It’s 12:42pm, Saturday. I’m sitting in the Hayes room awaiting the start of the next SCECAC meeting scheduled to begin at 1:00pm.
This morning’s meeting ended with the proposal of specific language of regret in keeping with the WR. To review the proposed language, see this mornings posting. I expect some changes this afternoon to the proposed language of regret, most likely the word “evolving” will be deleted as will any language that might be deemed patronizing.
Also, we will likely get our first glimpse of the moratoria resolutions that were hammered out by subcommittee last night.
All of the progress we’ve seen toward compliant language over the last 24 hours is directly attributable to the powerful suggestion of bishop Peter Lee toward the end of last night’s SCECAC session. +Lee’s suggestion is, itself, likely a response to the clear communication of ++Setamu and +Wright.
News…it seems there has been some more hammering between the last meeting and this one. The new text of the expression of regret reads like this.
“the 75th GC of TEC, mindful of the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ, “express its regret for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and to other parts of the communion and by not having adequately explained to the rest of the communion the theological basis in scripture, reason, and tradition informing our actions: and ask their forgiveness.”
Notice the removal of the word “evolving” from this text.
We will probably get some commentary on this from the committee once it comes to order.
Okay it is nearing 1:00pm…
+DH: I call this meeting to order. The sound system is not working.
The mikes are out this will make it more difficult.
+DH: we have before us the proposal (above) worked on by subcommittee last evening so we will revert to our discussion about and perfection of this resolution
Snow: having in mind the concern which I share not to appear s if we have all the answers, I wonder if in place of “not having adequately explained” say “not having entered into a mutual discernment process…”
Snow: motion: “by not having entered into a mutual discernment process with the rest of the communion regarding…” Deleting, “adequately explained too”.
Second
Discussion
Snow: I think we are trying to discern what God would have us do with regard to GLBT inclusion.
???: maybe dialogue and discernment?
FW+: If I understand the amendment it is about past action. It is not what it might mean but what it did mean,
Sow: I’m trying to get a sense of mutuality.
Wolfe: How about “by not having sought the collective wisdom of the rest of the communion regarding” That’s a friendly amendment.
Ian: the current amendment is +Wolf’s:
+Lee: Historically those who criticize our actions can pint to 98 and say the collective wisdom of the communion was quite clear. I am wondering if we are still implying that when “you benighted” souls catch up with us we can go forward. But what would happen if we just omitted everything after “communion” until the word “actions?” So we don’t get defensive.
+Little: I would support that. It could be understood as us telling the communion what they should be concerned about. This is a wise suggestion.
Snow: things are friendly if there is no objection.
MH: speaking to the amendment. I agree with +Lee, but I also have other concerns. It seems as though what we are expressing regret for is that we did not anticipate the impact rather than we agreed not to do this, the communion decided not to do this, and we did it anyway.
Tim: I agree with +Lee, but more severe. My own thought is that we would add “and for the consequences which followed and put and period right there. The last two clauses are extraneous and not asked for by Windsor. The essence of this is the first four lines. I think if we stopped there we would be clear and not build in a lot of extra stuff that could be misinterpreted.
+ON: building on Lee’s suggestion: “and ask their forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of discernment and communion with one another”
FW: It might work better if the word “their” were deleted.
Wolfe: I am concerned about the word discernment? Is it one of those American buzz words.
+Little: This is a rabbit hole. This is not the listening process, we’ve already committed to that, this is about the expression of regret. I think this may not be a good direction.
Snow: I’m assuming that the word “forgiveness” is in here because it is in Windsor?
CW: wasn’t that the truncated remnant of our liturgical experiment; the leftover from our liturgical resolve? WE were exploring the Ashe Weds liturgy.
+Little: I think it is.
Ian: does that mean it is not necessary?
No (various)
+DH: where are we with language:
Ian: I think we have added the parenthetical reference to WR 134 after the quote in line 3 and then we have after the word communion a semicolon and then we strike the rest of that line and the next line and the word “actions” and the word “their”; that’s where I think we are.
+Lee: I like Tim’s suggestion of an addition, “and the consequences which followed” makes a lot of sense too.
Kathryn: I suggest we don’t use the word “our” in line 5 and use the word “the”
Tim: should we broaden this apology beyond the AC
FW: I agree but our particular audience here is the AC.
Yes (various voices)
+Little: I think I have it in written form and what I suggest…we were in a weird meditative state here
“the 75th GC of TEC, mindful of the “repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ,” express its regret for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences that followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within the Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.”
FW+ Are we accepting responsibility for continuing to break the bonds in the events that followed? IF that’s what we want to say, that’s fine.
Blanca: I’m sorry if I missed this. Why are you taking out that last section.
Ian: The thought was that it might be considered that if we only explain things to “people who might not understand” it could be heard as America knowing everything and just having to tell the other churches what is right and what is good. It could be seen as American arrogance.
+Lee: I want to affirm the appropriateness of the consequences which follow. Historically one of the things that offended was that when in October of 2003 the primates gathered and said don’t do this and only weeks later we did it.
Snow: the problem could be cured by putting “and for the consequences that followed”
MH: I think +Lee had a very good point with respect to some of the things that happened after GC. Because these are not spelled out we may not be meeting the mark. Also, part of the WR specifically spells out NH. We are here only apologizing for the impact of what was done, not what we done.
+DH: this seems faithful though to what was asked for in WR
Ian: I agree Dorsey. We are trying to find baby steps that bring us close together. I hear your concern MH but I think this is where we are as a church.
+ON: I would only add that we must in all humility come to grips with the limitations of the vehicle of legislation. This will never be adequate. IF it is not inappropriate I would support a move to call the question
FW: Are you calling the question?
ON: yes
Snow: calling the question at this point includes discussion on whether this is going to be the first resolve in an omnibus?
Various: good point.
FW: the rules of order are not always going to be helpful.
Snow: if all we are doing is saying this is our language, then I am fine with that.
+DH: IF I push beyond the parliamentary rules,, let me know and I will be sensitive to that.
Katherine: what is the house of origin if we put together an omnibus?
FW: An omnibus would be assigned to a house. If we were to create, it would be assigned by the presidents.
Wolfe: I think this baby step will be clarified by the next steps we take and for that reason an omnibus may make sense
Dan Martins: I support the omnibus idea. When would something like that be prepared to encompass all three resolutions
+DH: there is no answer to that at this time. The time is passing quickly.
+ON: I am not opposed to an omnibus but I want to hear arguments and I am also a little concerned about the time. IF we can get this out of committee today, then at least it gets into the system. I am even thinking we can do one more today? I am afraid that an omnibus might hopelessly mire us.
+DH: I’m wondering if we couldn’t vote on this and then take up A163?
FW: I would support this.
+DH: If that makes sense then I will make the decision that this will be our objective for the meeting.
CW: One last response…thinking of bishop lee’s comment, the phrase we came to last night was “our actions” as a euphemism for the election of the bishop of NH. Now I am afraid we are two steps away. Would it be better to insert, “in the events surrounding OUR ACTIONS AT”.
Ian: it makes it more ambiguous my adding more words.
Dan: Is it not already pretty obvious.
CW: I guess I’ll put it in a motion. I move that we include the phrase (above). After the semicolon we actually mention an action. In the first we express our regret for breaching, but then we get kind of vague.
+DH: the words “action” appear later in the motion.
Call
+DH: vote: No’s have it.
+DH: reverting to the resolution in its amended form.
+Little: I move the amended resolution:
second
Discussion?
Vote on this resolution (This is exact)
Resolved the House________ concurring, the 75th GC of TEC, mindful of the “repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ,” (WR134) expresses its regret for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within the Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.”
Ayes have it. With one “no” from MH.
+DH: lets move to A163:
FW: I would like to strike the word “agonizing” because no one has a corner on agony in this church.
Dan: this resolution does not point to sides. I suppose I am speaking against the amendment. These things are indeed agonizing.
MH: I would agree with Dan.
FW: I won’t argue. It just seems a little dramatic. But I don’t care.
+DH: any other discussion
Call:
Vote: amendment fails’
Discussion back on the original resolution.
Dan Martins: DEPO has had a mixed reception. I know it works well sometimes. Other times it breaks down because it presumes trust when there is no trust. The word “urge” in line 11 seems a little weak. In line 12 “when necessary” I would want to substitute “when requested”. I think there should be more pressure on bishops to respond to requests for DEPO
Ian: para 155 of WR gives us language: we call upon those diocesan bishops who have refused. to reconsider their stance…
Dan: I would welcome this suggestion.
Ian: this is the wrong citation, I’m sorry. It is out of context.
MH: one thing I hear from parishes in this position is that there are flaws within DEPO in terms of no mechanism to provide independent arbitration so that the end result isn’t completely in the hands of the diocesan bishop. The idea in terms of the motivation for having DEPO was providing a mechanism for things being resolved with grace and charity. I am worried about referring to DEPO.
CW: I’m not sure to revert to the rules. I have a proposal. I have a motion
Insert after “caring for all the churches” in the 3rd resolve after the semicolon
“and adapting it as necessary to ensure that ‘adequate provision for Episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities,’ (DC) has been made”
This is a reference to the primates statement from Lambeth in 03.
CW: I would point out that criticisms have been made of DEPO and one of the primary texts is one of the primary texts of criticism is the primates communiqué, which kicked off the POR.
Reads the line from the DC calling for the POR.
+Wolfe: I am cautious of referring back to things without naming them. And I am concerned. What groups would qualify? I may not have any visitations.
+ON: the statement for DEPO is an articulation of our HOB about the canonical provisions for oversight. Your language is too loose and it becomes problematic. The other thing I wanted to point out is that para 15 of the DC refers to the POR as adding an extra layer of appeal, so there is a lot of provision being made here. If we are concerned with responding to WR, the WR commends DEPO and says we find it reasonable and asks us to live into it reasonably.
FW: I would speak for the amendment. DEPO itself is a canonical application. The amendment would simply add more life to the canons.
+ON: I suppose my concern is who is in charge of the adaptation process
+Little: this does require trust. I am concerned about this amendment because the phrase AEO has been used in distinction from DEPO. If we put it in the resolution that could engender some confusion.
Dan: that is precisely the reason to keep it in.
Ian: Is there a formal amendment on the floor?
Snow: I think we are straining at gnats when we have zero testimony complaining about DEPO.
+ON: DEPO has weaknesses but it has been commended. It does break down when it is applied without trust. In the majority of cases it works out fine
CW: perhaps instead of “as necessary” we say “when reasonable”. And, +Little was worried about the phrase AEO. In DC they refer to An Episcopal Provision. This is a motion to amend the amendment by substituting ‘where reasonable” in place of “as necessary”.
Debbie: I speak against this amendment and all of the amendments. Let’s pass this thing unamended
Katherine: I think we should suspend our conversation. Our tempers are frayed. This is not the time to make a decision.
+DH: We are close to a decision.
+ON: I appreciate your observation Katherine. How about we pray for a moment.
Silence
+ON: DEPO is inherently adaptive. It is a negotiated arrangement from beginning to end.
+DH: any other discussion.
Calling the question
Vote on the amendment 5 to 11: fails
CW: Second amendment: in place of AEO insert “Adequacy of Pastoral Provisions”
This addresses +Little’s concerns.
Ian: I speak against this because the questions of addressing pastoral provision is addressed in the first two resolves
Call
Vote: No’s have it.
Reverting to the motion to amend: In the 3rd resolve after caring for all the churches, “and adopting it as necessary to ensure that adequate provision of epsicopal oversight of dissenting minorities has been provided
Question called
Vote to amend?
Fails.
Dan: I have another amendment. In the third resolve where it says that bishops seek the highest level of communion when and the striking the words “when necessary” and replacing it with when “requested in good faith”
Discussion
Question called
Amendment passes
Snow: earlier we spoke of language to help bishops who have been inserting autonomy language in various resolutions. I move we take out of the first lone of the last resolve: “attention to” replace it with “respect for the historic relationships of the separate and autonomous provinces” of the Anglican communion.
Ian: that is a good place to put that clause. But I would take out “insistence on” and replace it with “urge continued maintenance of historic diocesan boundaries”…
Snow: that is good.
Question called:
Voting on the motion to amend.
Ayes have it.
Now reverting to the entire resolution
Called:
Vote on the adoption of the entire resolution’
Adopted with one no vote from MH.
+DH: we need to make a decision on whether or not to meet tomorrow?
We will meet tomorrow morning at 7:30am.
Prayer
|
If I read the resolution expressing regret correctly, it still does not measure up to what the primates are looking for. It is specifically addressing teh bonds of affection and not the action of consecrating Robinson. Am I misreading the resolution? Posted by Jerry on 06-17-2006 at 01:28 PM [link]
|
|
Okay, the institutional crowd has definitely won a round here, we can’t deny that. If both Houses pass this resolution I can’t imagine it won’t be seen as Windsor compliant. The question is: can they get this resolution through both Houses without revisions? Any bets? Posted by Chris Taylor on 06-17-2006 at 01:34 PM [link]
|
|
What Bishop Lee suggested last night has not been done here. In taking out the words “our actions” this has been significantly weakened. I see no change of attitude here. Are they truly “mindful of the “repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” or do these words not apply to their “actions” at GC 2003 and in what followed in Nov. They are still just apologizing for the consequences of their actions, not for their actions. I’m with Michael Howell who was the dissenting vote. Posted by BettyLee Payne on 06-17-2006 at 01:42 PM [link]
|
|
actually they took out the whole phrase he suggested, “We regret the offenses caused by our actions.” That was the significant phrase. What they are sending out has nowhere near this kind of clarity. Posted by BettyLee Payne on 06-17-2006 at 01:55 PM [link]
|
|
Does anyone know if the bishops caucus with their diocesan clergy and laypeople? It would seem to me that it would behoove them to caucus and gain as much momentum for support in HOD if they expect success. Posted by richardc on 06-17-2006 at 02:06 PM [link]
|
|
Hey folks, let’s be honest. Since WHEN was clarity an Anglican virtue? Read the WR! The whole thing is full of ambiguity—despite what +Durham is saying now. If this resolution passes both houses, the ABC will accept it and the Primates of the Global South and the Network leaders will have to bide their time. Does this resolution indicate genuine repentence? NO WAY. Is it enough to keep ECUSA/TEC (or whatever they’re calling it) in the Communion for now? You bet—sorry, but I think that’s the truth. Posted by Chris Taylor on 06-17-2006 at 02:07 PM [link]
|
|
Chris, No need for apologies on this issue. You are correct on this issue. The nature and heart of ECUSA was evident throughout the 3 years post GC2003. We are dilusional in our thinking if we believe a change of heart has occurred. Notice the caution in how far they are willing to go. Again, How far can we go in making the painting look authentic without having people notice it is a forgery? That is the framework of this resolution. It will come back to bite us. Posted by richardc on 06-17-2006 at 02:17 PM [link]
|
|
As a lay person, I have to ask, what did we do? How did we “break the ‘bonds of affection’”? What events surrounding GC003? What consequences which followed? If someone is asking for forgiveness, they must honestly admit what they have done wrong so that the offended body is assured this is an honest apology - and the members that are being represented by the apology know exactly what their representatives are apologizing for on their behalf. I am amazed and thankful we got the resolution we have, but it is still not an honest admission of what GC003 did and the specific action of consecrating a non-celebrate homosexual as a bishop. Further, it has not rescinded any actions that it was not authorized to do and that were not in accordance with “the bonds of affection,” and has not apologized for offending considerable numbers of its own lay persons and clergy who had no voice or vote in the matters. Posted by MasterServer on 06-17-2006 at 02:23 PM [link]
|
|
From page 53 of WR:
Vote on this resolution (This is exact) “Resolved the House________ concurring, the 75th GC of TEC, mindful of the “repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ,” (WR134) expresses its regret for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within the Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.” Sounds the same to me. Posted by GL+ on 06-17-2006 at 02:27 PM [link]
|
|
But what you guys aren’t seeing is that this will be the hole through which orthos can run their halfbacks. When our bishop gets back, I am going to begin asking very firmly that we be given equal time in various things, like our diocesan newpaper which pretty much presents the company line. If they blink, it is where we begin. We ask them to start their own process of “listening”. There’s a little too much negative talk happening here. Do you folks understand the significance of where this negotiation has gone? It is far from what SR was saying the other night. You’re starting to get what you want, and you’re bitching about it. PRESSURE! Don’t forget, these people are really tired of this issue. When it comes down to job security versus idealism, job security comes first. Many haven’t saved towards retirement. They want to finish their hitch and start drawing. PUSH! You will wear them down! Posted by Tom Dupree, Jr. on 06-17-2006 at 02:33 PM [link]
|
|
Chris and richardc, you are both correct on this one. I am bracing for another scenario, much like we have seen before, that solves nothing and only thickens the cloud cover.
Posted by BettyLee Payne on 06-17-2006 at 02:33 PM [link]
|
|
I’m with Tom. (Thank you for your words.) I’m reminded that while I was still a sinner Christ died for me. I wasn’t even trying to NOT be a sinner when God loved me that much. Can I do any less than extend grace to those who are trying? Perfection, for any of us, is not to be in this life. How about some positive prayers and words? Posted by GL+ on 06-17-2006 at 02:39 PM [link]
|
|
Also, Tom, PUSH can mean
I, for one, think it is happening. Keep praying. PUSH! Posted by GL+ on 06-17-2006 at 02:41 PM [link]
|
|
Tom, I think the problem with your analysis is that you seem to think that it’s pressure from the orthodox in ECUSA that are making the difference here. I don’t think that’s the case. As Matt+ pointed out yesterday in an excellent piece, the action at this GC is between the institutional revisionists and the radicals—the orthodox are basically marginal to what’s going on. Folks like +Lee are driven by institutional imperatives, not by Gospel faith. That’s a VERY different incentive. For the moment it happens to overlap the orthodox agenda, but that won’t last. The more I read the more I think Matt’s+ analysis was right. The big fight on the floor will come between the institutional revisionists and the radicals, with the orthodox mainly serving as onlookers in the peanut gallery. The fight will be between folks like +Lee and Kaeton+. If you want a chillng preview, take a look at her latest blog entry: http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/2006/06/love-them-anyway.html I don’t think we should delude ourselves that it’s the orthodox pressure that’s making the difference here—it’s something driven by a much more profane interest—sadly. Posted by Chris Taylor on 06-17-2006 at 02:44 PM [link]
|
|
GL, don’t assume that when we see something negative and point it out that our hopes and prayers are not totally focused on God’s good and perfect and pleasing will in all of this. I have spent more time in prayer during the last six months than any such period in my lifetime. That does not keep me from seeing a phrase (Lee’s from last night) that was really moving toward clarity be removed from the resolution, and expressing my disappointment in that. Posted by BettyLee Payne on 06-17-2006 at 02:49 PM [link]
|
|
Look more carelully:
Vote on this resolution (This is exact) “Resolved the House________ concurring, the 75th GC of TEC, mindful of the “repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ,” (WR134) expresses its regret for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within the Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.” Two items: (1) WR is specific about specific action: the election and subsequent consecration of VGR. The resolution is much more general and unspecific; and (2) the Resolution states “those within the Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions “ It seems awfully close to “sorrry you are offended” and not “sorry for our actions. I don’t think it complies, it just is written in such a way as to make it appear as if it applies. I pray that people, in their desire for something to be resolved, are not willing to overlook the details of this. It could prove disasterous. WE need no fudge, not just “clarified fudge.” Roger+ Posted by Roger+ on 06-17-2006 at 02:51 PM [link]
|
|
Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for intervening in the events of this General Convention. We begin to see hope where there was none for your Word to be proclaimed. We give thanks for all of those who are working to do your will. We repent of our tendency to label and demonize others and pretend we can see into their hearts and motives. We ask your blessings on each of the deputies and bishops present. We beseech you to send your Holy Spirit so that all of our hearts, and theirs, may know your holy and life-giving nature. For you alone are the One, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen Posted by GL+ on 06-17-2006 at 02:52 PM [link]
|
|
Roger,
Posted by GL+ on 06-17-2006 at 03:01 PM [link]
|
|
And I do agree with Chris that what is motivating whatever we will see in the end being closer to what is being asked for than the original response from the committee, is institutional.
Did youall catch the conversation regarding the totally inadequate, HoB constructed concept of
Those upholding the othodoxy of the holy catholic and apostolic faith are a small, and getting smaller every day, minority in our denomination (100 a day, walking away), and our concerns are not taken into account in any of these “institutional” responses. Posted by BettyLee Payne on 06-17-2006 at 03:02 PM [link]
|
|
Dear Lord, grant us also clear vision that we may see things as they truly are, not as we wish them to be. Remind us of the words of your servant John (Luke 3:7-8). Give us also the strength you gave him to speak the truth honestly and plainly as you give us the light to see the truth. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen Posted by Chris Taylor on 06-17-2006 at 03:05 PM [link]
|
|
Has anyone seen any posting regarding how others in the center or LGBTs view this revised resolution. Kindly post them. They will contribute to our understanding of the other players rather than pontificating amongst ourselves. Not that we don’t enjoy pontificating amongst ourselves. Posted by richardc on 06-17-2006 at 03:13 PM [link]
|
|
Amen, Chris, amen.
Posted by GL+ on 06-17-2006 at 03:14 PM [link]
|
|
CT: If the orthodox hadn’t been pressuring, the instituionals wouldn’t even be talking about it. No doubt, this thing will have to be slugged out diocese by diocese, even if there is a “repentance”. I read Ms. Kaeton’s touching post. What I find so interesting, is that gay and lesbian people believe that folks like me hate them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have had to deal with my own “homosexual phobia” which I, and many masculine southern males have in spades. I am still in the process of dealing with it. But I know it is about me, not them. I have known quite a few LGBT in my time. Some of them are pretty well adjusted folks. They tend not to campaign much about being gay. Others want to wear it like a badge. These, at times, seem to be trying to make up for their own self hatred by blaming it on others. Just like alcoholics. We’ve got the crusaders, the badge wearers. Until now, they have had the moral high ground. But their base is going to crumble into dust. Because it is untenable. As touched as I am by reading about Ms. Kaeton’s tears, and her wearing her Red Sox cap to go eat Mexican food and drink wine (makes her sound so like all the rest of us), it doesn’t make me feel sorry for her, because where she is is of her own making. And if there is blood on the floor of GC, it is not the fault of the orthodox. We are completely outnumbered. It will be, perhaps, as you suggest, because the institionals know that it is about job security, and...money. And yes, that is a more profane interest. But finally, it gets peoples’ attention. AS I said before, most of them have little or no retirement savings. They need this deal to work for a good while longer. For that to happen, the negative publicity needs to go away. Big time fudge won’t cut it. That is why I continue to encourage pressure. ECUSA, Inc. needs revenues. It’s customer base has been declining. Posted by Tom Dupree, Jr. on 06-17-2006 at 03:14 PM [link]
|
|
P. S. GL I love your PUSH acronym. Thank you for sharing that. When this is all over, we will see clearly how He was at work. God bless you and all those who are filled with the hope that we will begin to see Martyn Minns’ three R’s: Repentance, Rollback and Reformation, as a result of this convention. Posted by BettyLee Payne on 06-17-2006 at 03:19 PM [link]
|
|
richardc,
Posted by GL+ on 06-17-2006 at 03:22 PM [link]
|
|
And there is no acknowledgement much less apology for the current crisis which is splitting ECUSA. Look at the numbers of lay persons and churches that have already “walked away.” Why are the numbers not current - 2004! Ha! They know more recent numbers of people and money that has “dwindled!” It is the pressure of the “orthodox” lay persons and clergy that are leading their flocks away, that is bringing pressure on the “institutions!” You have taught your flock too well. It is they who are maintaining the moral standards of ECUSA when the heirarchy could not. Marantha! Posted by MasterServer on 06-17-2006 at 03:28 PM [link]
|
|
GL+ I noted the same. I think everyone is back in their hole trying to figure out what the implications are to each side. I don’t think the “hoi poloi” had any idea this was coming down. Posted by richardc on 06-17-2006 at 03:28 PM [link]
|
|
Excuse me, but however closely the text matches the text of the Windsor Report, please recall that the text of the Windsor Report, being the weak text that it was, was strengthened by the Primates at Dromantaine, as has been pointed out recently in an essay by Matt Kennedy. The Dromantaine Communique called for true repentance, not this wishy-washy regret for “breaching the constraints of the bonds of affection”. If Rowan Williams and the other English Bishops seriously wish to prevent a split, they and everyone else had better pay more attention to the Dromantaine Text, which calls for true repentance. (Betty Lee, you are right on !!!). Posted by Anglican Observer on 06-17-2006 at 03:40 PM [link]
|
|
I am very sorry that you are upset by what I did and as time goes by my prayer will be for you to understand and appreciate what I am going to continue to do since we are all just sinners anyhow. Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 06-17-2006 at 03:47 PM [link]
|
|
I’d like to add to what I wrote earlier. As I mentioned, I have know and still have many gay friends. I’ll say this loudly: I LOVE MY GAY AND LESBIAN FRIENDS!!!! And they know I do. I see God working here in a way more powerful than we can imagine. Have you thought for a few minutes about what the Episcopal Church could become over time? A place of healing for those who are LGBT and other sexual disorientations. I’m talking down the road. The fruits of our labors in prayer. Way beyond all these political machinations. A church where we minister inner healing for all sorts of deep wounds, especially the father wound which so often contributes to sexual disorders. Is it any wonder VGR will not refer to God as “HE”. Imagine the wounding he has received from his own Dad. I have been hurt by mine, too. I really know what that feels like. Sometimes it is a wound from which we feel we cannot recover I have young boys. This is about them. We see loss, we see our church as ecclesiastcal roadkill. They see it as all they know, their friend Nancy who stays with them in Godly Play. As a friend of mine says, God doesn’t waste pain. I hurt for VGR, for Ms. Kaeton. If they can find some sort of healing by telling their stories, great. I have reconnected to the church in an incredibly powerful way by posting here. There are no accidents. They may be getting healed, and I am, too. How can that be a bad thing. In the meantime, we are in a battle for our church. While we aren’t fighting people, per se, we are fighting horrible ideas that are being promoted by people. Thus, pray, and P.U.S.H.! I love you guys. Ms. Kaeton, I love you, too. I wish I could have been there to hug you. And as the former Houston Oilers coach Jerry Glanville once said in the paper: “I’ve got a great wife, great kids, a wonderful job, and I go to a helluva church!” It was, of course, an Episcopal church! Posted by Tom Dupree, Jr. on 06-17-2006 at 03:49 PM [link]
|
|
Tom’s on spot here. Push for Christ. Remember that he died for us. If I was there I would push. I would not relent. I know that folks are tired, but this is our church. Let us not hand it over to heresy. Let us not have more people listen to the false gospel. Let us stand tall and proud as Christians. Anything less is not a church, it’s a social club. One last thing, I do beleive GLBT folks need ministering just like the rest of us sinners. Our church doors s/b open to all, as I pray they are. This s/not be an issue of sexuality, it s/b an issue of not recognizing sin as told to us in scriptures. Let us keep that in mind. God give GC strength to make the right decisions. In the name of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ. Posted by CT6Sister on 06-17-2006 at 03:54 PM [link]
|
|
Don’t quite know what planet “Prophet Micaiah” is on, but God bless him/her. God bless you too Tom, and Amen! Amen! May it be so. If you can show me ANYONE without sexual sin (lust, the whole lot!), I’ve got a great bridge in Brooklyn you may want to buy. This has been a HUGE failing of the orthodox over the past few years—a refusal to reach out in real love to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. We have tended to focus on their sins as if we had none of our own—sexual or otherwise. Amen to you too GL+! Let’s not forget that we’re still in the early innings folks, this game has a long way to go yet. I fear it’s going to get a lot rougher, so those of us who are physically far away, let’s pray for them all: +Lee, Kaeton+, Kendall+, and, most especially, Matt+! Posted by Chris Taylor on 06-17-2006 at 04:03 PM [link]
|
|
Folks may be interested to read this piece by Peter Toon+ over on VirtueOnline: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4270 it essentially confirms what we’ve been saying over here about the motivations behind this resolution. Let’s see what actually happens on the floor! Posted by Chris Taylor on 06-17-2006 at 04:33 PM [link]
|
|
Matt--I couldn’t find the post on A095. The Rev. Freddy Richardson (Tennessee) will verify what I told you about Elizabeth Kaeton’s comment on this resolution. anthills Posted by anthill on 06-17-2006 at 05:29 PM [link]
|
|
Oh, stop it. Thank you Tom and thank you GL+ for asking , not demanding words or actions that are not there. If anyone wants a liberal’s view, I’d be glad to give it...when you hurt another human being, it must be a wake up call. You must check your actions, and decide your culpability. You must apologize to those you hurt. Yes, it is possible to inflict hurt for a good cause - on either side of an issue, but you better be prepared to help those you hurt. You better have the courage to walk with the Lord. To live his words. To know that he demanded ‘Mercy and not sacrifice.” I say all this with a heavy heart. I am tired of name calling. I am tired of people seeing the sins of others and not seeing the sin that they, too, posses. So, Yes, I sin, and if I have hurt anyone I truly apologize. Posted by Heidi on 06-17-2006 at 05:33 PM [link]
|
|
Oh, and just an aside - one of my daughters woke me last nite to go downtown to hear John Hiatt at City Stages. It was midnight when we arrived I got my second wind, was delighted to hear “A child of the wild blue yonder.” Born of the angels tears, She believes in forgiveness...” We danced, it was great. It was pure love. Maybe a lot of this controversy could be resolved if we would simply ‘dance.’ Just a simple act, but it can be heaven. Posted by Heidi on 06-17-2006 at 05:46 PM [link]
|
|
I found that Reuters article amazing. Evidence of what Sarah wrote about re: a sea change. I mean seriously: Reuters is reporting on a resolution coming out of a specialized Committee at GC that hasn’t even hit the floor of the HoD yet. Can you believe that a reporter would have understood the significance of this previously. Wow. Ruth Gledhill also is reporting on this resolution on her blog. http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/ And to those of you who’ve noted the lack of commentary coming from the moderate / reappraising side of the aisle, it sure seems true. Very little news posts from there, while here on StandFirm, Titusonenine and GenCon 06, Matt, Kendall and the Elves are typing their fingers off. Kendall started posting at 3 a.m. and had 27 stories before 9 a.m. The Elves have also got 20+ posts up so far. Amazing work. Posted by Karen B. on 06-17-2006 at 06:17 PM [link]
|
|
I replied to Kaeton+’s whine about how the poor old LGBT communinity was going to be blamed for the crash and burn that is coming up. (It was a little “icky” typing on that pinkish background her website uses.)But I assured her that if and when the “blood was on the floor” (her words) it would not be the LGBT community that I blamed, despite her seeming depsparate need to claim victimhood. Nay, I said I would blame myself and my fellow traditional Christians who had failed to head this off 20+ years ago. She seemed to want to take the blame for the “schism” that is about to occur. She defines that “schism” as conservatives leaving ECUSA. I have news for her, the “schism” will be ECUSA leaving the larger body of Christ (AC) while a few of us traditionalists are scurrying around to find ways to stay on board in the AC and avoid schism. ECUSA is fomenting schism, it is the Network and others who are trying to remain with the larger body of Christ. That point needs to be driven home. One of the more amusing items on her blog was a question raised by a visitor who asked her to explain the B in ,LGBT, since bisexual seemed to be in conflict with committed ss relationships. She dismissed his question by asserting that it was not her job to “educate” him on matters of gay issues and that he needed to do his own research. She did seem a bit cranky, maybe the pace of the GC is getting to her. The hubris of Ms Kaeton trying to claim victimhood and blame, is just a sad joke. Posted by Gulfstream on 06-17-2006 at 06:45 PM [link]
|
|
The Ruth Gledhill article reveals how this looks from overseas and it seems that even the new and improved strongly worded apology seems pathetic with a little distance. I think this resolution is the closest GC2006 will get to the WR and I bet it is watered down further or even dropped in HOD. How long will it take for the consequences to develop? a month? a year? a decade? This episcopal lay person will find it hard to remain past our next diocesan council meeting in February. Posted by BillK on 06-17-2006 at 06:52 PM [link]
|
|
I fail to see an optimistic outcome to this resolution passing in anything like the form they have finally come up with. I completely agree with Dan Crawford (on an earlier post) that this is little more than sleight-of-hand. I was disgusted as I read Matt’s flow of quotes from this committee to follow their careful tip-toeing through the minefield of wording to give the AC the semblance of compliance to WR without giving any fundamental ground. Behind most of what I read is the arrogance that talks about “..the rest of the AC has yet to evolve to our level...’ They removed the term ‘evolve’ but only to pass muster by ABC et al. Again their expectation is that given time, the Communion will have no choice. Ten years from now SS civil partnerships will be the rule of the land, accepted as the norm. By then much of the Western world will be on the same track along with pockets of the rest of post-christian cultures. I still believe that winning the acceptance of compliance to TWR threatens and emmasculates the line in the sand. Winning a moritorium of ss blessings and homosexual consecrations, etc. is no victory for us.
Posted by Bill C on 06-17-2006 at 07:27 PM [link]
|
|
Dumb Ox: Agreed. However, even if nobody on the committee agrees that VGR consecration was wrong, the language, no matter how vague, is still a victory. It is the first institutional nod that TEC has made towards something fomented by orthodox. This is a hole in the armor, and anybody who’s got any fight left in them can begin to drive through it. People are bitching too much. It’s a glass half full sort of mentality, and I can’t believe it. In war, you aren’t going to get exactly the outcome you hoped. Some of us are late to this fight. We spent too much time being ticked off. I think it is astounding what has happened. Posted by Tom Dupree, Jr. on 06-18-2006 at 04:43 AM [link]
|
|
I’ve been away from the computer for a couple of days, and catching up this morning all at once brings two points to mind: 1) If the committee had this much trouble, and took this much time, to agree on wording of a resolution responding to a WR report request simply for an expression of something, how much trouble will they have with the upcoming resolution dealing with a WR section asking ECUSA to actually do something? 2) “Talk is cheap.” The AC is going to judge compliance principally by whether ECUSA commits itself to stop doing what has caused the offense; it’s the “moratorium” resolution that will really matter. Compared to that, it wouldn’t make much difference if this resolution read “GC wants to say that, gee, we’re really sorry we made you-all feel so bad.” Posted by Craig Goodrich on 06-18-2006 at 11:06 AM [link]
|
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.
More great work, Matt+ I’m really struck by +Lee’s remarks. He gets it. He has spent a lot of time and effort talking with the No. Virginia orthodox (Truro, Falls, All Saints, etc.) and he can articulate our concerns. Twice above he provided a reality check, basically stating how he believed the Global South / orthodox-side of the Communion would view the wording. That really really helps. Answered prayer in my book.
Keep praying all.