On Friday and Saturday, I was one of the nearly 200 people who traveled to Atlanta to take part in the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music’s (SCLM) General Convention mandated consultation on resources for same-gender blessings. I went as the chair of the deputation from the Diocese of Arizona. It was an exhausting, satisfying and, for me, intriguing event. But I found myself thinking about on the long flight home was what the process used might mean to the Episcopal Church.
I’ve been involved in the shared governance of the Episcopal Church at all levels for many years. I’ve been president of Diocesan Council, Diocesan Finance Committee Chair, a national Standing Commission Chair, a Task Force member, General Convention deputy, etc. There’s a common frustration that I’ve seen at all levels. It’s the experience of working to pick our way through the challenges of a particular issue, present recommendations to be voted upon, have action taken, and then have the whole thing ignored. And I’m not talking about relatively obscure things like our collective stance toward “data formats”. I’m thinking of budgets that effectively theological and mission statements, Full Communion agreements, and decisions about how we communicate to each other and, most importantly, Evangelism initiatives.
I don’t think I’m alone in the Episcopal Church in feeling a sense of frustration over the disconnect between the process and the reception of the process’ results. I think the disconnect has led to a feeling of alienation on the part of the large majority of Episcopalians who don’t have a chance to participate in the process and subsequently have little buy-in to the decisions that are made by Conventions as the national, diocesan and parish levels.
I want to give the leadership of the SCLM major kudos for putting together a process supported by appropriate technology and outside financial resources that I think will make this coming General Convention decision over what to do with their report easier and more palatable to many. What this process has done extremely well is to listen to the diverse voices in the Episcopal Church. I participated in the small group conversations. I saw the scribe for our group carefully keeping track of our conversation. Our group arrived at some very interesting insights, some of which were new to me. The group process worked; and when we disagreed, that was recorded too. Later in plenary sessions, the disagreements were recognized and honored. There is not a clear consensus on what the Episcopal Church should do with the report it will receive. There is a shared recognition that either way the decision goes on authorization, there will be some parts of the Episcopal Church that will not be able to bear the decision. But there was no sense that anyone was walking away. They had been heard and everyone was committed to staying in relationship with one another somehow, someway.
That’s what reconciliation actually looks like.
And it is happening among the relatively small group that gathered for 22 hours of meeting time because of the process designed by the SCLM. So kudos to them. And I ask the question to the larger body; why don’t we do this a lot more? The process used in Atlanta is actually only part of the beginning. We attendees were given tools and resources to extend the table and to report back to the SCLM. I’m hoping that is exactly what happens. I intend to make it so in Arizona.
We ought be regularly consulting in this way in advance of major votes at all levels of the Church. This event ought not be exceptional. The upside is so great that the expense is easily worth it.
A thought too about how this was financed. I remain uncomfortable that this meeting was paid for by an outside foundation with a clear stance about what it wants to see happen within the Church eventually. I know that there would loud voices objecting on the other end of the Episcopal Church’s spectrum of opinion if a group like the AAC or the IRD had financed the meeting, or some other sort of event. And I recognize the lack of resources available for our common work that has forced the SCLM to go after the grant that paid for the process that I’m so fulsomely praising.
Having experienced the event, I’m so convinced this is a model that has promise for moving us forward at all levels of church life that I want to ask the General Convention Commission on Program Budget and Finance to look for ways to use what money we can possibly find to finance in the coming triennial these sorts of events. I’m as big a proponent of technology as anyone in the Episcopal Church. But as President Bonnie Anderson remarked, there’s simply no substitute for face to face meetings. Too much nuance is lost when we aren’t afforded the chance to sit together. We are a relational church, and this event, and its planned next steps, is strengthening our common bonds of unity.
Spending the money for something like this at a diocesan or national level will be an investment. It’s been my observation that stewardship and giving levels increase not because of a clever program, but in direct proportion to people’s personal investment in the work of the body they are supporting. This process that the SCLM put together engaged all of us across the spectrum, and for most of us I think, reminded us of why we find so much of value in our common, messy Episcopalian life.