CONCLUDING THOUGHTS.
I really do think that the national Church has to rethink how it does Synods. The model is very British parliamentary, which is supposedly that style so we can accomplish a lot. We sat in sessions from about 9 till 12, then 2 till 4 or 5, then 7 till 9 or 9:30 almost every day. Even the Americans don't do that. A bishop told me at one point that the Americans think the way we overwork people is "nuts."
Another problem is that the formal parliamentary system is very, very foreign to First Nations people at the General Synod, who are a very important part of it. While we can't pretend we're a small village and simply gather in a circle until we come to consensus, I do think things can be done to gone more in the direction of a consensus rather than a parliamentary model, complete with endless procedural wrangles and people making speech after speech without saying anything new.
I don't want to appear smug, but we do things a lot more humanely at Diocesan Synod. For instance, why couldn't we here have occasionally sat in table groups that mix people of varying opinions and theology and had table discussions, as we do in New Westminster (and I suspect at other diocesan synods)? Why didn't we have more social time just to get together and get to know each other.
What about panels, forums, other opportunities for real participation? We did have short (half hour) Bible study in small groups most mornings with a variety of people, and that was good, but that was talking about Scripture, important in iteself, not directly about the issues of governance and the same sex blessing. And so many other things were going on at the same time, that often only a few of the eight or nine people who were supposed to be in the study groups showed up.
There were a lot of presentations to Synod, informing us about various programs of the Church-but always it was a presentation. We were being talked to, not with.
We do have to spend some time in the parliamentary mode ("Mr. Chairman I move... Point of order... The Chancellor must rule... etc.) by our Constitution, but we should do this after we experience each other, and have come of a mind that we want to get on with real business. Once most people are in that state, and feel they have been paid attention to and really listened to, and have developed some trust with each other, they don't engage in filibusters and procedural wrangles - they want to get on with things.
I had the beginnings of real discussion with some conservative people one from Newfoundland and one from Alberta - on the next to last and last days of Synod. Why weren't the opportunities opened up earlier? Yes, it was partly my fault-I should have personally been more outgoing. But I was hardly encouraged to be.
Despite this "efficient" parliamentary model we didn't accomplish all that much. We did two things - elect a new Primate, and talk about the same sex blessing. A few other things were accomplished, but I feel what we did could have been done in two or three days rather than seven, if the process were decent. And we would have saved a lot of money-one estimate I heard was that all this cost the church at least half a million dollars.
A parishioner of Kevin's at St. Mary's in Kerrisdale took me to task for the picture of Kevin and Susan Brown dozing off. But they were exhausted-and not by late night partying, I don't think, but by the crazy process. Apologies for possibly embarrassing you, Kevin and Susan. But that picture summed up a lot of this meeting for me. Can we do better next time? We have three years to set it up and do it right in Halifax.

In the evening, a grand installation ceremony for the new Primate in a church not far from downtown. Archbishop Fred is seated in the centre while someone speaks - I've forgotten who. It was a long ceremony, with First Nations singers, Sudanese dancers, flags waving, a long sermon from the Bishop of York, trumpets, a choir from several parishes, and so forth. A good send off. The archbishop was his Nova Scotia folksy self, at the end of the evening going through a whole bunch of thank you's for virtually anyone who had anything to do with the Synod or the ceremony. He is a tall, likable man - I think he may be right man for the times. His challenge - to get us to get over the sex business. The Synod may have cost half a million dollars, and essentially all we did of import was to elect the new Archbishop and talk about the same sex blessing. That and a bit of housekeeping stuff. We've got to do better than this!

I sat besides Bonnie Fulton during the Synod and she kept her hands busy with needlework. Got quite a bit done (almost all the blue) since we began. Bonnie says she finds she must do something with her hands. I noticed others, all women I think, we doing something similar, like knitting. At least they accomplished something these seven days!

The final sessions dealt with a bunch of miscellaneous motions, but (sign) once again the motion that generated the most heat was about the blessing. John Oakes of our delegation moved that we ask the Primate's Theological Commission to study whether the blessing was a "Spirit-led development." John was supported by Steve Schuh, another New Westminster member of Synod, but most of us agreed that we don't need more study. What we need is more will, not more study, the bishop said at one point, and I agreed. But Synod decided we will study more, with more consultations. It does appear despite the resolutions on Sunday that the diocese may be able to continue with same sex blessings. At least that is what Primate-elect Fred Hiltz said in the Winnipeg Free Press. For his part, Bishop Michael said only that we'll certainly study what the implications of the General Synod's motions are before we decide. We withdrew the resolution asking for "grandfathering" after several theological and Canon law experts suggested it might not be necessary. But it's early days... we shall see... until decisions are made the status quo continues, I guess.

Last day of Synod. Have I mentioned that the sessions were on the eight floor of the Marlborough Hotel, the elevators were almost always busy, so the way up was 154 steps. Actually, I got used to it, and was only a little breathless at the end.

- By the way, that picture that shows Kevin sleeping was intended to show how tired we all were - largely because we took our task of being a member of Synod so seriously. Every clergy and lay delegates were virtually always at their table when Synod was in session - Peter was not because he had to sit upfront and help the Primate chair. New Westminster sent a hard-working crew to Winnipeg (which was the case also in almost every diocese).

It was a hard day. In the morning we were somewhat encouraged by the Synod voting to say that the Blessing was "not in conflict" with core doctrine of the Church. Clergy and laity were quite clear in their opinion (152 to 27), the bishops divided (21 to 19). A theologian told me that this was the important vote-if the Blessing is not in conflict with what we have to believe, we can do it. But he's a theologian.
More important was the vote on the actual Blessing itself, the resolution that had first been brought up in 2004 and postponed till this Synod - that the Synod "affirmed" that diocesan bishops have to "authority and jurisdiction" to allow their priests to bless gay and lesbian couples (with appropriate safeguards for priests and parishes which do not agree with the Blessing). It was called the "local option" resolution. Laity voted 57% for it (78 to 59); clergy voted 54% for it (63 to 53); but the bishops in effect vetoed it, by two votes (19 in favour to 21). During the arguments and votes I had a sense of deja vu. It seemed like 2001 (in our diocese) all over again. The laity and clergy in favour (after an emotional debate), but the bishop unable to go ahead.
Why did this happen? Of course one reason is the votes from most rural and northern bishops from theologically conservative dioceses, who serve far fewer people than the bishops in the large urban areas of Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal (who generally favoured the Blessing). The Order of Bishops is definitely not rep by pop, and Bishop Michael Ingham of our diocese pointed that out to a reporter.
But we knew that was going to happen. To me what was crucial were the votes of the swing bishops - those who may even have voted in favour of the previous resolution - that there is nothing doctrinally wrong with the Blessing - but who must have feared what organized conservatives (the Essentials coalition, primarily) could do in their diocese, and would do, if the Church adopted the Blessing. They didn't want to go through what Michael has - a portion of parishes leaving, and the withdrawal of financial support. Some dioceses are in a far more precarious position than the Diocese of New Westminster, which, financially, is in pretty good shape.
I think these swing bishops recognize that with the laity and the clergy in favour of the Blessing, it is pretty inevitable. "Yes, but not now," is what one delegate said. Things will quiet down and in 3, 6, 9 years we can go ahead.
I went to the microphone at one point to argue that the unity of the Church is not so much threatened by going ahead now with the Blessing but by delay and allowing the dispute to fester. So is the potential for growth and membership threatened.
But the swing bishops who opposed the Blessing now - bishops from urban areas like Victoria or Fredericton or maybe even Edmonton - felt differently. I hope they are right, and the Church will simply evolve and in 2010 calmly accept the Blessing. But advocates will not simply give up, and the conservatives - who certainly can't take a lot of comfort in such a narrow victory - will continue to press their case. And we'll keep being a Church in debate. Mostly I fear a lack of order - that quite publicly priests will start defying their bishops and blessing anyway. Then the swing bishops will really be on the hot seat.
But things aren't over yet at this Synod. Today (Monday) the Synod will be asked whether New Westminster, having begun Blessings, can continue. That is, will we be "grandfathered." Again, I suspect clergy and laity will agree. The question will be decided by the bishops.

General Synod got to us today. We are tired, and, for the Diocese of New Westminster's representatives, we are getting very tired. This was during a presentation in the afternoon. Kevin Dixon is in our delegation - but tired also was Susan Brown, a representative of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, who sat at our table. She of course was much more theologically conservative than most of us, but was most gracious to us when she later was asked to address the Synod, and thanked us for our hospitality, as well as the Synod generally. We at our table really liked Susan, who is a professor of religious studies in London, Ontario. She was frank in her comment to synod. "I expected to see a little more compromise expressed at this synod," she told us.

We quit at about 8:45. There were some who wanted to keep going, but a motion to extend the debate lost, so we will resume tomorrow. Nova Scotia and PEI is the diocese that will host the General Synod in 2010, so after a short presentation they invited us all to a party in the hotel, complete with some Celtic dancing. You can see our new Primate Fred Hiltz clapping, the tall man at centre left towards the back - but he danced in the middle of the circle too - and on the left Sue Moxley, his suffragan bishop, who will probably be elected the diocesan in his place when he resigns to move to Toronto. It was a good party, and several proponents and opponents of the blessing came. A very good feeling to end a somewhat tense day.

All this procedural stuff was pretty dry. The only excitement came when I knocked over a glass of water at the table, drowning several reams of paper... okay, maybe not reams. Here you can see napkins put down to soak it up. The water headed towards the bishop, of course. He didn't seem amused.

All these procedural motions meant we did a lot of voting, often having to stand. Here John Alfred Steele of Victoria counts the vote. The way it went was that we all stood, and he came around pointing at us (Zap!) and we sat down. I thought it looked somewhat funny. Maybe he should have had a ray gun.

The day was spent mostly in parlimentary session, mostly talking about the Same Sex Blessing. We had a committee of the whole in the afternoon, at which several dozen people spoke pro and con. In the evening we started motions. The motions were all procedural - how big a majority would the blessing need? In the end we agreed not 2/3 or 60% but just a majority. It appears the laity will approve the blessing, although some are very, very unhappy about this; the question is whether the bishop (who vote separately) will. The motion we ended on was whether the blessing is "in conflict with"..."core Anglican doctrine." The opponents seemed to be trying to delay the vote. Archbishop Hutchison, the chair, struggled at times with procedure. At the end of the day a delegate rose to commend him as "Your Grace under fire," and we applauded his efforts. It is, after all, the first time he has chaired the national Synod.

At lunch break I attended an informational meeting put on by the Communications department. I asked them if they had a long range plan, what with communications technology changing so fast and the department short of money. Sam Carriere, director of communications (seated, blue shirt) said that a plan for a priority for the next few years. At front Josie De Lucia, who works with Sam and on the Anglican Journal, and Bev Murphy, the paper's circulation manager among other things, spoke of what the department had done.
Later that day we elected representatives from the six BC dioceses to the Council of General Synod, which will handle the Synod's business till 2010. Michael was elected the bishop representative; John Alfred Steele, from the Victoria area, the priest rep.; Lela Zimmer of the Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior the lay rep.; plus three others whose names I don't have because I think I left my notebook on the table in the hall.

Woke up to a beautiful day in Winnipeg, the sun just beginning to show on the buildings. The view from the 27th floor is quite grand.

We're singing Gordon Light's song "Draw the Circle Wide" an awful lot at this Synod. It's a good tune and it's lively and I like it. Tomorrow comes the difficult questions about the Blessing of Same Sex Unions. Will we draw the circle wider? Will we keep the circle together? We shall see. I pray so. Think of us as we deliberate, please. Here's our (admittedly imperfect) version of Gordon's song.

Primate Andrew Hutchison (who continues in office until the installation Monday night) came in with the winner, Fred Hiltz, to great applause from many, and polite applause from the others. Of course those whose candidate lost were disappointed, but I didn't hear any expressions of deep bitterness. The new primate said a few words including his hope that he can work to the best of his ability to hold the Church together. He is, according to others who know him, a friendly, consensus building type, not overly intellectual, but very pastoral. He said he really only knew the Church in eastern Canada, and promised to spend considerable time in the West, Centre, and North. He's a big man. He has a big job.

It went really well, thanks in part to two of our delegation. Peter Elliott (at the table, dark shirt with red ribbon that indicated he could vote) chaired the Synod after we had Eucharist and the bishops went away to await the results. Cathy Derksen, above handing out ballots, was one of the very efficient scruitineers. The bishops had nominated four people, two Bruces - Bruce Howe and George Bruce - so we were told to write full names on the ballot. The others were Victoria Matthews of Edmonton and Fred Hiltz of Nova Scotia and PEI. As expected, from the first, they were the leaders. The Bruces failed to get 10% after the first ballot and under the rules were dropped, so it quickly became an election with two choices.

The voting went amongst the laity
Hiltz Matthews
1st ballot 57 54
2nd 69 60
3rd 73 64
4th 75 62
5th 81 56

Amongst the clergy
1st 40 56
2nd 49 64
3rd 53 62
4th 56 60
5th 60 56

By the third ballot, both candidates had been elected, but by different houses. There was a call for the sequestered bishops be asked to provide more names, but the Synod decided (by vote) not to ask for them. On the fourth ballot, Bishop Matthews support began to slip, and on the last ballot, enough clergy votes had changed to elect Bishop Hiltz.

Today we spent most of the day in this church which is just west of my hotel, Holy Trinity, a beautiful old building, for the election of a new Primate. Delegates sat in the central aisles, visitors and others to the sides. Clergy were on the left, we laity on the right. It went five ballots.

We sang lots of hymns. The Lutherans have a great tradition integrating music (with tunes!) and liturgy. Here is Keri Wehlander wrote lyrics to a hymn for the day, "From the Waters of Creation," next to Bishop Gordon Light is the guy who wrote both music and lyrics to "Draw the Circle Wide." We didn't sing Gordon's together with the Lutherans, but we did (for the third time, I think) later in the day. I caught these two talented people together after the service.
Later we Anglicans had an evening business session, and turned back an amendment to a resolution that would have in effect have told the Diocese of New Westminster to end its practice of blessing same sex unions, by a substantial margin. But we also voted in a fairly conservative priest as Prolocutor (vice chair of the General Synod and chair of the Council of General Synod). More details on that later.

Sallie McFague from the Vancouver School of Theology was the main speaker. She spoke on, "Global Warming: a Theological Problem," and spoke of the need for us to think collectively and care about all of creation... but did it eloquently, as she did at Diocesan Synod last year. I liked her summary of the "three most important economic rules." They were, "Take only your share; clean up after yourself; keep the house in good repair for others." But I did find her awfully harsh on theologies not her own, suggesting little value in taking the meaning of salvation as redemption of individuals for life in another world; rather, she said, we should focus on this world and, as Irenaeus said, "The glory of God is every creature fully alive." But to make her point I don't think she should come down so hard on those who do think and talk in terms of Christ being the centre of personal salvation-he is that too. See my fellow delegate John Oakes blog here, and my comment to some extent agreeing with him.

We sat at tables of eight, Anglican and Lutheran (I was at table one), and discussed a great many things. The theme was "water," and the conservation and protection of it, and of the environment in general. I liked the group at my table, but didn't take a picture of them unfortunately, three Anglicans and four Lutherans.

Inside, a very large room, people setting up, the two leaders meeting, our Archbishop Andrew Hutchison (blue shirt) and National Bishop Ray Schultz.

We and the Lutherans met at the Winnipeg Convention Centre, a very large and rather ugly building about five blocks from our meeting place. The Lutherans were beginning their annual meeting - which mostly took place at the University of Manitoba, but they were bussed in to this place, and we walked there.

Today we got out of the Marlborough hotel for most of the day and went to meet with the Lutherans. On the way I passed St. Mary's, the RC Church, where our ecumenical partner Susan from that body went to Mass. That was because she felt she couldn't take communion when the Anglicans and Lutherans did during their joint meeting, which went on for most of the day, and was set in the context of a Eucharist. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In the evening we ended with an Evensong, which was Prayer Book but very nice. I do admit the older I get the quainter the BCP seems to my ears. The choir was really quite good, I thought. Anglicans can sing.
Tomorrow is the day with the Lutherans. And if you want to view another blog, fellow Synod member John Oakes is also doing one at http://johnoakes.blogspot.com. John is taking a very different approach than I am. I'm just trying to give the flavor of the Synod, while he has much deeper theological content. Reading his blog will remind one that New Westminster remains diverse. He remains very much opposed to the Blessing of Same Sex Unions, but he also believes in staying within the diocesan structure, loyal to his bishop, and participating fully. I don't always agree with him, but his analysis is sharp, and I certainly respect it.

At the neighboring table the Diocese of Edmonton has a mascot. I haven't asked quite yet what Pooh stands for, I must tomorrow. I suspect the delegates will do more of this sort of thing, to keep sane.
Substantially, not a whole lot happened today. We did receive a presentation from the Council of the North, the northern ten dioceses who receive support from the southern, populated areas of our Church, and agreed at least not to reduce their support (about $2.37 million annually) for the next five years. There were a few "conversation" sessions - on the Same Sex Blessing, the Windsor Report, Financial Management, and Governance. I avoided the SSB and Windsor Reports, having over the last few years had my fill!

Also at my table are (l-r) Steve Schuh, Kevin Dixon, and Susan Brown. Susan is an ecumenical partner from the Roman Catholic Church. She's a professor of religious studies in London, Ont., and a very pleasant person.

Fellow lay delegate Bonnie Fulton is making good use of the time with come needlework.

Wednesday was finally the first full day of General Synod. It started with Bible study in a small group, and then, pictured here, the plenary. (I had to check-is it only the first day?) The agenda is very crowded - too crowded, I thought. I thought of getting up and objecting when we adopted the agenda - one person objected to the small amount of time given to the controversial issues, though to no avail - I thought of joining him in the complaint. But it was the first day I'd ever been at General Synod and I guess I was shy. But the agenda really is crazy. Bishop Michael (at right) told me that the Americans may go from 8 am to 6 pm, but they give people the evening off for getting together. I think you need that informal time as much as you need the formal. Still, I'll try to keep an open mind, and see how it goes.