Apparently some at synod have felt bullied and “unsafe” in their discussion groups. No information is at hand as to the nature of the bullying, so one is left to speculate. Have clergy brought guns to the synod? Knives? Are legs and arms being broken with baseball bats?
Or are tender souls shrivelling under the onslaught of vigorous disagreement. Poor dears. Whatever it is, the Primate is calling for holy manners – whatever they are.
From here:
In an impromptu speech and prayer that lasted nearly 20 minutes, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, sternly reminded members of General Synod to show “holy manners” toward one another when discussing same-sex marriage in their neighbourhood groups.
“Some of the neighbourhood groups, as I understand it, have worked very well, and indeed are eager to get back together,” he said.
“For some there was more of a challenge, and for some, very difficult experiences. And it has come to my attention, as a pastor to this community and this church, that some of the behaviour that’s been exhibited has been less than the standard set out in these norms,” Hiltz said, referring to the eight guidelines members were instructed to follow to ensure a respectful level of debate in their groups.
“Some members of synod have experienced bullying. Some members of our synod are deeply hurt. Some of them are deeply offended. Some are feeling unsafe to continue to speak lest they be reprimanded, and so they’re feeling silenced,” Hiltz said.
“This kind of behaviour is not appropriate,” he said. “It’s unacceptable. And it ought not, and I pray will not, be tolerated.”
Perhaps the offended part can make jazz hands when being triggered by micro aggressions. Just a thought…
Or finger-snapping? Or would that qualify as a mini-micro aggression? I would wink at this point, but I don’t know your trigger threshold. 😉
I’m pretty sure the word bullying is male-centric, exclusionary to cows, and part of patriarchy. However, in the words of Bart Simpson…
Unfortunately, finger snapping may be misinterpreted as affirmation, vis-à-vis the beatnik sign of applause. Since apparently our leaders are from that beatnik era, we must do our best to be culturally sensitive and aware of the permanent trauma that might be caused by mixed metaphors.
Sounds like code for “how dare you express disgust at my horrible opinions”
This has probably been discussed elsewhere on this blog, but reviewing the twitter account of ACC, I came across a snap showing their house rules for discussion. The first is that no one may question the reverence for scripture held by someone else. Many of the others are about understanding and inclusion and inoffensiveness in speech towards those who differ. Bottom line seems to be that conservatives are not permitted to appeal to any source of authority outside of the lived experience of those seeking the change. Surely even those on the liberal side of this issue must see the imbalance and injustice of this?
You know, I agree that the political correctness is over-the-top, although I’m sympathetic to the goal of keeping things cordial. What I find deeply disconcerting is the obvious efforts being made to contain those with traditional views and prevent them from defending their position! Good grief.
I was watching this afternoon’s live stream of the General Synod debate on the marriage canon motion. According to one youth delegate who spoke against the motion, she referred to the bullying and silencing coming from those in favour of changing the marriage canon. Clearly, bullying and silencing can go both ways. We certainly have examples in the public square of people who hold traditional views of marriage being subjected to ridicule and worse, including employment consequences.
Thanks for these blog entries. I too was surprised at the young woman noting that she felt bullied for holding traditional viewpoints on marriage.
Most speakers linedup to speak are for the motion to change the definition of marriage. Many claim that it is time. That’s there argument. Time to get with modern thinking.
Defenders identify scripture as the source of truth.
The old rubric for making such decisions was called the Weslyan quadrilateral, scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. The new rubric has replaced such thinking with feelings, political correctness, social justice, and all genders go to heaven.
Thanks for these updates, David. Much appreciated.
D’Arcy