Impressions of General Convention 2009: the How of It

I’ve been asked by a number of folks for my impressions of General Convention. In one sense, I think I’ve been sharing a lot. There were the posts here during Convention, some from the floor of the House of Deputies. There were the reports I wrote for the web site of the Diocese of West Missouri (the days that don’t have flight titles are mine; but those were written by a colleague, and also worth reading). Finally there was the comment posted since Convention at Episcopal Café.

Still, General Convention is a multifaceted experience, and my impressions and memories are multifaceted as well. So, let me do some further reflection.

General Convention is a marathon. My days began before 6:00 a.m., and usually ended somewhere around midnight. Perhaps I had more to do than some folks. We would wander in and out of the diocesan Conference Room for breakfast. The diocese paid for the room, and one of the alternate deputies kept it stocked with breakfast and lunch fixings. That saved the diocese money, and made it easy to eat within our tight schedules. Legislative committee meetings began at 7:30, and even those of us who were not members of committees had issues and resolutions we were tracking, and so all of us were off.

Committee meetings offered the opportunity to testify about specific resolutions, and there were several I had an interest in, and so spoke to. In addition, I had committed on behalf of the diocesan deputation to follow the resolutions about the denominational health insurance plan, and other health related issues. And, since the various resolutions were distributed among a couple of different committees, I was at different meetings different mornings. Once or twice I found myself trying be in two places at once, or at least in close succession.

Committee meetings ended at 9:00 and the first legislative session each day began at 9:30. That made just enough time most days to indulge in another cup of coffee, and sometimes a fancy one, and then get to our place on the floor of the House of Deputies. I found myself chatting much of the time with a deputy from Milwaukee, with whom we shared tables. He was experienced at Roberts Rules, but new to General Convention. Between my experience and his appreciation of legislative structures, we had some interesting perspectives on the process.

Eucharist would begin at 11:30. The schedule usually indicated the legislative session would end at 11:00 to allow for transition; but usually we didn’t allow ourselves that kind of time. At each General Convention the host diocese imparts a certain character to the worship. At the same time, there were certain characteristics expected and provided: lots of music and lots of diversity of language and culture. I will admit being somewhat disappointed at times this year with the music. I won’t go into excruciating detail (those who know me best, who know my capacity, will breathe a sigh of relief). I will note, however, that I would never hire an organist, however fine a performer or choir director, who didn’t understand that the job is to lead the congregation. Also, not every hymn of the church benefits by being reinterpreted with a gospel sensibility.

After Eucharist we would scatter for lunch. We would gather again in the diocesan conference room for sandwich makings. The deputation, both deputies and those alternates who had come, would be there, as would the bishop. We would also have the diocesan delegates to the ECW Triennial, and at times others from the diocese. One of the members of the official Youth Deputation was from our diocese, and she was sometimes there. We had a group of diocesan youth come out for several days, and they would join us, and for a couple of days we had several clergy who had come out simply as visitors to the Convention. And there were other visitors, usually folks who had some connection in the past with the diocese. We even had the team from one of the national news outlets because one of their runners had done CPE in my health system. We would discuss events in both Houses, and would catch up on specific resolutions. The gathering would leave us perhaps half an hour to put our feet up.

Then it was back to the House at 2:00 p.m. That session would continue until 6:00, making for a long afternoon. Of course, there were something over 420 resolutions, most of which we would actually have to do something with. And there were interruptions: an intermittent parade of guests, each of whom had something to say, sometimes even something interesting.

There were daily prayers and meditations in the House, including an intercession list. The Chaplain to the House did a wonderful job, both in his daily duties and when called upon to pray for a special concern. And that was often enough; for in almost any difficult moment some deputy would ask as a point of personal privilege for prayer from the Chaplain.

The House would end its work each day more or less on time around 6:00. That would allow time for dinner – that is, unless one was involved in evening events. Some of those were special events, such as the Integrity Eucharist, or the U2charist (with a remarkably accurate Bono impersonator; I wasn’t surprised that he wasn’t “the real thing,” but he looked so good his American accent gave me pause, even face to face). For some of the more committed legislative committees there were evening sessions in addition to the morning sessions.

And dinner wasn’t that easy. With bishops, deputies, alternates, exhibitors, and visitors all coming out at roughly the same time, restaurants filled up fast. By the time one had gotten back to the room to drop the paperwork and gotten back out to eat, it was 7:30 or so. Too, almost all of us had some sense of budget constraint. I tended to move from fast food one night, with a preference for something small and local, to something more upscale. Of course, the fact is there wasn’t much “in the middle.” But, then, this was resort California.

Some deputations, including ours, had a view from one room or another overlooking Disneyland. During the day, who cared? We weren’t there; and at half a mile even Disneyland lost some of its image. However, each might at 9:20 p.m. there were fireworks, and those rooms gave a wonderful view.

That made for a nice break before I began to write. Granted, there were some things written during the day from the floor of the House. But most of what I wrote, I wrote after the fireworks. (I just hope it wasn’t too evident in what I wrote.)

And so the days went on. As legislative committees completed their work, it got easier. I found time, too, to network with various folks about chaplaincy issues in the Church and AEHC. By the middle of the second week I was dragging, as were many of us. Perhaps that’s indicated by a daily report titled, “A Hard Slog.” However, we did finish. In fact, for the first time anybody present remembered, we not only addressed everything that made it onto the legislative calendar, but we finished more than an hour early. The marathon was done.

And why was it worth it to put ourselves through all of that? That, beloved readers, will be the topic of another post.

Reflection From a Chaplain's Day

Today I met a cleric visiting a patient, also a cleric. The conversation was a professional pleasure.

I enjoy a great deal discussing theology in the hospital. The sad part is that it is only rarely that I get to discuss any theological issue other than the problem of suffering.

Newest Reflection at the Episcopal Cafe

My newest piece is up at Episcopal Cafe. It's one of my reflections on the General Convention recently passed. In fact it's a hopeful reflection, both for the results of General Convention, and also for the Episcopal Church.

I wrote some posts during Convention, and will have more to write. If you want to see it all, look to your left for the label "General Convention." That will pull it all up, and as always the most recent will be on top.

After General Convention: Working Together on Health Care

Well, here I am at home again, recovering from General Convention. I say “recovering” advisedly: while there were breaks for meals, my days frequently began at 6:00 a.m. and before and ended sometime after midnight. Yes, it was worth it, but it was a marathon. I managed to serve as a deputy, including reporting for my diocesan web site; to network on chaplaincy issues on behalf of AEHC; and to write for my own blog and Episcopal Café.

What will I remember about General Convention? Many things. There were wonderful daily Eucharists, with words and music and images from the many cultures within the Episcopal Church. There was the pleasure of meeting colleagues from Episcopal Life and others whose words I have read. There were the Disneyland fireworks, visible every night from the suite where my diocesan deputation gathered for breakfast and lunch. There was that one exorbitant supper that was worth the $60 it cost. And, of course, it wouldn’t be General Convention if there weren’t a protester outside telling us that we’re all destined to Hell.

Others have already written about the two resolutions, D025 on ministry and the Anglican Communion, and C056 on blessings for glbt couples, that got attention from the press. While I certainly have opinions about what we were doing in passing those resolutions, I’ll probably let others take point on those. I will also be writing about the healthcare related resolutions, two of which I had a hand in.

However, as I have done before, I want to focus on something important that I think others will overlook. During General Convention there were a number of events – literally, distinct periods of time – that were emotionally intense. I have already written about three of them: the first hour of listening about D025; the actual debate about D025; and the debate about C056. There was another: the introduction of the Triennial Budget. When it was presented we were confronted with a crisis. Before General Convention the Program, Budget, and Finance Committee had reviewed their expectations of income for the next three years. Between the general crisis in the economy and the specific issues facing dioceses and congregations, they decided to reduce their expectations and to make the consequent changes.

One of the issues they faced was the number of dioceses that do not pay their full assessment each year. One deputy suggested that whenever one of us spoke in the full House we should each begin by announcing the percentage paid by each diocese, up to the full 21%; and that our opinions should be taken seriously in proportion to our diocesan contribution to the national Budget. While we didn’t all do that, some did – including a few who admitted some appallingly low percentages – and it brought home one problem we have as a Church in supporting our ministries. In response the Committee actually lowered the assessment percentages for the next Triennium, in hope that with lower expectations more dioceses might rise to them.

There were some difficult, even tragic decisions. Some thirty-plus positions have been cut – thirty-plus people who will be joining the unemployed. That thought left me somewhat ambivalent: some of the positions represented ministries we would consider important. At the same time, while I’m not happy when anyone loses a job, I’m also aware of how many positions my hospital has cut. We have difficult decisions to make in difficult times, and it would not make moral sense to exclude the Episcopal Church Center.

The statement from Program, Budget, and Finance was that these important ministries would no longer be coordinated from the top. Instead, they could be approached through the peer sharing and the development of networks. There’s a lot to be said for this approach. While good leadership from the top can offer a clearinghouse function and stimulate creativity, poor leadership at the top and laziness in the field can stifle creativity and lose valuable ideas. Decentralized leadership can offer opportunities for experimentation and adaptation to local needs. Sharing those ideas can be valuable for colleagues with similar circumstances.

I believe this is a unique opportunity for the chaplains and others in health care in the Episcopal Church. There are two structures already available to contribute to any networking on health care issues. The first and best established is the Assembly of Episcopal Healthcare Chaplains (AEHC; link to your left). While the organizational title speaks specifically of chaplains, we are actually a broader organization with opportunities for bishops and healthcare administrators to be members. Indeed, our original name as the Assembly of Episcopal Hospitals and Chaplains, and there might be reason to return to that.

The second is the developing network of Episcopal healthcare institutions as a part of the Anglican Health Network. I wrote about the first meeting of this group in the United States in January. Since then connections have been made across the Communion, and the Anglican Health Network has been officially recognized by the Anglican Consultative Council. This new network, with support from a number of Episcopal dioceses and institutions, and with some significant energy behind it, could also contribute to networking within the Episcopal Church.

So, resources are there. We need to begin the communication, the reaching out, that can bring networks together. We can look for some models. There are networks of Christian educators and of ecumenical officers already in place. But we need to begin soon. The business of the Church is mission; and health and healing have a well established place as ministries in that mission. We can do a lot together, with perhaps a little help at the national level in finding each other. We can do a lot together, once we can get together.

From the Floor: C056

We are here, on this last day of General Convention, discussing C056 on “Liturgies for Blessings.” We have not set as much time for this as we did on D025; but we have set aside more time than for most resolutions. It will take that time and more, because we have already had a call for a vote by orders.

The voices are largely the same. Oh, there was the deputy who asked whether passing this resolution, which allows “an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships,” and functionally allows bishops who wish to “provide generous pastoral response,” which we all understand to mean blessings in some form for same gender relationships. Would this violate the Canons and the rubrics of the Prayer Book? It was noted that the resolution sought to change neither; but for those who want no such blessings at all that is beside the point. But the ruling of the Chancellor and the Legislative Committee is that no.

There is also recognition that we are asked to concur – that is, we are receiving this from the House of Bishops for agreement, for acceptance of changes and adjustments that they reached with their own hard negotiation. We have been reminded of that, and it is no small point. If it fails here it is done. If it is amended here, it will be sent back to the bishops, but for lack of time it will be largely done.

So, we are hearing about how many GLBT parishioners will find this compassionate and inclusive. We are hearing how many Episcopalians have already left, with implication that many more might leave, over this issue. We are hearing of the call of the Spirit for compassion and justice. We are hearing that this violates the tradition of the Church, and the efforts at unity in the Communion written in the Windsor Report and its requested moratoria. We are hearing that we are following the world and not the Scriptures; and that the world is, at least in this, reflecting the movement of the Spirit better than the Church. And everyone, everyone, is arguing that his or her position is a commitment to the mission of the Church.

Once again, the voices are fervent, pleading, with perhaps an edge of anger. No one is casual; and once again no one is dismissive of those with whom they disagree (although, once again I doubt that those who listen don’t feel dismissed).

We are asked to consider what we might mean now, at the end of Convention and with this resolution and D025, by “ubuntu,” or “I am because we are; and because I am we are.” What does that mean? How are we accountable to one another, both within our own body and within the larger Communion? How are they accountable to us? We do not have that answer; but those who disagree with the resolution are clear that they feel the majority have not been and will not be sufficiently accountable to them, or to the wider Communion. And, of course, those who agree with the resolution, with the majority, feel the majority of the Communion have not been sufficiently accountable to us, sufficiently sensitive to our specific circumstances. So we are told we are prideful, ignoring the voices of Windsor and of Primates, violating the calls for moratoria. We are conversely told that the Communion is prideful, having violated the moratorium on provincial boundary crossings, while we held off on the possibilities of confirming the election of a partnered gay bishop or of blessing a faithful gay couple.

We will deal with this resolution, and will most likely pass it. It will certainly not heal the breach, either within the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion. Conversely, I don’t think it will make matters much worse. Those who have gone will not return if this fails, nor will those in the wider Anglican Communion who have broken communion move to re-establish it. Those bishops who believe pastoral generosity cannot extend to any blessing for gay or lesbian coupled will not have to, and probably will not, participate in the collecting of resources. In their dioceses, and in those congregations that oppose them, blessings will not happen. In those dioceses that do support this collecting, this experimentation, blessings will happen, perhaps more openly than they might have otherwise, than they might have already.

And yet I can’t say that nothing will change. There will be incremental changes. Some bishops will feel they have institutional support they did not have before to allow experimentation. Some couples will be prayed for, blessed in a tangible way, that would not have been otherwise. Within “civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal,” something more open may be done. No one is really confused: with this act we are as the Episcopal Church inching toward recognizing these couples as capable of faithful, loving, and specifically holy relationships. May God bless us and keep us, every one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C056 has passed. It has passed, in a vote by orders, by wide margins in both laity and clergy. It is done.