---

SCECAC Meeting Sunday Night.

What a day! When I woke up this morning the favorite for presiding bishop elect was bishop Alexander. After we hit the third ballot, people began to whisper. Favorites usually win on the first or second ballot. When it hit the third, we knew something was up.

But we had no idea.

News or rumors started filtering down just after 1:00pm…

Okay the meeting is starting.

+DH: We will begin in prayer.

Blanca is chaplain.

+DH: We are in the middle of a time crunch. We only have a few more days for legislation. I;ve had some conversation with the other bishops on the committee.

+ON: First, I would echo the concern on all of our hearts. If we don’t do that in a timely way then we run the risk of not acting on the requests. Now we are at a point where given the realities of the schedule, we are all being asked to experience the spiritual discipline of relinquishment. Therefore, having said that I would encourage us to work in that spirit this evening. My proposal would be that we get all three sent out of committee this evening.

I would propose that in resolution A168, we consider having no objections and sending it right out and then spending most of our time on A161 and 162

FW: I wonder if 168 was ever posted?

Snow: It doesn’t matter.

FW: If it doesn’t matter that’s fine.

+DH: lets work diligently toward that end. IF God gives us the grace to get all through this it will be a good thing and ON’s word make a lot of sense to me.

Let us look at A161. Does everyone have a copy?

We have met in subcommittee to combine 161 and 162:

CW: I suggest we close this part of the meeting.

+DH: Are you saying you don’t think we should read this to the visitors?

CW: we worked very rapidly alone.

DH: Is that a motion?

CW: yes

Second

Snow: I am very troubled by this. The goal is to be open.

Call

The no’s have it: the meeting remains open

Resolution is read out.

“Resolved, the House of-------concurring, that the 75th General Convention of TEC in the spirit of our call to oneness in Christ, is obliged to express its expectation that nominating committees, electing conventions, standing committees, and bishops with jurisdiction, in considering nominees to the episcopate will abide by the ‘traditional teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality (66th General Convention A053) and be it further resolved that the 75th General Convention concur with the WR in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican communion to honor the primates pastoral letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorize Rites of Blessing for same sex unions at this time and be it further

resolved; that this general convention affirm the need to maintain a breadth of responses to situations of individual pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians in this Church; and be it further

resolved that this General Convention apologize to those gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their supporters hurt by these decisions because we respect profoundly the contributions that Gay and lesbian Episcopalians continue to make to our church

Ian: I move this resolution.

Second:

FW: Explains the new wording: it basically affirms what we said in 2003 and responds in positive language as opposed to the negative language of WR.

????: I am wondering if it might be better to express the fourth clause as an explanation rather than a resolve?

Debbie: I agree with this. I think the fourth is too long. I have an amendment.

“and be it further resolved that the 75th General Convention apologize to gay and lesbian clergy and their supporters”

And end it right there.

+Little: I agree.
Ian: I want to speak clearly and be honest about the hurt that this is going to occasion. I think we need that 4th clause because I will acknowledge the hurt that is there.

MH: I will speak once the amendment has been addressed.

Called

Voting on amendment: Passes unanimously

MH: I like the positive language in the first resolve. My concern is the reference to A053 simply because it has been ignored on many occasions.

Second. I think there are going to people who are going to be concerned with this language. Many are feeling it is not meeting the spirit of the WR. I would like to make an amenement that we change the second…

Ian: point of order. I asked to make the amendment first.

+DH: make your amendment.

Ian: Okay the desire in our small group was to state the church’s position. I would prefer to clarify that this is our churches current position.

So add in the first resolve 4th line middle between “will” and “abide” add “strive to” and in the middle strike “the Traditional teaching of the church” and add “the current teaching of this church.”

My point was that the thought was to affirm where we are.

Second

Discussion

Dan: what do you want to accomplish by adding “strive to”

Ian: this is what we are trying to live into. This is where we want to be moving,

Dan: I am very quezy about that. In fact at some point I want to move to divide this

+Lee: it strikes me that this language moves away from the clarity of the WR. This language moves us away from the WR.

+DH: My own feeling is that this seems to be a double negative.

Dan: If I am in order I would like to divide this amendment.

Second:

The amendment is divided. Let’s get back to the discussion

Dan: I think this is already squishy enough. I agree with +Lee lets not make it worse.

DH+ Call

Voting on the adding of “strive too”

No’s have it. The first part of the amendment is voted down.

+ON now we are moving on to the second part of the amendment with regard to the current teaching of the church. The current teaching is never manifest in a GC resolution.

+DH: do we have in the history of our materials, do we have a copy of A053? It is in the second resolve of A053.

Ian: May we read off the same page?

Reads the resolve from 1979 A053:

+DH: Am I missing the obvious. I don’t see the this language reflected in our current res. Oh. I see it.

Dan Martins: I can tell you why we chose to cite that 79 resolution. It is in leui of a reference to a more recent pan-Anglican document. It was thought that we should reference the work of the Episcopal Church specifically and this is an attempt to do so.

+Little: Are we still on the second half of Ians proposal. I would argue against this. I am concerned that if we call the teaching our current teaching, it might appear as if we are on the verge of changing the teaching but that it is the teaching “currently”

MH: I would like to return to some of my earlier comments. This A053 has been ignored. What is going to make it any different this time?

ON: I think this is problematic. Its some general language about the traditional teaching ebing this. But it is not the teaching of the church. WE are trying to state doctrine in a resolution and that just cannot be done. The citation just does not get there.

FW: I think this is the right thing to do. In all fo the pan Anglican documents have said that the current teaching of the AC is only the current teaching so I think it is an appropriate designation of what this whole process is about.

CW: your amendment is on the right track but I will speak against your amendment. This does not get us there when we talk about responding to the WR requests. I agre wit my bishop tha t it is preferable to do the whole quotation of A053 AND then say something like in keeping with WR 25 and 34 so we can pull the communion documents back in. Otherwise it is not an adequate response. One does wonder what happened to the WR in this resolve?

Ian: I suggest we deal with the amendment and then we get to the next question and then discuss other specifics. My recommendation is to deal with the current teaching of.

CW: for all those reasons, I disagree with your amendment.

Dan: I agree with Chris. I want to respond to MH’s point. The fact that we are quoting A053 contemporizes the resolution and brings it back in force.

CW: should agree with Ian’s amendment, since he thinks it is headed in the right direction and then amend it later.

DH: ON the amendment: will abide by “the current teaching of this church”

Call

Vote: Ayes have it: split vote though

Back to the res

MH: I want to amend the second resolve by inserting: “or permit any use of any rites of” between “authorize” and “rites”

DH: doesn’t that go beyond the WR

MH: It is reasonable to assume that the WR assumes that we will have a moratorium

Ian: I speak against this. I do not believe WR speaks against that. Secondly, if these rites are not authorized by the church then you don’t have any right to practice.

CW: this is a thorny question and in defense of what MH is saying I think we would be remiss not to remember what +Exeter said in March. He addressed this point and his interpretation has been defended. He quotes +Exeter from the most recent HOB meeting…

MH: Chris has said most of what I was going to say in that I disagree with Ian and I believe that statements of the way this language has been interpreted is that the idea is not just that we are not going to authorize rites, but that we are going to actually stop.

FW: while the happiness of +Exeter is near to my heart, the whole process of this is to be ourselves while walking together. The wisdom of our church is that we state our belief liturgically. To authorize a rite is to say that we are of a certain mind about something. Since we have not authorized these rites then we are simply living into the experience we have been given

ON: I support what Frank has said. I think it is problematic to add what MH: adds because the language goes beyond the pan-Anglican document.

+Little: The WR mentions that bishops have authorized rites for ssb’s and it seems to me that the WR in 144 is especially strong and broad on this. If we insert that we are not saying no pastoral care, but we are recognizing that the communion has asked us to stop doing these things.

Snow: The part of 144 that +Little did not read is significant….reads the rest of the paragraph…the writers of WR are making a false statement we have not authorized these rites. It is true hat bishops can contril what their clergy do. GC can only say we won’t develop rites. We do not have the authority to tell bishops what they can and cannot say or do in their own diocese.

DH: is there anyone who has not spoken who would like to speak?

Charles: Para144 is more than cautionary. It is expressing some serious repercussions. I think it is important to understand that persons are being united whether these are in public rites or not. I find it important for this committee to be able to understand the relationship between the two. I would support MH’s amendment.

Timothy: would you clarify some facts about this paragraph. As I read 144, I don’t think we are being faithful except with this language of “or permit” the language of 144 is the language of moratorium. Here we are mischaracterizing what the WR is. WE are not dictating to bishops we are joining with WR and with what our own church teaches. This language of moratorium goes beyond the creation of rites.

Katherine: in the WR 144: the sentence about calling for a moratorium referrs to the previous sentence that Snow quoted which she has shown was based on a fallacious understanding of what is going on here. To me the language MH suggests takes us away from simplicity and clarity.

CW: The proper verb might not be permit. But it seems that even if WR misspoke it got something right when it comes to the resolutions of GC2003 which allowed the diocesan bishops to move forward with these celebrations. I want to read the WR charitably and uinderstand what they are getting at. 1. these rites are happening. 2 diocesans are authorizing them. So we need to obey the spirit of WR.

Ian: I think we need to make space. If this permit language goes forward then I see this resolution as a lose lose for those of us trying to open up space with no winners and no losers for the Christian community to discern. This langugea will force me to walk apart.

Snow: we are suffering from grammatical ambiguity caused by our failure to diagram this sentence. The way this is written it would likely more accurately be assumed under the May pastoral letter. I think we need to figure out which one we mean. Are we agreeing that we are not going to authorize rites or that we are not going to do rites.

Dan: I have a question. Would the word “condone” not permit be helpful?

Ian: Not really. I don’t think the amendment creates space for conversation. I don’t feel any space to have the conversation anymore. I feel as if it is closed.

ON: I agree with what Ian is saying and I would go back to….I thnk there is a need to have some space. What is at stake is whether there is good faith and trust. We need to honor one another by having trust as what Kearon+ said today. I have a strong sense that the HOB is well aware of the impact of their decisions around the world. I think it we are able to step back and provide space and things might get done.

+DH: we are going over or beyond trying to prevent breaking canons. That is not someothing we can do. The church has discipline

Question called on amendment “or permit the use of any”… rites of

Vote: hands
Yes: 7
No: 10

Motion fails with one abstention

Reverting to the resolution as a whole. I amend that we move the phrase in the second resolve beginning with the word “by” and ending with the word “time” right before the word “concur”

I would also like to add the words “to develop or authorize”
Second

Discussion:

ON: I am puzzled by the grammar. It occurs to me that you are losing the reference to the primates letter of may and 2003 by moving it away from the referent. Just a grammatical criticism

MH: I’d like to speak against this amendment. I do not think it will address the problem of this resolution falling short of the moratorium. This kind of langugea will not provide space it will risk falling short of the WR requests and will possibly result in some consequences that will cut us off from communion. It would be nice never to have winners or losers. But there comes a time to make a decision. We need to make one now. Do we want to be part of the communion or not.
I speak against this and will not support it.

+Little: I like the addition of “develop or” can I move to divide.

Yes

Ian: I will not support the develop language unless it is moved to…It seems to me that we are looking at what our actions are at General Convention and not trying to forecast out. So if we move this to…then the insertion makes sense. So I would urge not dividing it.

Call the question

Those in favor of dividing…:

Ayes: 6

No: the rest.

The motion to divide fails.

+Lee: I would like to speak in favor of the amendment. It strikes me that by adding the word “develop” we are in fact putting a moratorium on these things and gets us closer to WR

ON: we could put the phrase at the beginning

FW: perhaps some people could step aside if snow does not fix it. Add “not to proceed to develop or authorize…” and add a “ thereby” at the end before “concurring”

Question:

Vote: passes with one no from MH.

Now we are back to the main motion’

ON: motion: take the first resolve and strike it replacing it with the original language in A161 with changes.

Instead of saying “we urge” say “we call upon” and instead of saying, “to exercise considerable caution in” to insert “to refrain from”

Second

ON: may I speak to this. I think the resolve I am proposing to stike will take us down a path that will not be productive. The request of the WR is to get some kind of moratorium and the more we focus on that issue the better we will get. I have heard worries about the original language being to vague. So I have strengthened this in 2 ways.

FW: When we discussed this earlier we talked about the redundant nature of that first resolve.

ON: I would be open to beginning the resolution

“that the 75th gen con call upon:
Dan: the thing I like is “refrain from”. The ting I think is weak is “call upon” I like the language of expectation. It has an advent feel to it.

ON: Retaining the languge of A161 gets us there. It states what we are regretting from and it avoids a level of specificity that will put people in corners.

WE cannot resolve everything. I think we should keep all of the A161 language in there

MH: I still have a problem with the “manner of life” clause. I wold be more supportive if that were struck.

ON: let me offer some pastoral advice. This is the point where we must surrender what we are doing as a committee. WE are not to have the debate that convention is to have but to put something on the floor that convention can debate. I think the questions that are being raised need to be raised at convention. It may be time to be still and make this an offering. Let’s not try to control

+Little: There is pastoral wisdom in that especially if we leave A161 as it is with the additional language cuts a middle ground. What ON suggests is in the middle, taking 161 and strengthening it.

+Wolf: I appreciate the pastoral wisdom it was not exercised in the other resolutions. I would like to see the discussion continue.

???: Are we going to retain the first part of the resolution.

Yes…

I suggest that we go back to “obliged to urge”

That is fine (by mover and the seconder)

CW: This is going to be a rabbit hole. I think either way we are going to be working hard and sweating on the floor.

MH: I appreciate the spirit of what ON said. I recognize and trust that we are just bringing up the points that interest us, but I would caution against presumption and focusing on just what we feel are essentials.

Ian: I like the idea of bringing back the two sentences and then bringing back the special commission language. I would not want to put any more WR in it for fear we are going further away from the idea of bringing us close together.

+Lee: I am attracted to the notion that we should exercise some sense of surrender. It seems that we have spent two hours on this resolution and the house does not have that luxury. I wonder if we can take from WR 134 the language it suggests.

I move that A161, the next to the last line be amended to eread after the word consecrationof anyu candidcate to the episcopate who is libing in a same gender ubnoin until a new consensus emerghes. I

I think this si a specfifc response to what WR is asking.

Ian: in doing so we would go against the spirit of the fullness of what the special commission has offered. I speak against this amendment’

Call:

Passed

Vote on +Lee’s motion to amendemt

Yes 7
No: 9

Motion failed.

Back now to bishop ON’s amendment

+Little can I have a clarification. The call upon has been cganed to “oblige to urge” “refrain from”

Called

Passed by all but two votes

The entire resolution as amended.

CW: We have had a great discussion. Given that “refrain from” is basically a moratorium, I have an amendment in the second resolve:

I move, that we insert the words, “....the proposed moratorium of the WR...” (I couldn't catch where)

Second:

CW: this is a via media. The explanation of the spec comis said the second resolve concurs with the WR’s call for a moratorium. We concur with the proposed moratorium. It is a via media. It inserts a moratorium.

Ian: I speak against this amendment. We are almost there…

Call

Vote

Yes: 8
No: 9

One abstention

Motion fails

Now we revert to the resolution in its entirety

Call

Vote:

Yes: All but two (CW and MH)

This will come before the house as A161.

“Resolved, the House of ______ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of TEC regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same gender union. Accordingly we are obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to refrain from the nomination, election, consent to any bishop whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same sex unions at this time, thereby concurring with the WR in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the primates pastoral letter of May 2003, and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention affirm the need to maintain a breadth of responses to situations of individual pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians in this church; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention apologize to those gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their supporters hurt by these decisions.”