Thinking Anglicans

Brian Lewis writes about the ACNA debate

The following article was written by Brian Lewis for the Preludium blog of Mark Harris.

“We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language” (Oscar Wilde, The Canterville Ghost 1887).

I was alarmed but (bearing in mind Oscar’s witticism) should not have been surprised to hear that some in TEC and ACoC might misunderstand the full significance of the Church of England’s General Synod’s decision to reject the call to “express a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”.

But let us be clear it did just that, not once, but twice or perhaps even three times.

To follow through the sequence of events.

The original motion was:

That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.

In a background paper circulated in advance of the debate the mover (Lorna Ashworth) made a number of allegations about TEC and the ACoC. This clearly established that though the motion was ostensibly only about ACNA it was intended to invite the CoE to condemn the behaviour of TEC and ACoC.

In response to that briefing paper I circulated to all members of synod two papers.

  • The first was written by Revd Canon Alan T Perry LL M. a lecturer in ecclesiastical polity at the Montreal Diocesan Theological College, and amongst other things former Prolocutor of the Province of Canada and member of the Council of the Canadian General Synod, and specifically rebutting the allegations made against ACoC in Mrs Ashworth’s briefing paper.
  • The second was compiled by Simon Sarmiento (of among other things Thinking Anglicans fame) after consultation with David Booth Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop and Mary E. Kostel, Special Counsel to the Presiding Bishop for property litigation and discipline, and assistance from the Revd Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG, the Revd Scott Gunn, and Ms Susan Erdey of the Church Pension Group. It rebutted the allegations made against TEC.

All synod members including the Archbishops were sent these papers (I believe they are now online at Thinking Anglicans). Members of TEC and ACoC are indebted to Simon; I know how hard he worked on the production of theses papers. I also know how grateful many members of synod were to receive them.

Mrs Ashworth duly presented her motion to Synod, the further allegations made in her opening address confirmed that this was indeed a motion inviting synod to condemn the actions of TEC and ACoC.

In response to the original motion the Bishop of Bristol put forward an amendment (with the support of the House of Bishops) entirely replacing it.

The amendment reads

That this synod
(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.

There are two key and essential things to recognise about this amendment (certainly recognised by everyone in the synod and why it was resisted by those supporting ACNA):

  • The original motion had asked the synod to express OUR desire to be in COMMUNION with ACNA.
  • The replacement recognised and affirmed THEIR desire to remain part of the Anglican FAMILY.

(Other finer questions about “affirm” and “remain” were not key to the understanding of this amendment and to my recollection not brought into the debate, indeed an amendment to leave out “affirm” was withdrawn; we could equally say that by saying the leadership had “formed” ACNA the Bishop was saying ACNA is a new church, but that was also not part of the debate nor probably part of the Bishop’s intention. )

The force of this amendment is in replacing OUR desire to be in COMMUNION with THEIR desire to remain part of the Anglican FAMILY.

Synod accepted this amendment.

Synod declined to express “a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”. That matters. Questions not asked are one thing but when a question is asked and the answer is politely No Thank You that changes where you are.

The No Thank You was polite, of course it was, but it was real. The amendment also asked our Archbishops for a report on the situation, and helpfully recognised the reality of the issues any future possible recognition would raise for the relevant authorities.

I find it difficult to see how ACNA could welcome any of this.

Further In case it was just possible that this was not a rejection of synod “expressing a desire to be in Communion with ACNA” the supporters of ACNA put forward again, as an amendment to the Bishop’s amendment, the original request “that this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”. Asking the Synod to say both things at once. A very Anglican fudge that would have been!

The Bishop of Winchester and other ACNA supporters spoke for this, needless to say I spoke against it.

This was the critical moment of the debate – you might just possibly maintain we had in the Bishop’s amendment acknowledged proper procedure – the role of the “relevant authorities” the role of the Archbishops etc, now we could add in the support of our persecuted brothers and sisters (as they were presented to us), and say we desired to be in Communion with them.

The synod carefully considered this and voted No.

That is the second time.

Then we were asked to add an amendment that expressed “our desire that in the interim, the orders of ACNA clergy be recognised and accepted by the Archbishops subject to their satisfaction as to such clergy being of good standing, enabling them to exercise their ordained ministry in this country, according to the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967.”

We said No. Recognising orders is a key part of being in Communion.

I’m afraid I consider that is No a third time.

It was hardly surprising however that nobody objected to the final amendment, an acknowledgement of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada – indeed I had referred to it myself when calling on synod members to support those who had remained faithful to their church.

I know the very existence of this debate raises questions about one part of the Anglican Communion interfering with another – and those questions were raised – but before we answer them, what of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Presidential address expressing “repugnance” of the “infamous” proposed legislation in Uganda, and the efforts he and other CofE bishops have made communicating directly with the Anglican Church in Uganda. It is also not improper for a synod to offer its view of who it hopes we will be in Communion with. But I recognise there are big issues at stake for the Communion generally – I would just reiterate, I see little cause for concern for TEC or ACoC in the outcome of this particular debate, and to be frank it is beyond disingenuous or bizarre for anybody connected with ACNA to pretend this is in anyway an affirmation of ACNA.

Brian Lewis

44
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
44 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
24 Comment authors
John WardMalcolm+Rod GillisMalcolmChris H. Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

Brian Lewis said, “[T]o be frank it is beyond disingenuous or bizarre for anybody connected with ACNA to pretend this is in anyway an affirmation of ACNA.” No matter what Brian Lewis may say, the resolution itself reads, “That this synod (a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family.” So the resolution does “affirm” ACNA, to some degree. The word is there. The resolution also “recognises” ACNA, to some degree. That word is there too. And some of us pointed all this out well before… Read more »

David Bewley
Guest
David Bewley

Thank you Brian for this clarification. Our thanks also go to all those, especially Simon, that spoke out for your sisters and brothers across the pond in this debate.

Michael
Guest
Michael

This is most helpful. Thank you.

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Jeremy
The word “affirm” is there, but it does not refer to “ACNA” but to the “desire” of the people who formed ACNA.

That’s simply stating facts without endorsing anything.

I suppose “acknowledge” would have been a little clearer.

Uriel
Guest
Uriel

Jeremy – What is “recognised” and “affirmed” is the “desire” of those who formed ACNA, not ACNA itself. I suppose I could recognise and affirm that. They say it, I recognise it. As for affirming, it is laudable that they want to “remain” in the Anglican family – I can affirm that. And I am a staunch opponent of ACNA. It says nothing about what “those who formed ACNA” would have to do to have their “desire” fulfilled. And as Brian Lewis points out, the synod had the opportunity to express its own desire, and declined to do so.

David Walker
Guest
David Walker

I’m grateful to Brian for setting this out so clearly. I took part in the debate and what he says represents fairly the proceedings. I think however there are a couple of additional points worth noting about the Amendment that +Mike Hill put forward on behalf of the House of Bishops. Firstly, Mike replaced a phrase about ACNA (an entity) with one about “Those who have formed ACNA” – a collection of individuals and (possibly)groups. The change of wording meant that Synod was not being asked to say anything that might be considered as a view on whether ACNA as… Read more »

Nick Lincoln
Guest
Nick Lincoln

A good summary Brian – thank you.

I was very happy to see the Church’s response to this motion. And rather amused to see how ACNA has been able to twist it into a ringing endorsement of their activities!

I remember those on Thinking Anglicans who believed that the Church would accept Lorna A’s motion and that it would spell the end of our communion with TEC and ACoC. Fortunately those fears were unfounded!

Charlotte
Guest
Charlotte

Greetings from Frozen Florida, Nick Lincoln! Would Lorna Ashcroft’s motion have been rejected if some members of the Church of England had not stepped up for TEC and ACoC? I wonder. I think we have Simon Sarmiento and the others who worked with him to thank for this outcome, which I do not think was a foregone conclusion. David Walker gives me cause for concern: “The hurt and anger caused by the insensitive and entirely avoidable treatment of people from [the Church of England] whom we know and respect (such as Jim Packer and +Henry Scriven) has damaged the reputation… Read more »

Tobias Haller
Guest

I was unaware of that third amendment proposed and defeated — most brief reports I’d read mention it only in passing without describing its content. As it stands it is a very clear rejection of “recognition” in the sense of ministry and order that defines being in communion. Thanks for citing this in full.

Lois Keen
Guest
Lois Keen

Please, who are Jim Packer and +Henry Scriven and what did we do to them?

Malcolm+
Guest

Odd. Henry Scriven doesn’t seem to think he’s been mistreated. That doesn’t stop a bunch of rogues and liars making absurd claims on his behalf.

Jim Packer declared himself out of communion with the Bishop. Are some people suggesting that declaring yourself out of communion with your bishop merits no response?

(Assuming the David Walker above is the bishop and not the cartoonist) what exactly would happen in your diocese if the vicar of Lesser Woppity Splash declared himself to be out of communion with you and your colleagues in the Diocese of Worcester?

Randal Oulton
Guest
Randal Oulton

Lorna Ashworth is purporting to speak for Canada. I think it’s relevant to ask, then, why isn’t she doing it with the Canadian accent she was born with. Why is she affecting a British accent? I’ve spent masses of time in Britain, loads of rellies there, yeah you pick up the lingo, but Canadians see affecting a British accent as beyond silly.

Charlotte
Guest
Charlotte

If “we” = TEC, then we didn’t do anything to the Reverend Mr. J.I. Packer, whose writings are very influential among Evangelicals in North America. Wikipedia writes: “As of 2008, Packer is a parishioner of St. John’s Shaughnessy Anglican church in Vancouver, which in February 2008 voted to leave the Anglican Church of Canada because the St. John’s church believes that the ACC is no longer teaching in accordance with scripture. So, they joined the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of America. Packer, on 23 April, handed in his licence from the Bishop of New Westminster.” It is the… Read more »

peterpi
Guest
peterpi

The resolution recognizes that a group of individuals wish to continue to be part of the Anglican family. It then recognizes that desire of these people, formed into ACNA, raises questions. It then does what parliamentary bodies of any kind do best — sends the whole question to a committee to study it.
General Synod handed nothing to ACNA. It simply recognized that people wish to remain part of the Anglican community.
If ACNA likes its celebratory shot of single malt Scotch extremely watered down, I can’t help them with that.

Nick Lincoln
Guest
Nick Lincoln

Greetings from not-so-frozen England Charlotte (at least it’s not so frozen where I am)! You are right to question David Walker’s comments here – the treatment of Jim Packer and Henry Scriven was not ‘insensitive and entirely avoidable’. Jim Packer was inhibited because the church he belonged to decided to leave the diocese completely – how could he still insist on being a part of ACoC when he had left it behind? As for Henry Scriven – that was the media blowing things up – he was released from his orders in TEC because he had accepted a post in… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

Erika and Uriel — I note your precise and rather fine readings of the resolution. I also note that others are not reading the resolution so precisely or so finely. ACNA has issued a press release titled, “General Synod Affirms Anglican Church in North America.” CANA has issued a press release titled, “CANA Welcomes General Synod Affirmation of ACNA.” In light of these press releases, your careful and principled parsings seem, frankly, rather naive. The word “desire” has fallen out of these headlines. Are you truly surprised at that? Those who think these press releases are stretches need to understand… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

” I would just reiterate, I see little cause for concern for TEC or ACoC in the outcome of this particular debate, and to be frank it is beyond disingenuous or bizarre for anybody connected with ACNA to pretend this is in anyway an affirmation of ACNA.” – Brian Lewis – Firstly, Brian, a question: Are you the Brian Lewis who trained at SJC in Auckland, N.Z.? Secondly, Thank you Brian for making the effort to circulate in General Synod the two documents, from Allan Perry and Simon Sarmiento. Both were made available to us through T.A., and Simon’s article… Read more »

BillyD/Bill Dilworth
Guest

“It is the circumstances in which the Rev. Mr. Packer surrendered his license to conduct services in an ACoC church that some in the Church of England find difficult and rather “Laudian.” However, I would want someone from Canada to explain the circumstances; I’m TEC.”

I hope someone explains soon – I find the idea that pulling the license of a priest who by his actions clearly has left the licensing Province might cause people in the UK problems very odd indeed.

BillyD/Bill Dilworth
Guest

“I also note that others are not reading the resolution so precisely or so finely.”

But that’s the way it is with every piece of writing produced in or by the Church of England (and every other part of the Communion) – look at the 39 Articles! Or the Communion Service, for that matter. People tend to read things to their own advantage.

Jerry Hannon
Guest
Jerry Hannon

Given the information revealed by Charlotte, Malcolm, Nick Lincoln, and Fr. Smith, and having done some further research on that part of his post,I do believe that David Walker owes TEC and ACC a rather substantial apology for his maligning both provinces.

I trust it was not willful, and merely careless on his part, and that his comments were badly and insensitively phrased.

Chris H.
Guest
Chris H.

I believe the problem is that the word “license” wasn’t used in various letters/reports sent out to or about about Packer and Scriven. PB Schori’s letter to General Convention,HOB, etc. said she accepted Scriven’s “renunciation of Ordained Ministry and that he was removed..released…and deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and authority conferred…in Ordinations.” It didn’t specify TEC and sounds to most people like he was defrocked. Same thing with Packer. Both were ordained in England and the Americans and Canadians were defrocking them. Although some of the reports in Canada did make clear Packer was just losing his… Read more »

choirboyfromhell
Guest
choirboyfromhell

Thank you Brian Lewis for such a well-detailed and concise analysis!

JPM
Guest
JPM

Malcolm, I am pretty certain that we will soon get to see how English bishops react to their vicars declaring that they are apostates and parishes formerly under their control now belong to some foreign entity, because there can be little doubt that ACNE will soon set up an English franchise. In fact, there is already such talk on their blogs.

ordinaryvicar
Guest
ordinaryvicar

I sat in the gallery for this debate, and although I very much appreciated Brian’s excellent summary, I don’t agree with his conclusion that TEC and ACoC have little to worry about. I think that Charlotte has it straighter when she argues that the result wasn’t a foregone conclusion, and there are some pointers for TEC and ACOC in that. First, the dissidents are really stepping up their game. Lorna Ashworth (who to my ears sounded decidedly Canadian) gained them an awful lot of credibility by the way in which she conducted the debate, never exhibiting or provoking outright hostility… Read more »

David Walker
Guest
David Walker

Thanks to Chris H for setting the situation out succinctly. I find it at the least bizarre that TEC can both talk loudly about the Communion and at the same time describe a bishop (or any other minister) who moves to another province (especially one who goes back to the province where he was ordained) as having renounced his ordained ministry. If the language of the General Synod is being criticised here for having left itself open to ACNA spin, how much more does TEC need to choose its words much more carefully? One comment asked how I would react… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

Bill Dilworth said, “People tend to read things to their own advantage.” Of course they do. You and I agree on this point. But perhaps this point should have been considered more carefully, before Synod approved a resolution that contained the words “affirm” and “recognise.” Let me be clear — Synod can pass whatever resolutions it wants. If it wants to, it can call TEC a den of apostasy — which might provide a little clarity. But what is “disingenuous and bizarre” is to point to the text of this resolution and say it doesn’t do what CANA and ACNA… Read more »

Malcolm+
Guest

Mark MacDonald is the Canadian Bishop for Indigenous Peoples. Re: Scriven – He himself says this is not an issue. It is only deceitful schismatics looking for a fight. That said, perhaps we should come up with a better process (and name) for transferring clergy between Provinces. Re: Packer – So far as I know, he was canonically resident in the Diocese of New Westminster, and he certainly held a license from the Bishop of New Westminster. Where he was ordained is completely irrelevant. If a priest ordained in England but living, licensed and working in Canada is discovered to… Read more »

Charlotte
Guest
Charlotte

Chris H., I think you’ve made an excellent point here: “[The PB’s letter to +Scriven] didn’t specify TEC and sounds to most people like he was defrocked. Same thing with Packer. Both were ordained in England and the Americans and Canadians were defrocking them.[…] I think TEC [and ACoC–ed.] needs to change the laws/canons/wording and start using “license” or some other wording that shows a better distinction from being defrocked. To someone who isn’t a lawyer, they sound like the same thing.” Yes, the wording ought to be changed, to make the distinction more clear. There’s a little more to… Read more »

Charlotte
Guest
Charlotte

A little more on this — and yes, ordinaryvicar, I think there is much cause for concern as long as prominent British Evangelicals continue to spread, without contradiction, these (ahem) mistaken impressions about the American and Canadian churches’ beliefs and actions. There is a real need for supporters of inclusion in the Church of England to be active in the defense of the American and Canadian churches (and to tell the truth to all parties!). Below I have posted a comment on Stand Firm! from Michael Howell which (I hope) will drive my point home: Howell writes “[a]s one of… Read more »

BillyD/Bill Dilworth
Guest

Charlotte, I think we need to take everything that everyone from ACNA says with a very large grain of salt. Michael Howell says that there were people gushing over ACNA at Synod? Well, +Duncan goes farther, and says that the amended motion is nothing less than a declaration of the desire to see overlapping jurisdictions in North America. I don’t think Howell is telling the truth any more than I think +Duncan is accurately interpreting the text of the motion. These are the same people who were reading whole libraries of intent into the fact that +Duncan was politely addressed… Read more »

JCF
Guest
JCF

“the atrocities of TEC and the ACoC”?!?!

No comment. I’ll let the dead in mass graves all around this fallen world, explain what actual “atrocities” are. Lord have mercy!

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Jeremy
I may be wrong here, but I think John Ward had planned to introduce an ammendment to remove the word “approve” and that he then spoke about why he didn’t want to insist on having this debated at length wasting time when the motion had already been comprehensively defeated. He received warm applaus.
He may, of course, be regretting this by now.

Malcolm+
Guest

@David Walker. 1.) Could you please point to any reliable source material in which it states that the Anglican Church of Canada or the Diocese of New Westminster or Bishop Michael Ingham ever said Packer was no longer in Holy Orders> A. You can’t, because that does not reflect the position of ACoC, DNW or +MI. You’ll find a lot of rogues and scoundrels peddling the lie, but a lie it remains. 2. Packer was inhibited because he declared himself out of communion with the bishop, the diocese and the national church. Do tell, David. What happens in the grand… Read more »

choirboyfromhell
Guest
choirboyfromhell

BillyD, they may very well puff up their collective chests and act important, thinking they’ve got a blessing from the C of E, and you and I know it doesn’t amount to a “hill of beans”. The thing of it is, what will the civil courts in this country think of it and what will “continued study” in England result in?

Never underestimate your adversaries. Charlotte’s probably very right in watching them very closely and taking their infuriating moves VERY seriously.

Charlotte
Guest
Charlotte

Hi Billy D. You make a good point, and I certainly don’t put much credence in +Duncan’s claims. If it weren’t for two things, I’d have dismissed Michael Howell, too. But those two things give me pause. One: ordinaryvicar’s eyewitness account of the debate at Synod over the Ashworth motion (above). Two: earlier discussions of the Packer/Scriven depositions and similar issues on this blog and on Grandmere Mimi’s Wounded Bird. Martin Reynolds+ (on this blog) and Gregory Cameron+ (on Grandmere Mimi’s) had both been persuaded that TEC and Canada were in the wrong. So apparently the stories Michael Howell and… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“Synod’s intent aside, this resolution is susceptible to the interpretation that CANA and ACNA are putting on it.” – Jeremy, on Sunday – I suppose there are as many interpreters of Synod motions as there are of Biblical quotations. And therein lies the problem. We probably all read into thing what we want them to say – and this is the real problem for the ACNA sodality. When push comes to shove at the C.of E. General Synod in 2011, we shall see which entity has done more work in the interim. I think that both TEC and the Anglican… Read more »

Perry Butler
Guest
Perry Butler

I agree with Fr Ron that much will depend on the next Synods composition. With retirements there will be considerable changes in the bench of Bishops. We have just had a new Peterborough and Portsmouth…Rochester, Southwark,Ely,Salisbury, Bradford, Chelmsford are to come.At least 6 other bishops are 65 or over. In the last 5 yrs I imagine 2000 full time clergy have retired…mostly male.New clergy are, I imagine , 30% female.Clergy tend to vote on churchmanship lines.The House of laity are something of an enigma as relatively few laity are able to stand because of what is entailed in terms of… Read more »

Malcolm+
Guest

Re: Perry Butler’s excellent point about voter turnout in the election of lay members of General Synod. It is certainly understood in secular politics (at least be yeffective political parties) that success or failure has less to do with education and persuasion and more to do with effective organization. In a secular election campaign, the focus of campaign resources in on identifying supporters and likely supporters up until the final few days. Then the focus shifts to ensuring that the definite supporters (and, depending on strategic / tactical considerations, also the likely supporters) get out to vote. This is variously… Read more »

Malcolm+
Guest

Further to my last point, it isn’t just in General Synod elections. I’ve read in a couple of places (most recently at Mad Priest) that extremists have been working very hard to get themselves selected to the mysterious little ecclesiastical committees that nominate your CofE bishops. Rev. Angus MacLeay and two of his parishioners are all represented on the committee to nominate a new Bishop of Rochester. If half of what Mad Priest and the Telegraph have to say is true, it makes one long for the good old days of pure Prime Ministerial patronage.

http://revjph.blogspot.com/2010/02/bishop-nazir-alis-replacement-to-be.html

http://revjph.blogspot.com/2010/02/ooh-hes-so-butch.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7221802/Vicar-tells-women-to-submit-to-husbands.html

Chris H.
Guest
Chris H.

Malcolm, I believe I also mentioned some articles about Packer implying he’d been defrocked. Some articles were clear, others weren’t. The local newspapers here in Montana definitely weren’t. Many/most of the people around here don’t haunt Anglican sites and let’s admit that secular news hounds, many just trying to fill a few inches in the local religion page aren’t going to spend the time researching fine details. That’s one of the biggest reasons I think TEC needs to be more specific about “licensure” rather than “I accepted his resignation of …orders.” –Schori’s letter still sounds like Scriven resigned from the… Read more »

Malcolm
Guest

The Episcopal Church, it seems to me, could use somee effective communications counsel – as could the Anglican Church of Canada. Certainly the Episcopal Church should come up wwith a better description for releasing a person from the clergy rolls of their own Church to another Church in the Communion. And more precision with language all round would be helpful as well. For example, I know that “reliquishing the exercise of ministry” in Canada is frequently referred to as “relinquishing orders” which it manifestly is not. Finally, while the “no Anglicans by 2060” stat is useful in gatting people’s attention,… Read more »

Rod Gillis
Guest
Rod Gillis

Somebody posted “no Anglicans by 2060 stat is useful in getting people’s attention, it is a logical absurdity.” I hope it does get people’s attention in Canada. The United Church of Canada has recently completed a national demographic study. They expect to lose between one half to two thirds of their current membership in less than a decade. The situation is likely more urgent for the the smaller Anglican Church of Canada. The decline in growth in churches in the States, that do not have a major influx of immigrants, is now beginning to show up on the demographic radar… Read more »

Malcolm+
Guest

I’m not sure this is the best thread to talk about the Church’s “survival strategy” going forward, but since it came up . . . I do think the “no Anglicans left by 2060” stat does serve a purpose in making the point to people that the old mission strategy (build a Church and open the doors), which probably never really worked, certainly won’t work today. While the demographics show fewer and fewer people having anything but a “hereditary” affiliation to any religious body, they also show that people are spiritually searching. Retrenchment is a strategy to slow down our… Read more »

John Ward
Guest
John Ward

I have been meaning to post on this site for some time. And I think I should reply to Erika Baker’s point about how I am feeling having withdrawn my amendment to remove ‘affirm’. I am troubled by my decision, of course. But on the day, one has to read the mood of the General Synod, and listen to what is being said. I made my decision in good faith. Had I pushed my amendment to the vote, we would probably have been forced by those opposed to my amendment into a vote by Houses. The electronic voting system was… Read more »