Aloha:

Bea and I returned from Anaheim and the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church on Saturday evening, July 18th.  It was a tiring adventure. 

General Convention
This was my third General Convention [two as a clergy deputy (and chair ofthe deputation) and one as a bishop], and I continue to find it an un-strategic and reactive process of governance.  Every diocese of The Episcopal Church (just over 100) is represented by four clergy and four lay deputies, and these deputies meet as the House of Deputies. Likewise, most bishops of The Episcopal Church (150+) meet and vote(with some exceptions) as the House of Bishops.   The two Houses form a bicameral governance structure for the Church and are together the General Convention.  All legislation must be approved by both Houses. So from July 8-17, 2009, the General Convention met in California to consider hundreds of resolutions and the budget of The Episcopal Church for the next three years working through committees and as legislative bodies to enact the business of the Church.  I could be convinced(though it needs study) that with half the number of deputies (two clergy and two lay from each diocese) and, perhaps, with only bishops with jurisdiction actually voting, the work of General Convention could be done as well as it is now.  With improved forms of communication and requiring most resolutions to be filed early, much work could be done by the committees in virtual meetings before gathering at General Convention. I also think The Episcopal Church must address the sheernumber of dioceses and the configuration of diocesan boundaries drawn in past eras.  Our system dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries with a bureaucratic structure (though certainly currently not the number of employees of the past) borne of the triumphalism of the mid20th century (currently with a sizable number of baby boomers formed by the turbulent 1960’s serving in leadership and as deputies and bishops in General Convention) trying to adapt to the emerging reality of the 21st century.  Like most mainline denominations, The Episcopal Church is not as large as it was a century ago and we must adapt – as must the General Convention.  It is a very “Western” system shaped by Enlightenment values of individualism and a win-lose politicized parliamentary process.  Personally, I do not always find in the process the time needed for discernment, true consensus or reconciliation.  It just is not always pono.  For me, this General Convention was confirmation that The Episcopal Church must change to meet the needs of God’s people in the 21st century.  I think – or, better, I pray – it is beginning to make the needed shifts, but it is going to be difficult work.  This General Convention produced several resolutions to address the structure of The Episcopal Church, but it will also take a generational and a cultural shift.    

Title IV
We did, however, work and produce legislation from those hundreds ofresolutions.  I served on the Canons Committee.  The bulk of our work was around the complete revision of the Title IV (Ecclesiastical Discipline) canons of the Church (see http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=890&type=Final).  As a member of both the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons and the Title IV Revision Task Force, I had a personal interest in this work.  This revision took a full six years to produce and passed easily in both Houses with minor revisions.  These canons will take effect on January 1, 2012 to give time for local dioceses toadjust their own canons.  This revision marks a shift from clergy discipline based upon the military code of justice to one based on professional standards and reconciliation for all parties involved. This will have an important impact on the life of our Church.

The Budget
I suspect that the biggest practical impact in the next three years will be the $24 million reduction in the budget of The Episcopal Church in response to the present downturn in the economy.  Unlike our Diocese,some dioceses have seen a downturn in giving because of horrendous unemployment and a drastic downturn in the economy.  On the whole, we do not seem to have had a drastic drop in giving as a diocese, but we too have experienced a serious loss in investment income.  Some dioceses (but fortunately not our own) have had major losses due to the controversies of the ordination of the Bishop of New Hampshire and the blessing of same-sex unions.  All in all, the General Convention was faced with a major reordering of the budget and a reflection on budget priorities.  The result will be a major cut in staff (30+ positions) at The Episcopal Church Center and related denominational offices.  The total budget for The Episcopal Church over the next three years(2010-2012) will be $141,271,984 with 0.7% devoted to the Millennium Development Goals and another 0.7% to address domestic poverty throughJubilee Ministries.  The budget priorities can be found at http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=1035&type=Final. Overall my concern is that the cuts in the budget and even the priorities were determined at the meeting.  The draft budget wasunrealistic and turned upside down at the meeting.  Staffers literally learned at the gathering that their positions would need to be cut because of the budget.  As in the past, the 76th General Convention reaffirmed the tithe as the minimum standard of giving for Episcopalians. 

The Controversy: D025 and C056
The greatest controversy was focused on two resolutions: D025 and C056. 

The resolution D025 (see http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final)begins by affirming “the continued participation of The EpiscopalChurch as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to thefellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible” and it says we “affirm the value of ‘listening to the experience of homosexual persons,’ as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships ‘characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image ofGod.”’ 

It then shifts from the Anglican Communion and the Lambeth Conference to the recognition “that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst.”This leads to the affirmation “that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”  The resolution finally acknowledges“that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.”  

This resolution acknowledges the reality of The Episcopal Church in 2009. It does not directly address the call from the Archbishop of Canterbury and most of the constituent members of the Anglican Communion torefrain from ordaining a homosexual living in a committed same-gender relationship to the episcopate.  It leaves The Episcopal Church at the same place as before General Convention.  When a priest is elected bishop, that priest must be confirmed by a majority of Standing Committees of the dioceses of the Church and by a majority of bishops with jurisdiction before that priest can be ordained as a bishop.  Each Standing Committee and each bishop will have to judge for themselves the suitability of the individual elected and the call of that personas bishop for the electing diocese and for The Episcopal Church. 

The other resolution to make the news was C056 (see http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=898&type=Current). This resolution acknowledges “the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships.”  Several bodies within the Church are called to be part of this process and theological reflection is to be invited from throughout the Anglican Communion.  The resolution asserts that the General Convention honors the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality.  It also states that bishops, “particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church.”  Realistically, this resolution moves forward the possibility of blessings of same-sex relationships in The Episcopal Church.  It will also increase tension within the Anglican Communion.

As for the Diocese of Hawai‘i, these two resolutions will be of concern to some and will be the focus of rejoicing for others.  I have confidence that our Standing Committee will consider each candidate for ordination to the episcopate in a balanced, prudent and prayerful manner.  I pray that I will always dothe same. 

At this time, I do not plan on changing the formal policy on the blessing of same-sex relationships in this Diocese. While I believe that the blessing of same-sex unions is a right evolution in the life of Christ’s Church, and The Episcopal Church is now formulating a teaching and critique on this possibility through the House of Bishops Theology Committee and through study by various groups at the direction of General Convention, The Episcopal Church still has not authorized such rites and the Church has no clear teaching on this matter.  We need to acknowledge that this is a major innovation in the life of the Church and it is a challenge to many in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion and throughout Christendom.  I also acknowledge our pastoral responsibility to our gay and lesbian clergy and parishioners.  At this time, I will not authorize public blessings of same-sex unions in any formal rite of/for the Diocese of Hawai`i. In keeping with changing circumstances presented by action of General Convention and my own experience as bishop, however, I recognize that some pastoral response may be needed in individual situations involving active parishioners in local congregations.  I am willing to discuss such situations with the parishioners’ priests and will consider with the clergy appropriate pastoral responses on a case-by-case basis.  We do not have to consider civil issues at this time in Hawai‘i.  If that circumstance changes, I will discuss the possible pastoral responsewith the Standing Committee. 

As some know, I spoke in favor of slowing down the process to enact C056 (and I so voted in a defeated motion).  In the end I voted for both D025 and C056.  I voted “yes”because I see in them the right movement of the Spirit, even if I am not as certain about the prudence of the timing in light of the needs of the whole Church (in the United States and throughout the world) –sometimes one must just trust in the Spirit.  As a bishop of the Church and particularly as one called to serve a diocese within a multi-cultural context that is as much a part of Asia and the Pacific as it is of North America, I had hoped for a broader dialogue with our Anglican Communion partners before we formally acted to explore liturgical resources.  I frankly would have liked an official theological statement from The Episcopal Church with which to engage our Anglican Communion partners (The Anglican Church in Canada has been much more thorough on this than The Episcopal Church).  I had hoped that the 2012 General Convention would have been the turning point in these actions.  I am also keen that we find better ways of allowing the Spirit to move rather than up or down votes in the legislative process.  Such is, however, our system.

I suspect for many in the Anglican Communion – particularly in light of the media spin and even the headlines from The Episcopal Church’s news service – this General Convention will be perceived as the point where The Episcopal Church asserted that though conversation is important and that we desire to be part of the Anglican Communion, we must act as we see fit regardless of the concerns of the Archbishop of Canterbury, much of the Anglican Communion and many (though now likely the minority) in The Episcopal Church.  In practical terms, I suggest that we have turned a corner that will make it more difficult for those who disagree with or for those who just honestly do not understand the evolution in the life of our Church.  We did this, I suggest, without enough broad generous conversation beyond the bishops at the last Lambeth Conference.  I had thought three more years would give us time to connect on a global level – particularly at the grass-roots level of mission.  Locally, I think we must move forward with the formal relations we are developing with the Church in Aotearoa and with the Philippine Independent Church.  I also think we can make important connections with the Philippine Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church in Korea, the Anglican Church in Polynesia (and other areas of the Pacific), Episcopal dioceses with strong indigenous peoples’ ministry (North Dakota,Alaska, Navaholand) and the Episcopal Diocese of Taiwan (once part of the ministry of the Missionary District of Honolulu).  Each diocese –this Diocese – must take responsibility to build relationships throughout the Anglican Communion while we remain true to the movement of the Spirit in our particular, local mission context.  We have a particular vocation as a Diocese to engage with and listen to voices from Asia, the Pacific and indigenous people, and then share with The Episcopal Church.

Mandatory Lay Employee Pension Plan and Denominational Health Plan
Actions of this General Convention will have a direct impact on the ministry of local congregations.  The first establishes through the canons of the Church “a mandatory lay employee pension system for employees who are scheduled to work a minimum of 1,000 hours annually for any domestic Diocese, Parish, Mission or other ecclesiastical organization or body subject to the authority of the Church”  (see http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=843&type=Final). The second establishes “The Denominational Health Plan of this church for all domestic dioceses, parishes, missions, and other ecclesiastical organizations or bodies subject to the authority of this church, for clergy and lay employees who are scheduled to work a minimum of 1,500 hours annually” (see http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=882&type=Final). Because of local diocesan canons and Hawai‘i State law, these changes will have less impact than in other dioceses.  We will still be faced with the possible change of our health insurance program for clergy and lay employees.  The total impact of these developments must still be evaluated. 

The Native Hawaiian Nation
One resolution particularly addressed the bishop and people of Hawai‘i:
“[T]he76th General Convention request The Episcopal Church's Office of Government Relations and the bishops and Episcopalians of the dioceses of Louisiana, Western Louisiana, Georgia, Atlanta, Hawaii, Fond du Lac,and the six dioceses in the State of New York, to advocate in their respective spheres of influence for the federal tribal recognition of the United Houma Nation of Louisiana, the Shinnecock Tribal Nation of New York, the Southeastern Cherokee Council Inc. of Georgia, the NativeHawaiian Nation and the Brothertown Nation of Wisconsin” (see http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=858&type=Final). This was frankly in a stack of legislation passed in the last days ofGeneral Convention.  I will share it with the Commission on Native Hawaiian Ministry, the Standing Committee, some trusted Kupuna in our congregations, and Canon Aiona to seek advice and suggestions on the possible need for comment or action. 

The Charter for Lifelong Christian Formation
I urge everyone to read “The Charter for Lifelong Christian Formation” (see http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=786&type=Final).I think this could be the basis of diocesan education and ministry. The ministry of the Church must focus on making disciples of Jesus Christ.  This is a clear statement of how we are called to move forward as the Church in that ministry.   

Holy Women, Holy Men
There was adopted for trial use over the next three years a major revision of Less Feasts and Fasts called Holy Women, Holy Men.  This provides for the commemoration of important figures in the life of the Church at the Eucharist throughout the year.  This revision was presented in several resolutions. I just call your attention to its publication sometime soon. 

Other Reflections
There were several resolutions in the areas of social and economic justice that will take some time to consider for our local context.  The total impact of the budget cuts and the impact on mission will also take sometime to sort out.

Being with our deputation was a joy.  A real high point of the entire General Convention for me was seeing Dick Chang on the platform of the House of Bishops when Ed Browning visited the House.  These two are not only my predecessors as bishop in this Diocese, but they are truly the two persons that I most deeply respect in this Church.  I enjoyed catching up with old friends.  I was also most impressed with the Presiding Bishop’s gentle, but firm leadership in the House of Bishops.  She is a rare gift to this Church.  I had great fun at the L.A. night emerging church event  (see http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_112662_ENG_HTM.htm).
 
There is much to consider.  The Deputies will be making reports throughout the Diocese over the next few months and they will be making a written report to our Convention in October with recommendations for action.  Ihad a good gathering with the clergy yesterday to discuss General Convention.  I believe The Episcopal Church changed in Anaheim in a decisive, but not triumphant way, and an emerging reality is before us.  In this Diocese, we must focus on mission – sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with love and warm welcome, caring for the hungry and the homeless, binding up the wounded and broken, learning new languages and finding new ways of being that we might change to be the Church for anew generation.  We will remain a diverse diocese in terms of culture, ethnicity and theological perspective.  Bishop Browning’s call to be a Church with “no outcasts” is a complex and holy vision in the 21stcentury.  We also have a vocation to The Episcopal Church as a truly multi-cultural, multi-ethnic diocese situated to hear and to address parts of the world beyond North America.  At this General Convention, I was reminded how much The Episcopal Church needs the Diocese of Hawai‘i.    

Thank you for your prayers.  I am very happy to be home!

God bless you.

+Bob