Monday, October 15, 2007

South Dakota "Safe Place" Resolution...How is it being applied?

This resolution was passed at the 2006 Diocesan Convention (highlights added):

RESOLUTION #10A - ADOPTED
Submitted by The Rev. Timothy Fountain, Sioux Falls and amended by the Resolutions Committee
RESOLVED, that the One hundred Twenty-Second Convention of the Diocese of South Dakota
recognizes the presence of faithful members, formed by the Episcopal Church with Scripture,
Anglican tradition and reason, who cannot affirm teachings which detract from proclamation of Jesus
Christ as Lord and Savior of all, and who cannot participate in innovations and experiments which
depart from the Book of Common Prayer (1979 and prior), such as “open communion” for un-baptized
persons or the blessing or ordination of those involved in same sex unions.
AND RESOLVED, that because we are historically a diverse diocese, we are committed to being a
safe space for all members of this diocese, including both those whose faith and practice is consistent
with that of the wider Anglican Communion and those who believe the Holy Spirit is leading the
Church in new directions.
AND RESOLVED, that a “safe space” is defined as freedom from personal attack and from
discrimination on the basis of differing opinions on controversial issues.


+++

How does this square with the diocesan characterization of the The American Anglican Council, The Church of the Good Shepherd and other Biblically traditional Anglicans in these words (highlights added):

"As I said at the convention, this whole splinter conversation is not about being the church, it is about power, authority, biblical interpretation or rather the holding of everyone to one interpretation, and it is about control. It is about dishonesty and it's about holding one group accountable to one standard and another accountable to a different standard (NPA note: he's calling us hypocrites)"

???

8 comments:

MWN said...

You have to wonder: When someone in a multi-party relationship is using such blatant dishonesty, and with palatable malice in such an obtuse and covert way...does it in any way indicate which party is representing God and the Word?

Chip Johnson+, cj said...

"AND RESOLVED, that a “safe space” is defined as freedom from personal attack and from
discrimination on the basis of differing opinions on controversial issues."

Now, see here, you just can't expect us to accept your active rebellion and schimatism, can you? After all, we, who sit in heavenly places, know best. Remember, Father ALWAYS knows best; I learned that from Robert Young, another great high churchman.

the nebishop

Curtis Price said...

The Bishop is just calling it as he sees it. He has that right, although I wish he had been more specific; hopefully in his upcoming letter he can explain in more depth.

However, I find it hard to argue with the characterization of "two sets of rules" when the Bishop of Nigeria can ordain a Bishop on American soil (clearly, a major violation of Windsor) with nary a word of reconciliation or regret coming from the ACN whilst, on the other hand, the ECUSA is constantly attacked by the Right while doing everything possible, without altering the polity of the Episcopal Church, to accede to the spirit of the Windsor process (and Dar Es Salaam, etc etc).

Thank goodness most of the really ugly stuff is on the blogs and well-separated from reality.

NORTHERN PLAINS ANGLICANS said...

curtis - "accede to the spirit of the Windsor process"????? What does that mean?

And "constantly attacked by the Right"? As Sarah pointed out on another thread, do you mean that TEC is beyond criticism?

It is this word gaming that breaks down trust. It is why other provinces can't trust TEC, and why the "safe place" resolution isn't worth the paper it was printed on... the TEC "Left" simply isn't trustworthy. You will not live by your words if your emotions or politics crave something.

The boundary crossings were to stop if TEC actually complied with the clear requests made in Windsor and DES. TEC didn't and isn't. Just have the honesty to say so.

Chip Johnson+, cj said...

Curtis,

"hopefully in his upcoming letter he can explain in more depth." Please explain to me how +Creighton can come across any clearer in is letter...which is NOT to be read in the Churches...than he has already. And you may have access to the letter, when and if it ever sees the light of day; but the rest of the Church will not, since the Diocese of South Dakota is kept like a mushroom, in the dark and fed ... , unless some rector 'leaks' it to the web.

The man may be a fair litigator, but he IS NOT a communicator...unless you happen to agree with him in all points.

Alice C. Linsley said...

Hang in there, Father Tim. You are telling the truth and the truth sets us free. TEC's duplicity is more widely recognized than you may imagine. Just this week an Orthodox priest contacted me for feedback on a recent conference he attended. He was invited to present a paper and was perplexed about the reaction from so many. His paper was very thoughtful and orthodox. Many in attendance were TEC revisionists. His words fell on deaf ears and he was amazed/stunned by the level of double-talking these people did.

former south dakotan said...

Any word yet in response to Fr. Timothy's note? I've been checking out the diocesan information page but nothing. What about the 'pastoral' letter, has that been written yet?

NORTHERN PLAINS ANGLICANS said...

Welcome former sd!!!

Nope, no pastoral letter here yet. Nothing.