Seven whole days View RSS

"Seven whole days, not one in seven, I will praise thee" -- George Herbert (1633)
Hide details



Doing the dishes so we can spread the Gospel 2 Jul 2024 3:51 PM (9 months ago)

dirty dishes

At General Convention, it’s not always easy to keep the main thing the main thing. We talk around the edges, spending a lot of time on topics that are not so important or that are important to only a few people. We tend not to spend much time discussing how well we’re doing at the main job Jesus gave his church: the make disciples of all nations.

One of the high points at the convention was a conversation that happened early one morning. For 90 minutes or so, we kept the main thing the main thing. The legislative committee on Congregational Vitality & Data-Driven Initiatives hosted almost 100 bishops and deputies to talk about the challenges our church faces and how to nurture vitality in our congregations.

Speaking of challenges, you might wonder why I have a photo of dirty dishes as the cover photo. Read on, and see how this ties to a provocative quote by our Presiding Bishop-elect of an inspiring saint.

The Rev’d Kelly Steele, Deputy from the Diocese of Georgia and vice-chair of this legislative committee shared with me this letter to the church. Please read it and ponder. And pray for our church!

☩   ☩   ☩

Dear church, 

As our Presiding Bishop-Elect Sean Rowe said, quoting Dorothy Day, “‘Everyone wants a revolution but nobody wants to do the dishes.’ Church, we need to do the dishes.” The mission of God, the Great Commission, church vitality, and redevelopment is the preeminent issue in The Episcopal Church but it doesn’t feel that way when we meet. We have infrastructure for creating contextual liturgies and debating resolutions but we do not yet have churchwide infrastructure for the flourishing of our variety of churches and ministries. The Episcopal Church endeavors to be a people of faithful inclusion, welcome, and forward-thinking theologically, but has not demonstrated that forward-thinking with its agendas, governance, and structure. In short, we’ve not been doing our dishes and focusing on reversing atrophy.

The Committee on Congregational Vitality & Data-Driven Initiatives from the 81st General Convention of The Episcopal Church wished to move beyond mere legislation toward experimentation at our meeting in Louisville, KY. We began to model the changes we wish to see in the church. We used the rare opportunity and precious time with so many other invested Episcopalians to pray, dream, and begin work on church vitality in person. Rather than merely legislating or lobbying others to do this work we wanted to incubate what is needed within The Episcopal Church more broadly and General Convention specifically. 

people gathering in a circle talking

Deputies and bishops in conversation

You can read our insights, hopes, and dreams, collected and summarized by artificial intelligence here. 

We were not surprised by the results, but heartened by how aligned they were with groundswell discussions around the church. We wish for this conversation to be had churchwide, as well as analysis and usage of data about our condition. 

Below you’ll find the invitation, overview, and results from our in-person workshop based on the tools from The Rev. Dr. Eric Law from the Kaleidoscope Institute (more information can be found here). Law’s facilitation techniques account for cultural and communication differences through RESPECT Guidelines and Mutual Invitation as well as Kaleidoscope Bible Sharing (much like African Bible Study, Community Bible Study, and/or lectio divina). Explanations for these methods can be found in Holy Currencies and Law’s many other books.

What is next? 

  1. Hopefully, the Committee on Planning & Arrangements can see the benefit of this dialogue topic and facilitation model for planning the 82nd General Convention in Phoenix, AZ, and beyond. Could we create a non-anxious time for deputies, alternates, bishops, and visitors to pray, discuss, discern, and read scripture together to focus on God’s mission in every General Convention? Could every agenda at the General Convention, Executive Council, the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society engage those questions above? We think so.
  2. The Committee on Congregation Vitality & Data-Driven Initiatives was referred several resolutions in Louisville, KY (i.e. A044, A158, D044) that each have urgent concerns for the wellbeing and growth of the church, whether through church planting, redevelopment, or faithful use of church properties, probably our largest tangible asset. We have consolidated these concerns into an omnibus resolution, A044, hoping it will raise awareness and galvanize support using the typical legislative process.
  3. Every person on the Committee agreed to carry home to their contexts these concerns. We ask everyone who is reading this to do the same. There is not one answer, it will take each one of us and our concerted effort to recenter on the Great Commission and its structural support. Make the Great Commission a focus of your local ministry, your diocesan conversations, provincial meetings, and churchwide work, from which our justice work and structural changes can flow. 
a room full of people talking in small groups

Bishops and deputies in conversation

It is the opinion of the Committee on Congregational Vitality & Data-Driven Initiatives from the 81st General Convention that if, as a Church, we do not prioritize church mission and vitality efforts and help to effectively resource them across the church and various parachurch organizations, all our efforts to be faithful to God’s mission will falter. For such an initiative to succeed, the Church needs clear and focused leadership from our Presiding Bishop, President of the House of Deputies, and all others in church-wide leadership at every level. The work must be done through faithful staffing, reworking governance structures, convening stakeholders, and/or establishing new organizations and initiatives for these tasks, not neglecting the truth-telling and repentance needed to right wrongs and move forward. Additionally, better data collection and analysis are needed to help the church know its condition, where there is flourishing, growth, and decline, and how to learn best practices and adapt to our moment. Our hope is that we are now willing to ask tough questions, face the facts, and get creative in this time of transition, a time ripe for collaboration, strategic visioning, and planning for God’s mission. 

Sincerely yours, 

Committee on Congregational Vitality and Data-Driven Initiatives

From the 81st General Convention of the Episcopal Church

—

Postscript:

The invitation we offered was:

Are you someone who seeks conversation and action for reinvigorating The Episcopal Church at the local, diocesan and/or churchwide levels? Do you seek or know of ways The Episcopal Church can do more than survive but thrive and model a healthy, sustainable, missional, and just organization? If so, come join the Committee 8 on Congregational Vitality and Data-Driven Initiatives for a facilitated conversation on Monday, June 24 at 7 am – 9 am in the Kentucky Ballroom of the Louisville Marriott Downtown to do just that! We wish to use the rare opportunity to gather Episcopalians at the 81st General Convention to pray, dream, and act together for our church’s thriving, see our agenda here: https://tinyurl.com/GC81convoguide. Please RSVP so we can accommodate everyone and their needs as best as we can: https://tinyurl.com/RSVP81. Please consider some ground rules for our time together. 

We will: 

We will not:

For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. (NRSV, Jer 29:11)

Photo by Scott Umstattd on Unsplash

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Breaking news! The latest resolutions! 25 Jun 2024 12:04 PM (9 months ago)

Breaking news alert

A few days ago, I had blogged all 291 resolutions for the 81st General Convention of the Episcopal Church. But your intrepid Resolutionpalooza writer has been keeping an eye on the virtual binder, and there are now 356 (!) resolutions. Fear not, Seven whole days is on the case. Resolutionpalooza will not be defeated!

Most of the new resolutions are courtesy resolutions, in which the House of Deputies or House of Bishops — or sometimes both bishops and deputies — commend or give thanks to someone or something. On principle, I vote against all these, not because I’m ungrateful, but because I think we could offer our thanks differently. The president could simply read the names and we could applaud. We could consolidate them into one resolution. Or something. The presiding officers could send a note on impressive letterhead. But expressing thanks this way, one resolution at a time, takes time that we could use for conversation on super important things. However, if you are inclined to vote yes for all these, I totally understand and I…um, give thanks to you and the General Convention for making space for gratitude, a rare commodity in our world today.

Anyway, I’m not blogging these courtesy resolutions individually, because I’m kinda busy being a deputy here at General Convention. These are surely all folks who are worthy of thanks, even if I don’t happen to think it should come in resolution form.

There are also several important resolutions, especially the ones related to Article X of the constitution. So pay attention to those, since you’ve already found your way here.

Now that we have passed the second legislative day, we should be done getting new resolutions, unless one of the houses agrees to suspend the rules to accept them. (I think! Someone correct me if I’m wrong about this.)

On to the new resolutions, all 65 of them.

Other (Non-Courtesy) Resolutions

A223 Create Alternative Working Group to Review Canons and Implement Changes Related to Revised Article X of the Constitution. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

As I wrote before, our current liturgical situation is a hot mess. It’s not clear what is authorized, how it is authorized, and what constitutes the core body of liturgical material to which clergy are accountable in their vows to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the church. There are other resolutions before the convention to improve the situation (notably A072 and B008). This resolution would create a working group to devise a durable, long-term cleanup of our mess. It gets the right people together to sort all this out and make recommendations to the next General Convention.

 

A224 Repeal of Article X with clarifying amendments (post 2024-A072). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Buckle up. This one could be confusing, but it’s good. Article X of the constitution of the Episcopal Church governs the Book of Common Prayer and other matters central to our common liturgical life. For years, I wrote that we needed to amend Article X because it didn’t cover our current practice. For example, there was no real constitutional/canonical cover for core resources such as the Book of Occasional Services or Lesser Feasts & Fasts, let alone Enriching Our Worship. In 2022, in a hasty attempt to get this sorted out, General Convention approved a first reading of a constitutional amendment to try to ameliorate the situation. While clever and well-intentioned, the amendment solved some problems while creating others through unintended ambiguity. We don’t want ambiguity in our constitution.

It takes two successive General Conventions to amend our constitution. At this General Convention, we are set to approve a second reading of the proposed amendment (A072). As I write this, the bishops have adopted it, and it will come to the House of Deputies soon. It will almost surely pass. Then our situation is that we will have given cover to our wide array of liturgical material now in use, but at the cost of some ambiguity.

This resolution proposes clarifying amendments to our newly modified constitution. It would be a first reading, so it would need to be passed again at the next General Convention. Meanwhile, if A223 passes, a group of people will be digging into all this with the leisure of a triennium to make sure we’re doing good here. If they decide this amendment is a problem, we simply choose not to pass this a second time.

I believe this amendment clarifies many ambiguities of the soon-to-be-amended constitution. While I still have some concerns, it’s several steps in the right direction. I will be voting yes to this first reading of a fresh amendment to sort things out, and I will also be voting yes to the working group to take the necessary time to make order out of chaos.

None of this is surprising, and everyone involved means well. In our post-christendom, increasingly pluralistic world, we’ve had a proliferation of liturgical forms. Balancing diversity of context with the practice of “common prayer” is no mean feat! I’m confident that we’ll get it right eventually, through hard work and — I pray fervently — the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

B009 Observing the 1700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea 325 CE. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Next year is the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of the predecessor of the Nicene Creed we say every Sunday and major feast when we celebrate Holy Eucharist. This resolution says we like the creed and will continue to use it. These things are true whether or not the General Convention says it, so let’s save our time. The resolution also encourages the Episcopal Church to be involved in ecumenical celebrations of the Nicene Creed’s anniversary, but, again, we can do that without passing a resolution. Let’s be clear: I am super grateful for the Nicene Creed, and I believe every word of it. But we don’t need to pass resolutions to commend all the things we do or love.

 

B010 Direct Executive Council to Create a task force to revise the disciplinary process of Title IV. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

The clergy (and potentially, if we create one, lay) discipline process is a bit of a mess. There are a number of resolutions to correct canonical errors and inconsistencies, and I will be voting yes on all those. But at some point, we need to take a holistic look at the whole of Title IV (the section of the canons that contain the disciplinary canons). This resolution creates a group to do this work.

One little note: triennia means multiple three-year periods. One of these is a triennium. I usually let little grammar notes slide, but I wanted to take this chance to remind everyone of the correct way to use a Latin word commonly used amongst General Convention geeks.

Unrelated, there is no longer a PB&F committee, so the resolution as written is out of order. There are a couple of other technical fixes necessary to make this resolution workable and in order. Resolution writers do well to consult an experienced resolution wonk when drafting. This will save problems and complications in the legislative process.

 

D075 The Immediate Release of Ms. Layan Nasir, 24 from Administrative Detention in Israel. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I have written extensively about the oddity of our seemingly disproportionate attention to Israel. This is, I think, the 18th resolution on Israel I have blogged at this convention. So far, there’s just one on Ukraine. This continues a long-standing focus on Israel’s sins above all others.

This resolution condemns the imprisonment of Layan Nasir and urges her release. It also empowers the Office of Government Relations to advocate on her behalf. I certainly hope and pray that she is released soon. I question the efficacy of resolutions like this. And I wonder why we are not also calling for the release of hostages taken by Hamas and so on. Our one-sided approach is not ideal.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem and all the Holy Land — Israel and Palestine. Pray for reconciliation among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I encourage you to pray for peace with justice, and work for the same.

 

D076 Supporting Reparative Investment Vehicles. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

We will be considering other resolutions that encourage ethical investing of various kinds. This resolution makes a specific recommendation of an investment vehicle. I just don’t think 1,000 bishop and deputies are equipped to make specific investment decisions. We are better served by focusing on principles, and we have other resolutions that accomplish this.

 

D077 Celebrating and Continuing the Work and Witness of the Church of the Advocate, Site of the Ordination of the Philadelphia Eleven. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The Church of the Advocate has no doubt offered an inspiring witness to its neighborhood, city, and the whole church. It was the site of the first ordinations of women in the Episcopal about 50 years ago. However, this resolution simply laments, recognizes, and exhorts. We need to focus our time on resolutions that call us to specific and measurable actions. And we can focus our prayers (and our financial gifts!) on the work of Church of the Advocate.

 

D078 Combating Anti-Muslim Bias. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Christian anti-Muslim bias and action is sadly common. It is a sin of which we must repent. This resolution calls us to do better. It refers to some work coming out of the Standing Commission on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations. And that brings me to the reason I will not vote yes on this one. Resolution A040 has a very specific resource to share — practices and guidance on how to love our Muslim neighbors.

 

D079 Nominations for President and Vice President of the House of Deputies. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Right now, any individual Deputy can, upon successful competition of a background check, become a candidate for president or vice-present of the House of Deputies. This resolution would direct the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution, and Canons to look into this and recommend possible canonical changes to develop a more formal process for nomination so that it becomes an act of individual and potentially group discernment. I see no harm in looking at possibilities.

 

D080 Direct Executive Council to Create Committee on Disability and Deaf Inclusion. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would direct Executive Council to create a committee. First of all, I am not sure that the General Convention can licitly direct Executive Council this way. Second, even if this is possible, the Executive Council is perfectly capable of making its own committees.

 

D081 Childcare at General Convention. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

If we want younger deputies and bishops to be able to serve at General Convention, we need to provide childcare, and that childcare needs to be funded in the General Convention budget. (And dioceses should fund family travel when needed to include those with younger children!) This resolution seeks to do this.

 

X004 Appointments to the Board for Transition Ministry. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This simply approves the appointment of four people to the transition ministry board.

 

X005 Confirmation of Election to Executive Council (Bishops). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This simply confirms the election of two bishops to the Executive Council.

 

X006 Confirmation of Election to the General Board of Examining Chaplains (Lay). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This simply confirms the election of three laypeople to the General Board of Examining Chaplains.

 

X007 Confirmation of Election to the General Board of Examining Chaplains (Clergy). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This simply confirms the election of three clergy to the General Board of Examining Chaplains.

 

X008 Confirmation of Election to the General Board of Examining Chaplains (Faculty). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This simply confirms the election of three seminary faculty members to the General Board of Examining Chaplains.

 

X009 Confirmation of Election to the General Board of Examining Chaplains (Bishops). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This simply confirms the election of two bishops to the General Board of Examining Chaplains.

 

Courtesy Resolutions

Some of these have already been acted on. Some are in the House of Bishops where I do not have a vote. And the rest are not the usual YES/NO dichotomy for me. I vote NO on principle, but I totally get why folks might vote YES. So for all these, I’m using a new category: MOOT.

A168 Celebrate the Juncture of the Episcopal Dioceses of Eastern Michigan and Western Michigan. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A169 Celebrate the reunification of the Dioceses of Wisconsin. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A170 Greetings to Bonnie Anderson. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A171 Greetings to The Rev. Gay Clark Jennings. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A172 Express Appreciation for the Official Youth Presence. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A173 Express Gratitude for The Rev. Edward W. Rodman. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A174 Commemorate Diocesan Anniversaries. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A175 Express Appreciation for the ECW. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A176 Commend the Rev. Rachel Taber-Hamilton. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A177 Express Gratitude for the GCO Staff and Executive Officers of the General Convention. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A178 Express Gratitude for the United Thank Offering. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A179 Express Gratitude for Krisita Jackson. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A180 Express gratitude for the life and ministry of the Very Rev. George L.W. Werner. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A181 Express Gratitude to Candidates in the House of Deputies Presidential Election. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A182 Express Gratitude to Candidates in Presiding Bishop’s Election. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A183 Give Thanks to the Diocese of Kentucky. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A184 Express Gratitude to the City and People of Louisville. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A185 Gratitude for Language Services at General Convention. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A186 Give Thanks to Convention Staff and Hospitality Ministers. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A187 Express gratitude for the ministries of the Episcopal Camps and Conference Centers. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A188 Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Philadelphia Eleven. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A189 Honoring 85 Years of the Ministry of Episcopal Relief and Development. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A190 Extend Gratitude to the House of Deputies’ Chaplain. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A191 Express Gratitude for the General Convention Children’s Program. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A192 Express Gratitude for Ecumenical Guests. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A193 Express Gratitude to the Nomination Committee for Presiding Bishop. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A194 Express Thanks to the Parliamentarian of the House of Deputies. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A195 The Archbishop of Canterbury and Mrs. Welby. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A196 The Diocese of Kentucky. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A197 The Dean of Christ Church Cathedral, Louisville. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A198 The City and People of Louisville. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A199 The Right Reverend Anthony Poggo and the ACO. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A200 The Most Reverend Ian Earnest and the Anglican Centre in Rome. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A201 The Archbishop of Utrecht and the Old Catholic Church. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A202 The Metropolitan of the Malankara Mar Thoma Church and the MTC. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A203 The Right Reverend Dr Abraham Mar Paulos Episcopa. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A204 The Leadership of the Moravian Church USA, Northern and Southern Provinces. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A205 The General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A206 The General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A207 The President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Episcopal-Roman Catholic Dialogue. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A208 The Chairman of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A209 Archbishop Elpidophoros and the 47th Biennial Clergy-Laity Congress June 30-July 4, 2024. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A210 The Delegates of the Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches in America. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A211 The Armenian Apostolic Church Eastern Diocese. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A212 The 26th Presiding Bishop and Dr. Richard Schori. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A213 The Right Reverend Frank Tracy Griswold III, 25th Presiding Bishop. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A214 Mrs. Patti Browning. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A215 The Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem and Mrs. Rafa Nauom. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A216 The Patriarchs and Heads of Local Churches of the Holy Land. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A217 The General Convention Secretariat, the Presiding Bishop’s Staff, Legislative Leadership, and Support Leaders. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A218 The Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A219 The Chaplains to the House of Bishops. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A220 The Interpreters. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A221 The Leadership of the Bishops’ Spouses and Partners Community. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A222 The Prime Bishop of the Philippine Independent Church and the IFI. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

A225 Express Gratitude to Steve Hutchinson. Full text. Likely vote: MOOT.

 

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Resolutionpalooza News Update: Here are the latest resolutions 21 Jun 2024 5:20 PM (9 months ago)

typewriter with "news" on paper

Since I wrote a few days ago, back when there were 275 resolutions heading to General Convention, there have been twelve new ones. Without further ado, let’s go through these hot-off-the-press resolutions.

 

B008 Amend Canon II.3.6.a and II.4 to clarify authorization of liturgies. Full text. Likely vote: YES, especially after amended.

As I wrote in my post on Committee 10 (Prayer Book, Liturgy, and Music), we have too much liturgical chaos in our church. This is due to a variety of factors, and the path to get things sorted does not always seem obvious. To be clear, I want our church to have the flexibility to address the changing needs of an increasingly pluralistic world and a church that worships in many languages and several countries. However, we need to do this in a way that provides guardrails and clarity.

This resolution would pair with an amended Article X (as provided in A072) to try to untangle our hairball of liturgies and other options. I think we need a better Article X amendment. Whatever we do with Article X — the part of our constitution that deals with the Book of Common Prayer and other liturgical authorization — we need canonical clarity on how all this is going to work. This resolution goes a long way to leave us in a better place. We’d clarify when liturgies are authorized for use throughout the church without the need for bishop’s permission, and what liturgies are available with special permission, for example.

I won’t deal with this resolution too much in its current version, because I am pretty sure there are amendments afoot. The proposers of this resolution have offered a solid draft that comes close. And with a few tweaks here and there, we’ll be in good shape. Perhaps I’ll write more about this. But my suggestion is to watch for the final version and then read it carefully — and consider the possible side effects, if any, of the resolution’s text.

 

C037 Working for Equity, Support, and Protection of All LGBTQIA+ Anglicans. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I salute the proposers of this resolution for using a new verb! If passed, it would “embolden the bishops of The Episcopal Church to open opportunities for engagement and to work actively for change in the Anglican Communion with regard to treatment of LGBTQIA+ persons.” I don’t think we need to pass this, because I think we’re already doing this at a variety of levels. We have a presiding bishop who works with his colleague primates, we have churchwide staff who maintain careful relationships with counterparts in other provinces of the Communion, and there are many dioceses and parishes with partnerships with our Anglican siblings all over the world. While the sentiment sounds good, we don’t need to restate what is already underway. To the extent we have room for improvement in our engagement with Anglicans around the world, I’m not sure a resolution makes things better.

 

D065 Study Canons on Canonical Residence. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

When clergy move from diocese to diocese, a question of “canonical residence” arises. Clergy are resident in one diocese, and that indicates to which bishop they are accountable and where they are able to vote and take part in the life of a diocese. Dioceses have a range of traditions and practices regarding canonical residence. In some dioceses, only rectors are offered canonical residence when they move; assisting priests might be told to stay resident in the diocese where they used to live. This means there assisting priests cannot be involved fully in the life of the diocese where they are serving. Why would a diocese NOT want new clergy? One common reason is that some dioceses provide benefits to resident clergy, and taking new priests or deacons might incur an expense. Another common reason is that leadership in a diocese might not want clergy who would create a voting bloc to foster changes of some kind in the diocese.

It might seem odd that laypeople, for whom canonical residence is not a concern, would propose this resolution. But nearly every aspect of how we live as the Body of Christ affects all the members, so I am grateful they have raised this issue. Whatever the motivations are, it’s clear that there are a variety of practices at work. This should not be a mystery. It should be clear when a cleric changes their residence and when they don’t. So, yes, let’s study this. It doesn’t need to be a complicated, expensive study. And the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution, and Canons is the right group to do this work, as the proposers suggest.

 

D066 Creating a Task Force for Truth-Telling, Reckoning and Reconciliation for LGBTQIA+. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.

Our church has sinned greatly in its treatment of LGBTQIA+ people. Whatever one’s theological perspective, every other person deserves dignity and respect, and that has not always been the case. An essential part of repentance is to acknowledge our sins and confess them. So this resolution would lead us to acknowledge our sins. I’m unclear that we need a formal task force as contemplated here at a cost of $60,000. We have a newly hired staff person at the churchwide level who works to ensure the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people. I wonder if it would be better to have this staff person lead this work, in consultation with others, and without the need for General Convention direction. This is a good thing to do. We can just do it.

 

D067 Support Temporary Protected Status. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution reaffirms a previous resolution of General Convention and seeks to continue the work of that resolution. We don’t need to say what we’ve already said.

 

D068 Addressing the Increase in Gambling. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The resolution would “acknowledge the increase and prevalence of gambling in our society brought about by the ease of access to gambling, whether in person or online” if passed. It goes on to decry the impact of gambling and to name some ways to combat the spread of gambling. But we all know gambling can be problematic, and it’s not hard to Google some well-practiced solutions. So I just don’t think this resolution does anything new for the church or for the world. It also restates a previous resolution.

 

D069 Advocating for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would recognize “those with intellectual and developmental disabilities including neurodivergence are multifaceted individuals who should be included in all aspects of church life.” Yes, of course that’s true. The resolution also says that the Episcopal Church website should include “best practices, trainings and other resources for use in support of full inclusion of all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and neurodivergence.” And the final resolve asks the Episcopal Church to advocate for persons with “intellectual and developmental disabilities, and neurodivergence.”

Resources are widely available already, but even if we need a special catalog of resources on the Episcopal Church website, that does not require the vote of 1,000 bishops and deputies. We can just add stuff to the website. And we should already be including people with “intellectual and developmental disabilities including neurodivergence” because our Lord Jesus has told us to love our neighbors, and St. Paul has said that the Body of Christ needs a variety of members. We don’t need this resolution. We should already be doing this. If Jesus and St. Paul haven’t made the case, neither will a General Convention resolution.

 

D070 Prayers for Haiti. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.

If passed, this resolution would — in its entirety — “direct all Episcopal parishes to include the people of Haiti in their intercessory prayers each Sunday.” Haiti and its people are in separate need of our prayers. I’m all for that! But General Convention cannot direct parishes how to pray; that’s not how our polity works. So I’d simply ask that this resolution be modified to urge all Episcopalians to pray for our siblings in Haiti, which is among other things the largest diocese in the Episcopal Church.

I don’t usually like resolutions that urge or commend, but most rules have an exception. This is it. Among all our resolutions, we don’t commit to prayer often enough. Here’s a chance to do the work our Lord has given us. Let us pray.

 

D071 Recognize Interim Standing Committee of the Diocese of Haiti. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if we hear more from Haitians.

The story of Haiti is one tragedy after another, and the church in Haiti has had a similarly rough path. According to the resolution’s explanation, “In 2022, several diocesan officials, including members of the Standing Committee were arrested for arms trafficking. The Standing Committee was accused of misusing the tax exemption of the Diocese. The Haitian government threatened to revoke the religious privileges held by the Diocese.” So this resolution would recognize an “interim Standing Committee” that has been elected by “a group of senior clerics.”

There is in our canons no such thing as an interim Standing Committee, and there is no canonical provision for General Convention to recognize such a group. However, no one writing canons could have anticipated the situation in Haiti with no bishop and no workable Standing Committee. I can imagine that General Convention’s action to support a group — and the Presiding Bishop’s support, specifically — could help establish appropriate leaders and have those leaders recognized by the government and, more importantly, the Haitian church.

My concern about this resolution is whether or not Haitians have been involved in this resolution. I don’t know the names of the proposers, but they are not listed as Deputies for Haiti. I don’t question the credibility or faith of the proposers! But I’m eager to hear from Haitian Deputies or other leaders. There is such a long history of colonizing involvement from United States folks attempting to control Haiti. We need to guard against any colonizing actions, whether intended or not.

So I appreciate the intent here, and it sounds like it might be the right answer. But I want to understand the context a little more before I know I can support this.

 

D072 Amend Canon I.6.5 to Provide for Mission-Driven Data Strategies Regarding the Vitality of the Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Our church does a lousy job of collecting data, analyzing it, learning from it, and moving in new directions because of what we’ve done poorly or well. This resolution would seem to fix this by creating a staff position to collect and analyze data at the churchwide level. There are two simple reasons that, while I think we need to learn to collect data and learn from it, I cannot support this resolution. First, I think there’s a better alternative in A051, which charges the Presiding Bishop with this responsibility but leaves the PB to implement. Second, I don’t think General Convention should create or eliminate staff positions. We should trust the Presiding Bishop to lead the staff and to resource staff according to established priorities.

 

D073 Procedure for Reconciliation: Amend Canon 1.17.6. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

There is a rubric in the Book of Common Prayer that requires a priest to excommunicate those members of the church “who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to the other members of the
congregation” or in certain other situations (BCP page 409). In the event of excommunication, the priest must advise the bishop that someone has been excommunicated. In these cases, the canons provide a mechanism for someone to appeal to the bishop. This resolution would add an additional step, saying that an excommunicated person would have the right to meet with the priest who excommunicated them to seek reconciliation. (I’m simplifying, and there are other potential cases of someone being denied access to a church. You should read the resolution for full details.)

At first this might sound good. Reconciliation sounds nice. But in my limited experience hearing about these cases from others, priests have only taken extreme steps as a last resort, and in fact, some of those who are denied access may pose a threat to the priest. Moreover, bishops are likely to hear about these situations and urge reconciliation if that seems like a possibility.

So I would not favor this amendment to the canons, trusting the current system to work. Of course, if there’s a side to this I have not heard, I’m listening and ready to learn.

 

D074 Renouncing the Theology of Slavery held by the Rev. James Craik, 11th President of the House of Deputies. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution renounces the theology of enslavement held by Rev. James Craik, the 11th President of the House of Deputies, as described in General Convention Memorial 2024-M003. This resolution also acknowledges the church’s role in chattel slavery. While condemning and so on are not usually the sorts of things that cause me to support a resolution, this one ends with a resolve that would “urge the Canonical Archivist and Director of the Archives of the Episcopal Church and the Archives Advisory Committee to update the entry for the Rev. James Craik on the website of the Archives of the Episcopal Church to include information about the theology of slavery he espoused as well as a link to the pamphlet he published.” This is a concrete step that will allow our church to confront our past. This work is part of our repentance and our work in the world today.

 

X002 Election of Secretary of the General Convention. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This is a simple resolution, saying “That the Reverend Canon Michael Barlowe, having been duly elected Secretary of the House of Deputies, be made Secretary of the General Convention.” He is the sole nominee, I believe for Secretary of the House of Deputies. By recent custom, this person has also served as the Secretary of General Convention. Perhaps one day, these roles will be separated, but for now, this is how we’re doing it. Makes good sense, and this resolution is almost pro forma.

 

X003 Appointments to the Archives Advisory Committee. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution simply confirms some appointments to the advisory committee of the Episcopal Church’s archives. Easy peasy.

 

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Later resolutions: sweeping up 15 Jun 2024 1:50 PM (9 months ago)

person sweeping with broom

Resolutionpalooza has blogged 260 resolutions before this post. That net caught all the resolutions that were available as of a few days ago. Since then, there are a few new ones. So this post will sweep up the newest resolutions heading to various committees. Remember that you can find links to the resolutions themselves and to my commentary on this index page of all resolutions. At the moment, we’re at 275 resolutions submitted, which is quite a bit less than we’ve had at previous General Conventions. This is a good trend.

We will no doubt catch a few more even after General Convention starts a week from now. Fear not! Your intrepid blogger will do his best to blog any new resolutions.

If you are a bishop or a deputy reading this post (and the whole series), I invite you to consider my intro post in which I outlined my thinking about when to support or not support a resolution. If this is helpful in your thinking, great. But every deputy and bishop should vote their conscience under, I fervently pray, the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now, let’s get to these brand-new resolutions.

 

A166 Registration of Firearms; Licensing of Firearm Sellers, Buyers, and Users; Use of Taggants. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution says that gun violence is bad and strongly urges the federal government of the USA to do something about it. It also reaffirms (without citing them) the many resolutions about gun violence that General Convention has already passed. We don’t need to say again what we have already said, and the Office of Government Relations has plenty of material to enable their advocacy work. And “the federal government” does not care what the General Convention says in a resolution. If you are a voter in the US, call your Congressperson.

 

A167 Water Rights for Indigenous Communities and Lands. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution reaffirms a previous General Convention resolution about watersheds and “recognizes” previous treaties and so on. It directs the OGR to do advocacy on this issue. But General Convention has already passed resolutions on water rights and indigenous rights. We don’t need to repeat ourselves, and doing so undermines a core tenet of our polity regarding General Convention: what we say is true until we say otherwise.

 

C036 The Peace of the Lord Be With You. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I believe this resolution may be out of order, because the resolution itself (not the explanation) refers to a document that is not provided in Spanish. Even if it’s technically in order, it’s unjust for General Convention to expect our Spanish-speaking bishops and deputies to vote on a document without being able to read it.

But for the sake of discussion, let’s say this is in order. The resolution asks the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to modify its existing resource, The Principles to Guide the Development of Liturgical Texts, by adding an option in celebrations of the Holy Eucharist to observe the passing of the peace at the start of the liturgy. First of all, I don’t think it’s a great idea for 1,000 bishops and deputies to micromanage staff or committees. If the SCLM thought this was a good idea, they’d have done it. If someone wants to make this suggestion, they’re perfectly free to email someone on the SCLM and offer the idea. So let’s not micromanage this way. Second, celebrants are welcome to invite the assembly to greet one another as part of opening annoucements without moving the peace to that location. We don’t need General Convention to say, “Hey, celebrants, it’s OK for you to ask folks to greet their pewmates now.” Third, the ancient shape of the Holy Eucharist liturgies is not something we should muck around with apart from serious scholarly engagement. If anything, this idea could be referred to the SCLM for their consideration.

Allowing folks to greet one another at the start of a liturgy is a lovely practice. But we don’t need this resolution in order to do that.

 

D054 A Resolution to Address The Issue of Black Maternal Mortality Rate. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, we would “direct” Congress to take action to “greatly reduce the maternal mortality rate of Black Women.” Material mortality in the USA is much higher than it should be, and that is doubly true for Black women. I hope we reduce maternal mortality, but this resolution isn’t it. First of all, the General Convention cannot “direct” Congress. Neither the Episcopal Church nor the United States of America works that way. The resolution also directs the Executive Council to refer this resolution to the OGR. Again, this is not how it works. I don’t think the General Convention can direct the Executive Council. Instead, we could ask OGR to do something, but there are already adopted resolutions about maternal health.

 

D055 50th Anniversary Triennium of the Ordination of Women. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the ordinations of the first women presbyters, which happened in 1974, 1975, and 1977 — making this triennium the time to celebrate these landmark events. As you know if you’ve been reading Resolutionpalooza, I don’t normally support resolutions that merely affirm or commend things, but occasionally there is good reason for an exception. This is one of those times. The resolution directs a staff member at the churchwide level to plan events, and I don’t think it’s a good practice for 1,000 deputies and bishops to create todo lists for staff, nor do I think it’s necessary to say that $18,000 will be spent on this. I have every confidence that churchwide staff will find ways for our church to celebrate the blessing of women priests in our church. So, sure, let’s pass a resolution to mark this milestone. But we don’t need to direct programming and so forth.

 

D056 Calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

When I blogged the first tranche of resolutions, I noted that we had 13 resolutions about Israel (mostly condemning Israel) and just one about Ukraine. This matches our pattern over the last 60 years of continually fixating on the sins of Israel moreso than other nations. Given the long history of Christian anti-Jewish behavior, it’s not a good look. And here’s another resolution.

This resolution decries the genocide (and that’s probably the correct word for what is happening, sadly) of Israel against the people in Gaza. It generally lays the blame for what is happening entirely on Israel and points only to Israel needing to change to end the conflict. While I do think Israel has done horrific things — and continues to do so — a resolution like this also ought to acknowledge the precipitating event of this conflict: a terrorist attack carried out by Hamas. It also ought to note that Hamas has been and continues to be a terrorist organization (which does not take away from Israel’s prosecution of war crimes). Generally, I think getting into the weeds of conflicts like this is something that 1,000 deputies and bishops are not well equipped to do.

I would support a resolution that simply pledged that we would pray and work for peace in the Holy Land and call for an immediate ceasefire, with both Israelis and Palestinians laying down their arms. That, frankly, seems like the best thing Christians could do: pray for peace and work for justice.

 

D057 Advocate for Housing Solutions. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution reaffirms a previous General Convention resolution on housing as a human right, and it then goes on to list various ways that governments could increase access to affordable housing. Finally, it asks OGR to advocate for these programs and ideas. I think OGR must surely have plenty of guidance based on the many previous General Convention resolutions that touch on housing as a human right, affordable housing, or access to housing.

 

D058 Ceasefire in Israel–Hamas War. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Here we begin by reaffirming eight (!) General Convention resolutions and one Executive Council resolution on peace in Palestine and Israel. The resolution calls for an immediate ceasefire in the war now underway in Gaza. That is, of course, a hope I think we all share. If passed, this resolution also would have the General Convention call on “the Heads of State, Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers, and Legislative Leaders in countries where the Episcopal Church has an active presence to assist as necessary in the furthering of an equitable peace in the Middle East.” Though the reference isn’t quite clear in the final resolve, I believe this resolution also asks for the Secretary of General Convention to notify all those government leaders (including, presumably, all national legislators) in every country of the Episcopal Church of our action. Maybe that’s workable, but that’s a LOT of addresses to sort out. Though I know others disagree with me, I just don’t think it’s effective for General Convention to tell governments what to do. It would be better for us to tell governments what we are doing, and that thing ought to begin, continue, and end in prayer.

I do give this resolution credit for calling for an end to the conflict without blaming the entire thing on Israel alone.

 

D059 Addressing Antisemitism in the Church and the World. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I commend the intent of this resolution, though I think its execution is flawed. First, it seeks to combat “antisemitism” when I think they mean “anti-Jewish action.” After acknowledging our church’s history of “antisemitism” it sets forth some suggestions for how to do better as a church. These folks seem unware of another General Convention resolution, 2024-A039, which refers to an excellent document with good teaching about how Episcopalians can avoid anti-Jewish behavior. That’s the resolution we should pass on this topic.

 

D060 Support For a Solution to the Crisis in Haiti. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The history of Haiti is heartbreaking, one tragedy after another. The situation in Haiti now is horrific. I hope we’re all praying and — if possible — working for a just peace there. This resolution laments the situation in Haiti and proposes a series of steps to make things better there, and it proposes that the Episcopal Church “work with the clergy of Haiti to bring a Bishop’s presence to Haiti.” I’m not sure why they don’t also propose working with laypeople. Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the whole General Convention telling Haiti how to solve its problems without involvement from the Haitian deputation. Given the long history of US colonialism in Haiti, I’d be more likely to support a resolution that came from Haitian deputies. If we hear from Haitian deputies that there are concrete actions the General Convention can take to bring about stability in the Diocese of Haiti and the nation of Haiti, I will gladly vote in support of their request.

 

D061 Creating Space for Difference. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution is out of order because it cites a document that is not provided.

If passed, this resolution would “ask all congregations to develop skills to hold space for our comfort and discomfort, and create discourse to talk to and be with one another when we disagree, and to have conversations in these brave spaces that respect each other and are grace filled.” It also recommends the Civil Discourse Curriculum (to which no access is given to bishops and deputies), which is a solid resource. But we don’t need General Convention’s permission or encouragement to use the resource (which may or may not be available in other languages; I’m not sure).

 

D062 Support and Solidarity with Armenia and Preventing further Genocide. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

After remembering the long relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Armenian Church, this resolution would have the Episcopal Church “stand in solidarity with the people of Armenia and the refugees from Nagorno Karabagh as they face the ongoing threat of genocide.” This resolution directs the OGR to advocate on behalf of Armenian people. One can debate the efficacy of this work, but certainly 1,000 deputies and bishops are unlikely to be qualified to parse diplomatic nuances. I’d suggest that Episcopal Church staff work with Executive Council on this, and if we need some kind of resolution a few people on Executive Council are more likely to have the time to educate themselves on these issues.

If nothing else, before any bishop or deputy votes to pass this, we should be required to pass a quiz in which we place Armenia correctly on a blank map. I wonder how many folks could do that?

 

D063 On Mandatory Diocesan Assessment. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

All dioceses of the Episcopal Church pay an assessment to support churchwide ministry. At present, the assessment is set at 15% of diocesan budgets, with a deduction of the first $200,000 (I’m simplifying). In the recent past, this assessment was closer to 20%, and other resolutions before this General Convention aim to push it down to 10% over time. For dioceses experiencing hardship, there is a process by which they can obtain a waiver from their commitment to the wider church. This resolution concerns the waivers that Executive Council grants, saying that the “process for granting diocesan waivers for fair share assessments has been perceived as discriminatory, arbitrary, and disconnected from dioceses’ economic realities.” I don’t doubt that some have perceived that; I haven’t heard this previously, though that doesn’t mean it’s not true! The resolution asks that the Executive Council “approach the waiver and fair share assessment process with an unwavering commitment to a ‘holy spirit of abundant generosity,’ trust, and love. (Mark 4:20).” Perhaps people on Executive Council would say this is already the case.

This sounds to me like a relational and perception issue that would benefit from open conversation, not from a General Convention resolution. Perhaps our next Presiding Bishop can see to it that Executive Council has these conversations among themselves and with concerned dioceses.

We certainly need a just and compassionate process, and we also certainly need to fund the churchwide budget.

 

D064 AMEND CANON IV.14.12 .a and .b; Canon III.7.10; Canon III.9.12; III.12.7.c; and Canon III.12.9.c Regarding Consistency of Reporting Across Canons. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution seeks consistency of what is reported about clergy Title IV proceedings on their OTM Portfolio. As I have said elsewhere, I question the premise of this resolution, because I think it’s an absolutely terrible idea to place anything confidential in the OTM system. At present, the security of this information is laughably terrible. We simply cannot trust the current system to host confidential information about clergy discipline. While I agree we need a churchwide database, we need to build a new system first.

As I say every time I bring this up, I do not blame current OTM staff. This is a failure of resource investment. We need to spend money on a better system, and we need solid technology expertise at the churchwide level.

Photo by cottonbro studio.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committees 20, 21, and 23: Sundries 15 Jun 2024 4:00 AM (9 months ago)

sundries sign

Now we are getting to the bottom of the barrel. Or maybe it’s like the Wedding at Cana, and the best resolutions have been saved until the end. You decide, dear reader. There are three committees concerned with the business of doing business. These are:

Committee 22 certifies the minutes, so they don’t usually generate resolutions. Same with Committee 24 (credentials) and Committee 25 (resolution review). So with 20, 21, and 23, we’ll have made our way through the resolution-generating committees of General Convention. Woo hoo!

I’m lumping these three committees together because they only have six resolutions among the three committees. And here we go!

Committee 20: Confirmation of the election of the Presiding Bishop

A165 The Confirmation of the Presiding Bishop Elect. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but read below!

In its entirety, this resolution reads, “That the House of Deputies confirms the election by the House of Bishops of [the person elected by the House of Bishops] as Presiding Bishop.” One of my favorite things about the Episcopal Church is that our governance insists on the participation of laypeople at all levels. So we’re not a clergy-run church, though we are led by bishops (hence the name, Episcopal). When the bishops elect the Presiding Bishop, their election must be confirmed by the House of Deputies to be effective. I do not believe the HoD has ever rejected an election, but it’s possible. The HoD’s task is to ensure that everything was in order about the election and, though it seems vanishingly unlikely, to reject a poor choice if the bishops erred badly. As I will say to any deputy, this should not be a pro forma vote. If your conscience says to vote no, you should do that, deputies! But I expect that won’t happen.

With the ceremony and tradition here, the brand new PB-elect will be introduced to the HoD and say a few words. And then there’s a vote. It’s a grand occasion for cheers all around, and it allows both houses to turn the page into a new chapter of churchwide leadership together.

By the way, the canons say that the bishops are required to disclose the vote tallies for all ballots of their election, so we’ll be able to see how the voting went after the fact. It’s all very exciting. Please pray for our bishops and our deputies, that the Holy Spirit may lead us to select the leader that God wills for our church.

 

Committee 21: Dispatch of Business

A001 General Convention Daily Agenda. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This simply sets the agenda and schedule for the 81st General Convention. If you want to mark your calendars for important things, many of them are listed here.

 

A164 2025-2027 Budget for The Episcopal Church. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but I will read the final fine print!

This resolution formally adopts the budget, including setting the assessment rates that dioceses pay (currently 15%). The income and expense lines in our three-year balanced budget are currently set at $143,191,157. You can see the current budget online. I encourage you to spend some time with it. General Convention passes a budget, but Executive Council has the authority to make changes as well, since a lot can happen in three years.

 

X001 House of Deputies Special Orders for the 81st General Convention. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

My favorite resolution number, X001. As you may know, “A” resolutions come from committees of General Convention (committees, commissions, agencies, boards, task forces, legislative committees, and the like). “B” resolutions come from bishops. “C” resolutions come from provinces or dioceses. “D” resolutions come from deputies. Few know this, but “X” resolutions come from deep underground beneath the General Convention, where there is a special superhero lair for caped crusaders the committee on dispatch. If you get a chance, thank the heroes of this committee, who have the thankless job of organizing the business of General Convention, which inevitably annoys some whilst delighting others.

This resolution is where the House of Deputies sets its agenda in terms of special orders. These are typically things that take place at a time certain, such as elections that are held are a particular time. Special orders are adopted, and this includes matters that are likely to garner debate and parliamentary maneuvers, so we limit debate to a certain length or set various special rules.

I note that there are times set aside for presentations from various Episcopal entities. Literally, until I started at Forward Movement, the House of Deputies always heard from Forward Movement. But then they canceled it after General Convention 2009. I’ve tried not to take that personally. Dear reader, of course I don’t! It was part of a much-needed paring down of extraneous stuff at General Convention. If you want to hear from Forward Movement go visit its booth in the exhibit hall.

 

Committee 23: Privilege and Courtesy

C001 On the Most Reverend Michael Bruce Curry. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

We always have a bunch of resolutions that thank and salute various people and things. I vote against most of them on principle, not that I don’t love the things or the people, but because someone could just thank people or say kind things without the hoopla of approving resolutions. I’m all for gratitude, but not for using the legislative machine this way. We could all do other things in this time. But on this one, I vote yes. Michael Curry has given so much to our church, and this seems like an important moment to thank him as we elect a new PB and as he prepares to conclude his ministry leading our church.

 

D001 Commend the Episcopal Communicators Organization and Celebrate their 50th Anniversary. Full text. Likely vote: MEH.

This resolution expresses thanks for the Episcopal Communicators. It’s a great organization for those who do communications ministry in the church, and they’re celebrating 50 years. I’ve been on the board of EC; I’m a fan. But still, if we thank every group or person, we could be here all day. I can’t quite bring myself to vote yes or no here. I’ll most likely mumble something or other as the vote happens on this one and others. And I’ll try to find Episcopal Communicators at General Convention to thank. They deserve gratitude.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 2: Constitution & canons 14 Jun 2024 2:44 PM (9 months ago)

cannons

Resolutionpalooza continues with a deep dive into serious church geekery, this time with a look at proposed changes to the Episcopal Church’s constitution and canons. Many of these changes are simply cleanup or clarification, and we should approve them quickly without debate. We can change the canons any time with a simple resolution at General Convention. The constitution requires two successive General Conventions to approve changes, and they must be approved as votes by orders (clergy and laity voting separately) for ratification. This high bar makes it tough to change the constitution of our church, which is a good thing. We want to be conservative in our approach to changing our core polity document.

There’s one big change proposed to our constitution, and I think it’s a really bad idea. So I’m hoping we will scuttle this change and start with a new proposal — to clarify the status of the Book of Common Prayer and other authorized liturgies. Read on for details. But if you decide to skip this post, please consider voting against a proposal to modify Article X of our constitution, unless it is significantly modified to become a “first reading.” More on this below.

All right, church nerds, fire away!

 

A003 Amend Canon III.11.1 regarding Screening of Nominees for Episcopal Elections. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution clarifies that all nominees for bishop, whether going through the standard process or the petition process, shall receive a thorough background check, including “criminal records, credit checks, reference checks, sex offender registry checks, verification of education, employment and ordination and review of all complaints, charges and allegations while an ordained person.” You’d think this would already be the case, but it has not always been done. The resolution also clarifies that the results shall be shared with the President of the local Standing Committee and with the Presiding Bishop. This ensures that a local diocese has the benefit of a disinterested person (the Presiding Bishop) reviewing results. After the election, the resolution would specify that all copies of the results shall be destroyed except for one copy for local permanent records and one for the Episcopal Church archives, who maintains strict security to protect confidential information. This is all excellent. My one tiny change is that the resolution refers to “ordination and consecration” of the newly elected bishop, and I’d like to change this to “ordination” to bring the canon into line with the baptismal ecclesiology of our prayer book.

 

A036 Amend Canons to Use Approved Common Terminology to Describe Anti-Racism Work. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This updates our canons to include current terminology for anti-racism work. The canons currently use the term “dismantling racism.” If passed, this change would add to that “achieving racial justice and healing.” I’m all for this, because I think the expansion more accurately describes the work to which our church is called as followers of Jesus Christ.

 

A043 Amend Constitution Article VIII regarding Clergy in Local Ecumenical Partnerships. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

In the past couple of decades, the Episcopal Church has focused much of its ecumenical work on denomination-level agreements, for example, the full communion partnership with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. While I’m delighted with the work we’ve done, I’ve wondered whether it would make more sense in today’s world to focus some more time and energy on local ecumenical partnerships. This resolution does just that, and I’m delighted. This change, along with the next resolution to modify the canons, would allow some flexibility at the local level. Say, for example, in a small town somewhere, an Episcopal congregation and a congregation of the Presbyterian Church USA want to join in shared ministry. Under current rules, this would be tough without a fully ratified partnership between the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church. This constitutional amendment, along with the canon changes below, could allow a local sharing of ministries (including shared clergy) with a specific, local agreement. As I understand it, the thinking here has been influenced by successful work in this manner in the Church of England.

Now, as I’ll write in the next commentary, I don’t think the canon changes are quite ready for prime time. But that’s OK, it takes two readings of the constitution for any change to happen here. So what I hope happens is that we approve this constitution change as a first reading, and then come back to next General Convention with perfected canon changes. Then at the same time, we can pass the canon changes and the second reading of the constitution change. And if, in the meantime, we decide we don’t like this constitution change, we simply vote down the second reading.

So approving this change keeps open some exciting possibilities for local ecumenical partnerships, which could benefit our church, especially in rural areas.

 

A047 Amend Title I regarding Local Ecumenical Partnerships. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

As I wrote above, the idea of local ecumenical partnerships — in which we allow ourselves to share ministries with other denominations — strikes me as a fruitful opportunity for our church. There are limits to the churches with whom we could do this work, including full communion partners and members of the Churches Uniting in Christ, and so on. So it can’t be with any old church. I think these proposed canons need to flesh out things like participation in Episcopal Church programs and benefits, tenure or lack thereof, and other nitty-gritty details. Most importantly, I think we need to build in a secondary person to sign off on these partnerships besides the local bishop. My experience is that bishops sometimes get a bit confused about ecumenical matters (which is perfectly understandable, no one knows everything!) and so a check-in with the churchwide ecumenical office or perhaps the chair of a relevant interim body could be a useful support and safeguard against unintended consequences.

So, as I wrote above, I hope we approve the constitution change in A043. That’s simple and clear. Since none of this can go into effect anyway pending the approval of the constitution change in 2027, let’s hold off on the canon change until everything has been carefully thought through.

 

A051 Amend Canons I.2.4.a Data Collection for the Church. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This change adds an item to the Presiding Bishop’s canonical job description: “Make provision for the analysis of appropriate data about this Church’s mission, its opportunities, and challenges. An annual report, published freely to the Church, will include such data as to allow for data-informed decisions by the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, the General Convention, the Executive Council, dioceses, congregations, and local leaders.” This is excellent, and we are woefully behind in the collection and use of data. My hope is that this resolution will lead our next Presiding Bishop to hire a staff person to oversee the collection and use of data. We used to have that, and our church benefited greatly. But when Kirk Hadaway retired several years ago, his position was not filled and we have not published learnings from data since then. At this pivotal moment in our church’s life, we should absolutely be figuring out what works and what doesn’t. We can’t know that without data. This resolution prioritizes data collection and use. Yes, please.

 

A063 Amend Canons I.2.2 : Term of Office of the Presiding Bishop. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution deals with “issues of electing a Presiding Bishop who may not be able to serve a nine-year term before reaching the mandatory retirement age and the added wrinkle of a delayed General Convention resulting in a Presiding Bishop reaching mandatory retirement age,” to quote the explanation. One note is that this brief summary has not mentioned an important detail: the resolution also changes the start date for a newly electing Presiding Bishop from the current November 1 to a new start date of 91 days after General Convention. This is all good, both in terms of clarifying how to handle contingencies and in getting a new PB started sooner.

If 91 days after General Convention seems too fast, consider the fact that our siblings in the Anglican Church of Canada elect a primate who starts during the same convention at which they’re elected. It works for Canadians, so I think we can handle 91 days (and I wouldn’t mind if we installed our new PB and they started right at GC, but that will have to wait for a future GC).

 

A064 Amend Canon I.1.6.d Capturing Clergy Records. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution clarifies language around recording changes of status of clergy (ordinations, deaths, transfers, and so on). It also changes one instance of “men and women” to “all persons.” Clarity is good, and so is this change.

 

A066 Amend Canon V.1 to create a Custodian for the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, this resolution would create a new office in our church, the Custodian for the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. But we don’t need this. Under current rules and practices, the Secretary of the General Convention is responsible for overseeing the accuracy and publication of new editions of the constitution and canons. If the Secretary hasn’t been doing that well, then let’s deal with that. As our church shrinks, we don’t need to be creating more offices, and most certainly not when there’s already a responsible person to do said work.

Our church is already overly fixated on a sprawling system of governance with attendant spending. We have a Custodian of the BCP. Adding a Custodian of Constitution and Canons unwittingly makes it seem like the constitution and canons are as important to us as the BCP, and that’s just not true. Priorities, friends. Let’s keep our gaze fixed first offering our thanks and praise in worship — and allow our current excellent leaders and staff do the job of ordering our constitution and canons according to the changes approved by General Convention.

 

A071 Amend the Constitution and Canons Relating to Mergers of Dioceses [Of Admission of New Diocese — Second Reading]. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

I’ll let the excellent explanation here do the talking: “These amendments allow Dioceses more flexibility when planning mergers or formation of new Dioceses from Dioceses or portions of one or more Dioceses by deferring to the Canons for the details of the formation process. As the church gains more experience with this process, future changes to the process can be made at one General Convention to facilitate the formation or combination of the Dioceses rather than requiring two General Conventions to approve a change to the Constitution.” This is a canon change and the first reading of a constitution change. All seems right to me.

 

A072 Amend Article X of the Constitution of The Episcopal Church [Of the Book of Common Prayer — Second Reading]. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

As I wrote over in my comments on liturgical changes, we have too much liturgical chaos in our church. The last thing we need to do is confuse people who ask the question, “What is the Book of Common Prayer?” If passed, this constitution change would say that the BCP is the book we know and love along with some (but not all) liturgies authorized by General Convention. Clergy are held accountable for teaching the doctrine of the BCP and for obeying its rubrics. How can we hold clergy accountable if it becomes murky what, exactly, is the “Book of Common Prayer”? And then, on the face of it, there’s just the straight-up Orwellian strangeness of calling something a book when it is, in fact, not a book.

I’m not sure how to solve some of the liturgical dilemmas we face as a church, but off the top of my head, this is not it. It will create confusion. Just a quick, knee-jerk thought, but maybe we create three categories of liturgical material:

Then, if at some point, we feel that we need to add material to the BCP but it’s not ready for full-on revision, we could publish a BCP II or perhaps a BCP Supplemental with the full standing and weight of the BCP, available as an actual book and a PDF.

That’s probably not the right answer either, but at least it’s clear. We have a mess now with the current Title X of the constitution. I agree it needs to be amended. But this is not it. It will sow confusion.

If you doubt me when I say that we won’t know what’s authorized, consider the generally fantastic website episcopalcommonprayer.org. This website is run by the SCLM, and it purports to catalog all authorized liturgical material. But it’s missing some materials that are authorized, and it has materials on the site that are not authorized (though there’s usually a note to that effect). My point is not to dump on a bunch of volunteers who have put together a tremendously useful resource, but to say that it’s almost impossible even to list everything that’s authorized. If we have a squishy BCP, we’ll have no idea what’s actually in it or not. For the sake of clarity, let’s keep the Book of Common Prayer as…a book (paper and PDF), and let’s find ways to organize other liturgical material so that bishops and congregations know what’s what.

In other words, this amendment would fix one problem and create 17 more. Let’s find a solution that fixes more problems than it creates.

 

A091 Definition of doctrine. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution essentially says that if the Book of Common Prayer is amended at some point, the current version of the prayer book (as “memorialized” by General Convention in 2018) would also count as a sufficient statement of faith for purposes of determining whether clergy are teaching correct doctrine. To name the specific issues — because this came from the Task Force for Communion Across Difference — if the marriage liturgies are updated to omit reference to marriage being between one man and one woman, it would still be acceptable doctrine for clergy to teach this understanding of marriage. While I am personally in favor of including LGBTQ people fully in the sacramental life of the church, I think there’s room for our church to include people who hold both the position that marriage is between two people and those who hold the position that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

A092 Access to ordination and deployment. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution would add clarification to non-discrimination provisions in the canons. We have a couple of potential sticky wickets in the church today on the issue of clergy deployment and the issue of marriage (for example; there are others). In a “liberal” diocese, this resolution would protect the place of a clergyperson who held that marriage is a covenant between a woman and a man. In a “conservative” diocese, this resolution would protect the place of a clergyperson who held that marriage is a covenant between two people. We are saying here that disagreement on marriage need not be a church-dividing issue. Because the protections go “both ways” I hope we can all agree that this protection of conscience is good for our church. You should read the canonical language and the explanation for a full understanding of what is proposed here, as I can only summarize.

 

A093 Add provisions of 2018-B012 to canons. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Several years ago, the General Convention passed resolution 2018-B012 to give protections to congregations, clergy, couples, and individuals who hold that marriage is a covenant between two people and who reside in dioceses where the bishop holds that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. The mechanism for these protections was a General Convention resolution, without canonical support. This resolution builds the protections of that resolution into the canons. You should read the full text, but in summary, it ensures that a congregation that wanted to offer marriage liturgies for same-sex couples could do so, even if the bishop of that diocese holds a different view. The resolution required — and the canons would require — a “conservative” bishop to offer alternate oversight from another bishop whose views agree with the congregation. This allows people of varied beliefs to have a place in our church, each without denying the place of the other, and that’s a good thing in my book.

 

A103 Amend Canon III.11.8. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

There is a process outlined in our canons for electors in a diocese to file an objection after the election of a bishop. This resolution would stretch out the timeline for the initial investigation after receiving an objection from 45 to 60 days, and it also provides a mechanism for pastoral care to all parties affected by the situation.

 

A108 Proposal of Changes to Title I, Canon 17. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution changes a number of canons concerning membership in the church. The mandate seems to be “simplifying” the membership canon, but it’s not clear why we would have needed that, nor is it clear to me that this, in fact, actually simplifies membership. If passed, this resolution changes the definition of “communicant in good standing,” which is currently defined as a member who receives communion three times in a year. This long-standing category provides a statistical view into the activity level and health of a church. The canon changes do define a communicant in good standing as someone “who for the previous year have been faithful in corporate worship, unless for good cause prevented, and have been faithful in working, praying, and giving for the spread of the Kingdom of God,” but I worry that without a specific, objectively measurable definition, clergy will be reluctant to draw a line between communicants in good standing and those who are not. These changes also contemplate the creation of a category called “Associate Member”, which is someone who is “active in the life of this Church through worship, giving, and program participation, but whose official membership remains elsewhere is to be considered an Associate Member. An associate member may serve in leadership at the discretion of their local canons and bylaws.” I’m confused by this. Why would you want someone on, say, a vestry who is not a member? It’s not difficult to include people in the life of a congregation without them being members, but this definition seems to suggest that there would be no practical distinction between someone who has taken the step to be accountable as a member and those who have not. For worship, programs, and fellowship, membership doesn’t matter. But for leadership, the accountability and intentionality of membership matters. Jesus ministered to the crowds, and he had a ministry with his disciples. So should the church, but let’s be clear which is which.

This canon change also makes a change with the definition of adult member, saying that anyone confirmed is an adult member of the church. So in those dioceses where confirmation happens to, say, kids at age 12, we’re saying they’re adult members of the church. A twelve-year-old’s status as an adult member will be reflected in statistical reports about the number of children and adults in the church; and one should expect adult members to have access to leadership positions in the church such as vestry.  I’m not sure what the intention is here. Our current standard of age 16 seems to make perfect sense.

 

A148 Amend Canons to Underscore Support for the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.

If passed, this would add a canonical requirement to fund the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice with “an annual draw on one-tenth of the Church’s unrestricted trusts and endowment funds.” As I wrote elsewhere, I’m in favor of racial reparations and spending our money in support of racial healing work. My objection to this resolution are not how we spend one-tenth of the Episcopal Church’s endowment income. First, the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice was created by resolution 2022-A125 as “a voluntary association of Episcopal dioceses, parishes, organizations, and individuals.” So there’s no canonical definition of this group as an interim body with any lines of accountability. The proposed canon does require the Coalition to supply annual audited financial statements, but without the accountability of defined membership, oversight, or reporting structures, there is little the General Convention could do if the reporting were not completed.  While I don’t question the integrity of anyone doing this work, I also don’t think it’s good governance to spend this much money in an opaque, unaccountable way.

Second, I don’t think it’s a good idea to put funding requirements into canons. Instead, the General Convention or the Executive Council could set a policy. Again, it’s not that I have any objection to this money being spent. It’s just a question of order and good governance. I’m 100% willing to hear reasons for this to be a canonical imperative though.

One fix for this, and probably a good idea if this work is to continue long term, would be to create this coalition as an interim body, perhaps a Standing Commission. Then there would be an accountability and reporting structure.

 

B007 Standing Committees and Ecclesiastical Authority. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution would direct the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons to study issues of ecclesiastical authority, both for bishops who exercise this and for Standing Committees who may temporarily exercise this authority in the absence of a bishop. The explanation indicates that the chief concern here is that Standing Committees don’t have the accountability mechanisms that a bishop has (namely, the need for Standing Committee endorsement of this and that) when they are in charge. Having served on a Standing Committee who held ecclesiastical authority for a time, I can say that the situation is fraught. Studying how authority is wielded — and learning best practices and worst practices — probably a good idea. I would also add to this the requirement that we study how bishops relate to their Standing Committees. Some bishops treat the Standing Committee as a rubber stamp, and others relate to the Standing Committee as a council of advice, as envisioned in our canons. So, yes, let’s figure out what’s working and what could be better about running a diocese. Things are only going to get more challenging in years to come.

 

C016 Amend Canon III.12 to Provide for the Transfer of Bishops to Churches in Communion. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This would allow a bishop of the Episcopal Church to transfer to another church to serve, for example, another province of the Anglican Communion. At present, the only mechanism to handle this scenario is “release and removal” which basically says that this person is no longer a bishop in our eyes. The proposed new mechanism would allow an orderly transfer so that when God calls a bishop to serve elsewhere, we have an elegant way to get this done. This mirrors a similar process that was created for priests in 2015.

 

C017 Amend Canon III.7 to Provide for the Transfer of Deacons to Churches in Communion. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This does the same thing as C016 but for deacons.

 

D038 Amend Canon II.3 to Remove Copyright Restrictions from Non-English Books of Common Prayer. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

By canon and tradition, the Book of Common Prayer is in the public domain. It is our free gift to the church catholic. On a practical level, this means that congregations can make leaflets and use the texts however they like without the burden of seeking permission for each use or incurring an expense of royalties. The “mechanism of control” for the BCP is that people printing books must get a certificate from the Custodian of the BCP, so you can be assured that the book you pick up has the real stuff. (DISCLOSURE: Forward Movement, my employer, prints and sells BCPs.) The issue is that for whatever reason, our official translations — which were funded by the General Convention — of the BCP into Spanish and French are under copyright. This disadvantages Spanish-speaking and French-speaking congregations.

If a Spanish-speaking congregation wants to make a leaflet with texts from El Libro de Oración Común, they are legally bound to seek copyright permission. Failure to do so could result in civil or even criminal penalties. It’s puzzling that the translations are copyright DFMS (the corporate entity of the Episcopal Church), but permission to reproduce must be obtained from the Church Pension Group, according to the title page. In any case, this creates a substantial burden on congregations that are likely to be under-resourced financially. I’m not sure what the legal situation is of copyrighted material in other countries, nor am I aware of civil and criminal penalties for violating copyright.

The prayer book — in any language, especially when the translation has been paid for by the Episcopal Church — should be a gift to the world. It should be in the public domain. This allows free reproduction, and it frees local congregations and dioceses from onerous burdens of permission requests, which can take weeks or months for a response.

Let’s make it as easy to worship in Spanish or French as it is in English. It’s a justice and inclusion issue.

 

D045 Task Force for Reviewing Intellectual Property of the Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would create a task force to do a grab bag of various tasks:

For this work, the task force has a price tag of $30,000. This seems like an avoidable expense.

 

D049 Increase by one the possible number of bishops suffragans in a Diocese. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Right now, a diocese is allowed to elect up to two bishops suffragan (assisting bishops without right of succession). This change would increase that to three. I can’t think of any downside to letting the Diocese of Texas elect a third suffragan. Or any other diocese, but I think we’re talking about Texas. Hook ’em horns, but in a churchy way, &c., &c.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 1: Rules of Order 13 Jun 2024 6:19 PM (9 months ago)

Law and Order HOD

Today we enter the sanctum sanctorum for church nerds: the committee on rules of order. We will look at proposed changes for both the joint rules (for bishops and deputies), as well as those for the House of Deputies. If you are a bishop or a deputy, this stuff is super important. If you’re a mildly interested Episcopalian, you might want to look at other parts of Resolutionpalooza.

Some folks don’t like changes to the rules, because the old system was familiar. Like any system, it could be gamed if you knew how to do so. (And this will still be true.) But the old system relied on a blizzard of activity at convention, with 10 or more 14-hour days. People literally had to run from one room to another, and monitoring resolutions to be able to speak on them required heroic levels of organizing. The new system spreads work out over a longer time, and more of it happens online. This allows people who cannot afford to travel to General Convention for two weeks to be fully involved. And it creates a more humane schedule for bishops and deputies, which allows more fellowship time — possibly just as important as legislative time. I hope we’ll give all these changes a chance, and I expect we’ll need to do some tweaking in 2027. We can all learn together as we continue to improve how our church debates and listens, hopefully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Onward to the resolutions!

Joint Rules of Order

A068 Amend Joint Rules of Order V.1. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Back in the day, the General Convention chose trustees for the General Theological Seminary. Because of actions by General Convention and General Seminary in 2022, they choose their own trustees now. So this rule of order change simply removes this group from the list of bodies for which the Joint Standing Committee on Nominations must produce a slate of nominees.

 

A069 Amend Joint Rules of Order V.4.c to fix a rounding error in the number of nominees the Joint Standing Committee on Nominations is required to nominate. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

You should always read the explanations for resolutions. On very rare occasions you will be rewarded with wry humor. Take this resolution’s explanation as an example: “In 2022, the 80th General Convention passed Resolution A106 which lowered the number of nominees per vacancy required to be nominated by the Joint Standing Committee on Nominations. In the course of our work this triennium, the Standing Committee realized that for positions with an odd number of vacancies, nominating nominees equal to one and one-half times the number of vacancies would require nominating fractions of a person, and the Committee deemed it un-Christian to follow procedures requiring chopping people into fractions. This resolution clarifies the Joint Rules of Order and offers the Committee a procedure for nominating nominees in a non-violent manner.”

Thank you, Joint Standing Committee on Nominations, for providing some much-appreciated legislative levity.

 

D022 Create a Task Force on the Legislative Process. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

For years (decades), some of us were saying that General Convention needed to modernize how we get stuff done. There was a great deal of stiff resistance to any major evolution. That changed in 2022, when we had to change all sorts of things about General Convention due to the raging pandemic. Now there have been some changes in 2024, making this convention look like a cross between the upended convention of 2022 and other recent ones of the 21st century. This resolution seeks to create a task force to look at legislative process changes, and the budget line is $40,000. While I think we need a rigorous cycle of experimentation, feedback, and ongoing improvement, I’m not convinced a task force is going to help much. After all, the General Convention accepts any proposed rule changes; they are not imposed by outside forces.

I don’t imagine we have got everything right. My sense is that most people understood at some level that General Convention was out of step with our times, and we knew we needed to change. I don’t imagine we’ve landed in the correct spot on all things, but it’s going to take some experience to help us get this sorted. Take, for example, the meetings of legislative committees. I think many folks would agree that the “old way” of early morning and late night legislative committees at General Convention, which lasted two weeks, is not the answer. It’s exhausting for participants, and it disenfranchises any Episcopalian who can’t afford to camp out in a convention center for two weeks. Of necessity, in 2022, all legislative committees met online. That’s exhausting in a different way, and deliberating in little boxes on a screen is not the same as being in the same room. So probably we need a combination of online and in-person meetings. This convention will be the first one to try that. Let’s get through this one, debrief, and then chart a path going forward. This does not require a $40,000 committee.

 

Rules of Order / House of Deputies

A004 Amend the House of Deputies Rule of Order XV.A.3 to Conform it to Current Practice Regarding the Form of Nominations from the Floor of the House. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This just conforms some language about nominations from the floor at elections to the current practice of the house.

 

A005 Amend the House of Deputies Rules of Order by Adding a New Rule VII.F Referral to the Constitutions and Canons Legislative Committee. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This change would require that resolutions that modify the constitution or canons be referred to the legislative committee on constitution and canons. This is a very good idea. Resolution writers have good intentions, but may not understand the correct form to modify the canons, and they may not consider the unintended consequences of changes. This referral is for form only, and the committee would not speak on the substance of a resolution unless the presiding officer of the house asks for this report. So this will help us have better resolutions, which is a better use of everyone’s time.

 

A013 Amending HoD Rule of Order XIV [Recording Vote Totals in the Journal]. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution is referred from General Convention 2022. It would require that the vote tallies for standard electronic votes and votes by orders be recorded in the journal. Transparency is good, and this will not be an onerous task.

 

A149 Amending daily session schedule for House of Deputies. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This change allows the House of Deputies to vote on a consent calendar of resolutions once each session, instead of once each day. For new folks, a consent calendar is a set of resolutions that are voted on all at once, thus saving the house a lot of time. The explanation reminds us that Deputies will have access to the consent calendar for at least 24 hours, allowing time to read the contents and to work to remove items if desired.

 

A150 Amending the motion to suspend the HOD rules of order. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This change would allow debate on motions to suspend the rules except if the motion is to extend debate. As the explanation helpfully notes, “Debating on how long to debate can take an extended amount of time from the actual debate on the floor.” So, yes, let’s put this limit in place. Makes perfect sense.

 

A151 Removal from the Consent Calendar in the House of Deputies. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This is an excellent change, though some will push back against it, I’m sure. Essentially, this makes the consent calendar the default for resolutions, unless the item cannot be on the calendar for various reasons or the committee on dispatch removes it. There are some other sensible mechanisms to remove resolutions, including the provision that twenty deputies can get together and pull something off. That might seem like a big number, but it’s quite easy to find enough folks out of 800+ deputies if there’s a compelling reason. But quite often when someone wants to pull an item off the consent calendar and require debate, it’s because a person wants attention for a particular cause. That’s not an effective use of the house’s time. This change keeps things moving, while also allowing either a group of deputies or various others to remove items when needed.

 

A152 Resolution Submission Deadline in House of Deputies Rules of Order. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution concerns the deadline for submitting resolutions. The deadline for ordinary resolutions has been the second legislative day of General Convention, which, among other problems, leaves no time for decent translations into languages other than English. In an effort to allow time for translation, for voting participants to read the material, for legislative research reports, and for resolution review, the standard deadline would be set at 90 days before convention. On nearly every matter, there’s no reason to delay submitting materials, so this earlier deadline allows a more reasoned and deliberate consideration of resolutions. What about late-breaking developments, you say? Legislative committees can submit resolutions any time, as can dioceses or provinces, the PHoD, and any 20 deputies. (I’m simplifying.) Again, 20 might seem like a big number, but for important matters it will not be difficult at all to organize 2.5% of the house. These rules do NOT stifle deliberation, as some might claim. Rather, they support deliberation by allowing deputies and bishops time to read the resolutions they’re voting on. An early deadline is the only way to have translations available, so an early deadline is the inclusive choice. This also allows time for people to do background research and so on. This is a good proposal, and there are still provisions for last-minute resolutions when an urgent matter arises.

 

A153 Change to House of Deputies Debate Rules. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

In the old system, if you wanted to amend a resolution, you needed to race to a podium at just the right moment to get your amendment to the top of the queue. Debate on amendments could chew up a lot of time, and the process was generally chaotic, favoring people who could run fast or who were seated close to a podium. This new system favors transparency and orderly debate. Amendments are filed in advance and considered in the order they are received. This means deputies can review amendments in advance. These new rules keep the previous provision that during the first six minutes of debate, “no one may move to amend, substitute, or end the debate, unless no one wishes to speak on the matter.” This prevents parliamentary hijacking and allows the house to deliberate in an orderly way for a few minutes. Then amendments would be considered in the order they were submitted. No racing to the mic. No mystery. Orderly debate and discussion.

 

A154 Presubmission of Amendments in the House of Deputies. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This requires primary amendments (not amendments to amendments) to be prefiled, which allows deputies to review them in advance. It also allows translation. Once a primary amendment is on the floor, it could be subject to a “live” secondary amendment, which need not be prefiled. With this, and with all these changes, you should read the full resolution, because I am summarizing. I try to be accurate, but I can’t include all the details in these comments.

 

A155 Update the House of Deputies Rules Upon a Different Convention Schedule. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

There is a parliamentary maneuver to pull a resolution from a legislative committee directly to the floor of the house. This resolution would allow this to happen starting the second, not the fourth, legislative day. This makes sense given shorter conventions and more work done in advance.

 

A156 House of Deputies Rules of Order on Written Comments. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

I’ll quote a bit of the explanation here (there’s more), because I think it explains what’s going on with this proposal. “The introduction of written testimony allows individuals to contribute their insights even if they cannot attend the committee sessions. This inclusivity ensures that more diverse perspectives can be considered. This change also simplifies the submission of minor technical changes and grammatical corrections. By submitting them in writing, it is easier for the Committee to track such changes. In the spirit of transparency and openness, comments and feedback received will be published, providing an additional layer of accountability and visibility to the legislative process.” This allows legislative committees to be more inclusive in hearing the voices of the whole church.

 

A157 House of Deputies Rules on Legislative Committee Report Deadline. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution sets deadlines for legislative committee reports, which will ordinarily be seven days before the start of convention. I quote from the explanation: “The focus is to encourage most work to be conducted in advance, so time at convention can be focused on considering resolutions. But at the same time it allows the Committee themselves to defer consideration of a resolution to the Convention to meet in person if the Committee feels that the resolution needs and in-person hearing.” As this says, there is a provision for a committee to vote to issue their report at convention, which would allow them to meet in person to discuss a resolution when desired.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 19: Title III ministry 13 Jun 2024 4:00 AM (9 months ago)

church

Good morning! It’s always a good idea to start your day with a healthy breakfast and a big dose of…church legislation? Today’s theme in Resolutionpalooza is Title III, the ministry canons of the Episcopal Church. There’s a token nod to the baptismal ministry of all Christians in these canons, but most of Title III is about the ordination process and about the life and work of deacons, priests, and bishops. There are no proposals here about the baptismal ministry of all Christians, just some (important) stuff on religious folk and clergy.

Finish your toast, and let’s dig into the resolutions.

 

A059 Create an Official List of Recognized Religious Orders and Christian Communities. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Some Episcopalians haven’t heard that there are religious orders in our church. Nuns! Monks! If you get a chance, go visit an Episcopal monastery or convent to pray with these fantastic Episcopalians who have devoted their entire lives to prayer. There’s a process to recognize religious orders as official, and that’s run by the Standing Committee on Religious Communities of the House of Bishops. All this resolution does is ask them to keep an official list of current religious orders. Makes good sense, and I hope they post it online somewhere so we can all check them out.

 

A061 Amend the following Canons I.12.3, III.6.6.c, III.8.6.d, III.8.6.7.c, III.10.5.d, III.11.3.b, and III.11.3.c based on 2022-A039. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

One of the duties of Standing Committees is to sign off on ordinations, of deacons and priests within their diocese and of bishops in the wider church. There are rules about how this is done — specifying that it must be a majority of the committee, but the signatures can be in counterparts. This resolution simply puts the requirement in the canons that define duties of a Standing Committee so that it’s more likely they’ll find these important rules, and then it puts cross-references in all the other canons governing ordinations. Basically, this is just to make it easier for everyone to see the rules.

 

A065 Amend Canon III.1.3. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This canon just changes a line referring to people in the ordination process from “men and women” to “all persons” to be more inclusive of the gender spectrum.

 

A070 Research needs for the General Board of Examining Chaplains. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

First of all, this resolution refers to the Standing Committee on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons. It’s actually a Standing Commission. Maybe this isn’t a big deal, but it’s important for folks preparing resolutions for General Convention to take care to attend to our polity. In any case, this resolution asks the SCSGCC “to research the current level of need for the General Board of Examining Chaplains and propose adjustments to its make-up and membership to better align with that need.” While I read the explanation, I’m puzzled by the language here. As long as we have a General Ordination Exam, we need the General Board of Examining Chaplains. I don’t think there’s any serious conversation about getting rid of the GOE, though it has its haters. And if the proposers of this resolution wanted to suggest a change in the make-up of the GBEC, they could have just said that. We don’t need a study, methinks.

 

D023 Support for the Association for Episcopal Deacons. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution does a lot of commending and such of the Association for Episcopal Deacons. I’m grateful for deacons in our church, and if AED helps them in their diaconal ministry, I’m delighted. The resolution goes on to ask for $450,000 (!) “to support the infrastructure necessary for the sustainability and growth of AED.” If AED has a vital mission, they will be able to fund their ministry from…the deacons they serve? Or the congregations of their deacon members? In general, I don’t think it makes sense for the Episcopal Church to fund grassroots organizations unless it’s for a particular project that is missionally aligned between the Episcopal Church and the grassroots organization. These organizations should be able to fund basic operations from their membership dues and program income if they have a vital mission.

 

D032 Raising the Clergy Mandatory Retirement Age to 75. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

As you can guess from the title, this resolution would raise the mandatory retirement age for deacons and priests from the current 72 to 75 years of age. It’s important to note that the mandatory retirement age does NOT mean that clergy cannot work once they hit that age. It simply means they must vacate the positions they hold, and then they can continue to work after retirement with the permission of the local bishop. This frees up positions for others. It helps promote healthy turnover in the church.

We have a number of deployment and transition challenges in our church, and among the many solutions we might try, I don’t think changing the retirement age ought to be among our top priorities. Those clergy who wish to work to 75 or 80 or longer can do so. But requiring people to vacate positions allows others to grow in their work.

Photo by Louis P on Unsplash

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 18: Title IV disciplinary canons 12 Jun 2024 4:24 PM (9 months ago)

sign says "discipline"

In today’s installment of Resolutionpalooza fun, we turn to the resolutions concerning clergy discipline. These are the rules for dealing with clergy who are accused of wrongdoing of various kinds. It’s super important, because these canons need to care for victims of clergy misconduct, keep our church safe, remove or discipline clergy who violate their vows, ensure due process, and protect the rights of clergy who may be falsely accused. That’s a lot!

Our disciplinary canons (usually abbreviated in conversation as “Title IV” because that’s the section of our canons where you can find this stuff) are a hot mess. The process of clergy discipline is so complex that few understand it. At times, proceedings drag on forever, which is lousy for clergy and for those who have filed charges of misconduct. In other cases, disciplinary cases fail to follow our established processes, which is also not good either for complainants or respondents. Confidentiality restrictions are applied unevenly. Bishops rarely face the same severity of consequences for their misconduct. In sum, we have a world in which our process of handling clergy discipline is unpredictable and perhaps unfair. That’s the last thing we want.

At some point, we probably need to start from a blank sheet and devise a new set of processes. But for now, we’re trying to make the current setup a bit better, and that’s what these resolutions seek to do. Here we go!

 

A024 Limit on Confidential Settlement Agreements. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if someone can explain the thinking here.

This substitute resolution was prepared by the legislative committee. If passed, we’d add a canon that would limit confidentiality agreements that are signed as part of a disciplinary proceeding. It would prevent these agreements from prohibiting disclosure of the facts of a case. And it would allow confidentiality restrictions on disclosing financial settlements or the identity of victims. I understand and agree with restrictions on disclosing the identity of victims. But I can’t quite wrap my mind around situations in which the church would want to conceal the amount of financial settlements. It seems to me that it would be helpful for a vestry or a Standing Committee or others to know what sums are being paid out, if any. But it’s a complex area, and I may well be failing to consider this from all angles.

 

A025 Amending Canon IV.13.4. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Clergy discipline matters can be settled with an accord, which is when the respondent (who is accused of wrongdoing) reaches an agreement for some consequence with the bishop. For example, if I were accused of stealing $100, maybe my accord is to repay the money, say I’m sorry, and get therapy. This can head off a full “trial” and hasten proceedings to a speedy end. The danger comes when accords are used to sweep things under the rug. This resolution would add a provision that says if the matter has moved along to the heading stage, the whole Hearing Panel has to sign off on an accord; it can’t just be the church attorney and bishop doing the deed. This transparency is good. No rug sweeping!

 

A026 Establishing a Database for Title IV Outcomes on the Office of Transitional Ministry Profiles of Clergy. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

This resolution would establish a churchwide database of Title IV results (I’m simplifying here) on the Office of Transition Ministry website. Such a database would allow diocesan transition staff to look up the info on applicants for positions. At present, a dishonest clergyperson could fail to disclose prior Title IV matters, and a quick background check might not uncover the issue. Such a database would allow necessary people to see if a clergyperson has been involved in a Title IV proceeding.

I’m all for such a database existing, but there are three problems with this resolution. First, it fails to specify who would have access to the data. Second, it fails to specify exactly what data will be in the database. Third, it specifies that the database would live on the OTM website, which is laughably terrible right now. I don’t blame the current staff; as a church, we have not invested the resources to make it better. But security is atrociously inadequate, and we don’t want the general public to have easy access to clergy discipline information that might be contained in this database (e.g. victim names, or enough detail to figure them out).

So if we add some specificity about the database, and if we say it’s getting a new, secure home, I’m all for this.

 

A052 Amend Canon IV.2, Canon IV.4.1.d, and Canon IV.10.3 to add Restorative Covenant as a possible outcome of Conciliation. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, this adds “Restorative Covenant” as an option for concluding a Title IV proceeding. This is “an agreement between one or more Complainants and a Respondent that results from a Conciliation.” I’m just not sure how that’s different from what we already have in an Accord, which can require acts of reconciliation on the part of the respondent. We don’t need to make this process any more complex.

 

A053 Amend Canons IV.2, IV.8.1, and IV.8.5 Regarding the Role of Intake officers. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

If passed, this would limit who could serve as an Intake Officer for Title IV proceedings. The job is what it sounds like, and the resolution would say that you can’t do it if you’re on a Standing Committee or on diocesan staff in a role that could produce a conflict. Makes good sense. There are some other technical fixes here, too.

 

A054 Amend Canons IV.2, IV.11, IV.12, and IV.13 regarding the Church Attorney. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

I won’t try to summarize this one, which clarifies the role of the Church Attorney. Read the explanation. It sounds right to me.

 

A055 Amend Canons IV.2, IV.11.1, and IV.17.2.e regarding Investigators. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution cleans up language around the role of Investigators, as the explanation…explains. Sounds good to me.

 

A056 Amend Canon IV.5.4 on the Election of Members of the Court of Review. Full text. Likely vote: Yes.

Here we are fixing an ambiguity by renumbering some sections in the canons. Yes, please. More clarity is good.

 

A057 Amend Canon IV.17.6 Regarding Suspension of a Bishop. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This clarifies that bishops under administrative leave can’t exercise their office, and the Standing Committee becomes the ecclesiastical authority. And if a bishop is on leave for more than six months, they are removed from their position unless 2/3 of the Standing Committee votes to keep them. This makes good sense. There have been several cases in the last few years when bishops wouldn’t let go, and this fixes that.

 

A058 Amend Canons IV.6.8, IV.6.10, and IV.11.3 on Pastoral Response Without Disciplinary Action. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

I quote the explanation, in which we are told that the proposers “believed that the current term ‘take no action’ in the canons did not accurately describe a pastoral response. This proposed resolution adds language to clarify this distinction.” I’m glad we’re fixing this stuff, though one wonders how we ended up with this mess in the first place.

 

A104 Amend Canon IV.6.9. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This canon sets an overall time limit on Title IV proceedings of 15 months (which still seems too long to me, but maybe this stuff really takes that long) and tries to keep things moving. A speedy resolution to a Title IV proceeding is in everyone’s best interest.

 

A105 Amend Canon IV.5.4.g. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Here we are fixing a cut-and-paste error in the canons about the Court of Review that didn’t quite do the trick. Some extraneous language is removed. I’m all in favor of cleaning up canons, and maybe we should be more careful cutting and pasting in the future, OK?

 

A106 Amend Canon IV.15.5.a. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution clarifies some language that applies if a respondent (accused person) refuses to participate in a proceeding but later wishes to appeal.

 

A107 Amend Canon IV.19.12. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Accused persons are entitled to legal counsel, and if that counsel withdraws during the proceeding, it can create a hardship for the person accused. In secular law, an attorney abandoning a client faces professional consequences or worse. This change would prohibit future church representation by an attorney who abandoned a client, the stiffest penalty available to the church.

 

A139 Amend Canon IV.6.4 -Intake Timeline. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

I quote the explanation in its entirety: “It takes a lot of bravery for an Injured Person or Complainant to make a report against a member of the clergy. The silence that follows that report can be deafening. Currently, there is no time limit on the initial intake, which means that silence can last indefinitely and cause undue hardship on the brave soul that made the complaint. This amendment requires that initial intake be completed within 45 days.” Yes.

 

A140 Amend Canon IV.6.8 – Reference Panel. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

The canons currently say that a reference panel shall meet “as soon as possible” after receiving an intake report. As the explanation notes, “as soon as possible” means different things to different people. This change sets a 30-day limit.

 

A141 Amend Canon IV.6.9 – Monthly Reports. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

An excellent explanation here, which I quote: “A hallmark of the Title IV process is an appropriate pastoral response for all involved, and the key to good pastoral care is clear communication. When communication breaks down, it is often the case that both the Complainant and the Respondent feel isolated and become fearful to follow up. This amendment makes clear the remedy both parties have should communication breakdown.”

 

A142 Amend Canon IV.6.7 – copy of notice. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Another helpful explanation. “It takes a lot of bravery for an Injured person or Complainant to make a report against a member of the clergy. The silence that follows that report can be deafening. This amendment requires that the Complainant or others who have provided information to the Intake Officer be informed of the Intake Officer’s decision to send a matter to the Reference Panel at the same time that the Subject Member of the Clergy is informed.”

 

A143 Amend IV.17.3.b and IV.17.5 – Disciplinary Board for Bishops. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution adjusts the membership ratios of bishops/laity/other clergy in the disciplinary board for bishops and the conference panel.

 

A146 Study of Lay Discipline for Elected and Appointed Offices. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution asks the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons to study what canonical changes might be made to enable the removal of lay people from church bodies in the event of misconduct. Clergy members of these bodies are already subject to Title IV, but lay people are not. This would allow, for example, a process to remove a layperson from Executive Council if that person harrassed another member of the council.

 

A147 Referring Lay Disciplinary Canon Issue to Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This is similar to the previous resolution (not sure why there are two?) in referring the matter of lay discipline to the SCSGC so they can report back to the next General Convention with possible canon changes to enable the removal of lay people from church committees if the lay people commit clear offenses.

 

D015 Examine the disparity in treatment in the adjudication of Clergy under Title IV Disciplinary Process by Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution asks the Office of Pastoral Development to track “statistics of the Racial, Ethnic, Gender and Sexual Orientation of men and women” of those who have been the subject of a Title IV proceeding. Then it also asks various entities to retroactively gather this data from 1996-2024. The intent is to determine if there are biases in the system that lead to different outcomes based on demographics. This sounds like good data to have. I’m not sure if the OPD is the right entity to track stats now, and I’m not sure we actually have the data this resolution wants all the way back to 1996. The resolution asks for an annual statistical report to be published, but it does not say what will be done with the legacy data. So if we can make sure we have the data, and if a clear purpose for the data can be found, this is good. And, of course, some entity should review the data to see if we need to take action to correct any biases that are discovered.

 

D025 Amend Canon IV.6 regarding Intake Officers. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution proposes the creation of a churchwide Intake Officer position as an optional alternative to a person making a complaint locally. The reasons cited in the explanation as that a resource-poor diocese may need this assistance, and there may be situations in which a local Intake Officer has a potential conflict of interest with a proceeding. This is perhaps a good idea, and I have wondered if we should move all of Title IV to a churchwide structure. But in this case, I would have two concerns. First, is this too much of a burden to be placed on a volunteer? I don’t know what the volume of work would be. Second, I think a person serving in this role for the whole Episcopal Church would need, at a minimum, to speak English, Spanish, Chinese, and other languages. Unless someone has sorted through all these details, I don’t think this idea is ready to launch quite yet.

 

D040 Amend Canon IV.13.13 to Provide for Notice of Dismissal. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

When a Title IV investigation is begun, if the matter is referred to a Hearing Panel, it becomes public — perhaps shared on a diocesan website and with church media and so on. This resolution asks that if a matter is dismissed after that, the same level of sharing takes place. This makes sense. I know of one priest who was accused of a serious lapse, and the matter was quite public. When he was later exonerated, there was no public notice. So let’s even things out.

 

D052 Amend Canon IV.10.3. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution creates an option to move things along in the opening stages of a Title IV proceeding. It would be too tedious to run through here, but you can read the explanation. I couldn’t think of a downside to a speedier path when it can help reach a resolution quickly, which is better for everyone involved.

 

D053 Amend Title IV to require timely appointments to church-wide disciplinary boards. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

When there are vacancies on the Disciplinary Board for Bishops or the Court of Review, this resolution would change our canons to require the Presiding Bishop (who appoints bishops) or the President of the House of Deputies (who appoints other clergy and lay people) to fill the vacancy within 60 days. Seems like a reasonable timeframe.

Image from flickr user lbai.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 17: Accessibility & inclusion 11 Jun 2024 6:12 PM (9 months ago)

poster says "you belong"

Resolutionpalooza continues with a bonus post today, this one on the committee addressing resolutions about accessibility and inclusion. Here we go!

 

A050 Publishing and Sharing Resources for Disability Access and Inclusion. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution’s explanation, ironically, includes documents for which no Spanish translation is accessible.

The resolution would  “direct the Episcopal Church Center to publicize, through the Episcopal Church website and by other appropriate means, to dioceses, congregations, and Christian Formation leaders, a Best Practices Guide for voluntary means of creating an accessible Church and a disability sensitivity and awareness training for all to use as resources in furtherance of an accessible Church.” A big problem here is that the Best Practices Guide that is mentioned is not included among the documents of the resolution, which makes it out of order for consideration. Aside from that, we don’t need a General Convention resolution to post a document on the Episcopal Church website. The resolution also does some recognizing and the like.

 

A133 Establishing a Taskforce for the Study of Fair Hiring Policies within The Episcopal Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution calls for the creation of a task force “to conduct a comprehensive study and analysis of existing hiring practices, identify areas for improvement, and propose recommendations for implementing fair hiring policies across all levels of the Church’s structure.” In my experience in the church, hiring policies are all over the place, and the church often does a lousy job of this. I have a friend who has been asked inappropriate questions about her plans and intentions as a parent almost every interview she’s ever had in the church, to name one example. So for a number of reasons, I think we aren’t doing great at hiring people in a fair and just way. If we are up for a serious study, the data — and the resulting policy changes — could be helpful. However, this resolution asks for only $75,000, which won’t scratch the amount necessary to do this well? Why? Because the Episcopal Church is mostly tiny congregations, and if we want them included in the survey, a team of people is going to have to try multiple phone calls and emails to get responses. If we aren’t up for doing this well, it’s not worth doing. Someone who is schooled in professional survey design could provide a more accurate budget and timeline. Once we have that, let’s do it!

 

A144 Review the Application of Canons I.17.5 and III.1.2. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

In its entirety, this resolution seeks the continuation of a task force “to review the application of Canons I.17.5 and III.1.2 across the Episcopal Church, particularly regarding marital status and family status, and additionally to study all churchwide and diocesan disciplinary canons and procedures affecting clergy and laity who disclose how they are forming family and household structures that seek to be holy, faithful and lifegiving.” The referenced canons are those that say, “No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, governance, or employment of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital or family status (including pregnancy or child care plans), sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons.” (Read the explanation for the other canon, and for more background.)

But the rub is in the details. It’s fair, I think, for bishops to hold those in holy orders to the teaching of our church on a number of fronts. As a priest in the church, I am accepting limits on my freedoms, including how I spend my money, how I organize my household, and what sort of ethics I apply in daily living. It does not seem unreasonable to me for a bishop to require those in holy orders to be married when they live in a family/sexual/partner relationship with another. Some will have different views on this, of course.

For me to support this resolution, I’d need to know more about what has happened to provoke it. If a bishop was arbitrary or capricious, that bishop should absolutely be held accountable. It seems there must be more here than meets the eye, and I don’t think it’s good practice for General Convention to legislate when there’s an invisible elephant in the room.

 

A145 Urging Pastoral Compassion and Discretion for Clergy and Laity Who Disclose Diverse Family and Household Structures. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

See commentary on A144. I think I’d want to understand what we’re talking about here, since it seems that the resolution is about something that is itself not named here. This isn’t good legislative practice. Clarity is kindness.

 

C010 Access to Prison Ministries. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The explanation of this resolution includes links to documents for which no Spanish translation is provided.

After some affirmation of the goodness of prison ministry, this resolution would “urge any prison ministry program in which members of The Episcopal Church volunteer hold policies consistent with our spiritual teachings and stated policies, asking such programs to change their policies if they conflict with our nondiscrimination canons.” So we can’t take part in prison ministries if we don’t agree with the teachings of the other body. The prohibition here is broad, though the explanation cites anti-LGBTQIA+ policies as a key driver. I would prefer to work with folks who affirm the place of LGBTQIA+ folks in the church. But I can’t help but wonder why we need to say we can’t work with folks with whom we do not agree on this or any issue. If an organization asks for participants to sign something they can’t sign, then surely individuals can decide that. But I’m confused about why we’d do this at the widest organizational level.

Suppose, for example, that a progressive church would say they can’t work with the Episcopal Church because we pay our ordained men more than our ordained women, proving we are sexist. (We are sexist, and I hope we repent of it!) Or suppose someone says, “I looked at your legislative materials, and you rarely provide materials in Spanish for your Spanish-speaking voters, so you don’t value them.” The point is, the Episcopal Church has its own ethical and theological lapses of various kinds. I’d hope people could be gracious with us and work with us despite our many failings. And I hope we could be gracious to others. How do people change except in relationship, and how can we have relationship if we cut people off? To put it another way, Jesus pursued a “dine with tax collectors and sinners” strategy and it seemed to work pretty well. Perhaps we should do the same.

And, yes, we should stand up for our values. And, no, we should never require any Episcopalian to violate their conscience.

P.S. Just last weekend, I was preaching in California. I mentioned in the adult forum that Forward Movement donates almost 100,000 copies of Forward Day by Day every year to prison ministries and to those who are incarcerated. In response, a person at this church told me how his work with Kairos Prison Ministries International had been transformational. I’m sure this isn’t universal, but I’d hate to cut off the possibility. Let’s let individuals make an autonomous choice — and congregations can do their own ministries directly, of course. If you want some copies of Forward Day by Day or Adelante dìa a dìa, let us know.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 16: Safety, wellness & mental health 11 Jun 2024 11:11 AM (9 months ago)

tiles that say "stay safe"

Sweet sixteen! Resolutionpalooza continues today with a look at all the resolutions heading to committee 16 on safety, wellness, and mental health. The name of this committee causes me to want to write a resolution making it a Title IV offense to omit the Oxford comma, but I digress.

The resolutions here primarily deal with issues of mental health, which is a super important issue. In the US, mental health care is not as accessible as it should be. I’m not sure what services and care are available outside the US to Episcopalians. So we have a serious challenge to society and to the church. I’m just not sure that resolutions are a useful fix in most cases. With that said, on to the resolutions.

 

A019 Create a Task Force on Senior Wellness and Positive Aging. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, this resolution (referred from the 2022 General Convention) seeks to create a task force to “identify the major challenges to positive aging” and “communicate with congregations, dioceses, and provinces to collect information about their approaches to these challenges” among other things, including encouragement of advocacy by the Office of Government Relations. These are fine tasks, but I’m not sure we need to create a task force to get this done. People who are passionate about these issues could simply get together and do these things. That said, if folks on the legislative committee have done their homework and think such a task force could be useful, I’d believe them. We are an aging denomination, so it makes sense to address issues of aging.

 

A023 Authorize and Support the use of the Best Practices Guide and Model Anti-Harassment Policy. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

The pragmatically named Interim Body to Oversee the Continuing Development of Anti-Harassment Best Practices, Model Policy Examples and Varied Training Materials has developed a model policy on the prevention of harassment. We have plenty of work to do on this front, as I hear story after story of people (usually women or LGBTQ folks, but not always) being harassed in churches, whether as employees or parishioners. The church should be a safe place! So here we would adopt this model policy and encourage its use at all levels. So far, so good. When things start to get murky with this resolution is its idea that the Episcopal Church website will somehow curate feedback from people using the policy, and Episcopal entities will report (to whom?) on a regular basis. There is a request for $75,000 for this website, and I can’t tell of that’s $74,900 more than we need or hundreds of thousands of dollars short, because it’s not clear to me what exactly this website will do and why. So at a minimum, let’s adopt the new model policy and encourage its use. Perhaps it would be best to stop there, and then if we see a need for some kind of formal feedback loop, we can build something starting with the next General Convention.

 

A074 Completing Mental Health Ministry Curriculum for Clergy. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution is an example of the unhealth of our church, in that we should have been able to complete the work envisioned here without involving 1,000 bishops and deputies. But since we’ve started, it makes sense to finish up a curriculum to train clergy “in ministering to persons and families experiencing mental health challenges in the church.” The sum requested is modest at just $14,000, and the curriculum will be useful for new clergy and for clergy continuing education.

 

A075 A Directive for Clergy Mental Health Ministry Training. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The explanation of this resolution contains links to resources for which no Spanish translation is provided.

I see that the legislative committee has recommended the adoption of this resolution, which is puzzling to me since it refers to documents that have not been provided and is therefore out of order. We cannot approve a thing without seeing it, and that thing is a curriculum (referenced correctly in A074, I think, but the curriculum isn’t finished yet). Moreover, this resolution tells the President of the House of Deputies to find someone to do the work of figuring out how to require training for postulants and new clergy, but we already know how to do that: put the requirements in the canons. The intentions are good here, but this is neither an effective plan nor an appropriate resolution for us to consider. If amended, this might work. Perhaps the vbinder doesn’t show the perfected version of the resolution. If they’ve fixed it, great! If not, hard pass.

 

A076 Strengthening of Churchwide Training in Mental Health First Aid. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution, if passed, seeks to provide training in Mental Health First Aid to Episcopalians, both lay and clergy. Note that Mental Health First Aid is not a generic term, but a specific curriculum offered by the National Council for Mental Wellbeing. It appears that the program is available in languages other than English, including Spanish. I’m not totally sure why we need an Episcopal version of this, rather than just sending people for training, but maybe there’s a good reason. In any case, my math says the resolution seeks $314,000 to do this work. Perhaps that’s a good investment, but if we’re going to start training clergy and lay leaders on the provision of first aid, but it would make sense to prioritize first aid and CPR. And if it would be good to be realistic about how many clergy will take part; it’s hard enough to get clergy to do the canonically required trainings they now must complete. Adding an optional one may not yield the numbers suggested by this resolution.

I’d be in favor of our church encouraging clergy and lay leaders to take this training program. I’m not sure an expensive, complicated program is going to pay the dividends the proposers envision.

 

A078 Promote Equity and to Reduce Differences in Mental Health Outcomes. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution encourages, urges, calls upon, charges, transmits, recognizes, and refers. If nothing else, I admire their diversity of verbs! Essentially we’re expressing a lot of feelings about mental health and then telling the OGR to advocate accordingly. While I see that the committee has recommended adoption, this resolution will not change much on the ground.

 

A079 Mental Health Sunday. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, the General Convention would designate “as Mental Health Awareness Sunday the Sunday closest to October 10th, which is World Mental Health Day.” Your mileage may vary, but I don’t love theme Sundays. Our church follows a liturgical year which beautifully and deliberately takes us through a cycle of readings and celebrations to point us always to the Paschal Mystery, the gift of God’s love for us in the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. I just don’t love looking away from the most important things. But some congregations seems to love these kinds of themed celebrations, so clearly there are a variety of views. The committee has recommended adoption, so I’m probably blowing into the wind anyway.

 

A082 Support the Episcopal Veterans Network. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The Standing Commission on World Mission is launching an Episcopal Veterans Network. This resolution seeks to commend that work and to fund a part-time coordinator staff position for $90,000. I think a network of veterans sounds like a good idea, but I generally don’t think the Episcopal Church should fund grassroots networks and organizations, unless it is for a very specific project that fits into a churchwide strategy. I’d like to see the EVN raise its own funds, just as other networks and organizations do. But I wish them well in their work.

 

A089 Address Violence Against Women and Girls. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Violence against women and girls is a grave problem around the world. And I think there are concrete steps Episcopalians can take to call attention to this violence and to reduce it. This resolution identifies a couple of resources, one coming from the Anglican Communion Office and one from the United Nations. Thank you, proposers, for providing both documents in Spanish and English. In any case, the resolution tells people to something and suggests these resources. We should already be doing something, and there are staff folks and existing networks who can lift up this work and these resources. This is yet another example of General Convention not needing to do a thing for a thing to happen.

 

C030 A Resolution to Create Safe Spaces. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I see that the committee has recommended this resolution for adoption, which is surprising to me, unless they have a perfected version of the resolution that is not available for us to see yet. As presented here, this resolution is entirely out of order. It asks us to commend “Safe Church” but no links or documents are provided so we know what we are commending. The second resolve reads, “permission is granted to dioceses to authorize different resources, training products, and methods of delivery that meet the needs of dioceses, congregations, and diocesan institution.” Different resources for what? Which training products? I think they are talking about allowing congregations and other organizations to use varied curricula in the training for the prevention of sexual misconduct, but none of that is specified in the resolution. It’s just not clear what we are signing off on. Clarity is good. Ambiguity is not our friend when it comes to resolutions.

 

D031 Addressing the Ongoing Harm of Coercive and Abusive Christian Ministries. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution, also recommended for adoption by the committee, is puzzling. It laments “the historic and ongoing prevalence of coercion and abuse within Christian social ministries, with particular acknowledgement of how participation in religious services has been a prerequisite for the receipt of social support, how evangelizing publications have been packaged with material support, and how support has been denied to individuals whose relationships do not conform to Church-dictated structures.” OK, abuse is bad. The next resolve asks the Episcopal Church to repent of our own sins, but the first resolve seems to be taking aim at the stick in another’s eye while we have our own log to deal with. And while I agree that some Christians have sinfully tied coercive practice to the provision of support, I also don’t think it’s a sin to tell someone about Jesus when you help them. In fact, I think the greatest gift we can give anyone is a knowledge of the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ. By all means, coercion has no place in the Gospel. This resolution appears to me to paint with a broad brush, and I’m just not sure who the target is. If the concern is Episcopalians doing this, it would be helpful to say that.

Photo by Nelly Antoniadou on Unsplash

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 15: Environmental stewardship & care of creation 10 Jun 2024 3:24 PM (9 months ago)

creation care

I believe climate change and environmental degradation constitute the greatest threat to human well-being, so environmental stewardship and care of creation is definitely something the church should be paying attention to! We should lead the way as a model of ethical behavior. We should speak in the public square. And yet, we have not yet made this a priority. The resolutions headed to committee 15 address these vital topics.

As I’ve said many times, I’m not enamored of resolutions that merely express wishes or hopes. Let’s do something, shall we? I’d like to see a firm, binding commitment for all church organizations to be carbon neutral by 2030 or sooner. This will need to be a canon. Anything else is just talk.

On to the resolutions.

 

A021 Create a Care of Creation Loan Program for Episcopal Dioceses. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended — and if the referenced document is provided in a professional Spanish translation to Spanish-speaking deputies and bishops prior to a vote.

This resolution references a document for which no translation is provided in Spanish, and so it should probably be ruled out of order.

If passed, this resolution would set aside $3 million of Episcopal Church funds to create a “loan program for dioceses to utilize as a funding resource for primarily capital projects to advance the goal of bringing the Church into carbon net zero compliance by 2030.” This is a good use of funds, and if a low interest rate is charged, the money can support capital projects at the congregational and diocesan level, while diversifying Episcopal Church asset investments. My primary quibble with this resolution is that it asks a bunch of volunteers (Economic Justice Loan Committee) to oversee the loans. That’s unreasonable. Let’s give this work to an Episcopal Church staffer, and if we need to hire someone for the task, so be it. And before we vote on this, we need our Spanish-speaking siblings to have the same information as English speakers. It’s one thing when the explanation isn’t fully available in Spanish, but it is entirely unacceptable to not have a core document mentioned in a resolution available in Spanish.

 

A022 Support the Anglican Communion Forest Initiative. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution is out of order, because it refers to a document that is not provided.

This resolution says that we like a resolution passed at the Anglican Consultative Council. This would be hard to pull off, because the resolution is not provided. We simply can’t endorse a thing we haven’t seen. It seems that the resolution concerns something called the Anglican Communion Forest Initiative, about which no information is provided — and there is no explanation for this resolution. Even if we knew what this thing is, the resolution merely affirms and commends things.

 

A084 Join The Communion Forest Initiative. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution, like the previous one, asks the General Convention to endorse a resolution passed by the Anglican Consultative Council, but the resolution is not provided. So this resolution is also out of order. Even if the resolution were provided and it were fantastic, the resolution merely commends and affirms. If the Anglican Forest Initiative is important, let’s concretely join in the work — once we all know what it is.

 

A098 Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution is also out of order, because it asks General Convention to approve something called the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, but this document is not provided. Even if it were provided, the resolution merely encourages, acknowledges, and reiterates, while asking for $40,000 to update a website. That’s a hard no.

P.S. For $40,000 I will offer a webinar to resolution-writers to teach the techniques of useful resolution writing, focusing heavily on the provision of referenced documents.

 

A099 Task Force for Indigenous Justice To Increase Advocacy Groups Reflecting Creation Care and Environmental Justice Ministries. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, this resolution would create a task force that “will work to promote the recognition of sovereignty for Indigenous People in the negotiations of the United Nations climate summits (the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the COPs).” For this work, the resolution requests $30,000. While I am entirely in support of indigenous people in every nation achieving sovereignty if that is their wish, it’s not clear to me from the included explanation or from the resolution what a task force like this would do within our church to bring this about. A group of interested persons could collect and share resources without the red tape of a task force.

 

B002 Build Eco-Region Creation Networks for Crucial Impact. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution asks for $150,000 to create “Eco-Region Creation Networks.” These would be regional groups of dioceses, based on shared ecosystems or watersheds, and these networks would “link people, projects and properties dedicated to nature-based solutions to slow climate change through preserving and restoring plant communities appropriate to their bioregion; modeling transformative agriculture and food systems; and tackling issues of water quality and supply.” If bishops want to get together with nearby dioceses and do this work, I encourage them to start today! There’s no need for General Convention to authorize collaboration and conversation. A six-figure budget line isn’t necessary for zoom meetings or even some small regional gatherings, nor is it enough to build transformational agriculture systems or to tackle issues of water quality. So I think this work could be fruitful, but it does not need to depend on action of the General Convention. As I’ve said before, you can just do a thing!

 

B005 Bold Churchwide Action toward Net Carbon Neutrality by 2030. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

As written this resolution claims to be “bold” in moving our church toward net carbon neutrality by 2030. As I said above, I’m all for this. The resolution creates several networks to talk about this work, but there is no accountability for getting the work done. The one and only sure way to make sure we have net carbon neutrality in 2030 is to require it canonically. We currently require Episcopal organizations (Canon I.7.1) to be insured, to have an annual audit, and to follow standard business methods, among other things. It’s not a stretch to require organizations to be net carbon neutral by January 1, 2030. If we just encourage, commend, affirm, and create committees, this won’t get done. So if we’re going to spend the $240,000 this resolution imagines, let’s make sure we actually do something. If vestries and diocesan conventions know that a canonical deadline is looming, they’ll get serious.

 

C029 Supporting a Clean Energy Future. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would have the General Convention endorse “the use of carbon-free nuclear energy for replacing the use of fossil fuel, which, when achieved, will reduce pollution of the environment, reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and increase the reliability and resilience of the power grid year-round and during extreme weather events.” I agree with all this. But endorsing something does nothing to change the reality on the ground. So what could we do? We could commit to buying electricity generated from nuclear power in areas where that option is available. Or something. But this is another resolution endorsing but failing to act.

 

D029 Commit to the 30×30 Initiative for Biodiversity. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution includes documents for which no translation is provided in Spanish. And the resolution appears to ask us to adopt a document that is not provided.

This also appears to be another resolution that asks the General Convention to, in this case, adopt a report that is not provided. The resolution refers to something called the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, but the only document that is provided relevant to this appears to be one called Preparations for the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework. But that is not the framework, right? The burden for untangling all this cannot be on deputies and bishops. The proposers needed to provide documents or clear guidance on where to find them in the included materials (provided in English only). Aside from that, the resolution has General Convention “directing” dioceses and provinces to take action, which is both ineffective and outside the bounds of the General Convention’s authority. The way to make dioceses do something is to put it in a canon.

 

D030 Create a Task Force in Imagining a Church Grounded in Creation Healing as Christian Ministry. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

After affirming some teaching about creation care and repentance (which I agree with), the resolution calls upon every church and diocese “to ground every planning or business meeting or convention with prayers inviting an examination of conscience regarding the specific impact of the decisions of such meetings upon our kindred creatures who are dispossessed, deprived, and disregarded, and to provide and model forms for such examination of conscience”. While it’s a lovely sentiment, it’s entirely unrealistic to think that every single meeting is going to do this. Let’s set realistic goals and then include some accountability. Change happens one step at a time, so let’s set an achievable goal and then make sure we do it. Passing pie-in-the-sky resolutions won’t change reality, and change is what we need.

The resolution also seeks to create a task force to the tune of $60,000 primarily to “consider what the church must look like if we put our vocation to love all our neighbors and to be repairers of the breach at the center of our work.” Well, yes. But Jesus already told us to do that, and if we aren’t listening to our Lord, we’re not going to listen to a task force.

 

D050 Resolution to Complete the Journey to Net Carbon Neutrality by 2030. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Documents are referenced in the explanation for which no Spanish translation is provided.

There is some real energy toward pushing our church to be net carbon neutral by 2030. I’m 100% in favor of this, but none of the resolutions we’ve seen do the one thing that’s going to make it happen: require net carbon neutrality in the canons. This version of the resolution directs dioceses and congregations to get to work. Great! But without teeth, nothing much will happen. The resolution also asks for $225,000 for staffing to develop and manage a “resource hub” online in support of this work. I’m not sure what they imagine, but I think interested persons could start building a website right now without waiting for the blessing of General Convention.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 14: Ecumenical & interreligious relations 10 Jun 2024 4:00 AM (9 months ago)

AI image of painting of churches with a sunset in the background

Resolutionpalooza continues with the resolutions heading to the committee on ecumenical and interreligious relations. Jesus prayed that we in the church might all be one, but his vision remains sadly out of reach. Still, we who labor together in the vineyard can and should find ways to worship, to serve, and to grow together.

For a long time, much of our energy has been on denomination-to-denomination talks. These are important, and I’m glad for them to continue. But I’m heartened by recent trends to find ways to work together at the congregational level across denominational lines. There are lots of small towns with tiny churches that could be stronger together. My view is that rather than negotiating cosmic agreements at the denominational level, perhaps we could find ways to be flexible to allow local cooperation and even shared ministries. I think we can do this in ways that honor and respect our polity while recognizing the urgent opportunities for Gospel work with our siblings in other denominations. There are some proposals on this front coming to this General Convention, but they’re in another committee. Stay tuned to 7WD!

For now, let’s look at these resolutions on both ecumenical and interfaith relations.

 

A009 Accepting the agreement “Sharing the Gifts of Communion” between The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria. Full text. Likely vote: NO, because there is a newer version of this resolution.

This version of the resolution was referred from the 2022 General Convention. It has been updated with a newer, revised version (see below). That is the one to approve.

 

A037 Accepting the agreement “Sharing the Gifts of Communion” between The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

The Episcopal Church is present in many nations, including Germany. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria is among the member churches of the Protestant Church in Germany. This resolution proposes a full-communion partnership similar to the relationship we have with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Presumably, this will strengthen our mission and the mission of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria where our geographies overlap. I trust that the various folks who have held the conversations necessary to get to this point have done all their homework. If we can bring increased unity to the church catholic, I’m all for it.

Oh, and kudos to the proposers for offering the key documents in English and Spanish.

 

A038 Practical Guidance for Interreligious Relations. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

In a pluralistic world, it is essential that our church learn to have conversations with our neighbors of other faiths. This resolution adopts, as official, a set of guidelines for interfaith conversations. These will be helpful in many situations. If a local church has a relationship with a nearby mosque, shrine, or temple, these guidelines could be used to help clergy and lay leaders engage respectfully and productively. The guidelines offer basic teachings about the distinctives of the Episcopal Church, along with some suggestions for how to engage in conversation. They are written clearly and accessibly. Kudos.

 

A039 Practical Guidance for Episcopal-Jewish Relations. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution establishes guidelines to aid conversations between Episcopalians and Jews similar to the more generic interfaith guidelines of A038. Given the history of Christian anti-Jewish violence, and the present-day challenges of the situation in Israel/Palestine, it is important to have deep and loving conversations with our Jewish neighbors.

I was especially grateful for the note about why it’s actually unhelpful for Christians to call the Old Testament the “Hebrew Bible.” I wish we also had some notes in here about our prayer book’s unfortunate use of the Tetragrammaton, and perhaps we could have offered some teaching on how not to be anti-Jewish when advocating for peace in the Holy Land. But what is here is a great basis for instruction and conversation.

While I have your attention: Christians, before you condemn Israel, get to know some Jews. Learn their story. Hear their perspective. And, yes, by all means, urge peace with justice. We all need to hear that, all of us.

 

A040 Practical Guidance for Christian-Muslim Relations. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Again, the principle here is similar to the interfaith guidelines of A038 but specific to Islam. Given world events — and local context — it’s critical for Christians to learn about Islam and to learn to love our Muslim neighbors. These guidelines offer clear teaching and practical guidance.

 

A042 Commend PCUSA-TEC Dialogue. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

For some time, conversations have been underway between the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church USA working toward the potential of full communion or at least closer cooperation. This resolution authorizes continued conversation. I can’t think of a single reason not to keep talking with our Presbyterian siblings.

Personally, as I wrote in the introduction to this post, I’m not super excited about denomination-level negotiations, but I’m glad for others to carry the flag and do the work. In the case of Presbyterians in particular, I think there are significant differences in ecclesiology, sacramental theology, and basic doctrine. But maybe this will help us Episcopalians recover a bit of the Reformed theology that was more present in the origins of modern Anglicanism. (Read the 39 Articles if you don’t believe me that Reformed Anglican theology is/was a thing.) I mention all this because it’s easy to think of reasons NOT to have conversations fostering unity, but that’s the wrong perspective. Much better to try to find common ground and to work across our identified differences. No need to deride others for their different perspectives; let’s talk precisely because of those differences.

 

A048 Adoption of the Proposal for the Exchangeability of the Diaconate in The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have had a full communion relationship for decades. This included mutual recognition of each others bishops and presbyters. However, the ELCA had a diaconate that included commissioned lay leaders (without an ordination). Recently, the ELCA changed its polity toward a threefold order of ministry, bringing their practice of the diaconate closer to what the Episcopal Church and other churches with threefold ministry have taught and practiced. Therefore, this agreement allows for the mutual recognition of ELCA and Episcopal deacons. Makes good sense to me.

 

A049 Affirming the Goal of Full Communion between The Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

As you’ll know if you’ve been reading Resolutionpalooza for long, I’m not a fan of resolutions that merely affirm, commend, or condemn things. But most rules have an exception, and this resolution is an exception. For more than a decade, we’ve been in conversation with our United Methodist siblings about the possibility of a full communion relationship. Given the fact that both the UMC and the Episcopal Church are children of the Church of England, it makes good sense that we might be able to reach a full communion relationship. Our friends in the Methodist church have had a rough patch with denominational quarrels and schisms, much as the Episcopal Church did 20 or so years ago. This resolution extends a hand of friendship and says that we are still eager to have conversation and that we still share the goal of full communion. This resolution is both a gesture of kindness and an act of hope, and it is completely in line with what we’ve already said. So, rarely, I affirm this affirmy resolution.

 

A159 Affirm the Continuation of Ecumenical Dialogues and Membership in Ecumenical/Interfaith Organizations. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Now I’m back to wanting to reject an affirmy resolution. This one affirms our conversation with Presbyterians and Methodists — which we’ve already done with A042 and A049 — and adds the Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue, but I don’t think there’s danger of that longstanding conversation ending. This resolution also says we should stay in the National Council of Churches and other ecumenical groups, but I can’t think of a reason why our continued participation would be in question. So this resolution is an example of doing a thing that does not need to be done — and it undermines our polity by suggesting that previous resolutions somehow wear out and need to be reaffirmed. Let’s let our earlier resolutions stand, and by all means, let’s continue our ecumenical work.

The illustration was generated by Adobe Firefly.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 13: Stewardship & socially responsible investing 9 Jun 2024 5:40 PM (9 months ago)

money and with plant growing from it

Today’s daily office lectionary contains this zinger from the Gospel according to St. Luke: “…provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” It’s a timely reminder as the General Convention talks about financial matters, whether it’s our budget or where we invest our money. These resolutions all concern investing. Alas, there were no resolutions about stewardship more broadly, but perhaps that’s because it’s something we do rather than legislate.

In any case, many of these resolutions deal with ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) investing, sometimes called ethical investing. I’m a huge fan. I’m proud to say that Forward Movement moved its entire portfolio into ESG investments a few years ago. Our outside advisors tell us that our returns have been near what they would have been had we not done this. But even if ethical investing had a financial cost, it’s the right thing to do. As a church, we should not desire ill-gotten gains, and we should seek for our money to do good. On a personal note, during the pandemic, I moved all of my personal investments into ESG stocks & bonds. I want to retire with a clean conscience, and I want my money to do good.

I mention all this because the Episcopal Church has been strangely reluctant to move our money into ESG investments. Frankly, I don’t understand why this is even a question. I’d also like to see the General Convention direct the Church Pension Fund to move all of its funds into ESG investments. We have considerable wealth in the Episcopal Church. If we look at our where heart is right now based on where our treasure is, it’s not great.

So let’s move our hearts into God’s kingdom by moving our treasure there. On to the resolutions.

 

A028 Support for Freedom to Consider Ethical Issues in Investing. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

This resolution variously reaffirms, affirms, laments, and encourages but actually does very little. Instead of saying ESG is good, it would be better to direct that we move funds. Passing a resolution like this might make some feel better, but it will change nothing.

 

A029 Divest from Fossil Fuels. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution also expresses and encourages, but it has tangible actions, too: in that it directs “that any and all investments in companies in fossil fuel industries remaining in the DFMS portfolio be sold by December 31, 2024.” Yes, please. Let’s not profit from the poisoning of our planet.

 

A030 No Investment in Certain Weapons. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

If passed, this resolution sets an investment policy for the Episcopal Church. It’s worth quoting in full: “That DFMS shall not invest in any company or corporation that is engaged or involved in the production, use, or stockpiling, or the sale, transfer, or export of, any weapon or weapons system, or any key component thereof, whether now existing or developed hereafter, that can cause or lead to mass or indiscriminate injury or death to civilians or widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, including, without limitation, biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, weapons that injure by fragments which are not detectable in the human body (non-detectable fragment weapons), incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons, anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, and lethal autonomous weapons, or any other weapons or weapons systems or key components thereof that are excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects.”

War is evil, so let’s not profit from it. Instead, let us sell our sword stocks and invest our money in plowshares.

 

A163 Affirming the Ongoing Work across the Episcopal Church in Consideration of Ethical Issues in Investing. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

This resolution comes from the legislative committee, apparently based on A028. It also affirms and encourages and so on. It has the beginnings of language that would actually direct reinvestment. If the committee can add some more teeth to this to move money, rather than merely talking about it, I’m all in.

Photo by micheile henderson on Unsplash

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 12: Agencies & boards 8 Jun 2024 6:06 PM (9 months ago)

boards

Today Resolutionapalooza continues with the committee on agencies & boards. Long-term General Convention geeks will know that Episcopal Church governance includes CCABs: committees, commissions, agencies, and boards. Agencies include entities such as the Church Pension Group and Forward Movement (my employer), and other free-standing organizations that are accountable in some way to the Episcopal Church. Boards would include things like Episcopal Relief & Development and the General Board of Examining Chaplains. Normally, this legislative committee is a sleepy backwater, blissfully removed from the drama of General Convention. Not so this time!

This committee has several important resolutions to improve the health insurance plan of the Episcopal Church, as well as other resolutions on lay employee and clergy compensation.

You can — and should — read reports from agencies and boards in the 2024 Blue Book. Look under the heading “agencies and boards reporting to the General Convention.” When CCABs submit resolutions, they are A resolutions. (B is for bishops, C or for dioceses or provinces, and D is for deputies.)

As an aside, Forward Movement does not receive or request money from the General Convention budget, nor did we submit any resolutions for consideration. You’re welcome.

Let’s get to the resolutions. You won’t be board bored!

 

A006 Feasibility Study of a Fund to Pay Congregations’ Future Benefit Obligations. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution, referred from the last General Convention, would set in motion a feasibility study “of the steps, resources, and time necessary to establish a fund to pay some or all of the pension and health plan obligations of clergy and lay professionals deploying to historically non-white and small congregations, particularly to congregations whose economic viability has likely been impaired by historic discrimination.” In other words, we want to find out if it’s possible to create a fund to cover some or all of the expenses of clergy pension and benefits in historically non-white and smaller congregations. This study sounds like a good idea. The data should be readily available to CPG and Episcopal Church staff, so I’m not sure we’ll need an outside consultant and the expenditure of $20,000. So let’s simplify this and reduce expense if possible, but I’m all for gathering the data to see if we can correct historic imbalances and make our church stronger.

 

A007 Invitation to CPF to Forecast Effects of Reduced Pension Assessment Obligations on Clergy Deployment and on Benefit Levels. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

Also referred from the last General Convention, this resolution asks for a study of the effects of lowering clergy pension assessments from the current 18% to 15%. The study would consider effects such as recruitment, retention, and benefits for clergy. Again, not a bad idea to gather the data. Staff from the Episcopal Church and CPG should have this data; we shouldn’t need an outside consultant or an expense of $25,000.

 

A008 Study of Benefit Obligation Effects on Clergy and Lay Professional Deployment. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution, yet again referred forward from 2022, asks for yet another study. This one would look at “the extent to which the obligation to pay pension and health plan contributions for clergy and lay professionals at the current contribution rates discourages deployment of clergy and lay professionals to historically non-white and small congregations, as compared to the statistical average congregation in The Episcopal Church.” Sure, it’s good to have data. Again, I don’t think we need a consultant or a big expense. CPG and Episcopal Church staff can crank this out with a little work, I’m sure.

 

A016 Reaffirm and Commit to the Goal of a Permanent Location of an Archives for the Episcopal Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution also comes from 2022, and it basically says the General Convention wants the Episcopal Church’s archives to have a permanent home. I don’t think anyone wants otherwise? This resolution also does a lot of reaffirming and recognizing. A lot has happened since 2022, and my understanding from a recent ENS article is that the archives has found a plan to establish a permanent home. So we don’t need to enact this. It’s already happening. If there weren’t an immediate plan, we don’t need General Convention to say obvious things like “the archives should be settled permanently” and “the archives should probably use a filing system so they can find stuff.”

 

A100 Adopt Cost Controls in Denominational Health Plan. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

In 2009, the so-called Denominational Health Plan was created by General Convention. Since then it’s been tweaked a bit, but the basics have stayed in place. Clergy and lay employees in the US (the DHP is really a Domestic Health Plan, since it doesn’t cover clergy or lay employees outside the US) who are eligible are enrolled in one of the offered plans. There is a range of offerings, from high-deductible, low-cost plans to expensive preferred provider 0% copay plans. In setting up the plan, the goal was to keep costs as low as possible for plan participants and to offer benefits and costs that were broadly similar across the US.

Recent studies uncovered for all to see some notable subsidization. Those who choose lower-cost plans are paying more than the actual cost of their plans to provide a subsidy to those who choose high-cost plans, which are delivered below actual cost. This is complex issue, and you should read the task force report, which thoroughly explains all this in an accessible way. But the essence of this resolution is to remove subsidization by plan level: each plan would be delivered at its actual cost. So high-benefit plans will cost around 20% more after we pass this. And some of the lower-cost plans will be around 20% cheaper when this goes into effect. Plan participants will still be able to choose; if your situation means you really want the fancy plan, you and your employer can agree to do that. On a related note, it is permissible for employers to limit plan selection. So a local church could decide to offer only 20% copay plans; the net effect could save many congregations and dioceses LOTS of money.

All that is good. I hope we pass this plan, which simply rationalizes and aligns costs and prices.

My only concern is that the resolution also asks that the Episcopal Church “offer health insurance benefit offerings in the Episcopal Church Medical Trust comparable to those offered by the benefit agencies of similar denominations.” Firstly, if we are passing actual costs on to participants, there’s no reason not to offer fancy plans to those who want to pay that cost. But secondly, I’m not sure it’s relevant whether Episcopal Church clergy and lay workers have similar health insurance plans to Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. If are ARE going to look at health insurance plans of Episcopal folks vs. others, then we should also, at some future date, compare seminary costs, stipends, other benefits, workload, and health plans. In other words, if we’re going to see if apples and oranges are comparable, we need to look at the whole fruit, not just the stems.

But the core of this resolution is solid. We need to do this. It will reduce costs for many congregations and dioceses.

 

A101 Revise DHP Pricing Structures for Equitable Access. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

When the (so-called) Denominational Health Plan was set up, we essentially excluded the Navajoland area mission. In a somewhat shocking manifestation of injustice, our church’s plan for those serving in Navajoland was to send them to the US government’s Indian Health Service rather than to the providers of their church through the DHP. This resolution fixes that. It’s overdue.

Other plan participants will subsidize costs for Navajoland. This makes perfect sense: Navajoland is an area with a great deal of economic poverty; by spreading their costs across other plan participants in less poor areas, we can, as a church, shoulder some of the burden of their costs.

This resolution also looks at regional costs and the ability to pay when setting prices everywhere. This means that an expensive place with abundant resources might pay more than, say, an expensive place with few resources. I’m doing my best to get all this right, while simplifying so that I don’t have to write a whole book about health insurance premiums. But places such as Alaska, North Dakota, and South Dakota will be subsidized deliberately in the new scheme. That’s fine, and the formula is oriented in a far way as I understand it. Places with few resources are helped out by places with abundant resources. That sounds like church to me.

But we do need to repent of the racism that led to the situation in Navajoland in the first place. I sincerely hope someone will untangle how this managed to happen and ensure that we don’t do something like this in the future — and ensure that we don’t have other exclusions in our system of care at present.

 

A102 Churchwide Education Efforts to Control Healthcare Costs. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Regular Resolutionpalooza readers will know I don’t usually like resolutions that merely “urge” things. But most rules have an exception, and this is one. This resolution would urge CPG to do some education work in an effort to reduce health insurance plan costs. Among other things, the education efforts would include Medicare options for employees over 65, the number of plans offered, and the use of Consumer Directed Health Plans. I’d like to live in a world where this resolution could have been an email, but it seems that CPG often needs a legislative mandate to actively care for those it serves. So here we are. Let’s do some more educating by passing this resolution.

 

A134 Establishing a Task Force for the Funding and Study of Compensation and Benefits for Deacons and Non-Stipendiary Priests. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Let us first note the Orwellian aspect of compensating non-stipendiary people. Are we compensating people for work? Or are we dealing with volunteers? Non-stipendiary means unpaid, so I’m not sure why we are crossing these streams. That’s completely different from part-time paid folks (who are stipendiary). If we are limiting our focus on deacons, I’m not sure what there is to study. In some dioceses, all deacons are unpaid. In other dioceses, deacons can work up to full-time for the church. We wouldn’t need a $60,000 study to sort that out. By the way, the resolution asks for the findings to be presented at the 81st General Convention. That’s going to be an aggressively fast timeline!

But seriously, if the intention here is to focus on deacons, let’s say that. And I think the explanation and resolution would need to unpack a little more about what problem we are trying to solve. Based on what’s here, I don’t see the need for a $60,000 task force.

 

A135 Compensation for Non-stipendiary Clergy. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

There are so many problems with this resolution, which would require that unpaid clergy be paid. See notes about Orwellian juxtaposition, above. This resolution seeks a minimum $25/month payment for “non-stipendiary” clergy. First of all, that may cause problems with minimum wage laws in some jurisdictions of the Episcopal Church, which spans well over a dozen countries. Second, in our poorer nations, $25/month is not a token sum. The argument in favor of doing this is that non-stipendiary clergy currently lack access to some CPG offerings, such as CREDO, access to financial planning, disability benefits, and mental health resources. I’m no expert in all those categories, but I know a little about CREDO. It’s designed from the ground up for full-time clergy who might risk burnout and such. That’s just not relevant to the life situation of many of the folks who would be getting their $25/month. So maybe we just need to design programs, especially for non-stipendiary clergy and figure out how to pay for them without incurring wage obligations and so on.

By the way, if there’s an issue with non-stipendiary clergy being exploited by entities who could afford to pay, then we need to deal with that as a justice issue. No need to create a complicated bureaucracy to pay $25/month for benefits that may not be helpful, anyway.

Oh, and this resolution goes about things the wrong way anyhow; most likely this would require a canonical mandate, not a General Convention directive.

 

A138 Task Force on Parity and Equity of Lay Compensation and Benefits. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Our church is notorious for treating lay employees unfairly compared with the treatment of clergy. We need to get better at this. It leads to lay folks having a lousy work experience. It manifests injustice. And it compromises our witness in all things. So let’s fix that.

This resolution asks for a task force to study lay employee and clergy compensation and benefits. I would ordinarily be in favor of gathering this data, but we just did this. Resolution 2018-A037 studied the same thing, and you can read the report right now. So this already exists. No need for a $40,000 task force to repeat this work. And the proposer of this resolution (Executive Council) did not include an explanation, so we have no way of knowing if there is some reason to suspect a change in the landscape since 2018. (NOTE to resolution proposers: provide an explanation, because we can’t read your mind!)

One thing we could do is canonically require all Episcopal organizations to offer the same benefits to lay employees and clergy, same policies, same health plans, same sabbatical provision, and so on. It seems so simple, and yet many places have a tiered system in which clergy have a much better situation. Let’s fix that! But this resolution will not move the needle where it counts.

 

C014 A Resolution to Enhance Access to the Denominational Health Plan. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution asks CPG to open access to the DHP to any church employee scheduled to work 500 hours or more per year, as long as they self-pay. So a 10/hour week sexton could choose to opt in to our DHP if they paid the full cost of their plan. I’m not sure anyone working hours like this is going to want to pay $35,000 for a family health plan, but maybe? Before we flip the switch though, we need to do some work. We need to determine if this is legal and if there are other legal consequences or side effects from doing this in states of the US. And we need to understand what impact this might have on the rest of DHP participants. Will it change the pool to increase (or decrease) costs? So let’s figure out if this is a good idea, and if so, let’s do it. I think we could ask CPG working with Episcopal Church staff to figure this out and report back.

 

D010 The Creation of a Clergy Compensation Contribution Fund. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

If passed, this resolution would ask for a study to see if there are currently funds available to the Episcopal Church that could offset half the cost of the clergy pension assessment in certain congregations. As previous resolutions have indicated, the burden of clergy compensation and benefits is a real challenge for many historically non-white and some smaller churches, who may be economically disadvantaged. The resolution asks Episcopal Church to get this done in consultation with CPG. My only suggestion is to clarify this a bit to offer some guidance on where to look for these funds and on how such a fund could be used. There’s rarely a downside to reviewing assets to see if they are being used in the best way possible.

 

D018 Task Force on Lay Pension Parity. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

As I write in the commentary for A138, we’ve recently done this work. There’s no reason to do it again so soon, at least none that is offered in the explanation.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 11: Formation & discipleship 8 Jun 2024 4:00 AM (9 months ago)

After blowing through at least 40 (!) liturgy resolutions, I’m pleased to say that Resolutionpalooza has to make only a quick stop with the next committee. We have six resolutions in formation & discipleship. While that’s not a big number, it’s of course true that liturgy is often a part of our discipleship, so it’s not as if this committee is the only place that deals with the important topics of formation and discipleship. Still, it would be lovely at some future convention if we shifted our focus more toward discipleship — and perhaps not just in resolutions, but in our time together at General Convention.

Let’s turn to the resolutions.

 

A017 Creation of a Staff Position for Director of LGBTQI and Women’s Ministries. Full text. Likely vote: NO, because it’s already done, I think?

A few weeks ago, I read in the Episcopal News Service that the Episcopal Church has hired Aaron Scott as a gender justice staff officer. That article mentions this as a culmination of a 2022 General Convention resolution (2022-A063), which called for the hiring of a “Director of LBGTQI and Women’s Ministries.” Presumably, this resolution, calling for a hire with the same title, was already in the system as the hiring was in process, so it can be discharged now. I wish Aaron well in his new role.

 

A086 Create a Task Force for Youth Formation and World Mission. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, this resolution would create a task force “for collaborative research, relationship-building and program development for the purpose of identifying, sharing and developing global mission opportunities for youth (ages 13-21).” As I’ve mentioned in other posts in this series, I’m told that we are looking at resolutions calling for the creation of 21 task forces. We don’t need loads of task forces. In this case, I think there are staff at the churchwide level who could work with a few others to put together a list of opportunities for youth and world mission. Or Forma could do this. Or a bunch of youth ministers could organize themselves to do this.

Friends, just do it! No one needs 1,000 bishops and deputies to say it’s OK to do stuff. You can make resources or gather information or plan things without a resolution. Perhaps I’ve got this one completely wrong, but this project sounds like a Survey Monkey and an afternoon on Google, not a $30,000 task force.

 

A096 Task Force on Equipping a Church Grounded in Justice as Christian Ministry. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Another task force! This resolution seeks the creation of a task force to do a bunch of things, but the core aim is to “consider what the church must look like if we put our vocation to love our neighbor and to be repairers of the breach at the center of our work.” Well, yes, but we don’t need a General Convention to tell us that loving our neighbor is the core of our vocation. Jesus Christ himself literally said that was right up there with loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind as the first and greatest commandment. If we’re not already doing that because Jesus told us to, I’m not sure that a resolution will get us there.

The $40,000 task force contemplated here would, among other things, create an online hub of justice resources. Again, as I wrote above, there is absolutely nothing stopping a group of Episcopalians from just going out and doing this! We don’t need resolutions to empower us to do the work God has given us to do. Let’s have fewer task forces and more active ministers of the Gospel.

 

A132 Establishing an Online Hub for Continuing Formation and Ministry Resources. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution calls for the creation of an “Online Hub for Continuing Formation and Ministry Resources.” What would be on this hub, you ask? It’s laid out in the third resolve: it would be a “central repository of vetted resources, ensuring that leaders have access to adaptable materials for their specific contexts, fostering ongoing formation, and addressing the current void left by the absence of sustained denominational-level work.” I’m all for this, but I think there’s no need for a bunch of red tape by involving General Convention. Much of what this resolution calls for already exists online from places like Building Faith. My experience with the excellent folks at Virginia Theological Seminary who run Building Faith is that they’re super collaborative and eager to serve the church. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that if some interested folks contacted them, a hub such as the one imagined here could be running in no time.

Again, we can just do stuff. We don’t need General Convention to approve all our work to make our church better, to answer God’s call to us.

 

A136 Translating the Catechism. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Just when you thought 7WD was going to have another NOPE sweep of a committee’s resolutions, I’m here to surprise you. This resolution simply calls for the translation of the catechism from the Book of Common Prayer into Arabic, Dutch, Georgian, German, Italian, Korean, Mandarin, and Russian. I can’t say why they picked these languages, but it sounds good to me. I’m all for offering evangelism and formation resources in many languages. The resolution asks for a budget allocation of $50,000. That seems like quite a bit for this project, but better to be delighted if it ends up costing less. By the way, the catechism is already available in English, Spanish, French, and Haitian Kreyol.

 

A137 Create a Task Force for Youth Formation and World Mission. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

See commentary on A086, above. These resolutions are…identical? Or super close to it.

Photo by Adam Smotkin on Unsplash. It’s a formation, get it?

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 10 (Part II): Sundry resolutions for Prayer book, liturgy, and music 7 Jun 2024 4:18 PM (10 months ago)

book of common prayer

Yesterday I blogged about the 20 (!) resolutions that deal with the calendar of commemorations in the Episcopal Church. Today we look at the bazillion resolutions about all other liturgies and liturgical sundries headed to the committee on prayer book, liturgy, and music.

Please read the opening of yesterday’s post, wherein I rant (again) about how we have fostered liturgical chaos in the Episcopal Church for well over a decade. It’s not just the calendar. We’ve produced all sorts of sloppy and error-filled liturgy over the last few years. As I said, I don’t lay all the blame at the feet of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. They are all volunteers, and I believe they are all doing their best. The issue is that we don’t fund our liturgical work adequately, so we fail to pay for the liturgists, scholars, poets, editors, proofreaders, layout and typography experts, and production managers who would be required to do excellent work. Relying on well-intentioned but overworked volunteers, we should not be surprised at the quality of results we see.

There are two solutions to fix this, and we need to do both. First, we need to reduce the scope and scale of our liturgical work. Our existing, already-authorized, liturgies provide an enormous amount of flexibility. Speaking of this, by my count, we have 12 authorized Eucharistic prayers plus four build-your-own prayer outlines. The second thing we need to do is fund our work at a proper level.

Let’s talk about prayer book revision for a second. This is a hotly contested area. I’ll go on record right now and say that I think it’s time to begin the process which will lead to our next Book of Common Prayer. And yes, I think it needs to be a book. How will we do this? It must not begin with a bunch of folks sitting down in front of blank screens in Microsoft Word to generate liturgies to fix their pet peeves. Nope. Let’s do the next BCP just like we did the 1979 book.

We should begin with 20-25 years of scholarly work on liturgy, theological anthropology, and liturgical theology in a post-pandemic, post-Christendom, pluralistic world. Before we start writing baptismal rites, we need to have a sustained conversation on the meaning, function, and purpose of baptism — to name but one example. Then as that period of scholarly reflection concludes, we can start to produce high-quality liturgical material. Based on a rigorous testing and feedback process, we can start to shape what will become our next BCP. During this entire period, we probably need two or three (or more) full-time liturgical folks on staff at the churchwide level. We need qualified professionals who are paid for their time to oversee and coordinate this work.

I thought about writing a resolution to this effect, but I knew we’d already be overwhelmed with too many resolutions on liturgy, so I held off. On that note, let’s look at the non-calendar resolutions.

 

A077 Additional Guidance for Inclusive and Metaphorical Language. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

Ironically for a resolution seeking inclusion, the explanation includes links to documents for which no Spanish translation has been provided.

If passed, this resolution would ask the SCLM to place additional material in the Guidelines for Expansive and Inclusive Language approved at General Convention 2022 (fortunately, these guidelines are included as documents both in Spanish and English). I support the general aim here, which is to ensure that people who are crafting liturgies are mindful of the impact of language — taking special care to avoid, for example, ableist language.

I would like to see the mandate for these guidelines amended to take  care to see costs of using or not using particular language. For example, the explanation suggests that to speak about our “walk with Jesus” is ableist, so we should say “go with Jesus.” I see the point, but it’s worth noting that even “go” could be problematic for some folks who may suffer from phobias of various kinds. My point is that there is no way to include everyone. It just can’t be done. I would also suggest that there may not be a consensus on what constitutes ableist language. So we have to measure the impact — good and bad — of our language. This is the proper subject of a book, so please pardon me for not dwelling on this point here.

Also, the mandate is overly broad in the final resolve, which directs that “these guidelines be referred to Dioceses, Interim Bodies of General Convention, Executive Council and related bodies, Provinces, Church Publishing, and other organizations of the church for serious reflection and consideration when writing, speaking, or educating on behalf of the church.” This would suggest that someone teaching a class in a tiny church should ensure they are complying with the guidelines. While I fully agree that we all need to be careful in our speech and writing — it is part of loving our neighbors — we also want to take care in creating an environment in which many people are reticent for fear of running afoul of guidelines that may or may not always be relevant to a particular context.

I could support this if the mandate and intent are made clear, and if the guidelines also examine the impact of language with the sense that some language may be helpful to one group and unhelpful to another, for example.

 

A090 Authorization of 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I completely agree with the proposers of this resolution that we want to enshrine the place of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as licit in all dioceses for all services of the church. But that is already the case, by our constitution, canons, and rubrics. We don’t need to say what is already true. Now, if there are bishops telling clergy they can’t use the BCP, then those bishops need to be subject to a Title IV proceeding for violating the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the church. We live in a time of liturgical chaos, and I think we do best if we can fix problems at the source. If the problem is that bishops are not permitting the BCP to be used, then let’s deal with those bishops accordingly.

On a related note, as we get to the resolutions on Article X of the constitution and Title II of the canons, I will have some words about why I think it’s unhelpful if we try to say that “the Book of Common Prayer” somehow includes things that are not in, you know, the actual book.

 

A109 Commend and Expand Liturgical Resources in Recognition of the End of Slavery. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

In response to a resolution (2022-C004) from the last convention, the SCLM proposes that it should “continue to develop liturgical materials in consultation with church leaders in nations, commonwealths, or convocations of churches where The Episcopal Church has dioceses or convocations and where slavery is a part of the national history.” This seems like a good idea. Essentially, it takes the US-focused Juneteenth liturgical work and expands that to similar commemorations in other nations of the Episcopal Church. The resolution also specifies that the materials created might be headed for the Book of Occasional Services or another “appropriate location)” which also makes sense. I implore the people making these liturgies to do so in at least English and Spanish, and probably other languages, too.

 

A111 Develop resources and models for online/in person hybrid worship. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution asks the SCLM to “to develop resources and models for online/in person hybrid worship that reflect best practices, the variety of settings in which Episcopal churches are located and the technology, budgets and bandwidth available to them.” Right now, with no General Convention action whatsoever, any congregation that wants to learn how to stream its services better can contact another congregation and start learning. Also, Google exists even though we have not legislated it into existence. So I don’t think the cause of any lousy streaming is the lack of resources and models. For some churches, it’s their choice not to invest in the people and equipment to do this well. For others, especially smaller ones, it’s a training/teaching issue. That problem is best solved at the diocesan level, as most dioceses have communications staff who could help those folks out. So this seems like General Convention trying to do a thing that does not need to be done.

I would also add that we need to have a larger conversation — without General Convention involvement — about when streaming worship does or does not make sense. I know several clergy who have stopped streaming because they felt that it was counterproductive in disciple-making, as it enables people to halfway pay attention to church from their couch instead of being involved in an actual community. When I asked one priest about their shut-ins who might only have computer access, she immediately responded, we send them eucharistic visitors as often as they’d like to receive Holy Communion. No, I’m not saying we should all stop streaming. But I am saying we should talk about why we are doing this and for whom. That will also guide resource allocation.

 

A112 Authorize use of the “Expanded Revised Common Lectionary Daily Readings”. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

There are currently at least seven different lectionaries available to us in the Episcopal Church: the Book of Common Prayer 1979 eucharistic lectionary, the eucharistic Revised Common Lectionary, the daily office lectionary, a daily Advent lectionary, a daily Lenten lectionary, a daily Eastertide lectionary, a six-week eucharistic lectionary, and a two-year weekday eucharistic lectionary. We absolutely. Do. Not. Need. Another. Lectionary.

People who pray the daily office have a perfectly good lectionary for that. People who want daily mass have a veritable buffet of lectionaries available.

We already have confusion. I know this, because my employer — Forward Movement — publishes daily resources for prayer and devotion. It is pretty common for us to get calls about why we have this reading instead of that reading. On rare occasions, it’s because we got it wrong. We’re human, after all. But almost always, it’s because the caller was confused about which lectionary applied.

Less chaos, more formation.

We. Do. Not. Need. Another. Lectionary.

 

A113 Affirm Flexibility of Idiom for Authorized Liturgies. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but I would like to see an amendment.

On page 14 of the BCP, you can find this rubric: “In any of the Proper Liturgies for Special Days, and in other services contained in this Book celebrated in the context of a Rite One service, the contemporary idiom may be conformed to traditional language.” So we are allowed to take Rite Two material and conform it to Rite One language when we want to worship in the thee/thou idiom. This resolution would permit the opposite. The entire text is “That Bishops be encouraged to permit Rite I liturgies to be adapted to the contemporary idiom.” This would allow someone, for example, to use one of the Rite One eucharistic prayers in a congregation that does not love thee/thou language.

I hope we offer this option, because I know there are quite a few folks who would like to make the theological richness of Rite One available in communities that prefer contemporary language.

If I could, I would propose one change though. Rather than drag bishops into this, because they already have plenty to do, let’s just allow the opposite of what has been permitted for almost 50 years. Let’s have General Convention say, “In services contained in this Book celebrated in the context of a Rite Two service, the Rite One liturgies may be conformed to traditional language.” As far as I’m aware, 50 years of permitting Rite Two to be conformed to Rite One has resulted in no heresy convictions. Let’s just streamline the opposite. But if our bishops feel like they need to manage this, I’m up for trying this as is.

I see little downside and plenty of upside to allowing more Episcopalians to experience the riches of Cranmer’s work in new ways.

DISCLOSURE: I proposed resolution 2022-D062, which would have done exactly this. But that was a curtailed General Convention, and the legislative committee preferred to punt this matter to the 2024 General Convention for completely understandable reasons. We had a lot to do and little time. So this was rightly deferred. Let’s approve it now, please!

 

A114 Authorize for use Expansive Language Versions of Eucharistic Prayer C. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if referred to the SCLM.

In 2018, General Convention authorized “Expansive Language” versions of Prayers A, B, and D for use within our church. The legislative committee at the time could not agree on how to deal with several issues in Prayer C. These expansive versions minimize masculine pronouns to refer to God, and a number of congregations have found them helpful. This is not totally my cup of tea, but I’m perfectly happy to support a breadth of liturgical worship in our church. I don’t have to like everything that every Episcopalian does!

This resolution adds an authorization for an expansive version of Prayer C. There’s lots of good stuff here, but I also noticed a few typos and errors. See the introduction for why I don’t blame the SCLM for this. I’d like to see us spend a few thousand dollars to get these rites perfected before we authorize them. There’s probably an opportunity to publish an improved iteration of A, B, and D, too. And we can do this in at least English and Spanish while we’re at it.

The committee has also created a version of Prayer C that uses a repeated antiphon instead of a varied set of verses/responses now found in Prayer C. The Anglican Church have Canada has long had this option, believing that the prayer may be more accessible if the assembly can instantly memorize their lines. But this is new material for our prayer book, not a “translation” into expansive language. So I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m favorable toward offering options for celebration — when it is unlikely to lead to chaos. On the other hand, I’m not totally persuaded we’re solving an actual problem here, and this was a bit outside the mandate we gave the SCLM to do expansive language work. If everyone else is super excited about this, I could support it.

But the bottom line is that the proposed Prayer C is not ready for prime time.

P.S. One of the liberties they took is using “(May) God be with you” instead of “God be with you”. God be with you — or The Lord be with you — is a declaration, not a wish. Adding May undercuts what is meant to happen. That’s just one example of a theological innovation in these materials that requires careful scrutiny, plus there are typos.

 

A115 Authorized use of alternative texts for the Good Friday liturgy. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Christians have had a long history of anti-Jewish thought and action. Good Friday has been particularly problematic, in some places and times leading to the beatings and deaths of countless Jews at the hands of Christians. Of this evil, our church must repent.

Some people believe that the Good Friday service in our current prayer book contains anti-Jewish elements. I’m not sure I agree, but I completely agree that perception matters here and that we must err on the side of loving our Jewish neighbors. So I’m all for trying out some adjustments to the Good Friday liturgy as proposed here to ease the concerns from some quarters that our liturgy is anti-Jewish. The attached liturgical material, which is thankfully provided in both Spanish and English, has a few very minor tweaks to the current rite, including a new Solemn Collect for our Jewish neighbors. It also offers some new options with the proper lectionary of the day. Finally, the resolution calls for translations of this material — which is all to be provided free of charge electronically — into the key languages of the Episcopal Church.

I’m not sure I love every line in the new material, and there are a couple of places that absolutely rub me the wrong way. But I see no reason not to give this a try and to collect feedback. Then we can offer perfected materials to the church in due course.

 

A116 Marriage Rites for Inclusion in the Book of Common Prayer (First Reading). Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

Our current prayer book marriage liturgies were written with male/female pronouns at a time before we contemplated offering marriage to couples of the same sex. Since 2015, the Episcopal Church has offered liturgies to solemnize the marriages of couples of the same sex. These started as experimental trial liturgies, and they have matured in subsequent triennia. We have a complicated situation in that if we remove the current liturgies from the BCP, some folks may feel they no longer have a home in this church. Meanwhile, other folks may feel they are not yet fully welcome in the church if our BCP marriage liturgies do not include provision for same-sex couples. (I’m simplifying here; please pardon my brevity.)

It’s not clear to me if the intent here is to replace the current prayer book marriage liturgies with the attached material, which would encompass same-sex couples — and which would could also be used by opposite-sex couples. Or is the intent here to add this liturgical material to what is already in the BCP? Either way, it will mean printing new books. That would lead to some confusion on the ground. “We will now recite Psalm 67, which you can find on either page 675 or page 705, depending on which version of the BCP is in your pew.”

We are left balancing competing demands of all sorts. For some, changing the current BCP is a bridge too far. For others, not changing it is unacceptable. Printing new books is expensive. Not printing new books means that liturgies are not really in the book. I have some thoughts on this, but I am a married straight guy who favors LGBTQ inclusion. Others will have vastly different thoughts.

In any case, the liturgical material is not yet at the state that it’s ready to be printed in books. The bidding removed theological language that seems essential to setting forth the divine foundations and purpose of marriage, and I think we’d want to add the original language back or craft new language. I’m not sure I understand all the changes to the proper lectionary. Finally, if we are going to create new, fresh inclusive liturgies for marriage, we might want to make room for people who use they/them pronouns.

The draft liturgy is beautiful, and it is quite close to having been perfected. We just need a bit more time, and we need to invest in the necessary resources to make this ready. Perhaps in a triennium, we’d be ready to add this to books, having thought through all the logistics of creating new books. Meanwhile, couples of the same sex have access to these liturgies right now. Thanks be to God.

 

A130 Developing alternative hymn texts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution seeks to create a hymnbook of alternate versions of the hymns we currently sing due to “problematic language.” I fully agree that some texts have not aged well, occasionally containing language that may seem racist, for example. Some others will be looking for hymns that avoid calling God either Lord or Father. If passed, the SCLM would spend $200,000 creating a collection of altered hymn texts. It would be made available, according to the SCLM’s Blue Book report, via RiteSong a software service offered by Church Publishing. I do not know if RiteSong is available outside the USA, but I do know it is not affordable for smaller congregations. So this resolution would create a resource that is only available to wealthier congregations by digital download.

Right now, congregations who want to use music from outside the Hymnal 1982 can do so. If there are concerns about the rubrical restriction of page 14 of the BCP (“Hymns referred to in the rubrics of this Book are to be understood as those authorized by this Church.”), I would point out that I don’t think the General Convention ever authorized Lift Every Voice and Sing II; Wonder, Love, and Praise; or Voices Found. So we’re already using all manner of material not explicitly authorized. No one is going to Title IV jail for using an updated version of “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the king of creation.”

So I agree that some hymns could benefit from an update, though I suspect lots of us would have different criteria on this. But I don’t see a need to spend $200,000 on a resource that will not be available to all Episcopalians — especially when any congregation is more-or-less free to use new versions of texts right now, without General Convention action.

 

A131 Creation of a Supplement to The Hymnal 1982. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, this resolution would seek $750,000 to create a supplement to the Hymnal 1982. The argument put forth is that lots of great new material has been created in the years since our last supplement about 20 years ago. Perhaps. But I have not yet heard of people asking for a new hymnal. As I wrote in the previous resolution’s commentary, congregations can already find and use other material.

I’d want to see some data before agreeing to spend $750,000 on this project. Last time there was talk of a new hymnal (about 10 years ago), CPG did a survey and it turned out most people did not want a new hymnal. Who wants this supplement? Who would buy it? If there is demand, could the $750,000 be raised by advance sales? In other words, let’s try a Kickstarter model and let proponents pay for the thing they want. If it turns out lots of people want this, great! And if few people line up to put down money, maybe this is a thing only a few people want.

Before I was ordained, I was a church musician. I’m proud to have used LEVASII and WLP regularly, along with the Hymnal 1982. I have no beef with supplements. But I suspect that many congregations are producing service leaflets with the music they want already, and it wouldn’t accomplish much to spend lots of money on a hymnal supplement in today’s church. If data say I’m wrong, I’ll change my mind.

 

A160 Revise Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution, if passed, changes the catechism where it teaches about Holy Matrimony. Instead of saying “the man and the woman” it would say “two people.” This makes sense to me, as it is our current teaching as a church. What I’d like to clarify is whether we are creating an updated catechism as a kind of supplement, perhaps a PDF? Or are we proposing to amend the BCP itself, which would require two readings and new printing? If the latter, I’d want to ensure that this change does not alter the pagination of the book in order to avoid confusion in local churches.

My employer publishes resources, and if this is intended to create an updated catechism without modifying the BCP itself, I can say that we would gladly print the updated catechism for use and distribution in the church, and I’m sure the same is true for my friends at Episcopal publishing houses.

 

B001 Experimental Creation Care Language for the Baptismal Covenant. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would add two questions as ninth and tenth questions in the baptismal covenant: “Will you strive for justice and peace among all, and respect the dignity of the Earth and of every human being?” and “Will you strive to safeguard the integrity of God’s creation, and respect, sustain and renew the life of the Earth?”

I can’t support this for two reasons. First, we already promise to safeguard the earth when we promise to love our neighbors. It is not loving toward my neighbors to trash their air and water. We don’t need to name every sin and every virtue in the baptismal promises. The folks did a pretty great job of a holistic view of virtue, sin, and repentance when they created the baptismal covenant for our 1979 book.

Second, this is another case of liturgical material not being ready for prime time. The first question has a period instead of a question mark. If we added these questions as contemplated, a person would answer the following questions as their eighth and ninth response: “Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?” and then “Will you strive for justice and peace among all, and respect the dignity of the Earth and of every human being?” That’s…mostly repetitive.

So we don’t need to add these questions. And if we are going to do it, we need to make sure we’re offering really solid material.

Climate change is the biggest threat to human well-being right now. We should reflect that in our life as a church. I just don’t think this is it.

 

B003 The Tree of Life: an Armenian Rite for Holy Cross Day. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution asks for authorization of liturgical material provided in English only.

If passed, this resolution would “make available” liturgical material to be used after Eucharistic celebrations on Holy Cross Day. Everyone, please raise your hands if your congregation even has a celebration of Holy Eucharist on Holy Cross Day. The liturgical material is lovely, though it is clearly from a Christian realm outside Anglicanism. It’s a lovely realm! But there’s a fine line between appreciation and appropriation. Is it weird for an Episcopal congregation to dabble in Armenian Orthodox liturgy? Maybe? Or maybe not. But either way, I’m not sure there’s demand for this.

Since the proposal is for this to happen after a public service of the church, there’s not much to stop a congregation from using this material now, with no need for authorization by General Convention.

If we are going to use this material, I would need to know that some Episcopal person or group has been in touch with the Catholicos of All Armenians to make sure they’re comfortable with us using the material. And I’d want to learn more about the rite, its history, and its origin.

I think we have bigger fish to fry as a church than a liturgy which could possibly be used by the tiniest fraction of congregations.

 

C018 Amend Title II, Canon 3 to Retain a Printed Form of the Book of Common Prayer. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

As I have said again and again, we have loads of liturgical chaos in our church. Can you imagine the chaos that will be introduced if we say that Book of Common Prayer is not the book you are holding in your hands but a collection of materials that includes that book and other things which are not readily viewable in one handy place? Imagine this conversation. “Hey, that’s a cool prayer, where’d you get it?” “The BCP.” “Wait, from the Book or from the…other stuff?”

I think we would do well to keep the Book of Common Prayer and then have a second book, perhaps the Book of Common Prayer Supplement” or the “Book of Additional Services” or some similar name. The advantage of a book is that it can be regulated. There is never any doubt about what is licit and what isn’t. We can have a Custodian who reviews publications and ensures that official books are reliable sources of liturgy. None of this precludes us from also having electronically available liturgy.

As written, this amendment would require the Custodian of the BCP to review a PDF you decide to upload it to your church website. It would be a crushing burden and create needless red tape. If we focus our energy on maintaining the integrity of printed books, we are agreeing on a uniform, readily available source of liturgical material that can be regulated and monitored. Under current rules, a publisher such as Forward Movement contacts the Custodian for a certificate if we are printing a new prayer book, but you do not need to contact the Custodian for a certificate to make a service leaflet or to put material on your website. That’s because everyone understands that our book is an official record of liturgy, and we know that your service leaflet may not always be in complete conformity.

There is another reason not to pass this amendment. Clergy are liable to follow the teaching and rites of the BCP subject to discipline. Right now, I can point to exactly what I am pledging to follow. In the world contemplated by this resolution, I would not always know what standard is being used to measure my adherence to doctrine, discipline, and worship.

So, sure, we might need more material these days than can fit in one book. But let’s just agree on one or more books, which can be made available freely online. People point at the Church of England and decry it: see they have a BCP and a whole library of things in Common Worship. What a mess! You know what’s more of a mess than a shelf full of books? An always-evolving warren of PDFs that no one quite comprehends.

As we struggle with a post-book world, let’s not create unknown chaos by amending our constitution and canons to redefine what a book is. Let’s instead focus on developing the highest-quality liturgies available and then having a conversation about how to organize them.

Meanwhile, the SCLM has done us all a big favor with episcopalcommonprayer.org, which has most authorized texts in one handy place with helpful notes.

 

C032 A Prayer to Remember the Innocents. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but for referral to the SCLM.

The first resolve says that our church “expresses remorse for the role The Episcopal Church played in the irreparable harm suffered by Indigenous children who attended Indigenous boarding and residential schools in the 1800s and 1900s and acknowledges that the effect of that harm carries on in boarding school survivors and their descendants.” Yes, of course, we express remorse for the horrific sins committed in Christ’s name by the church.

The resolution then offers a lovely prayer for use by the church, as well as some suggestions for remembrance and repentance. I’m all for that. The material included just needs a bit of work to be ready for use. So let’s refer this to the SCLM for them to perfect what’s here. Meanwhile, we can work and pray for a just world. And those who benefitted from the terrible treatment of indigenous people can be urged to repent.

 

D002 Review canonical requirement for Holy Communion. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I don’t know how many General Conventions in a row various folks have been seeking to change our church’s teaching on Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. This resolution seeks to have the SCLM study whether we should change our practice of invitation to Holy Communion. I’ve written about this a fair amount on this blog, so I will just note three things here today.

First, I myself have communicated unbaptized people, and every priest I know agrees that we offer Holy Communion to those to come to the rail and put their hands out for Christ’s Body. We might also want to have pastoral conversation with the person. But I have never once heard of someone being summarily removed by the ushers for daring to approach the rail as an unbaptized person. You’d think this happens all the time to hear some people talk.

Second, when I was the rector of a growing church, my experience was that most of the time unbaptized people did not, in fact, want communion. They were looking for an encounter with the divine and participation in the church, and they typically wanted to talk about baptism. What problem are we solving by communicating the unbaptized?

Third, Holy Baptism has been seen as the primary entry point for new Christians by the universal church for its entire history. I’m sure one can find an outlier here and there, but the consistency of witness is remarkable. We shouldn’t change that on our own. We lack the authority to change the teachings of the church catholic.

We can offer warm invitations to the altar rail to all people, for communion or a blessing. We can offer Holy Baptism as the sacrament of inclusion instituted by Christ himself. We can be gracious in all things. There is no need to change our teaching.

It is ironic to me that plenty of folks seem to talk about the Baptismal Covenant and so-called “open table” at the same time. Do you see the irony? Our first and highest aim should be to encourage people to be adopted in God’s family, the church, through baptism. And, of course, we should love our neighbors who choose not to be baptized. We have made a thing out of a thing that does not need to be a thing.

Let’s get back to disciple-making, please! And probably instead of talking about new communion invitations, we should be doing some basic catechesis about the meaning and purpose of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.

 

D035 Authorize The Witnessing and Blessing of a Marriage. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

For simplicity’s sake, I’ll note that there are, broadly, two sets of liturgical material intended to solemnize the marraige of same-sex couples. One of them is the form that very closesly parallels what’s in the 1979 prayer book. The other is more innovative, offering a completely new shape for the marriage rite. My sense is that the later rite is polarizing. Some people really hate it, and others feel it is vastly superior to what’s in the prayer book. In any case, this resolution authorizes this alternative marriage rite for continued use. I’m fine with that, but I don’t think we need to draft Article X into it, as the resolution now says. We can simply say “The General Convention authorizes for use within the Episcopal Church…” I do think that one day this rite may be ready for inclusion in the BCP, but that day is not yet here. Still, let’s keep it authorized. And kudos to the proposer for attaching the rite in Spanish and English.

 

D036 Sacrament of healing within the context of worship services. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution seeks to study “the annual frequency of Public Services of Healing (BOS); whether bishops bless Oils for the Sick at a Chrism Mass, or other service; and whether contemplative practices are available in parishes.” It’s not clear to me why this study is important, what we will learn from it, or how the results might change our church. The explanation rightly says that healing services are important and that folks may not get a lot of training in this area. True and true. But I don’t see the need to launch a major project right now. We have plenty of other things going on.

 

D041 Support the Adoption of an Ecumenical Feast Day of Creation in our Liturgical Calendar. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The proposers say that there’s a massive global and ecumenical movement to celebrate a Day of Creation in the liturgical year. This is proposed for September 1. I probably should have included this resolution over in my post about calendar commemorations. Oops. I’m not convinced this is a necessary or a good idea. We already have calendar confusion, and we’ve tinkered with the calendar endlessly. Even if that weren’t an issue, I’m not sure that a fixed day celebration on September 1 will get much traction. We already have materials for a season of creation. There’s nothing stopping any church that wants to from having a votive mass on September 1 in thansgiving for creation. We don’t need General Convention to tell people they can do this.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 10 (Part I): Calendar resolutions for Prayer book, liturgy, and music 6 Jun 2024 5:21 PM (10 months ago)

calendar page from the book of common prayer

There are a zillion resolutions heading to the Prayer book, liturgy, and music committee, so I’m breaking them into two posts. First, we’ll look at all the resolutions concerning our liturgical calendar. Then we’ll look at…everything else.

Since around 2009, we’ve had more than our share of liturgical chaos in the Episcopal Church. That was the year General Convention approved Holy Women, Holy Men as a kind of successor to Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2006, but with some trial use stuff in it. Then Holy Women, Holy Men was re-authorized in 2012. Then in 2015, we “made available” A Great Cloud of Witnesses as a kind of successor to HWHM. All this time, the official calendar of our church continued to be Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2006 with its feasts and fasts incorporated into the calendar of the Book of Common Prayer.

Confused yet? So is everyone else. We get calls regularly at Forward Movement from people who are mad at us for failing to follow HWHM, which hasn’t been authorized for use in any way since 2015. But it’s not just the simple question of “where can I find the real calendar” that is confusing.

We have a confused theology of sainthood and commemoration. There are some folks who treat the calendar as a kind of hall of fame, celebrating notable figures, including the first person to do this or that. In this view, the Christian discipleship of those commemorated doesn’t matter too much. Indeed, it was a struggle to get General Convention to stop adding atheists and modern rabbis to the Christian sanctoral calendar.

Finally, a bunch of folks got impatient with the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music for endlessly tinkering with the calendar. In 2018, the General Convention told the SCLM to come up with one calendar and to make it a good one. (I’m simplifying!) As a result, we authorized Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2022 that year, and it remains the official calendar of the Episcopal Church. You can buy a print copy or download a free PDF of LFF2022 from the always-useful liturgical resource site, episcopalcommonprayer.org. This site is a well-organized compendium of almost everything that’s authorized for use within the Episcopal Church, including lots of explanatory notes about various liturgies. If you ever have liturgical questions or are seeking resources, this is an excellent starting point.

Anyway, we have somewhat less confusion now than we’ve had since 2009. Yay! The problem is that we made so many changes so quickly that we’ve introduced various little errors here and there. I don’t blame the folks who prepared the liturgical material. General Convention gave them a firehose worth of material and funded them with a drinking straw. We are a liturgical church. If we’re going to generate lots of new liturgical content, we need to invest in scholarly experts, pastoral experts, liturgists, historians, poets, copy editors, proofreaders, graphic designers, production experts, and on and on. Instead, we have a bunch of volunteers drafting stuff in Microsoft Word, getting a few others to have a look, and before long we’re all voting on it. We shouldn’t be surprised given our lack of investment that liturgies in the last few years have been published with typos, scholarship errors, and so on.

The sanctoral calendar is no exception. This convention is being asked to try to correct a bunch of stuff. Some of it doubtless makes sense. But I’d like to seriously suggest that we impose a moratorium on new commemorations for six or nine years so that we can let the dust settle from 15 years of chaos and sloppy work. Again, I’m not fixing blame on the people who did the work; they were doing what General Convention voted and without adequate resources. We need to take stock of what we have, and we need to perfect it. We can also do some reflection and teaching on what is a saint, anyway, so that we move closer to an agreed-upon understanding.

LFF2022 (page 617) has an excellent set of criteria for deciding who should be in the calendar. Among other things, we could simply go through our existing calendar and remove people who don’t fit the criteria we’ve already agreed on. We could be more disciplined about adding folks only when they fit the criteria.

Finally, one of my mantras is that General Convention doesn’t need to approve everything. Your local church can celebrate just about anyone you like as a saint using the commons of saints in the prayer book and other authorized sources. You don’t need 1,000 bishops and deputies to say it’s OK to remember a beloved local hero or an inspiring prophetic witness from ages past or an ancient sage. In fact, for most of its history, the church has elevated people to its calendar of commemorations only after there was a local cult of devotion. Lately, in the Episcopal Church, we’ve switched to a top-down approach in which someone decides that we need to remember this person or that person and have them added to our calendar. Perhaps we could resume the more ancient model and teach local liturgical leaders how to appropriately commemorate people who are not yet in our churchwide calendar.

On to the resolutions.

 

A014 Addition of Laurence Whipp to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: YES NO.

The explanation attached to this resolution contains links to documents for which no Spanish translation is provided.

UPDATE: See comments below the post. Multiple sources say this proposal will be withdrawn, or perhaps recommended for discharge. So 7WD is changing our tune to a NO.

The explanation does a nice job of explaining why Laurence Whipp, who was organist at the American Cathedral in Paris in the middle of the 20th century, meets the criteria set forth in Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2022 for inclusion in the calendar. I’m willing to trust the Standing Commission on Liturgy & Music, assuming they’ve thoroughly vetted Whipp as meeting all the criteria and as not possessing other characteristics that might be problematic in terms of his inclusion in our calendar.

 

A117 Withdraw Rev. William Porcher DuBose from the Lesser Feasts and Fasts Calendar — Second Reading. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Frustratingly, there’s no explanation for this resolution. We should not allow resolutions to be entered in our system without explanations, since that leaves deputies & bishops guessing as to the thinking of proposers. In this case, it’s an easy riddle to solve. Two years ago, General Convention approved 2022-C003, which was the first reading of the removal of DuBose from our calendar. It takes two conventions to add or remove someone from the calendar, since the date of commemorations is part of the calendar printed in the prayer book, and prayer book modifications take two conventions. DuBose was a notorious white supremacist, and thus his commemoration as a person demonstrating Christian discipleship is problematic.

No saint is perfect, because all saints are people. We all sin and have fallen short of the glory of God, So we shouldn’t reject saintly commemoration because someone has committed sins. However, there are degrees of sin. People should be evaluated by the context in which they lived. You can’t expect to meet a feminist or an advocate of racial equality in the Middle Ages. But we can choose not to commemorate people who were “above and beyond” even for their era. DuBose is in this category. Still, let us pray for the repose of his soul and his reconciliation with his Maker. And let us pray for all those who were harmed by his virulent white supremacy.

 

A118 Authorize the Commemoration of Harriet Ross Tubman — Second Reading. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Again, there is no explanation here. It would be super awesome if the SCLM could tell us more about their work. But, again, this one is an easy “mystery” to solve. Until 2022, Harriet Tubman was commemorated on July 20 along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, and Sojourner Truth. General Convention passed the first reading of a plan to move Tubman to her own commemoration on March 10 (see 2022-C007). Back in their 2022 explanation, the SCLM said that this is because Tubman has grown in importance within the Black community. I’m all for this. Stanton, Bloomer, and Truth will still be commemorated on July 20.

 

A119 Authorize the Commemoration of Frederick Howden, Jr. — Second Reading. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

The SCLM must hate transparency. Or maybe there was a glitch in the system, because this resolution also has no explanation. (I’m kidding about their hatred of transparency, but I’m super curious why they didn’t include explanations!) Howden, who was a military chaplain in World War II, was proposed for commemoration in 2022 (see 2022-A008). You can read a draft biography in the additional documents included with the 2022 resolution. His case is compelling, though I think the collect needs to be modified from what was proposed in 2022, which offers a fill-in-the-blank to add whatever other chaplain(s) you want. That’s not really how commemoration collects work. Maybe this is already fixed, but we wouldn’t know since there’s no explanation for the resolution.

 

A120 Authorize the Commemoration of Simeon Bachos, the Ethiopian Eunuch — Second Reading. Full text. YES, if amended.

As you will have guessed, there is also no explanation for this resolution. This is the second reading to add the Ethiopian Eunuch, a central figure in Acts 8, to our calendar. This was first proposed in 2022-A008). I’m happy enough to commemorate most any biblical figure, though I don’t think we should make up names to go with them. Simeon Bachos is a name that tradition ascribes to the Ethiopian eunuch (similarly to the tradition that gives the name Photini to the woman at the well). Since historicity is one of our stated criteria, I’d prefer to take the scriptures at their word and accept these figures as historic, but without adding details not contained within the scriptures. Let’s just commemorate the Ethiopian eunuch with that title.

By the way, sometimes you hear people using the Ethiopian eunuch as an example of why we should baptize anyone, any time. “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” Fair, and I agree that when someone says this, we should baptize them! But we might also note that the Ethiopian was on his way back from Jerusalem, where he had been worshiping, and he was already reading the scriptures. So he had some considerable skin in the game already. I’m not here to dissuade you from baptizing anyone, ever. Just noting that the baptism in Acts 8 didn’t come out of nowhere.

 

A121 Authorize the Commemoration of the Consecration of Barbara Clementine Harris — Second Reading. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Sit down, I have some shocking news. There’s no explanation attached with this resolution. Your intrepid blogger is not deterred. This is the second reading of a plan to add the Consecration [sic] of Barbara Clementine Harris to the calendar, with the first reading having been approved in resolution 2022-C023. Bishop Harris was, of course, the first woman to be ordained bishop in the Anglican Communion. My only desired amendment here would be to remove the word “consecration” to align with the baptismal ecclesiology of our current prayer book. Bishops, priests, and deacons are all ordained to their respective offices. And the ordination of each order includes a consecration. Or if you want to talk about the consecration of bishops, make sure you also talk about consecrating deacons and priests. And if you like Bishop So-and-so was “ordained and consecrated” then so too was Deacon Such-and-such also “ordained and consecrated.” But this is a tiny detail, and I’m perfectly delighted to commemorate a singularly inspiring bishop, woman, leader, and fellow disciple. We can go back and fix this one — and the Consecration of Samuel Seabury — at some future convention.

 

A122 Withdraw the trial use commemoration of Episcopal Deaconesses. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Surprise, surprise, there is an explanation attached to this resolution, and it’s a good thing. It notes that the SCLM “heard feedback from the church that it would be better to honor specific, named, deaconesses rather than to honor the vocation generically, just as we honor specific nurses, bishops, teachers, or missionaries on the Calendar rather than honoring each vocation as a collective.” Fair. They have a plan to commemorate some specific deaconesses.

 

A123 Authorize the trial use Commemoration of Adeline Blanchard Tyler and her Companions — First Reading. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would add Adeline Blanchard Tyler to the calendar for commemoration on November 4. She was the first woman to be made deaconess back in the 19th century. I’m completely happy to commemorate her; she sounds amazing from the biography in the attached documents. However, there is clearly work to be done to get the propers ready for prime time. There’s no Rite I collect, and the provided collect is not quite in line with the standard form of collects. The attached bio is way too long to fit in the space allotted within Lesser Feasts & Fasts. So I think the SCLM needs a bit more time to work on this one, and then we can add her to the calendar in due course. I also think, as I wrote in the introduction, that we would do well to wait a bit before adding folks to our calendar. The above-listed resolutions are all second readings, which means our work this time is simply finishing what has been begun. That’s different from starting from scratch on calendar changes.

 

A124 Authorize the trial use Commemoration of Liliʻuokalani of Hawai’i — First Reading. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, we would be approving the first of two readings necessary to add Liliʻuokalani of Hawai’i to the calendar for commemoration on January 29. As with the previous resolution, it appears to me that the SCLM is not quite done with the propers. I think we would do well to wait until we have perfected material. In the meantime, the explanation notes there is already a local commemoration in Hawai’i. Folks there — and elsewhere — can commemorate this worthy figure even before official adoption. Among other things, there’s no Rite I collect. The bio needs a bit of work. The SCLM had a lot on their plate this time, so it’s completely understandable not everything is ready. Since local commemoration need not be delayed, I think we could delay adding Liliʻuokalani until everything is ready to go.

Also, as I wrote in the intro to this post, I think we might put a moratorium on adding people and moving things around to give ourselves time to get things a bit more organized and consistent.

 

A125 Add Optional Fast Days to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Nope. There is no explanation, so I can’t speculate on why the SCLM wants to take this work on. They mention a mandate from 2018 (!) but that resolution also has little information. Even in their Blue Book report, there is little more than this cryptic line: “We would also like to revisit the question of adding additional optional fast days to the calendar, which General Convention had directed us to consider in 2018 (2018-A-67), but which was delayed by the pandemic. We had a robust conversation this biennium about possibilities, and hope that our successors will be able to take up that work.” Given our difficulty in promulgating high-quality liturgies, and given the massive amount of work already on their plate, I think this is something we can take a pass on. Perhaps there is some need for this I can’t imagine, but I have never once heard anyone say, “I sure wish we had a few more fast days in LFF.”

Let’s save ourselves some work and free up the SCLM to complete other necessary work which will occupy their time. And, again, let’s also invest the resources necessary to get the kind of liturgical work our church needs. The SCLM folks mean well and do their best. I don’t doubt that! But they are under-resourced. The solution is to increase resources and decrease work. This resolution is an easy pass for me.

 

A126 Transfer dates of commemorations in Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution solves the “problem” that we have many days with two or more commemorations on a single day. Of course, the first question that comes to mind is, “Why did we stack up commemorations if we didn’t want to have stacked commemorations?” A natural second question is, “What is the issue with allowing people to make a choice in which commemorations they keep?” We already have rubrics that allow for the transfer of lesser feasts, so if one wanted to commemorate both of the lesser feats on a single day, that’s easy to do.

There are three reasons I oppose this resolution. First, as I just wrote, I don’t see a “problem” that actually needs to be fixed. Second, moving feast days around will result in MORE confusion in our church, not less. Everyone who doesn’t go out and buy Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2024 will have the wrong calendar. Almost brand-new resources will suddenly be out of date. People are already massively confused about our calendar, let’s not shuffle the deck chairs calendar dates to fix things that don’t need to be fixed. Third, we have proven that our liturgical actions often have unintended consequences. As part of our multi-triennium holding pattern, let’s take a long hard look at our full calendar holistically. If we then decide we need to “declutter” or move things around, let’s do it all at once, carefully and thoroughly.

 

A127 Establish a Working Group to Update Biographies in Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution aims to clean up the biographies for all the folks commemorated in Lesser Feasts & Fasts. by authorizing “the creation of a small working group of church historians to review the biographies in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, taking note of changes in scholarship that have occurred since many of the biographies were first approved, and make any appropriate revisions.” In addition to church historians, I’d like to see church theologians, poets, and skilled writers involved in this work. Let’s make sure our biographies are historically accurate, theologically strong, and beautiful to read. The resolution also encourages this group to consider if any of the folks we commemorate might need to be revisited for being involved in the slave trade, for example. While I don’t think we should judge ancient people with a fully modern lens, we can well choose who to commemorate or not. This makes sense. The working group would have six years to work, and then they’d report to the SCLM. Sounds fine to me. Let’s just make sure we expand the circle of folks who are involved in the work.

 

A128 Concerning minor edits to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

If passed, this resolution would authorize the SCLM to fix little mistakes in Lesser Feasts & Fasts without recourse to a full resolution and action by General Convention. Makes good sense. I think it’s healthy to have one more outside person overseeing any corrections. This could be added to the plate of the Custodian of the Book of Common Prayer, or perhaps it could require approval by the Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies. This won’t happen frequently, so I don’t think it’s a major burden on anyone to co-sign what the SCLM proposes.

 

A129 Lectionary for Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Lesser Feasts & Fasts provides just two lessons (either an OT or an Epistle, plus a Gospel) for most feasts. This resolution would add a third lesson so that folks commemorating these would have the option of a “normal” flow of three lessons during Holy Eucharist. I’m fine with that. My concern is that I spent 30 seconds looking at the lectionary and found an error. Maybe I just happened to spot the only one. Or maybe there are others. Again, for the sake of avoiding confusion, I’d like to propose that we wait on this until everything has been double- and triple-checked. I know that we don’t pay proofreaders to look at this stuff, so I don’t blame volunteers — who are doubtless doing their best — for missing stuff now and then. But let’s invest the resources to do this well, if we’re going to do it.

If we don’t want to wait a triennium, let’s spend $10,000 or so and hire the necessary professionals to ensure that what resource that is eventually release is perfected. We could authorize the SCLM to make necessary changes and to publish this once it’s done. But it doesn’t seem done now (unless I just happened to spot the one error. It’s in the Confession of St. Peter, by the way.).

While I probably wouldn’t use the three lessons provided by this resource, I don’t mind offering them for folks who would like to have more scripture in their celebrations.

 

C011 Add Howard W. Thurman to The Episcopal Church Calendar. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only to refer to the SCLM.

This resolution wants to add Howard Thurman to our calendar of commemorations. Thurman was amazing, and I’m personally grateful for his writing. I think it’s quite likely that he should have a place on our calendar of commemorations. The challenge is that the way we do this is to develop a set of propers and then propose the commemoration with its propers. This resolution does not include the necessary ingredients for Thurman to be added. A solution would be to refer this resolution to the SCLM for their consideration. They can use that as a mandate, if desired, to develop propers. Then we will be in a position to add this commemoration.

As I’ve said before, I think we need to have a waiting period before we add folks or move things around. But perhaps Thurman is an exception to that rule. In any case, we can’t add him yet. So let’s refer this to the SCLM for their consideration.

 

C012 Add Howard W. Thurman to the Episcopal Church Calendar. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only to refer to the SCLM.

See commentary on C011.

 

C020 Add Ilia Chavchavadze of Georgia to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO, but perhaps this could be referred to the SCLM.

As with C011, this resolution says it wants to add someone to the calendar of commemorations. The resolution does not provide the necessary ingredients. The biography included does not make it clear the Ilia Chavchavadze satisfies all the criteria enumerated in LFF for inclusion in the calendar. Perhaps so. Perhaps this proposal could be referred to the SCLM for their consideration.

 

C021 Second General Convention Reading to add Élie Naud, Huguenot Witness to the Faith, 1722, to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution claims to offer a second reading of a plan to add Élie Naud to our calendar of commemorations. But I’m not sure we had a first reading. As nearly as I can tell, Naud was included in A Great Cloud of Witnesses (2015) , which was never authorized for use, merely “made available.” The only mention of Naud I could find in the archives was in a 2018 resolution containing draft language with a calendar copied from AGCW, but that portion of the resolution was never enacted. So, if anything, this would be a first reading. But there are no propers here. Perhaps, if anything, this could be referred to the SCLM for them to untangle this and then decide of Naud should receive a first (?) reading for inclusion in the calendar.

 

C023 Commemorating The Philadelphia Eleven in the Church Calendar. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only to refer to the SCLM.

We are near the 50th anniversary of the first ordinations of women as priests in the Episcopal Church. I am profoundly grateful for the ministry and leadership of women in our church, and I’m especially thankful for the courage of those early trailblazers. It could well make sense to have a commemoration of those first ordinations in our calendar. However, this resolution does not contain the necessary ingredients fo this to happen. Therefore, the best course of action available to us now would be to refer this to the SCLM for their consideration.

 

D033 Add George of Lydda, martyr, to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only to refer to the SCLM.

The explanation attached to this resolution contains documents for which no Spanish translation has been provided.

This resolution would add St. George (patron of England, among other things) to our calendar of commemorations. It is widely agreed that he lacks historicity but meets many other criteria for inclusion in our calendar. Given the worldwide cult of devotion to him, I think it is worthy of our consideration to add him. This should be referred to the SCLM for their consideration.

 

D046 The Commemoration of Sister Sophi and her companions, the Deaconesses of The Order of St. Katherine, of the Appleton Church Home. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This proposes to add a commemoration of some 19th century deaconesses. You can read biographical material in the attached documents (helpfully provided in Spanish and English, yay!). The propers need some help: the “collect” is not quite in the proper form yet, and the bio will need to be shortened to fit in the space provided by LFF. And I lack the expertise to know if these folks meet the criteria set forth in LFF for inclusion in our calendar. All of this is to say that we should refer this to the SCLM for their consideration.

 

SHAMELESS COMMERCIAL PLUG! The illustration is from the calendar page of the gift edition of the Book of Common Prayer sold by Forward Movement. It’s the 1979 prayer book with red rubrics, a leather cover, ribbon marker, and gilt-edge pages. If you want a beautiful BCP for home or church use, this is your friend. You can get it from Forward Movement directly, from Amazon, or your local bookseller. Please note: I do not receive a commission if you buy this! I’m just proud of Forward Movement’s work on this one.

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 9: Evangelism & the future church 6 Jun 2024 4:00 AM (10 months ago)

candles in a church

At this General Convention, we have 36 resolutions on public policy, in which we tell others what to do. And here we turn to the two (!) resolutions on evangelism. I won’t say more. You can make whatever sense you like of those numbers.

I will say this: evangelism is central to the practice of our faith. Though to listen to many folks in our church, you’d think we only had two baptismal promises (the last two), in fact, in our baptismal promises we say we will “proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ.” So maybe we should pay more attention to that promise. Anyway, onward to the resolutions that deal with evangelism, 0.7% of the total number of submitted resolutions to date.

 

A045 Celebrate and Support the Planting of New Episcopal Worshiping Communities. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

I want to love this resolution, I really do. It asks for $1.6 million for church planting and for supporting church planters. The problem is that we don’t, as a denomination, seem to have figured out how to use church planting resources effectively yet. We love to launch flashy new things (“Look, it’s a Bible study at a minigolf course! Hey, it’s a worshiping community at a juice bar!”) but these are often not sustainable, nor do they appear to make disciples particularly well. We need to learn to plant churches with worship services, altar guilds, Bible studies, outreach projects, and the like. Sure, they’ll look different from church plants in the 1950s, but it is in community as we do the basics of worship, study, and service that we make disciples. I’m just not sure what will happen with the money from this resolution. We need to have great benchmarks of what works and what doesn’t. And so on.

Look, I’m not saying we need to pretend we’re back in Christendom where the main model is suburban churches with bustling Sunday schools and big parking lots. I’m saying we need to focus on discipleship. By “sustainability” I mean that there’s a plan to keep the community going over the long haul. Maybe the members of the new community aren’t paying a priest’s salary and such, but perhaps there’s a way for a nearby church or a hosting congregation to make time available from someone on their staff. The plan could look like all sorts of things, but there must be a clear plan for the long haul.

I could get on board with this resolution if two big changes were made. One is a stated goal that the aim here is to launch communities that will be sustainable in the long term. Another is that the people leading this $1.6 million initiative must be, themselves, lay leaders and clergy who have successfully planted churches that are thriving and growing to this day. If we can’t round up enough Episcopalians for this, we might borrow some folks from another denomination to help us out for a bit.

Back in my parish priest days in Rhode Island, the conventional wisdom was that we had too many churches in Little Rhody and that decline and closure were inevitable. I believed that. And then I started hanging out in a local coffee shop on Fridays. Turns out there were two other pastors, both church planters, who were also there on Fridays. We all got to know each other. In the same place where Episcopalians were busy proclaiming the certainty of decline, one of those pastors was leading a church with 200-300 on a Sunday that met in a movie theatre. That church was 2-3 years old, I think. The other pastor was leading a plant with 100 on a Sunday that met…in the basement of an Episcopal Church. The point is that maybe we could learn some things from people who do this well. And, here’s a truly radical idea: maybe before we spend vast sums, we should spend an extended time in prayer, appealing fervently for the might of the Holy Spirit to inflame our hearts and fill our minds with God’s wisdom.

So if we can fix this resolution to point it toward sustainable, measurable results, I’m all for it. Otherwise, it seems like another way to make ourselves feel better without changing reality on the ground, in this case with new, sustainable congregations as fruit.

 

A046 Support Starting New Bi-Cultural and Multi-Cultural Ministries. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.

As with the previous resolution, I want to love this one, which asks for $500,000 to start new bi-cultural and multicultural ministries. See my commentary on A045, most of which applies here, too. I’d like to see the same focus on sustainable church plants in this resolution. We don’t need novelty ministries; we need disciple-making in churches. Again, to be clear, there are lots of ways to do that, but disciple-making must be the beginning, the middle, and the end of our church planting work. I’m also concerned that the first resolve upholds the good work of the Ethnic Ministries missioners, but then the accountability for the funds for these new bi-cultural and multicultural ministries does not mention the Ethnic Ministries missioners. If we’re starting, say, a Latino/Hispanic community, shouldn’t we have a process built in to consult with the Latino/Hispanic missioner or folks he recommends? If we can focus the spending a little, and if we can include the folks who are experts in the ministry context AND in successful church planting, I’m all for it.

Image by NoName_13 from Pixabay

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?

Committee 8: Congregational vitality & data-driven initiatives 5 Jun 2024 5:11 PM (10 months ago)

church with sunrise or sunset and large tree

It’s time to look at resolutions assigned to the committee on Congregational vitality & data-driven initiatives. It’s telling that there are just five resolutions on congregational vitality but at least 36 resolutions in which the Episcopal Church tells other people what to do in terms of public policy. In the year before the pandemic (2019), the Episcopal Church saw a 24% decline in average Sunday attendance over the previous ten years. For the most recently available statistical year (2022), the ten-year attendance pattern shows a stunning 44% decline. You’d think maybe congregational vitality would be a bit more of a priority with numbers like those.

Alas, we will spend almost no time at this General Convention talking about how well we are doing at fulfilling the Great Commission. At least this committee, along with a couple of others, creates an opportunity for us to consider how well we are doing at the main job Jesus gave us in the church. Without further ado, let’s look at these resolutions.

 

A044 Develop Sustainable Congregational Revitalization Ministries. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

Right out of the gate, this resolution supports the idea of congregational vitality as “seeking not to restore past glories, but to move into the new callings of our loving, liberating, life-giving God.” I don’t much love supporting and affirming things, but there is so little attention paid to the literal point of the church among all our resolutions that I can’t help but be delighted here. The resolution also calls us “to prioritize commitment to mission and evangelism engaging under-represented groups, including youth and young adults, disabled persons, members of LGBTQIA communities, BIPOC communities, poor and working-class people, people with a high-school diploma or less, and/or people with little or no church background or involvement.” The mention of poor and working-class people, along with those who have less formal education, is especially needed in our church because I don’t think we talk much about these groups as priorities in our evangelistic efforts.

The fundamental aim of the resolution is to launch a revitalization effort to the tune of $500,000, with some specific ideas and targets: engage bishops in defining vitality, learn what’s working, translation of materials, support church-wide or local staff to oversee this work, and provision of leadership coaching and mentoring. This seems like a good set of projects at a reasonable cost. My concern is that these folks may be starting from scratch, and it’s easy for a good deal of resources to be consumed by overhead. I suspect the funds could be used more efficiently if the whole sum was made as a block grant to a non-profit, parachurch organization, or even a diocese already doing this work. Then a lot of the infrastructure would be in place, and the money could go right to work. There’s no explanation with this resolution (GRRRRRR!!!), so I have no idea who the proposers are imagining uses this money. I’d like to see some specificity around who carries out this work, exactly. The resolution mentions an advisory group, but a dozen volunteers aren’t going to be able to carry out a project of this scale, though they can certainly advise!

DISCLOSURE: Forward Movement does work like this, and it has occurred to me that we could carry this out. But others could do this, and I only want the best use of the funds. Since we all labor in the same vineyard, there’s no competition. Just wanted to gesture toward a potential elephant in the room as I write this. I will be delighted if another parachurch organization, a diocese, or some other clearly identified entity takes on this work.

 

A067 Rebranding the Parochial Report. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

For those who don’t know, the parochial report is an annual report of various data required of all congregations. These data allow us to see the state of our church in attendance, finances, formation, and other measures. There are three problems with the current parochial report. First, many people just don’t like the numbers that are being reported. That’s like being mad at your doctor because they tell you about your high blood pressure. Second, many clergy find the report onerous to complete. In those parishes with adequate skills and resources in administration, the report is quite easy to complete. It becomes difficult because some congregations are less administratively organized. I don’t say that in judgment; as a church we generally have not provided much administrative support and training to congregations, which would be especially helpful in smaller and under-resourced congregations. Third, there is no agreement on what’s important to measure, because we don’t have an articulated strategy for the Episcopal Church.

In response to all this, this resolution asks for the “rebranding” of the parochial report. If we gave it a new name and a fancy logo, it would still suffer from the above three problems. The resolution also commends people to pay attention to the data and gather data outside the report. Yes, we should already be doing these things; we don’t need a resolution to tell us this. And the resolution, without mentioning the state of the church committee (which has the canonical mandate to oversee the report), says that the General Convention Office “refine the parochial report form by asking better, more precise, and fewer questions.” Well, yes, fine. But without agreed-upon priorities, what even is “better” in this case?

As an aside, the committee on the state of the church is a House of Deputies committee. For such important work, this should probably be a joint Standing Commission, so that we can involve bishops in this work, as well as deputies.

 

A158 Addressing Church Decline and Fostering Church Revitalization. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

As you know, if you’ve been reading this series, I don’t love “mandates” without accountability, because they get widely ignored. If something’s important enough to mandate, it’s important enough to put some teeth on it and some penalties for non-compliance or rewards for compliance.

I kind of love the first resolve here, which directs “every diocese which has experienced a decline in Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) between 2013 and 2022 to submit a report to the Secretary of the General Convention by June 30, 2025 that includes (1) a straight-line forecast of ASA for the following decade; (2) the diocese’s efforts to halt or reverse the decline in ASA and other membership statistics, if any; and (3) all quantitative data on the efficacy of those efforts.” That would be every single diocese in the Episcopal Church.

This is critical, because we don’t talk about our decline in constructive ways. Either people brush it off as unimportant, or we treat it as inevitable, or we simply ignore it. But decline is a crucial indicator of our health in disciple-making and it is reversible. We need to pay attention to why we are declining, and when we see growth, to what is yielding fruit. My suggestion is that if we really want this to happen, make the diocesan assessment 1% or 2% higher for dioceses who do not submit their vitality report on time.

The resolution also asks for all the reports to be published in full, for all to see. This is excellent. We might learn some things from each other. There’s one resolve that needs to be amended for this to work: “That a clearing-house of resources to address decline and foster church revitalization be created by December 31, 2025.” That passive-voice construction makes clear that no one has been assigned to do this. The resolution needs to specify who is creating the clearing house. Perhaps this work is why the authors of the resolution ask for $100,000 — to pay a consultant? The explanation doesn’t really make this clear.

So I will heartily support this resolution if there is clear accountability, both for who is doing the work and in the requirement that dioceses submit their reports.

 

D024 Recommending Use of Episcopal Camps and Conference Centers. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

In its entirety, this resolution resolves, “That the 81st General Convention recommends for The Episcopal Church and Episcopal entities to utilize Episcopal Conference Centers when gathering for events, whenever possible.” I love Episcopal conference centers, and I personally have encouraged folks to hold meetings at them when possible. We at Forward Movement have done this ourselves. My objection to this resolution is that it won’t do much. Will someone looking for a meeting venue search the digital archives of the Episcopal Church to see if any resolutions have ever recommended particular venues? While I support the aim of this resolution, there are better ways to encourage the use of Episcopal conference centers — PR, endorsements, organic marketing, and so on. We must wean ourselves from all the commending, endorsing, recommending, condemning, and urging that we love to do.

 

D044 Task Force on Church Property Development. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, this resolution would create one of the 21 task forces contemplated by the resolutions heading to General Convention. The new task force created here would “(1) collect information and resources useful to churches and dioceses considering redevelopment, including success stories from around the church (2) identify any gaps in the information available and hurdles to redevelopment, (3) make recommendations on how to leverage existing church property and financial assets to further the work of mission and ministry, including congregational redevelopment, church planting, and evangelism, and (4) propose or establish a group, network, or para-church organization that can assist churches in future efforts.” That’s all worthy work, but I wonder if the Episcopal Church Building Fund or Trinity Wall Street or the Episcopal Parish Network, all mentioned in the resolution, could simply take on this work without creating another task force, which adds overhead, consumes resources, and delays action. The resolution asks for $30,000. That’s not much money in the overall scheme of things, but it all adds up. Perhaps instead, Executive Council or DFMS could simply make a small block grant to one of the named parachurch organizations or to a congregation to pull together a small team to get this done quickly. In other words, I support the work, but I think the method proposed here will take longer and cost more than just getting right to it.

Image by Lars Nissen from Pixabay

Add post to Blinklist Add post to Blogmarks Add post to del.icio.us Digg this! Add post to My Web 2.0 Add post to Newsvine Add post to Reddit Add post to Simpy Who's linking to this post?