Some of my colleagues in the House of Deputies are feeling a little steamrolled by the lopsided voting margins.  The presumption is that the House, in three years, has become more liberal.  I think that is an inaccurate reading of what has happened.

In 2006 the broad middle of the church was tired of the combative right and left.  In the wisdom of that moment they supported B033 which was intended to send a message of good will to the ultra conservatives in TEC encouraging them to hang in and keep working.

Things went differently, of course.  The rabid reasserters, ignoring the Windsor Report’s third moratorium struck out on their own to various foreign climes.  Acna was formed and within TEC the Communion Bishops group emerged. The relentless attacks of the ACI on the entire history and polity of TEC were noted.

In short the effort at a good will “leaning in” to the Communion and its concerns and the conservatives and their concerns was rewarded with dirt in the face.

So now there is not only a lopsided majority in the House of Deputies, with the middle moving away from a naive (in my estimation) view that an offering would help, to an understanding that nothing that can be done will matter to those determined to hurt TEC.  The more surprising thing is that the House of Bishops, still fresh from the warm fuzzies of Indaba have also sent the message that they are fed up.  Both messages are embedded in traditional Anglican Fudge, but they are there.

Those conservatives struggling to stay connected have not been abandoned by TEC, but by the ultra conservatives who created and have maintained a climate of vilification and attack.  The lopsided votes are a statement that when something is given or conceded genuine people give something back.  Because this did not happen because there was never for one moment an effort to meditate,TEC seems done with it.

So now the Anglican Communion is faced with a TEC whose message is “enough.”  TEC made a good faith effort, far more than I personally would have counselled they make, and was rewarded with wormwood. And even now, attempts to characterize where we are, to give a snapshot of how we see the world, is instantly repudiated and vilified. So be it.

Were the votes 51 to 49 there might be some cause to ask that TEC listen more.  But given the despicable treatment TEC has endure these three years it is perhaps wise for other to do some respectful listening to the two thirds plus majorities happening.

I have to say that I can certainly agree with you here, Michael.

In fact, the condescending and juvenile comments made by some ultra-conservatives here on Covenant Forums the past couple of days has pushed me further to the “left” as they are making it quite clear that they desire no room for a “middle ground”.

I would like to know, David, exactly how you classify me, at least as far as how “ultra-” my conservatism ranks. As an aid to your calibration, I can suggest some Orthodox and Catholic forums you could sample.

I would also comment that this analysis is, as far as I can tell, pure speculation. At the moment I don’t have data on how votes have swung between B033 in 2006 and D025 in 2009—other than the four rump dioceses, of course. But in terms of changing minds, I would imagine that a large proportion of the deputies were not at the 2006 GC, perhaps even a majority; it is hard to talk of a change of heart if it is really a change of personnel. Now with the bishops, we can assign names to votes, and we can look for those who have changed votes, noting again a substantial change in personnel. Right now I haven’t the time for such an analysis.

The reality that one can also put names and numbers to the departures, however, is already enough to cast doubt on the thesis of a change of heart by the “middle”. A sizable chunk of one end has been removed; that alone is enough to shift the average theological position away from the old center into a group that is more liberal, even if no one were to change their minds. The one point of this theory that I can endorse is that positions of restraint have mostly been abandoned. B033 was restraining; D025 and C056 are permissive. Of course one faction would like to blame the ACNA/GAFCON faction, and I would also point to the PB’s consistently confrontational tone. But perhaps in both cases the true root is that nearly everyone has seen, in the past six years, a relentless drive in the liberal direction; the question has largely been the speed of advance, and not whether it would be turned back.

Charles,

I prefer not to “classify” anyone, but I will say that I do not “classify” you as being an “ultra-conservative” person. Conservative, yes….“rabid re-asserter”, no.

I am familiar with the forums you are likely thinking of as an “aid to calibration”. There has been some comments here as of late that have been worthy of those forums. When I made my statement (above) I was not thinking of you.

Charles Wingate - 17 July 2009 11:26 AM

snip

I would also comment that this analysis is, as far as I can tell, pure speculation. At the moment I don’t have data on how votes have swung between B033 in 2006 and D025 in 2009—other than the four rump dioceses, of course. But in terms of changing minds, I would imagine that a large proportion of the deputies were not at the 2006 GC, perhaps even a majority; it is hard to talk of a change of heart if it is really a change of personnel. Now with the bishops, we can assign names to votes, and we can look for those who have changed votes, noting again a substantial change in personnel. Right now I haven’t the time for such an analysis.

The reality that one can also put names and numbers to the departures, however, is already enough to cast doubt on the thesis of a change of heart by the “middle”. A sizable chunk of one end has been removed; that alone is enough to shift the average theological position away from the old center into a group that is more liberal, even if no one were to change their minds. The one point of this theory that I can endorse is that positions of restraint have mostly been abandoned. B033 was restraining; D025 and C056 are permissive. Of course one faction would like to blame the ACNA/GAFCON faction, and I would also point to the PB’s consistently confrontational tone.

snip

40% of the deputies are new and that is about the same as always.  On at least one of the votes that had a clear progressive/conservative option both Ft. Worth and Pittsburgh voted no or divided.  The 28% conservative is about the same as last time and votes where often much the same at the last GC.  But last time there was a clear and vocal middle that spoke and shaped votes, especially on B033.  None of the special A resolutions with respect to the Windsor Report would have passed at all last time were it not for the vigorous middle.

The charge of a relentless liberal drumbeat calls forth only a “So what?”  We live in the same market place and have the same access to communications and diocesan conventions. And in that market place conservative money has been far more noticeable.  Conventions, publications, glossy pamphlets, DVDs and so forth were far more prevalent from the conservative booths than they were from Integrity or any other progressive group.  At the end of the day conservatives could not and did not make their case.  Why? Because it was wrapped in hysteria, threats and ultimatums. Not having made the case that way or on the ground at diocesan conventions it is hard to be sympathetic to the fact that there are not enough conservative votes at GC09.

The rest of us have spoken, perhaps it is time for those who cannot make their case to learn to listen more respectfully.

Well, there is another way to interpret this, which is that in one sense there is and was no middle, but only a division between patient and impatient liberals, a division that has been resolved by more liberals abandoning their patience. And one can look at D025 and see that, on the one hand, it is intended to give to the cautious the impression of restraint, but that on the other hand, nobody else is, er, well, fooled. I hesitate to postulate whether it is a matter of self-delusion on the part of the cautious, or whether they are being misled by the less cautious. Of C056 it seems to me unnecessary to say more than that belief in its restraint requires a greater effort at self-delusion.

I’m not sure where to put this observation, or whether I should start a new thread. This seems an appropriate place, although it is exactly the opposite of a “lopsided vote.”

The low point of convention for me had nothing to do with D025 or C056. Both of those developments were somewhat expected, and although bad from my perspective, could have been a whole lot worse. Frankly, coming out of Anaheim with the Prayer Book intact was a minor victory. No, the darkest hours for me came with the discussion of C023. Here is the text as considered by the Deputies:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 76th General Convention call on Congress to repeal the so-called “Defense of Marriage” statute passed on September 21, 1996 [Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C]; and be it further

Resolved, That the Convention call on all Episcopalians to work against the passage of so-called “Defense of Marriage” state statutes and state constitutional amendments, and, in states where such statutes or constitutional amendments already exist, to work for their repeal.

I’ve bolded the problematic text. This convention called on all Episcopalians to work against state and federal marriage statutes, despite just affirming a few days earlier in D025 “that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.”

This was pointed out by a number of speakers - not all conservative - who rose on the floor to point out that this resolution violated the consciences of the minority view. It allowed no room for disagreement. It discounted and dismissed the concerns of “Christians of good conscience [who] disagree.”  One speaker asked, “How would you vote if this resolution called on all Episcopalians to vote Republican?”

Amendments to remove the direction to “all Episcopalians” failed. When the vote was called, it was too close to judge on voice vote and the electronic voting was engaged. When the dust settled, my recollection is that out of approximately 820 votes, the resolution passed… by six.

I have to say, this was heartbreaking. For all the assurances that “the conservative voice is needed;” for all the lip-service to full inclusion and diversity of opinion, the slim majority of HoD was unwilling to allow that some members of TEC might actually, in good conscience and faithfulness, support DOMA-type legislation. Right then the extent of TEC’s inclusivity became clear to me.

That night my deputation was having dinner at the hotel restaurant and a deputy from Fort Worth came to our table. He said he had voted for the resolution and felt badly that such a divisive issue had resulted in such a close vote, would we support a move to reconsider? I knew that the effort was futile (as it would require a 2/3 vote) but I was nonetheless deeply grateful that he had reached out to us. The next morning, after his motion to reconsider had gone down in flames, I sought him out on the floor and thanked him again. He was regretful but I appreciated his courage to stand up and make the motion.

I can’t help feeling that this vote was carried out of spite. The amended resolution as proposed would have condemned DOMA and allowed Episcopalians to fight similar legislation federally and locally as they felt appropriate.  Despite strong please from a sizeable minority, the final resolution that passed created hurt feelings and division that were not only unnecessary, but even seemed purposeful.  It was the only time on the floor that I wanted to weep: not because I even feel that strongly about DOMA, but because I felt that the majority were actually doing violence to the minority on this resolution.

Fortunately, this did not pass the HoB, so it is a little academic. But it was a terrible moment for a church that claims to love one another.