I've been lax in updating this, but I think I should wrap things up for posterity.
During the round table discussion, several people did have some concerns about the constitution, particularly the Athanasian Creed; however, most people expressed a desire to vote yes anyway to show support for ADV.
So, Mark Robbins, our Senior Warden, proposed to the round table that people could vote yes or no and write in qualifiers to that vote on the ballot slip. People were generally satisfied that they could vote yes and still express their concerns on the ballot.
I do not actually remember the official voting happening, but I expect it did, and if so, it passed.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Round Table discussion at COA on Mar. 2
I've just heard that there will, in fact, be a round table discussion about the ADV Constitution at Church of the Apostles in rooms 1-2-3 after the Sunday service ends on March 2nd (probably around 12:00).
Rev. Harper, members of the COA vestry, and other interested folk including me will be there.
I expect this is the last chance for COA to discuss in an official capacity the Constitution before it goes up for vote on March 8th-9th, so please, please attend if you have questions or concerns. The meeting is geared toward COA (however under-advertised), but I'm sure that members of other ADV churches would be welcome as well.
I'm not sure what I will say during the meeting, but if you can't attend I would be happy to consider asking any questions you might have. Just comment on this post or send me an email. (Suggestions for humorous picket signs will be disregarded amusedly.)
Rev. Harper, members of the COA vestry, and other interested folk including me will be there.
I expect this is the last chance for COA to discuss in an official capacity the Constitution before it goes up for vote on March 8th-9th, so please, please attend if you have questions or concerns. The meeting is geared toward COA (however under-advertised), but I'm sure that members of other ADV churches would be welcome as well.
I'm not sure what I will say during the meeting, but if you can't attend I would be happy to consider asking any questions you might have. Just comment on this post or send me an email. (Suggestions for humorous picket signs will be disregarded amusedly.)
Thursday, February 28, 2008
COA will be voting on the Constitution on Mar. 8-9
Church of the Apostles will be voting on the ADV Constitution on March 8th and 9th. The voting will be done by (I expect anonymous) ballot during the Saturday 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am weekend services. Because the vote is during the services, it seems unlikely that there will be a Q&A session preceding it. Also on the ballot will be Vestry Elections.
The results will be announced later that weekend at COA's Annual Parish Meeting on Sunday, March 9th, at 7:00pm.
The results will be announced later that weekend at COA's Annual Parish Meeting on Sunday, March 9th, at 7:00pm.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Answers
I apologize for the long delay in posting. I misplaced my notes from the Dec. 9th meeting at COA, and just now got around to writing up the answers to the questions I submitted.
As it turned out, COA did not take a vote on the constitution at the Dec. 9th meeting as had originally been planned. Before the start of the meeting, Rev. Harper made the decision that due to the volume and depth of questions received, the part of the meeting allotted for the Constitution would be entirely a Q&A session. He summarized some of the questions he received by email, and they were answered by him or the panel of leaders. Then, the floor was opened for additional questions. The vote was postponed until further notice.
The general feeling at the meeting was one of respect and patience for people and their questions. The desired outcome that was clearly communicated was that people would compromise and vote for it despite its imperfections. An analogy was drawn to the U.S. Articles of Confederation.
To keep things short, I'll just reference the numbers of my questions instead of repeating them in their entirety. You can read my questions here.
Please keep in mind that this is my interpretation of the answers given at the meeting. Ask around for other people's impressions, or better yet, go to the next Q&A session!
1. This is currently my main objection to the Constitution. It cannot be relegated to political compromise since it has specifically been presented as a confession of faith. The answer given at the Dec. 9th meeting, I felt, merely encouraged us to overlook the damning clauses.
Interestingly, the modern language version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer recently published by AMiA omits the damning clauses. That suggests the possibility that a consensus in the ADV could be reached to do the same in the Constitution. That is, if the reason that the new changes to our doctrine are being made is indeed to pave the way for an official merger with AMiA and the other groups in the Common Cause Partnership.
2. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that we would continue to use the 1979 version, or at least that the Constitution did not require us to use the 1662 version.
3. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that “receive” is an ecclesiastically technical word that is understood not to imply acceptance or agreement. So, we can safely discount this one.
4. I don’t recall if this question was answered or not.
5. I don’t remember this question being answered.
6. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that the register would not replace the list of COA members, and that the vote (as it had been planned for Dec. 9th) would not determine individual membership in ADV, since the vote wasanonymous a voice vote. What exactly the register was, and whether individual registration would ever in fact take place, was uncertain.
7. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that no, individual membership in ADV would not have any effect on membership or eligibility to serve at COA.
8. I don’t recall if this question was answered or not.
9. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that no, not ratifying the Constitution would not affect our court case. I don’t remember the rest of the question being answered.
As it turned out, COA did not take a vote on the constitution at the Dec. 9th meeting as had originally been planned. Before the start of the meeting, Rev. Harper made the decision that due to the volume and depth of questions received, the part of the meeting allotted for the Constitution would be entirely a Q&A session. He summarized some of the questions he received by email, and they were answered by him or the panel of leaders. Then, the floor was opened for additional questions. The vote was postponed until further notice.
The general feeling at the meeting was one of respect and patience for people and their questions. The desired outcome that was clearly communicated was that people would compromise and vote for it despite its imperfections. An analogy was drawn to the U.S. Articles of Confederation.
To keep things short, I'll just reference the numbers of my questions instead of repeating them in their entirety. You can read my questions here.
Please keep in mind that this is my interpretation of the answers given at the meeting. Ask around for other people's impressions, or better yet, go to the next Q&A session!
1. This is currently my main objection to the Constitution. It cannot be relegated to political compromise since it has specifically been presented as a confession of faith. The answer given at the Dec. 9th meeting, I felt, merely encouraged us to overlook the damning clauses.
Interestingly, the modern language version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer recently published by AMiA omits the damning clauses. That suggests the possibility that a consensus in the ADV could be reached to do the same in the Constitution. That is, if the reason that the new changes to our doctrine are being made is indeed to pave the way for an official merger with AMiA and the other groups in the Common Cause Partnership.
2. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that we would continue to use the 1979 version, or at least that the Constitution did not require us to use the 1662 version.
3. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that “receive” is an ecclesiastically technical word that is understood not to imply acceptance or agreement. So, we can safely discount this one.
4. I don’t recall if this question was answered or not.
5. I don’t remember this question being answered.
6. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that the register would not replace the list of COA members, and that the vote (as it had been planned for Dec. 9th) would not determine individual membership in ADV, since the vote was
7. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that no, individual membership in ADV would not have any effect on membership or eligibility to serve at COA.
8. I don’t recall if this question was answered or not.
9. The answer at the Dec. 9th meeting was that no, not ratifying the Constitution would not affect our court case. I don’t remember the rest of the question being answered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
