Inclusivity and thoughtful change that embraces tradition

At the end of last week I was at a training of EfM mentors in Waverly, Georgia. I enjoy being a part of these trainings as it is clearly evident how important this program is to the Church, as well as to those who take the course. For some time now I have been convinced that the Episcopal Church is on the verge of a breakthrough. We, Episcopalians, have realized that Christianity, as it has been expressed in the past, needs to be brought into a new reality in the 21st century. With our focus on inclusivity and thoughtful change that embraces tradition, we can lead the way. EfM has been for some time a vital part of this exciting process.

At the end of a long training day I was having a break with several friends, and conversation drifted towards the topic of our Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori. There was a noticeable increase of energy in the conversation. I mentioned how excited I was about her Pentecost pastoral letter and was surprised to hear that no one in the group had read it yet. It may be the most important thing she has said to date. I strongly encouraged them, and more importantly encourage you, to read it if you have not already done so. You can find it readily on the Episcopal News Service web site, Episcopal News online June 4th.

I am thrilled by this letter. We - I am not the only one who feels this way - have been waiting for it for a long time. Bishop Katherine was prompted to write this letter largely as a response to a public letter written by Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury http://www.anglicansonline.org, which reintroduces the concept that there be a two-tiered Anglican Communion, one that agrees with his position, the first tier and one the doesn't the second. This time the presenting issue for Archbishop Williams is the election as bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles of Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, and the affirmation of that action by the majority of dioceses across the country. Although the dividing incident seems once again to be about the role of gay and lesbian persons, I am convinced that the tension is about something deeper.

Since the beginning of the Church of England, the birth mother of all Anglican Churches, there have been differences about the nature of hierarchy. Who controls the workings of the Church? Is it a top down organization like the Roman Catholic Church, or is it a bottom up, grass roots organization like the first century churches. Interestingly, it is now the Church of England which represents the top down model, and the Episcopal Church which represents the bottom up model. This is no surprise I guess given that this is exactly what we fought a revolutionary war about. I find it ironic, to say the least, that Archbishop Williams says he's fighting to hold a World Wide Anglican Communion together. In fact, it was the creation of the Episcopal Church that prompted the possibility of an Anglican community, as we were, the first of England's colonies to start our own church. We have long held, as Bishop Katherine says in her letter, that the strength of the communion is in it's diversity and flexibility. As it gets larger and much more multicultural the Archbishop of Canterbury struggles to enforce regulations and controls.

Bishop Katherine does others things in this brilliant letter, too. She acknowledges and accepts, on behalf of us all, our part in the exploitation that happened during colonization both abroad and here at home. She also firmly and without equivocation expresses the views of the majority of Episcopalians, that it is our desire to fully include all persons in all aspects of church life as has been demonstrated by the approval of Mary Glasspool. Our presiding bishop has, with forcefulness and grace taken a definite position. One, many of us feel, on which we can stand with her. Archbishop Williams. on the other hand, continues to chastise the North American Churches, while turning a blind eye to the actions of other Churches, particularly some in Africa.

In our agreement with and admiration for the words and actions of the Presiding Bishop, it is appropriate for us to ask how we can help. Bishop Katherine references the baptismal prayers found in our Prayer Book, that we “strive for justice... and respect the dignity of every human being.” We will continue to work very hard for the full inclusion of all people to receive all the blessings that the Church offers now only to some.

Telling the Story

“Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden,

and I will refresh you.” Matt. 11:28

We have come to that time in the deliberations at General Convention when eyes begin to glaze over. Participants are beginning to peek at their travel home itineraries, to buddy up for rides, to dream of their own beds. It has been a long ten days, work starting with committee meetings at 7:00 a.m. and ending too late to catch the late news on hotel room televisions.

Parliamentary process with 1,000 deputies asking procedural questions, expressing opinions, and all too often enjoying the sound of their own voices on the PA system, can make the four hour sessions absolutely mind-numbing. An occasional stroll to the water cooler or restroom is the total exercise possible during a day 'on the floor'. Yet in the midst of the tedium there have been thrilling moments, as when the vote was taken for the Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, and the announcement of the vote taken in the House of Bishops electing Katharine Jefferts Shori as the Presiding Bishop in 2006.

There are also those quiet moments when, if one listens very carefully, one can hear the rustlings of change, the murmurings of hope. At the beginning of this morning’s session, the penultimate day of Convention, the House of Deputies heard its chaplain describe the work of evangelism. Not the definition hijacked by religious hucksters (my term) but a much more traditional understanding of the word, translated as “telling the story,” --telling others your/our story about what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

Our preacher at the morning Eucharist, Brian McLaren, took up the same topic in his sermon. He called it “using the 'e' word.” He spoke to the heart of the matter of why we have been assembled here in Anaheim for nearly two weeks. Frank Wade and Brian McLaren both got it right today. Pioneering sociologist Emile Durkheim once famously wrote that the primary goal of any institution is its own continuance. History and a realistic appraisal of the situation on the ground have proven him to be correct, overwhelmingly. However, let us consider that the Episcopal Church may be about to prove the exception to the rule. Our Church’s goal is to simultaneously maintain the precious traditions of a story that reminds of who we are (and whose we are), and still provide a fearless vision for the cessation of any entity whose self-preservation concerns override its responsibility to the “least of these” as expressed in Scripture. This is the legacy of Jesus, the reason for his presence in the world, and the way that we are bound to follow.

Today the big news on the floor of the House of Deputies was the debate over acceptance of the Church’s budget for the next three years. Its presentation alone created consternation and anxiety for many, as the cuts were extensive. I spent some time this evening with the Chief Operating Officer of the Episcopal Church, our own parishioner Linda Watt ,who expressed great concern for the substantial number of national church employees who lost their jobs in the aftermath of these cuts. And yet, even in the midst of this tale of scarcity, there are bright glimmers of hope for our beloved Church. Adherence to our commitments to the poorest among us, in a global sense, was consistent and well honored. Today we pledged 1% of our income to the Millennium Development Goals, and .7% to our domestic poverty programs.

In meeting the need to pare our budget, I believe we also did another great thing, unintended and difficult though it may be. We asked ourselves to adhere to the Principle of Subsidiarity, a seemingly complex and obscure theological notion that is actually very easy to understand. The principle is that the most effective method of dealing with an issue is to do so at the most basic and uncomplicated level. For our purposes, this means that the best, most effective way for Episcopalians to deal with Jesus’ call for us to be missionaries in the world, and to sow generosity where the world wants only to reap selfishness, is on the local, diocesan and parish, levels. It is our opportunity, therefore, to be as the first disciples were, real flesh and blood proof of a living and loving God.

As I leave this convention tomorrow, I am even more convinced that it is each of us who must be Jesus’ agent of change in a world longing for the coming of the Reign of God, for the peace that passes all understanding. If not us, as you have heard me say many times, then who? Jesus’ promise in the quote from Matthew at the top of this post is that we do not, and will not, do this alone.

Time Flies

How is it that sometimes the import of the moment arrives with great clarity, like having the San Francisco fog, a visual 'herd of elephants' pushed by an invisible force, flee before the radiant sun. Sometimes such a moment can only be gauged over time, unfolding like a spring bud. I wrote yesterday that the passage of resolution D025 by both houses here at General Convention was the latter. Yesterday morning, watching the House of Bishops begin deliberation on C056 was just the opposite; it felt more like momentum. I arrived at the visitors' section of the House of Bishops a little after the conversation started, and the first thing I saw was my classmate and good friend, the Bishop of Kansas, Dean Wolf, stand to ask that those who were in the majority on this issue exercise "generosity of spirit" with those who were in the minority. I was taken aback. Had votes been taken already? Who was this apparently overwhelming majority and who was the minority? This resolution was one of the more controversial. It has to do with the second essential pillar for full inclusion, the companion of D025 which affirmed full inclusion into the ordained roles of the Church. It's called C056 and it directs the Standing Committee on Liturgy (standing committees meet throughout the year, not just every three years), to develop rites for the blessings of same gendered couples. In very similar forms, this resolution has been before General Conventions since 1994. The difference is that this time it has, as I said, real momentum.

Many observers, including our own Bishop Johnston in his pre-election appearances around the diocese, have stated that the ability to bless same gender couples in the context of a liturgy approved by the Church is the lynchpin of all changes dealing with the full inclusion of the GLBT community. There is the clear expectation that we hold ourselves, all of us, to a high moral standard. This is a requirement of our ordained persons. 'Faithful', 'monogamous', 'life affirming', 'committed','intentional' are words that we use in describing intimacy between two people. While we recognize only two sacraments in the Episcopal Church, Baptism and Eucharist, we still consider Confirmation, Last Rites, Holy Orders, the Penitential rite and the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage to be “lesser” sacraments. The last of these sacraments is withheld only from gay and lesbian couples and its denial then bans them from serving the Church as clergy. I agree with Bishop Johnston and others who assert that ordained persons living in an intimate relationship with another person should have the expectation of having that relationship conform to the moral expectations of the Church. Now, back to the story of the day.

Several bishops spoke powerfully about the resolution, many in favor, some opposed, and several bishops suggested amendments to change the resolution, some a little, some a lot. It was then I began to see the helium leak out of the balloon. Finally, the Presiding Bishop tabled the discussion until today, Wednesday, in the afternoon. I heard in a meeting just a few moments ago that the bishops formed a subcommittee and have written a substitute resolution. I’m hoping the issue will be discussed on the floor of the House of Bishops this afternoon; but that might not happen.

Unfortunately, delaying an important vote such as this for two days provides a tactical opportunity for those who oppose passage to keep the resolution from being acted upon at all. In the labyrinthine machinations of parliamentary procedure, legislation gets lost in the waning days of convention. If the Bishops pass a substitute resolution this afternoon, it will go to the Deputies tomorrow. A special order could possibly put it on the floor tomorrow morning, Thursday. But if any amendments are approved by the Deputies, then it must go back to the Bishops, who will discuss the new form with the amendment included. This would take until Friday, the last day of convention, when many participants will have their attention directed towards home. I well remember 2006 when B033, the resolution asking for a moratorium on the consecration of partnered bishops, happened on Friday. It will be most unfortunate if the acceptance of this very important resolution gets rushed into an up or down vote; equally so if it has to wait another three years. Some have asked for a rundown of the votes for D025.

House of Deputies

Clergy:

The Rev. Susan E. Goff, St. Christopher’s, Springfield yes

The Rev. Susan N. Eaves, St. Thomas’, Richmond yes

The Rev. Robert W. Prichard, Virginia Theological Seminary no

The Rev. James A. Papile, St. Anne’s, Reston yes

Lay:

Mr. Russell V. Randle, Christ Church, Alexandria no

Mr. Russell V. Palmore, Jr., St. Paul’s, Richmond no

Mrs. Cindi Bartol, Christ Church, Alexandria yes

Mr. John Paul Causey, Jr., St. John’s, West Point yes

Bishops:

The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee yes

The Rt. Rev. David Jones yes

The Rt. Rev. Shannon Johnston no

A Tale of Two Houses

It's hard to believe they're in the same building. The House of Deputies meets in what feels like an airplane hangar; it has to be large to accommodate 1,000 deputies, plus visitors and the press. There are two jumbo-tron screens at the front of the hall and with a sound system powerful enough for that enormous space, there is an echo reverberating every time anyone speaks into a microphone. Deputies sit in long rows of tables; every one facing forward, 4 lay deputies sitting in a row and 4 clergy deputies seated right behind them.

In contrast, the House of Bishops feels like sitting in someone’s living room. With just around 150 bishops, the space is naturally much smaller. It’s also at the top of the Convention Center, third floor. The House of Deputies is always on the first floor, right next to the exhibit center. Hmmm, is one closer to the celestial realm and the other closer to the trappings and seductions of the world? Let's not even go there!

Because the bishops meet as a body several times a year (as opposed to the deputies, who meet every three years) the conversation in their house is much more intimate, a feeling enhanced by the round tables seating eight or so of the bishops at a time. At various times, the bishops have conducted small group conversations and Bible studies around these tables, strengthening the atmosphere of closeness. All this familiarity might lead one, such as myself, to a supposition of predictability. It has been my sense, since before the start of Convention, and during it, that the House of Deputies was poised to move forward on the progressive agenda of the Church. On the other hand, the House of Bishops would be quite conservative, not so much in the political sense of the word, but rather in a 'preserving the way the Church will continue' sense of the word. Thinly veiled admonitions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and reports of the Church of England’s scrutiny of our actions (they are now participating in their own national meeting) only reified my assumption.

That is, until yesterday. Yesterday the House of Bishops stunned the Convention, and many others, I’m sure, by concurring with the House of Deputies on resolution D025 (you can find the text on my post from two days ago). This is the resolution stating that neither a candidate's sexual orientation, nor his/her same gender relationship, can, in and of itself, preclude ordination. What a huge step for the bishops to take--and it passed with a two-thirds majority.

While the bishops were discussing the matter of ordaining same gender partnered candidates into all three Holy Orders, the House of Deputies passed, with a significant majority, resolution C061, a canonical amendment. Changes in Canon Law are substantively very different from other resolutions. As with civil law, the interpretation of a Canon is much narrower -- not nearly as subject to the feelings or beliefs of individual bishops.

Language was carefully parsed in this resolution to state: No person shall be denied access or have his or her discernment process terminated because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons

Many deputies were concerned about some of the terms. For instance, what does "gender expression" mean? These questions reflect our evolving understanding of gender identity in every aspect of contemporary culture. It seems that developments in medicine, psychology, and sociology break new territory daily. It is to the credit of our Church that we contribute to this conversation. We should not fear the emergent understanding of these aspects of human life; rather, we should embrace our role in welcoming God's people

There has been much conversation in newspapers and on blogs about what this all means. We will have to live into the reality of our actions before we can understand their full ramifications. One thing I know is that each diocesan bishop will continue to use his or her own judgment in these matters. It will be the responsibility of each diocese in its convention (in Virginia's case, annual council) to advise its bishop. St. Anne’s has sponsored resolutions at the past several annual councils in this matter. I am proud of us, for we have been in the vanguard.

Tomorrow: same gender blessings

Zebra Book, Revisited

“OK; this morning we want to talk about the Zebra Book.” I had already been through a thoroughly confusing Sunday morning worship service, juggling two books and a leaflet, stumbling over unfamiliar language. Did I just say that I was “not worthy so much as to gather up crumbs under this thy table?” What did that mean? And yet, as the weeks went by, as I got more used to the Book of Common Prayer, I became infatuated. As I used the Book not just on Sunday mornings, but also in my daily prayers, I found the language to be quite beautiful. With repetition, the prayers began to speak to me deeply. I learned that the “Zebra Book” was one of several trial prayer books distributed throughout the denomination as the Episcopal Church approached the adopting of a new prayer book, and did so in 1979. At that time the Church was ready to change. However, I also learned about the difficulties the prayer book revision caused Episcopalians who did not want to let go of the 1928 edition. I watched both the efforts to minister to those who were upset, as well as the commitment to a desire to worship in a way that was relevant to a new time. I was moved and impressed; I embraced the Episcopal Church as my own.

Learning more deeply about the history and theology of the Episcopal Church has increased my appreciation for the working of the Church. Not being part of a “confessing church" like other Protestants, and not having to follow theological dogma from church leadership as Roman Catholics do, it is, in fact, the Book of Common Prayer that holds us together. Lex orandi, lex credendi, “What we believe is what we pray.” This is the theological overview of the Anglican ethos. Since we are committed to praying together with the Book of Common Prayer, this community activity is the highest form of Anglican theology and doctrine. Imagine my delight with the 1979 prayer book which gave such variety and breadth in terms of both corporate and personal worship. Not only did we carefully preserve the poetic Elizabethan language, we added sensitive, responsive, instructive language. A new awareness was born in us as a people when we began to declare in prayer that ours is “a fragile earth, our island home.”

So where am I going with this personal testimony and historical exposition? Since 1990, the General Convention has discussed the issue of developing a service for the Church's blessing the commitment of a same gender relationship. Today, we are poised to authorize the appropriate committees of the Church to prepare these liturgies. This morning, Tuesday, the House of Bishops is scheduled to discuss Resolution CO56 (text included below), which states that at the next General Convention the expectation is that a rite will be added to the authorized services of the Episcopal Church, hopefully an addition to the Book of Common Prayer.

My point is that our expansive and inclusive Prayer Book, thanks to all the work done with the “Zebra Book" and others in the 1970s, will again lead the Church into a deeper understanding of the Reign of God described in the Gospels. It is evident that the Holy Spirit has been working hard in the Episcopal Church here in Anaheim and well before we arrived here. This morning, in what many see as the most unlikely of places, the meeting of the House of Bishops, the Episcopal Church is poised to present to world outside these walls a profoundly new vision.

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops Theology Committee, collect and develop theological resources and liturgies of blessing for same-gender holy unions, to be presented to the 77th General Convention for formal consideration, and be it further

Resolved, that the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops Theology Committee, devise an open process for the conduct of its work in this matter, inviting participation from dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are or have already engaged in the study or design of such rites throughout the Anglican Communion, and be it further

Resolved, that all bishops, noting particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; and be it further

Resolved, that honoring the theological diversity of this Church, no bishop or other member of the clergy shall be compelled to authorize or officiate at such liturgies, and be it further

Resolved, that the Anglican Consultative Council be invited to conversation regarding this resolution and the work that proceeds from it, together with other churches in the Anglican Communion engaged in similar processes.

Minority report from Bishop Henry N. Parsley:

I offer the minority opinion that in the 3rd resolve the substitute should read, "Resolved, that in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same gender marriage or civil unions are legal, the bishop may provide a generous pastoral response to meet the needs of the members of this church."