Care with the Blue: Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility

The series on the Blue Book now goes to the second committee report from Executive Council (EC), the report from the Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility.

Summary of the Report
This committee was created by EC in 2016 to research the social responsibility records of corporations whose stock is held by the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (DFMS—the formal, legal, name for TEC). They were further tasked both with developing shareholder resolutions on social justice and also researching resolutions proposed by other groups.

The committee worked with United/Continental and Marriott on training of staff to identify victims of human trafficking and also planned future dialogues with Delta Airlines and Swift Transportation. They withdrew a shareholder resolution to Chevron after that company published its own document on climate change and are monitoring progress with other companies whose businesses have an impact upon climate change. They engaged in dialogue with the CACI corporation on the question of diversity (specifically gender diversity) on their board. Through dialogue with Caterpillar Corporation, an employee was appointed to a new position on human rights, hopefully to oversee the participation of Caterpillar in actives associated with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. They are also looking at our participation with Motorola, Facebook, and PayPal which also have connections to the Occupation. When the committee discovered we held stock in at least five banks which had helped finance the Dakota Access Pipeline, they sought to get the banks to exert pressure in getting the pipeline rerouted.

The committee proposed one resolution (see below) and also a budget for a halftime position to oversee this work.

Reaction to the Report 
Admittedly, I am not naturally a tremendous fan of the social screening of investments. Though it can have a powerful effect in some cases, I always worry that it privileges one political perspective (usually liberal) over another one and it gets farther into the weeds of definite right and wrong without respect to differing opinions than is appropriate for a churchwide body in the Anglican tradition.

That sad, most of this I found unobjectionable. At the same time, I do not not see the need for this work to be staffed or ramped up in any way. Though some corporations should definitely be avoided due to the nature of their work... I personally think that list is probably rather small. The reality is that almost every corporation has aspects of its work that at least some Christians would find antithetical to the gospel of Christ. So, some corporations get unfairly singled out while others are ignored.

To wit, I think there are other more effective ways of engaging in social justice work in the church, ways that are more attentive to the diversity of political views that do exist in TEC (despite the imagination of many).

Reaction to the Resolution 
A047 Ethical Investments (full resolution here)
I'm not opposed to this resolution, but I have my reservations about this sort of work in general, as noted above. That said, my guess is that I'm in the minority on this one and so it will probably be approved.

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

Care with the Blue: Committee on Anti-Racism

My series on the Blue Book now turns to the report from the first of the six regular Committees of Executive Council: the Committee on Anti-Racism.

Summary of the Report
This committee has existed since the late eighties, charged with providing assistance to dioceses, congregations, and agencies of TEC with regard to programs to combat racism. The scope of work for this committee expanded in 2015, when they were also charged to develop anti-racism work as a core component of Christian formation, begin collecting data on provincial anti-racism work, develop criteria for credentialing trainers in anti-racism programming, and monitor compliance of anti-racism legislation from General Convention.

The work of the Committee in this past triennium bears evidence to a refrain I'm beginning to sense is oft-repeated. General Convention charges that some sort of work be done but then there is no budget to do that work. The budget from the 2015 GC gave no programmatic resources to this Committee and so they struggled to meet their mandate. After one year, a key member resigned. Halfway through the triennium the chair became inactive, with a new chair not named until June of 2017. Over the course of the triennium, they had two face-to-face meetings, three meetings via phone and three via web conference.

The committee cited the House of Bishop's pastoral letter "The Sin of Racism: A Call to Covenant" as a theological basis for their work. Given what has happened in our country over these past few years, the Committee expresses their own belief that all clergy and laity need to move beyond "awareness-level" training and get "competency-level" training that would give them the skills and confidence to reconcile and heal the wounds of racism. They are currently working with the Forma Group to find ways to incorporate anti-racism training in all formation efforts across TEC.

Though the 2015 General Convention sought to create criteria and standards for credentialing trainers, the budget did not include the staff person that was support to track and record this. Thus, the oversight falls back upon diocesan level leaders—resulting in significant disparity in practice and effectiveness.

One of the true successes of the triennium has been the launch of the "Becoming Beloved Community" initiative, led by the Presiding Bishop and his staff. The hope is that this toolkit can provide a much needed boost in this work. Further, identifying the difference between awareness, competency, and mastery when it comes to Anti-Racism training (and what is needed to reach each stage), is a big step forward in this work.

Their report also includes a rather exhaustive list of activities on a province-by-province, and then diocese-by-diocese basis. This work demonstrates that our provinces and dioceses are taking General Convention's calls for anti-racism training seriously. It was pretty stunning (if somewhat overwhelming!) to read all that is being done around the church.

Also, despite not having a staff person to help find a way to credential anti-racism trainers, the committee did not give up. Instead, they designed an alternate process that could be accomplished without the benefit of a staff person overseeing the work.

The committee concluded their report with a recommendation for how their work should be continued in the triennium to come.

Reactions to the Report
If this is what they did with no budget, the devil should be terrified of what they would do with a real budget!

Seriously, if the past couple of years have taught us anything as a nation it is is that we are far from "done" with issues surrounding racism. The work that this Committee is doing is important and something the church needs to vigorously support.

We often assume that because the Episcopal Church is generally a more progressive denomination, that we must be better than others when it comes to racism. In my experience, this is far from the case. Though Episcopalians like to laud Jonathan Myrick Daniels and others who were active in the Civil Rights movement, scant attention is paid to the ways in which many Episcopalians supported discrimination and the many leaders of our church who were silent at that moment in our nation's history. Further, talk to the average person of color in TEC, and they will not find it difficult to tell you what racism looks like in our church.

It may be swaddled in white-guilt-do-gooder-notions, but racism is real. I know I was shocked in my own ministry by the racism I experienced at the parish and diocesan level when I sought to launch our Latino ministry initiative. Thankfully, through continued and insistent conversations roadblocks based upon racist ideas and approaches were overcome... but... wow. Yeah, this is a real thing in our church and it is not OK.

In many ways, I think that it is precisely the fact that we are more progressive as a denomination that makes this issue more difficult to tackle. Every Episcopalian thinks they are not the issue.

This is where I think the concept of unintentional bias has been the most helpful in my own continued formation in this area. And, to be honest, this is my one critique of this report. Absent an overarching program and narrative that is broadly shared, a survey of what is being done in our church reveals that many of the programs and approaches are steeped in methodology that contemporary leaders in issues of race and diversity would say are simply not effective.

As much as Becoming the Beloved Community is an important first step, it cannot be our final step as a church. I hope that in the next triennium the committee will be given a real budget that can enable it to develop standards and criteria that are based upon the best contemporary scholarship on issues of race and diversity.

Reaction to the Resolutions
A042 Proposed Name Change for EC Committee on Anti-Racism (full resolution here)
This should be an easy resolution to pass. The very name "anti-racism" ironically brings up all kinds of biases and prejudices in the minds of the hearer. It says that those who are undergoing the training are racist—which, though it may be true, calling people racist has been demonstrably shown to lessen the effectiveness of changing people's perspective. Further, as the committee notes, "opposition of racism and promotion of tolerance is not quite the same the God's call to reconciliation - returning to a right relationship with God calls our neighbor."

A043 Clarify and Update Mandate (full resolution here)
This resolution largely changes the language of the committee's mandate along the line of thinking as the name change (really, these two resolutions should be joined into one). Additionally, this resolution calls for changing the ideals for credentialing trainers given the experience and insight gained in the past triennium.

A044 Establishing an Anti-Racism/Racial Reconciliation Certification Framework: Building Capacity for Becoming Beloved Community (full resolution here)
Given the significant differences in approaches across the church, this resolution seeks to establish clear criteria for what should be seen as effective anti-racism training—noting that is different than just anti-racism programming. This should definitely be approved.

A045 Revision and Reminder of Anti-Racism Training Requirement (full resolution here)
This resolution provides a helpful revision to the requirements for anti-racism training, including how that training is carried out and tracked. It follows largely the insights of the report and should be approved.

A046 Host a Racial Reconciliation Awards Program (full resolution here)
Well, this is an interesting idea. The Committee would like there to be an annual awards ceremony that would "will recognize individuals and organizations for their Racial Reconciliation efforts.' In the explanation they assert, "It is well-known that people tend to exhibit behavior when they see examples. The Committee believes that the Church needs to showcase examples of successful racial reconciliation efforts. Awards programs are a proven way to provide such a showcase."

Given everything else we are trying to do, this particular program seems... not the best use of our time or energy. I doubt that having an annual awards ceremony would change many hearts and minds. I'm inclined not to approve this resolution.

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

Care with the Blue: IARCA Covenant Committee

Following yesterday's underwhelming report from the bilateral committee that oversees the relationship between TEC and the Episcopal Church of Brazil, today's report from the IARCA Covenant Committee was much more heartening.

Summary of the Report
This committee oversees the relationship between TEC and the Anglican Church in Central America (Iglesia Anglicana de la Región Central de América). Once more, some context might help with this report.

This province of the Anglican Communion is comprised of five dioceses (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama), with four of those five being originally founded by TEC. Its existence is an outgrowth of the attempts for autonomy for Province IX dioceses, beginning in the mid-sixties. The goal was for autonomy to be reached by 1985 or 1988—but no one could achieve autonomy by then.

Mexico reached autonomy in 1995, with TEC creating a twenty-five year covenant of financial support (one that ends soon, unless changes are made—I don't know the current status of that situation). Three years later, in 1997, the above noted dioceses reached autonomy as the Anglican Church in Central America, with TEC creating a forty-year promise of financial support and the covenant overseen by this committee (that covenant it online here). The other areas of Province IX are no longer currently working towards autonomy but are, instead, a part of the Province IX  Sustainability Plan. (You can read some about that online here).

The Committee which oversees our relationship with the Anglican Church in Central America clearly worked pretty hard during the triennium. They learned about the history behind the autonomy movements in Mexico and Central America. They also discussed what would need to happen to revise the current Covenant with the IARCA. That work began in Guatemala in 2016 and though it could have been hampered by 2015 GC budget cuts, the group worked on finding a way forward that could enable the mutual flourishing of our provinces.

They note that we have learned much from twenty years of walking together and, now halfway through the covenant period, are hopeful that a revision of the covenant will strengthen the next decade of ministry together. The new Covenant will not be brought to GC 2018, so we will need to wait until 2021 to formally approve a new version of it.

Reaction to the Report
Though the situations are significantly different between Central America and Brazil, it is hard not to note the tremendous difference between this report and the last one. As far as I can tell from the report and my own research, it seems this relationship continues to function well and healthily. The ability of the Committee to overcome its own hurdles and get important work done is to be commended. I look forward to reading the revised Covenant when it is completed and hope our two provinces can continue to walk together faithfully.

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

Care with the Blue: A Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil

The report from the Brazil Covenant Committee is short and so may be easy to overlook. However, it should note be missed. Some context might help.

Summary of the Report
The Episcopal Church of Brazil was a part of TEC for eighty years until the country became independent in 1964. There was not a good separation as the Episcopal Church of Brazil became independent of TEC, leading to a sense of isolation and struggle in church. In the late eighties, work began in earnest to rebuild the relationship, leading to the establishment of a covenanted relationship in the early nineties. (You can read the Covenant online here). The goal of the covenant was to create a structure wherein each church would support the other through programmatic efforts, companion diocese relationships, and a mission fund.

In 2006, the Covenant was renewed through an Executive Council resolution which moved the bilateral committee from the original covenant to the status of a Bilateral Standing Committee that would meet once every eighteen months, alternating between provinces, to further the work of the Covenant.

In their Blue Book report, the Committee notes they had significant challenges and didn't even connect with their counterparts in Brazil until late in the triennium. There was also turnover on both sides. However, in the summer of 2017 they had a video conference and are looking forward to building better avenues of communications.

Reactions to the Report
This is a good example of a place where a significant conversation needs to take place about the 1992 Covenant and the 2006 creation of a Bilateral Standing Committee. The whole reason this Covenant and Committee were created was because of a sense of isolation and a relationship that had dissipated significantly.

Here we are, roughly twenty-five years later, and it might appear that we are close to being back at square one because the report on the work is that there was little communication and (one would assume) the Church in Brazil is rather isolated from TEC.

The question is whether this current state of affairs is because of the growth that has taken place over the past twenty-five years, rendering the Covenant and Committee now unnecessary or whether one or both sides have not fully lived up to the goals of the Covenant. If the Brazilian Church is still feeling isolated and in need of help, then the lack of work during this past triennium is disappointing (and somewhat embarrassing). However, if the Brazilian Church is doing well, then maybe it is time to let the Covenant and the Committee dissolve so that a new relationship can be formed that more adequately expresses God's calling to our two provinces in this time.

I truly don't know the answer to the question—but it does seem, from the report, that either EC or GC should work to figure this thing out.

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

Care with the Blue: Joint Standing Committee on World Mission

Continuing my series on the Blue Book, we turn to the fifth and final Joint Standing Committee report: the Joint Standing Committee on World Mission (WM).

Summary of the Report
The mandate of this report makes it clear that this Committee focuses on global concerns of the Episcopal Church. In their words, any issues beyond the United States "that call for the Church's discipleship and mission." So, this is not just the question of missionaries and the Church's overseas diocese, but it is also our global social justice work. So, it includes the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), educational work we do in the Caribbean and Latin America, rebuilding Haiti and the United Thank Offering (UTO). Further, this is the group that looks at questions relating to our relationship to the Anglican Communion, including issues surrounding the Anglican Covenant.

One of the challenges this Committee faced was in the area of refugee resettlement. The Director of Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM) reported several times to Executive Council (EC) itself and also to WM on the challenges of doing this work in the current climate. We had to draw down our staff levels and the size of our refugee resettlement work.

One of the difficulties of the changes made at the 2015 General Convention is that the important work of ecumenism and inter religious dialogue, formerly overseen by its own Standing Commission, has now been absorbed in the work of this Committee. Given that experience, WM is calling for the reestablishment of this Commission. In the meantime, WM was the body that received the World Council of Churches (WCC) document, "Towards a Common Vision" and also the one that dealt with proposals for full communion between the Episcopal and Methodist Churches.

Reaction to the Report
This is a Committee that clearly has a lot on its plate. Overseeing questions of world mission, global social justice, relationships with dioceses and provinces outside the United States (including Anglican Communion work), and all issues of ecumenism and inter religious affairs seems to me to be... too much. I think one of the hopes in 2015 of eliminating most of the Standing Committees and Commissions of the church was that it would enable us to focus our work more clearly. There was a belief in some quarters that Commissions and Committees were simply creating more work for themselves over and over again.

However, almost all of the areas that WM oversees a pretty essential to who we are as a church. Further, if they tell us that they could not give adequate attention to all of them, it seems fitting that we determine if a re-establishment of other Standing Commissions does indeed make sense. I hope that their request for the reestablishment of the Standing Commission on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs is heeded. It seems that Commission also would be an appropriate one to absorb work related to the Anglican Communion, as the two might go well together.

One aspect of their report left me with some lingering questions, however. That is the section on CETALC – Comisión de Education Teológica para America y el Caribe. Since 1977, this group has overseen funding and award criteria for theological education in Latin America and the Caribbean, ensuring it is responsibly and fairly utilized. It does this using the criteria established by CETALC... but this report doesn't note what that criteria is.

My concern is that there is an issue present in theological education in Latin America and the Caribbean which is largely invisible to the broader church. As we were preparing to launch a Latino Ministry Initiative at my parish, I spent some time in the Dominican Republic moving my Spanish closer to fluency. While there, I made friends with several of the students at the Center for Theological Studies, the official seminary for Province IX, housed at Epiphany Cathedral in Santo Domingo.

After I left, I learned of the experience of one of my friends who was a student at the seminary. When his fellow students and professors found out he was gay, he experienced significant discrimination. It became so bad that he eventually had to leave the seminary entirely. However, the diocese to which he returned is not one that affirms LGBTQ Christians and so he also found himself shut out of his parish and cut-off even from his own bishop. I tried several times to find a way to get him to the United States, so that he could learn English and then attend one of our seminaries, but I was consistently unsuccessful, despite working with several other people who are active in the Episcopal Church.

So this young man, a man who clearly has significant gifts for ministry, is now closed off from his vocation. He is even closed off from his church. He has nowhere to go... and this happened through his experience with the official Episcopal seminary of Province IX.

This is not OK. I would like to know the criteria CETALC uses for its work. Further, I think that it is important for that criteria to ensure that LGBTQ students who attend seminaries of our church do not face discrimination from their fellow students and professors.

To be clear, I affirm the importance of room for a variety of views on questions related to human sexuality. I think it is important for us to have room in the church for those who have a more conservative position—but those with a more conservative position must also ensure that there is room for those who are more progressive. No one should go to one of our seminaries and have to leave to due discrimination.

Reactions to the Resolutions
This Committee also had several resolutions attached to their report. I'll take each of those in turn.

A035 Commend "The Church Towards A Common Vision" (full resolution here)
This document is a significant result of global ecumenical work. A link to it is not included in this particular resolution, but you can access the document online here. It is a "convergence text." That means, this is a text that tries to articulate what all Christians can say together, despite our ecclesial divisions. To give you an idea of how rare and important a text like this is, the last one was Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry... published thirty-six years ago. That document remans one of the most important texts of twentieth-century Christianity, serving as a theological base for many contemporary practices and beliefs of TEC.

So, suffice it to say, I fully support commending this second convergence text. The focus of this text is ecclesiology—that is, the doctrine of the church. The only quibble I would have with this resolution is in its scope. I hope it will be amended to include a specific mechanism for study—such as a budget for a study document to be created that could be used by Episcopal congregations. This would not take a massive amount of money and would help broaden the level of engagement that the document had in our church.

A036 Affirm Ongoing Work and Dialogue with Ecumenical Bodies (full resolution here)
This resolution simply reflects an affirmation of our ongoing ecumenical work through dialogues with ecumenical partners, the work toward full communion with the Methodists, and the coordinating work with our current Full Communion partners. It should be an easy resolution to approve, changing nothing about what we currently are doing.

A037 Encourage Interfaith Engagement (full resolution here)
Similar to the resolution above, this one simply commends ongoing work. Easy to approve.

A038 Affirm Inter-Anglican Secretariat (full resolution here)
This resolution also is one affirming ongoing work—however, there is a slightly deeper message here. It affirms our active participation and funding of the Anglican Communion through the work of the Inter-Anglican Secretariat (Anglican Communion Office). In 2012, the budget for the Anglican Communion Office was slashed nearly 40%, from $1.16 million to $400,000. The 2015 General Convention restored the budget at a slightly higher level $1.2 million. Many people—myself included—saw this as a faithful act, a manifestation of our commitment to our Communion.

Though the current draft budget slightly drops the amount ($50,000 less, or a 4% reduction), I am glad that this particular resolution affirms the continuation of that commitment in the budget and am hopeful that it will remain at the current proposed level or even return to the amount budgeted in the previous triennium.

A039 Affirm the Work of The Episcopal Church at the United Nations (full resolution here)
This resolution affirms the good news that our church has been granted "Economic and Social Council consultative status." You may be wondering what exactly that entails (I know I was), and it seems to give us greater access to human rights work done by the United Nations. This seems like a pretty good thing and should bring greater effectiveness to our global justice work as a church.

A040 Formal Response to "The Church: Towards a Common Vision" (full resolution here)
Whereas the earlier resolution on this document, A035, commended this document for study within our church, this resolution deals with a slightly different question: the formal response of TEC to the document itself. There is already a draft response available. The link in the Blue Book is broken, but if you manually enter the address, you'll get the draft response online here. I have not yet read the draft response, but it seems largely to affirm our church's resonance with Towards a Common Vision.

This Resolution refers the draft response to the Joint Committee on Ecumenical and Inter religious Relations with the hope that this body will enable General Convention to issue a definitive response (my guess is that the hope is that GC will approve the document presented as our definite response). I cannot speak for certain on this resolution until I have had a chance to read the full document, but in general I believe we should trust the theologians and ecumenists who work on documents like this and so my guess is that after reading the document I will support its approval.

A041 Episcopal Church-United Methodist Dialogue (full resolution here)
Since 2006, our church has been in a state of "interim Eucharistic sharing." That means that an Episcopal and Methodist congregation can celebrate Eucharist together under certain guidelines. Last year, a proposal for full communion between our churches was published. It is important to note that this resolution does not approve full communion. Rather, this resolution receives the proposal for full communion and encourages its prayerful consideration by our church during the upcoming triennium. The United Methodists would then consider the decision in 2020 and our church would do the same at our 2012 General Convention.

I strongly encourage everyone to read Crusty Old Dean's essay on this proposal. He provides some very helpful historical and theological contextualization and argues persuasively for the importance of this proposal in the life of the church.

I hope this resolution will be approved and that we will be able to find a way by General Convention in 2021 to overcome any obstacles some in our church might identify so that we can be reunited with our United Methodists sisters and brothers.

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

Care with the Blue: Joint Standing Committee on Local Ministry and Mission

Continuing my series on the Blue Book, we turn to Joint Standing Committee number four out of five: the Joint Standing Committee on Local Ministry and Mission.

Summary of the Report
This committee has a mandate that cuts to the core of the mission of the church, "focusing on congregations and leadership on the local level." It works with individuals, congregations, and dioceses in all nine provinces of The Episcopal Church (TEC).

With nearly $6 million allocated for church planting and mission enterprise zones (including $1 million specifically focused on Latino ministry), this Committee had their work cut out for them. (Full disclosure, my own parish, St. John's Episcopal Church in Grand Haven, was the recipient of a MEZ grant that helped us found our El Corazón Latino Ministry Initiative).

This Committee also took on the work that would have been the part of some of the standing interim bodies which were disbanded by the last General Convention, including Lifelong Christian Formation. It oversaw Constable Grants along with United Thank Offering (UTO) and young adult campus ministry grants.

With an evangelism minded Presiding Bishop in Michael Curry, this Committee worked particularly hard in the areas of digital evangelism, the "Evangelism Matters Conference," and the revivals that were held around the country. They supported the Beloved Community racial reconciliation program. In addition to overseeing the grants noted above, they supported the Genesis Group which called together church planters and mission developers (and, full disclosure, of which I have been a part). They also created a grant fund that could match diocesan and local parish evangelism projects.

They have proposed several resolutions in the area of evangelism (I'll get to those below) and have also proposed resolutions to seek to expand participation from Province IX youth in the Episcopal Youth Event and the General Convention Children's Program.

This is also the committee that has worked with the four ethnic ministries of the church: Latino/Hispanic, Asiamerica, Black, and Indigenous. With that work, they have supported several conferences and event that bring together people related to ethnic ministries in our church for learning, discernment, and strengthening in ministry. They also oversaw a $1.5 million block grant to work toward sustainability in the four principal dioceses which are engaged in Indigenous ministry. This is not only financial sustainability of indigenous ministries. Rather, it also includes, "developing resources to keep their church communities viable over the long term." Really, you should read their whole report. It's pretty stunning.

Reaction to the Report
Holy smokes. If there was ever a Committee that seemed overworked, it might be this one! To be honest, a part of me would love it if the work of this Committee actually comprised the bulk of the work of EC. What a statement that would be about the role of evangelism in our church!

Overall, this report is great and makes me proud to be an Episcopalian. I am hopeful we will actually not only rediscover the gifts of being a community of evangelists, but that we will also equip people to be a evangelists in their daily life and work. The work we are doing right now with church planting and mission development is tremendously important. And it is bearing fruit! I hope that it can continue and grow—and not just because of the ways it has impacted my own local parish ministry.

That said, some aspects of this work have not quite been very compelling to me. The "Episcopal Revivals," for example, certainly have a place in the life of the Anglican tradition—but the very term "revival" brings to mind the experience of an immediate call to change your life, often predicated upon an emotionally powerful narrative.

I'm reminded of a story about Archbishop Michael Ramsey that I recount in my book, Safeguarded by Glory,

During that time Ramsey was strongly drawn to the Anglo-Catholic mis-sioner, William Temple. He attended Temple’s lecture every night with the exception of the one night he attended the lecture of the evangelical missioner, W. P. Nicholson. He found Nicholson’s emotional revivalism absurd. Ramsey later recalled,

I remember the Irish evangelist [Nicholson] as a super-modern gospeler, a Billy Graham. I found him whipping the people into hysteria. He kept saying they should come to the Lord by standing up—‘Stand up, sir, bless you!’ . . . ‘Stand up, lady, bless you!’ People were bobbing up and down all over the place. I was holding tight to my seat. In the midst of all this we had another verse of the hymn ‘Almost Persuaded’ and then the evangelist called for all hypocrites to leave the church. ‘You who came here to stare and maybe to laugh, you may leave the church now. Go back to your wine and your women and your cigarettes.’

Simpson notes that within a couple minutes Ramsey got up and left the service “thoroughly revolted by such revivalism.” When it came to Tem-ple, however, Ramsey resonated with his honest and intellectual ap-proach to the complexities and difficulties of religion.

Now, I would not be quite as dismissive of revivalism as Ramsey was. I believe in big-tent Anglicanism and believe that it is important for more evangelical and even revivalist streams to be honored. However, it seems to me that this is not at the core of who we are as Episcopalians and I wonder if there would not be other ways of doing conferences and large worship services that would actually pay attention to the riches of the Anglican liturgical, spiritual, and theological tradition. After all, those are the things that generally draw people into our church.

Reactions to Resolutions
This is the first Committee which also is submitting resolutions to General Convention for consideration. So, I'll take each resolution in turn.

Resolution A029: Commend the Evangelism Charter for the Church to all Episcopalians (full resolution here)
This charter was created by a group of Episcopal evangelists who were gathered by the Committee. They are working to create video and curricula based upon the principals of the charter so that Episcopalians can learn the best practices for evangelism. As I read through the charter, it struck me as an excellent encapsulation of a uniquely Episcopal approach to evangelism.

The charter is based in the baptismal covenant promise to "proclaim by word and example the good news of God in Christ." It recognizes the importance of Christians continually being converted in their daily life through practices of prayer, scripture reading, worship, and service, avenues by which we experience our belovedness as children of God and learn how to articulate our experience of God's love. It commits to practices of evangelism that focus on listening deeply to the stories of others, recognizing God already present in those stories, and sharing how we have experienced Jesus in theses stories. The hope is that this will lead to our own transformation, a deeper understanding of who God is, and growth in numbers to do the work of God.

This thing is seriously awesome. I hope it passes. But more important than it passing, it will be essential that significant funding is put to implementing this work so that a strong video and curricula can be created to help Episcopalians put this in action. My rector's heart goes pitter pat at such a thought.

Resolution A030: Small Evangelism Grants (full resolution here)
In comparison to resolution A029, this one is smaller, but is also important. It represents a commitment to a continuation of a project began in 2015, providing matching grants for local evangelism efforts. This should be an easy yes as well.

Resolution A031: Evangelism Staff Officer (full resolution here)
Resolution A032: Congregational Redevelopment (full resolution here)
The goal of these two resolutions is to "the culture of The Episcopal Church to embrace and intentionally practice evangelism is critical work that needs to happen at every level of our church’s life."

The first resolution creates a full-time "Staff Officer for Evangelism" who will serve on the Presiding Bishop's staff. I don't quite understand the need for this post, as we already have a stellar Canon to the Presiding Bishop for Evangelism and Reconciliation. The resolution itself is remarkably short, with no explanation of how this person would interact with Canon Spellers or even what sort of funding would be required to create the position. I'd say this should be a no. If Canon Spellers needs further staffing for her work, I'd rather she articulated exactly what she needed to EC and that EC quickly approve it. This seems like an odd Committee solution to something we are already doing better.

The second resolution asks to create a Community of Practice for congregations who are seeking to redevelop in order to better engage the cultural realties of their communities. This seems slightly duplicative of the work already being done through the Genesis program, but we need to remember that redeveloping a congregation is markedly different than church planting or creating missional initiatives within dioceses and congregations.

What is unfortunate about this resolution is that it hopes to overlay the multicultural lens over all redevelopment. While that lens is helpful for many Episcopal congregations whose makeup does not reflect their community's reality, it is not a lens that covers all congregations going through redevelopment. What I would rather is that we find a way to create a community of practice for all congregations seeking to go through redevelopment that then had a subgroup focused on redevelopment through multicultural ministry.

Resolution A033: Supporting and Expanding Episcopal Youth Events (full resolution here)
I'm not sure why General Convention needs to consider and vote its support for its work. Surely no one is confused about it. That said, if the Committee thinks the support of General Convention will help this work (particularly in the budgeting process, perhaps), then I am happy to support the resolution. I would prefer it had greater specificity for precisely how General Convention will support this work and an actual budgeted amount attached.

Resolution A034 : Supporting The General Convention Children’s Program (full resolution here)
OK, I'm going to be really honest here. I had idea what "General Convention's Children's Program" was. However, thankfully Google exists and I could figure it out. (You can see what the program looked like in 2015 online here). As a parent with a toddler at home, I am newly and keenly aware at the challenges parents face seeking to be fully present in the life of the Christian community. This should be a very easy resolution to pass.

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

Care with the Blue: Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Administration for Mission

Continuing my series on the Blue Book, we now come to the Executive Council (EC) Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Administration for Mission.

Summary of the Report

The mandate of the Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Administration for Mission (GAM) is, you guessed it, matters of governance and administration. Specifically, they focus on the functioning of EC as a corporate board, the operations of the Episcopal Church Center and other administrative tasks. They also are responsible for reorganized and renewing dioceses in our church.

During this triennium GAM sought to bring "a more regularized corporate style" to the functioning of EC. They proposed revisions to the bylaws to cover issues of conflicts of interest and other aspects of administrative functioning. They also brought more plenary time to EC agendas, adding a day to their meetings.

They participated in the creation of the job description and the calling of Fr. Geoffrey Smith to the position of Chief Operating Officer and the calling of Douglas Anning as Chief Legal Officer. The participation of EC in both of these calls was reflective of changes made at the 2015 General Convention in response to the original changes proposed by the Task Force for Reimagnining the Episcopal Church (TREC). You can read the new process online here, along with the other changes General Convention approved in the area of restructuring.

They also participated in the work that reviewed the culture of the Episcopal Church Center, work led by Human Synergistics. They participated in Mutual Reviews of EC, the Presiding Bishop, and senior staff (another new process brought about by the General Conventions response to TREC). They created protocols for the screening and qualifying for nominees for church wide officers with a significant level of fiduciary responsibility. They worked with the Joint Standing Committee on Finances for Mission (my review of their report is here) on a new budget process, consulted regarding issues of litigation, and reviewed the questions of outstanding loans to the continuing diocese of San Joaquin.

They took on the work of three resolutions from General Convention 2014. Their report includes much of what they did with resolution A004 (the one which restructured EC). They forwarded B021 which dealt with funding to Finance for Mission. Interestingly, together with Finance for Mission, they decided not to take up resolution A032, creating a Coordinator Position for Women's Ministries Network. (They number is at A023, but that is a typo, they mean A032).

Response to the Report
Though this report seems pretty basic, I see three separate significant actions this Committee has taken on. First off, the facilitation of giving EC a greater role in the oversight and hiring of three senior staff is significant, as is the creation of Mutual Review processes with those staff and the Presiding Bishop. At times these relationships have been fraught—and anyone who has been in a parish where the Vestry and Rector are not working as a team knows how painful and detrimental to the mission of the church that is. By working more collaboratively, and engaging in regular mutual reviews of ministry (note: that is different than just reviewing staff, it is instead a mutual review), my hope is that we will have a stronger relationship between EC, the Presiding Bishop, and the senior staff which help lead the work of the church.

Second, the review from Human Synergistics about the workplace culture at the Episcopal Church Center was a devastating review. As one article on the report notes, it has a culture marked by "fear, mistrust and resentment." Clearly, significant work needs to be done. I've had the blessing of working with staff from the Episcopal Church Center and have always found them to be remarkably helpful and committed Christians who are giving everything they can to the thriving of TEC. We need to do better.

That said, I watched the live webcast of the report from Human Synergistics and though I found their findings to be tremendously troubling, I found their prescriptions significantly less helpful. I hope that the work this Committee is doing is, nonetheless, cultivating a better relationship and working environment for the dedicated staff at our church wide office.

Finally, I'm a bit puzzled by their decision not to take up resolution A032. Together with Finance for Mission, their report says the two, "determined this triennium was not the time to establish this position." I find their decision not to do this work troubling because the resolution passed by General Convention itself in 2015 was rather clear:

Resolved, That the 78th General Convention direct the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society to establish an independent contract employee or staff position for women’s ministries and networks in the amount of $150,000 for the triennium; and be it further

Resolved, That this person be empowered to serve as a network catalyst to existing movements and programs across the Church, mobilizing women leaders, both lay and ordained; and be it further

Resolved, That the 78th General Convention request the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance to make available sufficient budgetary monies to the Executive Council Committee on the Status of Women to provide additional seed money to be used to create a self-sustaining model for a vibrant network of women’s ministries across the Church.

This was a resolution which, when first proposed, Fr. Gunn indicated was one to which he was likely to vote no. He said so because he believes that the problem identified is real but the creation of a staff position was not the best way to deal with the problem. I am likely sympathetic to his view: staffing a problem is indeed often a reactive fix that doesn't acknowledge true systemic issues that the organization itself needs to address.

However, I find myself scratching my head because the resolution didn't ask the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (DFMS) or the EC to consider this idea. The Convention directed this position to be established. That means a majority of the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops concurred that this position was needed in our church. I am uncomfortable with a committee (or two committees) of Executive Council refusing to do the work that General Convention directed them to do.

I am particularly uncomfortable with it when the issues is as important as this one. We have been ordaining women to the priesthood for over forty years. And yet, if you spend some time with the latest Episcopal Church Compensation Report, you will notice that though women make up a little more than 37% of the clergy of our church, they only makeup 23% of senior clergy positions in parishes. Conversely, they make up nearly 53% of assistant positions. They also make, on average only 88% of what their male colleagues make.

We have been ordaining women to the episcopate for nearly thirty years. And yet, the current make up of the House of Bishops is largely the same as it was twenty years ago—particularly when you look at diocesan bishops. Well-qualified women who would serve as excellent bishops are put on slates but then diocesan conventions, more often than not, elect male candidates. We even have tried to create a program, Cast Wide the Net, to remedy this reality.

In my own life, some of the most effective priests I know are among my female colleagues. It grieves me that they are not afforded the same opportunities and the same respect as male clergy. And even when they are able to serve, they are often subjected to jaw-dropping sexual harassment (see some examples online here).

In our #MeToo era, the failure of the EC to heed the strong voice of General Convention is entirely unacceptable. I hope a similar resolution is put forth once more this summer and that it is taken seriously this time.

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