Amendment #2007C01 – Amendment of Preamble
(Sponsors: Committee on Constitution and Canons)
SECOND READING
PREAMBLE
We, the Clergy and Laity resident in that portion of the State of Texas constituting what is known as the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas, a diocese within the province of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, which is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion — a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer — do hereby ordain and establish the following Constitution:
(Italicized text represents additions to the present text.)
Amendment #2007C02 – Amendment of Article I
(Sponsors: Committee on Constitution and Canons)
SECOND READING
Resolved, The Diocese of Dallas in Convention assembled amends its Constitution in Article I to read as follows:
ARTICLE I
AUTHORITY OF GENERAL CONVENTION
The Church in this Diocese accedes to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and recognizes the authority of the General Convention of said Church.
The foregoing accession and recognition are expressly premised on the Episcopal Church in the United States of America being and at all times remaining a full, constituent member of the Anglican Communion as set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution of the said Church, “a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in the communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.” In the event that such premise shall no longer be applicable in whole or in part to the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, such accession and recognition may be revoked, limited, or otherwise amended by this Diocese immediately, notwithstanding Article 17, by a concurrent two-thirds vote of both orders at any Annual or Special Convention.
Moreover, the foregoing accession and recognition shall in no way be deemed to prevent or limit this Diocese from disassociating (as the word is used in Title IV, 3.21 b) itself from any actions of the General Convention by concurrent majority vote of both orders at any Annual or Special Convention.
2007 R05
Resolution regarding the response of the House of Bishops to the Primates’ Dar es Salaam Communiqué, and the assessment of that response by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council.
RESOLVED, that this 112th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas believes the House of Bishop’s “Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners,” issued on September 25, 2007, to be an insufficient response to the Dar es Salaam Communiqué because it does not forthrightly answer the Primates’ requests for clarity.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that while the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council [JSC] has asserted that the HOB’s statement meets the Primates’ requests, this Convention maintains that the bishops’ response is another indication that The Episcopal Church continues to “tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level” (The Windsor Report [TWR §27]) and has not properly committed itself to the necessary conditions of communion at this time: “the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (TWR §134).
Submitted by:
The Rev’d David S. Houk ”“ St. John’s, Dallas
The Rev’d Matthew S.C. Olver ”“ Incarnation, Dallas
Rationale
The Communiqué that was issued by the Primates at their February 2007 meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, called for clarity from The Episcopal Church’s (TEC) House of Bishops (HOB) on a number of matters, two of which were to
1. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf The Windsor Report [TWR] §134); unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR §134); and to
2. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR §143, 144).
Regarding the first request, while the bishops helped clarify the intention of Resolution B033, they did not offer the assurance requested, namely, that a candidate for the episcopacy living in a non-celibate, same-sex union would not receive consent. Rather, the bishops reiterated the language of B033 that they would only “exercise restraint” in the consenting process.
Regarding the second request, the bishops’ pledge not to authorize public rites of blessing for same-sex unions fails to address the reality that many bishops allow such rites in their dioceses. The statement also falls short in that it states that this pledge may be overturned by subsequent actions of General Convention, irrespective of a new consensus in the Communion.
While the Joint Standing Committee of Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council gave the HOB’s response a preliminary approval, many in the U.S. and throughout the Communion do not see TEC’s response as a clear commitment to the Windsor Report and subsequent requests of the Primates.
Katharine Jefferts Schori has written to all diocesan bishops, asking them and their dioceses to reflect on whether or not the JSC’s Report is an acceptable assessment of the HOB’s response. Bishop Stanton has already given the diocese a very detailed evaluation and this resolution gives voice to clergy and lay delegates as to our view.
Dallas also passed the Evangelism resolution that GC2006 refused to pass. Two resolutions failed. The first one concerned resuming diocesan giving to 815. The second resolution concerned supporting the MDG’s. By far, the most contentious issue during the convention was the MDG resolution. All in all, it was a rather uneventful (and to my mind, enjoyable) convention. I enjoyed seeing DVD’s concerning the work of the Church. There were 3 DVDs. The first concerned the Deacons in the diocese. The second concerned rural church ministry and the third concerned our All Saints Camp. I let you all guess which was my personal favorite.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Hmmmm?? I don’t really understand the signifacance and impact of the italicized text.
The change to the preamble asserts that the Diocese of Dallas is, itself, a member of the Anglican Communion regardless of the status of TECUSA. In other words, our connection to Canterbury is not through 815, but through the relationship of the Ordinary to Canterbury.
The change to Article One allows the Diocese to change its accession clause with one vote of a special or regular diocesan convention if TECUSA ever stops being a “a full, constituent member of the Anglican Communion.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
You all did a fine job at the convention, Phil. These resolutions are consistent with what Bishop Stanton has been saying since this mess began.
Roy (#4) – well, “they” did a fine job at convention. All I did was show up and vote. I did do some work on one of the resolutions and was interviewed for the Deacons’ video, but I can’t take any credit for the outcome. I am just a small cog in the very large wheel.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Your interview on the video about the ministry of deacons was great, Phil. Well done!
I must confess I was a little disappointed after the convention. I was hoping for some “fireworks.” 😉 The one minor troublemaker during the budget discussion kind of made the whole thing end on something of a bitter note. And I was disgusted (but not overly surprised) at the few who actually voted against the resolution commending Bishop Stanton on how he handled the departing parishes last year, the resolution on evangelism, and one other that in a “real church” shouldn’t have even had to be addressed.
The dedication of the bell from the old camp in the Diocese of Western Kansas and the young spokesman for the youth commission were two highlights, along with the videos. Bishop Stanton’s remarks both days — moderately lukewarm IMHO.
[blockquote] interviewed for the Deacons’ video [/blockquote] Hey guys, are either one of those videos available out here in webland?
Br_er Rabbit,
I can check with the Diocesan Office about the videos. They are giving them to the Churches. I’ll suggest that they put them on the website, but I make no guarantees.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Sheepdog – don’t be too upset at the “no” votes. There is a group of “contrarians” in the diocese that will not support anything that smacks of evangelism or anything except their “social gospel.” They were upset when the MDG resolution went down and were going to show their disappointment by voting no for anything else for the rest of the day.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thanks, Phil.
Re: Sheepdog 4 & 6, Phillip Snyder 9 & 10
If you would indulge me a bit I have a question. As a bit of a preface, I am a young adult in the DoD and I am very interested and have been very involved in evangelism. I have been in the diocese for a few years and I have the utmost respect for Dr. Turner. I also have friends on both sides of the current political mele – I personally am what one of my friends refers to as militantly moderate.
It seems to me sad that there is not more cooperation between the various camps to mend the wounds that I can see from my vantage point. It seemed to me that the conservatives put up a resolution they knew the liberals couldn’t vote for – so some people who do very good evangelistic work had to vote no on “evangelism” and some people whom I know to be great stewards of their resources and who work tirelessly for many good efforts were forced to vote no on a resolution to “help the poor” put forward by the liberal camp.
Why is this the case, why is there no dialog or consensus building?
I am looking for a little clarity as to why this diocese is so hell bent on being angry. I enjoyed convention and found it most enjoyable as well, other than this piece of course. I found it hopeful that we might yet find a way to live through this mess. I for one was happy for no fireworks.
Thank you for your time.
-Nebo
Nebo, I’m glad you are involved in evangelism in the diocese. I greatly enjoyed hearing Canon Michael Greene speak last year and am always energized by Carrie Boren’s evangelism presentations.
I was not a delegate to this convention so I don’t have a copy of the resolutions handy, but I would ask to what purpose are we evangelising? If we are not bringing people to a saving knowledge of the crucified and risen Christ (as affirmed in our creeds) then what evangelism work are we talking about? The resolution to which you refer spoke of the cross and Jesus as “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” If the person doing the evangelizing doesn’t believe that then they are lost and have no business doing the work of an evangelist until they come to accept Him as Lord and Savior.
As far as the MDGs, in principle these goals are not bad. (I question the wording of a few of them, however.) They are part of the gospel . . . the putting-feet-to-your-faith part of Jesus’ message. But I personally don’t believe the diocese needs to go on record as supporting them in order for such ministry to take place. And I think that when we concentrate on the MDGs we are putting the cart before the horse. I didn’t see this resolution (or the substitute) as one only intended to help the poor, but to further an agenda — a formula that uses U.N. language and tries to mandate doing good deeds. It’s similar to saying: “We, the 112th convention of the Episcopal Church, are for world peace. . .”
I have been an Episcopalian in the Diocese of Dallas for almost 26 years. I don’t see us “hellbent on being angry,” but I do see us growing weary of the rhetoric in “the listening process,” the talking with little or no action, and with those who still insist on unity above doctrine. We who call ourselves orthodox/conservatives/reasserters have been for the most part patient and accomodating these last couple of decades but we see TEC becoming a post-Christian cult and don’t know how much longer we, our parish, or our diocese can or should be associated with it.
It is very difficult to cooperate with “various camps” who, even though they may call themselves Christians, do not share the same worldview and doctrine. If I were helping to run a food pantry, yes, I could work with those who don’t believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and Jesus is God incarnate and the only way to salvation. But how can I share the common cup or assist in teaching Sunday school with someone who doesn’t wholly believe who Jesus is or in what he said or did?
Finally, there have been people working in our denomination and diocese for understanding, for keeping the discussion going and lines of communication open. For the historic faith of the apostles. They have dialogued and tried to build consensus, but it’s very difficult to try to reason with those who are working for entirely different goals. There is still much of redeeming value in Dallas. (The young man who spoke on Saturday on behalf of the youth of the diocese is one terrific example!) But I fear the longer we continue to be under the banner of TEC the more things will unravel, the more divided we will become (it took five ballots to get those candidates elected!) and ultimately the diocese as we know it will cease to exist.
Isn’t the change in the preamble in line with Archbishop Williams’ letter to Bishop Howe?