Is the Synod Unconstitutional?
The Bishop has violated the Constitution with regards to the upcoming Synod. Notice for the meeting was not published in all churches 3 months before the Synod. This round, communication of the Synod was done between between the Diocesan office and the priests in charge of respective parishes, who in turn inform the delegates. This is wrong.
It isn’t just the priests and Synod delegates that need to know about the Synod. The point of Synod is to hear from the entire Diocese. In the past, when notices were published, people from every parish would approach their delegates for issues they feel should be discussed at the Synod. The delegates would then submit a motion or resolution for discussion. If approved, the motions and resolutions will be incorporated into the agenda.
When the Diocesan office failed to give sufficient notice of the Synod, and in this case no public notice at all, it deprives the people from having their motions/resolutions submitted, thus denying them the right to be heard. This is fundamental wrong and against the purpose of convening a Synod!
Article VII of the Diocese of Sabah constitution
The Diocese also failed to provide the agenda 6 weeks prior to the Synod as stipulated by the Constitution. In fact it is still not published as of 12 noon today, and the Synod proper convenes tomorrow morning. Nobody knows what will be discussed at this Synod. This is the FIRST EVER Synod in our Diocese where the delegates have not received the agenda the day before the meeting. This denies the delegates the opportunity to consult their members’ position on any matters that concern them.
Article XI of the Anglican Diocese of Sabah constitution
This is certainly selective application of the Constitution for the Bishop who quoted on the Constitution to justify his ordination of Philip Lo. As the Bishop had failed to adhere to the Constitution in calling for the coming Synod, will it be accurate to label the Synod as unconstitutional?
Wise men have cautioned the failure to publish the notice and agenda could be more than an administrative oversight. Why is this Synod so closely guarded, why is the agenda of the Synod stays under wrap till the eleventh hour? The Bishop could have cynical agendas and want to pull a fast on the delegates.
Stay tune for the next post.
The Truth 
As AVcf is the Bishop, he can do anything he like and no one can say anything and he does not have the words “follow the Constitution” in his vocabulary.He couldn’t care less of what is written in the Constitution because he is so very narrow minded. The only words he know is ‘I am the bishop and I can do anything and anyhow I like and you have to obey’.
This Synod meeting will be irregular and will be an issue in court proceedings.
Bishop always teaches us to follow the rules, observe the umbrella, submit to the authorities……What has he done to his own belief? If he wants to come out, it’s fine, just like other priests who have different callings/views as to how lost souls should be reached, how church money should be wisely spent. Heritage’s ex-leadership team came out “gracefully”, abiding the “laws”. People who want to follow them can choose whoever they want to follow. There is nothing we can be against them of, right? However, IF Bishop “comes out” without a proper procedure, it will be obvious to his future sheep that he does things out of conveniences. When persecutions come, will he conveniently change the rules to suit his desire to run from the persecutors (wolves) too, leaving the sheep behind? Time will tell.
vesselpassenger,
funny thing is.. he is under persecution from you lot right now.. and guess what, he’s not running from any of you =D PWND!
Yoda : What is the persecution here? Please quote lines that shows I am a persecutor? Please define so I can see your point clearly.
My sharing was just a hypothesis. However, a hypothesis remains a hypothesis and it does not carry a lot of weight yet until it is proven. But here is the proven FACT and the TRUTH we ALL CAN SEE (don’t think you can deny): Bishop did not adhere to the Constitution. That is WRONG. As a good leader (a God-chosen one), he/she must practise transparency and integrity. Why did he not show up at AGM? (Can you imagine a family meeting without your father, or whoever the head of the family is?) Why didn’t he explain the perplexity of the issues raised by the Anglican members when he was given an opportunity? Does it mean if we have some questions to seek clarification implies that we challenge his leadership and hence we are the persecutors? (Does it mean if you have questions to ask your father and he will think you persecute him?) Since you seem to know what sounds like a FACT that he is not running away from any of us, maybe you also know why he chooses not to answer genuine questions?
I am no spiritual leader but in my opinion, he might have over-spiritualised certain aspects. For example, could he have generalised that those who have questions are his persecutors? I, for one, know for sure I AM NOT A PERSECUTOR. I am only someone who has been so confused by the whole crisis and hence raised so many questions. I was not even a fence sitter. I was a supporter. When people bombarded him and threw us (Anglican members) with so many questions questioning his certain decisions, I was waiting patiently to his explanations. What do I get? “Please don’t listen to the gossips!” Can you understand the anguish and bewilderment I have been going through – not having an answer from a spiritual leader whom I trusted so much in? Can you imagine how it feels like to lose the sense of security you once have? We read the bible, but what do you do when your spirit convicts you something going on in the church is not right? And when we raise questions, then we are persecutors. Yoda, your sense of security might get from the assurance that you know what is going to come and what will happen. I got this idea as your statement sounds like you know where the whole church is heading but I do not and this waiting period has been for years! Perhaps try to be in my shoes?
Another FACT: Bishop Albert is appointed as a Bishop BUT he does not own the Diocese Of Sabah. Only an owner has a sole discretion power. Since Diocese of Sabah belongs to the Anglican members, also, their say should be heard. IF Bishop Albert thinks he has such power, then I think he has been running the Diocese with an iron fist.
Yoda. This is my personal opinion and I hope you will respect it even if you disagree. Just like I respect the fact that it is merely your opinion “he is under persecution from you lot right now”.
PWND is an internet chat language version of the word “owned”, used in the sense of beating or outclassing someone.
Its usually used in games such as Counter-strike or on message boards when a user posts arguments or insults that can’t possibly be counter-argued.