Committee 19: Title III ministry
Good morning! It’s always a good idea to start your day with a healthy breakfast and a big dose of…church legislation? Today’s theme in Resolutionpalooza is Title III, the ministry canons of the Episcopal Church. There’s a token nod to the baptismal ministry of all Christians in these canons, but most of Title III is about the ordination process and about the life and work of deacons, priests, and bishops. There are no proposals here about the baptismal ministry of all Christians, just some (important) stuff on religious folk and clergy.
Finish your toast, and let’s dig into the resolutions.
A059 Create an Official List of Recognized Religious Orders and Christian Communities. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
Some Episcopalians haven’t heard that there are religious orders in our church. Nuns! Monks! If you get a chance, go visit an Episcopal monastery or convent to pray with these fantastic Episcopalians who have devoted their entire lives to prayer. There’s a process to recognize religious orders as official, and that’s run by the Standing Committee on Religious Communities of the House of Bishops. All this resolution does is ask them to keep an official list of current religious orders. Makes good sense, and I hope they post it online somewhere so we can all check them out.
A061 Amend the following Canons I.12.3, III.6.6.c, III.8.6.d, III.8.6.7.c, III.10.5.d, III.11.3.b, and III.11.3.c based on 2022-A039. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
One of the duties of Standing Committees is to sign off on ordinations, of deacons and priests within their diocese and of bishops in the wider church. There are rules about how this is done — specifying that it must be a majority of the committee, but the signatures can be in counterparts. This resolution simply puts the requirement in the canons that define duties of a Standing Committee so that it’s more likely they’ll find these important rules, and then it puts cross-references in all the other canons governing ordinations. Basically, this is just to make it easier for everyone to see the rules.
A065 Amend Canon III.1.3. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This canon just changes a line referring to people in the ordination process from “men and women” to “all persons” to be more inclusive of the gender spectrum.
A070 Research needs for the General Board of Examining Chaplains. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
First of all, this resolution refers to the Standing Committee on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons. It’s actually a Standing Commission. Maybe this isn’t a big deal, but it’s important for folks preparing resolutions for General Convention to take care to attend to our polity. In any case, this resolution asks the SCSGCC “to research the current level of need for the General Board of Examining Chaplains and propose adjustments to its make-up and membership to better align with that need.” While I read the explanation, I’m puzzled by the language here. As long as we have a General Ordination Exam, we need the General Board of Examining Chaplains. I don’t think there’s any serious conversation about getting rid of the GOE, though it has its haters. And if the proposers of this resolution wanted to suggest a change in the make-up of the GBEC, they could have just said that. We don’t need a study, methinks.
D023 Support for the Association for Episcopal Deacons. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
This resolution does a lot of commending and such of the Association for Episcopal Deacons. I’m grateful for deacons in our church, and if AED helps them in their diaconal ministry, I’m delighted. The resolution goes on to ask for $450,000 (!) “to support the infrastructure necessary for the sustainability and growth of AED.” If AED has a vital mission, they will be able to fund their ministry from…the deacons they serve? Or the congregations of their deacon members? In general, I don’t think it makes sense for the Episcopal Church to fund grassroots organizations unless it’s for a particular project that is missionally aligned between the Episcopal Church and the grassroots organization. These organizations should be able to fund basic operations from their membership dues and program income if they have a vital mission.
D032 Raising the Clergy Mandatory Retirement Age to 75. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
As you can guess from the title, this resolution would raise the mandatory retirement age for deacons and priests from the current 72 to 75 years of age. It’s important to note that the mandatory retirement age does NOT mean that clergy cannot work once they hit that age. It simply means they must vacate the positions they hold, and then they can continue to work after retirement with the permission of the local bishop. This frees up positions for others. It helps promote healthy turnover in the church.
We have a number of deployment and transition challenges in our church, and among the many solutions we might try, I don’t think changing the retirement age ought to be among our top priorities. Those clergy who wish to work to 75 or 80 or longer can do so. But requiring people to vacate positions allows others to grow in their work.
I could understand the “best kept secret” memes a decade ago, but in an era when we’ve had umpteen seasons of Call the Midwife, the miniseries remake of Black Narcissus, and Sr Monica blowing up TikTok, I feel like you’d have to really go out of your way to avoid exposure to the existence of religious life in the Anglican Communion!
Sure, for people who access church social media or who read church stuff. But I can tell you that your average pew-dweller in most parishes has no idea. How would they know, unless they happen to attend a parish that is close enough to a religious order that a nun or monk stops by occasionally?
I guess network TV really is dead!
I’ll post a second comment rather than combine conversations, but as an ordinand for the diaconate I do find it a little Scrooge-like to expect us to be both non-stipendiary and also to fund our ministry ourselves. This year’s national deacons conference for the ACoC is on the west coast: the airfare alone would set me back several thousand dollars. My bishop has been pretty good about making funds available; not all are so munificent. But perhaps the funding model is different in the US-based church?
I would hope that any church which receives the ministry of a deacon is also providing some modicum of professional development and expensive reimbursement for that deacon. Sadly, that’s not always the case. One should let bishops know when this is going on, so perhaps a bishop can help create a fair situation for everyone.