Wednesday, 15 July 2009

more about D025

First, the House of Deputies has concurred in the version that was previously approved by the bishops.

Here is the final version of the Resolution. It’s worth reading the text in full, including the Explanation.

ENS reports this (taken from the PDF file of the Convention Daily, inexplicably this story is not yet on the ENS website):

Convention passes Resolution D025
By Melodie Woerman

The House of Deputies July 14 concurred with the House of Bishops in their action on Resolution D025 and passed it as amended.

The resolution affirms that ordination is available to anyone in the church through the discernment process outlined in the Constitution and Canons of the church. It also said that God’s call to ordination is a mystery and reaffirmed the Episcopal Church’s participation in the Anglican Communion, while noting that the communion is not of one mind on this matter.

The resolution passed in a vote by orders called for early in the debate. The final vote in the lay order was 78 yes, 21 no and 9 divided. In the clergy order the vote was 77 yes, 19 no and 11 divided. A simple majority – 55 votes among laity and 56 among clergy – was required for the resolution to pass.

This vote followed previous action on D025 July 12 that was passed by deputies with a 2-1 majority. Because the resolution passed with an amendment by the bishops July 13, deputies had to vote on the amended version in order for the resolution to be adopted.

In the debate leading up to this vote, the Very Rev. Philip Lindner (Upper South Carolina) said the time for this action had arrived. “I saw our passage of D025 as our acknowledgement of what is – a way forward that is not perfect but is nonetheless a way for us to state boldly that we as Anglicans, as Episcopalians, are now recommitting to our faith and love in Jesus Christ now with a desire to fully focus on mission and ministry in his name.”

Grace Aheron, a member of the Official Youth Presence from the Diocese of Southwestern Virginia, noted that the house already had spoken and needed to reaffirm that vote. “It is time to move past this resolution,” she said. “This house has already decisively spoken. I ask you to quickly pass this resolution again. There are many other issues requiring our attention, and we have delayed this long enough. The debate is over, and it’s time to vote. As we say in Virginia, let’s get ‘er done.”

Two other members of the Official Youth Presence urged the resolution be defeated. Michael Sahdev of Southeast Florida said, “I am extremely worried about the future of this church and what will happen to it. We already have lost so many of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Please, I beg and plead of you, don’t leave me and my generation with half a church or no church at all.” Zach Brown of Upper South Carolina said, “I fear more conservative members will leave our church. My fear is that parishes and dioceses will leave our church. Without the communion’s unity, the Episcopal Church will gradually diminish.”

However, ENS has published this roundup of responses to the action of the bishops: Resolution D025 draws mixed responses. This reveals a variety of opinions about what the resolution does and does not do with reference to the B033 “moratorium” resolution of 2006.

Kendall Harmon has an opinion, see Kendall Harmon on D025.

Mark Harris also has an opinion: The Vote, Canterbury’s uninformed reaction.

See also Terry Martin D025: An Honest Statement.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 6:36pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Some comments from a person who attended most of the debates in the House of Deputies and House of Bishops regarding D025:

First, can we all please get down from the ramparts and stop the shouting, the leaping to unwarranted conclusions, and the threats? It is unseemly and unChristian.

D025 is a simple statement about who we are and where we are, at this time in TEC. We cannot enter into a Covenant pretending to be who others may want us to be. Communion relationships must be based on integrity, not just authoritarian contraints, as is the case with the Roman Communion.

D025 states that we are members of the Anglican Communion and that we commit ourselves to continue as "constituent members."

We recognize that membership involves relationships of mutual support between parishes, dioceses, and provinces that call us to live, as well as preach the Gospel, that feed hungry people, provide medical care, build schools, teach Sunday School, build churches and hospitals, etc. We commit ourselves to this work and these relationships in mutual love and support, whenever we are invited, even in provinces that have excommunicated us.

We have observed the restraint called for in B033. At this General Convention, we deliberately turned aside resolutions that would have rescinded B033, in spite of the fact that intrusions by foreign Primates increased during the time of that observance of B033. Indeed, foreign Primates, together with some former TEC bishops formed a new schismatic Anglican Church that now demands that it replace us in the Anglican Communion. All of this schismatic activity went on in spite of the fact that we were the only Church observing any part of the moratoria.

Our conservative brothers ands sisters have refused to engage in the "listening process". Indeed, some have been so defiant as to support government legislation in their provinces that would criminalize LGBT persons even assembling to talk to each other. In TEC, we have been engaged in the "listening process" for over thirty years, at parish, diocesan, and General Convention levels. The results of our "listening" to the lives of LGBT persons and families is that we have discerned the fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives and the signs of Christian holiness in their relationships. We have found this to be undeniable. We are telling to the Anglican Communion so.

We state that the calling to ordained ministry is a mystery of God, which happens at the initiative of the Holy Spirit. We commit ourselves to prayerful discernment of God's call in our lives and in our Church, not in some "anything goes" manner, but according to our Constitution and Canons.

We acknowledge that we are "not of one mind" about these things, in our Church and in the Communion. We offer respectful dialogue and freedom of conscience to those who disagree with these views.

In the name of God, who is sovereign, what more can the Communion ask of us?


Posted by: karen macqueen+ on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 9:16pm BST

Beautifully put, Karen. Thank you. What more can the Communion ask of us indeed.

Posted by: Lois Keen on Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 2:40am BST

I can assure you that at least one bishop who voted "Yes" told me that he did not interpret D025 as rejecting B033 -- any diocesan or standing committee can use whatever criteria they wish in giving or withholding consent.

FWIW, I was present for all the debates on D025 in both houses & am willing to answer any specific questions that anyone might have to the best of my meager abilities.

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 3:46am BST

You have done well, Karen, but I fear it will not satisfy those who don't want to be satisfied. And that will vex them even more...

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 6:29am BST

The headline on the BBC radio 4 news at 7 o'clock this morning said that this decision made it likely that TEC would be excluded from full membership of the Anglican Communion.

Huge numbers of people in the Church of England who don't follow the specialist coverage will have heard this. I think it is right that this is the way it is going.

It may or may not be fair, but we shouldn't delude ourselves. And surely those attending General Convention didn't really doubt that this resolution would have a seismic effect on their relations with the rest of the Communion? It is quite different from the Gene Robinson thing, when the reaction did come as a surprise. This one was very strongly telegraphed in advance.

Posted by: badman on Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 9:04am BST

I agree with you, badman, and, like you (I presume and hope), I welcome what TEC has done. But that shouldn't prevent one claiming (a) that the resolution is as decently and unprovocatively worded as it could be; (b) that hostile reactions from the usual suspects have been indecently expressed and generally dishonest in their one-sidedness.

Posted by: john on Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 11:55am BST

Suddenly it dawns on me that the whole IRD conservative Anglican realignment is utterly predicated on being able to turn church life into a fight club. If this or that difference cannot be exploited and spin doctored to get believers fighting, then surely queer folks will always be a red hot provocation.

KH reveals this, and do other leading AngConRealign figures. Journalists often have not been helpful, since after all the church being a fight club is a familiar trope to them, especially when it comes to controversies about modern queer folks.

On another blog, somebody posted some clues from Bowen Family Theory, a model that puts a heavy emphasis on gradual differentiations of individual self in authentic family relationships, compared with family unity based on hiding the real selves evolving across time in the family context, while more and more relying on surface conformity to demonstrate that the family still exists, intact.

Taking this Bowen tack, the challenge facing progressive believers and anybody who still occupies big tent Anglican leeway is: honestly differentiating self while refusing to turn differences into a Really Big Fight To The Death.

Closely read, I think that is what this D025 resolution seems to be trying to conceptualize and express to the rest of the planet. If that is the real case, thank goodness, thank God.

Imagine. A group of Anglican believers who want to demonstrate that God is not finished with any of us, that we correct what we can understand to have been legacy mistakes in our negatives about queer folks or any other mistaken issue, that we progress without strict conformity, and prefer to have enough big tent leeway that peace and good will across Anglican differences is the going norm, not turning every global Anglican difference into a fight club meeting.

Posted by: drdanfee on Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 10:03pm BST

The Episcopal church cannot be removed from the Anglican Communion and they know it only to well.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Friday, 17 July 2009 at 7:13am BST

A couple of definitions:

Communion:
...
3. association; fellowship.
4. interchange or sharing of thoughts or emotions; intimate communication: communion with nature.
5. the act of sharing, or holding in common; participation. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communion]

Agreement:

1. the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement.
2. the state of being in accord.
3. an arrangement that is accepted by all parties to a transaction.
4. a contract or other document delineating such an arrangement.
5. unanimity of opinion; harmony in feeling: agreement among the members of the faculty. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agreement]

I think we can all acknowledge that one can be in communion with another without being in agreement on all things, right?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Friday, 17 July 2009 at 11:33am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.