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 was anonymous 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.