Well, you are assuming the ENS reporters took the time to actually read all the resolutions and not simply make assumptions, as most superficial American reporting is prone to these days.
The comment about the voices and votes of those in the minority “don’t count” – excuse me, what? I think they did count. They just weren’t in the majority… if the vote was 83.6% one way (or whatever), then I assume they counted the other 16.3%? Why is it that when a democratic process decides in favor of the opponent we now have to say our voice wasn’t heard or our vote didn’t count? It counted, it just wasn’t enough to get what you wanted.
Does anyone know the real impact on TEC and General Convention, other than Bishop Lawrence’s absence from HOB meetings? I have been told that no SC delegates even serve on any committees or commissions for the national organization, so I wonder whether this “distancing” is something that has already been put in place by the national church. . .
Spin #1.
[blockquote]A majority of delegates attending a special convention of the Charleston-based Diocese of South Carolina voted Oct. 24 to distance themselves from the Episcopal Church and to seek “missional relationships with orthodox congregations isolated across North America.”[/blockquote]
Well, yes, a majority did vote for the amendments. 80% percent voted for them. I would think some adjective–overwhelming, huge, landslide–might be appropriate.
Spins # 2, 3 & 4:
[blockquote]Skardon said in a telephone interview.
“Many people clearly were uncomfortable with a lot of the language that was used. The vote was 4 to 1 in favor of the bishop’s position, but to say we’ve got close to 20 percent opposing it is a good thing. Despite the politics that have taken over in a lot of these churches, we still have traditional Episcopalians in them, but their voices and votes don’t count.”[/blockquote]
#2: I suspect that some of the “close to 20%” opposing the resolution opposed on the grounds that they [b]did not go far enough[/b].
#3: “Traditional Episcopalians” generally support the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received by this Church, rather than the innovations of General Convention and the revisionist leadership.
#4. “voices and votes don’t count”–that has been the life of real traditional Episcopalians for decades now, particularly at General Convention. There the rule is if you don’t have a majority, tough. Why should not be the case for a diocesan convention?
ENS toes the line–it’s all about sex. Those nasty folk in SC refused to “affirm” same-sex relations, etc. etc.
Actually for an ENS article, that was surprisingly low on major spin.
True, but they still managed to slip in a misleading inference that SC refused to ‘reaffirm’ a commitment to the Anglican Communion.
Well, you are assuming the ENS reporters took the time to actually read all the resolutions and not simply make assumptions, as most superficial American reporting is prone to these days.
True, Archer. For their research they likely perused Bonnie Anderson’s first letter to the SC delegates.
The comment about the voices and votes of those in the minority “don’t count” – excuse me, what? I think they did count. They just weren’t in the majority… if the vote was 83.6% one way (or whatever), then I assume they counted the other 16.3%? Why is it that when a democratic process decides in favor of the opponent we now have to say our voice wasn’t heard or our vote didn’t count? It counted, it just wasn’t enough to get what you wanted.
Does anyone know the real impact on TEC and General Convention, other than Bishop Lawrence’s absence from HOB meetings? I have been told that no SC delegates even serve on any committees or commissions for the national organization, so I wonder whether this “distancing” is something that has already been put in place by the national church. . .
Spin #1.
[blockquote]A majority of delegates attending a special convention of the Charleston-based Diocese of South Carolina voted Oct. 24 to distance themselves from the Episcopal Church and to seek “missional relationships with orthodox congregations isolated across North America.”[/blockquote]
Well, yes, a majority did vote for the amendments. 80% percent voted for them. I would think some adjective–overwhelming, huge, landslide–might be appropriate.
Spins # 2, 3 & 4:
[blockquote]Skardon said in a telephone interview.
“Many people clearly were uncomfortable with a lot of the language that was used. The vote was 4 to 1 in favor of the bishop’s position, but to say we’ve got close to 20 percent opposing it is a good thing. Despite the politics that have taken over in a lot of these churches, we still have traditional Episcopalians in them, but their voices and votes don’t count.”[/blockquote]
#2: I suspect that some of the “close to 20%” opposing the resolution opposed on the grounds that they [b]did not go far enough[/b].
#3: “Traditional Episcopalians” generally support the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received by this Church, rather than the innovations of General Convention and the revisionist leadership.
#4. “voices and votes don’t count”–that has been the life of real traditional Episcopalians for decades now, particularly at General Convention. There the rule is if you don’t have a majority, tough. Why should not be the case for a diocesan convention?