Truth telling as a way of being in relationship

I apologize for being out of touch with you for the last few days. I have two reasons for this blogging absence. First, I have a new responsibility in this convention that I have not had in the past. I read and certify the minutes of each day’s proceedings for the next publication of the Convention Journal. It is not particularly hard to do, but it is demanding in terms of precision and time. For example, today I reviewed in tedious detail over two hundred pages of minutes from the previous two days of legislative action. I am actually very good at this task, but this late night review coupled with my responsibilities as the vice-chair of the Dispatch of Business for the convention has left me much more focused on when and exactingly how we are making decisions rather than on the nuanced substance of all the decisions we are making.

As with most legislative processes involving many people with positions on issues, hopes and concerns to address, the decisions we make in Convention often look quite different in the context of the many final resolutions as “perfected” than the ones we were sent to study before arriving on site. This is the point at which the oft-cited mantra that we are “deputies” and not “delegates” comes into play. We vote on the motion before us and we do so depending on the study, debate and concerns presented to one another within the context of hope. That hope is that the Holy Spirit is leading us in this Convention into all truth. Therefore, I have come to see that the decisions we make here are more a snap shots of the proverbial “bird in flight” than the descent of Moses from the Mt. Sinai carrying two neatly chiseled tablets of the Law of God. The decision one must make individually is whether our “bird in flight” is the Holy Spirit dove or just a pigeon in the parks of our minds. (By this, I mean no disrespect to pigeons.)

My role on Dispatch of Business involves deciding how and when various legislative actions will be considered by the House of Bishops. This is mostly done behind the scenes before or after the upcoming legislative sessions. In addition to this, I have had the privilege and responsibility to be “in the chair” on behalf of Dispatch during the legislative sessions on all but two days thus far. Once again, this work tends to focus my attention on the process of “dispatching” the business of the House of Bishops rather than on the debate. But I listen intently to this debate, and more often than not, this is what informs my voting decisions. This is where I watch for the Holy Spirit to fly through our House with signs of God’s love revealed.

Second, I have not been on the blog site regarding a couple of the more hot button issues because I wanted to reflect with you (1) how I voted; (2) the reason I voted the way I did which will inevitably surprise, please or distress some of you; and (3) the fact that my decision was not made in isolation from the context of this convention and the other resolutions that are still coming before us for consideration. In passing, I have already contextualized how I perceive the way in which I see God working among us when we gather as Christ’s body in Convention. Having observed that, I have waited at times to respond publicly about decisions the House of Bishops has made until the other “House” has acted. Given our polity, an action of General Convention does not become an official action of this Church unless and until both Houses (Deputies and Bishops) have voted to concur word for word on any piece of legislation that comes our way. This is to say that legislatively, we as bishops or as lay and clergy deputies cannot act on our own. This creates a conservative process of decision making, and when we concur it is because both Houses have been moved to move together in that direction. I see this as the way we have decided to reveal where we are at our highest corporate level of decision making and thereby give that snap shot of who we are as The Episcopal Church today.

Noting this about the way we make decisions in Convention as the body of Christ constituted from across the entire Episcopal Church, I come to a conclusion that I think each one of us must wrestle with individually. The reason I voted the way I did on some of the more controversial resolutions can be summed up in two words: truth telling.

I have come to believe that the trajectory that we as a Church have chosen to embrace is described in many of the resolutions we have put forward by this General Convention. The one that has gotten the most press to date is D025 (click here to view the final version of D025). Some see it as overturning action at the last General Convention that expressed a willingness to show great restraint in going forward with the ordination of persons whose lifestyle might be seen to cause a problem for others in the Anglican Communion. Those of you who follow church politics will immediately recognize this “code language” as being a reference for homosexual persons.

Others do not see the resolution as explicitly overturning this “moratorium” but, in their more candid moments, would probably say that it has maintained the moratorium until someone ignores it. I am holding out for restraint, but I am pragmatic enough to own that people will do what they will do. In fact, this has been the case for the last three years as well, but the issue comes back with new strength at this convention. I think we are therefore in a wait-and-see place in this matter. (Click here to read some of the mixed responses)

Regarding the passage of D025, I am not totally happy with some of the ways in which it describes what I have come to believe is what much of The Episcopal Church would affirm. I am not alone in this observation. People on many sides of the various issues this resolution addresses would like it to say much more or much less than it does. However, it did pass by a two to one vote, and such strong support is not to be ignored. Therefore, to tell the truth, I think it does fairly offer a description of and anticipates the general direction in which our Church is heading. To this end, I again say that what commends this document to me is that it is true. And truth matters even when it is not what I anticipated.

The really important element in our telling the truth of who we are should not be overlooked. We say we want to continue to be in full communion with the Anglican Communion. To do so is to present ourselves as who we are, and then we have an opportunity for the “Communion” to respond by either drawing closer in relationship or not. Whatever the outcome of this truth telling, at least the relationship is based on honesty and transparency. If the Communion can find a gracious space to allow The Episcopal Church to be who we broadly say we are and to allow us to bring what many in The Episcopal Church claim to be the gifts of God’s all-embracing love to the world in the name of Christ, shouldn’t we be honest about it? Shouldn’t we be willing to say, “This is who we are, and we do seek to be who we are as an expression of our discipleship to Jesus Christ”?

Much work is being done right now on “Episcopal identity.” At the heart of that study is that The Episcopal Church is “Christ centered.” The way we have chosen as a denomination to express this Christ centeredness in practical terms is to take a radical reading of the baptismal covenant in our Prayer Book. We claim that all people are, through their belief in Jesus as Savior and Lord, God’s children. If we claim this as truth and if we identify what this will look like for us as Episcopalians in the way we order, bless and celebrate with child-like confidence our membership in God’s family (without regard for our differences), we offer ourselves as a denomination of Christians who make a radical claim on God’s love and acceptance as members of God’s family. It is a radical claim. But I think this General Convention has claimed this perspective by our actions that are descriptive of such a desired reality. I think the claim needs to be offered to the world in Christ’s name to see whether or not, in the long run, it rings true in the hearts of that same broken and alienated world.

Having said this, it is also true that I and others are very mindful that not everyone is in agreement with this trajectory of God-intended inclusiveness as the best, most accurate or most effective way to express this “truth” of God’s love. Even if one agrees with the claim, the same person may not agree with the timeframe by which we as a Christian denomination should move in a united way toward this vision. Therefore, I have tried to modify my descriptive voting on the “truth” of who we are with the modifying votes that leave room for those who are not ready to move into this vision or at least to not move there yet.

Telling this truth is not to be feared. In fact, I think the time for truth telling is overdue. If The Episcopal Church has any gift to offer the larger Anglican Communion, it is only made available to the Communion if we are honest and say the truth of our own identity as we perceive it to be.

We have no guarantee that the Anglican Communion will want to embrace us for the gifts we offer, but we can do nothing less than tell the truth about ourselves in the hopes that this perspective on God’s truth will either be affirmed by the Communion or cause us to hear the Communion’s many voices telling us that we should reconsider the flight pattern we have chosen to traverse.

In the end, we have chosen a theological path to follow that makes sense when viewed through the lens of salvation as inclusion in God's family. Let me be clear. I did not say that this is the only theological lens we could or should have in making our decisions as a Church. However, it appears to me to be descriptive of where The Episcopal Church is today. If one is “with God” in baptism, one is with God forever. In its most radical form, I find this to be an expression of the baptismal covenant espoused and often cited by The Episcopal Church. Now it is up the Communion in its own way and in its own timeframe to decide whether or not it will, to use a technical term, “receive” the teaching we offer as our rationale for acting in faith as our faith directs. .

I have no fear of saying “this is who we are.” For this reason, I imagine that some will see some of my votes as surprising, disappointing or affirming of their own preconceived notions. I have focused on how I voted and not on how our deputation voted. I have stayed away from this last piece, our deputations’ respective votes, because I believe this is best left up to them to discuss with you in their own way and time. However, know this to be true. When I have been asked to vote on each of these significant matters that have come before the Convention, I have done so prayerfully. I believe the same is true of our deputation.

When my vote is recorded in a roll call vote as a bishop of this Church, I have done so with the leading of the Holy Spirit as best as I can discern. I believe that the same is true of our deputation as well. For this reason, I have no fear to report back to you that we are trying to discern the truth as it becomes unveiled before us and to seek the most pastorally responsive means to meet the various and often conflicting demands that such discernment requires.

I stand behind my votes, not because they are mine but because I believe that God has led me to this place of conversion. Telling the truth in love, I claim that we as a Church are seeking the mind of Christ, the will of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I am confident that your deputation has done no less.

Now it is late, and I am ready for bed. I rest in peace, and I pray that you will do the same. Blessings, +Don