Committee 17: Accessibility & inclusion
Resolutionpalooza continues with a bonus post today, this one on the committee addressing resolutions about accessibility and inclusion. Here we go!
A050 Publishing and Sharing Resources for Disability Access and Inclusion. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
This resolution’s explanation, ironically, includes documents for which no Spanish translation is accessible.
The resolution would “direct the Episcopal Church Center to publicize, through the Episcopal Church website and by other appropriate means, to dioceses, congregations, and Christian Formation leaders, a Best Practices Guide for voluntary means of creating an accessible Church and a disability sensitivity and awareness training for all to use as resources in furtherance of an accessible Church.” A big problem here is that the Best Practices Guide that is mentioned is not included among the documents of the resolution, which makes it out of order for consideration. Aside from that, we don’t need a General Convention resolution to post a document on the Episcopal Church website. The resolution also does some recognizing and the like.
A133 Establishing a Taskforce for the Study of Fair Hiring Policies within The Episcopal Church. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
This resolution calls for the creation of a task force “to conduct a comprehensive study and analysis of existing hiring practices, identify areas for improvement, and propose recommendations for implementing fair hiring policies across all levels of the Church’s structure.” In my experience in the church, hiring policies are all over the place, and the church often does a lousy job of this. I have a friend who has been asked inappropriate questions about her plans and intentions as a parent almost every interview she’s ever had in the church, to name one example. So for a number of reasons, I think we aren’t doing great at hiring people in a fair and just way. If we are up for a serious study, the data — and the resulting policy changes — could be helpful. However, this resolution asks for only $75,000, which won’t scratch the amount necessary to do this well? Why? Because the Episcopal Church is mostly tiny congregations, and if we want them included in the survey, a team of people is going to have to try multiple phone calls and emails to get responses. If we aren’t up for doing this well, it’s not worth doing. Someone who is schooled in professional survey design could provide a more accurate budget and timeline. Once we have that, let’s do it!
A144 Review the Application of Canons I.17.5 and III.1.2. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
In its entirety, this resolution seeks the continuation of a task force “to review the application of Canons I.17.5 and III.1.2 across the Episcopal Church, particularly regarding marital status and family status, and additionally to study all churchwide and diocesan disciplinary canons and procedures affecting clergy and laity who disclose how they are forming family and household structures that seek to be holy, faithful and lifegiving.” The referenced canons are those that say, “No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, governance, or employment of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital or family status (including pregnancy or child care plans), sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons.” (Read the explanation for the other canon, and for more background.)
But the rub is in the details. It’s fair, I think, for bishops to hold those in holy orders to the teaching of our church on a number of fronts. As a priest in the church, I am accepting limits on my freedoms, including how I spend my money, how I organize my household, and what sort of ethics I apply in daily living. It does not seem unreasonable to me for a bishop to require those in holy orders to be married when they live in a family/sexual/partner relationship with another. Some will have different views on this, of course.
For me to support this resolution, I’d need to know more about what has happened to provoke it. If a bishop was arbitrary or capricious, that bishop should absolutely be held accountable. It seems there must be more here than meets the eye, and I don’t think it’s good practice for General Convention to legislate when there’s an invisible elephant in the room.
A145 Urging Pastoral Compassion and Discretion for Clergy and Laity Who Disclose Diverse Family and Household Structures. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
See commentary on A144. I think I’d want to understand what we’re talking about here, since it seems that the resolution is about something that is itself not named here. This isn’t good legislative practice. Clarity is kindness.
C010 Access to Prison Ministries. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
The explanation of this resolution includes links to documents for which no Spanish translation is provided.
After some affirmation of the goodness of prison ministry, this resolution would “urge any prison ministry program in which members of The Episcopal Church volunteer hold policies consistent with our spiritual teachings and stated policies, asking such programs to change their policies if they conflict with our nondiscrimination canons.” So we can’t take part in prison ministries if we don’t agree with the teachings of the other body. The prohibition here is broad, though the explanation cites anti-LGBTQIA+ policies as a key driver. I would prefer to work with folks who affirm the place of LGBTQIA+ folks in the church. But I can’t help but wonder why we need to say we can’t work with folks with whom we do not agree on this or any issue. If an organization asks for participants to sign something they can’t sign, then surely individuals can decide that. But I’m confused about why we’d do this at the widest organizational level.
Suppose, for example, that a progressive church would say they can’t work with the Episcopal Church because we pay our ordained men more than our ordained women, proving we are sexist. (We are sexist, and I hope we repent of it!) Or suppose someone says, “I looked at your legislative materials, and you rarely provide materials in Spanish for your Spanish-speaking voters, so you don’t value them.” The point is, the Episcopal Church has its own ethical and theological lapses of various kinds. I’d hope people could be gracious with us and work with us despite our many failings. And I hope we could be gracious to others. How do people change except in relationship, and how can we have relationship if we cut people off? To put it another way, Jesus pursued a “dine with tax collectors and sinners” strategy and it seemed to work pretty well. Perhaps we should do the same.
And, yes, we should stand up for our values. And, no, we should never require any Episcopalian to violate their conscience.
P.S. Just last weekend, I was preaching in California. I mentioned in the adult forum that Forward Movement donates almost 100,000 copies of Forward Day by Day every year to prison ministries and to those who are incarcerated. In response, a person at this church told me how his work with Kairos Prison Ministries International had been transformational. I’m sure this isn’t universal, but I’d hate to cut off the possibility. Let’s let individuals make an autonomous choice — and congregations can do their own ministries directly, of course. If you want some copies of Forward Day by Day or Adelante dìa a dìa, let us know.
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
Hi, again, Scott.
The crux of the issue raised in C010, which came from my diocesan convention, is that Kairos has recently changed its policies, or at least made their policies more explicit and public, to say that volunteers must adhere to their ethics code (https://mykairos.org/docs/policy/conduct.pdf). Volunteers are required to sign their names to this code, which requires them to use their “sex assigned at birth for volunteers and for Kairos Outside Guests” (p. 9). The policy prohibits trans and non-binary volunteer participation, requiring them to literally cosign a denial of who they are. The policy also puts any clergy signing on behalf of parishioners in conflict with the Episcopal Church’s non-discrimination canons (I.17.5 and III.1.2).
This is a very different scenario than the one we live in all the time, doing ecumenical and interfaith work many ministries and projects. My church works with many Roman Catholic churches in our neighborhood, on affordable housing policy and also in supporting immigrants. Our churches have very different different policies on the role of women, and on LGBTQ inclusion. But that doesn’t come up in our work on housing and immigration – we have differences and we accept those to work together on common ground. We’ve done that a long time with Kairos, also. But now they are demanding that volunteers sign this code. We have been communicating with them, and also asking for more dialogue, to no avail. They are firm on this.
A priest in my diocese, the Rev. Mees Tielens, testified for the resolution in committee. He said:
“We need queer folks, trans folks ministering to people in prison. As a trans person, I know what it is like to be considered not-quite-human, not quite deserving the same rights, dignity, bodily autonomy or privacy that other people get, to have people judge you before they even know you. Prisons are parallel worlds that society likes to tuck out of sight and surround with shame. Well, if there’s anything queer folks know, it’s the destructive power of shame.
I write with a condemned trans woman at San Quentin, and visited her recently to take her confession. She had been taught, as had I, that God couldn’t love us the way we were. I don’t know if I can convey the damage that did to us. And so it was incredibly healing to both of us that I could offer her absolution as a trans priest, living proof of there being churches that don’t just tolerate but celebrate trans people and their gifts for ministry.
I’m here today asking the Episcopal Church to stand behind its principles not for my own sake. Because the real issue is that Kairos doesn’t just deprive me of the opportunity for mutual ministry–it deprives queer and trans folks on the inside, a particularly cruel reality for people already so deprived of connection and authenticity.”
There’s more on this issue on the TransEpiscopal blog: https://www.transepiscopal.org/blog/approaching-general-convention-access-to-prison-ministries.
I really hope you and other deputies, as well as bishops, take seriously the concerns being brought forward here. There’s been a lot of thoughtful conversation and debate about this issue in California and in the committee. Many involved in the conversation are deeply engaged in prison ministry.
Faithfully,
Sarah Lawton
L1, California
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for popping in again. You’re always welcome!
This particular change of Kairos sounds lousy, and I agree that I wouldn’t want anyone to have to sign a statement that they can’t agree with.
My concern though is that the resolution, as written, says that we don’t want people to overtly or tacitly endorse “theological statements or practices that conflict with our stated policies and beliefs.” That’s VERY broad. Would it prevent us from working with Presbyterians because they may teach double predestination? Or all Roman Catholics because we have different views on the place of women in the church? Or American Baptists because they don’t have threefold ministry? Or Unitarian-Universalists on any number of fronts? Or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims? Surely we can find ways to work with groups with whom we disagree on important things. And surely we can ensure that no Episcopalian is coerced to sign a statement that violates their conscience.
The resolution would be less problematic from my perspective if it were more specific. If, for example, it focused on discrimination and not on “stated policies or beliefs.” I don’t doubt that good conversation preceded this resolution, but I think the current version is simply too broad and would prevent us from working with…nearly everyone.
Peace,
Scott
Thank you, Scott. You’re very kind.
So I’m wondering – when you’ve done ecumenical or interfaith work in your ministries, have you ever encountered a request to sign a statement or code like this? Have you ever offered one to sign? I mean, going into such spaces, I have found that we focus on work at hand, where we have common ground – pushing for more affordable units in a housing development, or support for immigrant families. We don’t talk about the doctrinal issues that may divide us. We don’t get into predestination or sacraments or (in interfaith work) the death and resurrection of Jesus. We might ask about holidays and foodways and, of course, religious calendars for scheduling events–no press conference on Yom Kippur or Good Friday. For certain issues, like reproductive rights or LGBTQ inclusion, we might not be able to work with every faith group, and that’s understood. But we don’t ask the Roman Catholic sisters to sign a code of ethics statement on those issues when we invite them to come to a vigil at ICE or a press conference at city hall on housing–issues where we do have common ground. Nor do they ask us to endorse their church’s statements on those issues where we differ. Right? I guess I’m struggling to understand how this phrase would preclude almost all of the ecumenical and interfaith work, all the time.
Re A145: I know of at least two fine priests who have been deposed or had to resign bc of their poly household structures. I wonder if this Rez has at least similar partly in mind.
Robert is right. We’ve had several (I know of at least 4…) priests who were removed from ministry or left voluntarily over the church’s stance against polyamory in recent years, and these resolutions and the task force that produced them were in response to that. I will admit that I’m pretty opposed, but more than anything I regret that we are going to have to have a public debate about this right now at all, which absolutely feels like a distraction from more urgent issues. But in the interest of balance, one recent first-person account is here: https://kerlin.substack.com/p/i-used-to-be-an-episcopal-priest
To Liza’s point on public debate, without comment on merit, I can see The NY Times headlines now—‘“Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” is cancelled by Episcopal Convention”