The two thirds majority needed to allow same-sex marriage was met by the laity and clergy but defeated by the bishops.
Primate Fred Hiltz appeared to be stunned by the vote.
Before the meeting was adjourned, there was talk of making another motion to somehow bypass the decision of this defeated motion, so this may not be over.
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.
From here:
In an exercise intended to produce more compassionate discussions than those that sometimes prevailed during marriage canon discussion in 2016, members of the 2019 General Synod spent almost the entire afternoon of the gathering’s first official day of business hearing about and practicing ways of speaking and listening respectfully to one another.
An organisation that spends an entire afternoon discussing how to discuss things doesn’t stand much of a chance of getting to the heart of the matter to be discussed. It is like Kierkegaard’s view of ‘reflection’ as opposed to ‘immediacy’, where you have an idea about something and indulge in endless conversations about the idea, instead of dealing with the thing itself. Will anyone be allowed to express any strong reasons to oppose same-sex marriage or will they be squashed as hurtful or bullying. We’ll see.
From 1:30 p.m. until close to 5 p.m. on July 11, with one break, Lynne McNaughton, bishop of the diocese of Kootenay, and priest and psychologist Canon Martin Brokenleg led a session on “being a synod,” discussing the importance of living out Christian love during debates about potentially contentious issues, and having synod members practice respectful listening and talking skills in table groups.
The Anglican version of “Christian love” has devolved into mushy sentiment centred around not hurting anyone’s feelings.
Dean Peter Wall, chair of the General Synod planning committee, said the idea for the exercise arose out of a great deal of talking and praying committee members had done, in the hope of creating a “listening, learning atmosphere” at the 2019 synod, and to help it be “both a community and a body.”
The alleged “listening, learning atmosphere” is a hoax: no one was willing to listen to ex-homosexuals and ex-lesbians from the Zacchaeus Fellowship in prior synods and no one will be in this synod.
Brokenleg was to have co-led the session with Archbishop Melissa Skelton, metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of British Columbia and Yukon and diocesan bishop of New Westminster, but Skelton was ill and unable to attend General Synod on Thursday. McNaughton, another member of the General Synod planning committee who, Wall said, was closely involved in developing the exercise, took her place Thursday.
McNaughton said she hoped the exercise would allow members of synod to be their “authentic selves” in their discussions while at the same time making room “for others with different authentic selves and perspectives.”
What on earth are “authentic selves”? How did non-authentic selves get nominated as delegates? Have synod delegates been the victim of alien body snatchers and become Pod People, duplicates in every respect except in their ability to maintain a connection with authenticity? It would explain the behaviour of many of the clergy.
Listening and speaking well through difficult discussions, she said, is a way to “be as Christ to one another, to love one another as Christ has loved us,” and by doing this, Christians can be an example to the world.
“We are called to be a witness to a world that is hungry for civility, parched for compassion,” she said. “The world is watching how we treat each other in the midst of difference, and the world is waiting to be inspired.”
The world is hungry for truth not sickly, bogus, anodyne civility.
The Anglican Church of Canada’s liturgical butchers have been labouring diligently on expunging all traces of Davidic toxic patriarchy from the psalms. Their efforts have been rewarded by the publishing of the Inclusive Language Liturgical Psalter whose crowning achievement is to use “alternative wordings and/or sentence structures to eliminate the use of predominantly masculine language.”
Thus, rather than Psalm 1 beginning:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
We have the limp “they” and “their”:
Happy are they who have not walked in the counsel of the wicked, *nor lingered in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seats of the scornful!
Their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on this law they meditate day and night.
God himself is not exempt from neutering. Psalm 23, which should begin:
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Has been emasculated into:
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not be in want.
You make me lie down in green pastures and lead me beside still waters.
You revive my soul and guide me along right pathways for your name’s sake
This was concocted in 2016 and, as usual with an alleged church desperate to fit in with what is left of the civilization it is supposed to be redeeming, is already woefully outdated. For example, in Psalm 139, we have the deeply problematic:
For you yourself created my inmost parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
If the church were truly woke, it would say “my begetter’s womb” in case the womb in question belongs to a they who has chosen to self-identify as a man.
Read it all here:
The previous mandate of the Journal, as specified in the handbook of the General Synod, is to be “a national newspaper of interest to the members of the Anglican Church of Canada, with an independent editorial policy and not being an official voice of or for the church.”
The new mandate reads, “the General Synod shall produce and distribute journalistic content of interest to the members of the Anglican Church of Canada, whose purpose is to connect and reflect the Church to internal and external audiences, providing a forum for the full range of voices and views across the Church.”
The Journal has always had a bias towards theological liberalism, so for all intents and purposes, it has always been a mouthpiece for the Anglican Church of Canada. The only difference now is that it is no longer pretending to do otherwise.
There is one thing that could change, though: currently, the Journal receives over $500,000 yearly from Canadian Heritage – from our taxes – but only if it maintains editorial independence.
Consequently, the print edition, once distributed with gay abandon – even I used to receive one – now has to be requested:
The article go on to note:
The new editorial policy states that the Journal is expected to “adhere to the highest standards of journalistic responsibility, accuracy, fairness, accountability and transparency” and publish journalism which is “fact-based, fact-checked and in-depth, tackling important issues, asking and answering difficult questions.”
This is Newspeak for “The new editorial policy will adhere to the highest standards of journalistic responsibility by promoting same-sex marriage, climate change activism, anti-capitalism, anti-Trumpism, abortion and euthanasia insouciance, anti-Israel bigotry, fossil-fuel phobia and ecclesiastical wokeness, even when the subject at hand has nothing to do with those topics”.
Considering the Anglican Church of Canada has become a repository for most of the nation’s gay clergy, for those old enough to remember it, this headline may bring to mind the notorious nude wrestling scene in Ken Russell’s film “Women in Love”. If that’s what the bishops were up to, no one is admitting to it.
What is being admitted to is a “currency of grace”, a reference to the fact that the bishops are desperate not to lose the currency derived from conservative parishes who might leave the denomination when the marriage canon is officially changed to permit same sex marriage later this year. At least, I think that’s what they are getting at.
From here:
“The National House of Bishops has worked very hard since General Synod 2016—not only on the issues from General Synod 2016 and the ministry of the whole church, but on how we work and live together,” said Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. “We left this January meeting having wrestled with how we are the church and how we will remain united in Christ whatever the outcomes at General Synod 2019.”
“One bishop commented that in our work there was a ‘currency of grace,’ a statement that resonated with members of the House. This is not to say there isn’t diversity and there aren’t differences among us, but there was space, respect and grace-filled conversation in how we went about our discussions, and for each other.”
The bishops spent a full day in retreat with Hiltz, reflecting on the nature of primatial ministry within Canada and across the Anglican Communion. This day was in preparation for the beginning of the nomination process for the primacy.
They also spent two days focused on issues that will come before General Synod when it meets in July 2019. These included the proposed replacement of the Book of Common Prayer’s collect for the conversion of the Jews with a collect for reconciliation with the Jews; the second reading of the proposed amendment to the marriage canon (Resolution A051-R2); and changes to Canon XXII in response to the evolving self-determining Indigenous church within the Anglican Church of Canada.
Last night I dreamt about this photo. In my dream, these three were Cheshire Cats. They were all mad; I must have been mad for being an Anglican like them; it didn’t matter which way we went we still ended up in the same place with gay married bishops everywhere.
As Anglicanism faded gently away in the West all that was left were the grins looming ghoulishly on the horizon. Until suddenly, our new primate, due to replace Fred Hiltz later in 2019, leapt into the scene, a Red Queen yelling “Off with their heads” at the few remaining conservatives still lurking in the Anglican Church of Canada.
Then I woke up in a sweat.
`Cheshire Puss,’ Alice began, rather timidly, as she did not at all know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider. `Come, it’s pleased so far,’ thought Alice, and she went on. `Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’
`That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat.
`I don’t much care where–‘ said Alice.
`Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.
`–so long as I get SOMEWHERE,’ Alice added as an explanation.
`Oh, you’re sure to do that,’ said the Cat, `if you only walk long enough.’”“`But I don’t want to go among mad people,’ Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can’t help that,’ said the Cat: `we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.’
`How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.
`You must be,’ said the Cat, `or you wouldn’t have come here.’
Alice didn’t think that proved it at all; however, she went on `And how do you know that you’re mad?’
`To begin with,’ said the Cat, `a dog’s not mad. You grant that?’
`I suppose so,’ said Alice.
`Well, then,’ the Cat went on, `you see, a dog growls when it’s angry, and wags its tail when it’s pleased. Now I growl when I’m pleased, and wag my tail when I’m angry. Therefore I’m mad.’”
The Anglican Church of Canada is trying to decide how those who worship the gods of inclusion and diversity can get along with those who prefer to worship God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since it’s impossible, the church is industriously tangling itself into dense knots of confusion in the hope that the resulting impenetrable obfuscation will lull everyone into a passive torpor, unable to think straight, let alone act coherently.
In the latest Council of General Synod meeting, members suggested that there should be a “variety of understandings of marriage”. No one seemed interested in defining the limits of the variety: should it end before or after polyamorous gender-fluid ménages?
It doesn’t help that someone proposed making marriage value-free in a similar vein to the church being doctrine-free. There is nothing more lasting than a valueless marriage:
“any acknowledgement should not include any explicit or implicit value judgment, namely that one form of marriage is somehow better or more virtuous than the other.”
In order to cut through the chaos, Fred Hiltz is proposing an amendment to an amendment – a bit like growing a pimple on a boil – in order to protect the losers in the 2019 Marriage Canon vote. All meaningless twaddle, of course, since, as Bishop William Love discovered, when Presiding Bishop Michael Curry (the excitable “All you Need is Love” wedding preacher – unless it’s a bishop called Love who doesn’t toe the LGBT line) restricted his ministry, nothing stops the Anglican homoerotic rainbow steamroller.
Read about the whole sorry mess here:
A desire to stay together as a church, despite a diverse range of understandings of what marriage is and should be.
That theme arose consistently during discussions across three sessions at the November meeting of Council of General Synod (CoGS) regarding the proposed amendment to the marriage canon.
But exactly how this “theme,” or aim, may be fulfilled is more complicated.
In a session titled “Marriage Canon: Way Forward, Next Steps” on November 25, CoGS members began to consider the potential for an acknowledgement of a variety of understandings of marriage within the Anglican Church of Canada.
At the meeting, CoGS members broke into table groups to discuss the questions, “Do you think it would be helpful if in considering the change to the canon, it would include an expression of acknowledgement of and respect for a continuing variety of understanding of marriage within the Anglican Church of Canada?” and “What might such an acknowledgement include?” All of the table groups reported back on their discussions to say that, yes, it would be helpful to name that there are different understandings and teachings of marriage.
Details of how this acknowledgement might look were more nuanced.
One group suggested that “accommodation should be made for our Indigenous brothers and sisters,” and that Indigenous communities should have the right to make their own decision on the matter.
Another group noted that as soon as accommodations are made for one point of view, questions arise about other viewpoints. “Each of us is perceived as being marginalized depending on where you stand in the story…[if] we’re saying we’re bracketing one particular group, what happens if the motion goes in a completely different direction…maybe we need to create a bracket for someone else. If we’re walking together, how are we really going to do that?” Another group said that whatever is proposed must be clearly laid out, to avoid legal challenges.
“We have to admit that we are different, we have different views…if we’re going to do this, both views have to be clear in saying this is part of the doctrine of our church… and we walk together in love.”
Another table pointed out that careful attention must be paid to language: “any acknowledgement should not include any explicit or implicit value judgment, namely that one form of marriage is somehow better or more virtuous than the other.”
The Anglican Church of Canada has published a study guide for its pamphlet “In Sure and Certain Hope”, or, how to commit suicide inclusively with diverse missionality, while listening with a generous pastoral response as we journey together incarnationally.
In keeping with its floundering response to same-sex marriage, the church isn’t particularly interested in whether suicide is right or wrong: instead, it prefers to indulge in conversations about it, long and boring enough to drive all but the most resilient to….. suicide.
The ACoC is an expert in suicide, of course, since it has been committing it institutionally for years.
From here:
Created as a companion piece to In Sure and Certain Hope, the Anglican resource on physician-assisted dying, the study guide encourages groups to consider the topic in terms of pastoral response, rather than ethical debate.
“What does it mean to ‘be present’ to someone who is dying, and to ‘provide care’? What care do I want to experience when I am dying? Can I provide care for somebody who has very different values from mine?”
These are some of the questions posed in a new study guide aimed at helping Anglicans reflect on and respond to Canadian legislation regarding medical assistance in dying.
The Rev. Eileen Scully, director of faith, worship and ministry for the Anglican Church of Canada, who provided staff support to the team who created the guide, says changes in legislation have helped to open conversations about “how do I envision how I want to be cared for in my death, in my dying?”
From here:
The church should embrace a “humble humanity” and a “way of living together that is more respectful of our dignity as children of God,” Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said Friday in a report to Council of General Synod (CoGS).
[…..]
Hiltz also related this ideal to his hope that the Anglican Church of Canada would practice “good disagreement” in upcoming discussions of the proposed amendment to the marriage canon to allow for same-sex marriage, which will be discussed at CoGS and then be subject to a vote during General Synod in July 2019.
I’ve had enough of faux “good disagreement” or “we are doing things our way and we don’t care if you disagree”.
At the First Council of Nicaea when Christianity was muscular, when the participants weren’t effeminate men and aggressive women, St. Nicholas punched the heretic Arius on the nose. That’s “good disagreement”.
