I’m watching the live stream of GS2019. The discussion is about the change to the Marriage Canon. A motion has just been made to close debate. That means that Bishop David Parsons will not be able to express his views; apparently something similar happened in 2016. I wish I had recorded it, but the gist of it was that, in spite of all the talk about respect for all points of view, not much respect was being shown to the bishop – who, of course, disagrees with the motion.
It went further – almost to the point of unCanadian unpleasantness – as the bishop seemed to throw down a gauntlet: there would be serious consequences if he wasn’t heard. If anyone has a better recollection of exactly what was said, please comment below.
Bishop David: I’m sure ANiC would be delighted if you spoke at any of its synods.
Unless the apostates are defeated and removed from the ACoC there is no possibility of it remaining a truly Christian church. I thank God that at least there is one true Bishop who takes his vows seriously and pray that Satan will not prove to have the upper hand at Synod. That, of course, will not happen until the apostates ate defeated and removed. Bishop David Parsons would do the right thing if he simply removed his diocese from the ACoC and became part of the ANIC.
Cf. my Open Letter posted here: https://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/open-letter-to-archbishop-melissa-skelton/
Bishop Parsons had already spoken and had two hours in which to get in line for a microphone and he failed to do so. He simply wanted the last word. His outburst and disrespect to and for the Chair was unbecoming of a Christian.
The only outburst and disrespect was from those who wanted to have the marriage canon changed. If it were not for true Christians like Bishop Parsons the ACoC would have fallen deeper into the pit of apostasy.
“Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” (Deuteronomy cap. 25 v. 4)
Bishop David had expressed a prior intention to speak. Standing at the microphone manifests an intention to speak, but it is not the only way, he had made it clear he wanted to be heard. The issue is that his intention was communicated to the house, which is what he said. Everyone knew his intention was to speak, no one could say that he rose simply once the motion to close was being entertained, because he wanted to have the last word, without having expressed a prior intention to speak.
If had an MP who said “let’s close debate, I’m tired,” that’s, like, that’s nobody I’d ever vote to return to Parliament. This is our Legislature, this is not some Student Council where if the kids are tired, they go home to their beds.
It is not disrespectful, if someone tries to muzzle you, to say “don’t you do that, man, if you do that, there will be consequences.” Cloture violates the deliberative process, because the idea is to come to the sense of the house once debate has been exhausted. Literal exhaustion. Deliberation is not for the faint, tired or weak of heart.
|Cloture (UK: US: /ˈkloʊtʃər/,[1][2] also UK: /ˈkloʊtjʊər/),[3] closure,[4] or, informally, a guillotine[4] is a motion or process in parliamentary procedure aimed at bringing debate to a quick end. The cloture procedure originated in the French National Assembly, from which the name is taken. Clôture is French for “the act of terminating something”. It was introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom by William Ewart Gladstone to overcome the obstructionism of the Irish Parliamentary Party and was made permanent in 1887. It was subsequently adopted by the United States Senate and other legislatures. The name cloture remains in the United States;[3] in Commonwealth countries it is usually closure[3] or, informally, guillotine; in the United Kingdom closure and guillotine are distinct motions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
As it were, Bishop David had his head cut off—he was denied his voice. I do not find cloture motions to be constitutional, I do not care what procedural law says. Our oral tradition, recorded in Deuteronomy, is that thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. This is to be taken in both a literal and a figurative sense: when the deliberative assembly is doing its work (threshing out the legislation), the oxen therein (delegates) are not to be muzzled.
This is true no matter what your position is on the marriage canon, the use of cloture is unacceptable, it stifles the working of the holy spirit, it stifles the answer of the tongue: “The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:1)
If Bishop David wanted to speak, he had two and a half hours in which to do so. His spoken desire to speak again was during a different debate. He had plenty of time to rise and speak and he chose not to. You may not find cloture motions constitutional, but that is irrelevant as this is not Parliament and the synodical rules of order permit it. Bishop David’s outburst was not a “hey, don’t do that, man,” he yelled and screamed and interrupted the Chair. Since you’re using a parliamentary analogy, if an MP did that in the House of Commons, they would be named and thrown out of the session.
Garbage, MPs yell and shout all sorts of stuff, they don’t even bother with microphones, the Chair says “order, order” and eventually they settle, evictions from legislatures are very rare.
And it is very much Parliament, it is a Legislative Body considering Legislation. It is our Federal Parliament, as Anglicans. We have Provincial Parliaments and Diocesans Parliaments, as well as municipal parish things, called vestries. It’s a complete legislative system, and it does not derive its authority from the federal acts of parliament that incorporate the corporation that is used for banking and other purposes: the legislative authority of the parliament is due to members, elected freely and fairly, representing their districts, being assembled together.
I can’t say what he said other than when he was at the mic, that is what I saw, but he clearly said that his intention was to speak to the motion and that everyone knew it was his intention.
The written law often permits things that should not be allowed by the oral tradition. You have no response to the muzzling of the ox while it treads out the corn, you do not wish to delive into the issue at hand, which is that, you simply wish to say that the synod’s procedural law allows for cloture. Two hours of debate is nothing, this is a pedantic and childish view of how cloture is to be used, two hours is not enough debate, and part of the problem is scheduling this in the evening, after dinner.
Watching this synod has been quite instructive: it seems that there are large problems within the Church, and they are issues to do with foundational assumptions that many have about the lack of need for deliberation and the lack of need to listen respectfully. There is also a fundamental lack of respect for God’s speaking through the synod. The arrogance of those people who think they, as a minority, are God, and that everyone who doesn’t submit to them is Antichrist is tired religious fundamentalism. God is bigger than that sort of conception, which is, ironically, quite binary: you’re either someone who knows that Love means gay marriage is scriptural (even though Jesus never married anyone, let alone gay people) or you’re a bigot who doesn’t know what Love means at all.
The commenter who quoted John’s epistle got it right. Love is to follow God’s commandments. God’s commandments are not difficult to follow, but they are a finite set of commandments contained in the canonical scripture, they are not to be “intuited” by saying “love comes first, and my intuition is that love permits X.” Love is the fulfillment of the law means that if we do the love, we are loving. It does not mean that love superecedes the law and replaces it. Forgiveness is not meant to annul the law, it is meant to provide a means to reconcile those who breach the law, without destroying them utterly. For example, a marxist gospel adherent could say that “love means we need to kill the Romanovs because they’re oppressing the poor!” That’s obviously not scriptural, but that is the sort of situation we’re in, where any violation of any of God’s commandments, statutes, ordinances, etc. may be justified by using an ad hoc, bodily view of “love” as some sort of superior, divine intuition over and above the revealed word of God.