What General Convention Did: St. John Eye Hospital in Jerusalem

As I was preparing for General Convention and reading through the resolutions that had been submitted, I was particularly intrigued by Resolution B005:

Whereas The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem has served in missions of charitable outreach in Jerusalem, the Middle East, and other places in need most especially through the St. John Eye Hospital, under the auspices of the British Crown since the nineteenth century; and
Whereas 2007 marks the 125th Anniversary of the Foundation of St. John Eye Hospital in Jerusalem, and the Fiftieth Anniversary of the foundation of the American Society of the Order of St, John; and
Whereas 2006 marks the Tenth Anniversary of the constitution of the Priory in the United States of America as the seventh Priory of the Order of St. John and the first outside of the British Commonwealth; and
Whereas the charitable work of this Order continues unabated in meeting the needs of the sick, the injured and the poor, without regard to their religious affiliation or nationality, in a part of the world held as holy by the Three Great Monotheistic Faiths, but sadly torn by strife and division; therefore be it
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church congratulate the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem and commend it for its continued work and witness.

Now, I must admit that I was intrigued in no small part by the reference to The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. Surely, this was the institution founded by, and the source of the name of, the Knights Hospitaller, those colleagues of and competitors with the Knights Templar. Yes, there was a time in my life when I was awfully intrigued with all the purported mystery and the occultism associated with those orders. Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco remains a favorite book; and having read that could have a good laugh reading Holy Blood and Holy Grail. (As an interesting side note, I couldn’t finish The DaVinci Code. It didn’t maintain my interest.) So what in Heaven’s name was a reference to that hospital doing in a General Convention resolution?

By the way, if you haven’t read Foucault’s Pendulum by Eco, I recommend it highly. Yeah, it can be dense and complex, and sometimes it’s painfully evident that it was written by a professor of semiotics. But it is, ultimately, wonderful fun. I have particularly treasured his discussion of “cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics.” I once, briefly, tried to develop an education theory based on this typology.

Back to topic: what was this doing in a General Convention resolution? It turns out that the Knights continue to exist. (You can read a history of the Order here.) The continuing Papal Order and related orders, among them an order of British nobility, continue to support hospitals. The American Society of the Order of St. John is an American association of the British order, which, as noted in the resolution, has supported the St. John Eye Hospital in Jerusalem since its establishment in the 19th Century. Today they provide care to all who come to them, working across lines of faith, language, and political affiliation in that most complex of milieus. The Order has a web site, including extensive information on the hospital.

The real value of this resolution is to note one of many health ministries supported by the Episcopal Church, whether as individuals, congregations, dioceses, or the national Church. While many of us may know of one or two that have some local visibility, we can’t have a real sense of the variety and scope of these extensions of our ministries in the world. There are many more, I think, than any of us knows. I appreciate the decision of Bishop Mark Sisk, himself Sub-prelate of the Priory in the United States, to bring this work to the attention of the larger Church through this resolution. I hope we will look for and share in other ways information on these health ministries throughout the world. In these days when the Church seems consumed with internal struggles, these ministries are clear evidence that we are reaching beyond ourselves, and continuing to get on with reflecting in the world the healing ministry of Christ.

What General Convention Did: Clergy and Clergy Family Health

Once again, I want to review the actions of the 75th General Convention related to health care. Two of the actions taken at the General Convention in Columbus that related to health and health care arguably should be of very personal concern. That is because they relate to the health of clergy and of their families. Specifically, these were passage of Resolutions D033 and B001.

The text of Resolution D033 reads as follows:

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention commend CREDO Institute, Inc. for Episcopal Clergy Wellness: A Report to The Church on the State of Clergy Wellness and affirms the recommendations contained therein; and be it further
Resolved, That CREDO Institute, Inc. be encouraged to work collaboratively with other offices, agencies, and organizations to address the recommendations in a systemic and strategic manner in order to strengthen the ordained leadership of this Church, and that a report on the progress be made to the 76th General Convention.

I would encourage everyone to review Episcopal Clergy Wellness: A Report to The Church on the State of Clergy Wellness, available to download here. The CREDO Institute has been offering programs for clergy wellness and vocational exploration. They’re best known for the CREDO Conferences, opportunities for clerics to get away for eight days with others at roughly the same stage of their careers, for spiritual renewal and vocational reflection.

On a similar theme is Resolution B001. It’s worth noting that this resolution was submitted by Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of Nevada and Presiding Bishop-elect.

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention recognize the urgent need for an ongoing program devoted to the wellness of families of clergy and clergy; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention commend the Families of Clergy United in Support (FOCUS) for its creation of a resource guide to assist the wellness of families of clergy and clergy; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention empower FOCUS to lead dioceses and congregations in the use of this resource guide through publicity, consultation, and seed money to promote the health of families of clergy, clergy and congregations; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention ask the Office of Ministry Development to provide oversight and coordination with FOCUS and other programs that support the well-being of clergy and clergy families, and assist in seeking funding for such programs, including for Families of Clergy United in Support; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention request that the Joint Standing Committee of Program, Budget and Finance consider a budget allocation of $97,000 per year for the implementation of this resolution.

You can learn about Families of Clergy United in Support (FOCUS) here. I note as important that the resolution included delegation to a specific office (the Office of Ministry Development) and designation of funds for the program.

You can see why I would suggest that this has a personal interest for me. Certainly, I appreciate folks being concerned about my health. Intellectually I know that I can’t take care of anyone else if I don’t take enough care of myself. Viscerally I’m as likely as anyone else to push myself too far when I’m working, and not far enough when I’m not. As a hospital chaplain being called out of a sound sleep to a bedside is just part of the job, as is the sixteen hour day, or the seven day week. (I told someone yesterday I couldn’t straighten out whether my week went Monday through Sunday, or Sunday through Saturday; and in that indeterminacy my week never seemed to actually have an end.) That’s not really exceptional among clergy, although I may be called out at night more. It’s easy to think about the discipline of Morning Prayer; it’s not as easy, nor near as much fun sometimes, to thing about the discipline of morning exercise. The fact that someone would care – more to the point, that the Church I serve would care – about my health and my lifestyle is no little reassuring.

And with that, I’m even more pleased that someone is interested in my family and their health. I want to be a good husband, and wanted when my children were still at home to be a good father. (Yeah, yeah, I know that doesn’t end, either; but they’re taking responsibility for themselves these days, and it isn’t the same.) But I know that in the community I serve there are some who will project expectations of me onto my wife. My wife, bless her, is really pretty good at setting limits and not getting set up with expectations not appropriate for her. But, not all my colleagues are as blessed as I am; more to the point, not all of their spouses are as capable as mine is. And for all the changes that the world and the Church have seen, there are still a lot of folks with very traditional expectations of clergy and families. There are stresses on families of clergy based on our visibility and centrality in the Church community and the larger community. A commitment on the part of the Episcopal Church to the families of clergy will, I think, contribute to a healthier Church.

And that is no small thing. I have often reminded colleagues that clergy are not normative Christians. The normative Christian is a lay person. Rather, the cleric is called forth in the community to provide leadership in the faith and worship of the Church. A good part of the leadership can be provided by modeling, demonstrating in our own lives how the faith might be lived well. Certainly, that is in keeping with our incarnational theology. So, how we live our lives, both professional and personal, will be seen and noted as lay Christians consider how to live theirs. It is very important that we model good, healthy lifestyles, and good, healthy relationships. It is important that we are caring for ourselves and for our families in ways that honor the love Christ has shown for us and has called for us to show for one another.

Some of the blogs I read frequently are written by seminarians. Every now and again they put up with a comment from me that I hope will be helpful and supportive for them. Certainly, I hope they will begin good professional and personal practices in their ministries, and will maintain them throughout their careers. The interest expressed by General Convention in supporting them, and us more seasoned professional siblings, is hopeful and helpful. They are indeed confirmation of the theme of the General Convention, a call to all of us, clergy included, to “Come and Grow.”

Episcopal and Anglican Issues: Searching for the Middle

I found a video of an interview with Dr. Kendall Harmon of the blog titusonenine on the blog site of Dr. Dunlap, “Catholic in the Third Millennium.” I don’t know the source, but I appreciate Dr. Dunlap posting it. It is well worth watching. I listened to the interview last night, and, as usual, Kendall was thoughtful and measured in his comments. I certainly appreciated his noting that so much of the commentary in the blogosphere is neither.

Having said that, I wondered at his comments in the interview that "the middle did not hold." He questioned those who used that description after General Convention, and said that in fact he felt that was not true.

Which leads me to wonder how he understands "the middle." What is "the middle" between? It seems to me that there may be several answers.

Some who said “the middle held” were focusing on the how the Episcopal Church had dealt with a moral issue and a particular community. Those who were willing to live (I don't want to say happy) with the results of Convention, including Resolution B033, seemed to have had some sense that the poles were radical pursuit of a justice agenda, the consequence of which would be the fullest possible acceptance of GLBT persons, and of their own understanding of their own lives, within all aspects of the life of the Church; vs. radical pursuit of an agenda of traditionalist morality in personal life, supported and sustained by a literal reading of Scripture on at least some issues, and especially homosexuality. If that seems a narrow description, that’s deliberate. Folks at both poles would say that they have some sense of a call to justice and service to the poor; some sense of the content and intent of the Gospel, and how best to spread it; and of “what Jesus would do,” or at least have them do. However, over the issues relating to homosexual persons in the life of the Church, folks at either pole were prepared to let the other pole go, to allow the Church to lose someone. The middle, then, would be those who felt that there is an appropriate claim both for justice for GLBT persons, and so for their full participation in the life of the Episcopal Church; and that this also needed to be (and could be) articulated in Scriptural and traditional terms, applying critical and faithful reason to both Scripture and tradition, as we have done for generations.

Others, I think, spoke of those who felt the Anglican Communion was meaningful – not so meaningful as to be prescriptive for the Episcopal Church. but too meaningful to simply discard. One could take a page from our historic arguments about the historic episcopate, and suggest that some thought the Communion was of the esse of the Church – indispensable – and some of the bene esse of the Church – valuable, but dispensable. One could say, then, that the middle, the majority, held the position that the Communion was of the pleni esse of the Church: yeah, perhaps the Episcopal Church could live without it, but could not be the same without it. (I realize that the argument is actually related to the argument about the episcopate, but that would be a matter for a separate post.)

I think that these were separate considerations among Deputies (and probably among Bishops, but I wasn’t in that House), but there was an awful lot of overlap. That is, those who would have been in the middle for one perspective, would also have been in the middle for the other.

Now, there are also some commentators who have talked about “the middle” after essentially defining it away. That is, they have refused to see themselves in light of the full spectrum, insisting on seeing themselves as normative despite all evidence to the contrary. They look an awful lot like those in the polar groups in my first perspective above, except that they would not speak of or to those at the other pole. Thus, they would say, “I know that in fact I am in the middle, and those who stray too far are literally off the spectrum.” That is the meaning of the language coming from some voices, especially in Africa, who speak of the Episcopal Church majority as having described “a new religion.” (There are comparable voices at the other extreme, but this is such a clear example as to make the point easily.) By asserting that those with whom they disagree have left the faith, they remove those with whom they disagree from consideration at all.

Not unlike this are those who postulate a “middle” that’s not really related to the issues themselves, not unlike that construct of “Middle America” that crops up in American political speech. It encompasses those who want enough stability for comfort, but also have enough flexibility to accept change at some (inevitably slow and) measured pace. This “middle” would include all those in the pew who might say, “I’ve been an Episcopalian forever; and while I’m unhappy with, maybe even actually against, all of this innovation, I’m going to suffer through as long as I can.” This group would be opposed to radical change in general, but might live with it as long as the frontier is somewhere else – some other Anglican province, some other diocese, some other congregation. The difficulty, of course, is that in fact this is a construct, a postulate. Folks in that "middle" have some issue or another, but are not all concerned about the same issue. It’s part of the dynamic, but can’t be measured by the evidence, or at least by the public rhetoric.

And my fear (and to some extent my hope) is that this last is the referent when Kendall says, “The middle did not hold.” He cannot be speaking of either of the first perspectives. In those perspectives the middle manifestly did hold. I hope he’s not speaking of the third perspective. That would suggest he is prepared to define out of the Body of Christ most Episcopalians (and I don’t think he’s prepared to do that). So, I can only imagine he’s thinking of the last group. That would make sense of his comments about “a trickle, and maybe even a stream” of folks leaving the Episcopal Church. It would make sense in light of the thought that even those on the constructed "middle" have a limit, and that eventually they would not be able to see themselves in the Episcopal Church anymore. There is perhaps - even probably – a perspective that I have missed to which Kendall is speaking; and if so, that would call for further reflection.

But if the “middle” is that constructed middle, moved to accept change only slowly, largely after it’s established “somewhere else,” there is a problem. Because it’s really not concerned either about Christian standards of justice or of personal morality, about whether our continuing relations with other Christians of this Anglican tradition are or are not worthwhile, or, for that matter, any other issue of the faith, it offers no motivation or reflection for Christian action. It may seem worth protecting, even if we only assume it exists, because we don’t really want anyone to have to be unhappy, or even because we fear more defections from our Episcopal congregations than we’ve seen so far. But there’s nothing particularly Christian about holding some constructed “middle” for its own sake. Indeed, if that’s our motivation, we have indeed fallen into slavery to the prevailing culture; for any “prevailing culture” will seek to defend stability against any motivation for change, however just or faithful or Scriptural.

So, Kendall feels “the middle did not hold.” From what I saw, I think it did. But to say that certainly begs the question: when we speak about “ the middle,” what is it the middle between?

What General Convention Did: HIV/AIDS

Let me return to one of my ongoing projects. This time, I’m writing about actions of the 75th General Convention regarding health care.

In an earlier post I wrote about resolutions presented for General Convention addressing HIV/AIDS, and related issues. Four resolutions were considered, and passed in some form.

Resolution A131 resolved to continue the work of the Standing Committee on HIV/AIDS of the Executive Council for the next triennium. The particular focus stated in the resolutions was to “focus on mechanisms for increasing HIV/AIDS awareness in our Church, reducing the effects of stigmatization by HIV/AIDS and continue the process of identifying those whom we are called to serve but may overlook….” Resolution A131 was passed in both houses. It was, however, noted that the resolutions of the Standing Committee of General Convention on the Structure of the Church has passed, including one that moved Committee on HIV/AIDS from being a Standing Committee of the Executive Council to being a subcommittee of the reactivated Standing Commission of the General Convention on Health. A list of Committees, Commissions, Agencies, and Boards posted since Convention on the General Convention web site shows both the Standing Commission on Health and the Committee on HIV/AIDS. So, there’s some administrative work still to be done.

Resolution A132 addressed the continuing stigma of those living with HIV/AIDS. The resolution called for Episcopal congregations and individuals to:

“Acknowledge that the stigmatization of anyone due to disease, and particularly due to HIV/AIDS, creates impediments to seeking treatment and care…
Affirm that the teachings of Jesus Christ clearly state that sickness and disease are not the result of sin in the human family.
Acknowledge that our Baptismal Covenant vows obligate us to respect the dignity of every human being and to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbor as ourselves and that the stigmatization of those among us with disease is a violation of those vows; and be it further
Educate their constituent members about HIV/AIDS with a goal of eliminating any stigma associated with the disease.
Educate their local, state and federal elected officials and representatives about HIV/AIDS with the goal of creating knowledgeable, compassionate, and sensitive public policy….”

A132 was also passed by both houses in its original form.

A133 called for the Communication Office of the Church to collaborate with the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition (NEAC) to form a working group to develop a campaign to raise awareness on HIV/AIDS. This was also passed as submitted. However, the resolution did not include funds for the purpose, and one can fear that the resources of the Communication Office may well be stretched to include this, no matter how valuable.

Resolution A134 called for

"the Office of Peace and Justice Ministries of the Episcopal Church, working in collaboration with the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition (NEAC) and the Executive Council Committee on HIV/AIDS [to] develop a HIV training curriculum by the 76th General Convention, thereafter to be updated each triennium…
[to] focus on information on the transmission, treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS, addressing the demographic and social implications; and…
that this training curriculum be offered as [a] web-based, self-directed tutorial; and…
that each diocese will strongly encourage that lay and ordained leadership complete this training."

A134 was also passed as submitted. Once again, the resolution did not include designation of funds. We can hope that this will be possible within the combined resources of the Office of Peace and Justice Ministries and of the Committee on HIV/AIDS, wherever it winds up in the structures of the Church.

A135 called for a survey to list all the HIV/AIDS ministries and resources throughout the Church. Unfortunately, this resolution was never reported out of the designated legislative committee.

These were certainly valuable actions. HIV/AIDS continues to be an important issue, and the Committee is right: it’s fallen off the radar screens, and lost the attention of many. If these actions are completed over the next triennium, we will have returned that attention to an issue that has ramifications for our own Church, for our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, and for our relations with other Provinces of the Anglican Communion.

The Church, the Whole Church, and Nothing but the Church?

The current controversy in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion had been stirring around for a generation without really having much impact. There were arguments, but any effects tended to be local in scope. There wasn’t much impact, that is, until it involved the election and ordination of a bishop. It almost erupted in the Church of England; but then the Archbishop persuaded Jeffrey John to step back and step down. There was reaction to the decisions on blessing same sex unions in the diocese of New Westminster, but it was seen primarily as an issue local to Canada. The event that was a deal breaker, and perhaps a Communion breaker, was the election, confirmation by Convention, and ordination by Frank Griswold et al of Gene Robinson. It was the effect on the episcopate that brought issues of the inclusion in the church of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons to a communion-wide level.

That is, we are told, because bishops are ordained “for the whole church.” In the ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church (1979) the celebrant notes that the candidate has been duly and lawfully elected to be a bishop of the Church of God to serve in the Diocese of N. (p. 514) The celebrant goes on to say in the Examination, “With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world.” (p. 517) The candidate is asked, “Will you share with your fellow bishops in the government of the whole Church…?” (p. 518; emphases mine in all quotations)

But, what can we really mean by “the whole Church?” For all our commitment to the historic episcopate, and our faith that our Episcopal orders are just as clearly rooted in apostolic order as anyone else’s, we make no pretence that our bishops might function in churches in communion with Rome or Antioch or Alexandria or Constantinople. They might address our bishops as bishops by courtesy, but they don’t recognize their orders. (The fact that we would recognize theirs only highlights their failure to recognize ours.) Until recently, the same was largely true among those Protestant churches that used the title of “bishop.” Prior to Called to Common Mission, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American would recognize the administrative title of an Episcopal bishop, but would never see any effect on their orders that might be implied by the concept of “the whole Church.” We hope soon that those churches of the Methodist tradition will have some recognition of our bishops and our place in the historic episcopate. However, there’s no functional sense in which an Episcopal Bishop, or a bishop of any province of the Anglican Communion would be recognized by all members of the whole Body of Christ, nor even by those members of the Body that preserve and cherish the historic Episcopate.

Nor can we mean, really, the entire Anglican Communion. That is, of course, evident now. The provinces of Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda have declared themselves out of communion with the Episcopal Church and with General Convention, and thus, in any real sense, bishops of the Episcopal Church. Granted, there is a fudge about bishops that “maintain the ancient Christian faith” as those provinces choose to define it; but it is clear that bishops can’t simply act in and for another province of the Communion without official recognition. There is greater recognition of ministries; but it is certainly not universal. The Presiding Bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church could not be ordained a deacon in most provinces of the Communion. Moreover, the integrity of boundaries between provinces and diocese, and thus the limitations of recognition of orders, was one point repeatedly held as important Lambeth Conferences, the Windsor Report, and the Dromantine Statement.

Functionally, when we speak of electing for “the whole Church,” we mean the whole Episcopal Church. The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church define the duties of a bishop, and also the limitations. Thus,

No Bishop shall perform episcopal acts or officiate by preaching, ministering the Sacraments, or holding any public service in a Diocese other than that in which the Bishop is canonically resident, without permission or a license to perform occasional public services from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the Bishop desires to officiate. (Title III, Canon 18.2. These are the 2003 Canons, but this wasn’t changed in Columbus.)

A bishop may function in the diocese that elected him or her, providing administration, ordaining clergy, and functioning to teach the faith of and defend the unity of the Church, as expressed in that diocese. That bishop will serve and represent that diocese in the House of Bishops, and participate in the unity of that House, and so contribute to the unity of the Church. However, while those in another diocese may recognize that person as a bishop, they would not recognize that person, and so respond to that person, as their bishop.

So, we speak of ordaining bishops “for the whole church” proleptically – looking forward to a time when in fact the whole Body of Christ is united, and we all recognize each other. It looks forward to the coming of the Kingdom; but in our current experience it has little tangible effect. Instead, we elect and ordain bishops for a diocese of the Episcopal Church, and in some sense for the whole Episcopal Church, at least in the sense that we elect and ordain bishops to participate in the House of Bishops and in the General Convention. While theologically there is some sense of “the whole Church,” and of the meaning of episkope in the whole Church, Episcopal bishops are functionally bishops only of the Episcopal Church; and there are limits even in that.

Note that even this is not consistent throughout the Communion. For example, the constitution of the Church in the Province of Central Africa includes a provision for appealing controversies to the Archbishop of Canterbury. There has been some discussion of making that appeal in light of the controversy surrounding Bishop Kunonga in Zimbabwe. That is a level of recognition of ministries beyond that of the Episcopal Church. We’ve been quite clear as recently as the General Convention that we value the opinions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but don’t recognize any jurisdictional authority.

So, what do we mean when we say we believe we elect and ordain bishops “for the whole Church?” In fact any ordination is within the purview of the particular faith community within which it occurs. That’s as true of our bishops as it is of Roman bishops or Methodist bishops or, for that matter, bishops of the “Three-Self Patriotic Movement” churches in the Republic of China. When the Kingdom comes, any bishop may be recognized by all bishops, and be able to represent the unity of the Body to any member. Until then, all bishops are as local as all politics, both within the Church and without. In that light, should we really be that upset if some bishops don’t recognize us? Even if they’re bishops who have been among us who no longer wish to be? Until there is “one whole Church,” our statements on the ordination of bishops are a matter of hope, and of God’s grace, for the future. Institutionally and today, they mean hardly anything at all.