?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Ian

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
09:41 pm: Synod
Today was the first day of our Synod. The weather forecast promised a sunny day, but it wasn't. It rained and we could see a very rough sea from the conference centre.
The day started with some fairly pedestrian procedural motions, but after an insubstantial lunch, the excitement started with the motion about the definition of "marriage". After a little to-ing and fro-ing, this motion was left to lie upon the table as it was seemed unreasonable for Synod to vote either for or against the motion.
Five o'clock saw the end of the day's business and an evening at the Anglican Chinese Mission, where we were treated to an exhibition of dancing and a Chinese banquet. It was an enjoyable evening, but did not go on too late, which is probably just as well as it will be another early start tomorrow.

Comments

[User Picture]
From:617
Date:September 13th, 2003 04:56 am (UTC)
(Link)
Sounds as if you've been having as much fun as we did last weekend!
[User Picture]
From:ringbark
Date:September 13th, 2003 11:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
Indeed! And we haven't even started looking at the savagely trimmed down budget yet...
[User Picture]
From:ringbark
Date:September 13th, 2003 12:07 pm (UTC)

I forgot to ask you

(Link)
Did Motion 23 get passed? Or did it just get to lie on the table? Or defeated? Or some other procedural thing I haven't even thought about?

By what name are you known in the real world? It's troublesome to refer to a Synod rep in Auckland when I only have a number to call him by.
[User Picture]
From:617
Date:September 13th, 2003 08:55 pm (UTC)

Naming rites!

(Link)
Motion 23 got skipped under some standing order invoked by the Bishop. If it lies on the table then I think we're supposed to come back to it next year, but I don't think we will. Instead, someone will probably come up with a new way of saying the same thing.

The name's Dove. Bryan Dove. If you can remember who gets elected to General Synod from your Diocese, that would be of some interest to me. I hope that helps, my parish is Blockhouse Bay, which will immediately pin me down as one of those loopy charismatic evangelicals so I suggest you don't mention that part...
[User Picture]
From:ringbark
Date:September 14th, 2003 12:36 am (UTC)

Re: Naming rites!

(Link)
Our reps are
laity:
Rick Bonifant (studying at St John's)
Sarah Field-Dodgson (aged 18)
Anthony Hill
Gillian Robertson
clergy: Jacobi/Muxlow/Sparks
I don't really know any of them.
It's something of an advantage to be from a parish which doesn't (quite) define me as one of those loopy charismatic evangelicals.

I heard this morning from one of our people that your Bishop's Charge had told you it was not permitted to vote on Motion 23. If it is lying on the table, it will continue to lie until someone picks it up, which could be next year, 20 years hence or never.
[User Picture]
From:617
Date:September 14th, 2003 04:55 pm (UTC)

Thanks for those names!

(Link)
Yeah, the Bishop stated clearly that he wasn't going to allow a vote on it, the title of the motion was division in the communion and the motion would simply create division in our own diocese! From the Bishop's point of view, as Primate, it would've put him in an arkward position leading up to the emergency Primate's meeting in October. Knowing we weren't going to vote on it made people more comfortable about speaking to it, however the Bishop moved on immediately after the first person to speak against it finished.

Thanks for the names, I don't recognise any of the clergy's names but I got to know Antony Hill at the last Synod. Good to see your Diocese is maintaining the policy of sending a young person along. We were hoping to send a 19 year old but she'll be overseas by the time G.S. rolls around so I'll have to double as our young person this time, 27 is pushing the bounds of youth a little, although at Synods I'm still young and it's about the only advantage I have in overcoming the loopy charismatic tag, because nobody wants to loose the scarce numbers of young people we have.
From:warwick
Date:September 13th, 2003 08:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
Erm, why exactly are they debating the definition of marriage?
[User Picture]
From:ringbark
Date:September 13th, 2003 12:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Within the Anglican church, the issue is a very topical, especially after the recent appointment in New Hampshire.
There are other questions too, related to what "marriage" means. For example, is it reasonable to call any other sort of relationship "marriage", beyond the one described in the canons of the Anglican Church?

For the motion we looked at, and the related one looked at by Auckland Dicoese please go here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/617/112124.html?thread=380668#t380668
Powered by LiveJournal.com