Read it all taking special note of the resolutions (starting on page 37), especially R-2, R-8 and R-9.
Read it all taking special note of the resolutions (starting on page 37), especially R-2, R-8 and R-9.
Good gracious that’s a lot of resolutions. If there’s 3 resolutions presented in my diocese, it takes quite a bit of time. I don’t see how they can have debate and vote on all these resolutions unless the convention is a week long.
R-8 and R-9 are a fascinating juxtaposition. Wonder which got filed first, and if the other is in response.
The answer to #1 is that (at least in the past) the debate on resolutions is left until the last possible moment on Saturday morning, usually around noon. Then delegates are not allowed to go to lunch until after the debate on resolutions, and that debate is severely limited by the chair. Delegates are allowed to speak only once, and can be (as I have been) cut off by the chair.
After being resident in five different dioceses in my career, and serving as a parliamentarian in one Diocese, I can say that the Diocesan process in VA has been (in the past) the most tightly scripted and controlled process I have yet seen. Been here 12 years so there’s some basis for that perception.
Besides, the Resolutions Committee generally takes the motions that have been submitted and reworks them according to their own wishes. It’s a verry odd process, and it leaves this delegate, at least, with the thought that my vote is largely useless. Everything seems to be done behind closed doors and controlled by the chair …
Ah, yes. Episcopal democracy in action, and transparent for all to see.
Right Jill. And just look at 3 and 8, and the opposition there. They can’t honestly adopt them both without some new language in number 3 to “exclude others within the same denomination”. It’s difficult to square “eviction” and “unity”.
so you all have enough time on your hands to read resolutions from the Diocese of Virginia and to comment on the language and such. Really??? you have that much time? golly jeepers. I wish I had your job.
#5 “slitch”: You must be a Methodist or something, otherwise you would know that all Virginia Episcopalians are independently wealthy.
Not that the agenda and resolutions of Dio Virginia are worth the waste of our precious time, but the weather is far too foul for golf or croquet, and it is the wrong season for fox hunting.
Should the elves not delete this posting for intemperance, I would like to point out that resolution R-10 is not complete; The following should be inserted:
[blockquote] Whereas, the Diocese has beggared itself suing fellow Christians for their property ; and[/blockquote]
Fun tidbit on the same-sex blessings resolution: proposed by Mr. Douglas Hansen, Lay Delegate, The Falls Church. Wonderful to learn about who meets across the street and is attempting to take control of TFC’s building.
What do we learn about “who meets across the street” from this, Jeff? I can’t see that one learns a great deal. A lot of people meet “across the street” and they are largely the same people who met with you on your side of the street in times past. They are old, young, in between. They are “conservative”, “liberal” and “moderate”, if those terms have any real meaning in this context. Parents, children, people with and without immediate families in the community. They are not attempting to “take control of TFC’s building.” They are looking forward to returning for Episcopal services in a setting where they worshipped for many years before a number of their friends left, but, instead of leaving, stayed and excluded them from continued worship as members of the Diocese of Virginia. When they are back, they will welcome you, I’m sure.
Actually, NoVA Scout, we can learn a lot about a congregation by the people whom they select to send to diocesan convention. Doug Hansen didn’t suddenly reveal his support for same-sex blessings yesterday. TFCE’s own newsletter from last year reports than Hansen spoke before the Resolutions Committee Open Hearing in support of Resolutions R-3 (Inclusiveness in Ordained Ministry Regardless of Sexual Orientation) and R-4 (Authorizing Rites of Same-Sex Blessings). Hansen’s support for these revisionist proposals is known to the congregation, yet he has been sent as one of their representatives.
I’m not intending to get into an argument about ongoing litigation or the decision of some to remain in the Episcopal Church — I believe that many people are called by God to be in the Episcopal Church at this moment in time. That being said, the pre-split Falls Church would not have sent someone like Hansen to promote such resolutions at diocesan council.
Perhaps the post-split Falls Church finds value in Mr. Hansen that is not wholly dependent on his views of same sex blessings. I imagine there is a range of opinion within the parish that would coincide and diverge with his position on that point. I doubt, however, that he was selected solely because of that issue. If that is a difference with the pre-split Falls Church, I would count it as positive.