This is the final part of my three-part essay on these matters. Part I discussed the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference that were considered in Louisville. Yesterday, I looked at the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer. Today, I explore the changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer at the 81st General Convention in Louisville and propose some ways to think about the future.

Article X

Another major development was the passage of a second reading to revise Article X of the Constitution, which is the section that establishes the Book of Common Prayer and describes the process of revision and amendment in Resolution A072. This is a subject about which I published a long article just before Convention began in which I argued against its passage. I will not repeat that article, except to summarize the three reasons why I thought the General Convention should carefully discern whether this was the best path forward.

The first reason was that I believe the new first sentence is both very “vague and open to a range of contradictory interpretations.”

The Book of Common Prayer is understood to be those liturgical forms and other texts authorized by the General Convention in accordance with this article and the Canons of this Church.

The Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision used the term The Book of Common Prayer to refer to a physical book (as it does now) and to a collection of texts that includes the rites in the physical book but also additional rites which the General Convention gives “prayer book status.” I continue to find the idea that the phrase “The Book of Common Prayer” can refer to a physical book and to a collection that may never be printed to be something that most clergy and laity will find confusing.

The generous interpretation (and one made by those who wanted to protect the conscience of the theological minority) was to have your cake (i.e., keep the 1979 prayer book intact) and eat it too (elevating the new marriage rites to “prayer book status,” on the assumption that there would not be new prayer books printed with the new marriage rites).

But here’s the rub: the way the new marriage rites are being added to the prayer book in Resolution A116 does not simply grant these rites “prayer book status.” Instead, it specifically revises the physical book with six separate references to specific pages in the prayer book where changes are to be made or texts inserted.

The question that I asked before Convention remains: What is the substantive change brought about by this revision to Article X? I have changed my interpretation of the first sentence. I have come to think that it does not change anything that is not already there in Article X. More than half of its concern is about how to revise and amend the prayer book. The General Convention was always free to do so and this revision doesn’t make it any more possible. Does this new language “free” us from the constraints of physical books? (I must admit I am a person who feels no desire for such liberation!) If the methods by which the new marriage rites are authorized are any indication of the future, it is unclear if the “prayer book status” proposal that is untethered from physical books will have any practical or conceptual purchase on how conventions will amend or add to the prayer book.

These questions deserve more focused consideration. The Living Church Foundation is already planning to host a conference on this very question where experts can engage with these and related questions and have a chance for public conversations about them. So, watch this space.

Further amendments of Article X

But this was not the end of the story with Article X. I was a member of the Legislative Committee on Constitution and Canons and it was our committee that discussed Resolution A072. Many shared some of my concerns and expressed others. In fact, there were enough questions that the co-chair suggested that a group of us craft further proposed revisions to Article X. This resolution, A224, along with Resolution B008, were debated and passed on the last afternoon at Convention and you can see the details of these debate in TLC’s coverage here. This table presents the two texts side-by-side:

This revision makes a number of clarifying changes:

• It removes two passive verbs (“is understood to be” and “is intended to be”).
• It combines the first three sentences into one sentence, removing the redundancy of “communal and devotional prayer” and “shall contain both public worship and private devotion” in the phrase.
• In addition to the defining the prayer book as “liturgical forms,” it adds the phrase “and other content,” since the prayer book contains more than just liturgical forms, such as Concerning the Services of the Church, the Calendar of the Church Year, the Psalter, and so forth.
• At the suggestion of the chancellor, the phrase “and other jurisdictions” was added in Sec. 1 and in Sec. 2 after the phrase “in all the Dioceses of this Church” simply to be more precise, since some parts of the church are not dioceses.

Memorialization

The other significant change is that it adds a new sentence to the end of Sec. 1: “Any Book of Common Prayer, or portions thereof, memorialized by the General Convention, is authorized for use at any service in all the Dioceses and other jurisdictions of this Church.” Identical language is also included in the set of additional canons created by Resolution B008.

Resolution 2018-A068 memorialized the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, in large part because of the impending addition of the new marriage rites to the prayer book and thus to assure the minority that it will continue to have access to the 1979 book as it now stands. But there are two sources of confusion with the term:

• First, memorialization remains an undefined term with no history. The first meeting of the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision spent the entire first day of our meeting debating this, and we never came to an agreement.
• Second, once the new marriage rites are added, the revised book might still be called the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, which will then raise the question, Which version of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is memorialized?

The insertion of this into the constitution and canons is a great service to the Episcopal Church because it clearly answers the question about what memorialization means. Resolution 2018-A068 already gives a clear sense of the intended meaning of the term: the fourth resolve memorializes the 1979 prayer book “ensuring its continued use.” This plain meaning is giving a legal expression in this sentence: “Any Book of Common Prayer, or portions thereof, memorialized by the General Convention, is authorized for use at any service in all the Dioceses and other jurisdictions of this Church.”

Changes to the Canons

Resolution B008, Amend Canon II.3.6.a and II.4 to clarify authorization of liturgies

The last signification action about liturgy at this Convention was the adoption of B008, which revised Canon II.3.6 and created a new Canon II.4.

The significant change in Canon II.3.6 was the clarification of one of the vague features of Resolution A072 that revised Article X. The new Sec. 3 in Article X introduces this sentence:

No alteration thereof or addition thereto shall be made unless it has previously been authorized for Trial Use in accordance with this Article and the Canons of this Church.

Our committee did not agree on what this sentence means. Does it mean that a text needs to be authorized for Trial Use first, and only later at some subsequent General Convention be approved for a First and then a Second Reading? Or is the authorization of something for Trial Use the same thing as the First Reading? Since the adoption of the 1979 prayer book, when revising the calendar to add new saints, the General Convention has often passed the revision as a Trial Use and it functioned as First Reading. Many of us assumed that because this is a new sentence was added to Article X, the intention is to introduction a change to the current practice. But the problem is, it’s not clear either way.

This was solved by the addition of Canon II.3.6.b, which states that any liturgy that the convention wishes to add to the prayer book the period of Trial Use must precede the first reading. In other words, three different conventions must act: Trial use + First Reading + Second Reading.

The second change enacted by this resolution was to bring an enormous degree of clarity to the texts that are authorized in addition to the prayer book. The SCLM wrote a number of years back that we as a church had been “working without a canonical net” (see more about this in my piece before the 80th General Convention). As strange as it may sound, the Constitution and Canons did not provide clear direction about authorizing texts beyond the Prayer Book and trial use. Texts like The Book of Occasional Services and Enriching our Worship were in an uneasy liturgical limbo. We took a first step at the last Convention in 2022, when a new section was added to Article X, allowing us to “Authorize for use throughout this Church, as provided by Canon, alternative and additional liturgies to supplement those provided in the Book of Common Prayer.” But as of yet, there are no such canons.

These new canons outline the four self-evident categories of texts we use:

• The Book of Common Prayer
• Trial Use rites
• Texts that are alternatives to what in the Prayer Book (like Enriching our Worship 1 and the expansive versions of the Rite II eucharistic prayers)
• And texts that supplement the Prayer Book, The Book of Occasional Services and Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

These new canons state that “Each liturgical text beyond those provided in the Book of Common Prayer or trial use as approved by the General Convention will be designated as either a Supplemental Liturgical Resource (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority) or an Alternative Liturgical Resource (requiring permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority).”

The canons also clearly state that if a text is authorized as either Supplemental Liturgical Resource or an Alternative Liturgical Resource, this is not trial use. “If at such time as a previously approved Supplemental or Alternative Liturgical Resource authorized by act of General Convention under this canon is to be considered for trial use, said liturgy must be brought to the General Convention to begin the process for trial use approval as defined by the Constitution and Canons of this church.”

In order to make sure that all authorized rites are available to the whole church, the new canons specify that “Before their approval by the General Convention, all liturgies authorized pursuant to this canon shall be translated by the proper authorities into English, Spanish, French, and Haitian Kreyol, following the principles of dynamic equivalence.” This effectively means that all proposed liturgies need to come to the SCLM, which is the body with the authority and the resources to enable such translations.

For the first time, the canons now state that the General Convention can authorize a Book of Occasional Services and that it is a Supplemental Liturgical Resource (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority). The canons also now specify that the Convention can authorize “Propers for the celebration of lesser feasts and fasts, as well as a lectionary for the daily celebration of the Holy Eucharist authorized for optional use throughout this Church.” Further, they state that “An Alternate Psalter may be authorized by resolution at the General Convention for study and occasional use in The Episcopal Church with the approval of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.”

Three more key changes are here.

First, as I already noted, the definition of memorialization is now in the canons, the same sentence as in the proposed revision to Article X in Resolution A224. Further clarity is introduced, however, in a second sentence: “The content of any memorialized Book is understood to be the version in use at the time of memorialization.” This means that the prayer book that was memorialized by the 2018 General Convention is the 1979 prayer book as last amended in 2015 (this is because resolutions of Convention do not take effect until the first Sunday of Advent following the convention).

Second, there is now canonical permission for older prayer books to be authorized by the bishop: “The liturgies from any other Book of Common Prayer that has been authorized previously by the authority in this Church shall be available for use for Sunday worship and for other occasions with the permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.” While Resolution 2000-B042 permitted “the texts of the Daily Offices and Holy Communion contained in the 1928 edition of The Book of Common Prayer [to] remain available for occasional use under the ecclesiastical authority subject to the guidelines for supplemental liturgical materials,” this now standardizes this permission, allowing for the use of any older prayer book with the bishop’s permission.

Third, the canons tighten up the use of the Rite III, “An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist” on pages 400-05 of the prayer book. It specifies that any use of this order “for seasonal use on Sunday” can only occur if “it has been submitted to and received advance approval in writing from the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.”

As hard as it may be to believe, there were not canons on any of these matters before 2024. But we can be grateful for never later than never.

Conclusion

There is much to commend and even cause for rejoicing after this convention. Although the Task Force on Communion Across Difference was not renewed, legal protections for the minority were enacted:

• A protection in Canon III.1 of those who hold to a traditional view on marriage is protected in the discernment process and in “any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained” enabled by Resolution A092.
• A protection of the consciences of bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage, which were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012, were inserted into Canons I.19.3 and III.12.3.a, as enabled by Resolution A093.
• A retention of the current marriage rite, including its traditional definition of Christian marriage as “a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God,” in the Book of Common Prayer.

These acts make it absolutely clear that the Episcopal Church has recognized that it has two teachings on marriage and has acted accordingly.

We now have a clear definition of memorialization in the canons, and maybe after 2027, in the Constitution as well: “authorized for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.”

We have clarity that Trial Use must precede a first reading of any amendment or addition to the prayer book, and we have clarity about liturgies beyond the prayer book, whether they require the bishop’s permission or not. Furthermore, the presiding officers were directed to create a working group with Resolution A223, whose purpose is to “review the Canons and any questions relevant to the implementation of the revised Article X; and propose as needed legislation for consideration at the 82nd General Convention.” Presumably, this will also provide direction about texts that have already been authorized by the General Convention but have not been designated as Supplemental Liturgical Resources (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority) or Alternative Liturgical Resources (requiring permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority). The simplest solution would be to create a single resolution that lists all these texts and assigns them to one category or the other.

What remains is for further work on the meaning of the revised Article X. The Living Church Foundation is already planning to host a conference on this very question, where experts can engage with these and related questions and have a chance for public conversations about them.

It also remains to be seen if the Episcopal Church really is committed to Communion Across Difference. Will the clarity about two teachings remain an ambiguity with which we are willing to live for the foreseeable future? The recent chaos in the Church of England about same-sex blessings in Living in Love and Faith is still another reminder about how essential it is for a careful consideration to be made for a minority, even as that position remains that of most of the Anglican Communion and the rest of the Christian world.

It is impossible to know how our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will look back on this period in the church’s life. But regardless of where we stand, it is essential that we hold in tension the seriousness of our theological commitments with a posture of true charity toward those with whom we disagree and refuse to unchurch each other, no matter how difficult this may be.

My experience in Louisville was of unexpected gifts of encouragement, charity, and real bonds in Jesus Christ, despite our substantive differences. It is my prayer that our Lord Jesus might “reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross” such that we “are no longer strangers and aliens” but “citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.”

This second part of my three-part essay on these matters begins the conversation about the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer. Yesterday’s article explored the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference, which were considered Louisville. Tomorrow’s Part III will look at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and proposes some ways to think about the future.

Same-sex Marriage

The action that most directly concerns Communion Across Difference was the adoption of a first reading of Resolution A116, the addition of same-sex marriage rites to the prayer book. It was clear from the 80th General Convention that this would happen in Louisville, so this was no surprise. The 2027 convention will need to pass this revision on a second reading in order for it to become part of the prayer book, the same two-convention action that is required for revisions to the church’s Constitution.

But the manner of the addition raises important considerations about some of the resolutions that I just discussed and with the amendment of Article X, which I’ll discuss shortly.

The version of Resolution A116 that was proposed by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) was much simpler than what ultimately passed. The original version was just two sentences:

That the Rites for The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, as authorized for trial use by the 79th General Convention, be included in the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further

Resolved, That the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, having been memorialized as the Prayer Book of this church, (2018–A068), shall remain accessible to our members and our mission.

This was revised for two reasons by the Legislative Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy, and Music. First, the second resolve was removed for the same reason that Resolution A090 from the task force did not make it to the floor, namely, that it was deemed redundant since the 1979 prayer book is already authorized.

The second reason was that the original resolution left it unclear whether it was replacing the current marriage rite. If not, would the new rite be appended to the end of the prayer book as it now stands, or incorporated? The final version of Resolution A116 is much more specific and answers these questions definitively. The new marriages rites will be added to the prayer book in addition to the rite that is already present and will be inserted just after the current rite. A sibling resolution, A160, revises the brief section, “What is Holy Matrimony?” in the Catechism of the 1979 prayer book as follows, replacing “the woman and the man” with “two people” and then adding a second question:

There are a couple of items to note. First, this is the most surgical revision of the prayer book since 1979. The previous revisions were to add or remove persons from the Calendar or to revise the lessons in the Holy Week liturgies so that they conformed to the Revised Common Lectionary, which replaced the prayer book lectionary in 2006 (though the 2012 convention added permission to allow the use of the older lectionary with ecclesiastical permission). Here, many small revisions are made at various points and a whole new rite is added into the prayer book such that the rest of the prayer book will be repaginated (unless some other solution is found).

Second, one of the revisions that was not made was to the theological definition of marriage in the current marriage rite. This sentence remains: “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God” (1979 BCP, p. 422). Even more interesting is that the new marriages rites, now titled “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage II,” have no parallel sentence. Thus, the catechism would articulate the teaching expressed in the second marriage rite, while the above-quoted sentence in “Concerning the Service” of the first marriage rite articulates a traditional teaching on marriage.

Two Teachings on Marriage

The language used in the resolutions authorizing the task forces on Communion Across Difference speaks of “the indispensable place that the minority who hold to this Church’s historic teaching on marriage have in our common life, whose witness our Church needs.” The word “teaching” is quite important. In many and various ways, the 81st General Convention made it clear, not only in resolutions, but for the first time in the canons and the prayer book, that this church has two teachings on marriage, which leads to:

• The protection in Canon III.1 of those who hold to a traditional view on marriage is protected in the discernment process and in “any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained” enabled by Resolution A092.
• The protection of the consciences of bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage that were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012 inserted into Canons I.19.3 and III.12.3.a enable by Resolution A093.
• The retention of the current marriage rite, including its traditional definition of Christian marriage as “a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God,” in the Book of Common Prayer.

What this means for those who identify with the Communion Partner movement is this: the Episcopal Church has said there is a place for those who hold to the traditional teaching on marriage. Such views on marriage should play no role in discernment about ordination or deployment. Bishops with this view are required to delegate episcopal oversight for all actions related to same-sex marriage in order to protect their conscience in the exercise of their specifically episcopal ministry.

I have no doubt that this may not be enough for some who hold the traditional view — though I would say that if you are still in the Episcopal Church, this a big step toward inclusion of this minority position. This is why, in addition to some of the experiences that I recounted that were not limited to me, many who hold these traditional views “whispered to each other that they had never left a Convention feeling this heartened or this welcome” (as TLC said in its recent editorial).

Tomorrow’s Part III will look at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and propose some ways to think about the future.

This article is being published in three parts. Part I looks at the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference, which were considered by the 81st General Convention; Part II begins the conversation about the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer; Part III looks at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and proposes some ways to think about the future.

Introduction

The 81st General Convention is Louisville may well turn out to be the beginning of a sea change in a whole host of ways. One of the most obvious of these changes was that the baton was passed to a new generation of leaders. Three of the four elected officials of the two houses are under the age of 50 — Presiding Bishop-elect, Sean Rowe, is 49; President of the House of Deputies, Julia Ayala Harris, is 43; Vice President of the House of Deputies, Steve Pankey, is 44. Many prominent leaders of the older generation who spoke to an issue in the House of Deputies found their position rejected by that House or were not elected or appointed to position of authority.

Sean Rowe was not only a full-decade younger than any of the other candidates. He was a bishop longer than each of them and could theoretically be elected to a second, nine-year term and still have five years before mandatory retirement. He was clear that, if elected, he would undertake serious changes to the church’s structure and he reiterated this in his remarks to the House of Deputies on June 28, just after his election. But in so doing, he also called for “relational jubilee in which we can let go of the resentment, anger, and grudges that have weakened our leadership in this church” and spoke repeatedly not only of Jesus, but of Jesus Christ and the gospel.

Another striking feature was the location of conflict and differences. Despite the efforts of some leaders, there are still clergy and laity in the church who maintain a traditional position on the issues de jure, and they are often associated with the Communion Partners (both in the Episcopal Church and in Canada). There were almost no floor debates between liberals and conservatives for the first time in decades. The conflicts, rather, were between those in the majority.

There were two issues around which there was a great deal of work, writing, caucusing, and floor debates: issues related to Communion Across Difference and prayer book and liturgical matters. These are topics about which The Living Church and Covenant have published a great deal and which I have committed much time, effort, and writing, including at this convention as a deputy and member of Legislative Committee #2 on Constitution and Canons.

I want to lay out what took place in Louisville, both for those who are still understandably a bit confused and for posterity, as these matters will not be going away. As we will see, these issues overlap in some important ways.

Part I: Communion Across Difference

The Communion Across Difference task forces were established first in 2018 and renewed in 2022 with equal representation by members who hold that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, as described in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and those who support the definition established at the 2018 General Convention that marriage is a covenant between two people. (Former TLC Executive Director Christopher Wells was a member of the first task force and TLC Editor-in-Chief Mark Michael was a member of the second. Both support the traditional definition of marriage.) The purpose of this work was to foster “mutual flourishing” between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage and to work to establish structures and practices that would make this so (see here for TLC’s coverage of the debates about Communion Across Difference in Louisville, from which this first paragraph was drawn). The task force’s work was profiled in a recent episode of The Living Church Podcast.

The task force unanimously proposed five resolutions to this Convention. The House of Bishops passed them all by wide margins, after which they came to the House of Deputies on June 27.

In what follows, I walk through each of the resolutions and describe how they were engaged by the Convention and their implications.

Resolution A090, Authorization of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer

The first resolution from the Task Force was a brief proposal to authorize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer for continued use by adding this sentence to the Canons: “The Book of Common Prayer as accepted by the General Convention of this Church in 1979 is authorized for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.” This resolution, however, never made it out of committee because it was judged to be redundant, as the prayer book is already authorized. As we will see, the intended effect that this canonical addition would have enabled was accomplished in two other acts of Convention: Resolution B008 and Resolution A224.

Resolution A091, Definition of doctrine

This resolution passed nearly unanimously in the House of Bishops, but debate in the House of Deputies made it clear that the meaning and effect of the resolution was not understood. The purpose of the resolution was quite narrow and specific: to ensure that either view on the nature of marriage could never be the basis of a Title IV charge. That’s it. The resolution attempted to do this by adding this sentence to the definition of doctrine in Title IV: “For the purposes of this canon, the Book of Common Prayer and any Book of Common Prayer memorialized by General Convention are understood as sufficient statements of the doctrine of this Church.” The key phrase is “for the purposes of this canon.” There is a list of nine items from which clergy are to refrain, and the second is “holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any Doctrine contrary to that held by the Church” (Canon IV.4.1(h)1). Because the new marriage rites for same-sex couples will be added to the prayer book alongside the current marriage rites (assuming they are approved on a second reading in 2027, which is a near certainty), this change was a way of stating that the Episcopal Church has two teachings on marriage and this resolution’s intention was to specify this when it came to discipline.

Some asked whether such a protection is even necessary. But as TLC reported, a group of younger clerics from dioceses across the church who hold a traditional teaching on marriage all had Title IV charges filed against them on the same day. While the allegation was that a Discord group of which they were a part of violated Safe Church guidelines (which it did not), it was clear that the motivation of the charges was their view on marriage.

When it came time to debate the resolution, as TLC also reported, there were only a few deputies who testified for and against the proposal (all seemingly in support of same-sex marriage), after which there was a call for a vote by orders. It was narrowly defeated in both orders.

I was disappointed that the Deputies did not pass this protection, but there are a few mitigating factors for those who desire a protected canonical space for those who hold the minority, traditional teaching on marriage. First, the next two resolutions that did pass provide similar sorts of protections. Second, Resolution B008 and Resolution A224 both provide a definition of the term “memorialization” (a heretofore undefined term first introduced in 2018 in Resolution A068) which “authorized [the 1979 Book of Common Prayer] for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.” The clear implication of this is that if a liturgy expresses a theological position, a cleric could not be in violation of the disciplinary canons for holding said position (in this case, that Christian marriage can only be between a man and a woman).

The next two resolutions were both passed by the House of Deputies but, as with the others, not without debate.

Resolution A092, Access to ordination and deployment

This resolution adds the following sections to Canon III.1:

Sec 3. No person shall be denied access to the discernment process or to any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two people. No right to employment, licensing, ordination, call, deployment, or election is hereby established. In dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) is unable, for reasons of conscientiously-held theological belief, to ordain a person who holds one of the above-named theological beliefs, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) shall invite another bishop of this Church to provide access to the discernment process for ordination.

Sec. 4. No priest or deacon shall be denied licensure or canonical residence in any diocese of this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two persons. No right to canonical residence or licensing is hereby established.

Like the resolution about doctrine, the intention was to take one’s view of marriage off the table regarding the discernment process, employment, licensing, etc. Again, there was a call for a vote by orders, but this time it was approved.

Resolution A093, Add provisions of 2018-B012 to canons

The fourth resolution from the task force enshrined in the canons (I.19.3 and III.12.3.a) a series of conscience protections for bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage that were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012 (see the TLC story on B012 from 2018). This was a complex and controversial resolution that was understood to be a compromise. On the one hand, it meant that a diocesan bishop could not forbid the use of same-sex rites within the diocese — the decision was in the hands of the rector. Ecclesiologically, it is important to note, this is a “presbyterian,” not “episcopalian,” approach to doctrine and order. On the other hand, it requires a diocesan bishop with reservations about same-sex marriage to delegate episcopal oversight to another bishop (this could be accomplished through DEPO, but that is not required). This resolution directs that this is to happen both in the case of parishes where there is a desire for a same-sex marriage and when episcopal consent is required for remarriage after divorce for same-sex couples. Thus, through a rather untraditional approach to episcopal authority, the bishop with a traditional view is permitted to maintain episcopal integrity by not functioning as the chief pastor for a rite that expresses a theological belief that the bishop cannot espouse.

Resolution A094, Communion Across Difference

The final resolution sought to renew the Task Force on Communion Across Difference for a third triennium, which would

seek to build on the Blue Book reports of the previous two triennia, continuing to seek a lasting path forward for mutual flourishing consistent with this Church’s polity and the 2015 “Communion across Difference” statement of the House of Bishops, affirming (1) the clear decision of General Convention that Christian marriage is a covenant open to two people of the same sex or of the opposite sex, (2) General Convention’s firm commitment to make provision for all couples asking to be married in this Church to have access to authorized liturgies; and also affirming (3) the indispensable place that the minority who hold to this Church’s historic teaching on marriage have in our common life, whose witness our Church needs.”

This sticking point was Sec. VII of the joint rules of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses to continue a task force beyond a single triennium. It seems that on this basis, the Legislative Committee on Governance and Structure recommended that the Convention Take No Further Action and placed it on the consent calendar. A group of deputies in favor of same-sex marriage but who nonetheless are deeply committed to the work of Communion Across Difference petitioned to remove the resolution from the consent calendar, which it was. Nonetheless, it was debated briefly and defeated in the House of Deputies.

While this too was disappointing, I again take consolation for a number of reasons. First, the number of people who I had never met but who came up to me during Convention to tell me that they were supportive of Communion Across Difference, that they wanted people with a traditional view on marriage in the Episcopal Church, and who were grateful for the work of The Living Church astounded me. A progressive friend who served on Constitution and Canons with me was asked by another deputy, “Why are you working with Matthew Olver?” “Because,” she replied, “in addition to being a committed Christian, he’s kind, he comes prepared, his contributions are clear and make sense, and he is concerned that our language is clear and precise. Wouldn’t you want to work with someone like that?” This kind of affection was never in short supply, and it was a gift every time.

Second, the work of Communion Across Difference does not require the General Convention. In fact, I think this is an opportunity to model the kind of reform that the Presiding Bishop-elect, Sean Rowe, has indicated are major priorities for him. “We spent years resisting the change that was forced on us, wishing things would go back to being the way they had been,” he said in his inaugural speech to the House of Deputies. “It’s time to reorient our churchwide resources — budgets and staff — to support dioceses, congregations on the ground where ministry happens. To build on what dioceses and diocesan partnerships already do better than the churchwide structure and use churchwide resources to strengthen those ministries. We must reform our structure and governance so that our essential polity, in which laypeople, clergy and bishops — all of us together — share authority, does not collapse under its own weight.”

The Living Church is already in conversations with some other key organizations and leaders to continue the work of Communion Across Difference. Not only can we continue an essential task that is necessary in these fractured times when some of our disagreements are substantive. We also can model to the church how we can do this work (a) without the bureaucracy of a task force and (b) without any strain on the national budget. Such a group can issue a Blue Book-like report, and those members who will participate in the 82nd General Convention in 2027 can, along with other friends, propose resolutions, just as task forces do.

We stand ready to model a new way forward: one that does not require us to compromise while attempting to maintain the highest degree of communion possible, and at the same time, provide a clear model to reform our structures and our spending.

Tomorrow’s essay continues the conversation and explores the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer and the ways the General Convention made it clear that the Episcopal Church has two teachings on marriage.

I’ll never forget the excitement and energy in the room after Rowe’s election was confirmed by the House of Deputies, and he was welcomed warmly onto the floor by Julia Ayala Harris, the deputies’ president. After his initial comments of thanksgiving, he reflected on his history of growing up in a family, a region, and in industries that absorbed massive changes. Many of them were forced to change or, in the case of businesses, close completely. In some cases, the crisis in his part of the rust belt yielded a resolute desire to change precisely for the sake of preserving and transmitting filial love and friendship, a passion that translated quite naturally into Rowe’s ecclesial laboratory, in which he has led others in an “experiment for the sake of the gospel.” Rowe’s story relates remarkably well to the existential crisis that is manifestly present amid various challenges and changes before us as Episcopalians. Indeed, this, in addition to his manifold talents, likely played no small part in why he was elected on a first ballot — thanks be to God for how the Holy Spirit worked in the House of Bishops. But this same God is “calling us more deeply into the unknown,” Rowe was quick to affirm.

What might this unknown reality look like, and what clues might we take from his words at General Convention?

Rowe’s address to the Convention flagged how it is possible to be both resilient and resistant to the changes that are needed for flourishing and long-term viability. Let the reader understand. He is clear to affirm his bona fides as a Michael Curry Episcopalian who wants to talk about Jesus, and who is grateful for the threefold platform of creation care, evangelism, and racial reconciliation. Rowe already embodies a leadership that is at once born of a commitment to the gospel and open to aligning institutional realities to the needs of the moment (and the future).

However, if we want a roadmap of his vision, then we can look to his remainder of his address to the deputies, in which he outlined three modes of change and renewal: structures, budgets, and relationships. The degree to which this vision is nascent or fully baked in his mind is unclear, but we have reason to believe Rowe is ahead of the curve, and has deeply considered (more than most) the changes that are necessary for our future. He has stared into the abyss of our problems, and has stepped forward as a priest, a bishop, and a leader whose track record indicates he is up to the challenge, by God’s grace. How are we to understand the necessary changes in these three areas, and does Rowe give us any clues?

“We must reform our structure and governance so that our essential polity, in which laypeople, clergy, and bishops — all of us together — share authority, does not collapse under its own weight,” Rowe said. In other words, Rowe called for fidelity to our polity while urging flexibility within our structures, “leaving room for the Spirit to work among us in this next triennium.” Rowe envisions this as a matter of faithfulness to the gospel of Christ, for as he noted in his homily at the Eucharist, we have an “idolatry of structures and practices that exclude and diminish our witness.” We may expect streamlining of committees and interim bodies, and a stronger commitment to the governing principle of subsidiarity in our church.

“It’s time to reorient our churchwide resources — budgets and staff — to support dioceses, congregations on the ground where ministry happens,” Rowe said, “to build on what dioceses and diocesan partnerships already do better than the churchwide structure and use churchwide resources to strengthen those ministries.” Rowe believes it was good that both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops rejected C008 (a call to lower diocesan assessments to 10%), perhaps because more spaciousness is necessary for the conversation to be fruitful. Rowe clearly desires a premeditated plan before such a change is imposed upon the fiscal commitments of our denomination, many of which have significant ethical import. Nevertheless, we can expect to see him trimming the fat of unnecessary expenditures, as we have already seen in capsule form with his service of installation.

We must commit to creating a Beloved Community in which we can disagree without shaming or blaming or tearing each other apart. And here’s an idea: let’s use our anger at injustice instead of turning it inward and our desire to bring about God’s realm to forge a strong and respectful community of leaders. It might be nice if we took one more step toward behaving as if Jesus’ teachings of forgiveness and reconciliation are not just words, but the way we order our lives and our relationships with one another.

This was not a throwaway comment, as Rowe shared a very similar notion in his homily at the closing Eucharist: “And we must learn to have hard conversations with each other, with love and respect, so that we’re all pulling in the same direction: the transformation of the world by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.“

This third programmatic commitment was the most compelling for me to hear, and I believe it is the most foundational of Rowe’s overall vision. We will not reform our structures or our budgets without making significant headway in the reformation of our relationships. We have so far to go in learning to truly listen to one another in our denomination, to say nothing of our political situation in the United States. But imagine, what if our church actually decided to lead the way as an expression of the reconciling love of Christ we are so quick to reference in our gatherings?  Conservatives have often been too reactionary. Liberals have failed at points to truly understand those of a traditional mindset.

There are many kinds of fundamentalists, and they exist across the ideological spectrum. Even — and especially — our labels fail to capture the nuance and complexity that lies at the heart of each person. As Walt Whitman wrote, “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes).” The Episcopal Church contains multitudes and contradictions, and I love it. However, our call is for the Church to embody something deeper and more interesting and faithful than the political and organizational cultures around it. Yet, we are all complicit in the sin of division and factionalism, of taking our organizational marching orders from the larger culture, and we desperately need to press the reset button. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

It was refreshing then to hear Rowe elaborate on this third mode of change by calling for a “relational jubilee,” which would cut across so many of our conversations. He said:

I ask you to think of the time between now and November when I take office as a kind of relational jubilee in which we can let go of the resentment, anger, and grudges that have weakened our leadership in this church in these pandemic and post-pandemic years. Too often the way we have behaved toward one another has not been a witness to the power of the Good News of God in Christ, and it has torn relationships and wasted capacity that we need for the work ahead. Sometimes I think we’ve been acting a little like churches that Paul writes about. We all profess the same faith and we are all bound by the same Baptismal Covenant, and I hope that where we are divided, we can find the courage to forgive one another and begin again. Start over for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Rowe is calling for the church to be the church, and for us to refuse to fracture along the same ideological fault lines of surrounding institutions. Even though the Communion Across Difference task force was not renewed, the posture Rowe embodied and the language he used called forth this very idea. If, as one bishop said, “The brand of the Episcopal Church should be Communion Across Difference,” then we have a Presiding Bishop-elect for whom this appears to be a programmatic commitment and a relational way of being.

Many years ago, in another part of our Anglican world, an American news reporter once had the following conversation with Archbishop Michael Ramsey:

Q: Have you said your prayers this morning?

R: Yes.

Q: What did you say in your prayers?

R: I talked to God.

Q: How long did you talk to God?

R: I talked to God for one minute. But it took me 29 minutes to get there.

It has taken us a while to get here. Rowe served on the Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church (otherwise known as TREC), whose recommendations were reported to General Convention in 2015, and largely ignored. In electing Rowe, it seems we are finally ready to have the conversation we set out on having. If it took us a little longer to have it than we expected, let’s simply give thanks for a Presiding Bishop -elect who is ready and well-formed to lead us into this unknown reality. If you are looking for a roadmap for Rowe’s tenure, it appears these three commitments will form it — reform structures, reform budgets, and reform relationships, all for the sake of the gospel. This sounds like good news.

A couple of months ago, I did an interview with Presiding Bishop [Michael] Curry, sort of an exit interview, and I’ll start with the same question I started with him. He talked about each Presiding Bishop being chosen for their time. Bishop Katharine [Jefferts Schori] had to be the Iron Lady. The church was kind of at war, with the schism. Bishop Curry had the opportunity to refocus more on Jesus and evangelism and beloved community. My thought about the next presiding bishop has been that part of the work is going to be to help the church gracefully decline. Because I don’t think the numbers are going to turn around.

I think what the next Presiding Bishop is going to do …

That’s you, by the way.

[Laughs] That’s right, yes. I think the goal is going to be to help us take these values that we’ve identified, these priorities that we’ve identified — evangelism, creation care, racial reconciliation, and others we’ll identify — and to operationalize them for our time.

So, yes, the church is in decline, in terms of our numbers. Given the hand we’re dealt, given the situation as it is, given the state of Christianity, given the demographics of our various regions — how do we most effectively participate in this mission that we’ve called ourselves to? I don’t know if it’s about helping us to decline gracefully, as much as it is to rethink the whole enterprise, particularly the way that we do it.

Is the church going to be larger or smaller by the time you’re done leading the show?

All trends point to a smaller church, at least in the next decade. I think my particular role is to help us reposition. We think about strategic planning. So we’re looking at the external factors that are at play, we’re looking at what we’re dealing with internally, and we’re saying, how do we reposition the organization to best take advantage of that?

And I think it’s going to be leaner. It’s going to be smaller, at least in the short term. There’s no question about that. The question for me more is, can we get to a level, to a greater level of effectiveness, and can we lay the groundwork in which to grow? But that doesn’t happen overnight. We’re talking about a multi-decade process here of rethinking, to use an old term, how we prosecute the mission of the church.

You’ve talked a couple of times about coming from a family of steel workers in Western New York. Now in addition to being the head of the Episcopal Church, you’re going to be one of the most prominent primates in the global Anglican Communion. What is that aspect of the job going to look like for you?

In light of my background, you mean?

I’m saying, you come from steelworkers, and then you’re going to be in Lambeth Palace. And dealing with primates with different views from other places.

What I learned from my roots is how to be in relationship with people who are very different, who are speaking very directly, but also who are ultimately practical. I think one of the strengths I’ll bring is a kind of pragmatism and an ability to get along with most people.

One of the great joys of the General Convention work I’ve done over all these years is the kind of negotiation that takes place, the kind of give and take and the mutual discernment that happens. Sometimes it’s very hard, and sometimes there is a high level of conflict, and sometimes it’s very uncomfortable. Often I don’t agree. But some of my closest colleagues in the church are people that I really have fundamental differences with about the polity of this church — but whom I’ve been able to work with and have a high level of respect.

In terms of the worldwide Anglican Communion, I think I have a lot to learn about what to do and how that will all work. But I think I’m going to bring the kind of common sense and resilience that comes out of that background to this work. I’ll listen to people who know more than I do, which is probably most people when it comes to that area.

Rowe was a member of the Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church (TREC), as was President of the House of Deputies Julia Ayala Harris. In 2014, TREC released a 73-page report proposing sweeping changes in the governance of the church, including dramatic reductions to the size of General Convention and Executive Council. Virtually none of the changes were adopted.

Talk a little bit about TREC and that experience, and what that might do to inform what you do in the next nine years.

I try to have a sense of humor about my time on TREC. I actually enjoyed it. The people there were tremendous, there was tremendous creativity and commitment to the church there. But we weren’t ready then. We thought we were, and we just weren’t ready. We got to Utah in 2015 and it was clear that we were going to be able to make very modest movement.

That said, what I think TREC did was plant the seeds for what is now coming into being. I think there’s a greater awareness of the kind of change that is going to be necessary. I think that some of it is already under way. I think we’re seeing it. I think that much of what we talk about in TREC is going to come back around to us now, and I think this is actually the time of reckoning. And part of the strength that I will bring to this role is understanding how this institution works, the General Convention, how we legislate, how we do business, and the art of working with these two houses to make things happen.

In one of the discussions about the assessments, there was language about keeping the weak dioceses alive. Is that a worthy goal?

By itself, is that a worthy goal? No. I think that what is worthy of our time and attention is, what is the best missional approach? If you just think our job is to keep the weak dioceses alive, what you may be saying is that we have a system that doesn’t work, and we just want to double down on that and prop it up. What I’m suggesting is that it’s possible that we need an entirely different system.

Of course, it’s important to invest in and support the weakest among us. But that doesn’t mean investing in keeping structures that are part of the reason we’re in the predicament that we’re in, because that doesn’t make sense, right? Why would we want to do that? Why wouldn’t we want to create strength?

How are things going with your two dioceses in terms of their working together? I interviewed you five years ago about the two dioceses, and you told me the purpose of it isn’t to merge. It’s to use resources more effectively. You talked about it being a five-year experiment. Where are we with that?

That experiment is in its final year. Given COVID, we extended it for 18 months, but it’s now being evaluated. We brought evaluators in from the outside to look at all the goals that we set at the beginning. There’ll be a report in the spring to the standing committees, and then the standing committees will decide what to recommend.

So it could be, we want to continue what we’re doing. It could be, we want to continue what we’re doing with these modifications. It could be we’re going to go our separate ways. That process is now under way, and there will be a vote in October of 2025 about its future.

Merger is just one of the many options. There’s nothing that keeps dioceses from working together, creating economies of scale. That should be happening, and it isn’t at the level it needs to be.

You talked about your work with General Convention over the years. There’s a debate going on: “General Convention is too big” — but “don’t you dare make it smaller. We need to give the voices their opportunity to be here.” Do you see making significant changes to the structure of General Convention?

I think it has to be on the table. And I will want to work with the president to put these matters on the table and see how we can reimagine what we’re doing. Yes, I see significant changes. I think we want to run different scenarios. What could it look like? How could it be different? Maybe it needs to be smaller. Maybe not. I don’t know if I want to start with how big it should be or how small. I think I want to start with, what are we trying to do? What do we want to accomplish? And what’s the best way to do that now?

Anything else you would like the readers of The Living Church to know?

I do want to make clear: I talk a lot about organizational structure. I talk a lot about budgets, strategy — but it’s all in the service of the gospel. If we don’t get the vehicle working, you can have all the values and all the high aspirations you want, but if the vehicle can’t get us there, what good is it?