ISSUES

2006

FRIDAY JUNE 16

Some background on D-030 (Repentance of Institutional Prejudice and Injustice)

In a discussion at a Vestry Meeting at the Cathedral Center of Saint Paul – Los Angeles some frustration was articulated that the Windsor Report failed to deal with what we believed to be the real issue. We had identified the issue to be much larger than sexuality and that is was in fact about oppression.

We understood that the parts of the Communion were asking our Church to express regret or to repent. We also understood that there was good reason for us to repent, but not for the actions of the 74th General Convention. We attempted to take an honest look at where we were culpable. Resolution D-030 is an expression of our responsibility.

We know that the Book of Common Prayer provides a path in the Reconciliation Rite. If one repents, they are then called to show amendment of life. We suggest that the amendment of life is to then stand will all who are oppressed. A number of other resolutions presented here at Convention will give us the opportunity to do just that.

I must share that our Vestry is made up of three linguistic communities (Spanish, English and Korean) – all of which are represented on our Vestry. During the meeting where this resolution was perfected and adopted, all three languages were going back and forth. My former Senior Warden, at one point, shouted out in Spanish “I will not put myself in a situation where 15 years from now I have to repent for being silent today.”

Our plan, now at this General Convention is to add the words “In response to the Windsor Report” near the beginning of the resolution.

Ernesto Medina

An Early Thank you and Goodbye

Mike Shirley has been on the staff of ISSUES for longer than he wants to remember, in recent years as Managing Editor. As I prepare this issue, my first in that job, I want to express thanks to Mike for all he has done, for the help he has given me in starting up, and for the inspiration of his example. As we make the shift there will probably be some glitches, I beg your indulgence and your suggestions, to say nothing of your contributions.

A note about distribution: Since someone has ruled that there is to be no distribution under any roof at the convention center, we have been forced to place stacks of copies in likely locations and to count on your seeking them out. Consultation booth workers are encouraged to carry a supply of copies and to give them to the people they meet around the center.

Baptismal Authority and the Balance of Power

What authority in the church comes from the grassroots? What role do lay people and clergy other than bishops have in the governance of the church, both in this province and in the Communion? What limits are there to power of a bishop? These are key questions in play at this General Convention, and they need to be answered before Convention tries to deal with the Windsor Report.

As other parts of the Anglican Communion seek to influence the actions of General Convention – usually by speaking only to the bishops – it is good to remember that the Episcopal Church operates out of a much more democratic model than almost any other province in the church. While this is hard for Anglicans in other countries to grasp, it shouldn’t be that hard for U.S. bishops.

But our bishops have been in the process of forgetting this for some time.

In 1977, in the wake of the 1976 vote to ordain women to the priesthood, the House of Bishops met in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The bishops passed a statement that became known as “the conscience clause” that said, in essence, that the consciences of both those who supported and those who opposed the ordination of women should be respected and that no canonical penalty should be exacted for holding those beliefs.

Even though this statement was never adopted by General Convention, it quickly took on a life akin to canonical law. It became the shield behind which those bishops hid who imposed their conscientious objection to the ordination of women on an entire diocese. General Convention allowed this usurpation of its authority to happen unchallenged, mostly because the effects of it seemed to be localized in three or four dioceses whose bishops steadfastly refused to ordain women. The conscience of the bishop became the determining factor while the conscientious stand of clergy and lay people in the diocese were disregarded.

Thus the “Port St. Lucie Statement” was the beginning of a process that has increasingly pulled the polity of the church out of balance by appearing to give bishops unfettered and overweening authority to decide what actions of General Convention they will and will not uphold. In a natural progression of this process, a few dioceses have even passed amendments to their diocesan constitutions that declare they have the right to decide to which actions of General Convention they will accede.

It plays out in other ways as well. For instance, a bishop’s authority to approve liturgies derives from General Convention. The intent of this authority is to advance, not impede, the development of new liturgies. But many bishops feel full entitled to forbid use of any authorized liturgies other than those contained in the Book of Common Prayer.

Resolution C020, entitled “Baptism is Full Initiation,” and other related C resolutions begin the conversation about how to bring things back into balance.

The purpose of the resolution is to bring the Canons into conformity with the theology of The Book of Common Prayer. The words quoted in the Resolution are found in the section “Concerning the Service” which precedes the Order for Holy Baptism (BCP, 298). The second Resolve clause is a restatement of the wording to be found in Canon 1.17.1(d).

It is vital that The Episcopal Church recover its historic and canonical balance of power among lay people, clergy and bishops in our own polity before we try to tackle the issues of authority vis a vis the Anglican Communion.

Katie Sherrod

THIS ROOM DOESN’T NEED CLEANING OR MAKEUP TODAY. Thanks!

O ES NECESSARIO COMPONER O LIMPIAR ESTE CUARTO HOY. Gracias!

Dear Convention Attendee,

Since the housekeepers in our hotels here are non-union, and since the number of rooms they are required to clean can be as high as 18 per eight-hour shift (versus the union standard of 15), it is a significant help to them to be able to skip a room or two. We understand that frequently the housekeepers end up giving up breaks or a lunch hour to meet this excessive quota, hence any help is much appreciated.

This action is recommended by the Episcopal Network for Economic Justice and is supported by a resolution now before General Convention.

Richard Gillett

The editor also reminds folk that daily gratuities for the housekeepers are appropriate. You might ponder the suggestion of the Diocese of Virginia newsletter of $5.00 on each day that the room is serviced. Ron Miller

On The Arab Palestinians in Israel and Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state"

There are six million and three hundred thousand people living in Israel, the majority of them are Jews. I'll give you a short briefing, from my point of view as a citizen of Israel, about some of the acute problems with which the Arab Palestinians who live inside the territory of the state of Israel have. There are one million and three hundred thousand Arab Palestinian living in Israel today. About two hundred thousand of them are Christians, one hundred thousand are Druze and one million are Muslims, and they all have Israeli citizenship; unlike the Arab Palestinian, who live in east Jerusalem, the west bank of the Jordon river and the Gaza strip, and have been living under Israeli occupation since 1967. Both Palestinian Arabs citizens of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs who live under occupation are the indigenous people of greater Palestine before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. The only difference between an Arab Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen and a Palestinian who lives in Palestine under Israeli occupation, is that the Palestinians who live in Israel hold Israeli citizenship—this citizenship is the only difference. The declaration of independence in 1948 defined Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state, committed to the "ingathering of the exiles", and to guaranteeing equality to all its citizens, yet insofar as Israel defines itself as Jewish, it overrides and compromises the extent to which it can be democratic. Israel as a democratic state has been legally defined as resting on three minimum conditions: where Jews form the majority, where Jews are entitled to especial treatment and where a reciprocal relationship exists between Israel and the Jewish people in the Diaspora. Yet in all these conditions the Palestinian Arab minority is both excluded and hence discriminated against: by privileging Jews, the state treats others as second class citizens. I would like to focus on Israel's basic law, that the state of Israel is a "Jewish and democratic" state, which is upheld by the Supreme Court as having status above other constitutional laws, and explain why this basic law creates discrimination of the Palestinian citizens.

Discrimination in the Israeli law:

Despite Israel's ratification of the ICCPR and its citizens against discrimination, Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel are discriminated against in a variety of forms and denied equal individual rights because of their national belonging. This discrimination offers limited provisions for equality or political participation to members of the Palestinian Arab minority. The law in Israel subjects Palestinians to three types of discrimination: direct discrimination against non-Jews within the law itself, indirect discrimination through "neutral" laws, and criteria which apply principally through a legal framework that facilitates a systematic pattern of privileges.

Direct discrimination

One example of a law that discriminates against Palestinian Arabs by directly distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews is:Citizenship rights and the law of return: national identity is the main factor in deciding the acquisition of citizenship in Israel. The law of return grants every Jew the right to immigrate to Israel. The nationality law automatically grants citizenship to all Jews who have done so, and also to their spouses, children, grandchildren, and all their spouses, this privilege is for Jews only. Palestinian Arabs can only get citizenship by birth, residence or naturalization.

"Jewish" sounds good, "democratic" sounds good- so give me both "Jewish and democratic". As if to say vanilla ice-cream is good, mocha ice cream is good, so give me vanilla mocha. Maybe it is possible to have one scoop of vanilla and one scoop of mocha, separate from each other, in one ice cream. But "Jewish and democratic" blends two things of different kinds, since democracy is not dedicated to a way of life that's so inclusive and locked to one kind or another, but it safeguards the right of different ways of life. In this equation "Jewish and democratic", the "veto" given to Judaism undermines democracy and vice versa.

The demand of the Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel is that the state of Israel should be a secular, democratic state for all its citizens with all the differences of their ethnicity. Religion and the state must be separated in a concise manner to ensure that the Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights in their land. I ask you to join us in this stand for our right to live freely and democratically in our homeland.

Neven abu rahmoun

Diocese of Jerusalem

Global young adults team