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.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Constitution in PDF form
Just found the Constitution online in pdf form. This is on Church of the Epiphany's website.
http://www.epiphany-herndon.org/documents/ADV_Constitution_9_29_07.pdf
http://www.epiphany-herndon.org/documents/ADV_Constitution_9_29_07.pdf
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Link to ADV Constitution document
I have copied the Constitution from .pdf to .doc and have uploaded it verbatim to Google Documents. It is easier to read if you have a .pdf copy, but if not, here it is online:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc27sgf8_24ch5wtq
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc27sgf8_24ch5wtq
Questions
Here are my main questions about the Constitution. I sent these to David Harper, rector of Church of the Apostles, yesterday. He has forwarded them to Mary McReynolds, chancellor and secretary of ADV. If I get answers to the questions, I will post them!
I would encourage anyone else who has concerns or even just questions about the Constitution to not only post them here and discuss them with your friends from church, but to send a letter to leaders in your church. After all, we've been asked to vote on it!
Dear Rev. Harper,
Thank you so much for extending the invitation to ask questions about the proposed ADV Constitution before the Dec. 9th meeting. I have nine questions, so I thought it would be best to get them out there as soon as possible.
I am well aware that we need an ADV constitution. However, I am troubled by the scope of the proposed changes to our doctrine, especially the addition of the Athanasian Creed and the 39 Articles of Religion. I doubt that many of the members at COA could in good conscience accept the confessions of faith set forth in Article 1 of the ADV Constitution. I am also merely curious about some structural changes.
I hope that my questions do not seem inconsequential, "foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law" (Titus 3:9). If ADV is going to produce a document as defining as a constitution, it will carry forth much of the weight of our entire ecclesiastical stance. It will affect the identity of all its churches and members. It will be a witness to others of what was so important that we disaffiliate from the Diocese of Virginia. It will also have an enormous influence on the constitution of whichever permanent ecclesiastical structure is eventually created to replace ADV. So, we need to do it justice. Furthermore, some of the issues I address below have been the subjects of their own bloody controversies, and so should not be lightly bundled into documents that define COA's stand in our own controversy. Lastly, regardless of the practical impact of a document, I always try to make sure I understand and truthfully agree with the meaning of any confessions of faith that I sign. I trust that there are others who feel the same way.
1. Article 1 says "We confess...the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in...the Athanasian [Creed]." The Athanasian Creed is listed in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a "historical document" that we are not currently required to believe in its entirety but rather encouraged to know for its strikingly sound Trinitarian doctrine. But in addition to that doctrine, the Creed also states that "before all things it is necessary that" "whosoever be saved" believe the contents of the Athanasian Creed "whole and undefiled;" if a man does not "believe [it] faithfully, he cannot be saved" and "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
I think there can be some reasonable doubt as to whether a flawed understanding of the Trinity necessarily spells damnation. In this one instance I would hold to the earlier statement of William Chillingworth (1602-1644): "The damning clauses in St. Athanasius's Creed are most false, and also in a high degree schismatical and presumptuous." Why has ADV decided that its members must agree with the Athanasian Creed?
2. Article 1 says that we receive the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as "a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline" and "the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship." If we ratify this Constitution, will COA continue using the 1979 version of the liturgy in our worship, or will we comply with the standard?
3. Article 1 says "We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as...expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief." In those 39 Articles, Article 6 lists the first and second books of Esdras as canonical Scripture. I am not aware of any document prior to the ADV constitution that would require our agreement with the 39 Articles. So, would this Constitution make the difference between whether or not COA is compelled to accept the books of Esdras as canonical Scripture?
4. There are only a few differences between the 1572/1662 and 1801 versions of the 39 Articles of Religion. Given the nature of those differences, I find it odd that Article 1 of the ADV constitution specifies the 1572 version as the one ADV believes. The only significant differences I could find were the following:
- Article 8 of the 1572 version included the Athanasian Creed along with the Apostles' and Nicene creeds as doctrine that "ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." The 1801 version omits the Athanasian Creed.
- Article 21 of the 1572 version included this phrase: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes." The 1801 version omits the entire Article.
Why would we prefer to reject these changes? I cannot see any reason why the 1572 version would be preferable than the 1801 version to ADV, except maybe their aforementioned affinity for the Athanasian Creed; except that that is covered separately in the ADV constitution.
5. Among other specifications, Article 2 defines the Anglican Communion as comprising Dioceses, Provinces, and regional churches "upholding and propagating the Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacrament, and Discipline...as taught in the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, 1662, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion." I was under the impression that at least in 1997, no churches in the Anglican Communion required either clergy or laity to subscribe to any version of 39 Articles. Why are we redefining the definition of the Communion on this point, and does ADV - or even Nigeria - have the authority to do so? Does this mean we will be able to say that any church that does not uphold and propagate what is taught in the 39 Articles is not part of the Anglican Communion?
6. Article 4, Section 3 says that "membership shall include each baptized individual member of each member church who accepts the confession of faith set forth in Article I of this Constitution. The name of each individual member shall be entered into the church's register of his or her respective church." What is this register - is it separate from the list of COA members, or is it meant to replace it? Does the vote on Dec. 9th determine individual membership in ADV as well as ratification on behalf of COA, or will individual registration come at a later date if the constitution is ratified?
7. Article 4, Section 4 says that "any member may disaffiliate from ADV at any time." Would not becoming an individual member of ADV, or would disaffiliating from ADV at any time, affect an individual's membership in COA? Would it affect one's eligibility to serve on vestry or in any other leadership positions?
8. Article 5 says that ADV churches shall not be subject to any interpretation of present or future canon law that would warrant a claim on our properties. Are Canterbury and/or Nigeria okay with the principle of churches just deciding to make themselves exempt from canon law - especially future canon law?
9. If COA votes not to ratify this Constitution, what will happen? Should we propose an alteration to the Synod and the Committee on Constitutions and Canons? Is there any chance that not ratifying the Constitution would affect our court case?
Thank you again for hearing these questions. Please feel free to pass them along to any others or to our lay delegates who represented us at the constitutional convention, or to read from them during the meeting on Dec. 9th.
I would encourage anyone else who has concerns or even just questions about the Constitution to not only post them here and discuss them with your friends from church, but to send a letter to leaders in your church. After all, we've been asked to vote on it!
Dear Rev. Harper,
Thank you so much for extending the invitation to ask questions about the proposed ADV Constitution before the Dec. 9th meeting. I have nine questions, so I thought it would be best to get them out there as soon as possible.
I am well aware that we need an ADV constitution. However, I am troubled by the scope of the proposed changes to our doctrine, especially the addition of the Athanasian Creed and the 39 Articles of Religion. I doubt that many of the members at COA could in good conscience accept the confessions of faith set forth in Article 1 of the ADV Constitution. I am also merely curious about some structural changes.
I hope that my questions do not seem inconsequential, "foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law" (Titus 3:9). If ADV is going to produce a document as defining as a constitution, it will carry forth much of the weight of our entire ecclesiastical stance. It will affect the identity of all its churches and members. It will be a witness to others of what was so important that we disaffiliate from the Diocese of Virginia. It will also have an enormous influence on the constitution of whichever permanent ecclesiastical structure is eventually created to replace ADV. So, we need to do it justice. Furthermore, some of the issues I address below have been the subjects of their own bloody controversies, and so should not be lightly bundled into documents that define COA's stand in our own controversy. Lastly, regardless of the practical impact of a document, I always try to make sure I understand and truthfully agree with the meaning of any confessions of faith that I sign. I trust that there are others who feel the same way.
1. Article 1 says "We confess...the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in...the Athanasian [Creed]." The Athanasian Creed is listed in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a "historical document" that we are not currently required to believe in its entirety but rather encouraged to know for its strikingly sound Trinitarian doctrine. But in addition to that doctrine, the Creed also states that "before all things it is necessary that" "whosoever be saved" believe the contents of the Athanasian Creed "whole and undefiled;" if a man does not "believe [it] faithfully, he cannot be saved" and "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
I think there can be some reasonable doubt as to whether a flawed understanding of the Trinity necessarily spells damnation. In this one instance I would hold to the earlier statement of William Chillingworth (1602-1644): "The damning clauses in St. Athanasius's Creed are most false, and also in a high degree schismatical and presumptuous." Why has ADV decided that its members must agree with the Athanasian Creed?
2. Article 1 says that we receive the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as "a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline" and "the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship." If we ratify this Constitution, will COA continue using the 1979 version of the liturgy in our worship, or will we comply with the standard?
3. Article 1 says "We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as...expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief." In those 39 Articles, Article 6 lists the first and second books of Esdras as canonical Scripture. I am not aware of any document prior to the ADV constitution that would require our agreement with the 39 Articles. So, would this Constitution make the difference between whether or not COA is compelled to accept the books of Esdras as canonical Scripture?
4. There are only a few differences between the 1572/1662 and 1801 versions of the 39 Articles of Religion. Given the nature of those differences, I find it odd that Article 1 of the ADV constitution specifies the 1572 version as the one ADV believes. The only significant differences I could find were the following:
- Article 8 of the 1572 version included the Athanasian Creed along with the Apostles' and Nicene creeds as doctrine that "ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." The 1801 version omits the Athanasian Creed.
- Article 21 of the 1572 version included this phrase: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes." The 1801 version omits the entire Article.
Why would we prefer to reject these changes? I cannot see any reason why the 1572 version would be preferable than the 1801 version to ADV, except maybe their aforementioned affinity for the Athanasian Creed; except that that is covered separately in the ADV constitution.
5. Among other specifications, Article 2 defines the Anglican Communion as comprising Dioceses, Provinces, and regional churches "upholding and propagating the Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacrament, and Discipline...as taught in the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, 1662, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion." I was under the impression that at least in 1997, no churches in the Anglican Communion required either clergy or laity to subscribe to any version of 39 Articles. Why are we redefining the definition of the Communion on this point, and does ADV - or even Nigeria - have the authority to do so? Does this mean we will be able to say that any church that does not uphold and propagate what is taught in the 39 Articles is not part of the Anglican Communion?
6. Article 4, Section 3 says that "membership shall include each baptized individual member of each member church who accepts the confession of faith set forth in Article I of this Constitution. The name of each individual member shall be entered into the church's register of his or her respective church." What is this register - is it separate from the list of COA members, or is it meant to replace it? Does the vote on Dec. 9th determine individual membership in ADV as well as ratification on behalf of COA, or will individual registration come at a later date if the constitution is ratified?
7. Article 4, Section 4 says that "any member may disaffiliate from ADV at any time." Would not becoming an individual member of ADV, or would disaffiliating from ADV at any time, affect an individual's membership in COA? Would it affect one's eligibility to serve on vestry or in any other leadership positions?
8. Article 5 says that ADV churches shall not be subject to any interpretation of present or future canon law that would warrant a claim on our properties. Are Canterbury and/or Nigeria okay with the principle of churches just deciding to make themselves exempt from canon law - especially future canon law?
9. If COA votes not to ratify this Constitution, what will happen? Should we propose an alteration to the Synod and the Committee on Constitutions and Canons? Is there any chance that not ratifying the Constitution would affect our court case?
Thank you again for hearing these questions. Please feel free to pass them along to any others or to our lay delegates who represented us at the constitutional convention, or to read from them during the meeting on Dec. 9th.
Welcome!
After several unsuccessful searches for web discussion of the proposed Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) Constitution, I decided to open my own space for such discussion! Please feel free to post or comment on any questions, concerns, or insights about the Constitution.
I have no direct, individual role in the ADV or in the drafting of this Constitution, but I do attend Church of the Apostles, one of the churches in the ADV. I feel it's important to have as much fruitful discussion as possible about the Constitution before we need to vote on ratifying it.
So, however you have found this site...please feel free to use it! (Unless you are a troll.) You can comment under one of my posts, or if you would like to be added as an author, please ask and I will add your email address so you can post new topics.
I have no direct, individual role in the ADV or in the drafting of this Constitution, but I do attend Church of the Apostles, one of the churches in the ADV. I feel it's important to have as much fruitful discussion as possible about the Constitution before we need to vote on ratifying it.
So, however you have found this site...please feel free to use it! (Unless you are a troll.) You can comment under one of my posts, or if you would like to be added as an author, please ask and I will add your email address so you can post new topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
