Diocesan Synods

There is plenty of blog material in the queue at the moment, and funnily enough absolutely none of it has anything to do with Diocesan Synods. So, before we get to those posts, I thought I might mention the couple of Synods that met this weekend.

Firstly, the Diocese of Ottawa appears to make its choice, now it is up to the bishop to decide. I don’t know anything about Bishop Chapman, but he’s certainly not in a comfortable place tonight. Pray that he does the right thing.

Secondly, my diocese, the diocese of Calgary met also. There were no contentious motions such as in the Diocese of Ottawa, however the agenda included this line “St. Michael Report and Motions Passed at General Synod”. Does this matter? Yes! From my point of view, if we do not repudiate A186 as a diocese, then we have implicitly accepted it. If I find out more, I will update this post.

It is a desperately sad thing to watch your church implode. I am rather less mellow than I might sound here.

UPDATE: The only substantive (albeit mainly a political statement) motion relating to the Current Unpleasantness, that of an intent to sign the Anglican Covenant, was tabled (often a way of avoiding the question, or saying no politely, for any not familiar with the infamous table). The full text is below:

Motion 5:
MOVED THAT the Anglican Diocese of Calgary urges the Anglican Church of Canada, through the Council of General Synod, to participate in the process of the Covenant Design Group with the intent of being a full party to the resulting covenant.

What does this mean? It’s an interesting question. Bishop Hoskin has said that there will be a moratorium on gay blessings in this diocese. That, and his voting record at General Synod, would lead one to believe that we are not going the way of Ottawa any time soon.

However, is that enough? That’s a question to be wrestled with – what to do in a fairly safe diocese that nevertheless has not taken a stand against A186 and all that. There is, like it or not, an elephant in this room, and despite all attempts to ignore it, it is not going to go away.

I’m really supportive of the vision of growth for the diocese – but the church is more than just the diocese. For me, I would have needed to see a strong repudiation of A186, plus potentially a number of other resolutions making clear our position. Since nothing like that surfaced, we have in my estimation implicitly accepted what General Synod has said – we are yoked with the national Church.

This raises a number of questions that are going to need answers in the next couple of months. The diocese has made its collective decision, I now have to consider mine.

This entry was posted in Anglican. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Diocesan Synods

  1. mrsfalstaff says:

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for Bishop Chapman to do the right thing.


  2. Matthew says:

    We know it’s all ultimately in His hands…

    Given that we just had a parish declare they were an ‘affirming’ parish (St George’s Edmonton – http://anglicanstgeorges.com/) I expect we will also see this motion at the Edmonton synod in October 2008.

    I would expect it to be voted down soundly but, as Winnie the Pooh said, “You never can tell with bees (or synods).”


  3. Peter says:

    Mrs Falstaff – I wondered, considering the diocese.

    Matthew – Ah yes, it is all about Him. Which is really great as Church politics is just so mucky. I’m going to be back to something more wholesome next week!




  4. mrsfalstaff says:

    Pray for us, we need it badly.


  5. Peter says:

    Will do! Are you going to the Network conference next month?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s