Care with the Blue: Joint Standing Committee for Advocacy and Networking for Mission

To begin this series on the Blue Book, let's start right at the beginning—Executive Council (EC) and their five Joint Standing Committees, starting with the Joint Standing Committee for Advocacy and Networking for Mission.

The previous General Convention, in response to the process created by the Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church (TREC), eliminated almost all of the fourteen standing commissions of the church, leaving only two in place: the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons, and the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. The EC report notes that this meant a significant shift in how work was done at the church wide level, increasing what needed to be done by EC itself, especially through the work of the five Joint Standing Committees of Council.

Summary of the Report
The Joint Standing Committee for Advocacy and Networking for Mission has a mandate that is focused on questions of the church wide advocacy of TEC. The key focus of the Committee's work during this triennium was racial reconciliation. This Committee sought to keep racial reconciliation at the forefront of each meeting of the Council itself. Additionally, the Committee worked to build the relationship between EC and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

The Committee also worked on questions related to poverty, arguing for an increase of the minimum wage to a living wage and working against predatory payday loans. It responded to terror attacks and adopted resolutions against domestic violence and gun violence. It helped EC support the advocacy at Standing Rock. It sponsored resolutions related to climate change and the civil rights of transgender people.

Reacting to the Report
This report left me feeling... conflicted.

First off, I want to be clear that the work this Committee did with regard to racial reconciliation is tremendously important to the life of the church. Our witness as Christians and as Episcoplians has not been one of faithfulness in this regard. Racial reconciliation cuts to the heart of the Gospel, the heart of the cure of souls, because it is through those who were divided being brought together in the flesh of Christ that we find our own selves healed. The publication of "Becoming the Beloved Community" and the process envisioned by that text is a tremendous step in the right direction and though I don't think that text was produced by this Committee, their work clearly engages those who created the text. I hope the work of racial reconciliation will continue and grow.

However, I think there is a problem in the very structure and approach of this Committee. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that advocacy for justice is a fundamental part of what the church does. However, I'm not sure where there mandate came from and I'm fairly certain I don't agree with it. First, it seems unnecessarily limited only to questions of public policy advocacy. While it is important for the church to make its voice known on public issues—particularly when the issue cuts to the heart of what we believe as a church, I don't think that public policy advocacy is the only way we should engage in "Advocacy and Networking for Mission." Secondly, advocacy should begin by calling our members, parishes, and dioceses to make concrete changes in their own lives, changes that will result in greater faithfulness and justice in the world.

Also,  as a sidetone, I don't see much "networking for mission" going on in this report—and that is something we definitely do need as a church.

To be honest, I am not terribly interested in the Executive Council or the General Convention of our church publishing resolutions which seek to direct legislation. Sometimes that is needed, but only rarely. Much more important, to me, is for the Committee to call us, as a church, to greater faithfulness. An excellent example is the work on poverty and a living wage. It is one thing to call for the government to increase the minimum wage (though I have a hunch no one in Congress cares a great deal what we say on this question). What would be more effective—and more faithful—in my view would be to create better living wage standards on a church wide basis.

Generations of Episcopalians, lay and ordained, have worked to ensure there are just and fair compensations standard for clergy. However, very few dioceses have compensation standard for lay positions. Indeed, I proposed a resolution to my own diocesan Annual Convention in 2014, calling on our Diocesan Council to establish a task force that would create compensation standard for lay positions (you can see the resolution online here). That resolution was referred to Diocesan Council for study... and then nothing happened. A friend of mine who was on Council told me that Council considered the idea and decided not to do anything with it. They didn't even give a report to the next Annual Convention of the diocese. And that was that.

How can we, as a church, call for a living wage in the government when we are unwilling even to commit ourselves to a living wage and just compensation standards for our lay employees?

So, rather than calling for the government to increase the minimum wage, what I would rather is that the Committee for Advocacy and Networking for Mission call for living wage standards to be enacted in our church. Otherwise, it strikes me as self-serving to tell others what to do while ignoring the plank in our own eye when it comes to this question.

This is why the racial reconciliation work this Committee did is so good—it is about calling us to greater faithfulness. Yes, there is an advocacy component, but that comes about only after we submit our own lives to be transformed as disciples of Christ. That is how souls are healed and God's kingdom of justice and love is enlarged—not be telling other people or the government what to do.

Note: You can click here for a list of all Blue Book Reports & Resolutions that have thus far been reviewed.