Back from the brink.
Does this invalidate the position taken by the Bishop of British Columbia, and give grounds to refuse to comply with his policies?
You wrote "Does this invalidate the position taken by the Bishop of British Columbia, and give grounds to refuse to comply with his policies?"
Not yet. The heretics are trying to wheel and deal a solution whereby merely the first part of the original resolution (the part that doesn't require homosexual 'blessings', but can be read to allow diocesan bishops to exercise 'local option' anyway) through as a compromise. The question is whether or not enough of the queasies understand that even this will be sufficient to result in a response similar to that received by ecusa.
We *should* know late this evening whether that comes to pass or not.