Posted on 04/14/2005 3:55:21 PM PDT by sionnsar
Scott is an friend in Chicago, and a kibitzer on the HOBD listserv. He attended yesterday’s meeting and made notes - very interesting. What follows is a merger of two emails from his handheld (how he typed so much on such small buttons is amazing in and of itself. But a view into what happened at the meeting, spin free so to speak, is very valuable to those of us working to keep ECUSA in the Anglican Communion and the Christian faith.
Here is what he wrote:
I attended yesterday’s meeting of the Executive Council of ECUSA (aka “TEC") in Mundeline, IL as an observer.
The letter issued by the EC has been in the press. These are my observations of the meeting.
My day began with a polite challenge to my presence by the meeting coordinator. I referred him to the section of the EC bylaws calling for meetings to be open to the public, save for limited closed discussion sessions during which decisions cannot be made. This elicited an invitation to morning eucharist - while folks determined what to do with me. (I was the sole outside observer present until the end of the day when a reporter from “The Living Church” arrived.) I met many members of the EC - including Louie Crew. All were charming, cordial, & welcoming. We had “small talk” only.
Frank Griswold celebrated eucharist - using Rite 2 without a confession & absolution.
George Werner - President of the House of Deputies then advised me the session would be closed until lunch for discussions only. Afterward it would be open for all votes on any motions and for the drafting of the letter ultimately issued.
When the meeting opened, there were notes on the whiteboards around the room under category headings. The headings covered the spectrum of possible responses to the Primates’ request that ECUSA representatives to the ACC be withdrawn, and ranged from the most defiant to the most compliant. Under the headings were comments on the benefits and detriments of each specific course of action. There was emphasis on how EC’s decisions would be percieved. Nothing I saw on the lists was surprising.
The discussions were typical of a group crafting an announcement - with one caveat:
- There was no discussion of the events which brought them to this pass.
It was clear all participants subscribed to the controversial decisions of GC’03 - there was no hint of rethinking those decisions. Quite the contrary, virtually all comments defended or advanced those decisions - some more militantly than others.
Another interesting discussion centered on identifying the team to present the “rationale” (my word) for the GC’03 decisions to the ACC meeting in June (per the primates’ request. The discussion was about what the team should “look like” rather than specific names. (One candidate name was mentioned - whom I do not specifically recall - but she was described in part as a “woman of color who is a lesbian".) The desire was to have a “diverse” group of delegates - reflecting the diversity of ECUSA/TEC. The following were some of the listed goals (my terminology):
- sexual diversity both in gender and orientation;
- diversity of complexion;
- a representative from a non-US diocese (to show why “TEC” is a more appropriate label than “ECUSA".
NOTE: Diversity of hermeneutic or disagreement with actions of GC’03 was NOT a diversity worthy representing in the delegates. (I guess this makes sense, as the alternative is well represented at the ACC, and everyone knows there is dissent in ECUSA.) The EC decided to refer to the ACC as an “instrument of communion” rather than an “instrument of unity” arguing there is no agreement on the definition of the latter, and they do not presently want to endorse the growing common understanding of the term.
The Living Church reported George Werner saying, “The conversation was candid, at times gut-wrenching….". Rev. Werner (a charming gentleman) said something similar to me - and while I don’t doubt him - I saw no evidence of dispute among the EC members (perhaps this occurred in closed session) - rather I detected evidence at their dismay with the primates and others of different views.
YBIC
R. Scott Purdy
R.S.P.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I propose the following solution: send Robinson to the Unitarian Universalists church.
I'm not a stickler for Rite 1 either -- it's the '28 I prefer. *\;-)
But whether it's Morning Prayer (Matins) or Mass (Holy Communion) the Confession is *always* there. (No Absolution if a priest isn't celebrating, of course.) I don't have any recollection of the Confession ever being skipped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.