Chair: Break:
Called back to order:
The next item to consider is the communication from this body to the wider church. Here is the draft:
Draft:
We the laity clergy and bishops of the Executive Council met in Portland Oregon on March 2-4, 2007. As representatives of the General Convention of TEC between its meetings, we carry out the mission and ministry approved by previous general conventions
We are conscious that this is the first meeting of a major deliberative body of the church in the wake of the Primates meeting in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and we devoted substantial time to the creation of a process to allow for the full participation of all Episcopalians in response to the draft text for a possible covenant for the Anglican Communion, as envisioned in the Windsor Report.
This Covenant is intended to “incarnate communion as a visible foundation around which Anglicans can gather to shape and protect their distinctive identity and mission.”
The Windsor Report recognizes that adoption of such a covenant is a “theological challenge…[that] may lead to complex debate.”
General Convention 2006, in Resolution A166 committed the Episcopal Church to participation in this process. As stated in the resolution of Executive Council, “responding to the draft covenant is an opportunity to participate in the covenant development process but does not presuppose agreement with the terms and principles advanced in the draft.”
The Executive Council recognizes that the requests made by the Primates, directed to the House of Bishops and Presiding Bishop, raise important and unresolved questions about the polity of the Episcopal Church, upon which we continue to reflect seriously and prayerfully.
Within our lifetime, the Anglican Communion has become global and multicultural. We are in a process of discerning what it means to be members of the Anglican Communion, autonomous yet interdependent, diverse yet living out a common life as a family of churches, in spite of our disagreements.
The questions facing us raise significant concerns for members of the Episcopal Church. We offer our prayerful affirmation to all who struggle with issues that concern us:
1. to those who are deeply concerned about the future of their Church and its place within the wider communion
2. to faithful gay lesbian Anglicans, here and abroad; and
3. to those who are unable to be reconciled to certain actions of GC.
It is our common baptism into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that binds us together. We promise in our baptismal covenant to respect the dignity of every human being. As we engage in conversations about these issues may we “be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph 4:3). In so doing may we “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and in the prayers”
The Executive Council is especially thankful for the thoughtful leadership of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies, and for their wisdom and patience.
We rejoice in the ministries of province 8 and the diocese of Oregon, about which we learned during a presentation on Saturday night.
We also acted to:
1. Designate the line item in the Church’s 2007-2009 budget for the MGDs to seed, along with ERD and Jubilee Ministries, an MGD Inspiration Fund to fight malaria and other diseases; and encourage individuals, congregations and dioceses to contribute.
2. Express continuing concern for peace with justice in the Middle East
3. Urge the closing of the military prison on Guantanamo Bay and the end of secret detention centers and “extraordinary rendition”
4. Urge the US government to grant asylum to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals, or those advocating for their civil rights, who seek such protection, and commit the Church to aid in their resettlement.
5. Ensure that future General Conventions will not be held in states that prohibit domestic partnerships
6. reaffirm our commitment to funding the Seminaries of the Church
The Council will meet again in June in Parsippany, New Jersey.
In the Love of Jesus, and the service of Christ’s Church,
The Executive Council
Drafter????: What was interesting is that Belton and I together with Jan Nunley drew this up and we do in some ways represent a diversity of the church. We have put this document together to represent the thinking of this body and hopefully that thinking is representative.
Jan is not back yet but we were going to have this put up on the big screen.
KJS: That is fine. It actually helps to read these things aloud
Reading the letter out loud:
finished:
Bruce Garner: I would like to suggest the inclusion of two paragraphs. Here is the first (paraphrased):
1. It is important that we take a prayerful season of reflection upon and study of the various communion documents led by a work-group appointed to that task.
Drafter???: We decided not to use the word communiqué on purpose. We were trying to respond to the broader issues without suggesting that we have a responsibility to respond to the “communiqué” as such.
Jennings: If we adopt EC008 (see below…EC08 is simply commending the covenant and communique to further study), we could take language from EC008 which makes clear that that the response of this church is not to the primates but to the issues raised by them.
Bruce Garner. Here is my second Paragraph (paraphrased):
2. We wish to clearly affirm that it is the position to welcome all people. In particular twe wish to affirm to GLBT people that they remain integral members of our church and we celebrate their full participation in the ministry of this church.
This communiqué has effected me terribly. On Ash Wednesday I heard you are dust and to dust you shall return and I heard these words in a very different way.
There has been a target drawn on our backs by the Communique.
John Vanderstar: makes a grammatical correction….then continues…
Next I could not tell in reading the draft as presented that there are two different processes: the covenant and the communiqué. Perhaps if we acknowledged these two different subjects, the covenant first and the communiqué next we might be able to resolve some of our difficulties.
????: I am confused by some of this. The covenant did not come out as a result of the primates meeting but out of the Windsor Report.
Ziegler: I want to speak to the second paragraph that Bruce Garner suggested that we insert. WE tried to balance our concern for any one group. If you notice on the bullet points we highlighted first of all the widest group…those concerned about the future of the church.
The second group we picked was the GLBT communities and their concerns. I think we were very clear with regard to our care and concern for them.
And the third bullet is designed to speak to those are concerned with the direction of our church. We wanted them to understand that we care and understand and we wanted to balance our statement of concern for all three groups.
My concern with the inclusion of Bruce’s second paragraph is that this will make the document unbalanced. If we do that I think we need to add more sentences addressing the other two groups as well.
KJS: I think we may have to ask the drafting group to go away and redraft.
Bishop Holguin: Perhaps we should add a paragraph to reiterate our disposition of working on behalf of the reconciliation of the entire church. I think this is something that we need to constantly reiterate. And on the other hand I think we fall short by dedicating only 3/4nof a line to the problem of the middle east. I think the committee should work that further and be more specific.
????: I would like to suggest that a new drafting group be appointed made up of those with strong concerns.
????: I would like to support putting the one paragraph in that Bruce suggested because I think the first group and the second group, if they are excluded, it will be self-exclusion
Petero: As the body representing the whole church we on the committee struggled with language including everyone in the whole church. We do not people to think that this is all we are about. We want to communicate that everybody is included and that means everybody and this statement as it is does that and those who think it excludes them need to reconsider carefully.
Butch: I am very conflicted. I feel that there is an elephant in the middle of the room. That we are being bullied and disrespected and words are being used euphemistically like “pastoral concerns”. We know this is not about all that. This is about power and a lot of other stuff and so we should take the high road. But there are people who are hurt who need to hear from us and know that we are not appeasing those who are bullying us. I think the church is waiting to hear some words of comfort that we are going to continue to do the right thing and because we think that the gospel includes everyone and we are getting hammered for that. But so did Jesus.
We need to say to bullies what the Dixie Chicks said in their song, “I am tired of making nice”
?????: When I read the document I said,if I were sitting in the pews I would not understand this. It does not mean much to me. It does not affirm any of us. The language of a document like this is terribly important for people in the pew. My fellow Episcopalians in my church for example did not know that the Episcopal Church has been working for equal rights for GLBT people for the last 20 years until the last convention.
Some people want all or nothing. They don’t want to be in the church with my son who is gay. We cannot appease them
Rosalyn: What is the purpose of the letter? If it is to simply let people know that Executive Council is considering things, what the way forward is going to be and to give comfort, then there is one letter. I did not think that we were going to respond to the communiqué or the covenant. But some people think that this is our purpose. So I am confused and we need some clarity.
We really have not had an opportunity to really even study the documents. How can we have these detailed declarations.
+Bruno: This statement is reactive. It is reactive. I am one of those people who thinks that short is best. We need to affirm that this is an inclusive church across the board, to bring back ++Browning’s language that there are no “outcasts”in our church. But we also need to simply affirm the position of our church and say that we will study this document.
????: The high road to me is where we offer the words to the three groups. Our first thing is to say that we did work and to reaffirm everybody.
But I do have one problem: saying that people are “unable” to be reconciled. It sounds like we pushed them out. This is not true. They may have difficulty being reconciled but they are not unable. Maybe put have “difficulty” being reconciled.
Bruce: I would just likle to remind us that the communiqué (to which we are not referring) specifically highlighted actions against gay and lesbian people. A plain reading of the document, and not just by me, is that this was a targeted and violent communiqué. There is a particular group that needs to hear something, words of comfort, more immediately than June. I do not want to react. I do want to reassure people who are feeling vulnerable.
Ian Douglas: Three points:
1. In the first paragraph when we talk about mission and ministry. I would like to say something like, well, to strike, “striving to carry out mission and ministry” and say, “we serve the mission of God through the church” This is just better missiologically speaking.
2. Also, the paragraph that begins: “Within our lifetime” the AC has become global and multicultural…is in error. Perhaps it has become increasingly so but it has been multicultural for quite a bit longer.
3. On the last bullet: this alludes to the fact that we would be funding the Gregorian school in the Vatican…perhaps we should specify Episcopal Seminaries.
KJS: I heard a resounding sense that simpler is better and that this body is developing processes to respond but that we are not ready to respond other than to reiterate that all of our members are welcome and that we celebrate their ministries.
EC008 establishing a work group to be chaired by Bonnie Anderson to develop responses to the communiqué and covenant in June in NJ.
????: Why has the word ecclesiology been added
Ian: I think that the key questions from the communiqué are beyond ht single focus on GLBT people and on how are we to be church at this time. The key question is ecclesiological. I would like to keep the focus on the church not on one group.
Harris: I think that we need to be able to talk in particular abot the narrower issue of GLBT and how we feel about lambeth 1.10. I would like that committee to be able to talk about these things.
Ian: I do not think that the addition of ecclesiology precludes such conversations.
Josephine: Why not just use the words issues
Mover: I accept that
Called.
Passed unanimously
Recess until 4
25 Comments •
This a rather transparent attempt to engender immigration by gay Africans while putting orthodox Africas at a disadvantage.