Thinking Anglicans

more about ECUSA/Windsor resolutions

Kendall Harmon has responded to my earlier comment that:

…it is far from clear to me exactly what alternative resolutions would be favoured by those in the AAC and NACDAP who remain fundamentally opposed to the actions of GC2003. I can find no clear statement of an alternative proposal from them.

with a copy of the text linked here, and:

This document can also serve as a response to Simon Sarmiento’s strange assertion that “it is far from clear” to him “exactly what alternative resolutions [to those of the special Commission] would be favoured by those in the AAC and NACDAP who remain fundamentally opposed to the actions of GC2003.” As the Anglican Communion Institute recognizes, that would be resolutions along the broad lines of the one above from January 2005 as well as four of the five 2005 resolutions of the Diocesan Convention of South Carolina.

Will somebody then be filing resolutions to this effect so that they will in due course appear here? It is the absence of any such submission as yet that I find puzzling. Perhaps I don’t understand the GC legislative process.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RMF
RMF
14 years ago

Mr. Sarmiento, you understand TEC process fine enough. The text you linked to mentions the text of “proposed resolutions” at various levels as being what they want. The translation of this is, resolutions they have tried to pass that have failed even at diocesan levels. There are no GC resolutions that would be an alternative because even in their own provinces meeting in synod, the most receptive audiences imaginable, the network activists cannot pass resolutions that they have crafted to be pseudo-alternative resolutions they can then point to. They have no support even at this level. So you see, they… Read more »

Simon Sarmiento
14 years ago

But RMF,
It appears that individual dioceses, and even individual deputies (and even individual bishops) can propose resolutions.
So lack of support at provincial synodical meetings doesn’t seem to be a bar to action.

J. C. Fisher
14 years ago

I think the larger point, Simon (which you understand), is that the AAC/NACDAP folk have no intention of actually working *within* the decision-making structures of GC (most likely, for the reasons RMF outlines: they don’t want to be overwhelmed w/ the *evidence* of “no support”). Sniping from the outside is more their style.

In legal terminology, I believe this is called “shopping for a venue”: look for AAC/NACDAP proposals to appear among the *Primates* or *Lambeth* (and/or Panel of Reference)—and nowhere near GC.

Pen Brynisa
Pen Brynisa
14 years ago

Simon, I believe that the proposed resolutions listed on the General Convention website (which you’ve linked to) have all been submitted by authorized committees. These are the only proposed resolutions which appear in the “Blue Book” which is sent out to all deputies and bishops. (These proposed resultions are still subject to debate and may be amended during the Convention.)

Individual Deputies and Bishops may in fact introduce legislation, but they must do so during the Convention itself. They cannot submit early as the committees do. At least, that’s my understanding of the process.

RMF
RMF
14 years ago

Simon, allow me to try to clarify my previous comment. I see it is confusing. Your point I take is that lack of support at provincial synods is no bar to taking up the issue at GC. True. I offer the point about provincial synod activity only as evidence that at bodies wider than individual dioceses, there is no support for Network alternative resolutions or indeed, Network-backed proposals about what TEC must do. Now, does any of this answer your original question of why no Network bishop has submitted an alternative resolution to even be considered? Perhaps not any better… Read more »

Tobias S Haller BSG
Tobias S Haller BSG
14 years ago

You are correct, Simon, which is what makes this all the stranger. All that is required is three deputies (or bishops). Surely there are enough “reasserters” who are deputies or bishops (such as those on the list of signatories) who could propose such resolutions. I do not know why they have not done so, and will not speculate on the matter.

drdanfee
drdanfee
14 years ago

What to expect from ECUSA GC 2006? Stay tuned for all the details. Meanwhile, the core directions or core initiatives from the new conservative sides are probably rather predictable. If we wish to anticipate what new conservative believers think ECUSA should be, should pledge, should live – well, we can just take a look at their organizations. In various founding documents, doctrines, statements of faith, and campaign for realignment plans – we will find it all written out, more or less. Two dimensions of the new conservatism probably stand out as dominant themes which might undergird any and all GC… Read more »

Marshall Scott
14 years ago

Simon and RMF, both of you are incorrect. You’re correct, Simon, that resolutions can come from different sources, as designated by letter. They may come from agencies of the Episcopal Church or of General Convention (“A” resolutions), individual bishops (“B” resolutions), dioceses and provinces of the Episcopal Church (“C” resolutions), and individual deputies (“D” resolutions). Only the A resolutions are published before the Convention begins, coming as they do as a part of the reports of church agencies to the Convention. Other resolutions will be published for the Convention, and in fact resolutions may be introduced up to the end… Read more »

Simon Sarmiento
14 years ago

Marshall and Pen
If you look at the Resolutions website,
http://gc2006.org/legislation/
you will see dozens of B,C,D resolutions already published.

Marshall Scott
14 years ago

Simon:

Thank you. I stand corrected.

And with that in mind, perhaps we should look at Resolutions from Dioceses and Provinces C004, C007, and C014. Newark is definitely a liberal diocese, and Alabama a largely conservative diocese (even though the bishop has vigorously resisted the AAC/ACN actions). I can’t speak to Rochester.

Marshall Scott
14 years ago

Oh, and C009.

Martin Reynolds
14 years ago

Thank you Simon for steering this committee-phobe through the intricacies of GC2006 – I am not quite sure what all this suggests, and it seems that many on the other side of the pond don’t either. In the light of what you are revealing, can anyone give a careful analysis of its significance?

Charlotte
Charlotte
14 years ago

I don’t know that this will be the careful analysis Martin Reynolds is calling for, but perhaps it will become the seed for one. The AAC in particular, but also the Network and allied groups seem to me to be structured along the lines of US issue advocacy groups. These have an operational logic all their own, which is not that of a party or affinity group within a legislative body. Advocacy groups are extraconstitutional organizations operating from a position outside the legislature. They seek to rally the support of their “base” for positions on what is generally a very… Read more »

drdanfee
drdanfee
14 years ago

Two reports relevant are available from ECUSA’s PEP – Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. Talk about liberation theology and dwelling in the belly of the beast – surely PEP is situated geographically and otherwise at Militant Conservative Ground Zero. That makes their witness all the more interesting, since we might otherwise be duped into thinking: (A) alternative witness is impossible in a Ground Zero MT Diocese – this is what MT ECUSAn’s tend to claim, thanks to biblical, conservative, evangelica, or richly Nicenean (cleansing) truth; (B) PEP shows how that witness can still be embedded in individual and collective alternative following… Read more »

Dave
Dave
14 years ago

Dear drdanfee, I’m continuously amazed at how both “sides” in the liberal-conservative debate both claim: 1. to be the true Christians 2. that the other “side” is doing horrendous things, and 3. their cause as completely just. My basis for claiming the above is: 1. My beliefs about true Christian faith and conduct (eg sexual) are based on the most authoritative Christian revelations recorded in the New Testament, they are consistent with the teachings of the Church for the last 2000 years, and they are believed by most Christians alive today. 2. It is not liberal but conservative priests and… Read more »

Merseymike
Merseymike
14 years ago

But the fact is that they do both claim those things, Dave. Whereas, in my view, although I am firmly on the opposite side of the argument to you, I do regard your view as credible from where you stand. The real problem is not lack of coherence of any one view, but the lack of common ground and shared space other than that or organisational connection. Since I have stopped attending Anglican services, this has become all the more obvious. When out of the day-to-day fray, the arguments appear ever more vicious – because what we have are two… Read more »

16
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x