Oct

Special Convention Results

Posted by Steve Published in TEC/General Convention

Here’s the breakdown:

Resolution 1 passed with 86.7 % supporting.

Resolution 2 was a vote by orders. Clergy: Yes – 87; No – 17; Abstaining – 1 // Parishes: Yes – 39; No – 8 // Missions: Yes – 13; No – 3; Divided – 2 and Abstaining – 1.

Resolution 3 passed with 85.1% supporting.

Resolution 4 passed with 87.5% supporting.

Resolution 5 was tabled until the March 2010 Diocesan Convention.

Here’s a link to the proposed resolutions.

I have to perform a wedding – I’ll give a little bit of commentary in the comments section later.

Anglican Congregations Move Forward After Losing Buildings (January 30th, 2012)
Interesting Stats for the Diocese of South Carolina (January 28th, 2012)
John Wesley’s Church Planting Movement (January 10th, 2012)
Province 4 Bp’s Letter re: the Meeting with +Lawrence (December 15th, 2011)
South Carolina Standing Committee Responds to Province 4 Bishops (December 13th, 2011)

15 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

Melissa said in October 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Steve, thanks for the update.

David said in October 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

Does Res 2 mean withdrawing from the General Convention of TEC?

Steve said in October 24th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

David, maybe. Other than saying that the Diocese is not leaving TEC, +Mark suggested that this might mean a withdrawal from the House of Bishops, and, if it were the mind of a future Diocesan Convention, the decision to withdraw from General Convention.

Were I a betting man, I’d wager that the Diocese will send a skeletal deputation to be present as witnesses and to pray. But, time will tell.

ST said in October 24th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

So, does STA leave the DOSC, since DOSC doesn’t leave TEC?

Greg said in October 24th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

ST – We hope you guys don’t leave… We will all be weaker without you!

Steve said in October 24th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

Thanks, Greg. I appreciate your kindness. ST, though, based on previous comments, does not appear to be a member of SAMP. Correction: having communicated with ST off-blog they have indicated that they are members of St. Andrew’s. I was confused because of comments made on previous posts when they spoke of me/St. Andrew’s in third person, as in “why doesn’t St. Andrew’s just leave” rather than doing the 40 Days of Discernment.

Jan said in October 24th, 2009 at 9:09 pm

Thanks, Steve. Keep us posted.

Steve said in October 24th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Ok, brief commentary: The day went as I expected. 4:1 margins of approval. Pretty overwhelming. The only “hitch” was the fifth resolution. When The Rev’d Jeff Miller, President of the Standing Committee, presented this resolution he sought to immediately amend it on behalf of the Standing Committee. Then, while copies of the proposed amendment were being obtained for the delegates, representatives from one deanery sought to amend the proposed amendment to the resolution. Then, a delegate from one of the parishes tried to amend the proposed amendment intended to amend the first amendment offered. Crazy. One of the delegates suggested that the motion be tabled to a time certain (the March Diocese Convention) at which time a re-worked resolution would be brought again to the floor of the Convention. Made sense and the majority concurred.

Usama said in October 24th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

I’m new to Anglicanism and all, but it’s kind of disheartening to see 86.7 on res 1.

I say disheartening (knowing my own sinfulness) to not leap at the thought of affirming “The Lordship of Christ and the Sufficiency of Scripture”

pattybkay said in October 24th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

Only humans could screw things up with all of the verbage, and amendments, and resolution this and that. Why is the pure truth of Christ so hard for folks to take at face value and leave it at that?

usama said in October 24th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

“Apart from the Gospel, the church has nothing to say-that is, nothing to say that cannot be said by another human agency. The Gospel distinguishes the church from the world, defines her message and mission to the world…”
What is a Healthy Church Member by Anyabwile

Spencer said in October 25th, 2009 at 9:41 am

Steve,
Res 2 is the one that bothers me the most. Taken at face value it clearly means withdrawing from GC & HOB, yet Bp. Lawrence has made it clear that to him, this is not what it means. Please pardon my frustration, but why can’t we just let our yes be yes and our no be no? One of our criticisms of TEC is that for years they say one thing and yet do another. Now, it would appear the DoSC is now doing the same. In my opinion, this resolution as passed does not honor Christ in that it does not speak forthrightly. In human terms such a resolution will no doubt be used by TEC to attack the diocese and so it does harm to the diocese without offering any benefit. Simply said, this is folly.

Grandmother said in October 25th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Yes Fr. Steve, I was there too. Resolution 5, becamse a mishmash from all the contortions. It definitely should have been tabled, it became impossible to know what it actually said. I do have a question tho, somewhere I read “even the dissenting parishes have decided to stick with “him” (+Mark) for now..
What did that mean??

Grandmother in SC