Comments: Resolution A161 rejected by ECUSA Deputies

That is the clarity that the world has been asking for...

Posted by AKB at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 9:33pm BST

Should think so too.It simply went too far in kow-towing to Williams and his conservative masters.

Posted by Merseymike at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 9:37pm BST

It's beginning to look like a clean sweep for the libs. What's been more interesting to me over the last few years has been the transformation in attitudes as surprise and disbelief has morphed into a settled liberal determination to do it OUR way and to have it OUR way, and the rest of the you can be ******.

So, now the ball will come to rest in the lap of the ABC and things get REALLY intersting (not just in TEC, but worldwide). The ABC's going to have a heck of a time working out a compromise that will be palatable to even a majority of the communion. And, I don't think he can do so in a way that will hold the communion together (no surprise there). However, there are other options. Maybe some kind of federation will be the answer? But, if so, what happens to the covenant idea? Will the covenanted traditionalists form one group in communion with the ABC and the uncovenanted liberals another, with neither group in communion with the other? Pretty wierd! Stay tuned . . . .

Posted by Steven at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 10:14pm BST

There is coverage and analysis (as it develops) in The Witness:

... and all of The Witness' coverage of General Convention 2006 is here:

Posted by Sarah Dylan Breuer at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 10:29pm BST

Where does an Episcopalian in the United States go to worship in the true Anglican tradition. I have not abandoned my local Episcopalian has abandoned me. Were I a Baptist or a Roman Catholic, my views would have a home, but not in my local, state and national church. Any help...appreciated. Richard in Reno

Posted by Richard G. Pugh at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 10:44pm BST

"settled liberal determination to do it OUR way and to have it OUR way, and the rest of the you can be ******."

Steven, you analysis would have the slightest *whiff* of Truth, were TEC to *DEMAND* all Anglican churches ordain/consecrate women as priests/bishops (nevermind gays!)...

...which we don't. And won't.

As it is, it just shows that your rhetoric is well and truly ******. ;-/

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 10:46pm BST

I've go to agree with Mike that it is probably a good outcome in the long-run.

Thought ECUSA still has a day to loose it's nerve, I hope that Truth will out... and, therefore, that a proper resolution can be arranged for dissenters who do agree with the normative Anglican beliefs and teachings.

Posted by Dave at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 10:47pm BST

I live in Columbus, OH but I'm encuntering difficulty meeting traditionalist members.

Is there any information about where they're holding evening services during this convention as the liberals at Trinity in Columbus are doing ?

Posted by Renford Walsh at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 11:01pm BST

The C of E emerged from the loins of a homicidal King who wanted lots of shags, divorces -- and thought God had put him on the Throne.
You'd think this would make us more tolerant, more ironic and laugh more --or at least beware notions of our divine right-ness (and be aware of our pitfalls) !) :-)

The Anglican Communion has always been pretty much a federation or loose fellowhip that evolved by chance. It can continue to be useful, it seems to me, as long as it is modest,low-key and practical. No good trying to be stream-lined, --- or a steam-roller !

Do what it can to help each other serve the world.

It contains everyone from Zwinglians to Anglo-Papalists, to Tractarians, to PB Cathloics (BCP),Eastern Orthordox inspired, from fundamenatalists to Sea of Faith and radical christian atheists, Calvinists, Armenians, humanists, nuns,monks, hermits, community workers, youth workers, peace and justice workers, the full spectrum of spirituality and sexuality ----- let it thrive, let them all floursih, don't pretend it can all be homogenised, it will only drive out the life, the love, the creativity, turn all gray.

All this groundless , new-fangled talk of 'Instruments of Unity' is too pompous, top heavy and ungrounded.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is historically, to be first among equals: A convenor, chair, enabler, encourager. BUT Not a pope. Not an anxious bossy boots! these are innovations.

The Lambeth Conference is a case in point. A fairly recent development. It is a chance for bishops to meet, have feelowhsip, and send out a letter--no need to get self-important, anxious or bossy ! Has only moral authority -- we listen politley.
The primates started meeting recently and it could be a useful thing if used for fellowhip and doing srvice etc., but not to get meglamaniac. It has no authority-- and so far has spent inquitous ammounts of money causing mischief.
The Anglican Consultative Council alone has a Constituion and procedures and authority. I t is democratic and made up of folks from the pews , as well as the pulpit. It seems historically, to listen, consult , advise and enable folks to meet and share. Not know to be bossy. It is the only offical insitution of the AC ! The only instrument -but why call it that ?!

We know we are some of the creative(/) mavericks of christendom at our best -- but when we get self important or nasty God must cringe....or is it just me ? !....

Posted by LaurenceRoberts at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 11:13pm BST

It doesn't look like there will be any ECUSA reps or TEC reps or "Schori fans" at the Lambeth 2008!

Posted by Ordinand at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 11:23pm BST

Greetings to all,

AFter GC2003 "conservative" minded Episcopalian Christians were reminded that the deputies to GC are elected at the diocesan conventions, and the delegates to diocesan conventions are elected in parish annual meetings. It was strongly urged that those who wanted a different outcome at GC2006 do all they could to elect parish delegates, and GC deputies with a different viewpoint, in order to turn things around.

In the meantime, this liberal (revisionist, activist, pansexualist, as labeled by Virtue Online's commenters) female priest fully expected Bp. Duncan or Bp. Iker to run for Presiding Bishop. No one expected either of them to be in the four officially selected by the nominating committee, but I did expect one of them, probably Bp. Duncan, to be put forward in the follow up open nominations. But none of the Episcopal Church "Orthodox" bishops had themselves put forward. It would have been a perfect opportunity to show us liberals just how powerful they are in the Episcopal Church, if they were to have run for PB and win. I am truly disappointed they did not take this chance.

I actually believed that, and unreasonably feared, that GC2006 would see that Orthodox takeover. It didn't happen. And so, the people in the pews of the Episcopal Church, as well as their priests and bishops, have spoken with decisive clarity, to confirm a woman with an expansive understanding of scripture as Presiding Bishop to take her place in the councils of the Primates, and to reject shackling the witness we truly and honestly believe we have been given by God to live out in this world.

It is not about "OUR way, and the rest of you can be ******". It is about being willing to take up our cross in solidarity with the least anywhere we find them. We, I, take seriously Jesus in Luke: when asked, in essence, who we must love and how far we are to go in loving, what are the boundaries to that love, "Who is my neighbor?" he answered with a story about one of the most despised persons of his day giving the unconditional loving care that the righteous would not give. The Samaritan did not find out first if the person was repentant. He didn't preach to him about changing his "lifestyle" to one in line with scripture. He just took care of him.

Lois Keen, Priest
Diocese of Pennsylvania

Posted by Lois Keen at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 11:29pm BST


Tsk. Tsk. Don't get miffed. I am, after all, speaking figuratively (even if a bit colorfully), nor was my comment directed at you personally. Anyhow, I'd rather you responded to the second part of my post than the first. The first deals with the past, which can't be changed and about which there will never be agreement between liberals and traditionalists. The second with the future, which is still before us. So, what is your guess for the future? Where do we go from here? Is it still possible to work together on this?


Posted by Steven at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 11:41pm BST

But, Dave, the same must them be organised for the sizeable minority in the UK who agree with ECUSA.

Only fair, don't you think - unless you really do wish only one voice to be allowed, which you are constantly accusing liberals of.

Oh, and the 'normative' stuff won't do. There has to be a level playing field, and that means that arrangements need to be made for those of us who would prefer to look towards ECUSA

Posted by Merseymike at Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 11:42pm BST

""Who is my neighbor?" he answered with a story about one of the most despised persons of his day giving the unconditional loving care that the righteous would not give. The Samaritan did not find out first if the person was repentant. He didn't preach to him about changing his "lifestyle" to one in line with scripture. He just took care of him."

Are you saying Jesus condoned that which made him despised?

Posted by Ryan at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 12:43am BST

I think we have consider what God is telling us in all this. His ways are not our ways. Instead of fretting over divisions in the Church, God, working through this GC is sending a clear message to his flock. It couldn't be clearer.

Schism is the best. The parting of ways between liberals & Christians has to be an amicable part, but it must be a part. Even if for some reason we were able to remain with the Spongites in communion with Canterbury, two religions (or 100 religions if you wish to be honest) cannot occupy the same Church.

Posted by Ryan at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 12:56am BST

I am sorry that Bishop Duncan seems to think the Boston Tea Party was a bad thing. As an American, I think it was a good thing. Perhaps Bp. Duncan should think about emmigration. I am sure there are many in his own diocese who would pony up for the airfare.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 4:15am BST

Tomorrow is another day, of course, but if the Episcopal Church's efforts to respond to the Windsor Report end where they are now, I'm not sure that anyone in the church will be very happy with the result. Many will agree, however, that it could have been worse.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the legislative process has been too clever by half. First, the Special Commission proposed 11 resolutions. Irrespective of their content, dealing with so many resolutions seriously increased the workload on General Convention.

Next, the Special Committee held hearings and proceeded to make substantial changes to the proposed resolutions. It was working very hard and scheduling extra sessions, but it was soon clear that its pace was insufficient to get its work done on time.

The House of Deputies had ample time and information to prepare for dealing with the resolutions from the Special Commission, but, by the time the house was called to work on the most significant resolution, A161, that resolution had become something quite different. Deputies were back at square one and having to deal with similarly new proposals from the right.

Never having been to General Convention before, I don't know what passes for normal, but I have greater appreciation for the conventional wisdom that you don't want to see what goes into either sausage or legislation.

I have suggested several times that we should respond to Windsor by first deciding (1) what we think is the current situation, (2) what we want to accomplish, and (3) what we should say to get to (2). We seem to be spending all our time on (3) and never talking about (1) or (2).

Posted by Lionel Deimel at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 4:16am BST

So this is where the co-dependency, ineptness and duplicity of past and present Cantuars have left the Anglican Communion!

The 2 Houses of the 2006 General Convention of the Episcopal church of the Americas have elected a lady Presiding Bishop and the House of Deputies have thrown out the “Windsor language” of “moratorium” as incompatible with Canons (all knew this all along), rejecting the amended variety altogether.

Whatever may happen in today’s joint session, it seems to me that little else is left but for Dr Rowan to present his excuses to Her Majesty the Queen, and retire to the living death of Academia.

And – not least – in Silence!

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 4:24am BST

Laurence Robert, well said. We certainly include all types and there are many things that we all have in common. we most definitely don't think alike but as I've said, there is more to Jesus than as an atonement sacrifice, repentance and tranformative power of the gospel (at least in the narrow vision I get here in Pittsburgh).
Maybe we liberals and conservatives could start by working at a Saturday Soup Bowl or sorting food at the local food bank. How bout opening the BCP and just having a general worship without having to agree theologically on every point in the Bible? There are so many ways we can build the Kingdom of God without having to know "are you a penitant soul?"
If we spent one fourth the time involved in some community service that we spend arguing about who's got the "right" faith we might help a few people have a decent meal or some clean confortable clothes and maybe a little hope!

Lois (priest in Pennsylvania):
There is an interview on NPR I believe sometime around Nov. 2005 that might interest you. Type in +Duncan and I believe it's Terry Gross' Fresh Air program. You'll get an idea why +Duncan didn't run. Also, +Duncan has made statements about how he has been threatened, about his Good Friday etc... Ever heard of the term Martyr Complex? I worry about the man.
Ps. I love Philly and have worshipped in several churches in CC. Great congregations.

Peace, Bob

Posted by Robert Christian at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 4:43am BST

Isn't this something? I never would have thought we would have a female Presiding Bishop/Primate elect because that kinda "choice" may have up-set the applecart/teacart with all the determined folks in the Anglican Communion who "insist" they know GOD better and his "will" for us better than we do.

Isn't it something that as much as we love and respect our Christian "family" in the Anglican Communion (even though we've been shunned/demoted/tossed-out at the ACC and snidely snubbed, jeered and generally "oppressed" by some of the noisier Primates) that TEC House of Deputies wasn't willing to allow the AC to further demean/demoralize and demand our Church family decisions be done ONLY there way? Only there way using ONLY their specific "language."

Isn't it something that the Archbishop of York and a couple of visiting English Bishop "busybodies" think little of the integrity (and Integity LGBT people) of our Convention and moved to interpret Gods "will" for us?

I dunno, but I think God and TEC are getting a little tired of over overseas intruders/do-baders, control freaks and con artists mucking around in our sacred affairs.

Maybe I'm wrong, it's not "over 'til it's over"...over is tomorrow Wednesday and there is a special joint session of the HOB and HOD called by OUR (the one WE elected to lead OUR Church nine years ago) Primate just hours away.

Thanks be to God!

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 5:02am BST

What I'm hearing around the blogosphere from those who were there is that it isn't anything like a clear statement. Conservatives opposed it because it wasn't conservative enough and liberals opposed it because it wasn't liberal enough. Given that those two groups make up ~40% of TEC it could be hard to get anything past that accurately reflects the mind of TEC other than a statement that we aren't of one mind on the subject.


Posted by Jon at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 7:13am BST

Merseymike - absolutely, it is only fair to let people in all regions follow their conscience.

Sad to see certain "liberal" ECUSA bishops taking vicars to court over property because they do not want to give these vicars to freedom to follow their consciences.

I am more liberal than those bishops! Very happy to see the realignment happening.

Posted by Nersen at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 9:45am BST

Richard G Pugh says: "Where does an Episcopalian in the United States go to worship in the true Anglican tradition."

Probably your local Episcopal church. This is where you'll find the understanding that other people do things differently rather than insistence that one doctrinal way is right.

Posted by Tim at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 10:42am BST

I think he said the "true Anglican tradition" not the Spong-ite "Christianity is whatever you want it to be" tradition.

Posted by Ryan at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 1:00pm BST

Re Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea party would have been a good thing if the Americans had by that time shown themselves capable of responsibility and autonomy.

Far from that, they still retained the 'have it our own way' spirit as manifested in the wiping out of the native Americans. They were not mature enough for the responsibility.

Flash forward to today. We have an America which politically still sometimes acts solipsistically. Which gives statistics for America as though they were statistics for the world (as though America were the world). How can we be sure that they (or, rather, some of them) are not still treating 'freedom' (translate: doing things one's own way, without reference to others) as their god, as their constitution unfortunately encourages.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 1:11pm BST

LaurenceRoberts has it exactly right. That's why I'm an Episcopalian -- so I can worship with and learn from people with a variety of perspectives and experiences -- because none of us has it right and we all have a lot to learn. A church that is nothing more than a mutual admiration society or a camp for indoctrination of "right thinking" isn't worth much, in my view. And therein lies the tragedy of this current crisis. If there is a schism where do I go to worship? The church is not made up of liberals and conservatives who can go their separate ways. This is a false dichotomy foisted upon us by those wanting their own way. The vast majority of us are partly liberal and partly conservative -- each in different ways. I believe and hold dear the creeds -- the trinitarian conception of God and Christ's saving work on the cross are the only things that make sense to me. But I cannot endure the intolerance and judgmentalism I see on "the right." It bears no resemblance to the Christ I know. I will worship with "the liberals" because at least there I know I will be welcomed and listened to, and because for now, at least, that is where I see the work of the Holy Spirit; but we will all be the poorer for not having learned how to love one another as Christ has loved us.

Oh, and Ryan -- "the parting of the ways between liberals and Christians" ? You're kidding, right?

Posted by Ruth at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 2:08pm BST

Methinks Ryan misses the point. As far as I'm aware, ECUSA, SEC and CoE have all had very broad congregations and generally got on fine with each other for a few centuries. This "whole AC is right-wing" malarky is only a recent misfeature.

Posted by Tim at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 3:16pm BST

I am reminded of Saint Yogi Berra: It ain't over till it's over. And, even after the last day of this GC, it still will not be over. We are all still here. We are all still together on this planet.

The constant spin from the right (or from the left or from the middles, for that matter) that this latest thing, whatever it is, now means it is over has itself shifted several times in several different ways. At various moments, we were supposed to think: (1) It's over because African bishops are flying in to save orthodox believers from filthy unorthodox bishops. Spongites? Has a rather nice retro Star Trek ring to it, but like all the happy newcon and other tags used so far, doesn't serve, doesn't hold much real water, like the equally forlorn tag, bibilical. Or: (2) It is over because the Primates have spoken - advisory counsel, at best expressing a mind of the particular meeting. If ECUSA canons prevent just the sort of discriminatory focus on sexual orientation in ministry discernment processes that so many Global South primates seem to take for granted in their own provinces; the efforts to transform Lambeth into a neo-church council of our 21st century have so far only been embarrassing to many thoughtful believers. Or: (3) It is over because our newcon special reading of scripture is the only true one, making all, all, all of the alternatives look silly and self-serving. Alas. This hardly holds water either in our globally diverse communities of faith. ...

Well the list could go on, and in actuality will go on. If we fail to state our allegiances to the middle, to historic leeway, and so forth - it is mainly because we have lacked leadership from Canterbury and support from other provinces that would firmly assure us of our welcome and our safety. Thus we may, or may not, still, fall into the typical dilemma that LGBTQ believers face every day, every morning: Where I am I safe? Where am I welcome?

Just as one's life can be damaged and skewed by underground closet pursuits, pretending to be straight or at least demonstrably crippled by comparison with whichever straight person you happen to be talking with at any given moment who needs for your to seem crippled; so one's life can be damaged and skewed by always having too much to ask, Where am I safe? Where am I welcome?

The Special Commission which worked so hard did an admirable job of reaching a provisional consensus among its members' views; but forgot that any moment of such consensus is doomed to many vulnerablilies, just to the extent that it cannot presume to live and breath in a safe, neutral, Anglican space where diversities are talking and new centers of understanding and consensus are growing in witness, service, or discipleship.

Canterbury and ACC have some remaining chances to course correct, possibly. We could still benefit greatly from firm, clear stands that admit: (1) we are not of one mind, and that is where our worldwide community pilgrimage is; (2) All of us are safe and welcome, even if we have spoken poorly of one another or even if we have stopped talking; (3) Common service may still greatly engage us even if conformities in witness or confession so far fail us; (4) God in Christ is still greater than any of our confessions, so we can risk charity, and risk not dominating one another as our pilgrimage continues.

Posted by drdanfee at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 3:22pm BST

What a strange and interesting coalition to defeat the resolution. Perhaps this is the very best possible outcome -- an experssion of the truth of the matter. The struggle to find a "middle way" could have resulted in a weak and not really sincere statement of "regret" when the plain truth is that the majority in TEC are not sorry that +Gene was elected and consecrated and see no need to repent over same-sex blessings. I am one of them.

Posted by Lou at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 3:24pm BST

"Oh, and Ryan -- "the parting of the ways between liberals and Christians" ? You're kidding, right?"

Unfortunately I'm not. I really don't see any potential compromise between the Christians & Gnostics within ECUSA. There will have be a formal schism.

Posted by Ryan at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 5:44pm BST

Ryan - "Unfortunately I'm not. I really don't see any potential compromise between the Christians & Gnostics within ECUSA"

This statement typifies the difference between the arrogance of the liberals, and the arrogance of the conservatives.

At least we (liberals) don't accuse you (conservatives) of not being Christian. As my teenager kids would say "Who made you boss over us?"

Posted by Charles at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 10:45pm BST

Dear Merseymike and Nersen, I agree. I'd much rather let churches choose the AC or the EC, than have this endless internal strain due to the "two religions" conflict. (By two religions I mean revealed Christianity and modern Christianity, not catholics and evangelicals.. who actually have very similar assumptions).

Posted by Dave at Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 11:40pm BST

Late in the day for a comment on this thread, I know, but Ryan, I'm afraid you missed my point. I was suggesting that your false dichotomy between "Christians and liberals" (i.e., your judgment that your fellow Christians' faith is not as good as yours and your belief that it is your place to say so) is exactly the kind of failure to love that I was mourning. Logs and motes, Ryan. Now, please excuse me while I see if I can't get this tree out of my own eye . . .

Posted by Ruth at Thursday, 22 June 2006 at 3:37am 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.