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.”
When votes are tabulated in an election, you don’t get what amounts to a do-over. You live with your mistakes and move on. This casts doubt on the integrity and legitimacy of the vote. Not that it matters much given the subject matter being voted on and the immediate defiance displayed by rogue priests.
The conference theme was something like, “you are my witnesses”. Well, the ACoC showed itself inept to the world.
Somewhere in all of this, our Lord is at work.
Voting is so unnecessary if any Diocese can always choose the local option.
Well, really you should have said:
The error was well planned in advance. ALL clergy, including the apostates, clearly know that God’s Word is not subject to the will of man. As Christians we MUST accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Both factors were clearly rejected by the apostates and the result shows the ACoC is no longer Christian but rather a church of political expediency. Any so-called bishop or other apostate having any integrity should resign immediately.
Does the Chancellor, Canon David Jones, really have nothing to say about the local option, in view of the fact that a second vote three years hence in favour of same-sex ‘marriage’ is required canonically before this becomes church law?
Yes, the Chancellor issued an opinion prior to the vote that said that the existing canon wording does not prohibit same-sex marriage. I don’t agree, but it seems that some bishops are using that opinion to justify their plans to proceed ahead of the second vote required in 2019.
If the existing Canon does not prohibit same-sex marriage, then why do we need to change it?
Precisely my question. “Heads I win, tails you lose” seems to be the working ‘principle’ now!
That’s such a good point and it seems like it should be self-evident…
There is a saying, usually attributed to Napoleon, that one should not attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. In this case, is there any level of stupidity which can adequately explain this? I think not.
Nothing fishy or arcane. Look by yourselves: here the link to the voting list
https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/1/17/178e2be4b1cb3b21/a051r2results2.original.1468508926.pdf
(IN GRAY those people who abstained or did not vote, i.e., the three clergy in favour of the change and whose votes were NEVER counted; the one clergy who abstained; the general secretary’s name WHICH APPEARS IN THE LAY SECTION; and the other lay people who abstained; and of course the name of the primate who did not vote because he does not have right to vote).
And here the link as to why and how they found out the whole mess:
https://webcasts.welcome2theshow.com/acoc/4203 (thank God it all came from the FLOOR and not from the table; so much for technology when in fact the recounting was done over an old notebook .. paper and carton covers. Pretty embarrassing.
I would ask if you believe the motion should have been considered in the first place. Clearly it is an offence to the authority of Scripture and the result proves the ACoC is no longer a Christian church. The apostate bishops and others reject the Scripture and should be removed from office.
It is not so much that there was a mess but rather that the motion should not have been so much as considered.
Dear Frank,
Since you asked I feel I owe you a reply.
Taking into account the canon law, the entire corpus of canon and ecclesiastical law. I do not believe the ACoC has any right to change the doctrine on Marriage or re-define it and I do not believe dioceses have any right to established rituals for same sex marriages. It does however pertains to its dioceses to -for example- establish rites for same sex blessings of civilly married people. Since the faculties of General Synod came via delegation from the dioceses, then the dioceses -in whatever the General Synod does not have explicit jurisdiction- have the jurisdiction. For example, establishing rites which would not comport doctrinal changes (such as same-sex blessings). This is the reason why General Synod -after someone made the procedural mistake of putting the question to General Synod asking it whether it would allow dioceses to perform same-sex blessings- refused or declined (although by voting ‘no”) to give permission to the diocese to do so. The legal reason is that GS never had the authority to permit or not to do that. That is why some dioceses “nevertheless” went ahead authorizing those rites.
Now, in whatever explicitly General Synod has jurisdiction (such as defining doctrine) then the dioceses do NOT have power to exert those changes since they do not have the jurisdiction to do so (since it is attributed to GS). This is a basic principle of constitutional law pertaining to the allotment of jurisdictions in any federal structure of governance between different levels of administration.
I am pretty orthodox when it comes to theology. I do uphold the three Creeds, and the resolutions of the ecumenical councils regarding the nature of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. I do believe all things necessary for salvation (whether they are 1. 2, 3, or 7) are in the Revelation (which is NOT to say that I believe that the 10 000 things in the Bible are necessary for salvation!). Plus, I do believe, teach, preach and confess that Jesus Christ is our ONLY redeemer and Saviour. So I do not consider myself an apostate of ANY of the Christian doctrines.
Having stated all the aforementioned, I do believe that if we feel the Holy Spirit is calling us or is leading us in that direction then we have to act in consequence. I am not saying we are right, we might be very wrong, but IF we believe (and I DO) that the Holy Spirit is leading in that direction we should not resist and have to follow Him, and brace for the consequences (good and bad); so if we have to be excommunicated, so be it. If at the end we find out we were wrong, we will have to ask for God’s forgiveness for our ignorance in trying to discern His will and trying to include others in to the flock. Our actions are not ill-intention, but as Dante wrote “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”. I only pray that we are not wrong and trust in what we discern and believe is the Will of God.
Even if the Bible condemns/condemned homosexual activity, I can’t for the life of me understand why God would be offended by two people loving each other, reaffirming each other, helping each other grow economically, socially, culturally, emotionally, and spiritually (I have seen this happen in gay couples while I have seen heterosexual marriages that offend God beyond words). You have to bear in mind that God’s Revelation is NOT the Bible; it (His Revelation) is to be found in the Bible though; and that Jesus is THE maximum revelation of God Himself to humanity. The Bible does not condemn slavery and yet we -the church- decided to condemn slavery on the basis of our intimate relationship with God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Shall I remind you that many quarters in the universal church did condemn the anti-slavery position and even excommunicated others? And that those others actually argued -not so much with the Bible in hand but with reason and common sense guided by the Holy Spirit (or so they believed)- against slavery did so concluding that there was no possible way that slavery was compatible with the dignity of a human being -a child of God-? They completely disregarded the lack of a clear and explicit condemnation in the Bible against slavery. Does it sound familiar??
For the same reason that I am not happy with the current situation regarding abortion (and always I do respect the law of the land as much as the freedom of every Canadian to err or not to err, to sin or not to sin, to chose to act according to his/her conscience or not) for the same reason is that I am in favour of gay marriage. What is this reason? God. Now if we are to believe the Bible.. well, then God is Love, and -as St. Paul says- we have in our hearts God’s law written, the law of good and wrong (even the pagans -or the atheist I would say) BUT if we are to err royally in this subject (same sex marriage) we better err including people rather than excluding people. I would rather be condemned to eternity for any misguided good intentions I can have towards my brothers and sisters in Christ than for any ill-intention acts against my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I might be wrong, we may be wrong, but we have an advocate in Jesus Christ our High Priest and is only on the mercy of God that with trembling hearts I do too support this resolution of General Synod. Please pray for me because I am a sinner too.
Lastly, I am still a Christian not depending on your opinion about the ACoC but because I want and try to follow Christ to the best of my ability in all sincerity in spite of my human condition. Maybe I am following him in the wrong way. Maybe I will end up in a ravine or a pit, but I am sure that at the very end He will come back looking for me, and that if that is the case he will rescue me and save me.
May God bless you.
:0)
Yours in Jesus Christ our ONLY redeemer and Saviour.
Julio +
And therein, in the word I have made bold, is the problem with your position. Was it Mary Eddie Baker who used to try to transfer the Holy Spirit to her adherents by lying naked, back to back with them in bed? If her feeling was wrong, why is yours right – I am assuming you think she was mistaken but perhaps I presume too much? Particularly when you go on to say:
It’s the acting out of eros love between member of the same sex that God seems to dislike. He doesn’t object to the agape, phileo or storge varieties, any of which would suffice to allow your list to flourish.
I was not able to edit my text after a quick perusal right after posting . Thanks for really reading it!!! Yes, you are right, because actually when I wrote “feel” I meant “believe” So.. yes, if we believe the Holy Spirit is calling us or is leading us in that direction then we HAVE TO act in consequence.
You wrote: “It’s the acting out of eros love between member of the same sex that God seems [sic] to dislike. He doesn’t object to the agape, phileo or storge varieties, any of which would suffice to allow your list to flourish.”
“Seems”; interesting choice. No further comments.
It is a pleasure to correspond with you.
Julio +
I’d have to say “It’s the acting out of eros love between members of the same sex that God CERTAINLY dislikes.” I invite you to take a look at the first three items in my book https://www.amazon.ca/Holy-Homosex-Priscilla-D-M-Turner/dp/1482347865/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468640294&sr=8-1&keywords=holy+homosex%3F . It is being read and taken seriously all over the world. Personally I find reading books on a screen very difficult, but I will gladly send it to you or any sincere person in .pdf form. Just ask me at priscilla dot turner at telus dot net , labelling your message homosex. Some of what you say is anticipated in my by now very well-known ‘Dialogue with Hugh’ in that same volume; that item does not involve biblical languages.
When it comes to Christian ethics, we have to strive to be obedient to the actual words and to the fully ascertainable Dominical position, and then to apply them with true compassion. I believe that that is the history of the really Christian approach to such tragic results of man’s corruption.
The slavery question is a lot more nuanced than is often supposed. Just for starters, I’d like you to look at ἀνδραποδιστής, οῦ, ὁ in your Greek New Testament and consider what sort of company the ‘slaver’ keeps [I Tim. 1:8-11]. This is however not currently our topic, just an analogy which is frequently but wrongly invoked.
Help me out I may be wrong but while reading extrabiblical ancient Greek literature I have always considered ἀνδραποδοκάπηλος to be “slaver” without qualifications; while “ἀνδραποδιστής” in Tim. 1:8-11 to be the same meaning but with the strong connotation of being an unjust trader of slaves (as opposed to a just one -of course here “just” in the Greek sense of one who does things “by the book, by the rules” and therefore complies with the ethics of his time).
As to God “seeming” to dislike gay eros (“It’s the acting out of eros love between member of the same sex that God seems to dislike.”), it was David, not me who wrote that.
Thank you for taking time to read and reply. Do not forget to pray for me too.
I really think that some centuries before Christ the process, just or unjust, by which one became an ἀνδράποδον had become immaterial. The state itself was not enviable. In this matter St. Paul, who must have read Plato, Aristotle and more recent thinkers, will not have fallen below the world’s best standards. And he naturally uses a current form, the ‘activity’ noun in -τής, which was becoming very common at the time of writing, making in my view a distinction from the ἀνδραποδοκάπηλος without a significant difference. But this is not our topic here: the point which we can derive from the NT is that slavery is never commended as an institution let alone as an absolute like chastity in relationships. Slaves are encouraged to buy themselves out if that is feasible. When it isn’t, there are new Christian standards for the master-slave relationship which will transform an otherwise unchangeable situation.
The philology of homosex is more to the point in my book. May I send you the .pdf?
Morning David,
Sorry I failed to address your observation about my paragraph where I wrote “Even if the Bible condemns/condemned homosexual activity, I can’t for the life of me understand why God would be offended by two people loving each other reaffirming each other, helping each other grow economically, socially, culturally, emotionally, and spiritually … ”
It is not based on a whim but in my own -and should I say the church’s (you, I, et al.)- discernment as Christian or follower of Christ of how God is. Unless of course your discernment of God is similar to the theology of Islam (which I do not share but do respect).
Julio +
As Christians who genuinely accept the Word of God there is absolutely no spirit other than the spirit of deception that will lead us to accept anything that is contrary to Scripture. If you honestly believe that you are being led to accept homosexual activity then you should carefully consider which spirit is leading you and be careful that you do not become infected by the spirit of apostate bishops such as those who supported the change in the marriage canon.
Strongly worded, but I think in all of our efforts to be sensitive we may be drifting away from this truth. I guess there comes a time when words shouldn’t be minced.
Do not forget to pray for me (us). Yes, we try hard (at least I do) to discern exactly which is the spirit who is leading us. I believe -for what I have witnessed- that it is the Holy One and no other. Then again, as I have said before, we -I- could be wrong and fall to deception. Pray for me (us).
Fr. Julio, I for one absolutely will.
May God guide and keep you as you seek to discern and do his will.
Rev. Julio,
Thanks for the links. I don’t see anything in the document that identifies a person as clergy or laity. So far as grouping, Thompson is in with the other clergy, so I’m not sure why you think he appears in the lay section.
Also, it would help if:
1. Michael Thompson’s first statement had made sense
2. If his second statement had not contradicted the first
3. If J.P. Copeland could manage to remember who asked him to manually change the Thompson categorisation, could produce the handwritten note and could explain how he then managed to make the change incorrectly.
As it is, we are left with one of two possible conclusions: the utter chaos was due to a level of incompetence that sets a new standard even for Anglican clergy trying to use computers or someone is telling porkies.
You seem to favour the former.
Sorry my fault. Thompson’s name was counted in the laity bunch in the ELECTRONIC COUNT.. thus the discrepancy between the previous night result as on the SCREEN (clergy: 51 yes – 26 no) and the recorded votes as per the PDF LIST (52 yes – 26 no).
Regarding the two different explanations. One is as to what the heck happened with the electronic vote, while the second explanation is as to why it happened in the first place.
It would not surprised me if all along Thompson’s vote had been counted in the laity.
As to the two possible conclusions you allude, well, I do not believe for a split second it was intentional (although some suggest the Holy Spirit intervened so to make sure that all know “how it feels to be on the other side”).
:0)
Yours in Jesus Christ our ONLY redeemer and Saviour.
Julio +
no need to debate in long winded letters- Something Stinks- thats all-like the voting system in China or North Korea-such a sad state in the church-so sad