The issue of same-sex unions will come up again at General Synod in June. Disagreement has been taken for granted and this document describes the process to “allow for conversation and listening first, before putting forward a motion.”
It sounds like a Rowanesque manoeuvre to reach some kind of Hegelian middle-ground – where there really isn’t any.
Once again members at next month’s General Synod (GS) will be asked to discuss issues of human sexuality. This will be the next step in the Anglican Church of Canada’s 34-year journey of debate, study, and discernment that began with the commissioning of the first task force by the House of Bishops in 1976.
[......]
We don’t agree—and what is at stake is sustaining a community within the context of a complex and conflicted argument about its moral life. This has shaped the Council of General Synod’s decision of how to bring the sexuality discussions to GS 2010. The result is a process that will allow for conversation and listening first, before putting forward a motion. Members of synod will participate in discussions and these discussions will be used to shape whatever then comes to the floor.
The starting point for discussion will be the House of Bishops’ October 2008 pastoral statement. This is a public statement issued after the experience of Lambeth by our bishops who themselves embody the diversity of theological, scriptural, ecclesiological, and pastoral commitments within the church. It shares something of their discussion and struggle and outlines that which, within the challenge of disagreement and diversity, the bishops were able to affirm. It serves to guide the church, naming both requests and hopes as the church continues to discern the movement of the Spirit.
Each discussion group will be facilitated by a synod member. A recorder, recruited locally from outside the synod membership, will be provided for each group. A collation of the discussions will be prepared by the reporters with Bishop Linda Nicholls, chair of the Primate’s Theological Commission, and myself as chair of the Faith, Worship and Ministry committee. The prolocutor, Canon Robert Falby, will share the results in plenary. Printed copies of both the complete collation and the summary documents will be made available to GS members between discussion sessions.
What do you think about this different method of discernment for controversial issues at General Synod?
What do I think? I’m glad I don’t have to deal with it anymore.
I think a lot depends on the reporters, since the motion that results will be formed largely in response to their reports. Given this setup, just about anything could happen.
Don’t bet on that, Kate.
I have absolutely no intention of going back to an ACoC church. Therefore, I don’t have to deal with ACoC politics anymore.
The claimed allowing for conversation and listening is nothing less than a soft tap on the head to convince those wanting to stand for the truth to take a back seat and soften their position so that apostasy can continue its reign within the ACoC. There is only ONE voice that should be heard and that is the voice of Scripture and that should be final. However, the master of the apostates has and continues to plan his strategy to lead the ACoC farther and farther away from the MASTER. I do not think that requires any explanation.
The same old revisionist tactics. Talk, talk, and more talk, until they get their way. Than, all of a sudden no more talk will be allowed for they will claim that the issue will “have been resolved”. Strange how whenever the decisions to not go along with the revisionists agenda never seem to bring a resolution and completion of the talking. But once the decision is made to go along with the revisionists agenda, well that finalizes things for ever.
My advise to anyone still in the ACoC who is Faithful to God and His Holy Word. Stand firm, and publically state that the line is now drawn in the sand. Declare, loudly, that if same sex blessings are not revoked entirely and completely throughout the entire ACoC than you will no longer be part of the ACoC. If any motion in support of same sex blessings passes, than right away, then and there, get up and walk out.
This is modeled on what Bishop Jim Cowan and ARchdeacon Bruce Bryant-Scott cooked up for the 2007 D of BC synod on human sexuality held directly before the 2007 GS. The flawed memorial to GS that came out the D of BC in 2007 was based on an unofficial polling of the representatives taken from a process exactly like what GS proposes, without any sort of official vote on the floor of synod.
This was a manipulative process fraught with misinterpretation of the results based on the way the questions were posed to the “discussion groups.” No discussion took place. People just wrote down their answers and accused each other of intolerance, ignorance, biblical ignorance and ill education and hinted darkly at heresy.
The questions were biased, leading to a biased statistical analysis.
Also, what and how each group recorder records skews information. And you’ve already mentioned that bias in the reporting group will skew results also.
This is simply a method to poll people ahead of time to make a vote result seemingly inevitable.
I suggest that orthodox GS reps have a good, hard look at those questions for discussion and particularly object to leading questions, bias etc ahead of time, b/c once it is over…it’s over.
Accepting the process is to accept defeat.
“There is a smile of love and a smile of deceit and a smile of smiles where these two smiles meet.
Kate your #4; I was referring to the controversial issues in my #3 not ACoC politics. Take a closer look at off Topic (2 blogs down) its more scary than it looks.