Resolutionpalooza News Update: Here are the latest resolutions

Since I wrote a few days ago, back when there were 275 resolutions heading to General Convention, there have been twelve new ones. Without further ado, let’s go through these hot-off-the-press resolutions.

 

B008 Amend Canon II.3.6.a and II.4 to clarify authorization of liturgies. Full text. Likely vote: YES, especially after amended.

As I wrote in my post on Committee 10 (Prayer Book, Liturgy, and Music), we have too much liturgical chaos in our church. This is due to a variety of factors, and the path to get things sorted does not always seem obvious. To be clear, I want our church to have the flexibility to address the changing needs of an increasingly pluralistic world and a church that worships in many languages and several countries. However, we need to do this in a way that provides guardrails and clarity.

This resolution would pair with an amended Article X (as provided in A072) to try to untangle our hairball of liturgies and other options. I think we need a better Article X amendment. Whatever we do with Article X — the part of our constitution that deals with the Book of Common Prayer and other liturgical authorization — we need canonical clarity on how all this is going to work. This resolution goes a long way to leave us in a better place. We’d clarify when liturgies are authorized for use throughout the church without the need for bishop’s permission, and what liturgies are available with special permission, for example.

I won’t deal with this resolution too much in its current version, because I am pretty sure there are amendments afoot. The proposers of this resolution have offered a solid draft that comes close. And with a few tweaks here and there, we’ll be in good shape. Perhaps I’ll write more about this. But my suggestion is to watch for the final version and then read it carefully — and consider the possible side effects, if any, of the resolution’s text.

 

C037 Working for Equity, Support, and Protection of All LGBTQIA+ Anglicans. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

I salute the proposers of this resolution for using a new verb! If passed, it would “embolden the bishops of The Episcopal Church to open opportunities for engagement and to work actively for change in the Anglican Communion with regard to treatment of LGBTQIA+ persons.” I don’t think we need to pass this, because I think we’re already doing this at a variety of levels. We have a presiding bishop who works with his colleague primates, we have churchwide staff who maintain careful relationships with counterparts in other provinces of the Communion, and there are many dioceses and parishes with partnerships with our Anglican siblings all over the world. While the sentiment sounds good, we don’t need to restate what is already underway. To the extent we have room for improvement in our engagement with Anglicans around the world, I’m not sure a resolution makes things better.

 

D065 Study Canons on Canonical Residence. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

When clergy move from diocese to diocese, a question of “canonical residence” arises. Clergy are resident in one diocese, and that indicates to which bishop they are accountable and where they are able to vote and take part in the life of a diocese. Dioceses have a range of traditions and practices regarding canonical residence. In some dioceses, only rectors are offered canonical residence when they move; assisting priests might be told to stay resident in the diocese where they used to live. This means there assisting priests cannot be involved fully in the life of the diocese where they are serving. Why would a diocese NOT want new clergy? One common reason is that some dioceses provide benefits to resident clergy, and taking new priests or deacons might incur an expense. Another common reason is that leadership in a diocese might not want clergy who would create a voting bloc to foster changes of some kind in the diocese.

It might seem odd that laypeople, for whom canonical residence is not a concern, would propose this resolution. But nearly every aspect of how we live as the Body of Christ affects all the members, so I am grateful they have raised this issue. Whatever the motivations are, it’s clear that there are a variety of practices at work. This should not be a mystery. It should be clear when a cleric changes their residence and when they don’t. So, yes, let’s study this. It doesn’t need to be a complicated, expensive study. And the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution, and Canons is the right group to do this work, as the proposers suggest.

 

D066 Creating a Task Force for Truth-Telling, Reckoning and Reconciliation for LGBTQIA+. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.

Our church has sinned greatly in its treatment of LGBTQIA+ people. Whatever one’s theological perspective, every other person deserves dignity and respect, and that has not always been the case. An essential part of repentance is to acknowledge our sins and confess them. So this resolution would lead us to acknowledge our sins. I’m unclear that we need a formal task force as contemplated here at a cost of $60,000. We have a newly hired staff person at the churchwide level who works to ensure the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people. I wonder if it would be better to have this staff person lead this work, in consultation with others, and without the need for General Convention direction. This is a good thing to do. We can just do it.

 

D067 Support Temporary Protected Status. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution reaffirms a previous resolution of General Convention and seeks to continue the work of that resolution. We don’t need to say what we’ve already said.

 

D068 Addressing the Increase in Gambling. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

The resolution would “acknowledge the increase and prevalence of gambling in our society brought about by the ease of access to gambling, whether in person or online” if passed. It goes on to decry the impact of gambling and to name some ways to combat the spread of gambling. But we all know gambling can be problematic, and it’s not hard to Google some well-practiced solutions. So I just don’t think this resolution does anything new for the church or for the world. It also restates a previous resolution.

 

D069 Advocating for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would recognize “those with intellectual and developmental disabilities including neurodivergence are multifaceted individuals who should be included in all aspects of church life.” Yes, of course that’s true. The resolution also says that the Episcopal Church website should include “best practices, trainings and other resources for use in support of full inclusion of all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and neurodivergence.” And the final resolve asks the Episcopal Church to advocate for persons with “intellectual and developmental disabilities, and neurodivergence.”

Resources are widely available already, but even if we need a special catalog of resources on the Episcopal Church website, that does not require the vote of 1,000 bishops and deputies. We can just add stuff to the website. And we should already be including people with “intellectual and developmental disabilities including neurodivergence” because our Lord Jesus has told us to love our neighbors, and St. Paul has said that the Body of Christ needs a variety of members. We don’t need this resolution. We should already be doing this. If Jesus and St. Paul haven’t made the case, neither will a General Convention resolution.

 

D070 Prayers for Haiti. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.

If passed, this resolution would — in its entirety — “direct all Episcopal parishes to include the people of Haiti in their intercessory prayers each Sunday.” Haiti and its people are in separate need of our prayers. I’m all for that! But General Convention cannot direct parishes how to pray; that’s not how our polity works. So I’d simply ask that this resolution be modified to urge all Episcopalians to pray for our siblings in Haiti, which is among other things the largest diocese in the Episcopal Church.

I don’t usually like resolutions that urge or commend, but most rules have an exception. This is it. Among all our resolutions, we don’t commit to prayer often enough. Here’s a chance to do the work our Lord has given us. Let us pray.

 

D071 Recognize Interim Standing Committee of the Diocese of Haiti. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if we hear more from Haitians.

The story of Haiti is one tragedy after another, and the church in Haiti has had a similarly rough path. According to the resolution’s explanation, “In 2022, several diocesan officials, including members of the Standing Committee were arrested for arms trafficking. The Standing Committee was accused of misusing the tax exemption of the Diocese. The Haitian government threatened to revoke the religious privileges held by the Diocese.” So this resolution would recognize an “interim Standing Committee” that has been elected by “a group of senior clerics.”

There is in our canons no such thing as an interim Standing Committee, and there is no canonical provision for General Convention to recognize such a group. However, no one writing canons could have anticipated the situation in Haiti with no bishop and no workable Standing Committee. I can imagine that General Convention’s action to support a group — and the Presiding Bishop’s support, specifically — could help establish appropriate leaders and have those leaders recognized by the government and, more importantly, the Haitian church.

My concern about this resolution is whether or not Haitians have been involved in this resolution. I don’t know the names of the proposers, but they are not listed as Deputies for Haiti. I don’t question the credibility or faith of the proposers! But I’m eager to hear from Haitian Deputies or other leaders. There is such a long history of colonizing involvement from United States folks attempting to control Haiti. We need to guard against any colonizing actions, whether intended or not.

So I appreciate the intent here, and it sounds like it might be the right answer. But I want to understand the context a little more before I know I can support this.

 

D072 Amend Canon I.6.5 to Provide for Mission-Driven Data Strategies Regarding the Vitality of the Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Our church does a lousy job of collecting data, analyzing it, learning from it, and moving in new directions because of what we’ve done poorly or well. This resolution would seem to fix this by creating a staff position to collect and analyze data at the churchwide level. There are two simple reasons that, while I think we need to learn to collect data and learn from it, I cannot support this resolution. First, I think there’s a better alternative in A051, which charges the Presiding Bishop with this responsibility but leaves the PB to implement. Second, I don’t think General Convention should create or eliminate staff positions. We should trust the Presiding Bishop to lead the staff and to resource staff according to established priorities.

 

D073 Procedure for Reconciliation: Amend Canon 1.17.6. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

There is a rubric in the Book of Common Prayer that requires a priest to excommunicate those members of the church “who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to the other members of the
congregation” or in certain other situations (BCP page 409). In the event of excommunication, the priest must advise the bishop that someone has been excommunicated. In these cases, the canons provide a mechanism for someone to appeal to the bishop. This resolution would add an additional step, saying that an excommunicated person would have the right to meet with the priest who excommunicated them to seek reconciliation. (I’m simplifying, and there are other potential cases of someone being denied access to a church. You should read the resolution for full details.)

At first this might sound good. Reconciliation sounds nice. But in my limited experience hearing about these cases from others, priests have only taken extreme steps as a last resort, and in fact, some of those who are denied access may pose a threat to the priest. Moreover, bishops are likely to hear about these situations and urge reconciliation if that seems like a possibility.

So I would not favor this amendment to the canons, trusting the current system to work. Of course, if there’s a side to this I have not heard, I’m listening and ready to learn.

 

D074 Renouncing the Theology of Slavery held by the Rev. James Craik, 11th President of the House of Deputies. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution renounces the theology of enslavement held by Rev. James Craik, the 11th President of the House of Deputies, as described in General Convention Memorial 2024-M003. This resolution also acknowledges the church’s role in chattel slavery. While condemning and so on are not usually the sorts of things that cause me to support a resolution, this one ends with a resolve that would “urge the Canonical Archivist and Director of the Archives of the Episcopal Church and the Archives Advisory Committee to update the entry for the Rev. James Craik on the website of the Archives of the Episcopal Church to include information about the theology of slavery he espoused as well as a link to the pamphlet he published.” This is a concrete step that will allow our church to confront our past. This work is part of our repentance and our work in the world today.

 

X002 Election of Secretary of the General Convention. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This is a simple resolution, saying “That the Reverend Canon Michael Barlowe, having been duly elected Secretary of the House of Deputies, be made Secretary of the General Convention.” He is the sole nominee, I believe for Secretary of the House of Deputies. By recent custom, this person has also served as the Secretary of General Convention. Perhaps one day, these roles will be separated, but for now, this is how we’re doing it. Makes good sense, and this resolution is almost pro forma.

 

X003 Appointments to the Archives Advisory Committee. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution simply confirms some appointments to the advisory committee of the Episcopal Church’s archives. Easy peasy.

 

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash.