Later resolutions: sweeping up

Resolutionpalooza has blogged 260 resolutions before this post. That net caught all the resolutions that were available as of a few days ago. Since then, there are a few new ones. So this post will sweep up the newest resolutions heading to various committees. Remember that you can find links to the resolutions themselves and to my commentary on this index page of all resolutions. At the moment, we’re at 275 resolutions submitted, which is quite a bit less than we’ve had at previous General Conventions. This is a good trend.

We will no doubt catch a few more even after General Convention starts a week from now. Fear not! Your intrepid blogger will do his best to blog any new resolutions.

If you are a bishop or a deputy reading this post (and the whole series), I invite you to consider my intro post in which I outlined my thinking about when to support or not support a resolution. If this is helpful in your thinking, great. But every deputy and bishop should vote their conscience under, I fervently pray, the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now, let’s get to these brand-new resolutions.

 

A166 Registration of Firearms; Licensing of Firearm Sellers, Buyers, and Users; Use of Taggants. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution says that gun violence is bad and strongly urges the federal government of the USA to do something about it. It also reaffirms (without citing them) the many resolutions about gun violence that General Convention has already passed. We don’t need to say again what we have already said, and the Office of Government Relations has plenty of material to enable their advocacy work. And “the federal government” does not care what the General Convention says in a resolution. If you are a voter in the US, call your Congressperson.

 

A167 Water Rights for Indigenous Communities and Lands. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution reaffirms a previous General Convention resolution about watersheds and “recognizes” previous treaties and so on. It directs the OGR to do advocacy on this issue. But General Convention has already passed resolutions on water rights and indigenous rights. We don’t need to repeat ourselves, and doing so undermines a core tenet of our polity regarding General Convention: what we say is true until we say otherwise.

 

C036 The Peace of the Lord Be With You. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I believe this resolution may be out of order, because the resolution itself (not the explanation) refers to a document that is not provided in Spanish. Even if it’s technically in order, it’s unjust for General Convention to expect our Spanish-speaking bishops and deputies to vote on a document without being able to read it.

But for the sake of discussion, let’s say this is in order. The resolution asks the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to modify its existing resource, The Principles to Guide the Development of Liturgical Texts, by adding an option in celebrations of the Holy Eucharist to observe the passing of the peace at the start of the liturgy. First of all, I don’t think it’s a great idea for 1,000 bishops and deputies to micromanage staff or committees. If the SCLM thought this was a good idea, they’d have done it. If someone wants to make this suggestion, they’re perfectly free to email someone on the SCLM and offer the idea. So let’s not micromanage this way. Second, celebrants are welcome to invite the assembly to greet one another as part of opening annoucements without moving the peace to that location. We don’t need General Convention to say, “Hey, celebrants, it’s OK for you to ask folks to greet their pewmates now.” Third, the ancient shape of the Holy Eucharist liturgies is not something we should muck around with apart from serious scholarly engagement. If anything, this idea could be referred to the SCLM for their consideration.

Allowing folks to greet one another at the start of a liturgy is a lovely practice. But we don’t need this resolution in order to do that.

 

D054 A Resolution to Address The Issue of Black Maternal Mortality Rate. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, we would “direct” Congress to take action to “greatly reduce the maternal mortality rate of Black Women.” Material mortality in the USA is much higher than it should be, and that is doubly true for Black women. I hope we reduce maternal mortality, but this resolution isn’t it. First of all, the General Convention cannot “direct” Congress. Neither the Episcopal Church nor the United States of America works that way. The resolution also directs the Executive Council to refer this resolution to the OGR. Again, this is not how it works. I don’t think the General Convention can direct the Executive Council. Instead, we could ask OGR to do something, but there are already adopted resolutions about maternal health.

 

D055 50th Anniversary Triennium of the Ordination of Women. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the ordinations of the first women presbyters, which happened in 1974, 1975, and 1977 — making this triennium the time to celebrate these landmark events. As you know if you’ve been reading Resolutionpalooza, I don’t normally support resolutions that merely affirm or commend things, but occasionally there is good reason for an exception. This is one of those times. The resolution directs a staff member at the churchwide level to plan events, and I don’t think it’s a good practice for 1,000 deputies and bishops to create todo lists for staff, nor do I think it’s necessary to say that $18,000 will be spent on this. I have every confidence that churchwide staff will find ways for our church to celebrate the blessing of women priests in our church. So, sure, let’s pass a resolution to mark this milestone. But we don’t need to direct programming and so forth.

 

D056 Calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.

When I blogged the first tranche of resolutions, I noted that we had 13 resolutions about Israel (mostly condemning Israel) and just one about Ukraine. This matches our pattern over the last 60 years of continually fixating on the sins of Israel moreso than other nations. Given the long history of Christian anti-Jewish behavior, it’s not a good look. And here’s another resolution.

This resolution decries the genocide (and that’s probably the correct word for what is happening, sadly) of Israel against the people in Gaza. It generally lays the blame for what is happening entirely on Israel and points only to Israel needing to change to end the conflict. While I do think Israel has done horrific things — and continues to do so — a resolution like this also ought to acknowledge the precipitating event of this conflict: a terrorist attack carried out by Hamas. It also ought to note that Hamas has been and continues to be a terrorist organization (which does not take away from Israel’s prosecution of war crimes). Generally, I think getting into the weeds of conflicts like this is something that 1,000 deputies and bishops are not well equipped to do.

I would support a resolution that simply pledged that we would pray and work for peace in the Holy Land and call for an immediate ceasefire, with both Israelis and Palestinians laying down their arms. That, frankly, seems like the best thing Christians could do: pray for peace and work for justice.

 

D057 Advocate for Housing Solutions. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution reaffirms a previous General Convention resolution on housing as a human right, and it then goes on to list various ways that governments could increase access to affordable housing. Finally, it asks OGR to advocate for these programs and ideas. I think OGR must surely have plenty of guidance based on the many previous General Convention resolutions that touch on housing as a human right, affordable housing, or access to housing.

 

D058 Ceasefire in Israel–Hamas War. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Here we begin by reaffirming eight (!) General Convention resolutions and one Executive Council resolution on peace in Palestine and Israel. The resolution calls for an immediate ceasefire in the war now underway in Gaza. That is, of course, a hope I think we all share. If passed, this resolution also would have the General Convention call on “the Heads of State, Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers, and Legislative Leaders in countries where the Episcopal Church has an active presence to assist as necessary in the furthering of an equitable peace in the Middle East.” Though the reference isn’t quite clear in the final resolve, I believe this resolution also asks for the Secretary of General Convention to notify all those government leaders (including, presumably, all national legislators) in every country of the Episcopal Church of our action. Maybe that’s workable, but that’s a LOT of addresses to sort out. Though I know others disagree with me, I just don’t think it’s effective for General Convention to tell governments what to do. It would be better for us to tell governments what we are doing, and that thing ought to begin, continue, and end in prayer.

I do give this resolution credit for calling for an end to the conflict without blaming the entire thing on Israel alone.

 

D059 Addressing Antisemitism in the Church and the World. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I commend the intent of this resolution, though I think its execution is flawed. First, it seeks to combat “antisemitism” when I think they mean “anti-Jewish action.” After acknowledging our church’s history of “antisemitism” it sets forth some suggestions for how to do better as a church. These folks seem unware of another General Convention resolution, 2024-A039, which refers to an excellent document with good teaching about how Episcopalians can avoid anti-Jewish behavior. That’s the resolution we should pass on this topic.

 

D060 Support For a Solution to the Crisis in Haiti. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The history of Haiti is heartbreaking, one tragedy after another. The situation in Haiti now is horrific. I hope we’re all praying and — if possible — working for a just peace there. This resolution laments the situation in Haiti and proposes a series of steps to make things better there, and it proposes that the Episcopal Church “work with the clergy of Haiti to bring a Bishop’s presence to Haiti.” I’m not sure why they don’t also propose working with laypeople. Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the whole General Convention telling Haiti how to solve its problems without involvement from the Haitian deputation. Given the long history of US colonialism in Haiti, I’d be more likely to support a resolution that came from Haitian deputies. If we hear from Haitian deputies that there are concrete actions the General Convention can take to bring about stability in the Diocese of Haiti and the nation of Haiti, I will gladly vote in support of their request.

 

D061 Creating Space for Difference. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution is out of order because it cites a document that is not provided.

If passed, this resolution would “ask all congregations to develop skills to hold space for our comfort and discomfort, and create discourse to talk to and be with one another when we disagree, and to have conversations in these brave spaces that respect each other and are grace filled.” It also recommends the Civil Discourse Curriculum (to which no access is given to bishops and deputies), which is a solid resource. But we don’t need General Convention’s permission or encouragement to use the resource (which may or may not be available in other languages; I’m not sure).

 

D062 Support and Solidarity with Armenia and Preventing further Genocide. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

After remembering the long relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Armenian Church, this resolution would have the Episcopal Church “stand in solidarity with the people of Armenia and the refugees from Nagorno Karabagh as they face the ongoing threat of genocide.” This resolution directs the OGR to advocate on behalf of Armenian people. One can debate the efficacy of this work, but certainly 1,000 deputies and bishops are unlikely to be qualified to parse diplomatic nuances. I’d suggest that Episcopal Church staff work with Executive Council on this, and if we need some kind of resolution a few people on Executive Council are more likely to have the time to educate themselves on these issues.

If nothing else, before any bishop or deputy votes to pass this, we should be required to pass a quiz in which we place Armenia correctly on a blank map. I wonder how many folks could do that?

 

D063 On Mandatory Diocesan Assessment. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

All dioceses of the Episcopal Church pay an assessment to support churchwide ministry. At present, the assessment is set at 15% of diocesan budgets, with a deduction of the first $200,000 (I’m simplifying). In the recent past, this assessment was closer to 20%, and other resolutions before this General Convention aim to push it down to 10% over time. For dioceses experiencing hardship, there is a process by which they can obtain a waiver from their commitment to the wider church. This resolution concerns the waivers that Executive Council grants, saying that the “process for granting diocesan waivers for fair share assessments has been perceived as discriminatory, arbitrary, and disconnected from dioceses’ economic realities.” I don’t doubt that some have perceived that; I haven’t heard this previously, though that doesn’t mean it’s not true! The resolution asks that the Executive Council “approach the waiver and fair share assessment process with an unwavering commitment to a ‘holy spirit of abundant generosity,’ trust, and love. (Mark 4:20).” Perhaps people on Executive Council would say this is already the case.

This sounds to me like a relational and perception issue that would benefit from open conversation, not from a General Convention resolution. Perhaps our next Presiding Bishop can see to it that Executive Council has these conversations among themselves and with concerned dioceses.

We certainly need a just and compassionate process, and we also certainly need to fund the churchwide budget.

 

D064 AMEND CANON IV.14.12 .a and .b; Canon III.7.10; Canon III.9.12; III.12.7.c; and Canon III.12.9.c Regarding Consistency of Reporting Across Canons. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution seeks consistency of what is reported about clergy Title IV proceedings on their OTM Portfolio. As I have said elsewhere, I question the premise of this resolution, because I think it’s an absolutely terrible idea to place anything confidential in the OTM system. At present, the security of this information is laughably terrible. We simply cannot trust the current system to host confidential information about clergy discipline. While I agree we need a churchwide database, we need to build a new system first.

As I say every time I bring this up, I do not blame current OTM staff. This is a failure of resource investment. We need to spend money on a better system, and we need solid technology expertise at the churchwide level.

Photo by cottonbro studio.