1. Ralinda wrote:
To save you from having to tally them up: of the 46 resolutions filed, 19 advance the agenda of homosexual activists in the church. One resolution adds gender identity or the expression of gender identity to “protected categories” for ordination (C001). Nine resolutions conform the marriage canons to the language of civil laws permitting same sex unions (C019, C025, C028, C041, C042) or remove restrictions and/or authorize the development of liturgies for same sex blessings (C004, C009, C017, C031). Seven resolutions (C007, C010, C015, C024, C033, C036, C039) repudiate and reverse Resolution B033 from GC ‘06, which asked TEC to observe the Communion moratorium on any further consecrations of non-celibate homosexuals as bishops in the Church. In response to the 2008 elections in states where the traditional definition of marriage was affirmed, one resolution (C023) calls for Episcopalians to reject and work against Defense of Marriage statutes, and another (C014) authorizes a new Theological Study (i.e. revision) of Christian Marriage. There are no resolutions filed to support the consideration of the Anglican Covenant.
March 27, 1:44 pm | [comment link]
2. Undergroundpewster wrote:
I love how the National Concerns Committee (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/BlueBook-NAC.pdf) takes credit for the Executive Council urging the calculation of the “carbon footprint” of The Epsicopal Church as a first step in reducing carbon emissions.
How does a Church measure its “carbon footprint?”
Who is working on this important calculation?
Any guesses as to what the answer will be to the next question (How do we reduce our carbon footprint) will be?
March 27, 1:45 pm | [comment link]
3. flaanglican wrote:
With people walking right out the front door and not coming back, they seem to be doing a good job of reducing their carbon footprint already.
March 27, 2:05 pm | [comment link]
4. Paul Nelson, Fort Worth wrote:
I think the report by the
House of Deputies Committee on the State of the Church is the most interesting. There is a section with statistics showing TEC to be literally dying off.
In the process of our interviews, the Committee on the State of the Church heard from many different people that the structure of our organization above the level of diocese is not consonant with the church’s mission and that it is not properly configured to serve the needs of its most important constituent elements, namely dioceses and individual congregations.
March 27, 3:56 pm | [comment link]
Last, in prior years the Committee on the State of the Church often heard the criticism that our church seemed unwilling to recognize the presence of a major source of internal controversy that some argued was having an impact on our common life, as reflected in declining membership and attendance statistics. The metaphor most often used was that we “failed to acknowledge the elephant in the room,” referring to what many viewed as the momentous decision by the 74th General Convention (2003) to consent to the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire. In the 2005 Faith Communities Survey in which about 4,000 of The Episcopal Church’s congregations participated, about 37% reported having at least one very serious internal conflict, resulting in some members leaving the church. Fifty-three percent reported that the conflict was resolved. When asked about the source of the conflict, 35% of those reporting very serious conflict stated that it was over the decisions of the 2003 General Convention.
5. Undergroundpewster wrote:
“Elephant, what elephant?” said the blindfolded Bishops groping about the room.
“I feel the Holy Spirit,” said one.
“I feel the breath of the Lord,” said another.
“And I feel something squishy between my toes,” said the other.
The last may have been part of that 30% who recognized the problem.
March 27, 4:16 pm | [comment link]
6. robroy wrote:
The elephant in the room is certainly contributing to the methane emissions and methane, I am told, is a big greenhouse gas.
Ralinda, thanks for the tally. And it is the orthodox that are fixated on homosexuality??? Could you direct me to the list of resolutions?
March 27, 5:31 pm | [comment link]
7. A Floridian wrote:
Failing to recognize Elephant in the Living Room (TM) is a sham term and stands for the refusal to acknowledge and own the syncretism, heresy, apostasy, plain old sin…the wolves, hirelings and opportunists with anti-Christian agendas dressed and acting as priests and bishops, church agencies, convention delegates and vestries.
It drives the sheep away.
Exhibit A: http://www.united-anglicans.org/
Exhibit B: http://www.americananglican.org/parish-search/
Exhibit C: http://www.shelterinthestorm.org/
Exhibit D: Lawsuits, empty or near empty church buildings…millions spent on meeting after meeting…drafting document after document…increased rebellion, increased lawlessness…no fear of God.
March 27, 5:32 pm | [comment link]
8. James Manley wrote:
Thank you, Ralinda.
March 27, 5:36 pm | [comment link]
9. MargaretG wrote:
#4 I wonder why they used such old numbers when Kirk Haddaway clearly had more recent ones. The recently released overview of the Episcopal church shows a much more depressing picture:
90% of Episcopal congregations reported having
conflicts or disagreements in the last five years (up
from 86% in 2000, but down slightly from 93% in
2005). 64% of churches reported at least one area
of serious conflict.
Of congregations that had serious conflict:
• Some members left the church: 89%
• Some members withheld funds: 45%
• A staff member was dismissed or reassigned: 18%
The ordination of gay priests or bishops was the
most frequently mentioned source of conflict.
and there is nice graph which I don’t seem to be able to copy which shows that in 64% of parishes had conflict over gay and lesbian clergy/bishops and that in 47% of parishes these conflicts were serious.
I think they may have picked the old statistics because they were so much better
March 27, 5:52 pm | [comment link]
10. Fr. Dale wrote:
The elephant in TEC’s living room is a Woolly Mammoth.
March 27, 10:42 pm | [comment link]
TEC’s carbon footprint is in the sand along the edge of the ocean surf at low tide.
11. youngadult wrote:
okay, if you all are so intent on mocking general convention’s aforementioned proposed resolutions, then which (if any) would you all suppose that i as a general convention deputy should heartily support?
March 29, 3:53 am | [comment link]
12. Fr. Dale wrote:
March 29, 8:52 am | [comment link]
Why don’t you review the list Ralinda (#1.) provided and tell us which one(s) you can support and why. Maybe opposing some of the resolutions is your best bet but this would go against the grain of the progressive agenda. Have you got a resolution that you would put forward if you were allowed to? How about stopping the lawsuits against departing congregations? That would be my resolution.
13. Sarah1 wrote:
Youngadult, I propose that you live into your gospel, theology, and foundational worldview and go all in to support the 19 resolutions which Ralinda mentions above.
March 29, 11:36 am | [comment link]
14. youngadult wrote:
#13 - hi dcn dale
in response to #1’s list:
i would definitely support addition of gender identity and gender expression to the list of canonically protected classes; i have been working at a university in a role which can include teaching about sexuality for 4 years now, and i have seen the hurt and harm which can be done by excluding those of various gender identities.
i would like to see liturgies developed for blessing same-sex unions, which could be used at the discretion of the ordinary, i suppose (though i think rites available to all are preferable, i know such a position is not widely shared).
i would vote against b033—as i did when it came to the vote by orders in gc ‘06—because i do not believe, and did not then, that a) lgbtq people should be denied, b) b033 is vaguely enough worded to seem non-discriminatory, but is clearly imposing a de facto limit on lgbtq people only—why are female or divorced bishops not a challenge to the wider communion, for example, and c) because if the constitution and canons are indeed the polity of the church, then extracanonical provisions such as b033 should not be allowed.
i would seek to take a stand against DOMA and other “defense of marriage” acts.
i would support a study of the theological facets of marriage; such a study could systematically place all the arguments, sides, and positions in one carefully, thoughtfully written place.
so there you go—now sarah can write me off as a token mindless liberal follower (if she hasn’t already). i am more interested to know what non-sexuality resolutions people think are important. i believe that there are plenty, but i wanted to hear your thoughts.
as to stopping departing church lawsuits, my question is why the groups usually take attempt to take the property in the first place. short of a settlement agreed upon by the diocese, i do not know of a time when the breakaway groups have won. i would not want to propose a resolution which (to me) says, “feel free to divide over whatever issue you want—tec will give you a building as a going-away present when you do.” while i am being flippant, i feel that the episcopal church needs to care for those who are left after a majority leaves, and fighting for their (legally-owned) worship space seems reasonable. what i would prefer to see would be departing groups who are disaffiliating from tec not trying to take tec’s assets with them.
a resolution which i would like to see (a one myself) is one which would encourage parishes, dioceses, and the national church to actively include young adults in its decision-making bodies (vestries, standing committees, etc.). as tec ages (the average age of a gc deputy is 57, i think?), they need to realize that youth and young adults need to step up and take leadership roles in the church now.
in closing, i’m sure many t19 readers will read this post and write me off entirely as a liberal, unbiblical, revisionist, gay-loving activist, and i must say, that isn’t me. politically, i am slightly liberal (moreso on issues of sexuality, admittedly), straight, 23 year old, but my theology is grounded in jesus and the authority of the bible. i’m a christian just trying to do my best to serve the world.
March 29, 3:15 pm | [comment link]
15. Fr. Dale wrote:
March 29, 3:38 pm | [comment link]
Thanks for thoughtfully responding to my request. I would agree that TEC should include younger adults in the decision making process. As for this comment: “i am more interested to know what non-sexuality resolutions people think are important.” On another thread you referred to “the domestic mission and evangelism report”. I read it and offered some observations on that thread on two separate postings.
16. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “now sarah can write me off as a token mindless liberal follower . . . “
Not at all mindless or necessarily a “follower.” Just a standard revisionist Episcopalian and thus rather predictable, just as I assume that we conservative Episcopalians are predictable. It’s understandable, since revisionists and conservatives have mutually opposing gospels and foundational worldviews.
RE: “my theology is grounded in jesus and the authority of the bible.”
Mine too. Just not the same ones.
March 29, 6:43 pm | [comment link]
17. youngadult wrote:
#17 - hi sarah,
March 29, 7:13 pm | [comment link]
from the little bit that you know of me, where do you find me predictably revising standard anglican or episcopal teachings? i am curious to see how in my dozen or so posts i can be so clearly following a different jesus and a different gospel, as you so easily claim.
18. libraryjim wrote:
March 29, 11:26 pm | [comment link]
There is an easy way to settle it. Just tell us what you do believe, where you agree with reasserters, and where you agree with reappraisers, and why you would say you believe the same Jesus, Bible and Christianity handed down from the Apostles, instead of the revisionist one being proclaimed by KJS and the powers that be in TEc.
19. libraryjim wrote:
PS, Your views on Same-Sex disorder and liturgies for same-sex relationships DOES put you outside of the historic, traditional teachings on the subject taught in an unbroken line from Moses to modern times.
It takes a bit more than someone saying ‘we should do this’ for Christian teaching to be changed. And one branch of a denomination doing so without consultation of the rest of that branch is the recipe for schism and division. Standing up for Christian teaching is NOT what is causing schism and division.
March 29, 11:31 pm | [comment link]
20. youngadult wrote:
#20 - “same-sex disorder”? oh please. no reputable group would ever use such a preposterous title. the only other place i can even think of such absurd references is in the documentary i just watched about fred phelps’s church. if you want to be argue in a way that makes you seem reasonable, then i would suggest giving up such closeminded and unheard of titles.
someone didn’t just decide “we should do this.” the question of lgbtq equality in the church stems from issues of justice, equality of all in the sight of god, and inclusion in god’s kingdom. tell me this: do you think that it was simply someone deciding that “we should do this” that prompted tec to ordain african american priests when it was not accepted? nope, it came from a need to expand god’s love and grace beyond what deemed acceptable. or women’s ordination (though i’m sure you are less likely to go for that one).
believe me, if i could just change the church by saying “let’s do it,” then i would have done it long ago to stop wasting breath about sexuality and move on to start—oh i don’t know—feeding the hungry?? think about it.
March 30, 12:38 pm | [comment link]
21. Katherine wrote:
youngadult, the Roman Catholic Church defines same-sex attraction as objectively disordered. This is not merely the opinion of a few crackpots in Kansas. Lots of reputable people disagree with you on same-sex attraction. Calling the mainstream Christian view “closeminded and unheard of” won’t make it go away.
March 30, 1:16 pm | [comment link]
22. libraryjim wrote:
And the equating of lgbtiq with racial equality has been refuted and resisted by civil rights leaders as well. Behavior is not the same as race. And racial equality IS preached and practiced in scripture, whereas sexual perversions are condemned.
Sexual orientation, if you want to take the ‘genetic’ argument, would be more equal to alcoholism. It MAY be genetic (so far no scientific proof or convincing arguments have been sustained) but that doesn’t make it NORMAL or right. If anything, it is the spiritual genetics of the fallen nature of Mankind that influences this disorder, and, like alcoholism or adultery or lying or slander, etc. it is something that may be, with God’s help in Jesus through the Holy Spirit, resisted and repented of in our efforts to pattern our life by His Word rather than our ego.
Now, how about answering the rest of my question?
March 30, 2:42 pm | [comment link]
23. libraryjim wrote:
By the way, the church does feed the hungry and clothe the poor, and provide medicine for the sick, visit prisoners (kairos ministry), etc. Taking a stand against sin does not equal forsaking the mission of the Church as given by our Lord in his teachings in the Gospel. In fact, taking a stand against sin is PART of our Lord’s teachings in the Gospel, along with the other things mentioned.
Recent studies show that conservative Christians are the most giving of their resources, time, self, and money of any demographic group not just in the U.S., but in the world.
March 30, 2:47 pm | [comment link]
24. Fr. Dale wrote:
the question of lgbtq equality in the church stems from issues of justice, equality of all in the sight of god, and inclusion in god’s kingdom.
OK, what are we talking about with the “q” group? Is this a generic place mark for another possible variation such as polygamy or does it already represent a specific group?
March 30, 5:27 pm | [comment link]
25. The_Elves wrote:
This thread has gone off topic responding to a singular commenter. Please return to discussing the original post or we’ll have to close the thread.
March 30, 6:20 pm | [comment link]
26. youngadult wrote:
#25 - hey dcn dale,
March 31, 12:16 pm | [comment link]
the q in lgbtq can stand for either “questioning” or “queer”, though the latter is touchy. some feel if should be/can be/has been reclaimed language, but others disagree. when i use the q, i am usually referring to those people who might be questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity
27. Fr. Dale wrote:
March 31, 1:13 pm | [comment link]
Thanks and thanks to The_Elves for allowing the response to my question.