Committee 2: Constitution & canons

Resolutionpalooza continues with a deep dive into serious church geekery, this time with a look at proposed changes to the Episcopal Church’s constitution and canons. Many of these changes are simply cleanup or clarification, and we should approve them quickly without debate. We can change the canons any time with a simple resolution at General Convention. The constitution requires two successive General Conventions to approve changes, and they must be approved as votes by orders (clergy and laity voting separately) for ratification. This high bar makes it tough to change the constitution of our church, which is a good thing. We want to be conservative in our approach to changing our core polity document.

There’s one big change proposed to our constitution, and I think it’s a really bad idea. So I’m hoping we will scuttle this change and start with a new proposal — to clarify the status of the Book of Common Prayer and other authorized liturgies. Read on for details. But if you decide to skip this post, please consider voting against a proposal to modify Article X of our constitution, unless it is significantly modified to become a “first reading.” More on this below.

All right, church nerds, fire away!

 

A003 Amend Canon III.11.1 regarding Screening of Nominees for Episcopal Elections. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution clarifies that all nominees for bishop, whether going through the standard process or the petition process, shall receive a thorough background check, including “criminal records, credit checks, reference checks, sex offender registry checks, verification of education, employment and ordination and review of all complaints, charges and allegations while an ordained person.” You’d think this would already be the case, but it has not always been done. The resolution also clarifies that the results shall be shared with the President of the local Standing Committee and with the Presiding Bishop. This ensures that a local diocese has the benefit of a disinterested person (the Presiding Bishop) reviewing results. After the election, the resolution would specify that all copies of the results shall be destroyed except for one copy for local permanent records and one for the Episcopal Church archives, who maintains strict security to protect confidential information. This is all excellent. My one tiny change is that the resolution refers to “ordination and consecration” of the newly elected bishop, and I’d like to change this to “ordination” to bring the canon into line with the baptismal ecclesiology of our prayer book.

 

A036 Amend Canons to Use Approved Common Terminology to Describe Anti-Racism Work. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This updates our canons to include current terminology for anti-racism work. The canons currently use the term “dismantling racism.” If passed, this change would add to that “achieving racial justice and healing.” I’m all for this, because I think the expansion more accurately describes the work to which our church is called as followers of Jesus Christ.

 

A043 Amend Constitution Article VIII regarding Clergy in Local Ecumenical Partnerships. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

In the past couple of decades, the Episcopal Church has focused much of its ecumenical work on denomination-level agreements, for example, the full communion partnership with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. While I’m delighted with the work we’ve done, I’ve wondered whether it would make more sense in today’s world to focus some more time and energy on local ecumenical partnerships. This resolution does just that, and I’m delighted. This change, along with the next resolution to modify the canons, would allow some flexibility at the local level. Say, for example, in a small town somewhere, an Episcopal congregation and a congregation of the Presbyterian Church USA want to join in shared ministry. Under current rules, this would be tough without a fully ratified partnership between the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church. This constitutional amendment, along with the canon changes below, could allow a local sharing of ministries (including shared clergy) with a specific, local agreement. As I understand it, the thinking here has been influenced by successful work in this manner in the Church of England.

Now, as I’ll write in the next commentary, I don’t think the canon changes are quite ready for prime time. But that’s OK, it takes two readings of the constitution for any change to happen here. So what I hope happens is that we approve this constitution change as a first reading, and then come back to next General Convention with perfected canon changes. Then at the same time, we can pass the canon changes and the second reading of the constitution change. And if, in the meantime, we decide we don’t like this constitution change, we simply vote down the second reading.

So approving this change keeps open some exciting possibilities for local ecumenical partnerships, which could benefit our church, especially in rural areas.

 

A047 Amend Title I regarding Local Ecumenical Partnerships. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

As I wrote above, the idea of local ecumenical partnerships — in which we allow ourselves to share ministries with other denominations — strikes me as a fruitful opportunity for our church. There are limits to the churches with whom we could do this work, including full communion partners and members of the Churches Uniting in Christ, and so on. So it can’t be with any old church. I think these proposed canons need to flesh out things like participation in Episcopal Church programs and benefits, tenure or lack thereof, and other nitty-gritty details. Most importantly, I think we need to build in a secondary person to sign off on these partnerships besides the local bishop. My experience is that bishops sometimes get a bit confused about ecumenical matters (which is perfectly understandable, no one knows everything!) and so a check-in with the churchwide ecumenical office or perhaps the chair of a relevant interim body could be a useful support and safeguard against unintended consequences.

So, as I wrote above, I hope we approve the constitution change in A043. That’s simple and clear. Since none of this can go into effect anyway pending the approval of the constitution change in 2027, let’s hold off on the canon change until everything has been carefully thought through.

 

A051 Amend Canons I.2.4.a Data Collection for the Church. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This change adds an item to the Presiding Bishop’s canonical job description: “Make provision for the analysis of appropriate data about this Church’s mission, its opportunities, and challenges. An annual report, published freely to the Church, will include such data as to allow for data-informed decisions by the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, the General Convention, the Executive Council, dioceses, congregations, and local leaders.” This is excellent, and we are woefully behind in the collection and use of data. My hope is that this resolution will lead our next Presiding Bishop to hire a staff person to oversee the collection and use of data. We used to have that, and our church benefited greatly. But when Kirk Hadaway retired several years ago, his position was not filled and we have not published learnings from data since then. At this pivotal moment in our church’s life, we should absolutely be figuring out what works and what doesn’t. We can’t know that without data. This resolution prioritizes data collection and use. Yes, please.

 

A063 Amend Canons I.2.2 : Term of Office of the Presiding Bishop. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution deals with “issues of electing a Presiding Bishop who may not be able to serve a nine-year term before reaching the mandatory retirement age and the added wrinkle of a delayed General Convention resulting in a Presiding Bishop reaching mandatory retirement age,” to quote the explanation. One note is that this brief summary has not mentioned an important detail: the resolution also changes the start date for a newly electing Presiding Bishop from the current November 1 to a new start date of 91 days after General Convention. This is all good, both in terms of clarifying how to handle contingencies and in getting a new PB started sooner.

If 91 days after General Convention seems too fast, consider the fact that our siblings in the Anglican Church of Canada elect a primate who starts during the same convention at which they’re elected. It works for Canadians, so I think we can handle 91 days (and I wouldn’t mind if we installed our new PB and they started right at GC, but that will have to wait for a future GC).

 

A064 Amend Canon I.1.6.d Capturing Clergy Records. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution clarifies language around recording changes of status of clergy (ordinations, deaths, transfers, and so on). It also changes one instance of “men and women” to “all persons.” Clarity is good, and so is this change.

 

A066 Amend Canon V.1 to create a Custodian for the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, this resolution would create a new office in our church, the Custodian for the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. But we don’t need this. Under current rules and practices, the Secretary of the General Convention is responsible for overseeing the accuracy and publication of new editions of the constitution and canons. If the Secretary hasn’t been doing that well, then let’s deal with that. As our church shrinks, we don’t need to be creating more offices, and most certainly not when there’s already a responsible person to do said work.

Our church is already overly fixated on a sprawling system of governance with attendant spending. We have a Custodian of the BCP. Adding a Custodian of Constitution and Canons unwittingly makes it seem like the constitution and canons are as important to us as the BCP, and that’s just not true. Priorities, friends. Let’s keep our gaze fixed first offering our thanks and praise in worship — and allow our current excellent leaders and staff do the job of ordering our constitution and canons according to the changes approved by General Convention.

 

A071 Amend the Constitution and Canons Relating to Mergers of Dioceses [Of Admission of New Diocese — Second Reading]. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

I’ll let the excellent explanation here do the talking: “These amendments allow Dioceses more flexibility when planning mergers or formation of new Dioceses from Dioceses or portions of one or more Dioceses by deferring to the Canons for the details of the formation process. As the church gains more experience with this process, future changes to the process can be made at one General Convention to facilitate the formation or combination of the Dioceses rather than requiring two General Conventions to approve a change to the Constitution.” This is a canon change and the first reading of a constitution change. All seems right to me.

 

A072 Amend Article X of the Constitution of The Episcopal Church [Of the Book of Common Prayer — Second Reading]. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

As I wrote over in my comments on liturgical changes, we have too much liturgical chaos in our church. The last thing we need to do is confuse people who ask the question, “What is the Book of Common Prayer?” If passed, this constitution change would say that the BCP is the book we know and love along with some (but not all) liturgies authorized by General Convention. Clergy are held accountable for teaching the doctrine of the BCP and for obeying its rubrics. How can we hold clergy accountable if it becomes murky what, exactly, is the “Book of Common Prayer”? And then, on the face of it, there’s just the straight-up Orwellian strangeness of calling something a book when it is, in fact, not a book.

I’m not sure how to solve some of the liturgical dilemmas we face as a church, but off the top of my head, this is not it. It will create confusion. Just a quick, knee-jerk thought, but maybe we create three categories of liturgical material:

• The Book of Common Prayer (an actual book and PDF)
• Trial use materials (intended for potential inclusion in the BCP) and other authorized materials, subject to permission of the Ecclesiastical Authority
• Supplemental materials authorized for use in any church or diocese (e.g. the Book of Occasional Services)

Then, if at some point, we feel that we need to add material to the BCP but it’s not ready for full-on revision, we could publish a BCP II or perhaps a BCP Supplemental with the full standing and weight of the BCP, available as an actual book and a PDF.

That’s probably not the right answer either, but at least it’s clear. We have a mess now with the current Title X of the constitution. I agree it needs to be amended. But this is not it. It will sow confusion.

If you doubt me when I say that we won’t know what’s authorized, consider the generally fantastic website episcopalcommonprayer.org. This website is run by the SCLM, and it purports to catalog all authorized liturgical material. But it’s missing some materials that are authorized, and it has materials on the site that are not authorized (though there’s usually a note to that effect). My point is not to dump on a bunch of volunteers who have put together a tremendously useful resource, but to say that it’s almost impossible even to list everything that’s authorized. If we have a squishy BCP, we’ll have no idea what’s actually in it or not. For the sake of clarity, let’s keep the Book of Common Prayer as…a book (paper and PDF), and let’s find ways to organize other liturgical material so that bishops and congregations know what’s what.

In other words, this amendment would fix one problem and create 17 more. Let’s find a solution that fixes more problems than it creates.

 

A091 Definition of doctrine. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution essentially says that if the Book of Common Prayer is amended at some point, the current version of the prayer book (as “memorialized” by General Convention in 2018) would also count as a sufficient statement of faith for purposes of determining whether clergy are teaching correct doctrine. To name the specific issues — because this came from the Task Force for Communion Across Difference — if the marriage liturgies are updated to omit reference to marriage being between one man and one woman, it would still be acceptable doctrine for clergy to teach this understanding of marriage. While I am personally in favor of including LGBTQ people fully in the sacramental life of the church, I think there’s room for our church to include people who hold both the position that marriage is between two people and those who hold the position that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

A092 Access to ordination and deployment. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution would add clarification to non-discrimination provisions in the canons. We have a couple of potential sticky wickets in the church today on the issue of clergy deployment and the issue of marriage (for example; there are others). In a “liberal” diocese, this resolution would protect the place of a clergyperson who held that marriage is a covenant between a woman and a man. In a “conservative” diocese, this resolution would protect the place of a clergyperson who held that marriage is a covenant between two people. We are saying here that disagreement on marriage need not be a church-dividing issue. Because the protections go “both ways” I hope we can all agree that this protection of conscience is good for our church. You should read the canonical language and the explanation for a full understanding of what is proposed here, as I can only summarize.

 

A093 Add provisions of 2018-B012 to canons. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Several years ago, the General Convention passed resolution 2018-B012 to give protections to congregations, clergy, couples, and individuals who hold that marriage is a covenant between two people and who reside in dioceses where the bishop holds that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. The mechanism for these protections was a General Convention resolution, without canonical support. This resolution builds the protections of that resolution into the canons. You should read the full text, but in summary, it ensures that a congregation that wanted to offer marriage liturgies for same-sex couples could do so, even if the bishop of that diocese holds a different view. The resolution required — and the canons would require — a “conservative” bishop to offer alternate oversight from another bishop whose views agree with the congregation. This allows people of varied beliefs to have a place in our church, each without denying the place of the other, and that’s a good thing in my book.

 

A103 Amend Canon III.11.8. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

There is a process outlined in our canons for electors in a diocese to file an objection after the election of a bishop. This resolution would stretch out the timeline for the initial investigation after receiving an objection from 45 to 60 days, and it also provides a mechanism for pastoral care to all parties affected by the situation.

 

A108 Proposal of Changes to Title I, Canon 17. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution changes a number of canons concerning membership in the church. The mandate seems to be “simplifying” the membership canon, but it’s not clear why we would have needed that, nor is it clear to me that this, in fact, actually simplifies membership. If passed, this resolution changes the definition of “communicant in good standing,” which is currently defined as a member who receives communion three times in a year. This long-standing category provides a statistical view into the activity level and health of a church. The canon changes do define a communicant in good standing as someone “who for the previous year have been faithful in corporate worship, unless for good cause prevented, and have been faithful in working, praying, and giving for the spread of the Kingdom of God,” but I worry that without a specific, objectively measurable definition, clergy will be reluctant to draw a line between communicants in good standing and those who are not. These changes also contemplate the creation of a category called “Associate Member”, which is someone who is “active in the life of this Church through worship, giving, and program participation, but whose official membership remains elsewhere is to be considered an Associate Member. An associate member may serve in leadership at the discretion of their local canons and bylaws.” I’m confused by this. Why would you want someone on, say, a vestry who is not a member? It’s not difficult to include people in the life of a congregation without them being members, but this definition seems to suggest that there would be no practical distinction between someone who has taken the step to be accountable as a member and those who have not. For worship, programs, and fellowship, membership doesn’t matter. But for leadership, the accountability and intentionality of membership matters. Jesus ministered to the crowds, and he had a ministry with his disciples. So should the church, but let’s be clear which is which.

This canon change also makes a change with the definition of adult member, saying that anyone confirmed is an adult member of the church. So in those dioceses where confirmation happens to, say, kids at age 12, we’re saying they’re adult members of the church. A twelve-year-old’s status as an adult member will be reflected in statistical reports about the number of children and adults in the church; and one should expect adult members to have access to leadership positions in the church such as vestry.  I’m not sure what the intention is here. Our current standard of age 16 seems to make perfect sense.

 

A148 Amend Canons to Underscore Support for the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.

If passed, this would add a canonical requirement to fund the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice with “an annual draw on one-tenth of the Church’s unrestricted trusts and endowment funds.” As I wrote elsewhere, I’m in favor of racial reparations and spending our money in support of racial healing work. My objection to this resolution are not how we spend one-tenth of the Episcopal Church’s endowment income. First, the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice was created by resolution 2022-A125 as “a voluntary association of Episcopal dioceses, parishes, organizations, and individuals.” So there’s no canonical definition of this group as an interim body with any lines of accountability. The proposed canon does require the Coalition to supply annual audited financial statements, but without the accountability of defined membership, oversight, or reporting structures, there is little the General Convention could do if the reporting were not completed.  While I don’t question the integrity of anyone doing this work, I also don’t think it’s good governance to spend this much money in an opaque, unaccountable way.

Second, I don’t think it’s a good idea to put funding requirements into canons. Instead, the General Convention or the Executive Council could set a policy. Again, it’s not that I have any objection to this money being spent. It’s just a question of order and good governance. I’m 100% willing to hear reasons for this to be a canonical imperative though.

One fix for this, and probably a good idea if this work is to continue long term, would be to create this coalition as an interim body, perhaps a Standing Commission. Then there would be an accountability and reporting structure.

 

B007 Standing Committees and Ecclesiastical Authority. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution would direct the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons to study issues of ecclesiastical authority, both for bishops who exercise this and for Standing Committees who may temporarily exercise this authority in the absence of a bishop. The explanation indicates that the chief concern here is that Standing Committees don’t have the accountability mechanisms that a bishop has (namely, the need for Standing Committee endorsement of this and that) when they are in charge. Having served on a Standing Committee who held ecclesiastical authority for a time, I can say that the situation is fraught. Studying how authority is wielded — and learning best practices and worst practices — probably a good idea. I would also add to this the requirement that we study how bishops relate to their Standing Committees. Some bishops treat the Standing Committee as a rubber stamp, and others relate to the Standing Committee as a council of advice, as envisioned in our canons. So, yes, let’s figure out what’s working and what could be better about running a diocese. Things are only going to get more challenging in years to come.

 

C016 Amend Canon III.12 to Provide for the Transfer of Bishops to Churches in Communion. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This would allow a bishop of the Episcopal Church to transfer to another church to serve, for example, another province of the Anglican Communion. At present, the only mechanism to handle this scenario is “release and removal” which basically says that this person is no longer a bishop in our eyes. The proposed new mechanism would allow an orderly transfer so that when God calls a bishop to serve elsewhere, we have an elegant way to get this done. This mirrors a similar process that was created for priests in 2015.

 

C017 Amend Canon III.7 to Provide for the Transfer of Deacons to Churches in Communion. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This does the same thing as C016 but for deacons.

 

D038 Amend Canon II.3 to Remove Copyright Restrictions from Non-English Books of Common Prayer. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

By canon and tradition, the Book of Common Prayer is in the public domain. It is our free gift to the church catholic. On a practical level, this means that congregations can make leaflets and use the texts however they like without the burden of seeking permission for each use or incurring an expense of royalties. The “mechanism of control” for the BCP is that people printing books must get a certificate from the Custodian of the BCP, so you can be assured that the book you pick up has the real stuff. (DISCLOSURE: Forward Movement, my employer, prints and sells BCPs.) The issue is that for whatever reason, our official translations — which were funded by the General Convention — of the BCP into Spanish and French are under copyright. This disadvantages Spanish-speaking and French-speaking congregations.

If a Spanish-speaking congregation wants to make a leaflet with texts from El Libro de Oración Común, they are legally bound to seek copyright permission. Failure to do so could result in civil or even criminal penalties. It’s puzzling that the translations are copyright DFMS (the corporate entity of the Episcopal Church), but permission to reproduce must be obtained from the Church Pension Group, according to the title page. In any case, this creates a substantial burden on congregations that are likely to be under-resourced financially. I’m not sure what the legal situation is of copyrighted material in other countries, nor am I aware of civil and criminal penalties for violating copyright.

The prayer book — in any language, especially when the translation has been paid for by the Episcopal Church — should be a gift to the world. It should be in the public domain. This allows free reproduction, and it frees local congregations and dioceses from onerous burdens of permission requests, which can take weeks or months for a response.

Let’s make it as easy to worship in Spanish or French as it is in English. It’s a justice and inclusion issue.

 

D045 Task Force for Reviewing Intellectual Property of the Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would create a task force to do a grab bag of various tasks:

• “look specifically at canon II.3.6.b as to the meaning of “copyright shall be relinquished.” I’m not sure what is confusing about that.
• “offer best practices for the church for streaming and digital evangelism based on updated copyright and trademark laws.” I think Google can do this for anyone who’s interested.
• “offer a first draft of a comprehensive Branding and Marking guidance document for Interim Bodies of General Convention to use when creating deliverables on behalf of the General Convention.” I’m not sure it matters much if interim body reports are branded correctly, and if it is important, I think the General Convention Office can already step in and help with that work.
• submit a report of the above.

For this work, the task force has a price tag of $30,000. This seems like an avoidable expense.

 

D049 Increase by one the possible number of bishops suffragans in a Diocese. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Right now, a diocese is allowed to elect up to two bishops suffragan (assisting bishops without right of succession). This change would increase that to three. I can’t think of any downside to letting the Diocese of Texas elect a third suffragan. Or any other diocese, but I think we’re talking about Texas. Hook ’em horns, but in a churchy way, &c., &c.