Amended D025 passes House of Bishops 99-45-2
An amended version of Resolution D025 has passed the House of Bishops. It must now be re-passed by the House of Deputies because it has been amended. I don't think the amendments will present a problem to the deputies.
Here is the amended resolution.
A relatively complete roll call follows as well the conclusion of my live blog of the debate. The Presiding Bishop voted yes.
Reed No
Fry No
Charles Yes
Mc Al No
Kimsey Yes
Donovan Yes
Long Island Yes
SE Fl Yes
VA Yes
Wimberly
Griswold
Laddahoff Yes
Skinner Yes
Williams A Yes
Gray Francis
Rowthorne No
Long Island Yes
Borsch Yes
Ecumenical Yes
Turner Franklin
Harris Yes Barbara
Quincy Yes
Johnson Yes
Hampto Yes
Central Fl No
Asst LA Yes
Aslmon No
Kaisar Yes
Williams H Yes
Suffragan LA Yes
Asst Chgo Abstain
CA Asst Yes
Prov San Joaquin Yes
Marlbo0 Yes
Dominica
Springfield No
Dallas No
Haiti No
Pastoral
Payne Cl
MINN Yes
Kentucy Fort Worth YES
Fon Du Lac NO
Mass Yest
Litoral No
Suff S. Ohio Yes
GA No
Upper SC Yes
VA No?
NY Suff Yes
RI- No
Dominican No
CT- Yes
Utah- Yes?
Bethlehem Yes
E. Carolina Yes
Alabama No
W Mass Abstain
SW VA Yes
Chane Yes
Michel Yes
Indanapolis Yes
Ole-
McDonald
Qyoming Yes
LA (Jenkins, I think) No
W MO Yes
Knudesn Yes
NYC- Yes
Delaware Yes
Maryland Suff NO
E Tn Yes
Percell Yes
W NY- Yes
Asst Atlanta- Yes
W LA No
Michigan Yes
Suff Chap No
N Indiana No
LA (Bruno, I think) Yes
NC Yes
MS No
Asst NC Yes
Lexington Yes
Suff CT Yes
Central Yes
Spokane
Taiwant No
PB Yes
Mass Suff Yes
VT Yes
CGC No
W TN- yes?
Atlanta Yes
Colombia No
W VA No
Honduras No
C NY Yes
Europe Yes
CA Yes
MO Yes
W Kansas No
Wash Yes
Mass Suff Yes
Easton No
Iowa Yes
Puerto Yes
Nebraska Yes
Montana Yes
Texas Sff No
Colo Yes
NJ Yes
Milkwaukee No
FL No
NH Yes
Kansas Yes
W Texas No
Arizaona No???
Ohio Yes
N Dakota No
W NC Yes?
Olympia Yes
San Diego Yes
Virgin Islands- No?
W Texas Suff No
E Michigan Yes
Albany No
N Calif Yes
Suff Texas No
C PA Yes
Arkasas Yes
Newark Yes
TN No
SW FL No
Hawaii Yes
S Ohio Yes
Coadjutro VA No
Conneticut Yes
Nw PA No
Oklahoma No
Olympia Yes
El Camino Yes
Nevada Yes
Suff ALA No????
SC No
Chicago Yes
Asst NJ Yes
Maine Yes
Rochester Yes
Maryland yes
Dallas Suff No
Idaho Yes
Texas No
S VA Yes
NW Texas-????
99 yes 45 no 2 abstain passes House of Bishops.
Evening presser has begun. Hoping to have the roll call soon.
Ernie Bennet of Central Florida: The bishop of Ecuador Central was confirmed after passionate discussion about whether the process was fair.
Sally Johnson on Minnesota: The deputies passed Title Iv, based on nine years of work. very, very solid majority without amendment. This is a very big deal to clergy.
On to the questions.
Kim Lawton of PBS: what message does D025 send in US and around world.
Bishop Michael Smith: hesitating because exhausted. Have come straight from the floor. Hope people will understand we are struggling with a difficult issue. Hard to know what to do when people of two different minds. But we are staying together to work this out.
Bishop Stacy Sauls: That the Episcopal Church is serious about including all people and that when we say we welcome everybody we mean it. But that our Anglican partners will understand we are struggling to be faithful to them as well.
Bishop Sauls: The thing that I know about Anglicanism, which I am sure the Archbishop of Canterbury knows (per the question) that there is not a centralized authority. That's one of the key things about Anglicanism.
Bishop Smith: there is a fundamental disconnect between our different understandings of what it means to be Anglican. Does autonomous mean independent or self-governing, but interdependent.
Bishop Sauls: this resolution doesn't open the door for GLBT people to become bishops because the door has never been closed. B033 hasn't changed, but it never had the power to prohibit. (My two cents, it was a reflection of a political reality, that given events in the Communion, a GLBT candidate simply wasn't going to get confirmed. That may still be true, but an impediment to changing that reality has been removed. So now--horrors--we have to trust the judgment of our dioceses, bishops and standing committees to do the right thing.
Ian Douglas: I don't think it is appropriate to look at D025 separate from the choices before the committee. Repeal? No. Re-state or strengthen the canons? no. say simply where we stand. Yes.
Sally Johnson: the version passed by the bishops will go back to the world mission committee of the house of deputies. The committee will recommend concur, defeat, further amend. It will be on our floor with all the options open to us.
Bishop Sauls: hopes D025 clarifies some of the misinterpretations of B033, which was never a moratorium but was portrayed as one, and, therefore, in some respects began to function as one.
Bishop Sauls again on a question about the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which, at least initially, has been negative. Says he isn't sure the ABC knows what the resolution says.
Ian Douglas: He says that while the Archbishop of Canterbury's initial public reaction was negative, there has been some communication with the ABC about what the resolution really means. Adds: In order to be in full communion we need to be honest. Honesty leads into communion and not a facile understanding of church relationships.
Ernie Bennett: remembers the nine clergy and their wardens who came to him as canon to the ordinary in Central Fla to say they were leaving. That hurt, so that is part of the reality, too.

Hallelujah!
Posted by Kris Lewis
|
July 13, 2009 9:30 PM
I. Am. Gobsmacked.
Never thought it would happen.
Still can't believe it. And 99 to 45? Surely the eschaton is upon us.
Thank you, Jim, for your hard work in the midst of technical glitches.
Posted by Lisa Fox
|
July 13, 2009 9:35 PM
Jim,
Can you post what the Resolution looks like in full following the amendment? It's hard to follow all the changes to these as they wade through the legislative process.
Posted by Christopher Evans
|
July 13, 2009 9:38 PM
Unless I am mistaken, this is the current version as amended by the HOB,
http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Current
Posted by John B. Chilton
|
July 13, 2009 9:45 PM
I assume LA yes is Bruno and LA no is Jenkins. Is that right?
Posted by Bill Carroll
|
July 13, 2009 9:51 PM
Thanks so much for keeping us in the loop. very much appreciated.
Posted by Carol Horton
|
July 13, 2009 9:52 PM
Jim:
There are really not enough words to thank you sufficiently for your work! You have really been the SINGLE voice which has kept us up-to-date here in the hinterlands. Midea Hub has flopped big time!
John-Julian OJN
Posted by John-Julian,OJN
|
July 13, 2009 10:12 PM
A clean sweep of "yes" from Connecticut, and my former diocese of Delaware. Woohoooo! Good work, bishops. Well done.
Lois Keen
Posted by Lois Keen
|
July 13, 2009 10:14 PM
TBTG!
A relatively complete roll call follows.
Heh: unless it's one's own bishop, I'm sure (+Gepert, W Mich? I looked twice, but didn't find him. I'm guessing/hoping he voted Yes)
JC Fisher
Posted by tgflux
|
July 13, 2009 10:24 PM
I am very happy to see that your HoB was able to do the right thing. I was a bit surprised that ++TEC voted yes, since B033 was her baby. I was not surprised to see that almost all of the extra-USA dioceses voted no.
*******
I grieve with many of the Diocese of Ecuador Central. I think it very likely that you lot have set up this diocese to be wounded and torn for many more years to come by forcing a bishop that such a large number do not want, and believe firmly enough that he was not elected through a faithful process. You have violated their culture and struck at the very heart of their self esteem. It is obvious to even a casual viewer that the interim bishop failed miserably in bringing any form of healing to these folks and now they will have another outsider forced upon them as if they are unruly children in need of punishment. I pray that I am wrong, but I believe at this point TEC has sinned against your Ecuadorian brothers & sisters and committed a grave error.
Posted by David Allen |dah • veed|
|
July 14, 2009 1:07 AM
Bill,
You're correct...LA yes is Los Angeles (Bruno) and LA no is Louisiana (Jenkins). I also believe that Arizona was actually yes. This was done real time and there were some votes I could not hear.
Posted by Beau Surratt
|
July 14, 2009 2:11 AM