General Convention is Coming - And You Can Play a Part!

 I think most folks who have seen this blog know that it began reflecting on matters beyond chaplaincy. That’s why, among others things, I have written many posts about General Convention. General Convention has always been important to me as an Episcopalian (I know that may seem obvious, but I bet we all know enough Episcopalians who don’t think about General Convention), and especially as a wonk. I appreciate that the ecclesiology expressed in the Episcopal Church considers that the Holy Spirit moves in each person, and so we hear the Holy Spirit most clearly when the greatest number of us are thinking together. That is the value of General Convention: more than 1,000 folks are gathered to share how they’re hearing the Spirit and lead the Episcopal Church accordingly.

With that in mind, there is a great opportunity available to all of us this year. The 80th General Convention was delayed a year by the pandemic, and will gather this summer. That also allowed for time for an unexpected chance for so many to participate. From the Episcopal News Service: “General Convention committees to welcome public to first-ever online legislative hearings.”

If you’ve never been to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (and I think every Episcopalian should attend, even if only as a Visitor -yes, that’s an official status - and only for a day or two), you may not be aware how matters are decided in General Convention. It looks an awful lot like legislative meetings of the United States or of the various states. Things are voted on. And like those other legislative bodies, a lot of the important work happens in committees. It’s really in the committees that legislation is considered and shaped, and, especially, that testimony is heard. 

In General Convention, any person registered (including Visitors and Exhibitors, another real status) can testify before a Committee, as time allows. Granted, in meetings in person Deputies and Bishops get the first chance to testify, because they may be from other committees, and so need to get back to that work. However, anyone else can put a word in. Testifying by individuals adds information and often a lot of reality and emotional power to the consideration and shaping of a resolution. A resolution is less abstract when you hear how real people are affected by the issues addressed. 

This year at least some committees are meeting ahead of Convention, and meeting online. That will give opportunities for testimony in the Zoom meetings, and that might allow testimony from many of us who wouldn’t otherwise be involved in Convention. As a chaplain I think that’s a great opportunity. We have perspectives on how issues affect people who are receiving healthcare or working in healthcare institutions, perspectives that aren’t heard that often. That’s not to suggest our parish-based clergy and lay siblings wouldn’t care, but that we live in an environment they don’t see every day.

So, ready the article carefully to see how you might participate. Then, go the General Convention Virtual Binder. You can find all the resolutions currently received. For background on the A resolutions (remember, there are A, B, C, and D resolutions, but for this purpose the differences aren’t important), check out the Reports to General Convention, also known as the Blue Book. A few meetings will have happened before you see this, but many more will be coming. You can find the schedule here. And remember to check back regularly on both resolutions and committee meetings. Resolutions will be coming in right up to the first days of Convention; and while you might not have an opportunity to participate in Zoom testimony, you will certainly have an opportunity to let your own bishop and Deputies know what you think. You can also find the lists of committee members here, and so perhaps share perspectives with a bishop or Deputy you know. Oh, and if you don't know who's in your own diocesan deputation (and every one of us who's endorsed has a diocesan connection) you can find that out here.

This really is an important opportunity. Please take the time to read the article, and then explore your own innate wonkiness to help shape the positions and direction of the Episcopal Church

Striking a Balance

I was struck last week when I had these two articles on the Washington Post on the same day. The first, by physician James Hudson: “Our dangerous fear of pain”; and the second, by Amber Petrovish: “Some of us actually need painkillers. Can doctors ease up on us?”. As chaplain-types, we are, I think, aware (or we certainly should be) of the difficult balance. Our physician colleagues are caught between anxiety about over- or inappropriately prescribing and anxiety about leaving patients suffering. 

With that in mind, I would remind folks about General Convention resolution 2018-C037 “Call to Respond to Opioid Epidemic.”  The resolution explicitly speaks both to opioid addiction and to the need to adequately address real and chronic pain. It does spend more text on addressing addiction, but it is balanced in its intent.

It’s worth some time to read both opinion pieces, and then to review the Convention’s response. We need to be aware of the difficulty, and to be aware that the Church has spoken to it.

What I Did on my Summer Vaca.... General Convention: Responding to the Opioid Crisis 2

I wanted to give an update on my earlier post from before General Convention. Specifically, I wanted to update readers on C037 Responding to the Opioid Crisis.

As most of my readers know, each resolution addressed at General Convention requires public testimony to the designated legislative committee. As I noted in my earlier post, I was on Legislative Committee 8 Social Justice and United States Policy, and it was our committee that addressed resolution C037.

In the testimony we heard moving testimony about the impact of the opioid crisis on individuals and families, and about how the Church might be engaged. We also heard another issue addressed. We heard about the problems of patients with chronic conditions and especially chronic pain whose access to appropriate medications was being affected by legislative and regulatory responses to the opioid crisis. In fact, this is an issue I'm also aware of. The Center for Practical Bioethics, one of our great resources in Kansas City, has had among its programs the PAINS Project. (That project has recently transferred to the Academy of Integrative Pain Management [AIPM].)

It is important to realize both concerns are accurate. There is a crisis in the United States, and especially in more economically distressed populations, in addiction to opioid drugs; and while that has turned in the last year or two from abuse primarily of prescription drugs to problems with heroin and imported synthetic fentanyl, control and proper use of the prescription drugs is important. There is also a crisis of poorly managed chronic pain, and patients who need the prescription drugs, and sometimes in unusual dosages, not only to just manage from day to day but to continue to function, to work, to participate in life.

So, when you look at the link above to the finalized language of C037, you'll see we addressed both. We retained concern about the opioid crisis, and continued the request for a task force in the Church to address it. We also acknowledged the proper uses for those drugs and called on the Church to understand and to advocate for those who appropriately need them. Really, I think we did a pretty good job of recognizing both problems, and in speaking to the Episcopal Church about the two needs.

Take a look at the final resolution. Consider how both problems are appearing in your own community, even in your own congregation. Recognize as well that sometimes that's how resolutions get "perfected:" testimony changes how your Deputies and Bishops understand an issue, and how we see God's call to the Church. 

General Convention: Thoughts from the Floor

So, we are gathered again at General Convention. There are many matters, each of them weighty at least to someone. If you’re ever blessed to be at General Convention (and, remember, I believe every Episcopalian should spend at least some time at General Convention as a Visitor, if not otherwise), take time to watch a legislative committee. If you can be there in the first week, watch testimony. There must be an opportunity for public testimony on each and every resolution, and it is often in those committee hearings that the most moving rhetoric is heard, the most moving stories are heard.

And this morning - indeed, even now - we are considering action that could start the process of revising the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. We spent an hour on that yesterday, and will spend another half hour today. That may not sound like a lot of time for something this important, but that’s only the discussion in the House of Deputies. There has been extensive discussion, and opportunity for testimony in the legislative committee, and there will be discussion on this in the House of Bishops. And that, of course, assumes that not changes happen in the process. This starts in Deputies; and if what Deputies send is amended in Bishops, it will come back to Deputies; and if amended again, back to Bishops; and…. Well, really, that’s enough. As Convention adjourns at a fixed time, if it hasn’t been settled before that time, the measure - this or any measure -  fails for lack of completion. That’s not a shock to those of us who’ve been around a while. Each Convention many resolutions - more than 100, certainly - fall this way.

And this morning, we are considering Prayer Book revision. Yesterday many voices were heard. We couldn’t hear everyone who wanted to be heard. We had to extend time just to consider amendments, and we won’t get to all those, either. However, I don’t know that this is necessary, at least to inform the body. I listened yesterday and heard a great deal of emotion, and a number of moving stories. That said, I heard only a few themes.

• We need to study the Prayer Book so that we can better worship with new and renewed language.
• We need to study the Prayer Book so that we can better worship with the language we have now.
• We need to have better translations so that new communities we are encountering can worship in their own languages.
• We need to have better translations to serve communities already among us not yet worshiping in their own languages.
• We need to embrace new forms in worship that will be meaningful to our children and our young people.
• We need to hold to our current forms for our children and our young people.

If it begins to sound to others that the same points are being used to argue both for and against undertaking a process of revision - really, not even a process of revision, but a process to study revision - well, that makes sense, because that’s what it has sounded like to me. To study and understand our liturgy; to have our liturgies in our various languages “to be understanded of the people” among us and who might be among us; to speak to our children and young people: these are matters to be addressed in our liturgy, whether we revise or not.

There was, however, one further theme, and it also cut both ways.

• I’m afraid if we revise we will lose who we are and who we have been.
• I’m afraid if we don’t revise we will lose who we are and who we are becoming.

Personally, I think we need to pursue revision. Blessed Marion of Sewanee, when he was teaching me and my seminary about the 1976 first text that would become Book of Common Prayer 1979, he was explicit that the then existing Standing Liturgical Commission thought this a Prayer Book to be revised in 30 years. They thought indeed, as I recall, that no Prayer Book ought to last longer than 30 years, as the language was certain to change.

However, there is a different issue that concerns me, and that is fear. Whether we pursue revision or don’t pursue revision, please God do not let us be driven by fear but called to mission. To understand our liturgy as it is and as it might be; to reach the communities among us and the communities we encounter; to reach out in faith with our children and young people - all of these are wise and necessary, with or without revision. Let us pursue them, then, because God calls us to them, in whatever language.  And if we revise (and, really, sooner or later we will revise), let us, like the wise householder, take both from our old treasure and from our new. I have faith we can be who we’re becoming without losing who we are and who we’ve been. I have faith that if we go forward in faith, doing what is needed to pursue God’s mission, we will have what we need. What we will lose is what no longer services God’s mission. What we gain will be only what serves God’s mission. Who we will be will be who we need to be to pursue God’s mission - which is, really, who we are. Where we fall short is not in who God has empowered us to be, but how clearly we embrace who God has empowered us to be. Our language will change, as it changes constantly; and as a result our liturgy will change. God will not change, and will not change God’s ability to use us for God’s mission.

General Convention: Responding to the Opioid Crisis

I’m getting close to General Convention, and there are a couple more resolutions that relate to health and healthcare. One is C037 Call to Respond to Opioid Epidemic. The text is below:

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 79th General Convention call all dioceses and parishes in The Episcopal Church to respond to the opioid epidemic with training, pastoral care, advocacy, and liturgy; and be it further

Resolved, That dioceses and parishes be encouraged to: partner with First Responders and others in the medical community to host trainings on how to administer Narcan in the event of an overdose; partner with other faith communities and recovery programs in their local contexts to offer pastoral care to those affected by this epidemic; partner with other faith leaders to advocate with local and state government regarding policies and laws to promote healing and wholeness for those affected by this epidemic; and to lift up the needs of those affected by the epidemic in the Prayers of the People; and be it further

Resolved, That the 79th General Convention direct the Office of Government Relations of The Episcopal Church to advocate for the federal government of the United States to address this as public health crisis, affirming that opioid addiction is a disease, which needs adequate resources for treatment options; and be it further

Resolved, That the 79th General Convention direct the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to develop additional liturgical resources to address the needs and concerns of those whose lives have been profoundly affected by this epidemic.

THis is certainly not the first resolution relating to addition, including to opioids. At the same time, it is certainly timely. In addition, the call to the Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music suggests responses that are within our tradition of addressing important needs with both social and liturgical responses.

The call to make Narcan more widely available could save lives. In the hands of more professionals, and especially of those who are in the field, could be helpful indeed.  Whether that can extend beyond professionals could be debated.

However, this is a worthwhile effort. I do expect it will pass, if perhaps adapted. 

General Convention: Disaster Resilience

I've continued to look at resolutions to General Convention that have some relation to healthcare topics. One recently added that I want to hold up is D007: Disaster Resilience Policy. As the text is somewhat lengthy, I won't copy in the whole thing, but I do encourage you to read it.

The larger points of the policy are to commend Episcopal Relief and Development in their past work of disaster relief, and to encourage dioceses and congregations, working with ERD, to develop not only short term but also longer term resources and plans to respond to disaster. That longer term response is the point of "resilience:" that to rebuild and restore after a disaster takes a long time, and a longer commitment of resources and effort.

I was, though, struck by one further sentence: "That the General Convention urge the U.S. federal government to fund and support not only immediate, but also long-term community and economic recovery from human-caused and natural disasters in the 50 States and U.S. Territories in equal treatment,...." [emphasis mine] That seems particularly apt, especially in light of the recently reported Harvard study estimating that in Puerto Rico Hurricane Maria resulted in thousands more deaths than have been reported by official agencies. The study uses the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the justly-famous CDC), and reflects both those who died directly (flying debris, floods, etc.) and those who died because the healthcare and social systems around them were destroyed and not quickly rebuilt.

While there can be arguments whether responses of governments at all levels have been adequate in our recent disasters, including Maria (in 2017 territories and states of the United States were also struck by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma), there's a strong case to be made that federal resources to the states affected were significantly and proportionally greater than those provided to Puerto Rico. I can't speak to whether the response to the U.S. Virgin Islands was more similar to the states or to Puerto Rico; but the differences between that territory and the states has been widely reported and evaluated. In that light the call for equal treatment for territories as for states seems especially poignant.

By the way, please remember that the Resolutions in the Virtual Binder for General Convention are available to anyone. Link to the Virtual Binder, or link through from the General Convention web site, and you can see what's proposed. Remember that what's proposed may not be what's actually debated and voted on; but's it's where we'll start. So, take some time to look and see what might interest you.

General Convention 2018: Environmental Racism

So, it is another General Convention year. We'll be meeting again (yeah, I'm in it one more time) in Austin, Texas, July 4 through 13 - and some of us will arrive earlier or stay later. As I say every three years, "General Convention is coming. Pray hard!"

So far, only one resolution has been entered in the topic of Health. That is resolution A011,  "Oppose Environmental Racism."

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 79th General Convention affirm that fossil fuel-based power plants are the single largest source of carbon dioxide pollution in the United States and major contributors to climate change; these emissions not only threaten the environmental stability of our planet, but also the health of young children and their families, disproportionately affecting the poorest among us; and be it further

Resolved, That the Church recommit to and direct the Office of Government Relations and the Episcopal Public Policy Network to oppose Environmental Racism expressed in such ways as the locating of extraction, production, and disposal industries where they disproportionately harm neighborhoods inhabited by people of color and low income communities. And to oppose coal, gas, oil, and uranium extraction and its subsequent transportation which threaten the health and sanctity of communities and the livelihood of future generations; especially as such industries are located disproportionately nearby low income communities and neighborhoods inhabited by people of color.

The resolution has been put forth by the Advisory Council on the Stewardship of Creation. They have described the concern about Environmental Racism in the body of there solution. While their report does not go into further detail, it does highlight three Eco-justice sites, all of which would seem to qualify.

I would expect to see other resolutions that would speak to health. In the meantime, we can consider how addressing Environmental Racism could serve the health needs of our neighbors.

General Convention 2015: Support for the Rights of the Disabled

Prior to the recent General Convention I commented here that there weren’t many resolutions that addressed matters of health and healthcare. By the time it was all over, though, a number had been both submitted and passed.

One general related category for which we had a number of resolutions offered was the rights of the disabled. These resolutions were interesting in that they were specifically about the Church speaking to the world. That is, while not denying that access could still be a problem in churches, there is a continuing and perhaps greater problem of access for the disabled in the public: public buildings, transportation, etc. As one advocate put it to several of us, “The fact that the church doesn’t have a ramp isn’t really an issue if you can’t get to the church in the first place.”

Three resolutions were submitted before the deadline on resolutions, and all three were passed by both Houses of Convention. The first was D034 Affirmation and Support of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. We discovered that the General Convention had not spoken to the ADA since 1991, when Convention affirmed its recent passage. In this resolution, in addition to committing to “reaffirm and renew the Church’s commitment… to the principles of inclusion and the protection of the civil rights of all persons with disabilities…” and to “continuing unwavering support, and advocate for total compliance with the spirit and intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act by all covered entities…”,  the resolution urges dioceses and congregations to “seek education from available community D/deaf/hard of hearing and disability organizations on supporting full inclusion of disabled persons in all aspects of public life.” This action step was new with this resolution.

The second resolution passed was D073 Supporting Home and Community Based Services. The resolution packed a lot of content into a relatively short text:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 78th General Convention call on states to fully fund all Medicaid and state general revenue-funded home and community-based services and to support programs for persons with disabilities of all ages, to provide individualized services, and to reduce all waiting lists and end unnecessary delays for such services; and be it further

Resolved, That the 78th General Convention call on states to end the segregation of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in large congregate institutions and other facilities, both publicly and privately operated, and commit to serving all persons in the community; and be it further

Resolved, That the 78th General Convention urge dioceses and local congregations to discern ways in which they can provide practical support to individuals and families affected by a lack of adequate home and community-based services and supports.

Central to the intent was to focus on services delivered at home and in the community. While such care has been shown often to be less expensive, current standards for Medicaid and other state-funded programs are often directed toward care provided by and in institutions. There can be a sense that such programs are offered as “all or nothing:” the person who needs support can’t request only specific needed services.

The third and most comprehensive of the resolutions was D032 Disability Advocacy in Criminal Justice Work of The Episcopal Church. In addition to recognizing both the Church’s commitment to those who are disabled and to those who are in the criminal justice system, it called on the church to “recognize and acknowledge that roughly half of adult criminal defendants in the United States have a physical, mental, learning, or other disability and two-thirds of juvenile defendants have a disability qualifying them for special education services and instruction;” and to “advocate for the civil rights and proper treatment of and accommodations for people with disabilities throughout the criminal justice system….” There is recognition of those who serve in ministries in corrections, and then calls on “all in the Church who are involved with these ministries to seek training and education on mental and physical disabilities and the legal rights of people with disabilities….” Moreover, for these purposes the call is not for the Church to create new programs, but “by partnering with disability organizations and networks in our communities that provide this training….” The resolution also called for funds for an ad hoc committee over the next triennium “to discuss these disparities in the criminal justice system and to develop a blueprint for best practices, resources for training, advocacy, and future networking to provide support our Church’s work in the area of criminal justice….”

In these three resolutions this General Convention made a significant commitment to support the needs and the rights of persons with disabilities in the public sphere, and especially in public institutions and programs. There would be few congregations in the Church without some opportunity to learn about local efforts and to seek the education these resolutions call for. In a Convention that seemed focused on a few very public (albeit very important) issues, we also made these commitments to support the health and wholeness of these neighbors among us.

General Convention 2015 - Resolutions on Health

When I began this blog, one of the points was to prepare for the General Convention. So, here we are, coming to General Convention again. 

As in the past, I have looked at the resolutions submitted to Convention to see which might be about the Episcopal Church’s comments on issues of health, whether public health, medical care, or other issues. So far, there is only one that addresses health explicitly. That resolution is C020 “Ministry to People with Mental Illness and Their Families. A C resolution is one that comes by referral from a diocese meeting in convention, and this is from the Diocese of Delaware. The content is straightforward:

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 78th General Convention of the Episcopal Church call upon dioceses, congregations, schools and agencies of the Episcopal Church to assess best practices in their mission and ministry for the inclusion, support, and spiritual care for persons with mental illness and their families; and be it further

Resolved, That dioceses, schools, and agencies publish those best practices while promoting and providing links to local mental health advocacy groups and providers.

The desire to identify and use best practices is common across many disciplines these days. In this case, the accountability for the identification falls broadly. It runs the risk of that old saw that “if it’s everybody’s responsibility, it’s nobody’s responsibility.” In the past, we might imagine this passing and then being referred to a continuing body, one of the committees, commissions, agencies, or boards (CCAB’s) in the Church. However, one of the likely consequences of this convention is that there will be fewer CCAB’s, and that those that remain will have more defined (or perhaps restricted) portfolios. This could become an agenda for a network of interested persons, as imagined by the Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church (TREC). What we don’t know yet is whether this Convention will lean away from CCAB’s and toward such networks; and if so, when, how, or even if such networks will form.

Once Again, General Convention Is Coming: Pray Hard!

Those who have been reading with me for a while will recall that one of the ongoing topics for this blog has been General Convention. That has included both reports and legislation before the Convention, and considerations and consequences during and after.

Well, this is another General Convention summer. With that in mind, I wanted to point to the information that is already available on line. There has been a concerted effort to make more information available through the General Convention web site before the Convention itself. So, if you'd like to look ahead here are some suggestions.

First, from the General Convention web page you can link directly to the two reports that have been getting the most attention: the Task Force for Re-imagining the Episcopal Church (TREC) and the Task Force on the Study of Marriage. With an additional click, you can link to the Blue Book reports (formally, the Reports to Convention of Committees, Commission, Agencies, and Boards). Instead of waiting for a printed version, these are being loaded to the web site. And, instead of waiting for one complete publication, reports are being added as they are submitted. So, if there's a report you're interested in and don't see yet, keep checking back.

The same thing is happening with resolutions to General Convention. If you link to the Legislative Resources page, you can link through to all the resolutions that have been submitted. Once again, these are being added as they are submitted, so keep checking to see if your particular interest is addressed.

With the Reports from the Task Force for Re-imagining the Episcopal Church and the Task Force on the Study of Marriage, and also the election of the next Presiding Bishop, this should be an interesting General Convention. You can go ahead and start your review, and so be better able to keep informed about all that happens in and around this year's General Convention.

The Chaplain on the TREC: What I'd Like to Hear

I have been thinking about the work of the Task Force to Re-imagine the Episcopal Church (TREC). I've been more aware of that more since the last Report and the gathering, and the many responses. I've had two issues rise for me, issues that are separable but related. 

Almost all the discussion has focused on issues of power and authority. That's relevant, of course. At the same time, it speaks to a climate of fear: will I, will we be disadvantaged? 

However, it is not the most important issue for me. I am more compelled by the section of the Report that speaks to function. The Task Force is correct that ministry happens primarily at the parish. As a chaplain I often remind colleagues that the normative experience of the Christian is not at the hospital bedside but in the congregation. So, I'm excited at the thought of the Episcopal Church Center or whatever overarching structures we have as catalytic and connecting and communicating of parish

ministries. In all the conversation there seems to me to have been too little reflection on this, even positive. Perhaps it's so widely accepted that no one sees a need to comment. 

To do that, the Task Force suggests that more be done through networks, and that concerns me. I work in a corporate environment and I am as aware as the members of the Task Force that everyone is talking about dispersed authority working in networks. At the same time, there are networks and the there are networks. I think that before we embrace that we need more conversation about what the network would look like that would connect and communicate the ministries and the catalytic ideas. I think that is part of what we need from the Task Force. 

Let me say more. I have a lot of experience with networks, and I'm conscious of important differences. For example, most of my readers know that I'm a member and past president of the Assembly of Episcopal Healthcare Chaplains (AEHC). AEHC is a voluntary professional membership organization supporting healthcare chaplaincy in the Episcopal Church - which is to say a network. I am committed to AEHC and to being a chaplain among the Episcopalians. I am also conscious of its limitations. Member organizations as networks are dependent on the time, energy, and availability of members. They are especially dependent on those members who volunteer to be leaders and officers. Of course, the officers and all the members have limited time, energy, and availability. That limits what connection and communication can happen. Of course, that also means they have limited memory. As a result, the same issues come back into conversation as if they were new. Sometimes they do look new because the circumstances around us have changed. But we discover on reflection that the basic issues, like the classic heresies, rise up again and again. Changing leadership means a risk (although not inevitable) of loss of institutional memory. 

By the same token, there is difficulty in catalysis. With limited time and energy there is limited connection and communication, and ideas don't get shared. Basically, the network has too little and too weak a center to sustain programs of ministry. They can support some personal connection and advocacy, and those are valuable. On the other hand, I think the Task Force expressed higher expectations. 

In a different model, I spend time on the networks Facebook and LinkedIn. Those  networks demonstrate an interesting paradox. They appear chaotic. That is, individuals and groups find them decent tools for various efforts. In that sense these can be useful tools. At the same time, it is only a tool and each of those individuals and groups has disparate purposes. 

The paradox is that these networks in fact have coherent purposes: to make a profit by providing a service. As chaotic as they can seem to users, they have clear centers of authority and power. They have ongoing experts who have institutional memory and carry through on the central goal. In fact they are largely invisible until they change the environment. We don't see them until they change security parameters or give us a new capacity that we didn't ask for. Those networks have a lot of disparate activity, but they don't really have dispersed authority. Moreover, that authority is hidden and not really accountable to the users. I'm not saying they are not useful tools; but as networks I don't think they are models we want to follow, especially with all the anxiety we're expressing about centralized power. 

Then there are the Information Technology networks in corporations like the one I work in. I have a great relationship with the IT folks in our system. They do great work. They have a commitment to a central mission and clear (and even somewhat dispersed) authority. They understand that the network is a tool and not an end in itself. On the other hand, they are neither volunteers nor amateurs. They are also not cheap nor self-funding. 

All of these are networks. Each has its strengths and it's limitations. None of them seems to me what TREC is talking about, exactly. So, I don't think we've talked enough about that. I think we need to have that conversation before General Convention, and I think TREC needs to lead it.   

Again, I know that there has been more said and asked about power. I have other thoughts about that. I do think, though, that if we don't have the conversation about our expectations of networks we'll discover that those concerns get shaped not by our ministries but by the needs of the tools themselves. 

If we're serious about re-imagining the Church, the questions of structures and tools are important. That is what I'd really like TREC to lead us in now. 

Episcopal Health Ministries

I think most of my readers are aware that I am a member of the Standing Commission on Health of the Episcopal Church. One of the tasks I undertook for the Commission was trying to get some idea how many “health ministries” could be identified within the Episcopal Church. To get some idea (and it’s only an idea), I went through those pages of the Episcopal Church Annual that listed “Special Agencies and Institutions/General Service Organizations,” and specifically those pages of “Health and Welfare Agencies Related to Diocese or Parishes of the Episcopal Church.”  These are listed by Diocese, and are generally sorted in to the categories of Children, Youth, and Families; Chaplaincy Services and Counseling; Facilities and Services for Older Persons; Hospitals, Convalescent Homes, and Clinics; Neighborhood and Community Services; Residences, Rest Homes, and Retreat Centers; and Specialized Ministries.

So, I simply went through and counted. As I did so, I set up a spreadsheet that listed the number of such organizations with specifically identifiable health ministries. I also added a few organizations and institutions I knew of that were not associated with diocese or parishes, but instead with other Episcopal bodies. At the end I had the numbers of such ministries where I could determine that they existed. In the process, I developed some comments and assumptions:

1. One can ask "what is an Episcopal health care ministry?" All the institutions and ministries counted for this report were identified as associated with a specific diocese or Episcopal organization in The Episcopal Church Annual.

2. Within that list, the relationships between individual dioceses and individual institutions may take several different forms.

3. Note that most of the institutions listed serve primarily seniors. Not all provided information about levels of health care offered. Where I could find the information, whether in the Annual or on line, that an institution provided skilled care, long term care, etc., I included it in my count. Where information seemed to indicate a residence facility for seniors who were fully independent, I did not include it.

4. My best guess is that this number is low: that there are programs associated with congregations that are not associated with dioceses in the Annual, or ministries listed once that have multiple locations.

5. As we know, this is always a changing list. For example, this includes ministries in the Diocese of Texas where institutions are in transition.

That list has been posted and is now available on the Documents page of the Standing Commission on Health in the General Convention web site. The numbers are on the first sheet and the comments and assumptions on the second. Note that where I couldn’t identify such a ministry in a particular diocese, I did not include that diocese in the list. That said, note my comment (4) above. I’m certain there are ministries that this didn’t capture. I thought folks might find it of interest, and so you can now find it here. If there are questions, they can be posted here or emailed to me through this site.

New Resources for Episcopal Wonks

I have referred a number of times to great stuff one can find on line through the Digital Archives of the Episcopal Church. It's where I've found past Resolutions of General Convention and Actions of the Executive Council. Well, now there's a whole new resource there: the Reports to General Convention (better known as the Blue Book) for Conventions dating back to 1976.

What can you find there? Between Conventions there are a variety of groups who meet to carry forward the priorities set by each Convention. They are the Commissions, Committees, Agencies, and Boards (CCAB's) of the Church - some under the jurisdiction of General Convention itself, some of the Executive Council, and some of one or both of the Houses of Deputies and of Bishops (often referred to as the "Interim Bodies"). Each Interim Body reports to the next General Convention on its work. Part of those reports may be specific resolutions to General Convention (the "A" resolutions). However, each report also gives discussion, reflection, and rationale for the work and priorities of the Church. So, each report gives a window into the thinking within the Church on a given issue. To make matters easier, the good archivists separated out each report. So, you don't have to open up a 400+ page Blue Book. You can link to a specific report.

Now, sometimes you'll have to dig a little to see which body had responsibility for a particular topic. Some bodies have changed their names over time, and some have been added. However, each document is searchable. 

So, if you want to know what has been said to the General Convention on a topic, often by some of the best minds in the Episcopal Church, this is the place to look. It offers a depth and perspective on many issues that you won't get just looking at a resolution. And since these reports are received by General Convention, they will show for each Convention the best work for the time, if not necessarily the official statements (which resolutions would), often by some of our best minds.

So, go dive in. You'll be amazed (and perhaps sometimes appalled) by what you find.

One Last Point - Or Is It Two?

My last reflection on General Convention (well, at least the last one I'd planned) has gone up today at the Episcopal Cafe. It addresses the question sung so many years ago by Firesign Theater: "How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?" I'm a good bit more hopeful about the General Convention being "in two places at once." So, go take a look. I hope you find it interesting.

From the Midst of the House: Thoughts from the General Convention

If you've wondered where I've been, let me answer that I've been sending my work on General Convention to the Episcopal Cafe. So, if you'd like to see my most recent thoughts, check here and here. If you're already following things at Episcopal Cafe, you may have seen my comments and impressions from the Floor. If you're not, certainly look at my thoughts; and also look at the many other comments noted there. General Convention is a busy and complicated experience, and the more voices you hear, the better sense of it you'll have.

General Convention and GMO's

I’ve had less to say to this point about General Convention (at least here at the Bedside). That’s because this year I have more responsibilities. I’m not sorry, but it has made a difference.

That doesn’t mean that I haven’t been paying attention to health-related issues coming up. One of those is the issue of genetically-modified organism (GMO) foods. There is a resolution this year on the topic:

Resolution A013 Study Genetically Modified Food Crops
 Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 77th General Convention seek to inform the Church of the issues surrounding the development of genetically engineered crop plants and the patenting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); by charging the Standing Commission on Anglican and International Peace with Justice Concerns, the Standing Commission on Health, the Executive Council Committee on Science, Technology and Faith, the Standing Commission on Social Justice and Public Policy, and other CCABs deemed relevant, to jointly study those issues and report to the 78th General Convention; and be it further 

Resolved, That in commissioning such study, the 77th General Convention intend to empower the 78th General Convention to take action toward developing policy that will allow the Office of Government Relations to address these issues as they relate to Congressional farm bills and other federal policy or legislation; and be it further 

Resolved, That the 77th General Convention seek to empower with information those organizations of The Episcopal Church that strive to address equity and social justice in matters such as global economic development, the environment, sustainable agriculture, health, and nutrition; and be it further 

Resolved, That the 77th General Convention encourage individual Episcopalians seek to undertake study about GMOs and reflection upon the theology and stewardship of creation; to learn about the influence both domestic and globally of GMOs upon agriculture, economic development, the environment, alleviation of hunger, and biodiversity.

The resolution has been offered by the Standing Commission on Anglican and International Peace with Justice Concerns, and so it’s no surprise that the focus of the rationale is the effect of GMO foods on small farmers at home and abroad.

With the development of strains of genetically modified foods crops and their dissemination worldwide, concerns are being raised about the impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on ecological sustainability and global economic justice.
 The issue of patenting geneplasm and other life forms raises both general and contextually specific ethical questions. When the question arises about patenting crop seeds, the particular considerations have much to do with economic justice for small-scale farmers. This applies to family farmers and sustainable farming in the United States, and especially to small-scale and subsistence farmers in the developing world.
 The Executive Council commissioned a report on these issues in 2011 and has sought counsel from experts in the field. Given that these are complex issues, pertinent to both domestic and international policy, The Episcopal Church would do well to follow the example of the Lutheran Church of America and other denominations in seeking to identify the moral, ethical and theological principles involved.

While the Standing Commission on Anglican and International Peace with Justice Concerns offered the resolution and rationale, there is virtually nothing on the topic in their report in the Blue Book (pp. 95-107). On the other hand, the Standing Commission on Health, which is called on in the resolution to study the issue, is ahead of the game. In their report, the do in fact comment on GMO foods (Blue Book pp. 144-150). That being the case, it is also not surprising that the focus is on the techniques of biogenetics and the health issues when we eat them.

Both the concerns about GMO’s and agriculture (and especially the control of staple crops by agribusiness corporations), and issues of GMO’s in the food chain deserve study. There are other concerns that might have received more focus, and other actions that might have been suggested (especially labeling of foods with GMO’s in the ingredients). However, this is at least a beginning.  

What I Get Excited About

I know I've been quiet lately. I've posted little here, although I've been commenting occasionally here and there. Fact is, I've been getting ready for the General Convention. It starts in days, and I'll be part of it.


Which led to my newest post at the Episcopal Cafe. It has my thoughts about what makes General Convention fun and exciting (and, no, it isn't all the A resolutions). So, go take a look to see what keeps me going.


And check in daily at the Cafe. There will be ongoing news and comments from the Convention frequently, and good stuff from my valued colleagues. If you want to know what's really going on, don't depend on the mainstream media (or their media competitors who pretend they're not "mainstream"). Go to the Cafe.


If you're going to Convention, perhaps I'll see you there. And if you're not, keep up in prayer.

On Casting Stones: the Draft Proposed Budget

Over at the Episcopal Cafe there have been a number of discussions on the Draft Proposed Budget for the Episcopal Church for the next triennium (2013-2015). We'll be discussing that budget in Indianapolis at the next General Convention soon, and as a Deputy I'll be voting on it.


The Budget goes to the Program, Budget, and Finance Committee of the General Convention. The Budget as it has gone to PB&F this year came out of a new process, one that didn't go smoothly. It sought to really focus on doing at the level of the national church those things that required action at that level (with more things being done more effectively at the diocesan or parish levels of the Church). You can see the Proposed Budget and also some commentary on it here.


Again, there's been a lot of discussion about this at Episcopal Cafe. There's a piece posted today with some reflections on the commentary (more than on the budget itself). Most of the comments on the commentary have seemed to me pretty bitter. This was my contribution to that discussion:


I have mixed feelings about this [Proposed Budget and commentary] myself. However, my concerns gore a number of oxen, if you will. Should the Executive Council have undertaken a different budgeting process in the first place? Perhaps not; but then if we're so intent on doing things differently, a different process for budgeting seems a good place to start.


Should they have started by polling leaders in the Church instead of working with staff? Well, it's one way to prevent staff from getting into "defending turf." It's also a way to reconsider priorities - another step if we really want to do things differently.


Again, should the standards have included a commitment to subsidiarity, to having only those things done at the church-wide level that required church-wide support and consistency? In these days when all the civil rhetoric is "less government," that posture is at least not a surprise. Moreover, if we want our Church's governance to cost less, that seems an important question to raise. (Note here especially that I'm concerned: I'm not one committed to "less government," either in the civil realm or the Church. I'm still not surprised.) And, if we do plan a church-wide budget focused only on those things that require church-wide support, isn't it going to look heavily centered on the staff with church-wide responsibilities? After all, we've trusted everything else to be done by someone else.


I had my concerns about the survey. However, I'm appalled by a paltry 17% response rate - and that's certainly not the fault of the Executive Council or its Executive Committee. I did complete it; but I have to wonder what it says about our folks in leadership that so very few did.


Should the Executive Committee decided to plan expenditures as if dioceses gave only 15%, even as they planned with hope that dioceses would give 19%? Maybe not; but considering the experience at the parish level of pledge shortfalls, not to speak of those dioceses that just flat fail to support church-wide work, one could argue that it's only prudent. There is no doubt that it is more painful; but one could argue that it's really more responsible to take the pain up front, rather than extending it.


Above all else, it seems to me that the Executive Council tried to use a new budgeting process, that intended to focus not only on mission per se, but especially on what was required at the church-wide level, and reflected a broad perspective not only on what mission was called for but on what that church-wide staff was useful for. It was a new process, and well-meaning but sinful people (not unlike me, really) struggled with it, and we can argue it didn't work very well.  It may not ever be worth using again. If so, it's our job in General Convention to say so, to make the changes that we can, and then get on with it. But, I can't fault the intent to try a new way, or to ask a broad group of leaders outside the Episcopal Church Center to participate. I can't fault a budget planned on conservative predictions of revenue, even if I find it sad. I can't fault folks who were trying to lead in an effort that it appeared everyone agreed on, and that most of us here agree with: reconfiguring the structures of the Episcopal Church in light of the trends we seem to face for the future. And I can't fault folks for making some honest mistakes - especially when they're honest enough to air dirty linen in public, like the phone pre-meeting of five of the eight members of ECEC (talk about transparency!); and especially when I don't know that I could have done any better.

General Convention 2012: On Health

The General Convention is coming again this summer, and this brings me back to one of the first purposes I had for my blog: to share information about General Convention, and especially information related to health, ethics, and/or chaplaincy. The Blue Book, the collected reports of the Commissions, Committees, Agencies, and Boards of the Episcopal Church (CCAB’s) is now available on line. With those reports are included the  resolutions (“A” resolutions) that CCAB’s are bringing to Convention. I encourage you to download it (you can do that here), and check out those that interest you.

It will not surprise anyone that I turned first to the report of the Standing Commission on Health. This year the report is long and detailed. The Commission reported on few topics, but sought to address those in depth. They did do something that I wish more of us in the Church did more often. They went through the Electronic Archives of the Episcopal Church, as they said, “so as not to repeat the work of the past.” Clearly they made a concerted effort over the past Triennium.

I was impressed, though, because the report began, not with an issue or a resolution, but with a reflection. “Despite the archival evidence of vehement commitment to improved health for the Church and the world, there has been little time spent in articulating the Church’s motivation for this work. The Commission finds this to be an unfortunate oversight, and sought to lay a foundation for a future theology of health.” This is an interesting observation, and I see the point. The Commission was deliberate in responding to this lack:

During the summit in 2011, Steven Fowl of Loyola and Leonard Hummel of Gettysburg Seminary facilitated a theological brainstorm, and as a result of such study helped collect these springboard insights:  

• A belief that we are created by God, that creation is a gift, and that our health is a gift from God. We believe we are called to be thankful for and excellent stewards of this gift. 
• An acknowledgment that we are not all healthy and do not all have equal opportunities to be healthy, and that these disparities and suffering are marks of the need for reconciliation with God and God’s plan for us in the world. 
• A belief in the incarnated God, who lived as a person with a mind for the health of his people, who experienced bodily suffering, and who bore the wounds of his suffering in his resurrected body. The implication for health is the assurance that we have a God who suffers with, and cares deeply for, the human creation in body as well as spirit. 
• A belief that engagement in personal and communal health issues is a sign of our hope in God’s creation and redemption. Our commitment to justice is the living out of our faith in God’s gift of health. Conversely, a lack of commitment shows a lack of faith. 
• A belief that scripture provides a model for these efforts: including but not limited to Eden, the prophets including Amos, Jesus’ efforts towards healing, Jesus’ resurrected body, and the Christian community of Acts
• A belief that our tradition is rich in communal attention to a spiritual life that honors the body. We also experience in our tradition a valued engagement with the secular world, critically valuing participation and contribution at personal, local, national and international efforts. 

Again, these are the result of a brainstorming session, and not an analytically reflected theological position statement. That said, they seem quite encompassing. They reference explicitly Christ’s incarnation, and the Scriptural evidence of God’s desire that we be healthy. It also references our responsibility to reflect that desire in the world, and the Scriptural foundation of our ministries of justice and reconciliation. While I haven’t analyzed them in depth either, my sense is that these thoughts align well with the Baptismal Covenant.

I also find myself questioning the statement that, “there has been little time spent in articulating the Church’s motivation for this work.” As in everything else, we Episcopalians articulate our theology first liturgically. We might look to the Prayer Book and to the services for Ministration to the Sick, Ministration at the Time of Death, and perhaps Thanksgiving for the Birth or Adoption of a Child. We might look at the Public Service of Healing in the Book of Occasional Services. These are certainly not theological treatises, but, then, we don’t usually focus on theological treatises. We begin with worship.

I think these reflections are important, certainly because they are comprehensive, but even more because the Commission offers them as a place to start. I think we should appreciate these thoughts, and then take the Commission up in its call for a more reflected theological statement about the Episcopal Church’s understanding of health, of God’s commitment to health and healing, and God’s call to us to participate in that commitment.

General Convention 2012: Reactions to the Denominational Health Plan

Things come full circle. One of the reasons I started blogging six years ago was to comment on legislation and issues at the 2006 General Convention. Now we’re coming to the 2012 Convention.

So, I’ve started watching the legislation being posted for this summer’s Convention. As a reminder (and especially for those for whom details of General Convention are new territory), resolutions to General Convention come in four categories. “A” resolutions come from commissions, committees, agencies, and boards (CCAB’s) of the Episcopal Church. “B” resolutions come from bishops. “D” resolutions come from deputies.

And then there are “C” resolutions. C resolutions come because a diocesan convention or a provincial meeting (in Episcopal parlance a province is a regional gathering of dioceses) have passed a resolution on a subject that included instructions to “memorialize” the General Convention on the subject. That is, a diocesan convention or a provincial meeting passes a resolution to express an opinion and to put that opinion before General Convention as a resolution.

So far, C resolutions are the only ones that have been posted on line. You can already see on line those that have been posted (and I’m sure there will be more).

Right now, the significant majority of C resolutions posted are on the subject of Structural Reform, and most of those have almost identical language. However, there are a few outliers, and two have my attention. That’s because their subject is the Denominational Health Plan, an effort of the Church Medical Trust based on Resolution A177 in 2009. The resolution specified that the plan should be implemented no later than the end of this year. It specified that the Church Medical Trust would offer a plan (or, really a selection of plans), and that within those dioceses had a number of choices. However, one choice it didn’t include (and a choice that is available under canons before this change) was whether or not to participate. That is, dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States, their congregations, and any agencies they would designate as “Episcopal” have to participate in the plan. Now, individuals can opt out if they have other provision for health insurance; but institutions can’t opt out. The point of that is to have as many lives as possible covered in the insurance plan; because the more folks you have covered in the plan, the lower the premium (at last in general). (I wrote more about 2009-A177 at the time.)

So far, two dioceses have submitted C resolutions on the Denominational Health Plan, both asking that it’s implementation be delayed. However, they really say two very different things. One is resolution C22 from the Diocese of West Missouri. It calls on General Convention suspend implementation of the Denominational Health Plan “pending consideration of a more equitable and unified Denominational Health Plan that eliminates unfair regional differences and dramatic cost disparities between dioceses…” The point of this is

That the 77th General Convention instruct the Church Medical Trust to formulate a plan that creates a single, unified national plan for the entire Episcopal Church with no variance in premium costs from diocese to diocese, thereby eliminating dramatic cost differences for similar health insurance coverage between dioceses and regions of The Episcopal Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the suspension of implementation of the Denominational Health

Plan is lifted only when the Church Medical Trust presents a revised, unified

national plan consistent with the intent of this resolution to the Executive Council….

The result of this would be, if you will, truly a single plan for the Episcopal Church in which all would still be required to participate. It would be, essentially, an ecclesial form of a single payer plan covering a single, all encompassing risk pool. The suspension is in place until this is done which could take a while; and this resolution calls for things to stay as they are until that can be offered.

This is different from resolution C27 from the Diocese of Central New York. That resolution calls for the Denominational Health Plan to be delayed another three years. It also maintains that all Episcopal diocese, parishes, and institutions would be required to offer health insurance to clergy and lay employees. However, “each diocese or other ecclesiastical organization or body subject to the authority of the church has the right to make decisions as to whether the Episcopal Church Medical Trust or another plan sponsor shall provide health insurance;…”

This is a different result. While it does require all dioceses, congregations, and institutions to provide health care, and requires it within a limited period of time, it specifically rejects a single denominational plan, or having a choice of plans but only from those offered through the Church Medical Trust. This might improve things for some clergy and for many lay professionals, but it resists a church-wide mandate in favor of a multiplicity of health plans – essentially, an incremental change within the same health insurance market that we already have. It would not result in a single risk pool.

Now, full disclosure: for those who didn’t already know, West Missouri is my diocese. Although I voted on the resolution that resulted in C22, I did not participate in preparing it (and I’m not saying how I voted). My only point in this post is to note how different would be the results of these two resolutions. It could raise the question of what problem proposers of each wish to address. C22 is about equity for institutions across the Church accomplished by universal participation. C27 is about freedom of choice for institutions within the Church, albeit with a requirement that all provide something – essentially an individual mandate.

It does seem to reflect the same sort of arguments about providing health care that we’re hearing in the wider American society. Granted, both proposals are progressive enough to require some coverage (after all, we are Episcopalians); but the means, the choices, and (presumably) the costs would be very different.

Even with delay and suspension both of these plans will be overtaken by events if the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented. In that case, passing C27 could result in some dioceses, congregations, and/or institutions could find their coverage through state insurance exchanges. In addition, I will be surprised if there are not additional resolutions from bishops and/or deputies, which may offer other, different models.

Which brings us to this question: what sort of employer do we want the Episcopal Church to be. That’s not simply a matter of whether we think it important to offer health insurance. Not only do both these resolutions require it, but existing canons require it (albeit for a more limited collection of employees). Rather, this might be seen as another expression of the question whether the Episcopal Church is a single body made up of its dependent dioceses; or whether we are an association made up of dioceses which are themselves  associations of congregations and institutions. Both these opinions are being expressed within the Episcopal Church today, and perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that they might be expressed in a variety ways, including this.

And perhaps that ought to be an aspect of any General Convention, and of any resolution to General Convention. Every day we have the opportunity to ask the question of what kind of church the Episcopal Church wants to be. Moreover, I can’t think of a better forum in which to ask the question than General Convention. It is, really, the same vocational question each of us faces, writ large: what is God calling us to do now? These resolutions raise the specific issue of health insurance for Church professionals. Other resolutions will raise other issues. However, the larger context remains the same: in each issue, to what is God calling the Episcopal Church now? Or, to put it more personally, as it were: before God what sort of institution do we want the Episcopal Church to be?