Tag Archives: GS2016

God has spoken to the liberals

Posted on by
13

John Clarke, the archdeacon of Prince Edward Island region believes that because the vote to approve same-sex marriage passed at general synod, its passing must be God’s will and the Holy Spirit must have guided the members of the synod to vote as they did.

That means God has been misleading every church synod for the last couple of millennia; he is still misleading the Roman Catholic church, the rascal.

I suppose it’s possible that, having thought one way for thousands of years, God has changed his mind and now thinks the opposite, convinced, perhaps, by the pious, saintly behaviour of those participating in gay Pride marches. Or maybe he just wants to be more relevant.

From here:

There are those who would argue that the church is not a democracy, but the Body of Christ in the world, with Jesus Christ as head. True; however, neither is our church a dictatorship. We have put into place reasonable and fair rules to help us collectively discern the will of God in the life of our church. There is no one person ruling the church. It is our collective responsibility to use Scripture, tradition and reason to help discern the will of God in our lives today. We have no option but to take seriously the idea that God’s Holy Spirit might be calling the church to a new thing—a new thing that is reflected in the overwhelming majority of prayerful, careful members who voted yes on the resolution to change the marriage canon.

Since God has clearly spoken, those who oppose homosexual marriage should grit their teeth, shut up and stop disrupting the unity of the church:

It is inappropriate, at this point, for people to oppose the action of General Synod regarding same-sex marriages. The responsibility now lies with those who voted “no” to honestly consider if, in fact, the Holy Spirit is leading our church in a new direction.

The odd thing about all this is that liberals have spent decades sneering at orthodox Christians – fundamentalists or fundies as they are fondly known amongst the dog collar elite – for claiming to hear from God. Now, all of a sudden, it is liberals who have a direct line to God – well, to some sort of god.

What keeps conservative bishops in the Anglican Church of Canada?

Posted on by
13

After the vote that will lead to same-sex marriage in ACoC churches, seven Anglican Church of Canada bishops announced:

We believe that our General Synod has erred grievously and we publicly dissent from this decision.  Resolution A051 R2 represents a change to the sacrament of marriage inconsistent with the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition of the Church Catholic and the Book of Common Prayer.  This would be a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of the Anglican Communion on the doctrine of marriage. Sadly, this complicates relationships within the Anglican Church of Canada and as a Province with the Anglican Communion.

In the same statement, they also declare their commitment to: the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Communion.

Why don’t they leave the ACoC and join ANiC?

The generous answer might be that the bishops value unity, want to work for change from within and are taking a long view where the ACoC repents of its decision.

The unity answer is unconvincing because the bishops claim to be committed to both the ACoC and the Anglican Communion. They can’t be committed to unity with both since the majority of the Anglican Communion is not in unity with the ACoC: they are opposed to these recent actions. Like it or not, it’s one or the other.

Working for change from within is having no effect whatsoever and there are no signs that the ACoC will repent this side of the eschaton.

I think the reason is much simpler and conforms to Jeremiah 17:9, a verse worth bearing in mind whenever probing a person’s motives, including one’s own: if the bishops attempt to move their dioceses to ANiC, they will lose all their buildings. They are not serious enough about their objections to do that.

The canonisation of ambiguity

Posted on by
10

In every profession there are words that become overused to the point of exhaustion. In my profession, words like “interface”, “throughput” and “binary” have escaped from their original technical context and now run amok free from the confines of meaning, to be overused by people who have nothing to say.

That leads me to bishop Colin Johnson who, in gracing us with yet more of his pleonastic rambling on the recent general synod, has come up with a word destined to be overused by Anglican clerics everywhere: “ambiguity”. It is the only concrete belief left to the Anglican Church of Canada – the belief that contradictory beliefs can co-exist in the same belief system.

From here:

“The freedom of conscience in the Anglican experience is not only in superficial matters but even as we approach critical doctrinal issues – how we have understood baptism, the Eucharist, the scriptures, the outward and the inward expression of our faith.  We have a broad and messy tent.  Personally I’d like to clean it up, but I have lived long enough and I have been ordained long enough to know that such a house cleaning is more about me making the church to be what I would be comfortable with.  It usually has little to do with how God wants it to be.  The Anglican Church is an uncomfortable place for those who cannot deal with ambiguity.

General Secretary, Michael Thompson changes his story

Posted on by
26

Yesterday, Michael Thompson issued a statement explaining what caused the chaos surrounding the marriage canon vote. I wrote an article casting doubt on the plausibility of the explanation; subsequently, David Virtue picked up the story and republished it in VOL.

In yesterday’s statement, Thompson explicitly says the error was caused not by his being categorised as a layperson but by his being placed on the non-voting clergyman list (my emphasis}:

It was at that point that Mr. Copeland, the person supporting the electronic voting, discovered that it was in fact my own vote as General Secretary that had been overlooked in the electronic count. Initially, we thought that it had been miscoded as a lay vote, rather than as a clergy vote. We have since been provided, by Mr. Copeland, the list from which the electronic voting was coded, a list prepared by my office. That list described the General Secretary as “clergy, non-voting”. Data-on-the-spot simply coded the information that my office gave them.

Now, he is claiming the opposite: that, although his office placed him in the non-voting column on a spreadsheet, before synod started, Data on the Spot did not “simply code[d] the information that my office gave them”. The contention now is that Thompson was entered as a voting lay member manually by Data on the Spot’s J.P. Copeland. Copeland says he has no record of who requested the manual change or how it was entered incorrectly.

That invites the questions:

  • Who spotted the initial error?
  • Who created the second error?
  • Who requested the change?
  • Was it the second JFK gunman? Elvis?
  • I know it’s Anglican, but are we really being asked to believe that so much incompetence is concentrated into one small office?

As much as I dislike conspiracy theories, I cannot help being just as suspicious now as I was before the second explanation emerged.

From here (my emphasis):

The error, according to Thompson,  originated with an Excel spreadsheet compiled by his office, which listed him and General Synod Chancellor David Jones as being non-voting members of General Synod. The spreadsheet had listed Thompson as “clergy, non-voting.” According to the Constitution of General Synod, both the general secretary and the chancellor have full voting privileges.

“This was an error that took place in my office,” Thompson said in an interview with the Anglican Journal. “It is not an error that was caused by the electronic voting. It is a mistake that we made…[Data-on-the Spot] simply took the information that we gave them and accurately coded it into their electronic system.”

Thompson had previously issued an apology on the floor of General Synod in which he noted that the “good order of General Synod is my responsibility as general secretary…[and] I want to apologize to the General Synod for the confusion that has been caused.”

The issue of Jones’s and Thompson’s voting privileges was brought to light the day before synod began, said J.P. Copeland, integration specialist for Data-on-the-Spot (DOTS), the electronic voting services provider contracted by General Synod to manage the voting by clickers. When Thompson was manually added to the list of voting members, however, he was wrongly coded as a layperson, instead of as a member of the Order of Clergy—a fact that was discovered only after a printed list of how General Synod members had voted was examined.

“It was literally like a hand addition that was communicated to me,” Copeland told the Anglican Journal, speaking of the request to have Thompson added to the voting list. “I don’t have a record of where it came from, who told me what, or whether I heard improperly or whether I read it improperly.”

Something fishy in the marriage canon vote recount

Posted on by
12

General Secretary, Michael Thompson has released a statement on what went wrong on the first count of the marriage canon vote.

You can read the whole thing from the link above, but let’s focus on this part:

It was at that point that Mr. Copeland, the person supporting the electronic voting, discovered that it was in fact my own vote as General Secretary that had been overlooked in the electronic count. Initially, we thought that it had been miscoded as a lay vote, rather than as a clergy vote. We have since been provided, by Mr. Copeland, the list from which the electronic voting was coded, a list prepared by my office. That list described the General Secretary as “clergy, non-voting”. Data-on-the-spot simply coded the information that my office gave them. This error took place in my office, and I take responsibility for it. We were more than well-served by Data-on-the-spot. In fact, without Mr. Copeland’s prompt attention, I am not sure that we would have discovered the nature of the error and had a chance to understand and correct it.

Thompson is telling us that his vote was “overlooked” because he was categorised as a non-voting member of synod.

The computerised voting system was supplied by Data on the Spot. For an idea of how the system works, take a look at the video here. You will note that “each clicker device has a unique and secure serial number”. That means that the data gathering program would have, as part of its input, a database of serial numbers correlating to each person’s name.

Thompson is claiming that he was designated (and, therefore, his clicker was designated) in the database as a non-voting member of synod. Any computer program worth anything would immediately flag this as an error as soon as the non-voting member used his secure clicker in an attempt to vote. The marriage canon vote was at the end of the synod. How many times had Thompson already used the clicker before this in other votes? Why was the error not flagged before the marriage canon vote?

Either the Data on the Spot programmers have some serious problems with missing error routines in their computer code or….. there is something very fishy going on.

There should be a thorough third party audit of the whole process.

Michael Bird proceeding with same-sex marriages before the canon is changed

Posted on by
3

The Niagara bishop, Michael Bird, has confirmed that he will begin same-sex marriages three years before the marriage canon change that permits him to do so. No surprise there. Anglican chaos in action.

From here:

Notwithstanding the reversal of the resolution’s outcome, I am committed to my promise to our diocese and local LGBTQ2 community to continue to walk along the path of full inclusion and to immediately proceed with equal marriage.

Bishop Colin Johnson won’t wait until 2019 to begin same-sex marriages

Posted on by
6

When it appeared that the vote to change the marriage canon did not pass, various liberal bishops defiantly announced that they would perform them, nonetheless. Now it is clear the vote did pass, the canon still cannot change until 2019. Liberal bishops are restating their intention to proceed immediately, making it blindingly obvious that the vote was irrelevant. Not only that, since synod votes are irrelevant, the synod itself is irrelevant. So are the canons. Since its synods and canons are irrelevant, I suspect the whole Anglican Church of Canada is irrelevant.

Here is Johnson’s revised statement:

Last night, I issued a statement based on the understanding that General Synod had narrowly defeated – by one vote in the order of clergy – changes to the marriage canon to include same-sex marriage in Anglican churches across Canada.

Today, after an audit of the recorded vote, it was determined that, in fact, the required 2/3 majority had been met in all three orders – laity, clergy and bishops.

Today’s vote will require confirmation by General Synod in 2019, but we can now begin to discuss how this will be implemented in the Diocese of Toronto in a similar way to what I spoke about in my earlier statement.

I reiterate that even if we do not agree on today’s outcome, we continue to be united in the most central aspects of our faith – our baptism in Jesus Christ and our commitment to serve His people.  Because we are united at this level, we can continue to work through these important issues together – a challenge I embrace and look forward to.

Thank you.

The Most Rev’d Colin R. Johnson

Archbishop of Toronto

More reaction to the marriage canon vote

Posted on by
12

Bishop William Anderson asks the interesting question (since the motion has to pass a second time in 2019 before the canon is actually changed): “Does this mean in fact that they are going to withhold consent for the marriages until this passes second reading in three years?”

I’m sure we already know the answer to that. And if we don’t Bishop John Chapman is only too happy to enlighten us.  Full steam ahead for the Diocese of Ottawa; other bishops will follow suit:

My intention is to honour my previous statement of July 11, 2016 and allow, with my permission, those clergy wishing to preside at a same sex marriage. I felt comfortable proceeding before the issue with the electronic voting system had been presented, because we did have the support of the Synod minus one clergy vote only. And, pastorally it is the right and proper thing for us to do. It is inclusive; it is hospitable, theologically sound and just.

Anderson goes on to note that chaos will undoubtedly follow – I agree, although I would say “more chaos” – and some bishops have made themselves “mini popes” concocting their own doctrine. I hope he doesn’t get sued.

From here:

Bishop William Anderson, diocese of Caledonia
They did what they had to do in terms of trying to correct the record so I have no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is that last night when the thinking was that the vote got in the way, a number of bishops announced that they were simply going to ignore the results, they were going to defy the decision of synod and… go ahead and approve [same-sex] marriages.

Well, today, the situation is reversed, with the correction of the record, so the question I would be asking is, “Does this mean in fact that they are going to withhold consent for the marriages until this passes second reading in three years?”

I think this process has been immensely destructive of the unity of our church. I think people are going to go away wounded and if the dioceses that said they’re going to go ahead anyway now will go ahead even though now they have won the vote, it further exacerbates the contempt for our synodical process. I think we’re in for a period of chaos and I think that’s not going to be helpful for the church.

Q: What will you be telling your diocese?

The practical side of it is pretty straightforward. I have no reason to believe that it was not an honest error, a technical error, and so the vote is what the vote was. People need to deal with that.

I think the bigger problem is the one that flows from all the dioceses that said last night they were simply going to go ahead. What that says to my people is, “Well, we have a process where this has to pass at two successive synods, but some dioceses have decided they’re just going to go ahead, anyway.” Which begs the question, why are we even involved in a synodical process in deciding something like this if, to be very cynical, some bishops are going to make themselves mini popes who can decide doctrine on their own?

To my considerable surprise, it seems that the Anglican Journal has relocated Michael Bird to Ottawa. He, too, plans to ignore the fact that the canon can’t change before 2019 and will go ahead:

Bishop Michael Bird, diocese of Ottawa
Obviously, I can’t help but be grateful for the resolution passing because it’s not a vote, behind that are the witness that we give as a church to LGBTQ [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning] community and their friends and their families. That is welcome news to me.

[…..]

Q: Are you still going ahead with same-sex marriages in your dioceses?

I haven’t changed my mind on that at this point. This has just happened so I haven’t really given much thought yet about what the next [steps are]… I will be talking to some of our senior staff and seeing how, if any way, this will alter that. But at this stage, I basically made my decision now and I’m going forward with it.

Bishops in rebellion

Posted on by
8

Liberal bishops love to brag about how they are committed to “walking together” with the rest of the Anglican Communion in spite of radically different views of human sexuality – and, therefore, human nature itself, God’s created order and ultimately the nature of God and his relationship to the church.

It is ironic, then, that the most liberal bishops in the Anglican Church of Canada can’t even “walk together” with their own national church. Many have announced that they intend to defy the  synod of the national church by marrying same sex couples.

Here is a list of bishops who have declared their intention to begin same sex marriages or explore the measures necessary to begin them:

Michael Bird, Niagara
Colin Johnson, Toronto
John Chapman, Ottawa
Jane Alexander, Edmonton
Mary Irwin-Gibson, Montreal
Melissa Skelton, New Westminster
Robert Bennett and Linda Nicholls, Huron

I expect more will follow and I’ll add to the list as they do.