Saturday, 5 June 2010

Canadian General Synod - Friday

Friday’s reports from Anglican Journal

Primate delivers Presidential Address to General Synod delegates
full text of the Presidential Address
Live together with difference, urges Hiltz
Canadian Church allies with Episcopal Church Archbishop Hiltz echoes objections to proposed sanctions

How do we determine CoGS representation? Resolution ‘not perfect but a lot better than what we have now,’ says Archbishop

General Synod sets goal of zero budget deficit by 2012 No more than 10% of funds should come from bequests

Why adopt Vision 2019? Task Force presents top 10 reasons
‘Train is on the track’ for Vision 2019, says Dean Elliot

The laws of attraction Freshly-baked bannock lures many

Anglican Church of Canada website report

Vision 2019 – Living out the Marks of Mission

Press reports

Alison Auld in the Toronto Star Anglicans try again to find same-sex blessings consensus

Posted by Peter Owen on Saturday, 5 June 2010 at 8:47am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Canada
Comments

As a pilgrim in a foreign land (New Zealand) I was heartened to note that Archbishop Fred Hiltz is urging Anglicans - at least in his Canadian Province - to "learn to live with differences", which has up until now, been a classical Anglican way of 'being Church', and a mode of coexistence with every Province many of us would like to continue. However, as the Archbishop pointed out in his message to the Canadian General Synod in Halifax, Nova Scotia; he, like the TEC Presiding Bishop, Katharine Schori (who was present at the Synod), are of the opinion that Section 4 of the proposed Anglican Covenant Document - which seeks to discipline TEC and other churches of the Communion who have accepted LGBT's as part of the Church - is out of character with the Communion's ethos, being punitive in nature, rather than accepting the virtue of 'unity in diversity'.

I see that Bishop Katharine will be addressing the Assembly towards the end of the Synod. My prayers will be with these Leaders and their fellow delegates as they seek to further the cause of the Gospel in North America and others parts of the world. May God richly bless their conversations.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Saturday, 5 June 2010 at 12:13pm BST

I appreciate the fact that you are focussing on more than just the covenant deliberations. Thanks.

Personally I was disappointed that the motion to reduce the size of the Council of General Synod passed. Up until now it has been possible for there to be one representative from every diocese on CoGS. This will no longer be the case. Also, with the number of national officers (Primate, prolocutor, deputy prolocutor etc.) on CoGS remaining the same (10), but diocesan representative shrinking from 32 to 18, the proportion of Church House bureaucracy on CoGS has increased dramatically. This is an increase in centralised power at a time when many of us Anglicans are saying that we don't want such an increase internationally.

Note that in your link, the caption 'How do we determine CoGS representation?' and the subheading 'Resolution ‘not perfect but a lot better than what we have now,’ says Archbishop' don't refer to the same motion. The subheading refers to the earlier motion to change the way delegates are elected to General Synod.

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Saturday, 5 June 2010 at 4:06pm BST

Re, Tim Chesterton's post, The debate over the size, composition, and diocesan/geographic representation on National Standing Committees of the GS of Canada has been debated many times in the past, and likely will be again. Reducing the size of governance, including the GS itself is a good thing, almost, but not quite as good, as obsessing over it. Size is not the only issue around CoGS. As the name indicates
(Council of General Synod) this is a national executive type body accountable to General Synod.It failed to follow through on direction given to it by GS 2007 to prepare an amendment to Canada's Marriage Canon Law, one that would have allowed this synod to begin debating the possibility of actually allowing Gay/Lesbian couples marriage in the church. The issue of accountability, or in this case failed accountability, is more important than the issue of size and staffing--but I don't think it is likely to be addressed.

Posted by: Rod Gillis on Saturday, 5 June 2010 at 8:15pm BST

Tim Chesterton's post, The debate over the size, composition, and diocesan/geographic representation on National Standing Committees of the GS of Canada has been debated many times in the past, and likely will be again. Reducing the size of governance, including the GS itself is a good thing, almost, but not quite as good, as obsessing over it. Size is not the only issue around CoGS. As the name indicates
(Council of General Synod) this is a national executive type body accountable to General Synod.It failed to follow through on direction given to it by GS 2007 to prepare an amendment to Canada's Marriage Canon Law, one that would have allowed this synod to begin debating the possibility of actually allowing Gay/Lesbian couples marriage in the church. The issue of accountability, or in this case failed accountability, is more important than the issue of size and staffing--but I don't think it is likely to be addressed.

Posted by: Rod Gillis on Saturday, 5 June 2010 at 8:15pm BST

great cause of concern.

Why is this happening now ? How can it work as well as before ?

Posted by: Pantycelyn on Sunday, 6 June 2010 at 5:46pm BST

By all accounts, CoGS, with almost 50 members, is an unwieldy and expensive body. Each meeting (3 or 4 per year) costs close to $100,000. And as Rod has said, it has failed to do the work assigned to it by GS2007.

The need to restructure has been discussed at least as far back as 2004. This year's resolution is just one part of a very comprehensive restructuring of the national church, both for reasons of economy and mission.
Also under study is the office and role of the primate (do we need an "American-style" primate without diocese, or can a diocesan bishop fill the role concurrently?), reconsidering the role of the 4 provinces (one view is that they are an unnecessary level of bureaucracy).

Posted by: Jim Pratt on Monday, 7 June 2010 at 1:01am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.