Wednesday, July 01, 2015

The Seventh Legislative Day

Committee work is finally finished. We discharged a batch of resolutions that were redundant--i.e. their substance already acted on in a prior resolution. We approved one that calls for a plan for revising the Hymnal 1982. This is ill-advised, and I voted against it. Church Publishing just spent a bunch of time and money surveying the stakeholders (clergy and musicians) on this, and concluded that there was not a critical mass of interest in a revision at this time. Plus, I can't begin to imagine how large a volume would have to be the accommodate all the musical variety that people would call for. It's best, in my opinion, to coordinate and make available a variety of downloadable resources. We're past the era of printed hymnals.

The other major item was a proposal to allow local worshiping communities to use the so-called "Rite 3" form for celebrating the Eucharist (pp. 400-405 in the BCP) to be used even at the principal liturgy on Sundays. The rubrics are clear that this is not the intent. I am not without some sympathy with the intent of this resolution. Some "non-standard" worshiping communities may find it useful. But I'm also concerned about a slow slide toward de jure liturgical anarchy (we already have it de facto). Here's where my memory fails me, I'm embarrassed to say. I know we amended the resolution to require that bishops pre-approve the text of any 'homegrown' eucharistic prayer (a rather stringent requirement that precludes extemporization). But I honestly do not recall, as I write during the evening, how we finally disposed of the matter, and the General Convention website doesn't seem to have caught up yet. Oh well. It's late in convention and my brain is fried.

The 11:15-1:00 legislative session is also a bit of blur. To the best of my recollection, we rolled through the consent calendar, and a handful of non-controversial resolutions, and then ran out of work (i.e. the legislative pipeline dried up) around noon. So we bumped out scheduled afternoon executive session into this time, and barred the doors after kicking everybody out. As always when this happens, our focus was on relations within the House, and not substantive legislative concerns.

The long PM session was scheduled for 2:15-6:15, and we used every bit of it, and then some. This included a bit of drama early on, as there was a motion to reconsider yesterday's vote to reject the resolution that would have created a special task force to study the practice of offering Holy Communion to the unbaptized. It failed by a very narrow margin yesterday. But a motion to reconsider requires a two-thirds majority, and it was not sustained.

To my gratification, we adopted, on first reading, the constitutional amendment passed in committee yesterday that I had a hand in authoring, and sent it to the HOD. (By the way, "sending" now happens pretty instantaneously in this very "connected" and relatively paperless convention. This greatly streamlines the flow of work, and lessens the "don't-amend-it-or-it-will-die" crunch in these final days. Lessens, but not eliminates.)

Eventually we got down to the mammoth proposals from TREC (Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church) as processed through the convention Committee on Structure. The first one slashes all the standing commission, save two: Constitution & Canons, and the Standing Commission on Liturgy & Music. I would personally like the SCLM on the chopping block as well, but figured I wouldn't get far by proposing that. Instead, I proposed an amendment that I thought got to the heart of  most of my problems with the SCLM: "No standing commission or task force may propose any resolution to General Convention that would have the effect of creating work for itself during the ensuing triennium." I think it was beginning to get lets, but suddenly it was shot down by a bishop whom many revere as a sort of process expert. I don't think he really understood what my amendment was getting at, but his voice is powerful, so my proposal went down in flames. The resolution eventually passed handily. I voted in the affirmative.

The second major component of structural reform had to do with the Executive Council (as the body that prosecutes General Convention's agenda during the three-year interim) and its relationship with the Presiding Bishop and the staff of the DFMS (i.e. "national church"). It got really tense, as there was a rift between the bishops who had served on the committee over whether the Presiding Bishop should have the authority to appoint two key staff members in consultation with the President of the House of Deputies, or whether they must be joint appointments. The form already passed by the House of Deputies makes them joint appointments, but there was a great deal--a very great deal--of passion on the part of all but one of the bishop committee members that it should be the PB's prerogative to fill those positions without approval from the PHOD. We got mired down in procedural motions, and finally voted to sleep on it, and take it up again tomorrow. It will be interesting to see what emerges in the meantime. The anxiety, of course, is over the possibility of the whole thing collapsing if we get into a standoff between the two Houses of convention.

11 comments:

Unknown said...

Bishop Martins -

On an earlier legislative day, during your work in Comm 11, you reported that the committee had passed a resolution directing a process to work on the revision of the BCP. At the time, you remarked that that prospect was chilling, and you hoped the resolution would "be derailed" farther along. I fully agree -- the only thing holding the Episcopal Church together (other than the Pension Fund) is the prayer book. I do not do E.O.W. services, do not take communion when I encounter them, and speak against them when the opportunity arises.

But Anglican Ink reports now that the HOB has passed A169 "without opposition," that is, the resolution to begin the revision process. You haven't mentioned HOB action on this. Is this inevitable now? Is now the time to leave?

Dick Mitchell

Bishop Daniel Martins said...

Dick Mitchell: Yes, the process of BCP revision is beginning. Whether it's "inevitable" or not, I can't say. I will probably write more in due course about why the prospect scares me. I hope we might explore the Church of England model: Most parishes use a volume called Common Worship (which is actually not bad, much better than TEC would produce), while the 1662 BCP remains official, and legal for use anywhere.

Is it time to leave? Not over the beginning of Prayer Book revision, at any rate.

C. Wingate said...

Honestly, I have to think that local bishops approving variant rites these days means approval of whatever moves people except in a few holdout dioceses.

Ethanasius said...

Dear Bishop Martins,


As someone on the 'outside' of the Episcopal Church (ACNA - Pittsburgh) for several years now, I am especially appreciative of your blog. I commend you for your kind, thoughtful, and steady stand within a church that is going through the most troubled time in its (American) history. Some of my friends who serve within the Episcopal Church have claimed to want to 'change' the church from within, but after a while many of them have developed an odd sort of Institutional Stockholm Syndrome, justifying the actions of malevolent leaders who have led the church into doctrinal heresy and harsh litigation. I cannot accept such a stance, and it seems evidence of the potential hazard of 'staying.' (I know there are hazards of 'leaving,' too.) That said, I very much appreciate your blog, both for its tone and content. Please know that you and your Diocese are in my prayers.

My question for you is quite simple (and may reveal my ignorance of process and canons, which is part and parcel of being 'outside the camp' for a long season now): are orthodox bishops going to be punished if they forbid their Diocesan clergy for blessing (recently) same sex marriages? Will that position be seen as 'denying' a sacramental rite to the LGBT community, and therefore punishable by those who currently hold the reigns?

Thank you very much.


Ethan Magness+

June Butler said...

Bishop Dan, I agree with you that the church should take great care before deciding to revise the BCP. The prayer book we use now retains the flavor of Cranmer's beautiful language, and I fear that would be lost in a revision.

Ethanasius, it seems to me that the time of the American Civil War was the most troubled period of the Episcopal Church's history.

Bishop Daniel Martins said...

Fr Magness,

In short: No. What have passed protects bishops who cannot allow the rites in their dioceses. The small concession is that I would have to refer any same-sex couples for a neighboring diocese for assistance.

+D

Dale Matson said...

Bishop Dan,
How long do you think the conscience clause will remain in effect? My guess is three years.

Jon said...

Dale, fear would certainly suggest that it only lasts three years, but how long did the conscience clause protecting bishops from being compelled to ordain women last? My hazy recollection is that the last of the bishops who opposed women's ordination left without facing charges based on a refusal to ordain women.

Bishop Martins, how would your ammendment impact tasks that take longer than a triennium to complete, like prayer book revision or doing significant rewrites for canons or supplemental liturgical material like LFF/HWHM/GCW? Would we be dependent on bishops and/or deputies remembering to submit appropriate continuing resolutions, or could CCABs submit resolutions that continued ongoing work somehow?

Jon said...

Dale, fear would certainly suggest that it only lasts three years, but how long did the conscience clause protecting bishops from being compelled to ordain women last? My hazy recollection is that the last of the bishops who opposed women's ordination left without facing charges based on a refusal to ordain women.

Bishop Martins, how would your ammendment impact tasks that take longer than a triennium to complete, like prayer book revision or doing significant rewrites for canons or supplemental liturgical material like LFF/HWHM/GCW? Would we be dependent on bishops and/or deputies remembering to submit appropriate continuing resolutions, or could CCABs submit resolutions that continued ongoing work somehow?

Dale Matson said...

Jon,
You really can't compare TEC even to itself regarding the conscience clause issues b/c the current zeitgeist is even more revisionist than before including the changed Title IV canons for discipline of bishops. "Fear" is not the issue for me anyway.

Jon said...

Perhaps, but I haven't seen much change over the past 10-15 years in how independent dioceses like to be, and that is probably the key factor shaping how detailed GC gets when setting policy for the dioceses.

In secular society anti-discrimination is almost certainly the next focus for LGBT advocates, but TEC already has sexual orientation on its anti-discrimination list so the activists only have the slow work of spreading acceptance to do inside TEC.