I'm tired and I'm off to bed.
Photo courtesy of cfl.ca
Monday, November 25, 2013
Saskatchewan Roughriders - 2013 Grey Cup Champions
The score was a decisive 45-23 over the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Oskee Wa What?
I'm tired and I'm off to bed.
Photo courtesy of cfl.ca
I'm tired and I'm off to bed.
Photo courtesy of cfl.ca
Monday, November 11, 2013
I wore two poppies today
Today I attended my first Remembrance Day ceremony since retiring from the Royal Canadian Navy. With Remembrance Day on a Sunday last year, I had other duties to attend to, and the last time I had been at the Cenotaph for the ceremony I had actually been presiding.
It was much as it has always been; several hundred people, some in uniform, some veterans, several groups of children, young families, many of those too young to have been in World War II or Korea but realistically too old to have been in Afghanistan. There seemed to be fewer than at the height of the Afghanistan War, but that may just have been the weather. It could have been far colder, but it was cold. Though not as cold as Taylor Field last night and 30,000 plus had turned up there for a football game.
Unlike the more elaborate service at the Brandt Centre, the Cenotaph service is concise and to the point. But also, unlike the Brandt Centre service, the Cenotaph allows for the laying of wreaths from most any group or individual that wants to present one. It seemed to me that this year there were fewer wreaths from families in memory of specific war dead. As has been the case with Cenotaph services for as long as I can remember, a wreath was laid "in memory of seven brothers," though I don't recall that we have ever heard the name of that tragic family.
I did something today that I had never done before for Remembrance Day. I wore two poppies: one red and one white.
There has been controversy in Canada over the past week about white poppies. The red poppy is the traditional symbol of remembrance, and some people claimed the white poppy was an insult to the fallen and to veterans, disrespecting their sacrifice.
From time to time over the years I have heard people express the concern that Remembrance Day and the red poppy glorified war. I've never thought that was particularly true. Certainly the origin of both the commemoration and the symbol seemed rooted in the hope that an annual remembrance of the bloodiest conflict in human history to that point would move people to say, "Never Again," to view armed conflict as a highly undesirable last resort.
But the narrative of Remembrance Day ebbs and flows over the years. At times, "Never Again" seems to give way to "Dulce et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori" the Roman Horace's poetic claim that "it is sweet and proper to die for your country." Of late, it strikes me we have been leaning closer to the latter than the former.
The red poppy emerged as a symbol of remembrance, inspired by John McRae's poem, almost immediately after World War I and was adopted in the United States and throughout the Commonwealth by the early 1920s. But only a short time later, concerned that the public remembrance had become too martial and warlike, the white poppy was promoted as a commitment to peace. There may have been some who advocated wearing the white poppy instead of the red, but most of the material I've come across promoted wearing the two together. The National Post has a very good backgrounder on the red and white poppy "controversy" here. They point out that the coexistence of red and white poppies for Remembrance Day is taken pretty much for granted in the UK, the only place where white poppies have been continuously in production over the entire period.
I don't buy for a second the idea that the white poppy (especially when worn together with the red) is disrespectful to veterans or to the fallen. This is a trumped up "controversy" designed to have citizens outraged over symbols and trifles instead of the real disdain and disrespect being meted out to veterans over the past couple of decades.
What is disrespectful is the way our federal governments (and not just the current one) have been scaling back support for veterans old and new. Pensions for wounded soldiers have been replaced with a paltry lump sum payment. Nine Veterans Affairs offices have been closed across the country. There are frequent and unfortunately credible reports of wounded soldiers having their discharges rushed through so that they will be released before they are eligible for a military pension.
So why did I wear a white poppy?
In part it was because I really do believe that the two sides of the Remembrance Day narrative need to be balanced. We honour the sacrifice of the fallen and, because we respect that sacrifice, we do not want to see more young men and women march off to war.
In part it was say that I do not buy into the antics of the right wing rage machine that deflect our attention from real issues by creating phony ones. The white poppy "controversy," like the "war on Christmas" "controversy," is a complete fraud from start to finish.
Mostly though, I wore a white poppy with my red poppy to take a stand against the bullying language I had seen all over social media, some of which seemed to condone if not call for violence against those who would wear a white poppy. If not for that, I doubt I'd've gone to the trouble of tracking down a white poppy to wear.
I served 25 years in the Royal Canadian Navy. Yes, it was all Reserve time and no, I never saw combat, but it was 25 years nonetheless. If anyone wants to suggest that I don't "respect the veterans" or don't "support the troops," then I challenge them to come and say it to my face instead of hiding like a coward behind a social media avatar.
Most (though not all) the commentary I saw condemning the white poppy - was from people who never served, who never put on our country's uniform. With all due respect, I don't feel any need to take lessons in patriotism from them.
At every Remembrance Day ceremony in Canada today, in every Remembrance Day message from every politician, we heard that those who served and those who never came home were defending our freedom. I agree.
And I can think of no greater disrespect to veterans and to the fallen than to self-censor on Remembrance Day and to take off a white poppy because of a handful of outraged bullies. I will not disrespect the war dead by feartly laying aside the freedom they won at such cost.
It was much as it has always been; several hundred people, some in uniform, some veterans, several groups of children, young families, many of those too young to have been in World War II or Korea but realistically too old to have been in Afghanistan. There seemed to be fewer than at the height of the Afghanistan War, but that may just have been the weather. It could have been far colder, but it was cold. Though not as cold as Taylor Field last night and 30,000 plus had turned up there for a football game.
Unlike the more elaborate service at the Brandt Centre, the Cenotaph service is concise and to the point. But also, unlike the Brandt Centre service, the Cenotaph allows for the laying of wreaths from most any group or individual that wants to present one. It seemed to me that this year there were fewer wreaths from families in memory of specific war dead. As has been the case with Cenotaph services for as long as I can remember, a wreath was laid "in memory of seven brothers," though I don't recall that we have ever heard the name of that tragic family.
I did something today that I had never done before for Remembrance Day. I wore two poppies: one red and one white.
There has been controversy in Canada over the past week about white poppies. The red poppy is the traditional symbol of remembrance, and some people claimed the white poppy was an insult to the fallen and to veterans, disrespecting their sacrifice.
From time to time over the years I have heard people express the concern that Remembrance Day and the red poppy glorified war. I've never thought that was particularly true. Certainly the origin of both the commemoration and the symbol seemed rooted in the hope that an annual remembrance of the bloodiest conflict in human history to that point would move people to say, "Never Again," to view armed conflict as a highly undesirable last resort.
But the narrative of Remembrance Day ebbs and flows over the years. At times, "Never Again" seems to give way to "Dulce et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori" the Roman Horace's poetic claim that "it is sweet and proper to die for your country." Of late, it strikes me we have been leaning closer to the latter than the former.
The red poppy emerged as a symbol of remembrance, inspired by John McRae's poem, almost immediately after World War I and was adopted in the United States and throughout the Commonwealth by the early 1920s. But only a short time later, concerned that the public remembrance had become too martial and warlike, the white poppy was promoted as a commitment to peace. There may have been some who advocated wearing the white poppy instead of the red, but most of the material I've come across promoted wearing the two together. The National Post has a very good backgrounder on the red and white poppy "controversy" here. They point out that the coexistence of red and white poppies for Remembrance Day is taken pretty much for granted in the UK, the only place where white poppies have been continuously in production over the entire period.
I don't buy for a second the idea that the white poppy (especially when worn together with the red) is disrespectful to veterans or to the fallen. This is a trumped up "controversy" designed to have citizens outraged over symbols and trifles instead of the real disdain and disrespect being meted out to veterans over the past couple of decades.
What is disrespectful is the way our federal governments (and not just the current one) have been scaling back support for veterans old and new. Pensions for wounded soldiers have been replaced with a paltry lump sum payment. Nine Veterans Affairs offices have been closed across the country. There are frequent and unfortunately credible reports of wounded soldiers having their discharges rushed through so that they will be released before they are eligible for a military pension.
So why did I wear a white poppy?
In part it was because I really do believe that the two sides of the Remembrance Day narrative need to be balanced. We honour the sacrifice of the fallen and, because we respect that sacrifice, we do not want to see more young men and women march off to war.
In part it was say that I do not buy into the antics of the right wing rage machine that deflect our attention from real issues by creating phony ones. The white poppy "controversy," like the "war on Christmas" "controversy," is a complete fraud from start to finish.
Mostly though, I wore a white poppy with my red poppy to take a stand against the bullying language I had seen all over social media, some of which seemed to condone if not call for violence against those who would wear a white poppy. If not for that, I doubt I'd've gone to the trouble of tracking down a white poppy to wear.
I served 25 years in the Royal Canadian Navy. Yes, it was all Reserve time and no, I never saw combat, but it was 25 years nonetheless. If anyone wants to suggest that I don't "respect the veterans" or don't "support the troops," then I challenge them to come and say it to my face instead of hiding like a coward behind a social media avatar.
Most (though not all) the commentary I saw condemning the white poppy - was from people who never served, who never put on our country's uniform. With all due respect, I don't feel any need to take lessons in patriotism from them.
At every Remembrance Day ceremony in Canada today, in every Remembrance Day message from every politician, we heard that those who served and those who never came home were defending our freedom. I agree.
And I can think of no greater disrespect to veterans and to the fallen than to self-censor on Remembrance Day and to take off a white poppy because of a handful of outraged bullies. I will not disrespect the war dead by feartly laying aside the freedom they won at such cost.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Time for talk is past.
This is the email I sent to Premier Brad Wall (with copies to NDP Leader Cam Broten and my MLA) earlier this afternoon regarding the planned Senate abolition resolution in the Saskatchewan Legislature.
Premier,
I was very excited to hear that you intend to introduce a Senate abolition resolution in the Saskatchewan Legislature this fall. However my excitement swiftly turned to disappointment when, on reading the story further, I discovered that you are intending to introduce a “mind of the House” resolution rather than an actual constitutional amendment.
With respect, sir, this is a very grave strategic and tactical error.
As ably set out in this piece by Ian Peach, former Dean of Law at the University of New Brunswick and former constitutional advisor to the governments of Saskatchewan and Yukon, all that is required to initiate the process leading to Senate abolition is for the House of Commons or any provincial legislature to introduce the necessary amending resolution (http://www.punditsguide.ca/2013/06/guest-post-senate-abolition-as-a-matter-of-law-and-politics/). Dean Peach specifically recommends a “clean” resolution as follows:
That Sections 21 through 36 of the Constitution Act, 1867 be repealed.
(Please note that the initial reference to the wording of the resolution in the article transposes the second digits of the section numbers. Dean Peach corrects this in the comments section.)
The long and tedious processes leading to the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 and to the failed Meach Lake and Charlottetown proposals has created the false assumption that prior agreement is either necessary or advisable before initiating the amendment process. In fact the Meach and Charlottetown experiences more aptly show that such comprehensive processes result in provincial governments creating constitutional wish lists, followed by extensive horse trading and backroom dealing which, in turn, render the final product politically unviable.
The current Senate scandal shows conclusively that time for talk is past and the time for action is upon us. A “mind of the House” resolution offers no real progress to advance this long festering issue towards a conclusion. By contrast, an amending resolution from the Saskatchewan Legislature starts the three year clock on a long overdue process to abolish the Senate. Instead of mitigating the bad smell of scandal, we will have begun to drain the cesspool.
You and your Government, with the support of Mr. Broten and the Official Opposition, have a chance to demonstrate real leadership on this file. I beg of you not to squander this opportunity.
Malcolm French
PS: I will be posting a copy of this email to my blog at http://simplemassingpriest.blogspot.ca/ later today. It would be my intention to also post your response in due course.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Journey
For a while now, we have been working on a Mission Action Plan or a strategic plan for our parish. I'm thoroughly convinced that this kind of planning is important, but I'm also aware that well intentioned planning processes often create plans that are either vapid or incomprehensible - and frequently both. (And not only in Churchland, either.)
Sometimes the name and dedication of a church can give some guidance to mission planning. I've heard of parishes dedicated to St. Luke that exercise a particular ministry towards physicians, nurses and other health care workers, for example.
Our parish church is dedicated to St. James the Apostle. Over the past year or so, this has led to some conversations with my unpaid curate about the prospect of having some members of the parish walk the Camino in Spain, the traditional pilgrimage to the relics of St. James at Santiago de Compostella.
Which got me to thinking ...
One of the central images of discipleship is the journey. Jesus was constantly telling people, "Follow me." The Gospel narratives about Jesus teaching ministry are all set in the context of journeys to and from Jerusalem. As Geoffrey Tristram, SSJE recently preached:
Scripture is filled with great journeys. Jacob’s flight from his brother Esau, Joseph sold into slavery, and his journey into Egypt. The great journey of the Exodus from Egypt to the Promised Land. The journey of the wise men to see Jesus. Jesus’ journey into the wilderness. Paul’s journey from Jerusalem to Damascus. It seems that God loves to invite us to make journeys. Because through the journey God teaches us, forms us, invites us to grow and change into the person God longs for us to be. To become fully who we were created to be.
I have often been struck by a tagline I first heard of in association with All Saints Church in Pasadena. I don't know if it originated there, but it has seemed to me to capture the nature of post-modern evangelism. I'll admit I've cribbed the concept.
Whoever you are ...
Wherever you've come from ...
Wherever you are on your journey of faith ...You are welcome here.
Arguably it is an invitation to pause in the journey. But I think, more accurately, it is an invitation to come and join a group of pilgrims so that we can journey together.
So the invitation is not, per se, to join our congregation or to affiliate with our brand of Christianity. It is not to sign on to the Thirty-Nine Articles nor to conform to a particular understanding of the Eucharistic Mystery. It is an invitation to walk together in faith, into deeper faith.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Joint Assembly - Days Five and Six
Sidetracked by late nights and general weariness, here is my delayed report on the last two days of the Canadian General Synod and our Joint Assembly with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.
The Anglican Journal story on the Anglican Covenant debate came out including a quote from me as the No Anglican Covenant Coalition's Moderator. I had several fruitful discussions about the Covenant which only served to confirm my opinion that the project is fundamentally at odds with Anglican ecclesiology and that the Canadian church would almost certainly never be prepared to sign.
Following a presentation from First Nations elders and others from Northern Ontario, General Synod approved a process to establish a new Indigenous Diocese in the area. The new diocese, as yet unnamed, would effectively replace the existing diocese of Keewatin. The remaining bits of Keewatin will be reallocated to other dioceses - mostly Brandon and Rupert's Land. It was a joyful climax to the decision making business of the General Synod.
Or at least, it should have been. We had earlier dealt with a motion directing the Council of General Synod to initiate a process leading to a draft canon permitting Anglican clergy to solemnize same sex marriages. Several things went or nearly went sideways during the debate. Very conservative bishop Stephen Andrews and very liberal dean Peter Elliott combined to propose an amendment that outlined the consultative and theological work required. A brilliant bit of drafting, it offered some assurance to conservatives that their concerns would be heard. Unfortunately the original mover and seconded did not immediately understand what was being proposed and offered up a subamendment that would have cut the guts out of the very eirenic amendment. The subamendment, fortunately, was defeated.
After a very rational debate, the amendment passed. Then things decided to go sideways again. A very few people called for question after almost no debate at all on the resolution as amended, the Primate called for the vote and off we went for a break. When we returned, the Primate acknowledged this error, and also that he'd missed a valid request for a vote by orders. So, instead of ending on a high note with the Cree diocese, instead we took all the air out of the room and returned to the marriage resolution. Because we were now almost an hour behind schedule - the reception before the banquet was already started - there was no appetite to re-open the debate. The vote by orders passed in every house (with a two-thirds majority even though only a simple majority was required).
The way the debate played out left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservatives. At the final session of Joint Assembly, the Bishop of the Arctic gave voice to those frustrations. I spoke to him afterwards to say that there were many progressives who were also unhappy with how the debate concluded so abruptly. A productive and occasionally emotional conversation ended with the mutual assurance that, at the end of the day, we both want to be at the same table.
The Anglican Journal story on the Anglican Covenant debate came out including a quote from me as the No Anglican Covenant Coalition's Moderator. I had several fruitful discussions about the Covenant which only served to confirm my opinion that the project is fundamentally at odds with Anglican ecclesiology and that the Canadian church would almost certainly never be prepared to sign.
Following a presentation from First Nations elders and others from Northern Ontario, General Synod approved a process to establish a new Indigenous Diocese in the area. The new diocese, as yet unnamed, would effectively replace the existing diocese of Keewatin. The remaining bits of Keewatin will be reallocated to other dioceses - mostly Brandon and Rupert's Land. It was a joyful climax to the decision making business of the General Synod.
Or at least, it should have been. We had earlier dealt with a motion directing the Council of General Synod to initiate a process leading to a draft canon permitting Anglican clergy to solemnize same sex marriages. Several things went or nearly went sideways during the debate. Very conservative bishop Stephen Andrews and very liberal dean Peter Elliott combined to propose an amendment that outlined the consultative and theological work required. A brilliant bit of drafting, it offered some assurance to conservatives that their concerns would be heard. Unfortunately the original mover and seconded did not immediately understand what was being proposed and offered up a subamendment that would have cut the guts out of the very eirenic amendment. The subamendment, fortunately, was defeated.
After a very rational debate, the amendment passed. Then things decided to go sideways again. A very few people called for question after almost no debate at all on the resolution as amended, the Primate called for the vote and off we went for a break. When we returned, the Primate acknowledged this error, and also that he'd missed a valid request for a vote by orders. So, instead of ending on a high note with the Cree diocese, instead we took all the air out of the room and returned to the marriage resolution. Because we were now almost an hour behind schedule - the reception before the banquet was already started - there was no appetite to re-open the debate. The vote by orders passed in every house (with a two-thirds majority even though only a simple majority was required).
The way the debate played out left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservatives. At the final session of Joint Assembly, the Bishop of the Arctic gave voice to those frustrations. I spoke to him afterwards to say that there were many progressives who were also unhappy with how the debate concluded so abruptly. A productive and occasionally emotional conversation ended with the mutual assurance that, at the end of the day, we both want to be at the same table.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Joint Assembly - Day Four
The innocuous resolution on the Anglican Covenant (deferring any decision until 2016) passed, as expected. The Synod resolved into Committee of the Whole to allow for a broader discussion of the Covenant rather than a narrow discussion of the resolution. While I did put forward the mischievous suggestion of defeating the motion (which would have meant we would not be obliged to discuss in in 2016) there was no real pick up.
There is clearly no appetite in Canada for the Covenant. Even the most overtly pro-Covenant speaker essentially conceded it was unlikely ever to pass. Indeed, there was not one speaker prepared to deliver a fulsome defence of Rowan's folly, which was something of a surprise. The only real argument against an immediate "no" seems to be a fear that rejecting the Covenant would somehow remove us from the conversation - even though both Scotland and Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia are fully at the table for every conversation that matters.
Several speakers, while not expressly anti-Covenant, focussed on the various initiatives that actually are mending relationships across the Communion: the Dialogue of North American and African bishops; the Continuing Indaba; Companion Diocese relationships. I closed the debate by emphasizing that the Covenant is a distraction from these real, meaningful and effective programs.
While HMS COVENANT is still afloat, she is clearly holed below the waterline and dead in the water. I have it from reliable sources that even the man who originally conceived the idea has now concluded it was a serious error and a distraction from the real business of strengthening the Anglican Communion. All in all, a good day's work.
There is clearly no appetite in Canada for the Covenant. Even the most overtly pro-Covenant speaker essentially conceded it was unlikely ever to pass. Indeed, there was not one speaker prepared to deliver a fulsome defence of Rowan's folly, which was something of a surprise. The only real argument against an immediate "no" seems to be a fear that rejecting the Covenant would somehow remove us from the conversation - even though both Scotland and Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia are fully at the table for every conversation that matters.
Several speakers, while not expressly anti-Covenant, focussed on the various initiatives that actually are mending relationships across the Communion: the Dialogue of North American and African bishops; the Continuing Indaba; Companion Diocese relationships. I closed the debate by emphasizing that the Covenant is a distraction from these real, meaningful and effective programs.
While HMS COVENANT is still afloat, she is clearly holed below the waterline and dead in the water. I have it from reliable sources that even the man who originally conceived the idea has now concluded it was a serious error and a distraction from the real business of strengthening the Anglican Communion. All in all, a good day's work.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Joint Assembly - Day Three
After a further joint session this morning, we had the first parallel Anglican and Lutheran sessions this afternoon and evening.
The early parts of the Anglican General Synod started a trifle roughly as the chair and officers worked out how to use the electronic voting technology more effectively. The interim result was that simple and uncontroversial votes took far longer than necessary while the election of the next Prolocutor took about 15 minutes instead of most of the afternoon. The problem was exacerbated by the Primate's initial insistence that the results of each and every vote needed to be walked over to him rather than being posted immediately screen. The bulk of these issues were corrected in the evening sitting. Although we are still slightly behind on the resolution committee's work plan, it is less urgent than it had been.
A good supply of our Coalition's "Yes to Communion - No to Covenant" buttons arrived last night. Without a dedicated distribution spot like we had last year at the Episcopal Church General Convention I can't say distribution has been brisk, but the buttons are moving.
The main challenge Covenantsceptics face, of course, is the optimistic assessment that the Covenant is a dead letter. The fact that Anglican Communion General Secretary Canon Kenneth Kearon didn't mention the Covenant at all during his brief address tends to reinforce the general complacency. The widespread hope seems to be that simply punting the thing down the road for three years will mean it's disappeared before ever the Canadians need to set aside our cultural politeness and actually say anything. Fortunately the complacency is somewhat shaken when Synod members discover that the Church in Hong Kong adopted the Covenant just a few weeks ago.
I have been testing the prospect of urging the Covenant's critics to vote against the motion from the Council of General Synod. A first blush, it seems to make little difference if the resolution is passed or not. Either way, there is no way for Canada to take a position prior to 2016. However, as I pointed out last night, passing the motion obliges the Council of General Synod to keep the conversation going and to present another motion in 2016. By contrast, defeating the motion proposed means that neither CoGS nor General Synod 2016 are obliged to do anything at all. This would not preclude further discussion or even further resolutions in 2016, but it would mean that the Anglican Church of Canada need not waste resources discussing a proposal which would be unlikely ever to pass any Canadian General Synod.
One other fun fact about the Covenant came to my attention today when speaking to my own Metropolitan. The constitution and canons of the Province of Rupert's Land are fairly clear that certain actions of General Synod have no force in the ecclesiastical province unless and until they are ratified by the Provincial Synod. In other words, in the unlikely event the Canadian General Synod ever did pass the Covenant, it would continue to be of no force in the (geographically) largest internal province of the Canadian Church. I don't believe any of the other three internal provinces have the same kind of provision, but at least I'd be safe.
The early parts of the Anglican General Synod started a trifle roughly as the chair and officers worked out how to use the electronic voting technology more effectively. The interim result was that simple and uncontroversial votes took far longer than necessary while the election of the next Prolocutor took about 15 minutes instead of most of the afternoon. The problem was exacerbated by the Primate's initial insistence that the results of each and every vote needed to be walked over to him rather than being posted immediately screen. The bulk of these issues were corrected in the evening sitting. Although we are still slightly behind on the resolution committee's work plan, it is less urgent than it had been.
A good supply of our Coalition's "Yes to Communion - No to Covenant" buttons arrived last night. Without a dedicated distribution spot like we had last year at the Episcopal Church General Convention I can't say distribution has been brisk, but the buttons are moving.
The main challenge Covenantsceptics face, of course, is the optimistic assessment that the Covenant is a dead letter. The fact that Anglican Communion General Secretary Canon Kenneth Kearon didn't mention the Covenant at all during his brief address tends to reinforce the general complacency. The widespread hope seems to be that simply punting the thing down the road for three years will mean it's disappeared before ever the Canadians need to set aside our cultural politeness and actually say anything. Fortunately the complacency is somewhat shaken when Synod members discover that the Church in Hong Kong adopted the Covenant just a few weeks ago.
I have been testing the prospect of urging the Covenant's critics to vote against the motion from the Council of General Synod. A first blush, it seems to make little difference if the resolution is passed or not. Either way, there is no way for Canada to take a position prior to 2016. However, as I pointed out last night, passing the motion obliges the Council of General Synod to keep the conversation going and to present another motion in 2016. By contrast, defeating the motion proposed means that neither CoGS nor General Synod 2016 are obliged to do anything at all. This would not preclude further discussion or even further resolutions in 2016, but it would mean that the Anglican Church of Canada need not waste resources discussing a proposal which would be unlikely ever to pass any Canadian General Synod.
One other fun fact about the Covenant came to my attention today when speaking to my own Metropolitan. The constitution and canons of the Province of Rupert's Land are fairly clear that certain actions of General Synod have no force in the ecclesiastical province unless and until they are ratified by the Provincial Synod. In other words, in the unlikely event the Canadian General Synod ever did pass the Covenant, it would continue to be of no force in the (geographically) largest internal province of the Canadian Church. I don't believe any of the other three internal provinces have the same kind of provision, but at least I'd be safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)