I have no idea about her theological convictions — judging by the preponderance of the resolutions I’d guess liberal — but going up against the bishop? Tres cool. ; > ) She appears to be the senior warden and a delegate of the parish that Klusmeyer purported to “close”.
She is clearly “most divisive” for bringing up the minor issue of a parish closing in violation of the canons. But hey — this is TEC we’re talking about and no doubt the bishop is taking his example from our dear Presiding Bishop.
What’s interesting about the “listening process” resolution is that it is explicitly saying that the listening process will effect change to fully include GLBT people. Presumably, reasserters will be converted into reappraisers or will be driven away.
The listening process has always been intended to convert the reasserter into the reappraisers…always….it not about honest conversation but conversion ….and it has worked more often than not.
I remember back in the early 90’s when our diocese, along with many others, participated in “dialogues” on sexuality. I was in favor of the idea of dialogue because I thought that it would be honest. However, as many have experienced, what is proposed has never been a dialogue or simply “listening.” It has been a propaganda tool to attack those who uphold the Bible and all its teachings.
I will never again participate in a “dialogue” or a “listening process” set up by the Episcopal Church or any of its dioceses. I do not want to participate in dishonesty. What is proposed in WVa is simply a propaganda tool, nothing more.
“Appreciative Inquiry is about the coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them. In its broadest focus, it involves systematic discovery of what gives ‘life’ to a living system when it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves, in a central way, the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. It centrally involves the mobilization of inquiry through the crafting of the “unconditional positive question†often-involving hundreds or sometimes thousands of people. In AI the arduous task of intervention gives way to the speed of imagination and innovation; instead of negation, criticism, and spiraling diagnosis, there is discovery, dream, and design. AI seeks, fundamentally, to build a constructive union between a whole people and the massive entirety of what people talk about as past and present capacities: achievements, assets, unexplored potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, high point moments, lived values, traditions, strategic competencies, stories, expressions of wisdom, insights into the deeper corporate spirit or soul– and visions of valued and possible futures. Taking all of these together as a gestalt, AI deliberately, in everything it does, seeks to work from accounts of this “positive change coreâ€â€”and it assumes that every living system has many untapped and rich and inspiring accounts of the positive. Link the energy of this core directly to any change agenda and changes never thought possible are suddenly and democratically mobilized.”
Undergroundpewster, then it seems by analysis of the definition, that A.I. really stands for Appearing Intelligent, while actually being mindless babble to cover deceit and betrayal and control. Are we surprised?
Denied seat, voice, and vote to Conant, the delegate from Saint Andrew’s-on-the-Mount
Struck Resolution #4 (after refusing to allow substitute motion) on the grounds it was a main motion on the same issue as seating the delegate
Recommended and got defeat of Resolution #5 because “it wouldn’t pass the 5 hurdles needed”
Looks like the takeover of the GLBT agenda at St. John’s in Charleston has been completed.
Wow — dudes — who is Kathryn Bailey Conant?
I have no idea about her theological convictions — judging by the preponderance of the resolutions I’d guess liberal — but going up against the bishop? Tres cool. ; > ) She appears to be the senior warden and a delegate of the parish that Klusmeyer purported to “close”.
She is clearly “most divisive” for bringing up the minor issue of a parish closing in violation of the canons. But hey — this is TEC we’re talking about and no doubt the bishop is taking his example from our dear Presiding Bishop.
At any rate . . . kudos to her.
What’s interesting about the “listening process” resolution is that it is explicitly saying that the listening process will effect change to fully include GLBT people. Presumably, reasserters will be converted into reappraisers or will be driven away.
The listening process has always been intended to convert the reasserter into the reappraisers…always….it not about honest conversation but conversion ….and it has worked more often than not.
I remember back in the early 90’s when our diocese, along with many others, participated in “dialogues” on sexuality. I was in favor of the idea of dialogue because I thought that it would be honest. However, as many have experienced, what is proposed has never been a dialogue or simply “listening.” It has been a propaganda tool to attack those who uphold the Bible and all its teachings.
I will never again participate in a “dialogue” or a “listening process” set up by the Episcopal Church or any of its dioceses. I do not want to participate in dishonesty. What is proposed in WVa is simply a propaganda tool, nothing more.
Beware the Listening Process,
And what is Appreciative Inquiry? (from AI commons)
A.I. = Agenda driven listening process
Undergroundpewster, then it seems by analysis of the definition, that A.I. really stands for Appearing Intelligent, while actually being mindless babble to cover deceit and betrayal and control. Are we surprised?
Dialogue and listening are supposed to be two-way streets, only TEC doesn’t see it that way. It’s “our way or the highway.”
Sarah, thanks for your kudos.
We’ll see what happens to Saint Andrew’s-on-the-Mount.
Diocesan maneuvers:
Denied seat, voice, and vote to Conant, the delegate from Saint Andrew’s-on-the-Mount
Struck Resolution #4 (after refusing to allow substitute motion) on the grounds it was a main motion on the same issue as seating the delegate
Recommended and got defeat of Resolution #5 because “it wouldn’t pass the 5 hurdles needed”
And what happened to Resolution # 2?
I believe it passed as amended. I wasn’t allowed to vote.