Committee 5: Racial truth-telling, reckoning & healing
Our brisk tour through the resolutions of General Convention continues now as Resolutionpalooza turns to the resolutions assigned to the legislative committee on Racial truth-telling, reckoning & healing. I will start by noting, for the record, that the Episcopal Church needs to repent of the grievous sin of racism. If you look at the general population of the US (and many of the other countries where the Episcopal Church is found), our church is notably less diverse racially than the general population.
I don’t have data on how leadership compares with the overall membership of our church, but I suspect the authors of the resolutions are correct in their assumption that people of color are underrepresented in many levels and kinds of leadership.
It is critical that we, as a church, repent of the sin of racism for many reasons. When we fail to honor anyone, we are failing to honor a person who is made in the image and likeness of God; we are rejecting a person who is a reflection of God’s glory. Jesus told us to make disciples of all nations — this means everyone — and if we are not inviting and welcoming people of all races, cultures, and nations to be disciples, we are failing our charge in the Great Commission. Finally, within the church, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. When we create second-class places in the church, we are not acting as if we believe that we are all united by the one Lord. I mention all this because the resolutions heading to this committee do not connect racial truth-telling, reckoning, and healing to the work of discipleship, and I am sorry to say that. We can do better as a church. If we keep our gaze fixed on our Lord, we will see that he leads us to repent of all our sins, including racism.
These resolutions are also well-intentioned but technically problematic in many cases. It’s not enough to name a problem, though that is a good first step. General Convention resolutions should provide a clear and realistic action plan that is appropriate to the scope of General Convention and its authority. As I said in the introduction to Resolutionpalooza, I also want to see resolutions connecting our “legislative work” with our “discipleship work.” Too many of these resolutions just don’t make these connections, nor do they provide a clear set of actions that will provoke and enable the repentance our church needs.
Let me say again for the folks in the back: we have much work to do in repenting of racism, past and present. I include myself in that confession. But cheap grace won’t do the trick. We need substantive, costly repentance. The sooner the better. My hope is that the legislative committee will repair and improve some of these resolutions so that we can continue work that has begun but which must hasten and expand. Lord, have mercy on us.
A015 Owning a Commitment to Reparations. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.
If approved, this resolution would create a commission, constituted and overseen by the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice, to decide how much of the assets of the Episcopal Church will go into a reparations fund and then how that fund will be disbursed. I’m entirely supportive of reparations, and I hope all Episcopal organizations, at all levels, will do some soul-searching as to what form of reparations they may owe. I would love to see significant reparations payments made from our churchwide assets. The challenge here is the mechanism for doing this. I suspect what is imagined in the resolution is not appropriately designed, since the new group could decide that, say, $100 million dollars is an appropriate amount for reparations and spend that money apart from the Executive Council exercising its fiduciary duty to practice stewardship of our funds, to say nothing of the General Convention’s role in budgeting. Instead of the process outlined in the resolution, I would simply suggest that the resolution be rewritten to have the reparations commission recommend an allocation and spending plan to the next General Convention. I’m unclear as to the canonical status of the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice, but if it is within our polity (that is, if they are a clearly defined interim body), they could well take the lead in developing a plan and making the recommendation. As linked in this resolution’s explanation, which you should read, you might want to refer to the resolution and explanation (2022-A125) which created the Episcopal Coalition for Racial Equity and Justice.
A027 Increase recruitment, hiring, appointment, retention, and representation of People of Color in church positions. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.
This resolution seeks to solve a problem our church faces: we do not seem to do very well at recruiting, hiring, and retaining people of color in church positions. I believe the resolution intends to include employment and volunteer positions at all levels, but this could be made clearer. It’s a problem across the board, though the solutions might look different depending on context. The problem with this resolution is twofold. First, it merely urges action of staff who then produce guidelines for all “parishes, dioceses, and institutions.” Guidelines are not binding, and it’s not evident how these guidelines would be circulated and to whom, exactly. Second, the resolution vaguely asks for institutions to report the results of their efforts through the parochial report. The parochial report is for congregations; neither dioceses nor institutions would be covered in this reporting standard. And how will we measure results? What data will be collected? What will happen with the data? We already have canons that forbid discrimination based on “race, color, ethnic origin, [and] national origin” among other things. Any solution should probably require enforcement of this existing canon by adding measures to clergy discipline for both hiring/appointment and reporting compliance. If we want our church to change, we need to put some clear accountability in place. I think the Executive Council Committee on Anti-Racism & Reconciliation might consult with the State of the Church committee about effective measures to bake into the parochial report and with the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution, and Canons on how to amend Title IV to increase accountability. As presented here, I just don’t think the resolution will accomplish the important work it seeks to do.
A031 Translate Reconciliation Resources into Spanish. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.
If passed, this resolution would “strongly encourage” the translation of “key racial reconciliation resources into Spanish that will further the Church’s efforts toward dismantling racism and achieving racial justice and healing.” We like to say that we are an international church, but too many of our resources are not available in the languages most widely used in our church, chiefly English and Spanish. So on the one hand, I commend the intent here — and the attached funding which would make it possible. However, the challenge is that cultural context is also important in materials, not just language. Translating materails that are suitable for use in Denver may not help much if you are a church leader in Ecuador. So I would like to amend this to do two things. First, note that that materials will be translated only when someone has investigated with stakeholders to ensure that the materials will be usable. Second, also fund the creation of culturally adapted materials where needed. That will be more expensive than the translation, I suspect.
A032 Hire a Chief Equity Officer. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
This resolution seeks the appointment of a Chief Equity Officer (but see below) “to assist in the establishment of greater representation and retention of PoC in all church positions and advise church leadership on equitable operational practices.” As I’ve said above, our church needs to repent of the sin of racism, and one key side effect of a racist system is the presence of inequity of all kinds. So I agree with the resolution’s proposers that we need to work on equity. I’m not sure that a Chief Equity Officer is the best way to get this done, because we could do a good deal of work in other areas with the money we’ll spend on this hire. It is perhaps unrealistic to think that one person (even a very gifted person) can change the system. Also, the explanation of the resolution is confusing to me. It talks about why hire a Chief Equity Officer rather than “just a Chief Diversity Officer” and goes on to talk about the work a new Chief Diversity Officer could do. Do the proposers contemplate hiring two C-level staff members for this work? I am concerned that we are electing a new Presiding Bishop who will have vision for changing the work of our church at the same time as there is a growing movement to slash our churchwide budget. The more people we hire, and the more money we spend, the more we limit the freedom of our next PB to carry out a bold new vision. Aside from that, if we are increasing staff and decreasing income, at a basic level, we are saying that we want to cut other much-loved programs. It’s just math. (And, generally speaking, I think it’s never a good idea for 1,000 voting bishop and deputies to tweak the org chart. Let the staff do that! If they see a need for a new Chief ____ Officer, they can get a budget modification from Executive Council.)
A033 Renew ECCAR. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
In addition to some affirming and recognizing, this resolution seeks to continue the Executive Council Committee on Anti-Racism & Reconciliation. I suspect it’s a good idea to keep this committee, but whether to do so is the business of Executive Council, not bishops & deputies. Let’s let Executive Council sort this out. It’s their committee, after all. They do not need the permission or endorsement of the General Convention to make this decision.
A034 Promoting Equitable Formation for Future Church Leaders through Dismantling Racism and Achieving Racial Justice and Healing Education in Seminaries and Schools of Theological Education. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
This resolution variously urges and encourages seminaries “to incorporate dismantling racism and achieving racial justice and healing education into their curricula.” I hope seminaries are already doing this, and if they are not, I pray they will begin soon. The reality is that with the possible exception of the General Seminary, theological schools are not accountable to the General Convention. The final resolve contains language to require “That TEC institute a requirement for certification of seminaries and schools of theological education that the institution provide education on dismantling racism.” Unless I have missed something (which is quite possible!), there is no process for certification of seminaries and schools of theological education in our church. So this would be a new thing. Maybe that’s a good idea, but if so, it would need to be fleshed out a great deal. The best way to require those preparing for ordination to be trained in dismantling racism is to require it as part of the ordination process, and we already do that in canons III.8.5.h(4) for priests and III.6.5.g(4) for deacons. I note that many dioceses already require anti-racism training for lay leadership positions, in addition to the long-standing requirement for clergy training.
A035 Establish Model Policies for Anti/Racism/Racial Reconciliation Work. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only if amended.
This resolution would create a “Special Task Group” — which should, in fact, be called a Task Force — of five people to create model policies on anti-racism work and racial healing. I can see that these policies could be quite helpful in our church, and I suspect that if we freed our churchwide staff to engage in work like this, they could get it done quickly. But maybe there’s a reason we need a group of volunteers to take this on. This part of the resolution may be fine. Where it gets a bit shaky is when it directs dioceses to create policies based on the model policy, which may be outside the bounds of how our polity functions. We are more of a federation than a hierarchy when it comes to the relations of dioceses to General Convention, and the ability of Conventino to mandate diocesan work is limited. But a good canon lawyer can advise on this and may have already done so for all I know. Included in the resolution is this directive: “That all dioceses annually confirm, in writing or by email or through a survey mechanism, to a designated office in the Episcopal Church Center, that the diocese’s Guidelines conform to the Model Policies for Racial Reconciliation and Healing.” Unless we make bishops canonically accountable under threat of discipline for doing this, a requirement like this is quite likely to be ignored.
Why am I skeptical that dioceses will comply with instruction from General Convention? Because we already know this. Dioceses are “require” to report whether they have complied with General Convention resolutions. In the Blue Book for this Convention, the Executive Council report tells us that 42 dioceses responded to the reporting requirement. That’s about a 38% response rate. Among the resolutions with “Action Completed”, the highest response was 26 dioceses (or less than 24% of the total). We should be realistic in our expectations of General Convention requiring things of dioceses, unless there are Title IV disciplinary consequences for bishops or others.
A095 Continue the Task Force on Indigenous Liturgy. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.
According to their Blue Book report, this task force produced just this resolution to continue their work. They met once in person, other times by Zoom, and have begun to collect liturgical materials as they were mandated by 2022- A141. I have no doubt that our church will be well served by collecting, organizing, and sharing indigenous liturgical material. I have just two suggestions. Perhaps this work could be brought under the umbrella of the existing Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. The SCLM need not do this work themselves; they could delegate it to an informal working group, perhaps many of the same people who have already been doing the work. Or if the SCLM is not the best body, perhaps the Office of Indigenous Ministries could support an advisory group in this important work. Second, I wonder if it would make sense to add one or more people from Province IX, where there are significant indigenous communities. But there is probably a good reason why this was not done already. The resolution asks for $300,000 for a task force but there is absolutely no indication of how that money would be used.
If there is a clear reason for a task force and not a group of folks working in under the umbrella of the SCLM or with the Office of Indigenous Ministries, or if there is a clear sense of what $300,000 will be used for, I hope it will be added to the resolution. Then I would gladly support it. As I said, I know that a collection of indigenous liturgical material will be helpful to many once it exists. I’m just not sure this resolution is getting us there by the best path.
A097 Developing a Common Framework for Anti-Racism Training. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.
Our church has long mandated anti-racism training for various folks, but the requirements have been broad and non-specific. As a result, the scope and quality of anti-racism traning varies widely. This resolution seeks to address these problems by specifying a set of core components of any anti-racism transing and the organization of a churchwide certification tracking program. I agree with these aims. However, this resolution needs some work in order to accomplish what it seeks to do. First, the core components do not include theological teaching (e.g. the doctrine of creation). Nor do they have a wide approach to the scriptures, focused only on “Hebrew & New Testament Prophetic traditions,” which leaves out key teachings from St. Paul, the Psalms, and other important passages. Second, I’m not sure if the certification process envisioned here, which only mentions “on-line testing” as a delivery channel is ideal for the wider church. Third, the budget allocation is a fraction of what it needs to be. I can’t see churchwide tracking of thousands of anti-racism trainings — and the certification of diocesan and other programs — taking fewer than three or four full-time staff. If the legislative committee can hone this resolution, we can get started on these aims. Otherwise, I think someone needs to come up with a funding and implementation plan that will scale to meet the lofty goals set by the resolution’s proposers.
D016 Continued Funding of The Beloved Community. Full text. Likely vote: NO, but I am ready to change my mind!
This resolution would continue the Beloved Community work begun during Bishop Cutty’s tenure to the tune of $1 million over the triennium. As I review the proposed budget, it appears to me that this money is already included in the 2025-2027 draft budget. So we don’t need to approve this resolution; it might already be done. If this is spending beyond what is in the draft budget, I think I’d want to learn more about why this is important to do. The Beloved Community work has brought a great deal to our church, and I’m grateful for what has been done and hopeful for what will be done. It just appears to me that the folks who prepared the budget were one step ahead of the writers of this resolution. If I’m wrong about that — and if there is a need for more spending — I am ready to vote in favor of this.