From here:
Process for General Synod to Discuss Human Sexuality
Ms. Marshall gave a brief history of FWMC’s [Faith, Worship, and Ministry Committee] work on human sexuality this past triennium. She reminded COGS that they had already stated their preference for a dialogue-focused General Synod that upheld the value of local, national, and international relationships.Ms. Marshall then walked COGS through FWMC’s proposed process for discussing issues of human sexuality at General Synod. In the proposed format, General Synod would begin by “faithful reporting” of FWMC’s work in plenary, then break out into smaller discussion groups. Feedback from these groups would be collated and shared in plenary. The smaller groups would meet again for the same process of synthesis and shared plenary feedback. Finally a resolution would be shaped out of this feedback, and General Synod would vote on it.
COGS members discussed the proposed process. Some responded very positively. Others asked for clarification on who would draft the final resolution and whether there would be enough time for this process on the General Synod agenda.
One council member proposed that a motion-affirming the local option for dioceses to approve same-sex blessings-be brought to General Synod. COGS discussed this motion, but ultimately decided not to forward it to General Synod.
*Resolution
COGS resolved by consensus to approve FWMC’s proposed format for conversations about human sexuality at General Synod.Anglican Communion Covenant
The Rev. Dr. Katherine Grieb gave a short presentation on the history of the Anglican Covenant, a proposed document that, if adopted, will define relationships between provinces of the Anglican Communion. The Rev. Grieb is from the Episcopal Church (TEC) and an original member of the Covenant Design Group.The Rev. Grieb noted that no provinces have yet ratified this Covenant. She said that from TEC’s perspective the document has progressed from being very rough to being a draft “that they could live with.”
The Rev. Dr. Eileen Scully, interim director of Faith, Worship, and Ministry, and a member of the Covenant Design Group, described the major changes to the most recent draft of the Covenant. The most contentious section has been section four, “Our Covenanted Life Together.” One of the most major changes to this section is that these covenanted relationships will be maintained by the Anglican Communion Standing Committee, which is responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primate’s Meeting.
COGS members raised a variety of questions about the Covenant. Some asked whether elements of section four could be used to take punitive action against the Anglican Church of Canada. The Rev. Grieb clarified that the Covenant would not be retroactive and is intended as a “new start” within the Communion.
The Ven. Harry Huskins guided COGS through the various ways they could present the Anglican Covenant to General Synod. Delegates raised more questions about the Covenant, including how it defined “controversial action” within provinces.
*Resolution
COGS decided by consensus to present the Anglican Communion Covenant to General Synod, as recommended in a motion from the House of Bishops.COGS also noted that FWMC was also sending a resolution to General Synod on this subject.
The chancellor, Ron Stevenson, briefed COGS on the various ways that the Covenant could be formally accepted into Anglican polity. Dr. Scully also briefed COGS on plans for a study process to engage Canadian Anglicans in studying the Covenant.
A I have stated before, devine sexuality is what takes place within the context of God’s Creation and Instruction. Human sexuality is what follows disobedience. So….. what’s there to talk about?
“One of the most major changes to this section is that these covenanted relationships will be maintained by the Anglican Communion Standing Committee, which is responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primate’s Meeting.”
I don’t like this change one itty bit. This is the point we should be remembering that Mouneer Anis resigned. Also, if the TEC can live with it, that means that I can’t!
There is only ONE question that needs to be considered by the General Synod and that is:-
When did the authority of God’s word become subject to any majority vote or subject to the approval of so-called bishops?
What is required by the General Synod is two-fold:-
1. To affirm the authority of Scripture, and that includes ALL issues relating to sexuality.
2. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
If that is done we should witness the deposing of apostates such as Michael Ingham and Michael Bird as well as disciplinary action against the Primate for not standing up to apostasy.
Amen to that, Frank.
“The Rev. Grieb clarified that the Covenant would not be retroactive and is intended as a “new start” within the Communion.” She should know. She was an original member of the Covenant Design Group.
So the new baseline for Anglican faith and morals is now to include all of the hersey and false teaching inherent in the current doctrine of TEC and the ACoC. No wonder TEC and the ACoC will be prepared to sign on. Those who are hoping beyond hope that the Covenant will hold the Communion together should now be able to recognize that it is a fraud being perpetrated on the orthodox.
The revisionists continue to push their agenda on everyone else, using every tactic available to them to fight for additional ground while at the same time not willing to give up any of their gains. It should be clear to averyone concerned that people (I refuse to call them Bishops) like Bird and Ingham will never repent. Therefore, the time has come to either “fish or cut bait”. Publically DEMAND that the Worldwide Anglican Communion declare TEC and ACoC to have BROKEN the Communion and are now officially OUT! No half measures. They are out, all the way out, no longer a member of WAC in ANY capacity. The sooner all Faithful Anglicans make this DEMAND the better!
Gee I wonder where the ABC will stand on this??? Hello……..
The ABC will not make any demands on TEC or the ACoC, n’or will the Synods of either (other thaan to proceed down the slippery slopes faster). The only answer to the whole challenge is to get rid of Canterbury and go to the the GAFCON resolutions and make Jerusalem the centre of the Anglican World (where it should have been since the early Christian days anyway). Forget Rome (another religion), Forget Canterbury (a lost religion) and certainly forget the rest of the “religions”. Get back to the basics of the Christian Faith and if it must be that people hold onto denominationalism (please Lord, help us in our stupidity) then at least let it be centred in Jerusalem.
Gerry, was the ABC placed in office according to the will of God?
Stuck, the ABC was was unfortunately placed in office by the will of the British government who, while they may think and act like they are God, are not quite there yet.
stuck,
I’m not quite sure exactly what was the point of the question, but the thing that sprang immediately to my mind is that nothing in the world happens outside God’s will, so even if God is not pleased by something, if it happens at all, it is because He allowed it. So, yes… in that sense, the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) is, if not having been placed there, is at least now in office according to God’s will.
The Scripture that came to mind is this:
It may be that some of the leadership of the ACoC, TEC, CofE and other liberal-leaning denominations have been allowed there by God to demonstrate the extent of the apostasy that has occurred within those institutions, to show which has God’s approval, and as a signal to true believers to abandon them as quickly as possible, as many are now doing.
Lord willing, the trend will continue.
c/p from here
John K the actual point of the question was to attempt to help my brother Gerry see a different approach regarding our mounting sorrows, as in “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” below.
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
1 Timothy 2: 1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
“No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should”. This was part of my flower child Mantra “Desiderata”, until I heard Trudeau the terrible use it in his victory speech. I even remember ripping the poster off the wall. Well here I am full circle and the Lord our God was, is, and always will be the Great I Am. Halleluah! and you, Gerry, me and the ABC ……..have a role.
Thanks struck
I believe we are in agreement.
Winter Traveler [#9], it is simply not true that the ABC was placed in office by the will of the British Government, and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said this. He was nominated by the Church and appointed by the Queen. The British Government’s only role in the process is a prime ministerial veto, which was not used.
Stuck – must you continue to place yourself into the history books as my personally appointed professor of theology? This is how it appears to me…….. you disagree with my thoughts or see where you must further expound your great learning upon me and frankly, Stuck, I find it somewhat exhasparating. Time for it to end.
Gordon (#13), from one perspective, it seems to me that you’re splitting hairs. So long as the British government can stop the appointment of an ABC, it is not wrong to say that the “will” of the British government is at play. Likewise, it is reasonable to say that the will of Congress is a factor in the appointment of various presedential nominees in the US. I can see both sides of the argument.
Warren [#15], if Stuck had said with the consent of the British Government, I would agree with you.
However, Gordon Brown issued a discussion document last year in which he proposed removing the role of the British Government entirely. The British Government does not want to be involved in the process.
Ultimately it is all God’s will
#14 Gerry; I was answering John K’s question. To admonish a brother in Christ and in Love is my duty. To continue to do so in the context of this blog, when it is obviously not desired would be wrong. I am very sorry that you see me in the light you have described, I ask your forgiveness, and assure you that I will do everything possible to make corrections.
My apologies to Stuck for confusing you with Winter Traveler in #16. It was still rather early in the morning here (or at least it felt that way).
Gordon to my way of thinking apologies are for wayward golfers and politicians. Growth and learning are the ways of Christian men. Give it no more thought …I didn’t.
Stuck #18 -
Don’t come on so strong my friend. There are many others out there who can teach me so much more clearly. Now that this has been said, I accept that you are trying to help me become more learned (and we all need that) and in that spirit will say it is appreciated, however, not at the expense of seemingly being scolded most of the time….I’m to old for such stuff and have way too much on my plate to have to deal with it.
Where is Kate these days, she used to take on this task?
Gerry (#21), I recall Kate mentioning that she was going to cut way back on blogging for Lent.
For John #17
We must have a proper understanding when we believe it is ultimately all God’s will. Certainly it is not God’s will for a person to operate a vehicle while impaired or for a person to become involved in pornography or pedophilia. We all have that old nature working within us and Satan is always working to control our actions in accord with that old nature. It is for this reason that Christ died for our sin – to redeem us from that old nature. If we simply believe that everything is ultimately God’s will, we are placing responsibility for the sinful actions of mankind on God.
When you get down to the basic facts, it really does not matter who or how the ABC was selected. What matters is how that person performs his duties. We see in the ACoC so-called bishops who have clearly denounced the vows they have made both at their initial ordination and supposedly reaffirmed at their consecration. They seem to believe that God’s word is subject to their approval and in some cases have used synods to support their devious actions.
Frank (#23)
I guess what I was thinking is that perhaps God has allowed such apostate leadership in some churches (and frankly, I don’t accuse the ABC of complete apostasy; he just seems incapable of dealing with it) as a warning or a sign for the truly faithful to get out as soon as possible. Liberalism crept in so slowly in some cases that the changes were hardly noticeable. It’s the old frog in the water thing. But now, in the most extreme cases, the slide is so obvious and so steep that any true Christian should be quite alarmed and looking elsewhere for fellowship.
Gordon (#16), if you see this, I would be interested in your take on this comment which was posted to Stand Firm earlier today (the italicized text is my doing):
Warren – Hmmm, so that’s what’s wrong with the ABC. It’s not Him, or even the office, it’s the government who whoulda thunk it. well the only thing I can say is ya gets whatcha pays for.
Time for my mantra again – we gotta turn around, go back down, back the way we came.