It Begins With a Meal: Reflections for Maundy Thursday

My wife and I were at dinner. It was New Year’s Eve, and we had taken the opportunity to go to a small restaurant noted for its premier chef and its excellent cuisine. We don’t do that often; but, after all, this was New Year’s Eve.

The menu was limited for the evening: for a fixed price, four courses, including dessert. The food was all we had been promised, and we were enjoying every bite. But one of the best moments of the evening wasn’t our food. It wasn’t even our moment. Suddenly, between the fish course and the entrée, just over my wife’s shoulder I noticed a young couple. I noticed them because, without any fanfare, the young man slid out of his seat and onto one knee, and produced in his hands a beautiful engagement ring.

I looked at my wife and said, “Why, I’ll be: he just proposed!” “Really?” she said. “That’s exciting!”

The couple at the next table heard me, and the woman asked, “Did she say yes?” I look for just a moment, and said, “From how they’re behaving now, I think so!” My wife looked back at me and said, “Well, that was worth the price of admission!”

Do we think about how many relationships start or change with a meal? Of course, the restaurant proposal is a classic; but there are so many other examples. In the same vein as the proposal, think about the first time a child brings a date to dinner with the family. Or, think about the new business relationships that get negotiated over lunch. Indeed, one of, if not the most profound and powerful of human relationships, begins with the first meal, when the newborn child takes to a mother’s breast.

The same is true, really, in our story as God’s people – both for good and ill. Think what started when a man and a woman shared an apple – a new relationship with one another, and a new relationship with God, all in one disastrous moment!

But, then again, think of the times when God’s actions to restore us also began with a meal. Our Jewish siblings will shortly celebrate Passover, and that began with a meal. Oh, it might have happened in the context of plagues, and it may reach its climax at the Red Sea, but it began with a meal. The celebration is set in the framework of a meal now because it began with a meal then: a meal prepared and eaten in haste because God’s plan was rapidly coming together. Right up to that point, they were still slaves in Egypt. From that meal on, they were the people God had gathered and would lead to freedom.

The same is true of our Christian faith. Oh, over the next few days we will experience the depths of Good Friday that we might be prepared for Easter; but the events of those three days began with a meal. Paul and John focus on different events of that meal, but we know in faith that they were one meal; and that after that meal Jesus had established a whole new relationship with his followers.

It was a meal, John tells us, that began in service. Before the food was served, there was Jesus, his good clothes laid aside, down on his knees to wash the feet of the disciples. It was a humble task, even, some might think, a humiliating task. It was a task so demeaning that Peter couldn’t imagine accepting it from Jesus. And Jesus insisted, and would not allow dinner until the he had washed the feet of everyone in the room, including those he knew would betray him.

It was a meal, Paul tells us, that was redefined in sacrifice. “This is my body,” Jesus said. “This is my blood, establishing among you a new Covenant. When you do this, you are once again connected in me.”

It was, above all, a meal that redefined who they were, those followers of Jesus. “What you have seen and heard in this meal,” Jesus said, “is my example to you. This is how you serve one another. This is how you connect with one another.” And the new Christian community took that to heart. It brought them together and held them together, so that they might go forth together. So Paul wrote, “Whenever you do this, until Christ comes again, you are recalling and proclaiming how he has died for you.”

And so we are gathered here today, that we might remember again, that we might proclaim again. Over the next few days, we will hear horror and joy again; but it begins here. It begins with this meal that we share. And if we remember what begins here, we can remember it, in all its agony and its ecstasy, every time. Every Sunday in church, or at every bedside in this hospital, we can recall again and proclaim again what the Lord has done for us, and how in doing it he has made us a new people in a new and restored relationship with him.

We are beginning the Great Three Days of the Christian story. We will go with Jesus to the Garden, to see how he accepted God’s will. We will go with Jesus to trial, and see the betrayal of even those who loved him. We will go with Jesus to the cross, in all its terror, and wait in hope and fear for life beyond death. We will go through this, as those first disciples did before us. And for us now, as it was did for them, it begins here. It begins with this meal.

More on the Denominational Health Plan

I mentioned last week that two dioceses had submitted C resolutions to General Convention regarding the Denominational Health Plan under the Church Medical Trust. I was interested that those two dioceses (one of which is my own) agreed that implementation should be delayed, but disagreed about what the end result should be.

Today the Episcopal News Services released this story about the Denominational Health Plan. It turns out that there are more than two dioceses - perhaps many more than two - concerned about the impact of the plan. I won't try to detail the various concerns. I suggest you read the story.

What does seem to be at issue, though, is the recurring questions of what justice might require, and whose ox gets gored. More to the point, one theme among various apparently different comments is this: should I get behind significant cost savings across the board, if I don't see cost savings immediately in my own local circumstances?

We'll have some interesting things to talk about in Indianapolis this summer: the Anglican Communion Covenant; blessings of gay and lesbian couples; possibly reshaping the Episcopal Church; and what kind of budget we need for the Episcopal Church, whatever shape it's in. We'll have many things to talk about, but I won't be surprised if this topic doesn't generate as much discussion as any of these others.

To Help With the Episcopal Endorsement Process

I have noted before that among the most common search strings that lead a person here is "Episcopal endorsement." I have tried to update this site as the link for the application for endorsement has changed. This morning I've also added it to the links on this page. You'll find it in the sidebar under "Professional Chaplain Links."

Do note, also, that you can find it at the Episcopal Church's revised web site. You can find it from the initial page under the menu "Who We Are" (which is, I suppose, interesting in itself: it could also have gone under "What We Do" or "Ministries." Not that I'm complaining; I just find it interesting). One way or another, I hope folks find this helpful.

A Good Discussion on Grief and Depression

Some readers may be aware that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (known more generally as the DSM, with the next edition to be DSM V) is in the process of revision. One controversy in that process has to do with the diagnosis of major depression, and what is known as “the bereavement exclusion.” That is, symptoms that might indicate clinical depression might, for a person who has suffered a significant loss, might only indicate normal grief.

With that in mind, when I heard that there would be a segment on NPR’s Talk of the Nation discussing this issue, I was wary. However, when I listened I was pleased. Jennifer Ludden interviewed a clinical social worker and a psychiatrist. Both were able to discuss their own experiences of grief. Both were able to speak to the normalcy of grief. Both focused less on specific symptoms, and more on function: how well is the person moving over time past the initial grief and reengaging the world. Moreover, both were respectful of the support of clergy and chaplains for those grieving, both in general and in response to a chaplain who called in to the show.

It was an interesting and informative discussion. You can go here to read the transcript or listen to the recorded conversation. Take the half hour or so to listen. It will be well worth your time. 

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?