[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: 2020



If I have been told them correctly, my involvement in the 20/20 decision
of Executive Council was inaccurately reported by some at the Clear
Vision Conference in Texas last week.

(1)  I understand that I was reported as having said, "The people on that
committee [i.e., the 20/20 Task Force] were the ones trying to keep me out
of the church."  I did not say that, nor have I ever thought that.  What I
did say was that one [unnamed] member of the Commission on Domestic
Mission and Evangelism has worked as hard as anyone whom I know to exclude
lesbians and gays from the Episcopal Church.  I said this when that
Committee was first proposed as the body to succeed the Task Force.

(2) I understand that I was credited with having a hand in the specifics of
the resolution that Council passed regarding criteria for expanding the
Commission on Domestic Mission and Evangelism.  I did not, except to vote
on the resolution when it came out of that committee, as did everyone
else, unanimously.  The resolution was not the excellent resolution that I
had hoped for, but with it Council made commitments that we would not have
made had we merely "received" the 2020 Task Force Report. The details of
the resolution were prepared by Council's Committee on Congregational
Ministries.  I applaud the attention given to rectify some of the
imbalances (gender, race, age, sexual orientation) of the current
Commission, but am concerned that the resolution we passed did not stress
the importance of including people with expertise in church growth,
especially those who have actually succeeded in bringing in more persons
in those categories of inclusion.

The newly expanded Commission is free to bring in established experts as
consultants, however; and many experts would probably find focused visits
the best stewardship of their talents rather than participating in the
grueling but important busy work of the Commission, such as the writing of
the Blue Book report and the presentation of resolutions to General
Convention.

The Council proposal to add members to the Commission violates the
membership numbers stipulated in Canon I.1.2(n), [see
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/gc/ccab/scdme/default.html] as I pointed
out to the President of the House of Deputies as soon as XXXX brought this
to my attention.  I have heard conflicting reports about how that will be
handled.  One version suggested that additions to the Committee will be as
consultants only, with seat and voice, but no vote.  That would make
second class participants out of those added.  While it would respect the
canonical specifications of the number of actual members allowed, it would
not meet the intent of Council to have them substantively influence the
plan General Convention asked for.

The Church needs a detailed plan, not another or vision statement or
general report.  That is in the best interests of all Episcopalians, not
just those of one party or another.

Few Task Force members who were in Jacksonville were present for the full
discussion of it by Council. The most accurate account of my views is my
own, as shared with the Task Force and with the bishops-deputies
discussion list, and preserved at

         http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/natter/msg00108.html

L.

Louie Crew, 377 S. Harrison, 12D, East Orange, NJ 07018 973-395-1068
http://www.thewitness.org The major Anglican progressive activist publcn




Please sign my guestbook and view it.


My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.