Representatives from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted overwhelmingly yesterday to approve constitutional amendments that are the first step in leaving the national church in a widening rift over homosexuality and interpretation of Scripture.
“voted overwhelmingly” or “got the votes they needed’????
One “do the math” blogger has noted: The convention actually needed to pass Resolution 1 by a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority. So, in fact, the whole process passed by only one (lay) vote!
This strikes me as a phony distinction, Susan. “Overwhelming” in terms of a resolution indicates a large number of votes on one side of the issue, not what the vote was vis-a-vis what was required to adopt or defeat said resolution. If a 90% majority was needed to pass it, would you consider an 89% majority anything less than overwhelming?
Article XV of the Constituition of Pittsburgh states that constitutional changes are made by a “majority of each order.” There is no mention of 2/3.
#3, didn’t I see +Duncan declare that the changes had to pass next year at the 2/3 threshold?
#4, I honestly don’t recall +Duncan saying that. You could be right, I just don’t recall. However, Article XV on changes to the Constitution make no mention of 2/3. Perhaps, someone else who was present will remember what Bp. Duncan said about the next vote.
Can anyone tell me how many congregants in this diocese and what kind of money this decision represents? While I don’t know the numbers, this should be a painful blow to Schori and Co. How painful can be seen in Susan Russell’s remark which seeks to make a mere technicality substitute for a reality.
In fact, I wonder why she cares. Perhaps she will tell me, since she and her California kin are going to follow the homosexual trail regardless of what the rest of TEC does. Actually, while I am about it, let me ask her if she does not think it the case that the homosexual cohort has not damaged itself by throwing in its lot with a failing church. I said earlier that the aggressive pursuit of power by the homosexual cohort has probably alienated many who would otherwise be sitting on the fence, and I still suspect that this is true, at least within the Anglican church. LM
I’ll look into it, PP.
#6, the TEC website shows DioPitt at 20,000 membership, 8,000 ASA and a rough annual budget of $12M
It’s good to see well-written unbiassed reporting, especially coming from Bennison’s end of the state (and my hometown). Thanks for sharing the article!
[url=http://www.getstarted.wordpress.com/]Peg[/url]
I have confirmed that Susan Russell and Dr. Bonner (on his blog) are absolutely wrong. The Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh required only a majority. We did vote overwhelmingly!
This from Stand Firm:
Homosexuality: What’s all the Fuss?
By Matt Barber
Townhall.com
http://tinyurl.com/2jkcmu
November 2, 2007
My 19 year-old brother, Jared, recently shared his thoughts in a brief essay on today’s politically correct, post-modern concept of “tolerance.” I’m admittedly biased, but I thought he exhibited insight beyond his years. He did, however, open the door for a debate on whether Christians focus too much attention on the sin of homosexuality while giving other sins a pass. His musings and my response follow:
Tolerance? Jared Barber
“Certain things, if not seen as lovely or detestable, are not being correctly seen at all.” – C.S. Lewis
It has become difficult to hold true to strongly held beliefs. The problem lies in the fact that behaviors, once held simply as sinful actions, are being lauded as definers of identity.
So, when one states that one believes fornication, homosexual behavior, or adultery to be wrong, the modern world calls this person an “intolerant” “oppressor” of “sexual freedom.” Or they are called “hateful.” The rationale is that they are oppressing “the way people love.” Sexual behaviors, in particular homosexuality, are called “identity.” “This is who we are.”
This is a problem, grave and immense. This rationale seeks, in its innermost, to undermine the ability of others to challenge these beliefs. By setting themselves up as minorities, people in this realm make disagreement “hatred,” “bigotry,” “judgment.”
In reality, it is statement of fact. Morality is what it is. To attempt to rationalize it away is lunacy.
Another problem arises here, though; and it is this: Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone. They attack it solely, denounce it, and live whichever way they please. Adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition, drunkenness; all of these immoral acts take to the background in view of homosexuality, and so we as Christians are set up as anti-gay instead of anti-immorality. We need to end our own hypocrisy, all of us, I as much as any, so that we can more blamelessly broach this subject and others.
And foremost, we must remember that Christ preached one thing above all else: Love. We must love others, with, as [C.S.] Lewis said, “…a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner – no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment.” We must hold to the standard of morality which binds all mankind. We must not allow behaviors to define identity. We must do away with “tolerance” in its modern form which simply indulges behavior despite what morality says. But above all else, we must love.
To which I replied:
Incisive analysis, Jared. Nicely done. I think C.S. Lewis himself might have said so. The only sentiment with which I take issue is this: “Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone.”
Here’s why I disagree.
You’re spot on when you say that we need to confront all forms of sin, call sin sin and repent of that sin. God hates hypocrisy, no doubt, and as you rightly observe, “we need to end our own hypocrisy, all of us…” Furthermore, you’re absolutely right when you say, “above all else, we must love.” But as you essentially point out, this does not mean that we indulge sinful behavior and call it good. True love does not facilitate immorality, it takes it to task.
However, consider this: A particularly heavy focus on the sin of homosexuality by “Christians as a whole” is not at all gratuitous. There is such emphasis, not because we intentionally and specifically chose to target this particular sin, but rather, because strident moral relativists demand that, in contrast to the other sins you address, the sin of homosexuality not only be “tolerated,” but celebrated. That’s what the euphemistic slogan, “celebrate diversity,” supposes.
Sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual behaviors – by force of law – through federal edicts such as “hate crimes” legislation and the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
Unlike the sin of homosexuality, the other sins you cite – the sins of adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition and drunkenness do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby which is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence, and other leftists in media and elsewhere who have been duped by the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity.”
Proponents, practitioners and enablers of homosexual sin demand that we all renounce God’s express condemnation of such conduct and embrace this spiritually and physically destructive behavior as virtuous – as a wholly equal, alternative sexual “orientation.” They believe that the only thing objectively immoral is to reckon there are things objectively immoral. Yet, when others find freedom from the homosexual lifestyle – as untold thousands have done through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ – those former homosexuals are maliciously maligned for committing a betrayal most immoral. Like that popular hotel in California, “You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.”
And so, fervent and relentless homosexual propaganda goose-steps along, trampling upon those who observe traditional notions of sexual morality. This sets homosexual sin worlds apart from the other sins you reference. Therefore, we Christians are left no choice but to assign homosexual sin significance commensurate with that which it demands.
Thus we find ourselves – back against the ropes – in a fight we did not pick, struggling in a culture war we did not ask for. It’s a clash of worldviews in a zero-sum-game. Make no mistake; the sin of homosexuality is the bunker-buster bomb in this war against morality.
The very firm response by defenders of Biblical truth to the homosexual lobby’s relentless assault on our nation’s Judeo-Christian tradition is indeed a defensive reaction, not an act of aggression. The sheer mechanics of homosexual conduct very naturally elicits revulsion in most rational folk. Therefore, most of us would prefer not to even imagine it, much less struggle to defend against its wholesale promotion. But regrettably, our hand has been forced.
Scripture cautions, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” That Scripture becomes manifest in the left’s insistence that homosexual behavior – which God unequivocally condemns and which human biology coldly rejects – be either embraced or opposed under penalty of law.
—Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.
[blockquote] So, in fact, the whole process passed by only one (lay) vote![/blockquote]
If I remember correctly, the House of Deputies at General Convention 2000 passed D039, which allowed for local option in same-sex blessings, by three(?) votes over the 2/3 required.