wfn.org | Address to Executive Council from

[ENS.parti@ecunet.org (ENS)]

November 13, 1997
Episcopal News Service
Jim Solheim, Director
212-922-5385
ens@ecunet.org

97-2013
Address to Executive Council from 
the Vice Chair 
Pamela P. Chinnis, President 
of the House of Deputies
November 6, 1997, New York City

       Good morning. It's wonderful to be with you here as we begin the
work of a new triennium, and especially to welcome the newcomers in
the Executive Council "class of 2003" who are joining us here for their
first meeting. This is more than the usual "new beginning" of a new
triennium, because this time we bid a fond farewell to Bishop Browning,
my staunch colleague on this Council these past twelve years, and extend
a warm welcome to Bishop Griswold as he assumes the joys and burdens
of primacy.

We begin anew
       Each triennium we form anew. Last triennium's newcomers are
this year's old hands. The nature of our community life and relationships
changes with each rotation of our membership, and our customs and
traditions evolve with changing circumstances in the life of the church.
The work we do in these next few days will set a tone and pattern for
our life together, and I look forward eagerly to participating as that
unfolds.
       Some of you may not know that I am actually beginning my
seventh triennium on Executive Council!  I was an elected member for
six years beginning in 1979, and when I became vice president of the
House of Deputies in 1985, Bishop Browning as the new Presiding
Bishop invited me to continue. In 1991 I assumed the president's chair in
the House of Deputies and thus became vice-chair of this body. 
       So if anyone should know whether "we've always done it this
way," it's me--and I'm here to tell you that part of the council's strength
has always been its flexibility and willingness to adapt to the realities of
leadership in an ever-changing church.
       In this final triennium of the twentieth century, I have no doubt
that continued flexibility will be in order. This is a transition time in
many ways, in the world and in the life of the church:

þ With the rest of the world, we struggle to manage our affairs in a
volatile global economy, trying at the same time to bear witness to our
only true treasure - where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. 
þ While the world continues to struggle with changing expectations about
the place of women, we in the Episcopal Church move into the next
phase of handling dissent about the ordination of women.
þ  Questions about the appropriate use of sexuality within committed
relationships engender fear and anger in society, and in the community of
faith.
þ  Institutional structures that served us well in earlier generations must
adapt to survive under new conditions. 

       Our service on council for this triennium is thus set within a
period of great challenge and stress. But before we decline into anxiety
and self-pity, we should recall that our predecessors in every generation
have faced challenge and stress. Nowhere did Jesus Christ promise the
absence of challenge or stress; he did promise to be with us as we bear
the burdens of our day. 
       In these next three years we will work and pray hard together,
and come to love and know each other despite many differences. I know
you join me in praying that we remain open to the guidance of the Holy
Spirit in all our work, that our service to this beloved church of ours
may bring glory to Almighty God.

Other workers during this triennium
       Joining us in the work of the Executive Council are the many
members of the committees, commissions, boards and agencies with
responsibilities for aspects of the life of the Church between General
Convention--those groups generally referred to as "interim bodies." 
Members of some of these groups are elected, but many others are
appointed - bishops by the presiding bishop, and clerical and lay
members by the president of the House of Deputies. Last month Bishop
Browning, Bishop Griswold and I met for two days to go over the initial
set of appointments.
       This was more than usually challenging, because at convention
last summer several groups were combined, some were eliminated and
others created. Thanks to good staff work in the General Convention
Office, we presiding officers were presented with huge notebooks listing
all the continuing and new groups, the positions for which appointments
were needed, and the names of those who had been recommended for
service by bishops, clergy and laity throughout the church. 
       In all, we received more than 650 recommendations for persons
seeking appointment to one of the interim bodies, and we had 186
vacancies to fill. Thus only 29% of those recommended could be
appointed. The huge number of recommendations was wonderful,
because it gave us a large pool from which to select. It was also terrible,
because we couldn't begin to use all the well-qualified people who had
offered themselves for service. 
       I was particularly distressed because many of those 650
recommendations came in letters directly to me, and after an initial
attempt I realized I couldn't possibly respond personally to every one.
All those names, however, will stay in the computer, and as vacancies
arise during the course of the triennium I expect to be able to appoint at
least a few more of the 650.
       Some of you will remember that during the last triennium there
was one large combined meeting of the interim bodies. Designed to
facilitate the work of the Structure Commission, which was studying
ways to reduce the interim body line-up, the gathering also proved useful
as a way to coordinate the work of disparate groups, promoting
networking and making better use of equipment and staff support. 
       At convention last summer, the budget builders latched onto that
idea and structured the budget for interim bodies to require joint
meetings annually during this triennium. We are still working out the
details of this. It's not actually appropriate to include every group in the
joint gathering, and there can be only two "annual" gatherings during the
triennium, given the deadline for completion of reports to the next
General Convention. But I am enthusiastic about the potential for
improving our stewardship of time and resources. The first convocation
will take place March 20-24 in Minneapolis, and many of you may be
involved as liaisons to various interim bodies. 
       The work to be done, here in Executive Council and by the
various interim bodies, is all part of our accountability to the General
Convention which authorizes our existence and assigns specific tasks to
us. I'd like to talk a little bit about the last convention, which gave us
our marching orders.

The 72nd General Convention
       Last July, in Philadelphia, more than a thousand bishops and
deputies from every diocese in this church gathered for our 72nd General
Convention. Most of you were there, and can add your own recollections
to these few reflections of mine. Many said it was the "best convention"
in their memory. Some others were profoundly distressed by decisions
made there.
       Press accounts included a number of references to "civility," and
to the patient and respectful manner in which views were shared and
debates conducted, both in committee hearings and on the floor of each
House. Those familiar with prior conventions know that such a charitable
atmosphere has not always been the norm, and I think we can all be
proud of the dramatic change in atmosphere between Phoenix and
Philadelphia.
       As the old consensus of the fifties and sixties with its myths of
uniformity fades away, we are refreshing our understanding of "civility." 
It does not mean having no conflicts, but managing our conflicts with
compassion. It has never been just about politeness and seemly behavior,
but about being good citizens of the kingdom of God: 

þ speaking the truth in love;
þ bearing one another's burdens;
þ not obsessing about the speck in our neighbor's eye while ignoring the
log in our own.

       Before last summer's convention, I said to Executive Council if
we go to Philadelphia expecting a showdown with winners and losers,
we'll certainly get one.... If we go to Philadelphia intent on one
particular outcome--however earnest and conscientious our commitments
may be--we will short-circuit the legislative process and undermine the
peace and unity of the church.
       Thanks be to God, most bishops and deputies allowed the
convention process to work. In worship and Bible sharing, in committee
meetings and legislative sessions, we sought God's will for the Episcopal
Church for the next three years. One area in which consensus had eluded
us for twenty years was clarified--this church does ordain women. In
another area, human sexuality, we agreed that there was still NO
consensus, and committed ourselves to continue to pray and study and
talk with each other about it.
And we did it all in a calm and loving spirit. Testimony at hearings and
debates on the floor demonstrated both the passion people had about
issues and their resolve to express that passion with charity and patience.
We deliberated and voted on a lot of difficult matters, and everyone,
participant and observer alike, seems to agree that we did a pretty good
job of treating each other like fellow Christians.
       I was immensely proud of the discipline and courage shown by
members of the House of Deputies as they worked through a huge
agenda, and pleased by what I have heard about the process in the House
of Bishops. We are finding ways to work "in council" in a period when
it is chiefly the love of God that holds us together rather than agreement
about particular issues. The consensus needed for "civility" in our
dealings came, in Philadelphia, from widespread awareness that we all
love God and love this Church even when we radically disagree about
certain matters. I am heartened by the commitment shown by so many to
continue to work together in this way.
       Not everyone shares this commitment, however. Some believe
deeply that women cannot be ordained, that homosexual behavior is
always wrong, and that the failure of General Convention to uphold such
traditional interpretations of Scripture on these matters is a gross
violation of the will of God to which they cannot assent.
       The Risen Christ does not promise easy agreements or simple
solutions. Trusting the guidance of the Holy Spirit does not automatically
cast out fear of the unknown. It is still hard work, with no guarantees.
We were exhausted when we left Philadelphia, and much hard work lies
between now and the next Convention, in Denver in the year 2000. That
work will be done 

þ here in Council, 
þ and by the interim bodies, 
þ and in provincial gatherings and diocesan councils and conventions, 
þ and in parish discussions throughout the church.

       I earnestly commend to us all the power of civility in this work-
-not a facile niceness or politeness or proper manners concealing
contempt or hatred, but the civility of the pure in heart, who know that
we are loved by God despite our sins and simply must share that love
with each other.
       Treating each other well apparently doesn't make for good
headlines: one Philadelphia commentator bemoaned our "mind-numbing
civility" and wondered how much commitment bishops and deputies
might have to decisions made in such a restrained and polite manner. I
do not think that responding to God's passionate love for humankind
requires screaming at each other. 
       I'm sorry if we disappointed the journalists, but I'm not sorry we
were restrained and polite, because that restraint and courtesy expressed
our commitment to love God and each other. There were jokes in
Philadelphia about the "Nice-ene Creed," but most everyone was relieved
to know they could count on an attentive hearing no matter how much
their views might differ from the majority. It was good not to have to be
armed for battle all the time.
       This is the path to the reconciliation God wills - not facing each
other in rancorous debate, or even in resolute dialogue determined to
reach agreement at any cost, but walking side by side toward One who
reconciles all in the Peace that passes all understanding. In that context,
let me share a few observations about council's role in times of dissent.

Council's role in times of dissent
       As David Kalvalege pointed out in a recent Living Church
editorial, an alphabet-soup of groups have circulated statements
expressing unhappiness with decisions made--or not made--at the
convention in Philadelphia. Some even appear to be making plans to
leave the Episcopal Church. Distressing and confusing as this is, it is a
natural and predictable part of our life following every Convention: some
Episcopalians are displeased, others are pleased, and responses to the
work of the Convention take many forms.
       Members of Executive Council often become targets for
post-convention distress and anger, as do the presiding bishop or
presiding bishop-elect, the president of the House of Deputies, members
of the Church Center staff, and anyone else perceived to be part of the
mythical "national church."  This too is natural, since the General
Convention is no longer in session and people want to appeal to someone
to "do something" about what has upset them.
       It is vital that we listen with respect and compassion to
expressions of distress, and respond with accurate information about what
the convention did and did not do. It is also vital that the presiding
officers and the Executive Council not succumb to the temptation to try
to fix things for those who are upset by interpreting away decisions duly
made, or suggesting that actions taken in accordance with our
Constitution and Canons can be ignored.
We have a pretty ordinary, cut-and-dried way of governing our common
life. The Constitution of the Episcopal Church gives authority for
decision-making to the General Convention, made up of bishops and
deputies elected by every diocese. Once the convention is over, those
decisions stand until a subsequent convention changes them. Our system
provides an orderly process for such changes, and Episcopal Church
history is one long succession of changes affecting liturgy, ministry and
social teachings, as we have adapted to meet the needs of proclaiming the
Gospel in a continually changing social and cultural milieu.
       The whole process presumes that people will have differing views
about how and what and when changes ought to be made, and that
controversy will sometimes be very intense. Our voting system requires
concurrence by both bishops and deputies, and, in the case of major
questions, a concurrent vote by lay and clerical deputies-which in effect
gives each order veto power over the others. This voting system is
inherently conservative, promoting stability and preventing precipitous
action before a significant level of consensus has developed.
       The system does NOT require total consensus or unanimity before
action can be taken, and there is inevitably disappointment among some
after each convention. When those who are disappointed feel strongly
about an issue, it's natural for them to question the authority of the body
making a decision. But if they appeal to us to undo something the
convention has done, our obligation is to point them towards the lawful
channels for pursuing change in the future, and to remind them of our
common responsibility to honor the authorized structures until such time
as they may be changed.
       This has been true following every General Convention. It has
special importance this year because the transition period between one
presiding bishop's administration and another is a time of ambiguity and
uncertainty. It can bring out the worst in us as people jostle for position.
New members of council arrive full of dreams for "fixing" everything
their predecessors have messed up, and returning members have similar
hopes for a fresh start. 
By all means, let us make the most of the dreams and hopes and new
ideas that will surface as we become a council together. But let us also
be humble about our place in the total scheme of things. It is NOT up to
Executive Council to fix the Episcopal Church. I'm not at all sure that
this church is broken. Our task is rather to BE the church, 

þ elected as servants of all the baptized whose ministries we are called to
support,
þ gathered in council as stewards for the triennium of the work of the
General Convention.

       That's more than enough of a task, and none of us, singly or
together, could begin to accomplish it. But with God's help, we need
have no fear.
Thank you, and let's get on with the task!