The Church of England General Synod has voted to recognize that members of ACNA wish to be remain in the Anglican family. The vote displaced the language of the original motion that would have "express[ed] the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.
The private member's motion that failed was:
“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.
The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) moved as an amendment that passed:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.
Another amendment passed adding "aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada" after the words "That this Synod."
Another amendment to the amendment failed. (It would have merged the original motion with Bristol's amendment.)
The debate made it clear that ACNA was not a part of the Anglican Communion. If ACNA wishes to be a part of the Anglican Communion there are procedures for that, procedures ACNA is not interested in following. And, the Archbishop of ACNA's answer to the question "is the ABC Anglican?" is no, and "the cost of his office."
Jim Naughton in the comments says:
Hill of beans? Or is "hill" too strong a word?
I agree with Jim. Of course, I could be wrong. ;-)
UPDATE: ACNA's version of what took place at Synod:
It is very encouraging that the synod recognizes and affirms our desire to remain within the Anglican family.” said Archbishop Duncan.
A private member’s motion, put forward by Mrs. Ashworth, and subsequently amended by the Synod, states that “this synod…recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family.” The motion passed by a resounding 309 – 69 margin (with seven abstentions).
No mention at all that Mrs Ashworth's motion did not pass.
Well, MP is very upset. It may not still be up there, but it was for 30 seconds.
ReplyDeleteHill of beans? More like an ant mound of fly turds.
ReplyDeleteSusan, MP's post is taken down, and he's posted an apology. I changed my headline, because Lorna's was a motion, not an amendment. I never could get the parliamentary stuff right.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, that is GOOD!
Hi June,
ReplyDeleteDid you ever notice that Lorna and her friends say "bible believing" but not "gospel following?"
Also, although Jonathan was over pessimistic, his post had some very good points, including the reference to planting an oak tree. I think we're all in for a longer haul than you or I will live to see.
Allen, here's what I said in the comments to my post of Lorna's video:
ReplyDeleteI heard Lorna say "unity" and "Anglican" more than once, but I never heard her say "Jesus". She said "biblical", but she never said "Gospel".
amid all the fuss, about wrong posts and all that, can I say that I am happy this idiot motion was defeated? Which was predictable, but it has still cheered me up.
ReplyDeleteCathy, I was not certain that the motion would be defeated. I'm quite relieved.
ReplyDeleteI didn't get the use of the word "churches" here:
ReplyDelete"'aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada' after the words 'That this synod.'"
amy
Amy, who knows what the word "churches" means in the statement above and when Rowan throws it around? Apparently, any group can call itself an Anglican church.
ReplyDeleteCathy, I was not certain that the motion would be defeated. I'm quite relieved
ReplyDeleteNo, well I am happy to concede that others probably know more about this than I do. I feel more or less completely on the outside of most proceedings in the Anglican church. So I'm sure you're right - maybe it would have got through.
Amy and Mimi,
ReplyDeleteI'm no great fan of the ABC's use of words, but in this case I took "the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada" to mean the Episcopal Churach and the Anglican Church of Canada.
Allen, you could be right, though it's hard to know.
ReplyDeleteTypical AC... we'll study it, table it and look at it again later... the epitome of "gracious restraint".
ReplyDeleteI dunno. This typical fudge infuriates fundamentalist whack jobs(little Matt) and thrills Washington DC insiders(baby blue) precisely because the crazy quilt of ACNA or Network or whatever both loves and hates the pompous, hopeless C of E. I really hate to write it, but I have finally given up caring much what the old white men in England say or do.And if the abominable Mrs. Ashworth does, in fact, bat for the other team, they can have her!
ReplyDeleteWord verification: dinglyin
Hillbilly, exactly.
ReplyDeleteJohn D, what the motion that passed does is delay a decision, which seems to me what the powers in the CofE love to do.
What would it have meant if the CofE had declared itself in communion with ACNA? Would that statement have automatically made ACNA a part of the AC? Certainly, a vote by the CofE to be in communion with ACNA would have given the group more legitimacy. However, I don't believe that a church can be admitted to the AC by a vote of one Synod of the CofE. Don't the other members of the AC have a say and a vote? Isn't there a process? The Church of England is not the voice of the entire AC, however much it would like to think that it is.