[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: Voting on controversial issues
> From Houston Chronicle
> Bishop Payne , Diocese of Texas, "is asking delegates to this year's
> council [diocesan convention] to defer controversial resolutions &
> instead suggested new ways to examine issues. "Sometimes you have to
> make decisions and that means you vote," Payne said. "But these issues
> are not going to be resolved or addressed by voting them up or down ,"
> he said."
This is old news, since the convention has taken place already, but the
appeal is coming again and again from those parts of the church who
brought us the Righter trial.
It sounds generous, but is it? It sounds like it makes the same demands
of both sides, but does it?
Bishop Paine has rarely encouraged dialogue; he has often worked against
lesbigays. Until he became bishop, he actively campaigned to penalize the
national church by withholding funds when it supported us. He has often
put a quietus on our issues. And now lesbigays and our friends are
supposed to heed such a warning because our enemies are pulling a temper
tantrum, threatening to pick up their paper dolls and go home?
What do those asking for 'no vote this time' have to offer to increase
their moral authority with those of us from whom they demand an unequal
sacrifice? Otherwise, the temper tantrums have merely served their vested
interests. Are they just playing good cop to the the schismatics' bad
Why did not the self-styled peace-keepers make the same demand at Lambeth?
Was it because they knew who had the votes there and know who has the
votes in ECUSA? I'm willing to be persuaded if I am wrong, but this
appeal sounds to me like Province 7 politics as usual.
Louie Crew, English Dept., Rutgers, Newark, NJ 07102 973-485-4503
Chair, Rutgers University Senate. Board of Governors.