October 30, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

July 14, 2009


BREAKING: D025 from HOB Approved By HOD,  Litigation Expense Debate—Live from the Floor of the HOD

Now debating received amended from the HOB:

[Unknown deputy] I hope to be a priest in this church.  I am very worried about this church.  I say hope to be a priest since I am not sure.  So many people have left this church. Don’t leave me and my generation with half a church of none at all.

Upper South Carolina, Linder—I rise to speak in favor of D025.

In 2006 I voted in support of B033—every age has had its issues—sexuality has certainly been ours.  I am fatigued with all of the time that our church has been consumed with human sexuality.  Yesterday I saw our passage of D025 as acknowledgement of where we are.  I believe that we have turned a major page in going forward at this 76th General Convetnion and we have done so in a most Anglican way.  It is an extremely holy time that we have consensus in both houses on this issue, and I strongly believe that we should pass this unamended.

Southwestern VA: It is time to move past this resolution—this house has already decisively spoken.  We have delayed this long enough.  The debate is over and it’s time to vote.

[Missed deputies]

[Deputy asks for an amendment—others speaking against amendment because of time constraints]

Clark, Central Florida—requests vote by orders on final resolution—SC, Central Florida and ???

Russell, San Diego—rises to support D025—not far enough or clear enough but a statement of where we are right now.

Pool, Massachusetts—As a young person, I feel the moral compass that is guiding our young people has changed from the past.  And we need to align our church with that.  For while we are losing some, we are also not gaining so many who are looking for something.  66% of young people support gay and lesbian rights.  91% of the young people not attending church see it as anti-gay.  82% of the attenders still see it as anti-gay.  The church is there to help tend to the flock of God and we are sending the message all to often that we are not accepting gay and lesbian people.  We can send a message to the entire world that all are welcome in the kingdom of God.

Maryland—I rise in support—to everything there is a season.  B033 like a stomach virus has run its course.  It seems to me that it is time for the shackles of B033 to be ended.  [missed]  Jesus calls us to love one another as He loves us.  Love is patient . . . If we adopt this resolution, the Anglican Communion and TEC will continue to exist.  Love is not bad it is from God.

Upper South Carolina, Zach Brown—I speak against this resolution.  I have deep fears.  This house is not balanced, you see that on the voting screen.  My fear is that more parishes and more dioceses will leave this church.  Please don’t vote on this in a way that makes more conservatives feel the way I feel now—that I’m the only one left.

SW Florida, Lewis—motion to extend debate?

Out of order—time to make that motion was before time expired.

Swan, Springfield—The president on the floor from this morning told us we could use the red and green cards to achieve balance even when not in special order.

President: I’ll confer with him later to make certain we are on the same page.

A095 voting results announced
A095 voting results [vote by orders]

Lay Order
102 yes
5 no
6 deputations divided

Carries by 94%

Clergy Order
103 yes
3 no
6 deputations divided

Carries by 94%

*********

D025 voting results [vote by orders]

Lay Order
78—yes
21—no
9—divided

Carries by 72%

Clergy Order
77—yes
19 no
11—divided

Carries by 72%

********

Now debating C067—litigation expense disclosure

[Note—the HOB wishes it referred to committee; the resolution is to concur with that action recommendation by the HOB]

Lewis, SW Florida—we have urged transparency—I know as a rector of a parish my vestry seeks financial transparency, we should know more about how money is being spent

Logan, SC—reject sending to committee, vote in favor of original resolution and not recommendation

Albany—seeking transparency and openness, sharing information so that trust can be built—I don’t see how we can vote against trust, transparency, and openness . . .

Haskell, Albany—offer a substitute resolution—how to get onto the floor rather than refer to a CCAB Stewardship and Development committee

Swan, Springfield—

Glasspool, Maryland—asking a parliamentary question—would like to have this referred to Program, Budget, and Finance

Parliamentarian: There are two possibilities.  We could propose to amend that portion of the resolution that deals with what committee to which this would be referred.  The second choice would be to propose to adopt a substitute motion, and the text would be the original resolution.  If we were to vote against that resolution, the deputy is correct—that resolution would die a terrible death.

Deputy—move the previous question.

Motion to terminate debate fails.

West Texas—rise to speak against the motion; it deserves to die a horrible death; put the PB and Executive Committee in a bad spot because it perhaps violates their fiduciary duty to continue the lawsuits.  This is nothing more than people trying to find out about how much money we are spending, which is a strategic problem, and if people had not tried to take our property, we wouldn’t have this resolution in the first place.

Another deputy moves the question and terminate debate.

Motion succeeds—debate terminated.

Logan, SC—A rule has been violated—against ad hominem attacks.  Members of this church have been referred to as robbers. That is certainly an ad hominem attack.  Others have been referred to as liars. I ask for a ruling from the chair. 

President: So noted.

Albany: The deputy was given wrong instructions by the chair—should he not have further time?

Parliamentarian: We follow Roberts Rules and the C&Cs—deputies should come prepared.

Seitz, WV: Was the number 555 that was needed to terminate debate?  I don’t believe that number was displayed on the screen.

President: Of the people who voted [some 700] was a 2/3 majority.

Pritchard: What in the point is having the secretary read the number of votes required for a 2/3 majority at the beginning of a session if that is not the number?

President: We have a 2/3 majority of those who voted.

Pritchard: I appeal the ruling of the chair.

Parliamentarian: Rule 43 states 2/3 majority shall be construed to mean the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the house present and voting.  The reason you are informed of the number at the beginning is because we are canonically required to vote.  The 2/3 applies to those who have voted.

President: “I need the house to know that the chair is losing patience.  If you have a parliamentary question I ask that you turn to a senior deputy.  It is slowing down the house.”

C067 voted no—voted not to concur with the HOB.  Resolution dies.

D037 under debate [make sure you read that resolution]

??? Deputy: 5/6 of the budget of Episcopal Communications is for Episcopal Life.

Albany: Sounds like an expensive resolution they are asking for.

???: Want to continue Episcopal Life—recent proposal from the Episcopal staff would eliminate that publication and turn it into a quarterly publication; church would be best served to have a survey decide what basis for making a decision; Episcopal Life a valuable source of connection to larger life

Rhode Island: Member of board of governors of Episcopal Life—speak in favor of resolution—talked through some initial differences with director of communications

Newark: We have to be careful not to create straw men easy to attack.  This resolution does not micro-manage—it simply provides that information will be collected—it does not provide the decision that will be reached—must understand audience and what their needs are

Churches in Europe: Speak against resolution—most people not as privileged as we are to have a computer to find information if they are not provided hard copy

Move the question.

Debate terminated.

D037 passes.

Currently discussing A052.

[Blogger’s note: The house adopted a rule that no amendments should be taken in the first five minutes of debate, since often all time is taken up with amendments rather than debating the substance of the resolution.  However, there are challenges with this rule.  For one thing, most of the revisionists are “calling the question” very soon in order to cut off debate.  2/3 of the house than votes to cut off debate.  Thus the five minute rule for not submitting amendments then means that no amendments get submitted before the question is called.  During discussion of A052, a person approached the podium to offer an amendment.  He was sent back, and he then raised a point of order that he would not be able to submit the amendment before the question was called.  The chair informed him that he would be the first one called once the time for amendments occurred.

Sure enough, the question was called.  The President then raised her hand at the deputy wishing to offer the amendment, and informed him that if the House does not like the rule they need to change it.  The vote was not in favor of ending debate, and he was then allowed to present his amendment.  The exchanges were . . . tense.]

[Much of the debate centers around a belief that retired bishops do not wish to vote anyway.]

Melnyk of Florida: I have spoken with several retired bishops who ask why would they go to the expense and time of attending GC if they cannot vote.  The Episcopal Church has never been for disenfranchising people and should not start now.

Question called on amendment.

Amendment defeated.

Question called on motion.

Debate ended.

President: Vote by orders because it is the second reading of a constitutional change.

 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

34 comments

test

[1] Posted by Jackie on 7-14-2009 at 04:40 PM · [top]

test

[2] Posted by Jackie on 7-14-2009 at 04:47 PM · [top]

Just a note to the administrator.

I don’t feel like my voice is as sacred on this server as it was on the previous one.  If there is a way you can adjust it, I would appreciate it.

I am still baptized.

DoW

[3] Posted by DietofWorms on 7-14-2009 at 04:53 PM · [top]

“Chair: For the information of those in the gallery, after some consultation with the bishops we have decided to take up C056 during tomorrow’s session…”

Translation: “The chair has just been handed a copy of Bishop Wright’s article in the Times.”

[4] Posted by tjmcmahon on 7-14-2009 at 05:08 PM · [top]

DoW,

Yeah I’ll adjust your voice. Hold still…

[5] Posted by Greg Griffith on 7-14-2009 at 05:08 PM · [top]

Stupid question. which is DO25 and what is C056?

[6] Posted by Going Home on 7-14-2009 at 05:15 PM · [top]

#3 Surely we have spent years living with that old server. Some of us have felt very betrayed by that server and now is the time to move beyond. Now is surely the time to accept the truth of the new life that the new server gives us.

[7] Posted by driver8 on 7-14-2009 at 05:25 PM · [top]

Perhaps the withdrawal pangs have clouded my judgement, but I would SO appreciate someone pointing me to where D025 (amended and just passed) can be found in its entirety.

Its difficult (at least at my age) to explain what happened without the wording to back it up.

anyone, Please,
Grannie Gloria

[8] Posted by Grandmother on 7-14-2009 at 05:48 PM · [top]

(quiet sobbing) Please, Greg, don’t abandon the server that has carried us to this day as we have faithfully continued to live into our chosen belief system!  Please, what matters is that, to me, that server is like a leaky but trusty and beloved ship.  Surely we should all work together with our captain to patch the holes so it can see us to the port of our eternal oneness in Ubuntu, rather than abandoning it as individuals.  Don’t continue to foment schism!  No individual can find her own eternal unity by herself.  Don’t continue to propagate the Great Western Heresy(TM).... (/quiet sobbing)

[10] Posted by cmsigler on 7-14-2009 at 05:58 PM · [top]

Thank you kind “Driver8”
Grannie G

[11] Posted by Grandmother on 7-14-2009 at 06:02 PM · [top]

Y’all think y’all are sad about the server? My grandmother DONATED THAT SERVER!

[12] Posted by Greg Griffith on 7-14-2009 at 06:03 PM · [top]

D-025 is now enacted by both houses. Logically, the HOB should soon pass C-056. We should grieve for what was once a wonderful church. RIP PECUSA.

The person who loses the most as a result of TEC’s action is the ABC. He has leaned heavily on the fig leaf of B-033 in order to prevent the Communion from acting as a Communion to discipline TEC. While he will continue to use his power to thwart the Instruments, I wonder if TEC’s open defiance will stimulate others to move past the ABC altogether. Moreover, he must consider whether the C of E itself will fracture over this dispute. On that I must defer to commenters who understand the C of E’s internal politics better than I do.

Katherine Schori has revealed a lot about herself in recent days. She used Rowan Williams to protect herself and TEC so long as he was useful. As soon as his utility was used up, she threatened him and condescendingly lectured him in the public media. There are so many ironies here, but I want to emphasize only one: the Presiding Bishop may not be much of a theologian, but she is a master of gratuitous, mean spirited and studied insults. I wonder if the Presiding Bishop’s calculated rudeness to the ABC might affect his response.

[13] Posted by Publius on 7-14-2009 at 06:24 PM · [top]

I think you need to have a database server AND a web server. And a load balancer.

Because I’m a schismatic.

[14] Posted by Athanasian on 7-14-2009 at 06:26 PM · [top]

Some of us died reading that server.  Do we have to leave our loved ones behind on the old server?

[15] Posted by Bill C on 7-14-2009 at 06:29 PM · [top]

Few in the HOD or HOB have the “resolve,” courage or conviction about the “problem” of litigation costs to allow this resolution to pass. Voting for this resolution will put your diocese/parish on the PB’s naughty list pretty fast, and she appears to be one scary lady.

Also, this resolution, if passed, would do as much damage to TEC’s moderate members’ desire to stay(hmmm..which church, I wonder, might they be thinking about?) as D025 and the changes to PLM…...

I will be surprised if it passes.

[16] Posted by cityonahill on 7-14-2009 at 06:32 PM · [top]

Ahh..transparency, inclusiveness, the “spirit” moving deputies… all in ways to conceal, twist, and exclude.  Oh yeah, and sue brothers.  Brilliant.

Sorry folks, I find this aspect of TEC as or more unsettling than the GLTetc.etc.etc agenda.  At least that one appears to be motivated by some sort of misplaced love by some of its followers (not leaders).  The lawsuits are about greed, power, and corruption - Basic rights of parishes, dioceses, and plain simple folks are trampled with little accountability.

Lord, have mercy.

YUCK

[17] Posted by cityonahill on 7-14-2009 at 06:40 PM · [top]

Has there been a single resolution of import on which the ideological progs have not got their way? I can’t think of one. Of course, it’s tragic and terrible but it is clear.

[18] Posted by driver8 on 7-14-2009 at 06:42 PM · [top]

Yes, Publius (#13), my sentiments exactly. The sooner we get through the grieving process, the sooner we can get back to work on whatever God is doing in the Kingdom.

[19] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 7-14-2009 at 06:44 PM · [top]

West Texas—rise to speak against the motion; it deserves to die a horrible death; put the PB and Executive Committee in a bad spot because it perhaps violates their fiduciary duty to continue the lawsuits. This is nothing more than people trying to find out about how much money we are spending, which is a strategic problem, and if people had not tried to take our property, we wouldn’t have this resolution in the first place.

The Litigation Expense Disclosure resolution originated from the last Annual Council of the Diocese of West Texas.  Who was the DWT rep who spoke so strongly against it?

[20] Posted by Eric Fenton on 7-14-2009 at 06:44 PM · [top]

the Presiding Bishop may not be much of a theologian, but she is a master of gratuitous, mean spirited and studied insults.

Indeed.

driver8, it has been difficult for me to keep up with what’s going on, but from what I have managed to access, it appears to be a clean sweep for the revisionists. Nothing holding them back, least of all any sense of self-restraint.

[21] Posted by oscewicee on 7-14-2009 at 06:48 PM · [top]

EDF-

The deputy from DWT was speaking against a proposed amendment by a deputy from Maryland, who was attempting to weasel out of voting on the the original resolution by referring it to a committee, where they could quietly drive a stake through its heart while nobody was looking.

The deputy from DWT was the good guy.

[22] Posted by Athanasian on 7-14-2009 at 06:48 PM · [top]

Can someone please tell me what the outcome of the disclosure of the litigation expenses was? Please.

[23] Posted by TLDillon on 7-14-2009 at 07:02 PM · [top]

The intensity of the whoosh toward the exits will be defined by how much the folks in the pews are listening.  In my parish I believe there will be a long induction period.  We have written, preached, and discussed the events of GC2006 and GC2009.  So far, its pretty much a yawn compared to the next parish social.

[24] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 7-14-2009 at 07:04 PM · [top]

It’s death by a thousand cuts in the parish in which I worship. A handful more will leave - we’ll be slightly more diminished. The real cost is that it makes growth impossible. This may play on the east or west cost - but we’re in the flyover zone and people just don’t want to be part of “the gay church”.

[25] Posted by driver8 on 7-14-2009 at 07:32 PM · [top]

Linder from Upper SC is in favor of D025, Zach Brown (Hooray) is opposed.

Let them meet at sunrise under the dueling oak.

[26] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 7-14-2009 at 07:34 PM · [top]

#23 TLDillon - According to the GC09 website chart tracking resolutions:

Original | Current C067
Budget Litigation Expense Disclosure
Bishops
17
MR - Dep

  When I roll over the MR-Dep for an explanation, it says “Reject”.  Just in the time I’ve been researching this, the version that’s listed up above in the thread has been moved from “Current” to “Last”. 

#22 says it’s been sent back to committee.  17 is Stewardship and Development.

I’d say this resolution won’t see the light of day ever again.

Clarity.  Unaccountability - even more clarity.

[27] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 7-14-2009 at 08:17 PM · [top]

Thanks Lakeland Two for the info…I was afraid that something along that line would happen. People are waking up even more now than what they have been in the past 3+ years to what TEc has become, done, and is still evolving into, doing, and not doing. Glad we are in ACNA and So. Cone before all this took place and the rules have been changed to further their agenda and put it in stone.

[28] Posted by TLDillon on 7-14-2009 at 08:25 PM · [top]

For Greg or The_Elves:

Ya know, the heavy load on the site(s) is *finally* beginning to strike me a bit odd….  Are there *tons* of unregistered visitors hitting the site ever since last night?  I see that the load from registered users is heavy, but it’s still less than 400.  I figured that the load would be heavier than ever before given the dramatic circumstances, but… it just seems to me that other factors may be at play.

[29] Posted by cmsigler on 7-14-2009 at 08:32 PM · [top]

Greg, et al…

I have spent nearly a day SF-less.  It has been extremely trying, and I feel I have been marginalized, which has only been slightly mitigated by the fact that I have also been baptized.

Furthermore, I feel that I have shown a great generosity of spirit in spite of all I have suffered so unjustly and unnecessarily over the past few years with the old server.

I must say, however, that we loyal SF-ers have all continued with such magnanimity to gather international friends, to share with one another so openly and so willingly, even on the old server.

With the new server, all that you guys do so formidably, so precisely, so efficiently and so compassionately is a gift offering of such magnitude that it seems so utterly insufficient for me to simply say thank you, thank you, thank you.

So, I will simply say, I have been refreshed.

And I have been served.

[30] Posted by heart on 7-14-2009 at 08:42 PM · [top]

#29,  People don’t have to be “signed in” to read.
I imagine plenty are reading, who don’t wish to be identified.  Still others like to read and not comment.

[31] Posted by heart on 7-14-2009 at 08:44 PM · [top]

#30 heart,

Thank you, and that’s exactly my point.  I’m wondering if it’s because tens of thousands of people who’ve never before visited SFIF/T19 have been flooding the gates for the past 24+ hrs., or if… something else… is going on. *cough*DOS*cough*

[32] Posted by cmsigler on 7-14-2009 at 08:48 PM · [top]

driver8 (#25),

I agree.  GenCon has just killed the prospects of most congregations for future growth.  While each parish or diocese has its own dynamics and circumstances, I think the broadest common factor is indeed that this catastrophic decision to swallow the whole “gay is OK” delusion hook, line, and sinker is just deadly in terms of church growth prospects.  Being gay friendly and being family friendly are mutually exclusive, at least for all practical purposes.

I’ll just add that given the graying of TEC, and the fact that the average age Episcopalian is now around 60 years old, that ominous inability to attract young new members to replace the old folks who will soon be leaving TEC (either becuase of disapproal of TEC policies or death) poses a much greater danger to TEC’s future than its short-sighted leaders think.

And while I’m at it, here’s another factor to be considered.  It’s a demonstrable fact that the vast majority of successful church planters are theologically conservative.  There is a very strong statistical correlation between the denominations that grow the most and those that plant the most new churches, and those that decline the most and start the least new churches.  In driving away the most zealous conservatives, TEC is also simultaneously driving away its best prospects for starting the flourishing new churches of tomorrow that are needed to replace the dwindling old churches of yesterday and today.

And it’s not just that healthy young families don’t want to identify themselves and their children with “the gay church;” they also don’t want to expose their kids to being taught faith and morality by “the abortion church” either.  On both counts, TEC is branding itself as progressive all right, but also as being fundamentally anti-family.

And I don’t think that plays well with young families even on the east and west coasts.

So you’re right, driver8 (as usual).  The gravest danger isn’t that huge numbers of current, long-suffering members of TEC will suddenly leave in disgust.  Some will, but the much greater problem, the much greater danger, is the hidden, more subtle problem of all the new young members that TEC will never attract in the future.
 
David Handy+

[33] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 7-14-2009 at 09:23 PM · [top]

I have to say that the clarity coming out of GenCon is nice. The continued push to provide a necessary contrast is probably not what the institutionalists intend - but the end result is a much clearer picture for the rest of the world at the hands of the radical progressives. So yes those plainative cries of your making us more uncomfortable, seem to be falling on deaf ears.

[34] Posted by masternav on 7-14-2009 at 11:23 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.