Thanks for the regular updates throughout the day.  Wow, I’d say that passing by over 85% is an overwhelming vote of confidence in +Mark Lawrence’s leadership and general approach.  Very impressive.

David Handy+

Isn’t Resolution #1 the resolution affirming the sufficiency of Scripture and the creeds as the teaching of the Church?

14% were against?

Yes, MikeS (#2), you’re right.  It seems like a no-brainer when the resolution is taken at face value.  But as always, we’re talking church politics here, and the resolution is highly symbolic.  I think that explains the 13 or 14% against it.

But the other four resolutions are much more significant.  Let’s see how they fare.

David Handy+

I don’t think that such a resolution is “highly symbolic” I think it is vital to be able to confirm in resolution of group what one has confirmed in person.

Don

Actually, “only” 14% against is pretty good for TEC.  Remember that in 2003, GC voted down B001- essentially a rejection of all the historic doctrines of the Church.  6 years later, KJS deposed Bishop Ackerman, who originally proposed B001.

TJ (#5),

That’s precisely what I had in mind, the stunning failure of B001 to pass back in Gen Con 2003, probably because it was correctly seen as a symbolic rejection of the whole liberal agenda.

And Don (#4),

I’m sorry if I was unclear.  I agree that the affirmation was a valuable one.  And tactically, it helps to build momentum.  Once one resolution passes, it easier for related ones to pass.  I simply meant that the first resolution would be seen politically by some people as a referendum on the whole course of action being proposed by +Lawrence and the other leaders of the Dioc of SC.  I assume that even in a very conservative diocese like that (TEC being in the sad state it is), there will be 14% or more of delegates who wouldn’t vote in favor of motherhood and applepie, if the diocesan leaders were behind it.

David Handy+