We spent several hours in conversation on the implications of the appeal from the Primate.
As a result of these conversations a large majority of the House can affirm the following:
A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible to the three moratoria — on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions — until General Synod 2010. Members of this House, while recognizing the difficulty that this commitment represents for dioceses that in conscience have made decisions on these matters, commit themselves to continue walking together and to hold each other in prayer.
The House also affirms:
A commitment to establishing diocesan commissions to discuss the matter of same-sex blessings in preparation for conversations at General Synod 2010.
Continued commitment to exercise the greatest level of pastoral generosity in keeping with provisions approved by this House in Spring, 2007 and continued commitment to the Shared Episcopal Ministry document approved in Fall, 2004.
We ask for your continuing prayers as we steadfastly seek to discern the mind and heart of Christ for the wholesome care of all members of his Body, the Church. We share a deep hope that though we may never come to consensus over this matter of the blessing of same-sex unions, we will live with differences in a manner that is marked by grace and generosity of spirit, one toward another.
I believe this message says, “We are going to marry homosexuals sooner or later, whether anyone else likes it or not, so get over it.”
Larry
This is the first time in recent memory that the ACoC radical left bishops have not gotten their way. Now we’ll see if the joint decision is respected. Ingham has a history of hearing what he wants. (He flat out ignored the prohibition on SSB’s)
Actually, Larry, the ecclesiobabble:
[blockquote] Continued commitment to exercise the greatest level of pastoral generosity in keeping with provisions approved by this House in Spring, 2007 and continued commitment to the Shared Episcopal Ministry document approved in Fall, 2004.[/blockquote]
means that we are blessing SSU’s in New Westminster and will continue. Moratoria surely don’t apply to something we have already been doing.
Any bets that these eager beavers can wait till 2010?
“can affirm the following:
A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible to the three moratoria…”
A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible? Moratoria are concrete prohibitions. One either follows them or does not. If the court hands down a restraining order the correct response is not, “Yes, your honour, I will abide by this order except for those instances where I feel it is best not to.”
I promise “to the greatest extent possible” not to embezzle from my employer.
[blockquote]This is the first time in recent memory that the ACoC radical left bishops have not gotten their way. Now we’ll see if the joint decision is respected. Ingham has a history of hearing what he wants. (He flat out ignored the prohibition on SSB’s)[/blockquote]
I wouldn’t exactly call this a resounding defeat for what you call the “radical left.” It strikes me that this is essentially a dead letter. The Canadian church isn’t the one poaching in the first place (the third moratorium) and there’s enough leeway to avoid forcing any real changes based on the first, either.
Hopefully some reconciliation may occur by 2010, but I am fearful starting out that document with 1 Corinthians 10:17 may prove to have been a little over-optimistic.
I read the article until I saw the word “Indaba”. There was no reason to read any further…click…delete…
Intercessor
As a result of these conversations a large majority of the GAFCON Primates Council and CCP bishops can affirm the following:
A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible to the three moratoria — on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions — until the Covenant Process is concluded. Members of the GAFCON Primatial Council and CCP bishops, while recognizing the difficulty that this commitment represents for parishes and dioceses that in conscience have made decisions on these matters, commit themselves to continue walking together and to hold each other in prayer.
[6]
What “resounding defeat” were you quoting?
The ACoC HoB conservatives have been mute in the past and the muddy middle have let the left do what they want. This is a very different result than would have happened before Gafcon and Lambeth.
On this issue, the dynamics of the House has chamged.
#9 Anvil
I take it you are a Canadian. I don’t know enough about this diplomatic and nuanced language in the Canadian context but thought it was an interesting development.
And credit to the Canadians for addressing the issues raised at Lambeth. What a contrast with the TEC HOB whose only interest was in breaking all their rules in their haste to do the dirty on Bishop Duncan. Perhaps Canadians have lessons for us all.
[10]
Pageantmaster,
You caught me, eh!
Cradle Anglican:family 4th generation both sides of both sides. Proud member of ANiC and a member of a new church plant group.
I am a harsh critic of the ACoC, and yet, this is a new development up here. For whatever reason, the HOB moderates and conservatives have stood up to the liberals.
Praise God.
Anvil: I am a Canadian also, who has lived for 12 years in the US. What I don’t yet understand is what this statement actually means. Specifically, I wonder about the following: “…a large majority of the House can affirm” and “…commitment to the greatest extent possible….” Does this mean (a) not all bishops agree with this approach, but they all agree to live with it, subject to what NewWest has already done; or (b) not all bishops agree with this approach, and while most will agree to continue the moratoria, some won’t, and that no matter what, everyone pledges to stay together.
I had initially assumed (b) was what was intended, but now upon further reflection, it seems like (a) is the correct interpretation. What will this mean in a practical sense for Ottawa, Huron, Montreal and Niagara?
#12 Anvil
Thanks for explaining the context and what is going on.
Keep hammering away.
[12]
jamesw,
There’s nothing yet on the Essentials Blog from the inside. My best guess is that Ingham will continue with his self absorbed agenda. You’ve hit the nail o0n the head with Huron (a new bishop), Niagara, Ottawa and Montreal.
A quick trip back to +Gene’s ordination:New West, Toronto and Montreal officiated. Will they back off? Not likely. The big question is what will the majority of the HOB do to disipline their defiant bishops.
It’s hopeless.