309 to 69, 17 abstentions.
Here is the motion:
That this Synod, aware of the distress cause by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
The original motion by Lorna Ashworth, “that this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America,” was defeated.
Good that it passed with the amendment but, oh, how typically Anglican – report back next year.
Effectively neutered by the CoE HoB. Meaningless boilerplate, more prevarication. Unfortunately very Anglican, yes.
As one tweet said: “Like a gun. First you make it safe (the amendment: Bishop of Bristol) and then you decide whether to use it or not.”
I don’t know, point A sounds pretty good to me. Anglicans move at glacial speeds, it is a start.
Kate,
It is certainly better than it could have been, and the use of affirm is promising.
After the lightening speed with which certain dioceses manage to instigate litigation, a glacial pace for simple recognition is somewhat frustrationg. But, as you say, it is a start.
You two have become very Anglican all of a sudden, what’s with that then? Any talk of indabababaing or dialogue and they’ll be a schism right here in the blog!
As you well know, I have the deepest respect for everything Anglican.
hehe
Gee whiz peter you took the words right out of my mouth.
In the context of its introduction shouldn’t that be indabababbling?
or in a more western style perhaps InnagodadaVeniVidiVici
Regarding the amendment – Who cares, I am confident that the ACNA is well received in the context of the will of God. I pray that She might continue to grow in that context.
I apologize for hitting the enter button before completion of my thought process – BTW that’s not a “lead in” Warren.
I thank God for friends like Lorna Ashworth, I suggest we invite her to our next synod so we can thank her in person.
#10 Stuck in T.: I agree! I too glorify God for the beauty of God’s gift of Lorna Ashworth! I think sometimes we rely too much on procedures and resolutions and forget that the real life is in our brothers and sisters in Christ. This is the Church!
Stuck (#10), no rocks from me. I often hit the send button and then immediately think I did so too quickly.
Hey, I’m that rarity of rarities, a cradle Anglican. I even had a British granny!
A British nannie ……….. no wonder
(I mean about your liberal roots) not that rare ol’ girl, I too was a cradle Anglican. Oh how I yearn for them good old days.
PS I know your not that old – its a British term of endearment.
You strive sooo hard to get away from the ACC and then you try sooo hard to be recognized within the Communion. Except that you’ve forgotten that the ACC is already in the Communion. So just what have you accomplished?
Your “o” key is stuck.
The the site administrators: have any of you noticed that Eph 3:20 is another “randy” with a different name….. I mean, another “trol” doing his/her thing (effectively). When are you going to rid the site of these trols when it becomes obvious that is what they are???
No, Eph 3:20 and Randy are two different people, Gerry.
#15 What we have accomplished is the freedom to be authentically Christian and authentically Anglican.
Hi Kate: Re:#18:
I think you may have misunderstood me. Perhaps I could have worded my statement a little differently.
I fully realize that Randy and Eph 3:20 are two totally different people.
What I meant was that they are doing basically the same little job and that is being “trols”. Nearly everything Eph3:20 says is designed, the same way “Randy” designed his statements, to basically draw people into a ‘fray’ that is unnecessary.
Perhaps. I don’t think Eph3:20 has proved him or herself to be a troll, yet, but I agree he or she is well on the way.
Eph3:20 and Randy may well be two different persons but both are on the same apostate bandwagon and seem to have traded in the God of the Bible and our Lord for political correctness and political expediency. This is proven by rash statements such as homosexuals are “born that way” when there is not a shred of scientific evidence to prove same. Each and every one of us has that old nature within us and our sin tendencies depend largely on our personality and upbringing and rationalling it away does not redeem us. That is why we are consistantly called to repentance and why our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, suffered death on the cross for our redemption.
From the blog rules:
You are free to comment on blog entries, dissenting from other opinions if you so desire. However, I would ask that disagreement is kept respectful. In that context, pointlessly negative sniping or ad-hominems will probably be deleted.
That is to say, dissent is allowed. The admin’s are the ones who make the call as to when comments move into “pointlessly negative sniping or ad-hominems ” – and we tend to give the benefit of the doubt where possible.
So let us do our thing – we’re not going to designate trolls based on request. Let’s just concentrate on the subject at hand please.
Trolls are not necessarly bad. They do keep the forest from becoming sterile. Anyone who has been in the deep dark forest and actually met a troll know full well if they become too agressive all that is necessary is to ignore them and they disappear. After all their whole raison detre is simply to be noticed. Gerry bro, think of them as yogurt! Yes they can have a fattening effect but they also provide bacteria that can produce positive results.
In the same (sort of) vein using the term heretical is much more in line with Christian thinking than apostate – one is an observation the other a judgement. To put it another way, one leaves room for repentence the other does not. I would remind all users of the stronger connotation that the seal has not been broken yet on the book of life and even if it had you would be unable to read it.