[Episcopal News Service] Nine members of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council have been appointed to draft the Church’s response to the first version of an Anglican covenant.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson made the appointments as called for in Executive Council Resolution INC021, passed at the council’s June meeting in Parsippany, New Jersey.
The group is charged with writing a proposed response of the Executive Council to the draft Anglican covenant for the council, to be considered at its October 2007 meeting in Dearborn, Michigan.
Part of the material the members of the Covenant Response Drafting Group will consider as they work are the more than 400 comments the council received by way of a covenant study guide it published in mid-April. Although the deadline for comments based on the Council’s covenant study guide has passed, the group’s chair, Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine of the Diocese of the Virgin Islands, said responses are still coming into the General Convention office and will be considered. While the group is not actively soliciting more comment, she said “we would still be open to receiving [any additional comments].”
“I am grateful to the members of the drafting group for their willingness to continue this challenging work,” Jefferts Schori said July 11. “Together we look for a thoughtful and well-reasoned response that reflects the diversity of opinion in the Episcopal Church.”
Anderson said that the drafting group will also “design a process for continuing to gather input from the entire Episcopal Church to aid the Executive Council in its response to subsequent covenant drafts.”
Ballentine said the drafting group members reflect “quite a cross section of our Church as represented on the Executive Council.” Because of the church’s diversity, she said, the group will do all it can to ensure that all voices are heard.
[…]
The members of the Covenant Response Drafting Group are:
Chair: Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine (Virgin Islands),
Kim Byham (Newark),
the Rev. Dr. Lee Alison Crawford (Vermont),
the Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas (Massachusetts),
Canon Victoria L. Garvey (Chicago),
the Rev. Canon Mark Harris (Delaware),
the Rev. Winnie S. Varghese (New York),
Ted M. Yumoto (San Joaquin) and
Belton T. Zeigler (Upper South Carolina).
Let’s examine the make up of this committee: How representative is it? Seven revisionists including two openly gay members, one moderate (Belton) and one conservative (Yumoto). Can we predict the results? I think we might find a report recommending either no covenant or a covenant far different than ensisioned in the preliminary draft issued by Abp Gomez! What do you think.
Chicago has liberal/revisionist representation. No surprises there.
No surprises in the makeup of the panel. However, isn’t the next meeting date a tiny bit late for response to the primatial request, or did I miss some fine print somewhere?
Provinces 6 and 7 have no reprentation – only one person from a network diocese. It looks to me like the outcome is already determined.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
As usual the fix is in.
[blockquote]As usual the fix is in. [/blockquote]
And so the credibility of TEC goes down another notch. How far below zero can one go?
The group is not even geographically representative of the country.
Five yankees (yes Delaware is a yankee state now) out of nine.
One midwesterner (from Chicago of course – so really six yankees)
One Southerner
One Westerner
and chaired by a Virgin Islander ( I expect some Americans are not even aware the the Virgin Islands is a US territory)
Looking at this makeup one can see why TEC is out of step with America and like the Northeast is not growing but shrinking.
Ms. Varghese’s campus ministry at Columbia has been strangely offensive from the start, including posters that say “Get your a** in church” and “What other church has an out gay bishop?” This is one of the reasons that Episcopal Campus Ministry there is extremely small in comparison with growing, lively groups like IV, Orthodox Christian Fellowship, Black Church, Campus Crusade, the Roman Catholic chaplaincy etc. It is very sad.
[blockquote] However, isn’t the next meeting date a tiny bit late for response to the primatial request, or did I miss some fine print somewhere? [/blockquote]
No, Chip, actually you missed the bold print at the top of the page. This [strike]fix[/strike] team is preparing a response to the covenant design team led by ++Gomez, not the Primate’s request from Dar es Salaam.
Mark Harris has made much of the impropriety of Drexel Gomez, his views on ECUSA being well known, chairing the Covenant Design Group. Yet here he is, someone whose views on having a covenant at all are even more publicized (and strident) than Gomez’s, happy to sit on the committee that will write ECUSA’s response.
What’s the difference?
And, why don’t we just print out the last several months of his blog and send it to the Communion? That’s what the answer will be, anyway.
All to be fair, the committee is chosen from the Executive Council, which is in and of itself extremely unrepresentative of the broader church as past comment threads here have discussed at some length.
So, the makeup of this committee should be no surprise at all.
If we start decrying geographic diversity and the like, we’re playing the revisionists’ own game. The wisdom of the proposed Anglican Covenent does not depend on race, sex, or geography. Larding the committee with Southeastern, Southwestern, and Plains States revisionists would not have made its theological bias one whit more acceptable. Committee members’ theological views are what really matter, and there the fix is truly in.
Notice how Ian Douglas is a fixture on ECUSA committees?
Ian Douglas is one name that does not thrill me. And for the record, there are four gays on this commitee, not two.
I agree with Fred. Ian Douglas does not thrill the foaming-at-the-mouth radical revisionists, only the institutional revisionists.
It’s a *very* interesting mix, for those who find the divisions amongst revisionists intriguing.
[b]Fred[/b],
It’s not about how many “gays” are on the committee; as long as they are choosing for the sake of their walk in the Holy Spirit, and thus their commitment to follow Jesus Christ, to resist any temptation to sexual activity with a person of the same gender.
I agree with Sarah that this is a “very” interesting mix. But despite her comments,
[b]Fred[/b], would you explain why Ian Douglas’ appointment to this task group does not thrill you? — or were you just saying that you are not “thrilled” any time you hear the name “Ian Douglas”?
In return, I would be glad to share why I am happy to know that Ted Yumoto has been appointed, as compared to a couple of the others named.