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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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+