of unaniminity failing God’s will. Jesus said “where two or three are gathered together OF THE SAME ACCORD (unanimity) there I will be in the midst. The Church has lost a vital component in it’s two-thousand year journey. I call it the factor of faith. We acknowledge faith as a gift but fail to use it. So what happens to something when it doesn’t get used?
#9 Stuck: Is this the verse you’re referring to?
“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Matthew 10:20
‘In my name’ is missing in your verse so I’m not sure. The context of this particular verse has to do with ejecting an unrepentant brother out of the church. And of course, the presence of the Lord Jesus would give the necessary authority for such an action.
Irena; I have defended the premise of “same Accord” as a source of Spiritual Power. I believe that “in my name” means “of the same accord”. The fact that I could not find the quote I used in my #9 was a shock to me as I have used it so often. I apologize for the confusing mis-quote. I don’t agree with your contextual assessment.
Matt.18: 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20..For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Philippians 2:2
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
Acts 1:14
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Acts 2:1
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
#11 Stuck:
Being of one accord and “in my name” are certainly tightly related, as the verses in your previous post show. If we are considering a matter together in Jesus’ name–that is, if we really do stand under his authority and in his love, as I think the phrase suggests–we will be of like mind because we’ll be sharing in the mind of Christ (Phil. 2, v.5).
When the glory and honour of the Lord Jesus are at stake, this kind of accord will look like unanimity. And I think this is how ACNA has so wonderfully been founded among groups so varying in detail. We all knew we couldn’t stay with the National Churches because the very Lordship of Christ was being questioned in these churches.
On the subject of non-essentials (where the Bible is not totally clear on a subject, for example), the accord will look more like mutual submission in which we leave our pet issues aside for the sake of unity. Mutual submission may not look at all like agreement or unanimity, but it will glorify the Lord Jesus nonetheless.
Irena; “Mutual submission may not look at all like agreement or unanimity, but it will glorify the Lord Jesus nonetheless.” This is probably the greatest statement I have heard on the creation of ACNA in spite of the difference in the Common Cause partners. With it I can praise God and wait upon Him to see how this plays out. Thanks Pal
This however would not or could not work at Synod.