General Synod 2007: In Plenary

I hope this will be a helpful resource for us as we prepare for GS 2007. My prayers are with all those involved in the preparations.

Rev Joseph Walker
Edmonton, AB
(delegate: Diocese of Edmonton)

I am most excited about being in Winnipeg in June as a delegate to the National Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, meeting at the same time as General Synod. Although we will only have a short time together -- most of one day -- it will be a privilege to join together as Lutherans and Anglicans. We too will be electing the head of our National body in June...many issues we discuss will also be on your agenda. I look forward to all of it!

Peace,
Kevin+

Hamilton, Ontario

Hello Peter:
Among the many elements of the upcoming EVENT and MEETING of the General Synod, let me focus on the presentation of our first indigenous bishop, Mark MacDonald. I repeat a suggestion made elsewhere that "The Stone Church", the historic S.Peter's Church, Dynevor, downwstream on the Red River from Selkirk and built in 1857, which functions as a God-centre for aboriginal peoples nearby, should become one of the IB's "cathedrals". We would love to see him visit this site, (where I conduct the Holy Eucharist once a month), going back to Chief Peguis and Archdeacon Cochrane, during the time of the General Synod.It might become one of "his" centres of holiness. Could this happen?
Peace and All Good
Harold Macdonald

Dear Sir/Madame,

Thank you for the opportunity for allowing anglicans who are not elected to go to synod, a chance to speak. I always find that it's sometimes not the most interested member of a congregation who is fortunate enough to be selected to represent at synod, but maybe someone who has been there for years and seems more "qualified" and this is, a lot of times, not true. So, again, thank you for this opportunity.

I don't need to say that we will all be watching and waiting for a conclusion to the issue of the church's blessing on same sex unions. I trust our delegates will pray about this and that God's Spirit will enter their hearts as they refer to their GUIDE...HIS WORD, for their decision. Then, they must speak firmly and with conviction on this crucial matter. I am firmly against this blessing. It has divided us terribly and as a member of the Anglican Church, I will NOT support this at any cost.
Marriage is a Holy Sacrament and this should not be taken lightly.

Equally as important is the question of Orthodox teachings and preserving the scriptures. Our theology schools have to have teachers who are Orthodox CHRISTIANS, so as to ensure that our young priests come out with a solid, confidence and conviction towards Jesus Christ and his teachings and proclaiming the word of God. They have to KNOW that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and THE BIBLE is the sacred WORD OF GOD, because they have to save the rest of us! In these trying times, we have to be directed in the faith of Christ Jesus and any straying away from the HOLY BIBLE is driving people away with confusion and contradictions they can't handle. It is my belief that THIS is the reason the churches are emptying. FAITH OF OUR FATHERS is being contradicted because of the evil of people wanting to REVISE God's Holy Word. We were taught in our confirmation classes that we have to digest the Holy Scriptures and we do that by asking the Holy Spirit to help us understand THE WORD as IT IS and IS WRITTEN, not by what we "can suit ourselves with".

I hope these issues are addressed at the next Synod. I have adult children and grandchildren (tomorrow's faithful) who are counting on your doing the right thing. We should ALL be praying for you now, that God's spirit will fill each of your spirits, hearts and minds and that indeed, you are guided by HIS HOLY WORD and then you SHALL NOT FAIL US.
Thank you and
many blessings.
Olive Grunert
Coley's Point, Newfoundland.

Rev. Steve Bailey, Deacon
Diocese of New Westminster

Greetings to Olive Grunert. Many of my ancestors hail from Coley's Point and Bay Roberts among other Newfoundland outports. My family arrived in Newfoundland around 1710 from Poole, Dorset. My great grandfather was a lay reader at St. Matthews, Bay Roberts. My grandfather and grandmother came to New Westminster from Newfoundland in 1904. My dad is now 92. With the Scriptures, I can say, "I have a goodly heritage; the lines have fallen to me in pleasant places."

Olive, I appreciate you posting your views clearly. They differ significantly from mine. I am an "orthodox" Anglican and read and teach the Scriptures and place a high value on them. I teach at an evangelical Christian university. However, I do not believe the Scriptures condemn faithful same-sex relationships. There are a number of such relationships in the parish where I serve -- some of these involving legal marriage under Canadian law. The individuals involved are wonderful, committeed Christians. One couple I know adopted twin baby girls from Romania 16 years ago. The girls are talented, productive, and love their moms. They are a family and certainly reflect the reality of the different types of family configurations that exist in Canada today. As a church, we cannot refuse to serve these people whose sexual orientation is not their choice, but is a given in their lives. I do not believe this is an issue of "orthodoxy" or "bibical faithfulness", but a matter that goes to the heart of the Gospel: God calls all of us into relationship with God's self and with one another through the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. That transcends everything. The fact that this issue has caused division in the church is the fault of our sinful natures, not of what God calls us to do.

So Olive, I respect your point of view, and certainly look forward to Holy Spirit guided debate and decision making at general synod.

God bless,

Deacon Steve

As an Aboriginal Anglican, it is a privilege to serve on the General Synod Planning, as it is a concrete sign of our church's deliberate attempt to involve Aboriginal people in planning of events that directly affect their lives.

I write to respond to Harold Macdonald's earlier note to Peter. In Rupert's Land, the Rupert's Land Aboriginal Circle has been involved in the discussion of General Synod and members will play an active role. We are excited with the appointment of Bishop Mark Macdonald as national indigenous bishop and hope to find a way to introduce him to the wider Aboriginal population in Winnipeg. There are approximately 75,000 Aboriginal people in the city, and our national bishop will be a tremendous asset as we move our local ministry of healing, reconciliation and self-determination forward.

We are hoping Bishop mark will return to Winnipeg over the years, and most certainly to St. Peter, Dynevor. Harold's point is well taken. Our first diocesan Sacred Circle was held at St. Peter, Dynevor, and you can see it on the video "Gathering at the River."

At the local planning level, we look forward to General Synod. Your prayers for this gathering are very much appreciated.

The Rev. Canon Murray Still+
Aboriginal Mission Developer
Executive Director
Rupert's Land Wechetowin Incorporated

Canon Jeno G.Kohner, Dorval. Qc.
The number and complexity of items coming up on the agenda are frightening. My prayers are with the delegates as they prepare for this event. I particularly pray that the Spirit might be present,for some items are divisive.I hope the Spirit will show delegates (indeed all of us in our Church)t hat each person has gifts for the whole,and each needs to receive graciously from the other.The greatest thing that could happen is that we stop using stereotypes of each other,using divisive language, "liberal" "orthodox"and other labels. Each of us is a gift of God to the other. and we do and will differ. God is bigger than all of us, and the love of Jesus needs to permeate our hearts. He died for each one of us.
Jeno Kohner

As we prepare for General Synod, I think that it is helpful to remember that the term 'synod' refers to the coming together of ('syn') of many paths ('odoi'). My prayer is that we will discover that fidelity to Christ and to the mission with which has entrusted us permits us to walk side by side rather than trace the footprints of one group or another.

(The Rev'd Dr) Richard Geoffrey Leggett
Vancouver, BC

Let us hope that the Meeting will not skirt but deal directly and courageously with the really difficult issues facing the Church and make decisions that will set us apart as a courageous Christian body willing to bend the knee only to God and not to political expediency.

Let us hope that all delegates understand that we live in a multi-Faith nation in a multi-Faith world, and efforts are made to increase our dialogue with those other Faiths to find common ground upon which we can build a safer and more peaceful world.

And let us hope that the most pressing of all problems facing the Anglican Church, the one that affects our very survival - drawing in a new generation of youth that will embrace and take responsibility for the Church in their turn - has a high priority on the agenda.

Ian A. Stuart
Parish of St. Paul's L'Amoreaux,
Scarborough, Ontario

I can't speak for all of Winnipeg but I can speak for myself and many of my friends in both welcoming everyone to synod here in our town and looking forward to the debates and discussions that will happen.

I've been an active participant in several of our Rupert's Land synods over the past few years and enjoyed the experience. However I ended up coming back to a couple of points at each synod and meeting. Firstly that many of the issues we were looking at today (like same sex unions but also others) were for the majority of younger delegates (I'm 38) a 'done deal', finished, decided and ready to be moved on from. Most of the youth of today have no issues with who you sleep with, what colour your skin is or where God placed you on the gender scale. Rather than a lack or orthodoxy it is our 'grasping at the past' and 'structural rigidity' that most symbolized to youth how useless we are to them.

Secondly, that as a Church we had few people 'watching the far horizon' and I am terribly concerned that in 2027, I'll still be dealing with the same issues when many who are debating them at this synod will be gone. There is a resistance to making a decision lest we offend someone. Frankly there are no perfect solutions, but no decision is potentially worse.

I hope delegates will keep this in mind and choose to make choices that are at once 'decisive' and 'aware of our society'. We need to be seen by our youth and by society in general as an active, growing and positive force. We have issues regarding our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, the environment, fair taxation, international conflict, and many many others that need our attention, let's get going.

I'll be following In Plenary with interest - thanks for the opportunity!

Evan Young
St. Bartholomew's Winnipeg
http://5life.blogspot.com/

ANGLICAN INTEGRITY IN TIMES OF CRISIS

Since the Reformation, we’ve had irreconcilable differences over what ‘happens’ to the Bread and Wine when consecrated for Communion. Nothing? Something? Or transubstantiation? In the past our Church (one among many) cruelly executed those who had the ‘wrong’ beliefs. Over the generations we have grown in integrity and learned to respect and worship with people who are firm in beliefs about Communion that we cannot accept.

In fact, we have not totally resolved many other lesser issues regardless of official rulings. For example, we are not all on the same page with the blessing of second marriages of divorced persons; ordination of women to the priesthood, and to Episcopal office; ordination of divorced persons; changing prayer books; editing hymn books; opening Communion to persons not Confirmed; how many candles to place on the altar; what robes we want the priest to wear during worship; even whether Jesus was raised physically or spiritually by God from the tomb. Each issue, in turn, has been divisive when it came to a head. Now, we are bitterly divided about homosexuality.

We have learned through very destructive episodes in our shared life that we will not succeed in resolving these disputes by quoting Scripture or by using logic, through regulation or by brute force, by leaving the Church or through working to exclude and shun others. The bitterest family feuds are grounded in one person’s inability to force another relative to believe the same things on heart-felt issues. Such feuds cripple a family for generations: our Anglican family is now feuding its way into a desperate era of pathology. Some people seem to fear having real fellowship with people who hold contrary beliefs – as if the fellowship might infect or change them.

Let’s be honest and face the fact that total agreement on any of the above issues is close to impossible. In our present dispute on the question of homosexuality in the Church, many of us do not want either the liberals or the conservatives to take over and ‘win’. If either does win, then all of us lose.

Would General Synod please be compassionate and vote to allow each parish to choose whether or not to welcome the blessing of same-sex unions? This way, all of us have to carry the responsibility and the consequences of making the decision. All of us experience parish-by-parish decision-making as it happens informally on every issue: each congregation decided how to live a decision. This can serve us all well in our present crisis over the blessing of same-sex unions.

The Rev. Dr. David J. Rolfe
Cobble Hill, BC

LIVE AND LET LIVE

I believe the Rev. Dr. David J. Rolfe's solution to let each parish make its own decision on the blessing of same-sex unions would probably be THE solution for most live-and-let-live people in our church. We have used this solution before. I would like to point out one weakness, however. Once this would be in place, what happens when people (inevitably) move from one parish to another? What happens when they move from a city parish where their union was church-blessed to a rural parish that voted not to accept same-sex blessing? What happens to the Priest who must now minister in this situation? What happens to the couple?

We've been this route before. What happened with the Conscience Clause? The compromise that was supposed to appease the dissenters and keep us all united, was removed only a few years later because it could not be maintained. And those who could not accept this as the will of God were forced to move on. What happened to those parishes who refused "Children in the Eucharist"? What happened when a child who was accustomed to receiving Communion moved with his/her parents to a parish that had opted not to participate? That parish was informed that although they could maintain their position, this child was not to be refused. Explain that to a child!

So, although we keep talking about living together in union in spite of our differences, this can only happen in those areas which are considered to be non-essentials. In the essentials of our faith there can be no compromise, neither for those who believe sexual orientation to be a God-given right, nor for those who believe this to be a sin which the scriptures clearly indicate requires repentance.

ML Stennett
North Bay, ON

I for one would find it difficult to support a vote on the same-sex unions issue, since marriage is by its very nature a definitive institution and should not be compromised on a whim.

We could debate all day whether or not homosexual practice is natural, and I for one believe that this is a very personal belief that rests solely with each individual. The definition of sacramental marriage, however, is made quite clear in both Genesis 2 and Matthew 19.

"A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh," is an obvious symbolic reference to the traditional cycle of family and human reproduction.

Christians throughout Canada and the world should be looking for creative ways to accept and tolerate a diverse range of personal lifestyle choices, without throwing away the very values and institutions on which the church was founded. Call me a deluded optimist, but I for one believe that this is achievable.

Just my two cents,

Jeremy Maddock
Victoria, BC

What a wonderful resource this page is! As a delegate to General Synod 2007, I will be referring to this page often in the months leading up to the great event.

I was privileged to be a delegate to the 2001 General Synod in Waterloo, when the Anglican and Lutheran Churches came together in a life-giving Covenant, and I have had opportunity to see the Covenant lived out in my own parish, where one of our Honorary Assistants is a Lutheran pastor. (I also found out at that time what a great singer Dean Peter Wall is and I hope he will sing for at least one of his suppers while he is here.)

Like Evan Young of my own Diocese (Hi, Evan!) I am both looking forward to and dreading the debate on the blessing of same-sex marriage. Although I am not a young Anglican (unless one thinks someone in her seventh decade is young), I am in favour of the motion to permit same sex blessings. I am very uncomfortable with the fact that many of my GLBT friends are not fully included in the life of the church. The church should be inclusive not exclusive and to deny some Anglicans the support of their faith community because they represent only a small percentage of the population at large is most unChristian in my view. We must not be afraid of being decisive, and it is high time we dealt with this issue.

As a member of the Local Arrangements Committee I can assure all delegates that Dean Peter speaks truth when he says that you will enjoy your visit with us in Winnipeg. I wish everyone could be here, although heaven only knows where we would put you all!

See you in June!

Rene Jamieson
St. John's Cathedral, Winnipeg
(delegate to General Synod #38)

As a person who has recently redicovered my place in the Anglican ccommunity, I am disturbed to find that 10 years after I orginally left the community, we are still debating over whether God has chosen heterosexuals to be the only people capable of a blessed union.

That there is still a significant part of our community that feels that God loves some of his children better than others. That God's love and approval is conditional on one's sexual orientation.

This is not the radical, reform minded God that sent his son Jesus to us with a message of equality and egalitarianism. The Pharisees felt disgusted by our Lord's love of lepers. Jesus loved them not on condition that they apologise for being lepers, but because they were blessed and beautiful creations of our Father and creator.

Who are we mere mortals to assume that we can decide God's mind on this issue. God speaks to us all on a daily basis.We must be careful not to discount the faithful discernment of our members who are using this daily coversation as the major source of guidance on this issue. We cannot use scripture whose translation - and even whose original writing - was influenced by mortal men with mortal biases.

Let us all pray and remember that while the scriptures contain all we require for salvation, not everything in the scriptures is required for salvation.

God bless us all in this difficult journey.

Stephen Milner
Winnipeg, MB

Olive Grunert
Coley's Point Nfld.

I response to Rene Jamieson's views, I had to add my second piece. This is not about only the same sex blessing, this is the fundamental understanding and respect for God's Holy Word.
It seems there are TWO groups. One group who wants to revise the HOLY BIBLE,and having it please themselves which rules to bend and reveal the WAY they want to live and there are the ones who live and die by the WORD OF GOD written in the HOLY SCRIPTURES. GOD IS THE TRUTH, THE WAY and THE LIFE as revealed in the Bible.
Jesus loves us all and this doesn't exclude the members of the same sex society BUT to REVISE God's HOLY WORD so as to allow the institution of MARRIAGE for same sex unions can not be condoned. THERE is where the problem lies. IF we all go to the BIBLE and live by this as it is written, then there would be no question causing this division in our people. THIS IS ABOUT THE WORD and the revisionists who want it re written to suit our lax society of today. ANGLICANS MUST SAY NO at the meeting of SYNOD. Thanks again for the space to say what I feel. May GOD be with us all during this conflicting time.
Olive Grunert

The Anglican Primates of our worldwide Communion have now declared that local option on the issue of same-sex union blessings is not an option.

The Anglican Primates have given the (American) Episcopal Church's House of Bishops a September 30th deadline to "make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through [TEC General Synod]". Between the Windsor Report, our own St. Michael's Report, and now this Tanzanian communique from the Anglican Primates, there can be no doubt as to the doctrinal nature of the debate over the blessings of same-sex unions.

If the delegates to General Synod vote to allow same-sex blessings, on whatever conditions, they will have rejected a global witness to God's Word and broken communion with the most dynamic, Spirit-filled parts of our worldwide church. On what compelling biblical grounds are we willing to do this?

However, if the delegates reject the deferred motion on same-sex blessings, how do we, as dioceses, parishes and individual congregants, intend to bring God's transformative Word to individuals struggling with same-sex attractions? Or will we risk falling into hypocrisy by maintaining worldwide communion over this issue, but pastorally counselling to the contrary?

I pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance as we make this difficult choice before us.

Mario Josipovic
Mississauga, Ontario

Our Anglican canons are clear. Matters of doctrine can only be changed by a 2/3 majority vote in each house of General Synod for two consecutive synods.

This applies to doctrine, whether simple or complex, core or non-core:if it's doctrine, it doesn't matter what qualifier applies to it.

The primate's consultative commission has concluded that the blessing of same sex unions is a matter of doctrine.

Some are arguing that it is not core doctrine.

So what! It's still a matter of doctrine.

We must not ignore the requirements of our canons.

However, I fear that those who are prepared to throw out the Solemn Declaration--which our canons say cannot be changed--may also be prepared to argue that non-core doctrine is not doctrine.

Let's play by the rules. To do otherwise will rend the ACC in two.

Paul Moore
Mississauga, ON

For those interested in a faithful and respectful overview of the non-affirming position on homosexuality, check out "Welcoming but not Affirming" by Stanley Grenz

It changed my mind back from an unbiblical affirming position. Even if you are affirming, it will outline in a respectful way the non-affirming position.

This morning I read Bishop Michael Ingham's Easter Message (www.vancouver.anglican.ca). I think it has considerable relevance to the issues to be discussed at Synod. I recommend it to all delegates, as well as to those taking part in this discussion.

Neil Sutherland
Richmond, BC
Member of St Chad's, Vancouver

Geoffrey says above: "Speaking as a gay Anglican on the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Communion, I do indeed count marriage as one of seven sacraments, but I also yearn for a day when I may receive this sacrament in the church. There is no dream I hold more dearly than to marry in a Nuptial Mass, as my heterosexual fellow Anglicans may do". End of quote.

Geoofrey, speaking as a celibate gay Anglo-Catholic who can empathise with you I must nevertheless point out that nothing in Canon Law prevents you from receiving the sacrament of Matrimony in the Church as your heterosexual fellow Anglicans do. The trouble is that you don't want to do that because heterosexual Anglicans marry persons of the opposite sex. You want to marry a person of your own sex which no one, gay or straight, can do for the simple reason that marriage, so defined, does not exist. Marriage is not an arbitrary state which unjustly excludes anything but a male/female relationship any more than a triangle is an arbitrary state which unjustly excludes all but three sided figures.

On the contrary, marriage is ABOUT the male female relationship just as a triangle is ABOUT three sided figures. (It goes without saying that Parliament has no competence to deal with the Sacraments of the Church).

You want to change the nature and definition of Matrimony as it has existed in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (we don't always need a "thou shalt not" to say that it is in scripture) and, indeed, throughout all of the Human Race since the beginning of time.

Speaking from an Anglo-Catholic point of view, Geoffrey, you propose changing the outward sign of the sacrament of matimony in a manner that could only be exceeded by going outside the human species altogether for your partner.

Only by an act of God can a natural material sign be endowed with the supernatural character of a sacrament and it follows logically from this that only by an act of God can the outward sign of a sacrament be changed to something which is substantially different from that which was originally ordained.

Thus, not the Anglican Church of Canada nor the Anglican Communion nor all of Catholic Christendom together is empowered to change the outward sign of the Sacrament of Matrimony to include two people of the same sex, anymore than it can change the outward sign of the Eucharist from bread and wine to milk and cookies.

Sincerely

David M. O'Rourke
Toronto