Resolutions Now Being Debated; Rule Changes

Committee prepared to move on resolutions.

First resolution being read.

Baldwin for Holy Cross speaking against.  He’s questioning sanity of being senior warden without a rector.  Has serious concerns about resolution and all the resolutions.  Yesterday, picked them up – surely there would be a resolution on war, poverty, disease, hunger, devastation – surely these are Christian people.  But there wasn’t a one.  Four resolutions about one issue that Jesus Christ never addressed-human sexuality.  Not an issue Christians should allow to divide this church.  Ruse going on because people are objecting to procedural issues -but the Emperor has no clothes.  Civil rights struggle when people said it was not about race it was about state’s rights.  Finds suggestion of new province offensive.

Request for vote by written ballot and by orders.  Can’t even agree on that?  Ten on orders, so it is by order.  Paper ballots carry.

Mitzi George speaking against.  The resolution is dangerously close to moving us out of TEC.  We haven’t adopted the GAFCON statement.  Bishop encouraging us to work toward reconciliation.  We have continually expressed our desire to do the real work of ministry (so let’s ignore sexuality).  Very concerend; GAFCON not sanctioned by AC.  Primate’s statement stated there is no pastoral forum; but +Bruce is working on that.  We shouldn’t continue the unravelling of this church.

Peter Cook speaking for.  Questions whether we are discussing the resolution his church proposed.  Purpose to express full agreement is only the part quoted, not the entire statement – being convinced that faithful Anglicans in North America need their own province recognized by the AC AS A WHOLE.  Statement does not comment on process of HOB, but addresses substance of Duncan’s deposition.  TEC motivated by acceptance of non-scriptural teachings.  Makes this statement with clarity.  It is now impossible to believe exhortations of Lambeth will be headed, therefore need a separate province.  That’s reality – that’s the direction the church is headed.

Hershel Richard speaking against.  His view, after hearing Peter at resolutions committee, this solution is outside TEC; Bruce’s is inside; resolution is inconsistent with Communion Partners.

+Bruce is speaking to the resolution.  Concern with those finding a place in a separate province, but there isn’t one yet, and we don’t know what that will look like.  We need to continue to work from where we are, for to do otherwise there is no where we can go with any clear direction.

Debate over.  Vote being taken.

Resolution 2 being read.

Cheryl White speaking for.  Having helped frame language, its primary purpose is to affirm +Bruce’s position and to offer support for +Bruce’s work to keep us compliant with Windsor and adoption of an Anglican covenant.  We don’t know what the covenant will look like, but this is the only legitimate and catholic way to continue our common life together.  Only means we have before us today.  We can send resounding message of unity that is much needed – that we in Western Louisiana are willing to stand together and behind our bishop.  Would be a tremendous statement if this was unanimous.

George Gennuso speaking against.  Frightened by “impossible” or “no other way”.  Where is the Christian message there?  We are asked to adopt an Anglican covenant and we have no concept of what it is.  We are asked to sign a contract without reading it.

Kem Hargrove speaking for in response to George – reaffirming Windsor and “in principle” agreement to covenant, not bound to accept final draft until we read it.

Morgan Allen request clarification – vote by order and paper ballot each time?  Vote by orders moved for this resolution.  Discussed that it was originally intended for all resolutions; however, can’t do that; have to do for each resolution.

Reece Middleton speaking in favor.  Wants to join broad list of co-sponsors; worked in reconciliation and healing; this resolution in keeping with that.  Inspired by Dr. Cameron’s reference to Ephesians talking about wall of hostility being broken down.  Invites all of us to live out heavenly calling by voting for this resolution.

John Robert speaking in favor.  This represents a reasonable measure and a logical extension of resolutions passed by this convention since release of Windsor in 2004.  Does not preclude or assume that anything can’t be revisted if necessary.  None of us know what the future of AC covenant process or Communion Partners initiative.  This resolution does provide insurance that we remain faithful to our mission and reform of the church as Episcopalians and Anglicans.  These resolutions are postive rather than negative; open to the Spirit rather than closed; pro-active rather than reactive.  Also urges adoption of resolution 3 as well.

Walt Freise speaking in favor.  Have put his name on two resolutions in his lifetime.  Resolutions 2 and 3 are it.  This is part of a Global Anglican Communion; Cameron telling us how important this is.  To neglect that message says we are equivocal in support of AC.  If covenant is not what we want, we can say no.  Also, this affirms our Bishops. Voting no sends the wrong message.

Bill Bryant calls the question.

Vote being taken.

Resolution 3.  Cheryl White spoke in favor; no other speakers, so the vote will be taken when election committee gets back.

Resolution 4 being read.  As amended this morning.

Fr. Guido Verbeck speaking for.  In reading this resolution, no sure everyone understands about the fourth process for deposition of Bennison of PA.  Three senior bishops consent to inhibition, then investigation, trial, and results.  Bennison got all of the process; Schofield, Cox and Duncan did not.  Three senior bishops didn’t consent; no inhibition, minor investigation, PB had made statement that she would “get” bishop Duncan.  No trial; number of peers found him guilty of a serious crime.  HOB deposing one of their own should be serious; not too many in the past.  Canons are clear on what is required.  Some cases they are follows; some cases they are not.  These is not to cover other agendas; all should be sure that canons are followed.

Roger Boynton for clarification – deposition not disposition; written word controls.

Joe Roberts speaking in favor.  As a lawyer, following the rules, your own rules, is critical to integrity of that organization.  If we as a church let silence overpower us, we have failed to exercise our duty and responsibility to this church.  For the leadership of TEC to run roughshod over C&C is unconscionable.  Issue is trust; if we can’t trust elected leadership to follow C&C, we don’t have an organization worthy of calling itself a church.

Richard Heckster speaking in favor.  Someone made the comment – trade unionists, catholics jews, came for me, no one left to say anything.  Bishop MacPherson could be made subject to this process; resolution should be affirmed.

Ron Smith speaking in favor.  Due process errors must be corrected.  We have been asked to be patient as Windsor and covenant process goes forward; but how can we feel secure when Godly bishops are picked off one by one in violation of C&C; not speaking of substance of allegations, but ignoring the established rights of clergy and bishops in the church.  Who is next?  First action of a tyrant is to suspend or ignore established rights  -due process should have been afforded.

Question called.  Vote being taken.

Bill Bryant speaking to ask that rules of procedure be changed to provide more advanced warning on resolutions for more adequate time to stay.  Lots of applause.  Comeaux wants them in time for the convocational meeting.  Tom Smith has concerns – what if things happen late, like Duncan’s deposition?  Would this allow motions to offer resolutions?  Provision to allow convention to approve that on 2/3rds in Rule 30.

Rule changed.

Gregg Riley, as dean of the Monroe convocation, says we need a fixed date for the convocational meeting for this to work.  To be addressed at next Dean’s meeting.

Fr. Milligan – seems to me we had procedures for 120 days before, but process didn’t work; don’t think it will work this time.  Does think it should be submitted in writing.

2 Responses to “Resolutions Now Being Debated; Rule Changes”


  1. 1 One Small Voice October 12, 2008 at 12:43 am

    The rule change proposed by Bill Byrant will in effect kill any resolutions that might come before the convention next year. If they are not submitted by the deadline it will take a 2/3 vote at convention to get them on the floor. Good luck. Take a look at the vote by orders. Yuk!

  2. 2 John Delmore October 15, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    “Not an issue Christians should allow to divide this church.”

    Amen, brother. As often as +Bruce calls us to be about Christ’s work, this doesn’t seem to have ‘sunk in’ on either side. We shouldn’t HAVE “sides”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: