Bosco Peters has a copy of the Dunedin 'same sex' motion in full here.
Taonga has links to the summary of Auckland's synod and to a letter from Bishop Ross Bay following the Synod and lots of correspondence to him as a result.
Discuss here, there or anywhere!
11 comments:
Thank you, both Peter and Bosco, for this information on the resolution passed at the Dunedin Synod. In view of the importance of what has been decided in that Synod,I think it's important to state, quite clearly what the resolution, in 3 parts, contained:
(That this Synod)
"1. Accepts that a variety of opinions regarding the blessing, ordination and licensing of those in same-sex relationships are sincerely held by members of this Diocese, this Church, and the Churches of the Anglican Communion.
2. Considers that any person applying for ordination or licensing for ministry should not be excluded on the basis of the candidate's marital status, gender, or sexual orientation.
3. Asks the Diocesan Manager to forward this Resolution to the General Secretary of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, with a request that it be made available to the proposed Commission on the Blessing and Ordination of those in Same-Sex Relationships."
It will be seen quite clearly from Section 2 of the Resolution, that the Dunedin Diocese of ACANZP in not the ordination of LGBT clergy.
Furthermore, the voting showed a very clear majority in favour:
Clergy: For 34 Against 7
Laity : For 39 Against 13
Bishop: For 1
This, in my opinion, affirms the acceptance of LGBT people in the Diocese of Dunedin - a goodly result for those of us who believe that the Church needs to move forward on this issue. One hopes that the Christchurch Diocese may produce a like result - in common with Auckland and Waiapu.
Sorry, Peter,
I have a slight correction to my posting here; In the paragraph before the voting figures, on the second line, the word 'not' should be followed by the word 'against'. That makes better sense.
Peter, do you still believe that the Covenant has a future in NZ ... given the level of hostility directed towards it?
That isn't a ha!ha! kind of question, it's asked with sadness.
Do you see a way forward?
Lucy Eban
Hi Lucy,
I am not without hope as I am led to believe that "opposition" in some synods is not the same thing as "hostility."
Nevertheless I am not naive about what might be.
Lest Readers here see me, personally, as 'hostile' to the relationship that already exists between Provinces of the Communion, I hasten to reassure them that I value our membership of the Communion.
What I do have doubts about, is the intention of Section 4 to divide the Communion on issues of gender and sexuality that have already been declared, by the Canadian St. Michael's Commission, as adiaphora, or of no consequence to Communion status on matters of core belief.
Father Ron, what makes the St Michael's Commission authoritative? Surely it was a local initiative written without Communion-wide consultation.
Lucy, you may not be aware of the fact that our local Bishop - Victoria Matthews - was Chair of the Saint Michael's Commission, at the time it issued the opinion - so the decision of the Commission is of some local importance to us in Christchurch.
yes I was aware.
It doesn't help me understand why you believe it to be authoritative, only why interesting.
Lucy Eban
Well, Lucy, this is a New Zealand blog. We're all interested here in the local application.
It's a bit like when we're beating the French at Rugby - we cannot see beyond Eden Park
so Father Ron, you would concede then that the issue of same sex relationships has NOT been established throughout the Communion 'as adiaphora, or of no consequence to Communion status on matters of core belief' ... as you posted earlier.
Lucy Eban
Not 'throughout' the Communion, Lucy; but 'IN' the Communion - & therefore important for the rest of the Communion - insofar as we ARE a Communion.
Post a Comment