Blogging the Resolutions - Gun Free Zones

The General Convention passed a resolution asking all Episcopal Churches to declare themselves "Gun Free Zones". There's a resolution coming before diocesan convention doing just that. But there's considerable debate about whether we can even legally do this.

Controversy around this revolves around Indiana's gun laws, particularly the so-called "Take your gun to work" laws, which permit any employee to carry a gun in the glove box or trunk of his or her locked vehicle, and prohibit an employer from asking about it.

I've done a little research on this, and I don't think we have much to worry about. But I'm not a lawyer. A FAQ from the Indiana State Police notes that "the right to carry a firearm may be restricted on private property and businesses by the owners. Be attentive for signs warning of restricted areas when carrying firearms into public places." So it looks like any church is within its rights to forbid guns on its property, with the possible exception of its parking lot.

Additionally, there are strict prohibitions on carrying firearms on school property. The law leaves "school" undefined, but at least one Indiana gun owners' association interprets it to include "places like preschools (and churches that have a preschool), head start, or similar programs – even when 'school' is not in session, like at Sunday services." If correct, that would suggest that it is already illegal under state law to possess a firearm on the property of Trinity Indianapolis (St. Richard's School), and any Episcopal church that has a pre-school.

A question was raised on the floor of General Convention inquiring whether a church declaring itself a gun-free zone might face liability if a shooting occurred on its property, since the zone turned out not to be gun-free after all. I have no idea about the merits of such a claim, but it seems that one could deal with it by using the phrase "firearms prohibited" rather than "gun-free zone" as the text of any proposed sign.

All right, on to the score:

1. Is the resolution likely to pass unanimously? No. I think there are some people who will view this as a waste of time, and you can vote against this without looking like a jerk. +1
2. Does the resolution call for someone in the church to do something concrete? Yes. Hanging up a sign is a concrete action. +1
3. Might the resolution call for the person who proposed it to do something concrete? Yes. The resolution is proposed by the General Convention deputation, which includes a few rectors who will have to decide what to do with this request. +1
4. Does the resolution contain an escape hatch? Yes. The resolution is framed as a request, not an order. -1
5. If the resolution calls for an allocation from the diocesan budget, is it clear how the funding would happen? No budget requirements. +1

So the final score is +4. Pretty high for what I think is not a very important resolution. Yet another indictment of my scoring system, I guess. I don't have much of an opinion either way on this one. Vote how you want.

Guest-blogging the Resolutions - Church Structure

Hello.  I’m John.  Brendan has asked me to write a guest post regarding the church structure resolution he is sponsoring, since he’s clearly biased.  He assures me that my general familiarity with his scoring system (from reading the blog) and my possibly passable knowledge of Episcopal affairs are the only requirements.  Still, I’m going to keep this brief so I don’t make a fool out of myself.

I’m not going to try to go into the resolution’s intentions too much, as I imagine its sponsor might have a few words to say about it himself.  But very briefly, General Convention this year passed a resolution to establish a task force to create a plan to reform the Church’s structure and governance and present it to the next General Convention.  It’s my understanding that the resolution passed unanimously.  The resolution to be put before the Diocese of Indianapolis at its convention is a resolution to support that effort, and to establish a similar task force for the diocese.

Of course, the guy who wrote the scoring system, wasn’t going to sponsor a resolution that failed the test, right?  Well, let’s see.

1. Is the resolution likely to pass unanimously? Well, I might have guessed not, but if the similar resolution passed unanimously in GC, I’m gonna have to lean yes here. -1

2. Does the resolution call for someone in the church to do something concrete? Yes. It calls for the creation of a committee, and for the committee to deliver reports at both the 176^th and 177^th convention of the diocese. +1

3. Might the resolution call for the person who proposed it to do something concrete? I’m not sure it does in itself.  However, I am sure Brendan, as its sponsor, will be engaging enthusiastically with the task force’s work (whether or not he is on it himself).  So this gets a yes. +1

4. Does the resolution contain an escape hatch? Not that I can see.  +1

5. If the resolution calls for an allocation from the diocesan budget, is it clear how the funding would happen? The resolution does call for the Executive Council to “make such resources available to the committee as necessary to enable this resolution to be implemented energetically and successfully.”  It does not specify how much resources that would take nor where it would come from, so I’m going to have to say no. -1

So, our final score is 1, and would be a 2 if C095 didn’t pass General Convention unanimously.  I proclaim that you can vote for this resolution with a clear conscience.  I look forward to Brendan clarifying anything I got wrong on this one, and learning more about his vision for the future.

Blogging the Resolutions - Threefer!

Today I'm going to illustrate how you can take two resolutions that identify legitimate problems but don't go all the way in finding how the church can be part of the solution and combine them with one totally awesome resolution to maybe come up with something incredible. Let's get scoring.

First up, Condemn the Practice of Wage Theft. This resolution commits the diocese to saying that denying laborers the wages and benefits they are due is a bad thing, and then "encourages" and "urges" parishes to educate themselves and partner with government agencies, etc. Real problem, dissatisfying solution.

Second, Deter Blacklisting of Workers. This is an obscure enough problem that I wasn't aware of it until just recently, and it's complicated enough that it will take a little more time to explain than wage theft. The idea goes like this. Occupancy is up and down in hotels, so rather than keep staff on its payrolls when demand for their services is so variable, hotels keep some base staff but then hire the rest through temporary agencies. So far, so good - totally legit business practice. But then, some hotels and temp agencies agree that the temporary employees can never be employees of the hotel (this is the blacklist), and remain long-term employees of the temp agency, even if they work at the same hotel for years. The impact on the worker is that they have no job security (because they're temps), no benefits (because they're temps), and no ability to improve their working conditions, through, say, collective bargaining, because they're not employees of the hotel they work for.

This one is stronger than the Wage Theft resolution in that it does call for more decisive action in the form of the church using its purchasing power (chiefly in the form of the Bishop's travel budget and the negotiation of room blocks for diocesan convention) to avoid institutions that participate in the practice.

One thing it lacks, though, is that phrase I griped about earlier, "stand in solidarity with". How might we actually do that with the many people in central and southern Indiana who have been victims of wage theft or blacklisting? These resolutions just encourage us to talk to their bosses and regulators.

That's why I'm really excited about the Establish Diocesan Mission Enterprise Zones resolution. One of the really exciting things that came out of the budget passed at the recent General Convention was the establishment of matching grants for Mission Enterprise Zones, which are meant to engage in innovative ministry with under-represented groups in the Episcopal Church, and which may use non-traditional forms of liturgy and leadership structures. The problem with this kind of ministry is that it tends not to be self-funding, certainly not at the start and maybe not for a long time. The matching grant helps address that problem. Think of it as venture capital funding for mission.

So let's score, and come back to how these resolutions might work together:

	Condemn Wage Theft	Condemn Blacklisting	Mission Enterprise Zones
Pass unanimously?	-1	-1	-1
Commit the church to doing something?	-3	+1	+1
Potentially commit the author to doing something?	-1	-1	-1
Escape hatch?	-1	+1	-1
Budget?	+1	+1	+1
Total	-5	+1	-1

Ok, not so hot, right? But if you've gotten through this far in the Blogging the Resolutions series with me, you might be coming to the conclusion that resolutions to diocesan convention are a pretty crude way of doing active mission. Where the diocese can be a real plus is as a channel to facilitate good ideas and to efficiently seek funding from the national church (the MEZ grants can only be sought by a diocese, not a smaller unit). We have a lot of parishes in this diocese looking to reinvent themselves due to economic necessity (the rest should probably be thinking about reinvention as a spiritual necessity). There are two churches in downtown Indianapolis that are natural geographic partners with blacklisted hotel workers. There are many more churches near a Wal Mart, the highest profile (but by no means the only) company with a history of wage theft. My own church is trying to discern a clearer calling to mission.

The wage theft and blacklisting resolutions give us some guidance about where underserved populations might be. Obviously there are others we can address. The MEZ resolution gives a prospect of funding to support creative mission in this diocese. So it's incumbent on us to come up with ideas that the Diocese and the national church can't say no to. My scores notwithstanding, delegates should vote to pass these resolutions.

Blogging the Resolutions - What Constitutes Concrete Action?

Remarking on my previous post regarding the recognition of Holy Family Episcopal Church as a parish, a reader observed that the resolution does in fact call for concrete action. Reclassifying a church from a mission to a parish may not be a difficult action, but it is a real action.

She's right, of course. Not all things worth doing are difficult, and we should be grateful for those easy things we can do that make a difference.

Furthermore, it occurs to me that being a parish rather than a mission does have budget implications, and positive ones at that. Because it means that Holy Family has grown to a point in numbers and in developing a culture of financial stewardship that it can support itself and offer material and spiritual gifts to the wider church and community.

So I'm re-scoring the resolution:

1. Is the resolution likely to pass unanimously? Of course. -1
2. Does the resolution call for someone in the church to do something concrete? No. +1
3. Might the resolution call for the person who proposed it to do something concrete? No. +1
4. Does the resolution contain an escape hatch? No. +1
5. If the resolution calls for an allocation from the diocesan budget, is it clear how the funding would happen? It passes on questions 2, 3, and 4, AND requires no additional budget allocation, so +2

Final score: a very respectable 4. I'm still allocating 2 bonus points because this is such good news it deserves to get the maximum possible score of 6.

Blogging the Resolutions - HFEC Status

I'm writing about each of the resolutions to the 175th Convention of Diocese of Indianapolis. My scoring criteria are here. Opinions are my own and may not reflect the Episcopal Church of All Saints, its parishioners, clergy, or delegation.

It's late and I just got home from the first vestry meeting with our new rector (which was awesome, by the way). But I'm just going to bite off an easy resolution here.

Today's resolution: the admission of Holy Family Episcopal Church in Fishers as a parish. Let's see how it scores.

1. Is the resolution likely to pass unanimously? Of course. -1
2. Does the resolution call for someone in the church to do something concrete? No. -3
3. Might the resolution call for the person who proposed it to do something concrete? No. -1
4. Does the resolution contain an escape hatch? No. +1
5. If the resolution calls for an allocation from the diocesan budget, is it clear how the funding would happen? No budget requirements, we're ok here. +1

This resolution, of course, reveals how flawed my scoring system is. Because the change in status of a church from mission to parish manages to score a -3, which is obviously ridiculous.

The admission of any planted church as a parish is a clear cause for celebration. For Holy Family, this has been a long time coming. So I'm overriding my silly system and giving it the maximum score, a well-deserved 6.

Blogging the Resolutions - Condemning Threats Against Sexual Minorities

I'm writing about each of the resolutions to the 175th Convention of Diocese of Indianapolis. My scoring criteria are here. Opinions are my own and may not reflect the Episcopal Church of All Saints, its parishioners, clergy, or delegation.

Here's the proposed resolution titled "Condemning Threats Against Sexual Minorities". Sigh. Let me go ahead and score this, and then discuss.

1. Is the resolution likely to pass unanimously? Yes. It doesn't really call on anyone to do anything all that difficult, and the idea that sexual minorities should not be subjected to violence is uncontroversial in this diocese. -1
2. Does the resolution call for someone in the church to do something concrete? No. -3
3. Might the resolution call for the person who proposed it to do something concrete? No. -1
4. Does the resolution contain an escape hatch? No. It is generally quite clear, though I never quite know what, "stand in solidarity with" means in contexts like this. +1
5. If the resolution calls for an allocation from the diocesan budget, is it clear how the funding would happen? The resolution requests no funding, nor does it need it. +1

That gives the resolution a score of -3, out of a possible +6. The negative score is mainly due to the fact that the resolution calls the church to no specific action. I've implied before that delegates should consider voting no on resolutions with a score below 0. But I think what this one is crying out for is not a no vote so much as some thoughtful (and realistic) amendments.

The reason this resolution has come up is pretty important to engage. The public face of Christianity is badly tarnished by the fact that the loudest voices in our faith seem to spend an awful lot of time condemning an awful lot of people, including but not limited to sexual minorities. Paraphrasing Brian McLaren from his interview with NPR's Guy Raz yesterday, the popular image of Christianity is not of loving your neighbors, but living in constant conflict with them.

Matthew Paul Turner's awesome blog used to be called "Jesus Needs New PR" (the blog isn't defunct, just eponymously rebranded). It looks at the sheer awfulness of much of Christianity's public image. A flaw in his blog is that while it entertainingly documents the public face of the church on a spectrum ranging from cluelessness to outright bigotry, it offers few suggestions for improvement. Turner is aware of this.

The message of this resolution is worth proclaiming loudly, but it will barely register outside the legislative session in which it's passed. If we're serious about this, we ought to decide that Jesus literally needs new PR. Jesus tells us, "See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). We can vote on this resolution and then file it away. Or maybe we as a church can decide we're going to get all Kelly Cutrone on this message and get it out there.

Blogging the Resolutions - Churchwide Response to Bullying

I'm writing about each of the resolutions to the 175th Convention of Diocese of Indianapolis. My scoring criteria are here. Opinions are my own and may not reflect the Episcopal Church of All Saints, its parishioners, clergy, or delegation.

Let's get started! First up, "Churchwide Response to Bullying".

The resolution aims to establish partnerships between churches, schools, youth and others. Execution is delegated to a diocesan task force on bullying with a 3-year term, which in turn will delegate real action to the deaneries, which in turn will have to rely on some action in the parishes, which is exactly where an effective response to bullying at the local level will come from.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand it addresses a serious problem, one where I think the church can provide effective witness and relief. It does not just condemn bullying but puts confronting it squarely in the hands of the church.

I am mainly concerned about implementation. It will be fairly easy for the task force to provide some ideas and resources to the deaneries and declare victory. After all, the charge to the task force is "to help raise awareness of and facilitate conversation about the problem of bullying and encourage and assist in the development of...partnerships and programs within each deanery". The only non-squishy verb in there is "assist".

The resolution mitigates this risk of total failure by requiring the task force to report its progress to the diocesan convention for each of the next three years. On the other hand, the unfinished business report to the last few diocesan conventions is littered with good intentions (seriously, it ought to be mandatory for these reports to be published online). The success of this resolution will be based on there being some bottom-up passion to see it succeed.

So, the score:

1. Is the resolution likely to pass unanimously? Yes. Nobody wants to be for bullying in public, and the resolution makes it pretty easy for this to be something delegates perceive as someone else's responsibility. -1
2. Does the resolution call for someone in the church to do something concrete? Yes. +1
3. Might the resolution call for the person who proposed it to do something concrete? Yes. +1
4. Does the resolution contain an escape hatch? This one's a push for me. Effectiveness in diminishing bullying is not actually required for the diocese to do what the resolution calls for. That said, there's no allowance for the diocese to just ignore it. 0
5. If the resolution calls for an allocation from the diocesan budget, is it clear how the funding would happen? Yes. This resolution does call for some allocation for funding, but actual funding requirements should be minimal. +1

That gives this resolution a score of 2 out of a possible 6 points. As a reminder, a delegate can vote for any resolution with a positive score with a clear conscience, but the higher the score, the better.

Next up - Condemning Threats Against Sexual Minorities!

Blogging the Resolutions - Introduction

Resolutions for the 175th Convention of the Diocese of Indianapolis were published yesterday. Taking a page from The Rev. Scott Gunn at Seven Whole Days, who wrote about every single resolution to the General Convention, I thought I'd do a series saying something about each of them. Gunn had to read 241 resolutions. The Diocese of Indianapolis has 11. This'll be like reading Philemon, y'all.

I'll be using the framework I proposed in my proposed Rules for Resolutions at Diocesan Convention, evaluating them on these criteria:

1. Is the resolution likely to pass unanimously? (+1 if no, -1 if yes)
2. Does the resolution call for someone in the church to do something concrete? (+1 if yes, -3 if no)
3. Might the resolution call for the person who proposed it to do something concrete? (+1 if yes, -1 if no)
4. Does the resolution contain an escape hatch? (+1 if no, -1 if yes)
5. If the resolution calls for an allocation from the diocesan budget, is it clear how the funding would happen? (+1 if yes, -1 if no, +2 if the resolution scores on #2, 3, and 4 AND requires no budget allocation).

In this system, I think a delegate can vote for any resolution with a score above 0 with a clear conscience. Of course, the higher the score, the better. I reserve the right to unilaterally reduce scores for resolutions that do not reflect the love of God or are otherwise patently objectionable, and will be transparent when I'm doing so.

A note: as usual I am speaking only for myself. Comments here may not reflect the opinions of the Episcopal Church of All Saints, its parishioners, clergy, or delegation. I myself am an alternate to Diocesan Convention and probably will not be voting on any of these resolutions.

What's going on in the Diocese of East Carolina?

In his address to the 2012 convention of the Diocese of South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, observed that South Carolina was one of only two dioceses in the entire denomination to grow its average Sunday attendance between 2005 and 2009, but then went on to say, "But before we raise a toast to ourselves or to our God for his blessing, I need to tell you this was in 2009. In 2010 we lost the largest parish in this Diocese."

Between 2000 and 2010, average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of South Carolina fell by about 5%. Who did better? Within the United States, only three dioceses - the Navajo missions, where attendance fell by 2.5%, the Diocese of Tennessee, where attendance fell by 3.9%, and the Diocese of East Carolina, where attendance fell by 1.3%. Check out your own diocese here (and weep).

In the world of double-digit attendance declines that characterizes most of mainline Protestantism, it looks like East Carolina is holding its ground. What's up?

The Diocese of East Carolina covers all of coastal North Carolina and portions of the center of the state. It contains no major metropolitan areas, but contains a few mid-size cities like Wilmington and Fayetteville. I contains a lot of military installations, most notably Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune. It contains the home of the Lumbee tribe of Native Americans, Robeson County, one of the most racially troubled places in the state. And it includes North Carolina's tourist coast.

I think I'm going to spend quite a bit of time on this topic, but I just want to bite off a few things today:

1. The Diocese of East Carolina faces the same challenges the rest of the church does. A perusal of the stats of the dioceses parishes show that the stability in attendance in the diocese is not uniform. Many parishes are holding steady; more are in decline. At the 2012 diocesan convention, the diocese voted to close eight parishes and put another four on notice.
2. In the great battles over sexuality, East Carolina is in the middle of the road. It is a truism that only the "conservative evangelical" churches are growing (see my friend John's blog for why I put that in scare quotes), but East Carolina is not noted for particular liberalism or conservatism. I'm not clear on how the Bishops of East Carolina voted on the rite to permit same sex blessings, but official statements on the diocesan web site are quite measured.
3. A few churches are seeing massive growth. And their profiles are very different. One is St. Andrew's, Morehead City. In 2000, the vestry of St. Andrew's voted to leave the Episcopal Church, splitting the congregation. Subsequent to the split, average Sunday attendance was about 40. Today it's 120. Another is Holy Cross, Wilmington, a church planted in 2005 that is already up to 120 at an average Sunday. And then, boy howdy, there's Sagrada Familia, Newton Grove, which serves close to 500 migrant farm workers every Sunday in the summer and recently started operating year round.
4. The diocesan organization travels light. The annual budget is around $1.2 million (it's a little more complex that that, but this simplification will do for now). Just for comparison, my home Diocese of Indianapolis has a budget more than double that. Two things to note -- East Carolina only pays about half its commitment to the national church -- about 10% of its budget; Indianapolis pays the full asking, 19% of its budget. Also, Indianapolis pays for all clergy health insurance at the diocesan level; in East Carolina, that's devolved to the parishes. Even accounting for that, Indianapolis spends more, and has only about 1/2 the Sunday attendance that East Carolina does.
5. Parish websites aren't so hot. Of the three growing parishes I noted, none have slick, well-updated web sites. Here's St. Andrew's Morehead City (they've got a pretty good Facebook page, though). Here's Holy Cross Wilmington. And um...Sagrada Familia? Not so much with the web over there. I don't know exactly how these places are doing evangelism, but let's just say I'm guessing they're not waiting for the people to come to them.
6. The Bishop is very direct. I don't know anything about Bishop Clifton Daniel, but I'll tell you this, he doesn't leave a lot to the imagination. Read his addresses to Diocesan Convention for 2011 and 2012. I dare you to tell me you don't get a pretty good idea of what's on his mind, and how he thinks parishes should respond to that.

There's been a lot of talk about pruning in Episcopal church circles these days (check out this great post from  Nurya Love Parish, who turned me on to the glories of the Episcopal Church's Office of Research. Or read almost anything from the Acts 8 Moment blog (and add them to your RSS feed)). But there's not yet a lot out there about how things are  growing. The Diocese of East Carolina is a case where the pruning and growth seem to be happening simultaneously. Let anyone with ears to hear listen (Mark 4:9).