Care with the Blue: Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution & Canons

As I shoot for my third report of the day, let's dive into the report from the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution & Canons.

Summary of the Report
This is a Committee that wound up with a rather big task in this triennium as it absorbed the work of two previous Standing Commissions (the Standing Commission on the Structure of the Church and the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons). Given the size of the report, I will offer my own reactions to each area as I go.

Canonical Changes
In the area of canonical changes, they reviewed fifteen areas of canonical concern:

1. Changing One's Name on Records — The 78th GC asked them to review how church records might be amended so that a member's legal name and their name on the church record matched. They have created "Resolution A088: Proposed Guidelines for Amending Church Records," which urges adoption of a policy in this regard. The underlying concern is a need for pastoral awareness "noting that in many instances name changes offer an opportunity for a restoration of dignity after trauma." Though on the forefront of many people's minds would be the realities faced by transgender people, the report notes that this actually touches as well on "adoptees, parents and guardians of minors with name and gender changes, divorcees, family members, ordained clergy in parishes and other administrative personnel." This is an excellent and important policy and I hope it will be adopted.
2. The Term "Full-Communion" — It has been noted that our current Constitution and Canons are not consistent with regard to the phrase "in communion" or "in full communion" and that this discrepancy can be a cause for confusion. Thus, they are recommending almost all instances of "in communion" to be replaced with "in full communion," so that the nature of the relationship is made clear. They have thus created "Resolution A089: Amend Articles VI and VIII of the Constitution regarding Full Communion" and "Resolution A090: Canonical Amendments regarding Full Communion." I support this resolution because it make sense theologically, but it will be important, if this passes, to pay careful attention. For example, missionary dioceses may not be established in places where the ELCA already has jurisdiction. It also names the theological truth that it is not normative that we currently do have overlapping jurisdictions with ELCA and TEC bishops, that overlap only being allowed because of the Called to Common Mission agreement. 
3. Canonical Status for Alternative Liturgies — The Commission notes that they worked with and support the resolution the SCLM has put forward on this topic (this would be Resolution A062 and A063). 
4. Consent for Secular Employment — Given the rise in bivocational clergy, they noted that this work remains important but that they did not have the time to give it the attention it deserves.
5. Equity in Clergy Compensation — As the Commission sought to respond to the significant variance in compensation between male and female ordained clergy, they created "Resolution A091: Amend Canon III.9 Equity in Clergy Hiring and Appointment Practices." The problem here is a real one, as they note in the first paragraph of the explanation: 

   Only twenty-two (22) percent of senior clergy leadership roles across The Episcopal Church are filled by women…Forty (40) percent of priests are women, twenty (20) percent Head-of-Staff clergy are women, less than ten (<10) percent of bishops are women. In the south, Head-of-Staff male clergy are paid an average of $25,000 per year more than Head-of-Staff female clergy. Forty-three (43) percent of female clergy have applied for rector/vicar positions but never been chosen whereas only eighteen (18) percent of male clergy have applied for rector/vicar positions but never been chosen. 

   That said, there would be significant consequence to using non-discriminatory canonical language to address this inequity. Most specifically, if I'm reading this canon correctly, a congregation which had a theological objection to the ordination of women or the ordination of LGBTQ clergy would not be able to use that objection as a reason not to call that priest or deacon. While I am a full-throated advocate for my female colleagues and my LGBTQ colleagues, I do believe it is important that our church continue to have a place for those congregations that hold more conservative views on these questions. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt this canon will do anything to solve the injustices surrounding pay equity or actually encourage more parishes to hire women into head-of-staff positions. Instead, it will simply be seen as a heavy-handed attack upon conservative congregations. This should not be passed and should be sent back to the Commission to come up with a better solution. Either that or the the committee that receives this resolution should edit it to insert a conscience clause for those with theological objections.  For example, to request an exemption to this canon on theological grounds, the parish could be required to state their theological objection in writing to the bishop, for the bishop to decide whether to approve it, and then for the parish to be required post that noted theological objection in any search materials.


6. Restoring the Episcopal Church in Cuba to The Episcopal Church — Here the Commission supports the work being done by the Task Force on this question.
7. Reception of Clergy from Churches in Historic Succession — Related to the earlier canonical changes with regard to "in communion" or "in full communion," this seeks to bring more consistency to the process for receiving clergy who are in historic succession but not in full communion with our church (often, in practice, Roman Catholic priests). As I am currently guiding a former Roman Catholic priest through this process, I find the changes all tremendously helpful and I hope they will pass. 
8. Regarding Fiscal Years — Schools and other institutions have requested flexibility when it comes to determining the fiscal year (our current canons require it to be the same as the calendar year). While I don't have significant views on this question, the CPG raised an ominous eyebrow and the Commission backed away slowly...
9. Deacons called to the Priesthood — This resolution (A093) is a clarification of process for when someone who is ordained a deacon later discerns a calling to priestly ministry. It's a good clarification and should pass.
10. Clarity regarding the Bishop of the Armed Forces —In another area of needed clarity, this changes the canons so that it is now clear that the Bishop over our military chaplaincies is only over those of the United States. 
11. Correcting Conjunction in Canon IV.4.1 — This is a typo that needed that will be fixed by Resolution A095—and its a typo that deals with misconduct, so it's a pretty important one!
12. Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe — Resolution A096 is yet another clarification of canonical language. 
13. Clarity Regarding the Process of Return to Ministry After Release and Removal – Here Resolution A097 clarifies that for someone to return to ministry in TEC, their letters of support must be by clergy in good standing. 
14. Timelines and Pastoral Response in Mediation — In an attempt to help parishes and bishops who are in a state of disagreement, Resolution A098 clarifies an expected time-line for mediation and ensures pastoral care is provided for all involved.
15. Interim Meetings of the House of Deputies —This is another big one. Resolution A099 empowers the President of the House of Deputies to call together the house at times other than General Convention. Given the immense cost of calling together the House of Deputies, I think this is a rather expensive solution to the stated desire for "an opportunity for more collegiality across the Church, making virtual meetings more effective, and providing an opportunity to discuss budget initiatives." Furthermore, this feels like it is modeled on the regular meetings the House of Bishops undertake—but it doesn't pay attention to the fact that the House of Bishops is fundamentally different than the House of Deputies, has very different needs for gathering, and also includes people who are paid to attend. Any increase in the meetings of the House of Deputies would only further preclude the participation of lay people who have full-time jobs and diocese that cannot afford further Deputation travel. After all, when a Deputation travels it is eight people (at least, it's ten when first alternates attend as well) and when a bishop travels its just the bishop. 

When it comes to General Convention and Church Structure, they reviewed another fifteen different areas of concern:

1. Restructure Standing Commissions and Interim Bodies of General Convention — No action was taken because this was already melded by the  Archives.
2. Schedule Length of the 79th General Convention — This is a VERY difficult question and one that this Commission did not feel they were equipped to change.  Wise move on their part, I believe. 
3. Clarify Secretary of Convention versus Secretary of House of Deputies — Resolution A100 clarifies prior confusion about the difference between these two roles. 
4. Annotated Constitution and Canons Review and Update — They are continuing work on annotating previous versions of the constitutions and canons.
5. Review DFMS By-Laws — Given the fact that the Vice-President of the House of Deputies needs to be able to step in and serve on the President's behalf if needed, they recommend changing the bylaws so the VP is given seat and voice (though not vote) in Executive Council. This is a change that makes sense to me.
6. Review Consistency in Canons Regarding Officers —At the start of this triennium, the House of Bishops apparently elected two vice-presidents. The Commission noted that there needs to be clarity in the Rules of Order as to who would actually take the responsibilities of Presiding Bishop if needed. Rather than take that question on themselves, they have referred it to the Committee on Rules of Order for the House of Bishops.
7. Filing Deadlines —This is a bit of a perennial issue, particularly when it comes to the issue of resolutions which have funding implications coming up after the budget is already approved. However, it's thorny enough that the Commission didn't have any real solutions at this time and seeks to punt the question to the Budget Task Force for the next triennium. 
8. Budget Process — Speaking of, the Commission recommends, through Resolution A102, that a Budget Task Force be created! The goal would be to reshape our process so that it is more in tune with the technological advances of today and ensures as broad of participation as possible. It would also seek to create a more manageable time-line, overall, for this process, as well as a clearer understanding of who holds which responsibilities. This is a much-needed task force and I hope the resolution passes 
9. Joint Nominating Process — At issue here is the question of who needs to have a background check in order to do their job. The commission has decided on four officers: President of the House of Deputies (PHOD), Vice-President of the House of Deputies (VPHOD), Secretary of the General Convention, and Treasurer of General Convention. Resolution A103 responds to this need by creating clear language about the practice of background checks and who should have them. Some of this would involve significant changes—for example, candidates for PHOD and VPHOD would now have to submit their names three months in advance so that background checks can be completed. However, I agree that these extra steps are necessary given the importance of these offices. At the same time, the commission acknowledges there is unfinished work surrounding this question and I am hopeful some of that work will be done by the commission in the next triennium.
10. Presiding Bishop Nominations from the Floor —Similar to the previous section, the Commission acknowledges the problem with the fact that candidates for Presiding Bishop (PB) can currently be nominated by the floor—even though that precludes the extensive background checks other candidates go through. They forwarded this issue to the Task Force to Review the Presiding Bishop Election and Transition Process who is aware of and working on the issue. 
11. Corporate Structure — In addition to monitoring "the integrity of our corporate structure and By-Laws," the Commission notes their joy at welcoming the new Chief Legal Office to his role and how that will be an asset to their own work.
12. Canonical Changes to provide for a Joint Session — One of the biggest changes proposed by TREC in 2015 was the possibility of a unicameral General Convention. One resolution was referred to this Commission and the other two were discharged. TREC's report argued that "that a unicameral legislature would make Convention 'a more truly deliberative body, and will more closely share governance across all orders of ministry,' while shifting the nature of Convention to 'evolve to become a Church-wide mission convocation'". (Full disclosure, I advocated for and whole-heartedly support this change and the reasoning behind it). The Commission agreed with the hesitance expressed in a 1975 report (because surely decisions made in 1975 should guide us.... sigh), but thankfully recognized that there are occasions when this might be helpful. Thus, they created Resolution A106 which enables a "Committee of the Whole." The proposal does not allow substantive voting to take place when the Houses are meeting together, but would enable shared discussion and debate. I strongly hope this resolution passes and that the experience of meeting together continues to grow so that the two Houses of GC may become more united. 
13. Ecumenical Engagement — The Joint Standing Committee on World Mission had requested that the Standing Commission on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations be restored, a need that became apparent as that Committee sought to respond to the full communion proposal from the United Methodist Church and the 2013 Statement from the World Council of Churches. Oddly enough, the Commission did not agree with that request, noting that the United Methodist Episcopal Committee could do the work of the former and our ecumenical staff could do the work of the latter. I strongly disagree with that decision as I believe that this sort of ecumenical work is central to the life of our church both at the highest levels and the grass-roots and there needs to be a Standing Committee to respond to these questions when they get to the point of wanting an official response from TEC. 
14. Review of Canon III.11.2: Election of Bishops — This is another important change, clarifying "that an election could be called earlier than six (6) months before the resignation of a Diocesan Bishop but said election should not be held earlier than six (6) months before the effective date of the resignation." 
15. Addressing Harassment and Sexual Misconduct — This is yet another tremendously important area, particularly given the significant variance in policies across our church. And the problem is real. As the report notes, "An informal survey taken of a group of female Episcopal clergy under age forty- five (45) revealed that of the seventy-six (76) women who responded to the question, all of them reported harassment of some kind." Yes, you read that right. All of them. This is not OK. So, through Resolution A108, the commission is proposing a series of canonical changes to make clear the need for training with this issue. They are also calling, through Resolution A109, for a Task Force to undertake a review of current policies and come up with best practices. This is an important resolution to pass. 

In the section for Provinces, Bishops, & Diocesan Vitality, the commission reviewed four different areas:

1. In Support of Diocesan Vitality and Mergers — The commission referred the portions of this work that related to the efficacy of provinces to the Task Force to Study Provinces.
2. Create a Single Court of Review — One of the various structuring proposals presented at the last GC was to move to one single Court of Review for the entire Episcopal Church instead of the current nine provincial courts of review. The Commission considered input from Chancellors and Bishops and decided to propose Resolution A110, which would indeed create one single court of review. This is a good decision and, given how rarely a court of review is called, it certainly makes sense to have one that is churchwide. 
3. Diocesan Vitality — The Commission is sending forward the second reading of a constitutional amendment (Resolution A111: Amend Article V of the Constitution) that changes the previous language for diocesan mergers from a decision based upon the bishop to one based upon the Ecclesial Authority. This enables the Standing Committee to oversee this process after an episcopal resignation or retirement—a smart move that gives greater freedom and flexibility to dioceses considering merging. Through Resolution A112 the commission is also calling for a Task Force on Diocesan Vitality. In Resolution A113, the commission also recommends a change in the language to another constitutional amendment to better clarify the intended process. This will mean this particular resolution, if approved, will have to be read and approved again in 2021. Finally, in Resolution A114, the canons are changed to create a simpler process for diocesan union and brings equality to the field by no longer giving precedence to whichever is the "senior" diocese. All of these are excellent resolutions and should be approved. 
4. Authority of Bishops, Canonical Residence, serving after age seventy-two (72), Defining Disabled and Absent — These areas of concern were either shared with the Task Force on the Episcopacy or were forwarded on for consideration by the commission in the next triennium.

Next, the commission took up concerns related to Title IV issues—a whopping eighteen in total. Every single one of them is important to be adopted.:

1. Adopt and Implement Charter for Safety — The "Charter for Safety" was sent to our church following the 2012 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. This commission reviewed it to ensure consistency with the canons and also sent it to the Task Force to Update Sexual Misconduct Policies. They believe it should be adopted and are sending Resolution A115 to that effect. In particular, they are including a funding request to ensure training materials can be created for Province IX. 
2. Develop Title IV Training materials — All candidates for ordination in our church are required to go through Title IV training—but what actually makes up that training varies significantly. The group worked to create an interactive website to accomplish this training. They are also proposing Resolution A116 so that ongoing monitoring and providing for this training will remain under the authority of this commission. The creation of these materials solves a gap in many ordained person's formation and hopefully placing it under the authority of this commission will ensure it continues to be kept up to date. 
3. Enable an Appeal of a Decision not to take Action— The current canons did not provide a mechanism for a complainant in a Title IV case to appeal if the reference panel decided not to take action. Resolution A117 creates a mechanism for that appeal to take place, ensuring there is a fair hearing. 
4. Clarify Rules for Publishing of Materials — In Resolution A118 the commission clarifies what part of a Title IV investigation should be published, when it should be published, and under what circumstances. This is a helpful addition. 
5. Clarify Process for a Court of Review — Through Resolution A119, the commission seeks to clarify what makes up the process for a Court of Review. However, they used the term "provincial" court of review—even though Resolution A110 eliminated the provincial court of review in favor of a single court of review. Hopefully this will be addressed in the committee work.
6. Create a Title IV Database — A significant issue in the current Title IV canons has been that information about the proceedings sometimes are not well communicated to other dioceses or parishes considering a call. Resolution A120 calls for the creation of a database that will record information and ensure there is consistency in the application of the canons. This database would also help the background check practices already in place. 
7. Remove definition of Procedural Officer — The inclusion of this definition in the recent Title IV revisions was an error, so Resolution A121 corrects that mistake. 
8. Ability of Conference Panel to hire independent mediator —The commission determined that no action on their part was needed to create this ability.
9. Amend Article IX to change Removal to Admonition — This is another oversight from the Title IV revisions which needs to be corrected through Resolution A122, this time in the Constitution. 
10. Address misrepresentations in Ordination process and clarify sexual misconduct in Title IV — In the first resolution (A123) an addition is made to Title IV canons for circumstances were a candidate for ordination to the diaconate, priesthood, or episcopacy knowingly misrepresents a material fact regarding their life. In the second resolution (A124), there is a clarification of what constitutes sexual misconduct as well as a an acknowledgement that there may be relationships which would not be misconduct—but that these would need to be approved in writing by the bishop. 
11. Decline to Advance Proceedings in Title IV — Through Resolution A125, a way is created for the proceedings in Title IV to stop if the Church Attorney requests this to happen. It includes articulation of a specific situation when that was needed but not possible in the current canons. 
12. Repeal Canon IV.19.31 — This was a canon from the old form of Title IV that was inadvertently kept in the new Title IV canons. Resolution A126 now repeals that canon. 
13. Clarify Term on Disciplinary Board for Bishops — Given the tremendous work involved in this board when an issue arises, Resolution A127 increases the number of clergy and lay people who will serve on the board and also clarifies that terms continue if a case is in process
14. Membership of Conference Panel — Through Resolution A128, the commission proposes in adding to the number of persons who serve on the Conference Panel to ensure both a lay person and a clergy person can be included.
15. Retention of Title IV Records — This clarifies that the same rules for the retention of records applies regardless of the order of the clergy person who is going through a Title IV process.
16. Correcting for Uniformity regarding Release and Removal — Resolution A130 is another one that is correcting language and also is removing a rogue comma. At this point in slogging through this material, I think the rogue comma should go through Title IV proceedings... but I digress.
17. There were several further resolutions (A131, A132, A133, A134) that sought to clarify processes in some areas and bring greater justice to other issues (for example, ensuring there are time-lines in the process so that complainants are treated fairly). 
18. Title IV across the diversity of civil jurisdictions in The Episcopal Church— Finally, through Resolution A135, the commission calls for a study of Title IV across the various civil jurisdictions of our church as well as the assumed cultural homogeneity of the canons. This resolution arose out of the struggle Province IX had in fully implementing these canons. 

If you weren't exhausted yet (remind me never to get myself appointed to this commission), they also worked on issues that arose out of a review of Committees, Commissions, Agencies, Boards, & Other Interim Bodies:

1. The commission recommended the continuance of all Boards of the church. They did note their reservations about the General Ordination Exams since they are no longer used throughout the church and did call for a review of the relevancy of those exams. They also recommended a continuation of all Covenant Committees—though they noted there was a lack of information published about their work.
2. In contrast, many of Task Forces and Interim Bodies, along with several Advisory Committees, were recommended to be discontinued because they had completed their mandate, including: 

• The Committee to Study the Relationship of General Theological Seminary,
• The Task Force for Leadership Formation of Clergy in Small Congregations, 
• The Task Force on Leveraging Social Media for Evangelism, 
• The Task Force on the Episcopacy
• Task Force to Study Leadership and Compensation
• Task Force on Provinces
• Bishop for the Office of Pastoral Development Search Committee 
• Chief Legal Officer Nomination Advisory Committee
• Chief Operating Officer Nomination Advisory Committee
• Legal Review Committee

The commission also recommended the creation of a new Standing Commission, one on Formation and Ministry Development. They recommended this because of the amount of work that fell to their own commission along with the importance of this ongoing work for our church, particularly in the area of pay disparity between genders. (I would reiterate, here, that I strongly disagree with them not following the request of the Standing Commission on World Mission to reinstate the Ecumenical and Inter-religious Commission as well.)

Finally, the commission gave themselves seventeen (!) priorities for the coming triennium, all of which are important—so it's unlikely that their next report will be any shorter. 

Summary of Reactions
I want to stress how exhausted I am just reading this report. I cannot imagine the amount of work that went on behind the scenes to produce it. Almost everything they have proposed is excellent and should be approved. Just to reiterate, there are, however, a handful of areas where I would urge a different approach:

• Resolution A091 (Amend Canon III.9 Equity in Clergy Hiring and Appointment Practices) is, in my view, a poorly conceived canon that will not assist female and minority clergy but will, instead, penalize theologically conservative congregations. Either a conscience clause needs to be created or the whole thing scrapped in favor of a different mechanism that will address the pressing issues of pay and position disparity in our church. 
• Resolution A099 (Call Meeting of House of Deputies) should absolutely be rejected if for no other reason than the significant expense this would cost dioceses and the extra amount of time it would ask of lay deputies who are not employed by the church. 
• I hope that someone puts forth a resolution to reinstate the Standing Commission on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations as I disagree with the decision not to honor the request of World Mission that it be reinstated. 

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

Care with the Cure: Sub-Committee on Revising the Book of Common Prayer

Today, I'll take up the final sub-committee report from the Standing Committee on Liturgy & Music (SCLM), the sub-committee on revising the Book of Common Prayer.

Summary of the Report
In 2015, the 78th General Convention (GC) directed the SCLM to prepare a plan for comprehensive prayer book revision (see the resolution online here). The SCLM spent a year discussing this mandate before deciding on four options to present to GC. They posted those options online, weighed feedback from around the church, and distilled them down to two options. In the words of their report:

1. Option One (1+2) envisions a decision by the upcoming General Convention to move into the revision process immediately, the first stage being to gather data, resources, and ideas, and then set up the structure to begin drafting immediately after 2021 General Convention
2. Option Two (3+4) envisions a slower pace, while remaining open to Prayer Book revision in the future. Option Two invites the whole church to broaden its familiarity with the 1979 Prayer Book and the history that underlies it, and provides for time to reflect as a body on the significance of common prayer in our tradition

The goal behind each of these options is the same. Once more, in the words of the report, "to move our church toward unity through a process of collective discernment rather than to cause divisiveness by attempting to assert personal piety and individual liturgical preferences over that of others."

Option One: Comprehensive Revision (Resolution A068)
The plan for comprehensive revision draws significantly from a similar plan that was actually passed by GC in 2000—though left unfunded. So the SCLM is very clear in their report that comprehensive revision cannot happen without adequate funding. They estimate that funding need for the first triennium of work at $1.9 million, with full revision likely costing between $8 and $9 million over the next decade or so.

It is important to note that the plan for revision represented in option one is a very careful and well thought-out. It includes a set of eight guiding assumptions that seek to balance the historic liturgy of the church embodied in common prayer with the rich diverse make-up of TEC in our time. It insists on rich translations of any trial use material (as opposed to the wooden translations of the current BCP) as well as full participation by church musicians. It also insists that catechesis must be an essential part of any revision process throughout.

The process itself would begin in the next triennium with a research phase. There would be a quantitative data collection of bulletins from our congregations, analyzing the actual usage of the current BCP, with the idea that such insight could provide direction for where revisions are needed due to actual practice (that is, so that our BCP reflects our actual common prayer). There would also be a qualitative data collection process which would draw together focus groups for conversations in each diocese as well as online. It would undertake a "grounded theory" research project—an approach which "seeks to conceptualize what’s going on in a social setting, building a theory on the basis of what is actually happening, not what one believes should be happening." It would also encourage seminaries to host further conferences on the subject of prayer book revision to ensure there is academic engagement with the process.

Finally, the process would include continued consultation with other Anglican provinces who have undertaken prayer book revision in the past decade. In addition to a project manager to oversee the work, the SCLM anticipates the hiring of an editor to bring together the work of various drafting committees.

The results of the research in the next triennium would enable drafting to begin in 2021 with a first draft presented to General Convention for trial use in 2024. During trial use, feedback would be gathered and then a proposed BCP would be presented for a first reading in 2027. If during that triennium no further changes are proposed, the prayer book would be adopted on its second reading in 2030.

Option Two: Intentional Engagement with the Current BCP (Resolution A069 and A070)
The second option, it is important to note, is not created to avoid the process of prayer book revision. Rather, the second option that is proposed seeks to begin with a period of deeper engagement with the current BCP before moving into research about possible revisions. Additionally, the second option calls for much-needed new translations of the current BCP along with an expansion of categorizes for forms of worship authorized in our church.

One of the key underlying understandings of the second option is that prayer book revisions has historically been a top-down process, one that seems to inevitably identify those with power and those without. Thus, one of the pieces of work that must be done is a true listening to one another across the divides and differences that exist in our church. This must be done if we are to be able to create a prayer book that could truly be called common.

The second option also resolves one of the confusing realities of our current life of worship. The only authorized worship in our church is the prayer book and trial liturgies published in the revision of that book. However, over the past two decades GC has authorized numerous supplemental liturgies which actually have no canonical home. Thus, through work with the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, and Canons, they will seek to expand the canonical categories of authorized worship so that there is both a grounding for our common worship as well as room for continued creativity and experimentation.

The second option also seeks to address one of the most significant injustices in our church: inadequate translations of the prayer book. Thus, it calls for a full process of new translations of the BCP so that all communities within our church can fully participate in our common life with worship that has the same theological weight and poetic elegance of the current BCP.

Finally, the SCLM acknowledges that the BCP is, in actuality, a model for Christian discipleship that assumes a certain way of life for Episcopalians. However, many grounding markers of the current BCP are not actually observed in the life of the average Episcopalian. Weekday observances of feasts and fasts is, they argue, a relatively uncommon practice (I assume they mean the practice of keeping feasts and fasts on their actual day, as I think most parishes have a midweek Eucharist to which feasts are commonly transferred). The public recitation of the Office—the true bedrock of Anglican spirituality—has become increasingly rare. Further, the riches of the prayer book in evangelism, catechesis, and spiritual formation is largely untapped.

If the second option is the one taken by GC, there would be a series of tasks proposed for the coming triennium. Bulletins would be collected and archived from every congregation in our church. Focus group conversations would be hosted in each diocese, with particular attention paid to the inclusion of those whose voice is not often heard. Consultation would be engaged with other provinces in our communion. We would engage deeply with communities who worship in languages other than english. The SCLM would create resources to equip "congregations, musicians, seminaries, schools, and individuals" for deeper engagement with the BCP, including those portions which are currently underutilized.

Reactions to the Report
I have to say, this report is exceedingly well-written and each of the options is well-argued. After reading about option one, I found myself totally agreeing that it is the way to go. Then, after reading option two, I found myself changing my mind and agreeing with that option. I do believe either of these paths would be fruitful for our church, each one including its own benefits and drawbacks.

However, one of the reasons each path sounds compelling is because there is actually a remarkable similarity in tasks in each of the two different paths. As I sought to understand and articulate the specific and concrete differences, I created two documents with the basic plan and budget and then made a pdf comparison (you can view it online here).

From that comparison, one can see that actually several of the same tasks would take place regardless of the option chosen:

1. Full SCLM Meetings to oversee process along with a paid project manager.
2. Bulletin Collection Project — This is called "quantitative data collection" in option one and "catalogue texts used in worship" in option two. However, the budget is identical regardless of plan (which makes it rather confusing that the plans each describe this slightly differently). The background material does not indicate any actual difference.

Some tasks would be slightly different given the option chosen

1. Consultation with Anglican Provinces and participation in the IALC — For option one we would do this to report on our own process of revision. For option two we would be focused on learning how other provinces have "lived ever more deeply into the theology of their Prayer Book." 
2. Focus Group Conversations — For option one these would take place in every diocese of our church along with an online survey to reach those unable to come to the conversations. For option two these would instead be "a more organic invitation to interested groups, parishes, dioceses, provinces, and gatherings of Episcopalians across the church." It is, thus, half the budget of the conversations in option one. 
3. Academic Conferences and Papers — The budget is the same for either option, but in option one this would be for the purpose of prayer book revision. It's not clear in the report, but my guess is that in option two these would be used to study and develop resources for deeper engagement with the BCP. 

Option One would involve the following additional work:

1. The "Grounded Theory" research project. 
2. The creation of drafting sub-committees
3. The hiring of an editor to oversee the collection of drafts and ensure consistency across the proposed book.
4. The drafting work of the 2021-2024 triennium and the trial use of the 2024-2027 triennium.

Option Two, by contrast, would involve the following additional or different work:

1. Study the need for liturgical and pastoral resources surrounding terminal illness and death, collecting those in use and developing new ones (though no budget is provided for this work).
2. New Translations of the BCP in Spanish, French, and Creole. It also includes an engagement with communities who worship in languages other than English to learn about their liturgies (though no budget is provide for this work).

So, in summary, it seems to me that the fundamental difference between these two options is that option two does not articulate the plan for revision (but still assumes it will take place in the future) and focuses our time now on understanding the BCP as well as ensuring it is available in a high-quality translation to all our members.

I would note that the call for the development of liturgical and pastoral resources surrounding terminal illness and death seems entirely out of place in this conversation—that's the sort of work that should be done in a supplementary text like Enriching our Worship (EOW) or the Book of Occasional Services (BOS). It makes little sense why it is included in option two as it does not seem to advance the fundamental goal of that option.

One would assume that if option two is taken, the next General Convention in 2021 could then take what we learned from this time of engagement and in the next triennium put in place the Grounded Theory research project along with changing the focus of academic conferences and inter-anglican engagement to focus on the beginning work of revision.

Given the tremendous amount of anxiety in the church surrounding prayer book revision, my own sense is that some form of option two is what will be chosen by General Convention. My hope is that people will engage in the process, and that this engagement will lower the anxiety of everyone around the idea of prayerbook revision.

Just to be clear, I am one of those in the minority who believes prayer book revision is something that is tremendously important. I even tried my hand at a resolution that would do a "surgical revision" of the current BCP (no deputies signed up to sponsor it). When that didn't work, I tried my hand at a resolution to call for a revision that was not comprehensive but instead a deepening of the theology of the current book (that garnered one deputy's support, not enough to send it to GC).

That said, at this point I think option two is the best one for the church. I think that option two, if engaged well, would lead us to a revision like the one I describe in the second resolution I wrote, a revision that is a deepening of the theology of our prayer book. Furthermore, even option one wouldn't give us a new prayer book for another twelve years and that is too long to wait to solve the injustice of inadequate translations.

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

Care with the Cure: Sub-Committee on Same-Sex Marriage Rites

Today, I'll take up the fifth sub-committee from the Standing Commission on Liturgy & Music (SCLM), the Sub-Committee on Same-Sex Marriage Rites.

Summary of the Report
This sub-committee was created in response to the 78th General Convention's (GC) call to monitor the use of the same-sex marriage rites approved at that GC— Liturgical Resources 1: I Will Bless You and You Will Be a Blessing: Revised and Expanded, 2015.

In April of last year, the SCLM published an online survey to get a sense of the use and response to these trial rites. Out of the 262 responses, 60% were from clergy and 40% were from laity. Only a third, however, had experienced the liturgies used in their own parish. Roughly three-quarters of respondents expressed a positive view on the blessing rite (with a bit over half saying it was excellent). About the same number expressed a positive view of the gender-neutral version of the BCP marriage rite. One-fifth characterized the blessing rite as poor and 15% said the same for the gender-neutral BCP marriage rite.

In the specific comments on the rite, the SCLM found an equal amount of positive versus negative views on the various components, not indicating a strong consensus for further revision. Further, those who wanted further revision didn't have a consensus on what shape that further revision might need to take. Thus, the SCLM recommends no further revisions at this time but, rather, that the rites remain in trial use until the SCLM initiates a comprehensive revision of the BCP.

Reactions to the Report
I was indeed curious about the reception of these liturgies and am pleased to see relatively strong support for both of them. I have used both liturgies in my own parish for same-sex weddings and found both of them to be excellent, providing a good amount of options for couples to be able to work with me on coming up with a liturgy that is reflective of their relationship while also proclaiming the good news of God in Christ.

It was interesting to note that the SCLM is actually not recommending this enter into a first-reading for BCP revision in 2018 (this is in contrast with the resolution submitted by the Task Force on the Study of Marriage, which is recommending that these rites be given a first reading for prayer book revision at this GC).

In general, I lean towards a desire for what some are calling a "surgical revision" of the BCP that would give a first reading to these rites and also update the language in our catechism. Though I understand the arguments of those who believe any prayer book revision should be comprehensive, as a parish priest I find it difficult to explain why our church's actual belief and practice on this important question differs from what they will find in the BCP in their pews.

Thus, at this time I am still hoping for approval of the A085, beginning the process of revising the marriage rite in the BCP itself using these rites. Furthermore, if this process is begun in 2018, each diocesan convention will then respond to these rites. My guess is that further revision of these rites (particularly the blessing rite) might indeed be proposed at this time to strengthen the language, creating a second first-reading in 2021 and first approval no sooner than 2024—six years from now. To me, that gives us enough time to ensure the marriage rite in the BCP does indeed reflect the belief and practice of our church.

Furthermore, if comprehensive prayer book revision is then approved at any time before then, this rite could then be held back to be included in that process.

It's time to begin addressing this question—to me, the most pressing of all those related to the revision of the BCP.

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

Care with the Blue: Sub-Committee on Racial Justice & Reconciliation

Today, I'll take up the fourth sub-committee from the Standing Commission on Liturgy & Music (SCLM), the Sub-Committee on Racial Justice & Reconciliation.

Summary of the Report
At the 78th General Convention (GC), there was a call to address Systemic Racial Injustice which included a specific resolve focused on our corporate prayer life: "That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music produce and post online a set of prayers for racial reconciliation and justice, suitable for inclusion in the Prayers of the People."

This sub-committee was formed to answer that resolve. They invited prayers and litanies from around the church to be submitted to the group as a part of their work. They wound up with 24 documents, including prayers, music, and full worship services. The sub-committee wisely hired writers who had extensive background as liturgists in our church and, in the end, they created six resources which have now been made available:

• Prayers of the People with Confession 
• Prayers of the People for Advent 
• Prayers of the People for Christmas 
• Prayers of the People for Epiphany 
• Litany of Repentance
• Commissioning for the Ministry of Justice and Reconciliation

Reactions to the Report
This strikes me as a great example of GC and SCLM operating at their best. Though the sub-committee acknowledges that everything written has not yet been made available "due to time constraints in the editing process," what has been submitted is largely quite good. Most importantly, to have us respond to issues of racial reconciliation through our prayer lives is a distinctively Anglican move—one that is not divorced from concrete actions of social justice but, instead, should ground the concrete actions we take in the world.

The first set of the Prayers could be used at any time and is quite well written. I think the Confession could have used a bit more editing, it lacks some of the elegance and theological heft of the rest of the prayers, but it is all still quite good.

The seasonal prayers for Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany all do a great job of setting our prayers for racial reconciliation in the context of these important seasons of our church.  I will likely use these in my own parish beginning this Advent.

The Litany of Repentance is particularly well-done and something what could be used in a variety of contexts when there is need to voice our repentance. Like good confessions, it broadens our sense of our sin so that our repentance may be fulsome.

The only piece I would leave out is the "Commissioning for the Ministry of Justice and Reconciliation." From a coherence standpoint, I'm not sure why the SCLM removed specific commissioning liturgies from the proposed BOS but then put this one in. Either we commission specific lay ministries or we don't. I prefer to keep these things available, but if the SCLM is recommending we don't do specific commissioning any more, then why are they recommending this one?

Secondly, this is a Commissioning that every Christian should actually undergo and, absent a "concerning the service," it's not clear what the intended context of this commissioning actually is.

None of this needs to be approved by General Convention because it is simply being "made available," so there's no point arguing about that final piece—it just gave me a bit of pause. If it's going to be included, I wish we were given some direction on when to use it and for what purposes.

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

Care with the Blue: Sub-Committee on Congregational Song

I've taken a bit of a break after those the previous two rather long pieces of work, but am going to start again today by moving on to the third sub-committee from the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, the sub-committee on the congregational song.

Summary of the Report
This sub-committee had a mandate to respond to two separate resolutions from the 78th GC. First, they were "empowered" to further our church's mission by "enlivening and invigorating congregational song through the development of a variety of musical resources." This included developing and expanding the work of the "World Music Project." Second, they were tasked with developing a plan for revision of the Hymnal 1982.

A few words of background on the first mandate. As an Episcopal News Service article in advance of the last Convention notes:

Completing the World Music Project to provide affordable musical resources for Province IX and non-European-American clergy and musicians is a top priority, said Ana Hernandez, task force chair. The task force hopes to have three face-to-face meetings to collect and edit materials, secure copyrights and make the resources available for sharing via a website that can continue to grow. 

“What we would like to do is actually work with people in Province IX to gather things that they’re using and get them typeset and printed so that people here can see them,” Hernandez said. “There’s stuff all over the place that’s out there. It just needs to be collected and curated so that we can spread it around.” 

The task force also has identified about three dozen congregations to work with it and provide feedback through a survey, now being developed, on “how music actually works in their individual parishes,” she said.

The complete lack of adequate authorized musical resources for non-European-American congregations within TEC continues to be a glaring issue. There was a Spanish-language hymnal published (El Himnario) but it is now out-of-print and impossible to get a hold of. In my own parish, our Spanish-language worship service uses Flor y Canto—a great resource that also makes available a set of CDs of all the music played by professionals and versions of the songs in keyboard or guitar chord/tab format. It's been a life-saver.

However, Resolution A060 was not funded by General Convention and so the work done in this past triennium was minimal. Further, the sub-committee's understanding of the scope of their work is apparently focused only on discerning "which hymns and songs are being sung in parishes in the Episcopal Church," seeking to bring together one person from each province for a symposium in the next triennium. There is nothing in their report about the work they did (or did not do) with regard to the World Music Project.

When it comes to hymnal revision, the SCLM declined to take action. Like A060, this resolution was also not funded, but there were deeper reasons not to move forward. They noted that it would be highly irregular to revise a hymnal before revising a prayer book and since prayer book revision conversations had already begun, those should first be concluded. Furthermore, they emphasized that the Church Pension Group already did a lengthy and serious survey on this topic that did not find widespread interest in hymnal revision.

Reactions to the Report
This report left me with mixed feelings. Most specifically, I think it is evocative of the inadequate priorities of much of TEC in our day and age. As I read it, there were three subjects given to this sub-committee—none of which were actually funded.

The call to work for the "enlivening and invigorating congregational song through the development of a variety of musical resources," would be needed work for resources we do not currently have. The Hymnal 1982, along with its supplements, clearly prove to be effective and useful to the majority of Episcopal congregations. However, as I noted above, we have no authorized musical resources for Spanish-language worship—despite the fact that we have committed millions of dollars in church planting work, including planting more Spanish-language communities of faith.

When the sub-committee received this resolution, they oddly seemed to focus only on the question of collecting information about what hymns are currently being used. They said nothing about the World Music Project and why it was apparently discarded. Furthermore, if we do need to figure out what hymns and musical pieces are being used throughout the church (and I'm doubtful there is a real good reason to do that right now), an in-person symposium may be the least effective way to get that information. A simple survey, contracted through the Church Pension Group, could easily get at that information.

But my real concern is that the focus seems to be on existing musical resources instead of the much-needed work of developing resources for Episcopal communities who worship in languages other than English. Either there was an oversight in the report in not reflecting that work or this remains a significant blindspot in the SCLM.

On the other hand, I am abundantly grateful that they declined to take action on hymnal revision. All three reasons given are compelling. The resolution was not funded. It does not make sense to revise a hymnal before revising a prayer book. And there is not widespread interest in hymnal revision in our church. Hymnal revision is a solution in search of a problem. Indeed, if you look through the CPG survey linked to above, you'll note that the groups most opposed to hymnal revision are those who are over 70 and under 35. A majority of laity are not in favor of it, no matter the age group. The only group with a majority in favor is baby-boomer clergy.

I hope this will finally put this issue to rest so we can get on with more pressing work: providing musical resources for our Spanish-speaking congregations and engaging thoughtfully and prayerfully in the question of prayer book revision.

In the meantime, I personally would love to see General Convention authorize Flor y Canto for use in our church. Or, if some of the language and structure is too "catholic" for our members, then let's not create our own liturgical resource but instead let's work with OCP in creating an Episcopal Church version of Flor y Canto. There is no need to re-invent the wheel here.

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

Care with the Blue: Sub-committee on the Church Calendar

Today I will tackle the second sub-committee from the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, the sub-committee on the Church Calendar.

First, Some Background
The official calendar of our church has been in a state of increasing disarray over the past several General Conventions. For several years, Lesser Feasts & Fasts (LFF) was the official calendar for use in addition to the one printed in the BCP. This first form of this calendar was published for trial use in 1964, edited again and republished in 1973. Starting in 1980, a third edition was published under optional use, instead of trial use. It was edited again in 1988 and then again in 1994, with the 1994 edition including guidelines for what criteria should be used in future revisions. The last revision of LFF was in 2006.

However, three years before publication of the last version of LFF, in 2003, General Convention called for a full revision of our church's calendar, one that would

...reflect our increasing awareness of the ministry of all the people of God and of the cultural diversity of the Episcopal Church, of the wider Anglican Communion, of our ecumenical partners, and of our lively experience of sainthood in local communities.

In 2009, General Convention authorized for trial use the new volume that committee created, entitled Holy Women, Holy Men (HWHM). The volume retained all the commemorations in LFF and also added nearly 100 more. It was reauthorized for trial use in 2012.

The trial use of HWHM was mixed, with the most vocal being those who disagreed with aspects of its content. There were people included who were not Christian. There was a perceived weakness in many collects (a refrain heard in pretty much every revision of our church's calendar over the past several decades). One of the strongest critiques was published in the Living Church by Derek Olsen.  For many in our church, HWHM was not passing the trial. (You can also read this essay by Derek Olsen to get a better analysis of the history I have just outlined).

The SCLM went back to work and created a new resource entitled A Great Cloud of Witnesses (GCW). That resources took care to note,

The reception of Holy Women, Holy Men and additional commemoration requests brought to General Convention since 2009 suggested that the range of sanctoral theologies (that is, theologies of sainthood) within the Church remained as broad as ever, resulting in disagreements concerning who does and does not belong in the Calendar. 

Thus, GCW sought to maintain "a comprehensive stance toward differing theologies of sainthood," and wound up being a significantly large volume with a very full calendar. It also sought to redirect the energy for saintly commemoration back to the local level, including not even specifying propers (specific readings) for each day and instead encouraging communities to select readings given the category of saint being commemorated.

However, when GCW hit General Convention in 2015, it failed to be authorized. Instead, the enabling resolution instructed SCLM to "make available for publication and distribution" the new text." The resolution identified seven key criteria that should be used in our calendar and directed "the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to review the list of names in 'A Great Cloud of Witnesses' in light of these criteria and recommend revisions to the 79th General Convention, with a full explanation for any revisions."

This led to tremendous confusion among congregations and clergy who offer Eucharist during the week as to which calendar should be used. Eventually, those "in the know" told us that by failing to authorize GCW, our "official optional calendar" had reverted to the 2006 edition of LFF. However, congregations that wished to use GCW were welcome to do so.

Which really cleared things up.

In my own parish, we have used GCW. Though I have appreciated some of the changes in commemorations and, in particular, in the collects for commemorations, the volume has been very unwieldy in congregational use. Most specifically, I do not, frankly, have the time to select individual readings from the list of options for each category. Thus, I have defaulted to the readings which had been offered in HWHM and have gone to the trouble of selecting readings myself for any new commemorations.

Summary of the Report
Note: A serious debt of gratitude for some of the research in this section goes to the amazing members of the Prayer Book Revision Facebook Group who helped put together some of the data on what is being proposed. 
In this past triennium, the SCLM fielded no less than eleven different resolutions related to our church's calendar. After sorting through those resolutions and the feedback from the broader church, the SCLM decided the best thang to do would be to prepare a new edition of LFF which followed one of the key initial ideals of the revision: a calendar that better reflected the diversity of our church.

The report notes that our current calendar "still skews overwhelmingly clerical, white, and male. The numbers in HWHM reached about 80% male, compared to 20% female—nearly a doubling of the number of women included, but clearly not enough. GCW brought it down to 75% male and 25% female, still and improvement, but clearly not where it needs to be. The numbers are close to the same for the difference between ordained and lay/religious persons included. Further, the report from the sub-committee notes that there truly is no good excuse for the lack of diversity—the 2015 General Convention even gave the SCLM 60 new possible names of women for consideration.

Given the confusion the SCLM inherited, they have chosen to return to the original mandate to revise LFF. They believe that GCW should continue to be "made available" for those who prefer a more exhaustive list of commemorations, but that it should be treated more like a "family tree" than an actual sanctorale. Thus, in their revisions to LFF, they have sought to use the original criteria for inclusion to come up with a clearer list of saints to be commemorated, one that is more fully diverse. To do this, they have removed some people from commemoration (noting that those people still exist in GCW and, thus, can still be commemorated by communities who wish to do so).

The sub-committee notes that they are asking this new version of LFF to be authorized "for optional use," noting that trial use, in our church, really only applies to questions of BCP revision. They believe this volume will be "in trial" and are hopeful that the church will bring helpful feedback so that it can further be revised at General Convention in 2021. They urge further revisions not to be made on the floor of Convention but, instead, for this volume to be tested in congregational life, first.

In their supplementary information, they note that they have now increased the commemoration of women to nearly half of the commemorations on the calendar. Furthermore, laity now take up roughly half of the commemorations as well. White people are only slightly more than half of the commemorations. When it comes to time period of commemoration, they have drawn back on the very modern leaning of HWHM and instead sought to draw equally from several different eras (20th century, 19th century, 16th-18th centuries, 8th-15th centuries, 1st-7th centuries, and biblical times).

As to their proposed resolutions, I will summarize and respond to them in the next section.

Reactions to the Report
Overall, I want to give a big debt of gratitude to the SCLM and, in particular, to the sub-committee who did this particular work. They did indeed inherit a bit of a mess and, absent a clear direction from General Convention, I believe they have tried faithfully to do what is best for our church. In addition to their clarifying our calendar, I am immensely grateful for the work they have done finally to publish a much more diverse calendar for our church, one that reflects our actual breadth and depth.

I may have some quibbles with aspects of their work, but I do hope this volume will be authorized for optional use so that it can be tested and improved upon in a more orderly process than the frenzied run-up to General Convention.

Resolution A065 Authorize Lesser Feasts and Fasts 2018
This enabling resolution would authorize the new version of LFF, direction tis publication, and also direct the SCLM to solicit feedback and bring suggestions for changes to the next General Convention.

My only significant frustration with the new version of LFF is that there were people who were moved over to GCW that I do believe deserve official commemoration in LFF.

Here I need to say, I am pretty doubtful about this report's approach of a dual-track calendar and would rather that they allow GCW to remain in the archives for people who wish to use it but focus their sole energy on the new version of LFF as the main calendar of our church. Thus, to say that removing people from LFF doesn't matter because they remain in GCW side-steps the fact that one is officially authorized and one is not. The average parish will not use two books and it is important that our official book includes saints that are venerated in our tradition.

The reason given in the report for removing people from LFF was to increase the diversity of our calendar. However, there are several people who were removed but actually would have helped questions of diversity (for example, Florence Nightingale and James Theodore Holly). Both of those people—along with any other women, people of color, or laity who meet the criteria for inclusion—should be restored to this new iteration of LFF.

Other people were removed largely because they are men and you can correct gender imbalance more easily by deletion than by addition. However, some of those men who were removed a hugely important in the life of the church and should also, in my view, be restored—particularly when restoring them would not displace one of the new commemorations (that is, when their previous day is left blank in the new book. Just on a brief skim of the list of deletions, I would say that the following people really should be restored: Cyril of Jerusalem, James De Koven, Gregory the Illuminator, Charles Henry Brent, George Augustus Selwyn, Alphege, Cyprian, John Coleridge Patteson and His Companions, Philander Chase, William Tyndale, Leo the Great, and Clement of Rome).

Like I said, I support the authorization of this book and would not want to hold that authorization up because of my quibbles with those included. I would like to see some of these names restored (at the very least Florence Nightingale and James Theodore Holly), but would also support authorization of this book without any restorations because the argument could be made in the next triennium for all of the above people and the SCLM could then respond to that feedback accordingly.

Resolution A066 Add Thurgood Marshall, Pauli Murray, and Florence Li Tim-OI to Lesser Feasts and Fasts, 2018

This resolution is a nice departure from prior SCLM practice. Recognizing that these three people do not fit the official criteria for inclusion (given how recently they lived), the SCLM is giving their names to GC separately for explicit approval of the exception their inclusion would create. I support the resolution, as each of these people should be commemorated in our church, and I am grateful for the SCLM's approach on this question.

Resolution A067 Propose Additional Optional Fasts Days for Lesser Feasts and Fasts
This is a much-needed resolution that acknowledges the reality that—despite the title—LFF is overwhelmingly a list of feast days. As the sub-committee noted earlier in their report, they wondered "whether it would be helpful or desirable to add more fast days to the calendar as well as feasts, including both the traditional practices of abstinence and self-denial but also works of justice and mercy, and to call the church more deeply into serious discipleship."

I like the idea of the study behind this question and think that it could bring much to the life of our church.

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

A supposed victory for religious freedom, a failure for Christianity

Today's column in the Grand Haven Tribune, reprinted below. 

In a surprise decision this past Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s marriage. Many Supreme Court watchers were surprised by this ruling, particularly given the court’s recent decision fully to recognize same-sex marriage.

From a legal standpoint, though, this was a difficult case to decide. As the ruling notes, there are two competing goods being weighed, “The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment.”

Their decision to rule in favor of the baker seems to have been upon the court’s belief that the government had exhibited hostility to sincerely held religious belief instead of the principal of neutrality. Specifically, the problem was not that the Civil Rights Commission in Colorado rejected his arguments, but rather that the commission did not give the baker a fair and impartial hearing.

Thus, it’s important to be clear about what this decision means. The court did not rule specifically on the question of whether a Christian business owner can refuse goods or services to a same-sex couple. Rather, they found that the government had not acted fairly with regard to religion as they adjudicated this case. As the court also noted in their opinion, in the future “these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Given the facts of the case, and the argument in the court’s decision, I do not believe this decision will provide a precedent to future business owners who wish to deny services or goods based on their own religious beliefs. What it should do is ensure that when these disputes take place, the government is careful to be neutral with regard to religious beliefs and not single out one person.

All that said, I believe this case, and the continuing controversy which surrounds it and others like it, is a profound failure for Christianity.

First off, every time the news media talks about a Christian baker refusing service to a same-sex couple, there is no qualifier. That is, the assumption is that it is the baker’s Christianity that resulted in his decision — with no real recognition that there are now many Christians who actually support same-sex marriage.

A 2017 Pew Forum poll indicates that more than half of religious Americans now support same-sex marriage. The only two religious groups that do not have majority support are white evangelicals and Mormons. But even then, the statistics are telling. Twice as many young white evangelicals (53 percent) now support same-sex marriage compared with those who are over 65 (25 percent). Furthermore, 60 percent of Americans (including 53 percent of white evangelicals), no matter their own personal religious beliefs, oppose the idea that a business owner like the baker in Colorado can deny services based on that business owner’s religious beliefs.

So, the decision of this baker and the minority of Christians who support him continues to perpetuate a falsehood about Christianity. There are wide swaths of Christians who support same-sex marriage. There are whole denominations — my own, the Episcopal Church, included — which actually have full sacramental marriage equality. Our voice is often ignored in these conversations. If this couple were members of my church, their own free exercise of religion as Episcopalians seeking to get married and have access to public goods and services would be infringed upon by this baker’s actions.

But the second issue, for me, is far graver. And here I speak to my sisters and brothers who support this baker, those who may still believe gay marriage is a sin.

When Jesus walked this earth, the religious reviled him for his willingness to associate with sinners. They called him a drunkard and a glutton. All of the Gospels witness to the open hostility religion exhibited to God when God walked among us, loving and dining and embracing saints and scoundrels alike. It was this hostility, this offense, which killed Jesus.

For Christianity to be in the news once again because of the refusal of its conservative members to extend kindness to those with whom they disagree, this is a stain upon the church for which Christ died. And, because I doubt any bakers have refused to make cakes for divorced couples who are remarrying (even though Christ actually spoke about that issue), the hypocrisy and homophobic bias in these actions is astounding and heartbreaking.

The presiding bishop of my church, the Most Rev. Michael Curry, preached a powerful sermon at the Royal Wedding last month. In it, he invited each of us to a love like that exhibited in Jesus Christ — a love that does not cling to supposed rights but is always willing to give up for the other. As Bishop Curry said, “Love is not selfish and self-centered. Love can be sacrificial, and in so doing, becomes redemptive. And that way of unselfish, sacrificial, redemptive love changes lives, and it can change this world.”

My sisters and brothers in Christ, we can do better than we have done. Let’s put down our swords and shields. Let’s walk away from the culture wars. Let’s start inviting people into changed and transformed lives, but not by bringing the power of the State or of vicious rhetoric to bear on our divisions. Instead, let’s start inviting people — let’s start inviting ourselves — into changed and transformed lives by loving people the way Jesus loved them.