Convention Distorts Resolution of Support

As reported previously on this website, a proposed resolution was offered at diocesan convention that was intended to reiterate the Diocese of Albany's support for General Convention, Province II, and The Episcopal Church.  The resolution was moved by Dr. Paula Sippel and seconded by The Rev. Mary White.  As a reminder, the proposed resolution stated:

Resolved, that the Diocese of Albany shall hereby re-affirm its allegiance to, and loyal membership in Province II and the Episcopal Church, and

Resolved, that the Diocese of Albany recognizes the legislative authority of the 76th General Convention, and supports the governance of The Episcopal Church, and

Resolved, that the Diocese shall take no actions that may jeopardize remaining fully in support of The Episcopal Church, including, but not limited to declining to support the so-called Bishops' Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church promulgated by the Anglican Communion Institute.

In retrospect, it was perhaps a tactical error that the resolution, as offered, singled out the Bishops' Statement on Polity for criticism.  The Rev. Christopher Brown, in a comment on this website, noted that this clause would prevent many from supporting the resolution.  With that warning, attempts were made to remove this language from the resolution, including an effort on the floor of convention by Mr. Clair Touby, the President of Albany Via Media.  But backers of our Bishop's position on the Statement seized this "found opportunity" to introduce amendments that completely reversed the intent.  Note in particular the twisting of clause three in the resolution as ultimately passed by convention:

RESOLVED that the Diocese of Albany shall hereby affirm its loyal membership in Province II and in the Episcopal Church, and be it further

RESOLVED that the Diocese of Albany recognizes the legislative authority of The General Convention of The Episcopal Church as outlined in the Bishop's Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church, and be it further

RESOLVED that the 141st Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Albany endorses the Bishops' Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church which was signed by Bishop William H. Love, Bishop of Albany.

Realizing that she could no longer in conscience be seen as defending this resolution, Paula Sippel sought and obtained assurance from diocesan loyalists that her name, and that of The Rev. Mary White, would not be associated with the final product of convention.  Despite this assurance, the Diocese published in electronic form, viathe PDU Update, the text of the finished resolution, in which the names of Dr. Sippel and Rev. Mary appear as the authors.  Whether this egregious error was an unfortunate oversight, or a political attempt to misrepresent the intentions of the originators, remains to be seen.  Such a judgment depends largely on any forthcoming response from the Diocese to the following letter:

Dear Bishop Love,

At Diocesan Convention this past weekend, a proposed resolution was moved by Paula Sippel and seconded by The Rev. Mary White affirming  our diocese's continued support of General Convention, Province II, and The Episcopal Church.  The convention took this resolution and so twisted and perverted its intended meaning that the final result was the very opposite of what was originally written and presented to convention.

The author and mover of this resolution were assured that their names would not be appended to the final version.  But in the most recent Diocesan Update distributed electronically to all members of the Diocese, Paula Sippel and The Rev. Mary White are listed as the authors of the resolution as passed.  This is insulting and unacceptable to those of us who understand the intention of the resolution as originally offered.

We expect an immediate addendum to the Diocesan Update in which you retract the names of Paula Sippel and The Rev. Mary White from the resolution as passed by convention.  It should be made clear to everyone who received this erroneous communication that these individuals had nothing to do with the final wording of the resolution.  The resolution that passed convention is not and never was their proposal.

Bishop Love, I personally expect this retraction and request an apology to these two convention delegates.

John White, Layperson, St. Andrew's Albany

Is anyone listening?

Comments

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

[The Rev. Hartt's comment as it apears here has been edited for length. The Editor]

There is a fundamental point here for the future of our Diocese's mutually beneficial discussions. For the reasons that I stated, what was "inflaming" was the text of the original resolution itself. But much, much more importantly, the Resolution, as Via Media's view of this matter, is "delimited" in bracketing out TEC Constitution's clear statement that we are a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a fact quite legislatively witnessed by our own Episcopal bishops passing resolutions at Lambeth. The "delimited" view turns The Episcopal Church into a North American protestant sect and nothing more -- it flies in the face of our historic and Constitutional claims of Catholicity and Communion.

I have not the slightest resistance to removing names from the altered resolution -- not the slightest. What I do have concern about -- and this is about promoting conversation -- is people taking responsibility for the logical consequences of their actions before Convention. In response to my first post, Mr. White has made an assertion without offering proof about the polity of our Church. It it is rather the present leadership of TEC that holds an "eccentric interpretation" of our Polity. I base this on the well-reasoned ACI statement -- which, as I said, was signed not only by faithful bishops of this Church but a former Episcopal seminary Dean at Yale and full professor at GTS.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's statement following our General Convention does not seem to appear on this site. Why? What would promote helpful conversation would be to have a reasoned response to it by Via Media members.

[John White]

What astonishes me is that Rev. Hartt is dredging up a matter that had effectively been closed, except, it appears, for him. But since he has chosen to re-ignite the controversy, it is important to remind readers that, as one of the authors noted, "the resolution as adopted at convention differed significantly in both content and intent” from the language originally offered. The Bishop, in a PDU update, acknowledged the request of the authors to have their names removed, and there the matter rested. The original request to have the author’s names suppressed was not an “emotional” response, but a simple issue of fair parliamentary procedure. It is also useful to note that his “view of our Church’s polity” is definitely outside the established understanding of The Episcopal Church. And the Constitutions and Canons of the Church do not support his eccentric interpretation of the status of dioceses within the Anglican Communion. In conclusion, The Rev. Hartt’s attempt to inflame the matter once more is not helpful in promoting the conversation.

[Robert Dodd]

Fr. Hartt:

"We were all about to enter Convention without a single controversial resolution."

And that's desirable why?

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

It frankly astounds me that Via Media members take no responsibility for their own upset.

We were all about to enter Convention without a single controversial resolution. It was Via Media members that supplied two rather provocative ones. They did so fully knowing that both resolutions – as evidenced by the final vote - would fly in the face of the prevailing attitudes of our Diocese.

Indeed, the particular resolution in question here was crafted to repudiate our own Bishop, as well as other Bishops and faithful clergy scholars'-- including that of a former Episcopal seminary Dean at Yale and full professor at GTS -- view of our Church’s polity.

Yet not only are we as a Diocese overwhelmingly in accord this view of our polity, the resolution then went on to address matters of “allegiance” in an intentionally delimited manner that doesn’t even accord with our own Constitution and Canons with respect to the status of our relationship to the broader Anglican Communion.

I certainly understand emotionally the reason that the proposers of the resolution here in question now wish their names did not appear on it. But this is a procedural matter and the risk anyone takes whenever they go before Convention with a resolution of any kind.

[William F. Hammond]

Are all PDU updates being published on the Diocesan website? I see some there, but I don't see anything related to this topic. In fact, other than Bishop Love's address, I find nothing anywhere in the Diocesan website concerning what happened during the Convention. Are my eyes failing to find things?

[John White]

Rev. Joel,

Thank you for asking the question. Now, one of my own. If the resolution is the property of convention and not the first movers of the proposal, then the movers are not responsible for the wording and should not have their names appended to it. Your argument supports my conclusion and upholds my demand. Secondly, you know very well that to support General Convention according to the limits of the Bishop’s Statement is to deny the Episcopal Church it authoritative power, and therefore is a non-endorsement. A goal of the Bishop’s Statement is to limit the control of the national church, i.e. the authority of General Convention, over the constituent dioceses of the Church. Lastly, the “power play” was executed by convention when it turned the original resolution on its head in order to make a political statement. I am awaiting “words of clarification” which make clear that the persons who moved and seconded the proposal are removed from the published resolution. Nothing less than such a retraction is acceptable, from where I stand.

[The Rev. Joel Grigg]

Two points and one question.
First, when a resolution is offered and acted upon by Convention, the resolution belongs to convention and not the individual who moved the resolution.
Second, to whoever wrote the original post, I suggest you give your brothers and sisters throughout the diocese more credit for common sense. The changes are obvious as well as the similarities. The resolution called for the Diocese of Albany to express its loyalty to TEC. It does this. What it doesn't do is give unquestioning or unreasoned support for TEC as the resolution did at first. It also does not support a convention that has yet to meet.
The bottom line to this is that the Diocesan Convention once again said that we want to remain in TEC. Isn't that what the Albany Via Media wants? What we refuse to do is deny the historic faith.
Now for the question. Who are these "diocesan loyalists?" Might I suggest that a simply note to the specific individual would probably take care of the situation. Blanket accusations are not helpful. In other words, John (since you appear to have written the demand), please stop the power play. Calm words of clarification in the spirit of love speak much louder than demands.

[Robert Dodd]

Kipling's "If" is relevant here:

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..."

For shame!