A diocese, its vote at General Convention and defense of that vote

As posted on VirtueOnline by David Virtue,

“Resolutions D025 and C056 sparked three roll call votes during the House of Bishops' sessions of the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif.

The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio, told the house on July 15 that the official tallies from the votes on D025 that rescinded the moratorium on gay bishops, on a motion offered by the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania to discharge C056, and the final vote on C056 which authorized the collection and development of rites for the blessing of same-sex liturgies, would not be complete until the end of convention. “

The three bishops from the diocese of Texas voted as follows on D025, the Rowe amendment and C056:

Rayford High, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n n y)
Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n y n)
Andrew Doyle, Bishop of Texas (n y n).

The recently retired bishop of Texas, Don Wimberly voted as follows:

Don Wimberly, Retired Bishop of Texas (_ _ n)

It seems as though Bishop Wimberly did not believe the first two issues important enough for his vote. One should note, however, Bishop Wimberly is well known for his abstinence in voting on these issues.

At first glance, one might guess that the new bishop of Texas, Andrew Doyle, voted the right way, no, on the resolutions pertaining to full inclusion of all sexual proclivities into the ordination process and the creation of rites for the blessings of homosexual unions. Yet, one must remember Bishop Doyle’s answer, when he was candidate Doyle, when asked about his position on allowing blessing of homosexual unions. He said that since the canons do not allow for it, he would not allow for it. Not a resounding prohibition of the blessing of homosexual unions. One presumes that when TEC dos allow for it in the canons of the church, he will certainly allow for it. One can also say, with some certainty, that Bishop Doyle will not object to the use of homosexual union rites within the diocese of Texas since now the resolution so firmly permits it. It is one thing to stand firmly against such heretical acts and quite another to take a legalistic position that places all weight on whether or not the canons of TEC say yes or no to the blessing of homosexual unions. So much for standing firm on the historical position of Scripture and the teaching of the Church as a defender of the faith.

Again, while his vote may look like he stands on the side of truth in voting against the two resolutions, one need simply look at his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and see through the thinly veiled defense of his vote.

“As posted on VirtueOnline by David Virtue,

“Resolutions D025 and C056 sparked three roll call votes during the House of Bishops' sessions of the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif.

The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio, told the house on July 15 that the official tallies from the votes on D025 that rescinded the moratorium on gay bishops, on a motion offered by the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania to discharge C056, and the final vote on C056 which authorized the collection and development of rites for the blessing of same-sex liturgies, would not be complete until the end of convention. “

The three bishops from the diocese of Texas voted as follows on D025, the Rowe amendment and C056
:
Rayford High, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n n y)
Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n y n)
Andrew Doyle, Bishop of Texas (n y n).

The recently retired bishop of Texas, Don Wimberly voted as follows:

Don Wimberly, Retired Bishop of Texas (_ _ n)

It seems as though Bishop Wimberly did not believe the first two issues important enough for his vote. One should note, however, Bishop Wimberly is well known for his abstenance in voting on these issues.

At first glance, one might guess that the new bishop of Texas, Andrew Doyle voted the right way, no, on the resolutions pertaining to full inclusion of all sexual proclivities into the ordination process and the creation of rites for the blessings of homosexual unions. Yet, one must remember bishop Doyle’s answer, when he was candidate Doyle, when asked about his position on allowing blessing of homosexual unions. He said that since the canons do not allow for it, he would not allow for it. Not a resounding prohibition of the blessing of homosexual unions. One presumes that when TEC dos allow for it in the canons of the church, he will certainly allow for it. One can also say with some certainty, that bishop Doyle will not object to the use of homosexual union rites within the diocese of Texas since now the resolution so firmly permits it. It is one thing to stand firmly against such heretical acts and another to take a legalistic position that places all weight on whether or not the canons of TEC say yes or no to the blessing of homosexual unions. So much for standing firm on the historical position as a defender of the faith.

Again, while his vote may look like he stands on the side of truth in voting against the two resolutions, one need simply look at his letter to the Archbishop pf Canterbury and see through the thinly veiled defense of his vote.

“As the Bishop of the Diocese of Texas, I want to confirm to you my commitment and the commitment of this diocese to continue the process begun with the Windsor Report. I also want to assure you of our continued support of the Covenant Process.

We as a Diocese have affirmed our desire to continue as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, even though the Diocese of Texas is a diverse one, and some are in favor of the recent actions of General Convention. I am committed to listening and shepherding the entire Diocese of Texas.”

Please read it this way, “Although TEC just broke all ties to the balance of the Anglican Communion and gave you the raspberry, please know I still support you and so does my diocese. Well, at least some do. Others are very happy with what transpired at GC and are at the same time mad I voted the way I did. That said, I have to represent all views in my diocese so please know I am behind you, for the most part.”

Also note the bishop’s desire to stay within the Communion while the majority of TEC wants out. The good bishop and his diocese are still in until they get kicked out or at least marginalized by the rest of the Communion. Then the bishop may well find himself without a home. His position, like that of his predecessors, is that unless one is in full communion with the ABC, then one is not recognizable as being an Anglican.If TEC is out and he is still part of TEC, what is a bishop to do? We’ll see.

Finally, in his blog comments to those who followed the goings on at GC, Bishop Doyle wrote, “The truth is that ministry and mission in our congregations will be pretty much the same on Monday as it was on Monday several weeks ago.” It seems that the good bishop has missed the point and is blinded by how own desire not to see what really happened at GC. While mission and ministry may continue within TEC and the diocese of Texas, one can rest assured that it will be with far fewer people. Rather than seeing growth in the diocese of Texas or the TEC, numbers will continue to fall, offering plates will have less money in them and the Episcopal Church will continue her drift into irrelevance.

What a shame. The once great bastion of orthodox Christianity in America, the Episcopal Church, has now broken ties with mother Church and the majority of the Anglican Communion. No longer is she a place where one can hear the gospel preached on a regular basis and have one’s children taught the tenants of the ancient faith. Rather, she has become a place where if it feels good, it’s okay with the laiy and clergy to do it, regardless of what the Bible or thousands of years of Church teaching says.

Clarity was conveyed at General Convention. TEC wants nothing to do with the ancient and received faith of the apostles. So be it.