Welcome Bishop-Elect Shin

Happy to report that the Diocese of New York has elected Allen K Shin as Bishop Suffragan, on the fourth ballot.

I thought we might be at the Convention until late in the day; but the Holy Spirit, I truly do believe, was with us from the start, and the trend was clear and manifest by the fourth ballot. God bless Allen and the beginning of a new ministry, on the anniversary of his priestly ordination, no less.

Also very happy to report that the Baptistery Chapel was reserved for prayer throughout the day, and a few of us found respite from the caucusing there -- in peaceful quiet. The placement in the Baptistery is poignant for me, as my slot in the columbarium is right there staring me in the face; a sobering call to prayer, but in this case, joyfully answered!

I knew Allen from seminary, where he was a year ahead of me. His experience in multiple cultural contexts, and internationally, will bring some new perspectives to the House of Bishops, and be a good fit for the multiplex that is the Diocese of New York. And he sings rather well.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Episcopal Elections

Over at Facebook I posted a comment, as follows, which has engendered a lively discussion.

I am distressed to see that our upcoming election for a suffragan bishop includes provision for caucusing spaces (in the chapels, no less), seconding speeches, and all the paraphernalia of politics. The only times listed for prayer are the opening Eucharist and at Noonday.

I was asked by two of the candidates if I’d give the “seconding” speech. To both I noted that I couldn’t in conscience, as I think these speeches are unnecessary (the diocesan canon allows for them but doesn’t require them) and they contribute to the “popularity contest” that is already too much of the process.

I'd love it if we spent 20 minutes in silent prayer — or singing Taizé or the Psalms — after each ballot instead of caucusing.

But in New York that is likely a lost cause... :-(

What’s your perspective? Or the practice in your diocese? As far as I know, for background, the “caucus model” in NY dates back to the election of Bishop Grein; right after the first ballot, dearly beloved suffragan (and Visitor to BSG) Bishop Walter Dennis, who was the front-runner, collapsed and was rushed to hospital (he recovered, Deo gratias, but was out of the election.) This threw the election into chaos and people started gathering in affinity agglutinations in the various chaples motu proprio. Now it is the way things are done.

Weigh in here or at FB.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Axios!

On Saturday, the Convention of the Diocese of New York elected the Rev Canon Andrew M L Dietsche as Bishop Coadjutor, by a very large majority on the third ballot. Shortly after the election, members of the Brotherhood of Saint Gregory who were present for the election managed to recruit Alito Orsini of the diocesan staff to snap this picture next to the great pulpit — with its representation of Gregory the Great at the left. In the photo are (l to r) James Mahoney, Tobias Stanislas Haller, Thomas Mark Liotta, Bishop-elect Dietsche, James Teets and Millard Cook.

Andy has been Canon Pastor in the diocese, and has been a support and friend to many of those who serve in the parishes of a complex region. God grant him many years of service in his new capacity.

And why we did it

Stuart commented with a question on the post below, concerning the Diocese of NY passing a resolution supporting the state's movement towards marriage equality. He asked

When we were discussing the resolution, some wondered why there wasn't a parallel resolution committing the Diocese to begin the process of creating a public rite for blessing the marriages same-sex couples.

It's a good question, and deserves an answer. I gave an answer in the comments below, but want to expand a bit here. I can best do this by offering what I planned to say in the debate if those of us planning the floor-fight felt it was needed. So here is what I was prepared to say:

I want to note that this resolution concerns civil marriage equality. It is not about Holy Matrimony. As such, it concerns the lives of thousands of New Yorkers, only a few of whom are Episcopalians, and many of whom may have no religious affiliation whatsoever.

So why should we make such a statement? I am reminded of the words of a great Archbishop [Temple]: The church is an institution devoted to the welfare of those not yet its members.

I also draw your attention to the language of the 1976 resolution of the General Convention [A-71], with particular focus on the words equal protection of the laws and provided in actuality. Thirty-two years later, we are being given an opportunity to answer the simple question, "Do you mean it?" And I close with the words of Christ: "Who among you, if your child asks for bread will give him a stone; or if he asks for a fish, give him a snake?"

So a major concern for me in all of this is the recognition that civil marriage equality concerns not just Episcopalians, but all the scattered churchless children of God who are seeking to establish their lives in stable and committed relationships, with all the rights and responsibilities they entail.

But, to get back to Stu's question, Why not matrimony? Here is my rationale:

• First, this is for me largely a question of sequence, a sequence which echoes the development of marriage in church history. Civil marriage comes first, then the church "adopts" it. As you may know, there was no formal "marriage" in the church until about the fifth-sixth century, and the earliest church involvement was basically a blessing of the couple's civil marriage, with particular prayer for safe childbirth. The earliest liturgies took place in the home, and only gradually moved into the church. So, as with evolution, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -- or something like that!


• The second factor is theological: the church has long taught that the ministers of marriage are the couple themselves -- that is, they minister the rite to each other, and the church functions as witness and blesses the marriage -- the church does not "make" it; the couple do.


• Third is the principle that the church only legally performs marriages when such marriages are civilly valid. There is even a Prayer Book rubric to that effect, in the first paragraph on page 422. So it makes sense to see the civil aspect established prior to the church acting as if it could perform the civil aspect of a marriage.


• Fourth, at the same time, and pending such developments, nothing in the meantime prevents a bishop from permitting the "blessing" of anything whatsoever within her own diocese. There was an effort to restrict this right at GC 2006, via a legislative moratorium on the authorization of same-sex blessings, but it was defeated in part because I rose to point out that this would require a Constitutional amendment, since Article X gives bishops this right.


• Fifth, also at the same time, priests are ordained to bless -- it is one of the "faculties" bestowed at ordination to the priesthood, and there is no "except" clause; the bishop need not ask clergy who or what they are blessing any more than the bishop need review every sermon a priest delivers -- preaching also being a "faculty" licensed by ordination. I realize we are getting into a bit of "don't ask / don't tell" here (for bishops who want to at least appear to toe the line drawn out by Lambeth and those Windsor folks; and yes, this is not an ideal situation -- but it presents a real opportunity for couples and congregations, and is in keeping with the 2003 GC resolution that acknowledged that such things were happening, and that those who took part were operating within the legitimate scope of action at their disposal. At least that is how I took the resolution.


• Sixth, formal liturgical change at the national level does need to be authorized by the church as a whole, even though individual dioceses and parishes can put into effect what I describe above. In fact, I think a bottom-up or grass-roots model for liturgical development is to be preferred to the top-down model for liturgical development. There was no "Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music" in the early church, and each national and local church developed its liturgies over time, with certain forms and prayers rising to the top by a natural process of recognition and popularity. However, in these latter days, liturgies only gain full status as "of the church" when recognized by the church in GC.

So, taking all of this together, I think we are proceeding in the proper sequence: work for the recognition of civil marriage equality first, at which point the church can then actually "perform" marriages (to the extent they perform them); and in the meantime continue to live in the less than perfect world of informal blessings, at the same time working for a full acceptance of such rites. If we time this correctly, the formal rites should be ready by the time civil marriage equality is a reality in most parts of the country. I realize this is a slow process; but it looks like the Northeast and the West will be there within a few years. (I expect a reversal in California.) It may well take a generation in the South. In the meantime, since marriage is governed by states, it will not be long before it is appropriate for General Convention to pass a resolution to the effect of permitting churches to perform same-sex marriages in states where such marriages are permitted under civil law. Such a resolution came to GC in 2006, and it may be back again in 2009. Even though I support the resolution, it is more to make a point than in hopes of its passage.

My point is that I am working towards what I hope will be true, full marriage equality in church and state. This will not be easy; and I think to an extent we cheat ourselves by "making do" with blessings of civil marriages and of couples who desire only that blessing -- much as I support them, they are not the final goal.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Update: A listing of all known relevant diocesan convention resolutions since 2007 is available at an Integrity-monitored site "Be It Resolved." I'm happy to see the pressure is building for marriage equality and an end to B033. An account from Lisa of the resolutions passing in Missouri is particularly heartwarming! — Tobias

We Did

I am very happy to report that the following resolution was adopted today by the Episcopal Diocese of New York:

Resolved, That the 232nd Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, in keeping with Resolution 15 of the 217th Convention of the Diocese, which made "known to the President of the United States, to the United States Senate and House of Representatives our support of full civil rights for all American citizens irrespective of sexual orientation," calls upon the Governor and the Legislature of the State of New York to ensure civil marriage equality in this state by enacting the necessary legislation to permit same-sex couples to marry; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be sent to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly of the State of New York.

Many of us were wearing the "I do" buttons in support of the resolution, and an old friend from my days on the Liturgical Commission noted, "Tobias, you know it should say, 'I will.'" I responded, "No, this is what the Father of the Bride says...!" Touché.

In its explanatory material the proposers noted the 1976 General Convention resolution A-71, that "homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens, and calls upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality."

I was prepared to speak in support of the motion, stressing the importance of living up to our own promises, but the vibes in the room were rather positive, and no one spoke against the resolution; it carried by a large majority on a Yes / No hand-sign vote. Next steps: The state Assembly has voted to support marriage equality in the past, but the Senate, until a few weeks ago controlled by a conservative majority, has blocked action. The Governor has already indicated his support for this legislation. Many of us in the Diocese of New York, however, felt it important to let our electeds know that there is more than one opinion on this subject in the sphere of organized religion.

Tobias Haller BSG

On the Saint Andrews Draft

The Saint Andrews Draft Covenant represents a marked improvement over the earlier effort. Many of the concerns raised in response to the earlier draft have been addressed, and a number of the troublesome details have been eliminated. In particular, the first two sections of the draft place the theology of covenant on a stronger foundation. Section One’s appeal to the articles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral — long accepted as the basis for intercommunion with traditions outside Anglicanism, and so all the more meaningful as a basis for communion within it — establishes recognizable and already agreeable boundaries. There will, of course, continue to be disagreements concerning exactly what constitutes an acceptable “pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the catholic tradition.” (1.2.2) But the same section’s emphasis on remaining in Eucharistic communion (1.2.3) and common pilgrimage (1.2.6) in spite of such disagreements shows a grasp of the irrevocable nature of communion.

The enduring nature of communion is eloquently laid out in Section Two: it is a gift of God (2.1.1) ordered towards and nourished by mission (2.1.2,3) in a program of action deriving from the Anglican Consultative Council’s mission strategy, itself clearly influenced by the Baptismal Covenant of the American Book of Common Prayer. (2.2)

Section Three begins well, charting out, in an essentially non-controversial manner, the collaborative and consultative structures that have evolved, and are currently in place, in the Anglican Communion. It is only with paragraph 3.2.5 that we begin to hear about threats to the unity so well established throughout the rest of the document. If unity derives from Christ, how is Christ divided? If unity is found in our mission, how is unity challenged if the mission continues to be carried out?

Section Three defines our present difficulties rather than actually solving them: What are we to do when a minority of provinces in the communion disagrees with the majority? The ultimate answer offered by this draft, soft-pedal it as much as one likes, is excision — the very thing one would have thought impossible if the communion truly were based in Christ, who is not, and cannot be, divided. This draft continues in the mode of a pre-nuptial agreement rather than a covenant of irrevocable commitment.

Thus the primary difficulty with this covenant lies in providing for the dissolution of the very communion it seeks to preserve. It is therefore our recommendation that the appendix and section 3.2.5 (and its subsections) be deleted. What remains would then be worthy of the name “Covenant” — a promise to remain together, united in Spirit and in Mission come what may.

— a statement from the General Convention Deputation of the Episcopal Diocese of New York

---

The Church’s Treasury

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
Diocese of New York Warden’s Conference / April 26 2008
Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine
Proper 24: For Vocation in Daily Work
Eccl 3:1,9-13; 1 Pet 2:11-17; Matt 6:19-24
Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.+

I could briefly summarize today’s readings as: Don’t Worry be Happy, Be a Good Citizen, and Try Not to Make too Much Money. The first is better known in its Latin version, Carpe diem; the second — Be a Good Citizen — is sound advice as long as one lives in a good city.

It is the third, Try Not to Make Too Much Money, that appears directed at those who serve the church. Church wardens are volunteers, so you never expected to “live by the church;” but even the clergy who do — because the rectory is often next-door, are only very rarely embarrassed with riches. The matchbook-cover promise, Go to School to Increase Your Earning Power, doesn’t apply to seminary. Rather, the church compensates its clergy based on the biblical command to leave the threshing ox unmuzzled — as well as on a short leash and moving in circles.

So devoting your life church work, on a stipend or as a volunteer, is a good way to follow our Lord’s advice not to lay up treasure on earth.

+ + +

If, that is, we are talking about the kind with images of politicians, in various denominations. But there is another kind of treasure more beguiling than folding green. And it exists in various denominations, too: Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Lutheran.... It is a treasure the church and its workers are tempted to store up, perhaps compensating for getting less of the kind with a politician’s image and likeness: whether Tiberius Caesar or Andrew Jackson. It is the treasure of stable security, of becoming an institution.

Saint Peter shows this at work; he counseled good citizenship so the church could survive in the Empire. But the Empire soon got so bad that good citizenship became impossible for Christians, forced to choose between Christ and Caesar.

Those who had counseled obedience found themselves re-evaluating — Peter ended up crucified head-down; and Paul must have reconsidered the wisdom of appealing to Caesar’s justice when he faced Caeser’s sword. The apostles learned they could not serve two masters — Christ and Caesar — though too late to leave epistles to that effect.

Imperial persecution clarified the church’s vision as only the hangman can — to see that survival on Caesar’s terms was not worth it, and the time had passed for playing goody two-sandals. So, strange as it may sound, thank God for Caesar, who gave the church something to stand up to, something to stand up for. Persecution reminded the church of its mission: not to survive by ceasing to be itself — but to spend itself for the life of the world, as its Lord had done.

Caesar reminded the church that those who seek to save their life will lose it. Caesar reminded the church that it was the body of Christ — Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, who suffered death and was buried, and only then was raised from the dead. Christ set the pattern for the church: Only by losing life can life be saved; only what dies can be raised again.

+ + +

Since those fiery days, the world’s animosity towards the church has cooled to chilly toleration. And how has the church responded? How does the church expend its energy these days, now that Caesar no longer persecutes? Isn’t most of the church’s warfare these days internal? Where is the church’s treasure being spent — on outgoing mission, or ongoing questions of self-definition? Is the church laying up treasure in heaven, safe from moth and rust and thieves — or squandering its resources on ecclesiastical mothballs, Rustoleum, and burglar alarms?

It happens in parishes, national churches — it even happens in cathedrals... so I’m told! The focus shifts from mission to talk about mission, from vision to the vision statement. When this happens, the church’s vision is obstructed by the bulk of its own precious self, and the church abdicates its title as a wonderful and sacred mystery and verges on becoming an institution like any other. Preoccupied with survival rather than with mission, it resigns its role as bride of Christ and becomes more like Miss Havisham in Great Expectations, the wedding banquet transformed into a shuttered room whose lonely inhabitant tries to preserve a past that never was.

+ + +

Am I exaggerating? Think of the resources spent on the present Anglican Communion disagreements. The Episcopal Church treasures the Communion, and rightly so — but here is an opportunity to reform and revive the very thing we treasure if we are willing to set aside preoccupation with its structure for a time to focus on its purpose: to develop a Covenant not based on who’s in and who’s out — but upon the mission we share to a suffering world, with the Communion as a vessel well-suited to bear the good news to the ends of the earth — because it’s already there!

We are called and commissioned to risk what we treasure, to spend ourselves for the sake of the gospel, in a gospel fashion. It is not that we don’t need structures and vessels, but that they are means to an end, not ends in themselves. We are meant to use them, and sometimes lose them. Indeed, we are called to lose our very lives and thus to save them; for only what dies can be raised; only what is spent can be redeemed. True wealth, after all, is revealed in what you spend, not in what you possess. The church is most truly itself when it spends itself with an abandon that matches the liberality of the spendthrift Christ — Christ who gave himself up on the cross, who spent himself completely, and all for the love of his bride, the church.

What a perfectly mad young couple, who store up no treasure, spend all they have on each other — but having each other need nothing else. You know the story: she cut off her hair to buy him a watch-fob; he pawned his watch to buy her a comb — gifts, in their purchase, rendered useless — yet infinitely precious.

What, then, is the church’s true wealth? Only Christ, and him crucified. And what is his treasure? He has told us how much he values each of us poor fragile creatures as chosen and precious. As Solomon’s old love song tells it, sung in a Christian key: Christ is our treasure, and we are his.

+ + +

Long ago, a good deacon faced Caesar, who demanded the church’s treasures. Expecting gold and silver, how angered he was when the deacon assembled the poor and said, This is the church’s treasure.

We members of Christ’s body are the church’s treasure still, because treasured by Christ, because we are where his heart is. And no moth, no rust, no thief can touch us. We are Christ’s treasure, and this holy place — and all of the parishes from which we come to gather here — are God’s treasuries. Don’t you ever let anyone tell you they are just institutions. And don’t you ever let anyone make them so. You who teach and you who learn, you who worship and you who proclaim, you who administer and steward and care for the fabric of these vessels, keep your vision clear, always turned to the needs of the world that the church is called to serve. Carpe diem: Seize the day — the time is now. Christ is risen and has given us the greatest treasure — given himself into our hands, fragile treasures of bread and wine that feed and strengthen us to spend ourselves in Christ’s service.

May we now and ever spend ourselves freely, all of us, who bought by Christ, are free to serve — Christ’s treasure on earth as he is ours in heaven.+

---

Participation in the First and Fourth Estates

Just got word that I'm a co-recipient of a Polly Bond (Episcopal Communicators) Award. Here's the scoop:

Category: Editorial Writing: Series on Single Topic, Dioceses above 12,000 (The Episcopal Diocese of New York)
Award of Excellence
“An Overview: The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion” (Episcopal New Yorker 83:4, July/August 2007)
Christine Donovan, bishop’s deputy for public affairs
Lynette Wilson, Mary Beth Diss, editors, writers
The Rev. Titus Presler, The Rev. Br. Tobias Haller, The Rev. Canon James Rosenthal, The Rev. Andrew Dietsche, writers

My contribution was “Why and How an Anglican Covenant?” The issue appears not to be available on-line, but it is promised eventually.

The Big Room

I'm happy to announce that I will be the preacher at the upcoming Holy Eucharist at the Wardens' Conference of the Episcopal Diocese of New York this coming Saturday, April 26. This will be my first time preaching in "the Big Room" of the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine. Bishop Sisk will be the celebrant, one day after his patronal feast (and the tenth anniversary of his consecration as bishop). I am deeply honored to be given this opportunity to address the Wardens of the diocese, and I hope to give them something positive to think about.

I've preached in the Cathedral before, but always in one of the chapels rather than in the main body. Even though the nave is half-boarded-up because of the continuing work on restoration after the fire, what remains is still more impressive than any other church I've been in!

A New Deacon

On Saturday the 15th, I was honored to serve as a sponsor for Mark Robin Collins' ordination to the diaconate at the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine. Mark has been doing his seminarian field placement (from The Seminary, ahem) at my parish, St James Fordham in The Bronx. (And doing a superb job of it, I might add.) I'm the short one on the left, in case my avatars aren't hint enough, Mark is marked with the diaconal diagonal, and to his left are two parish stalwarts, Monica Stewart and Pearline Bashford.

It was a great day, with a superb sermon by the Rev Charles Colwell, an old friend and colleague. There were six other ordinands, and they were all glowing with diaconal élan at the end of the liturgy — which was also splendid in that great and newly cleaned space. (And I was just reminded that I got to lead the singing of the Veni Creator Spiritus from the lectern 1/8 mile away from the rose window! What a venue for a Veni!)

The folks at Saint James will be sorry to lose Mark when he graduates and is no doubt called to productive service. God bless him!

Tobias Haller BSG

Feet of Clay

Bishop Sisk’s letter to the Diocese of New York, in the wake of Honor Moore’s book about her father, has generated a lot of comment in the diocese and the blogosphere. Some seem to think the primary concern was Bishop Moore’s sexuality, and I guess for the wider public interested in such things that will be the titillating revelation.

But Bishop Sisk’s primary concern was certainly not Paul’s sexuality, nor his infidelity, but much more importantly, his misconduct, described in the fifth paragraph of Bishop Sisk’s letter. The misconduct complaints were reported to the PB, and dealt with “quietly” but dealt with, over a decade before the present bishop took up his office. I know this because, although I did not know the nature of the charges, it was easy to see at the time that “something” had happened, for Bishop Moore was a member of my parish, and the scuttlebutt was that he was under some kind of discipline.

In retrospect (which is always 20/20) it would have been better for all if the matter had become public, and Bishop Moore openly sentenced, either to suspension or deposition. This would have been very painful, but it would have lanced the wound. We’ve learned a lot in the last twenty years. But people should realize how very much Paul Moore himself was responsible for imbuing a culture of evasion and concealment in the church. While he led the Diocese admirably, it could not help but reflect his own conflicted life over his long service. The mark such leaders leave upon the institutions they serve will not always be discernible but by succeeding generations.

As it is, though, Paul is dead and whatever sentence a higher tribunal will make, in the earthly arena only his memory suffers. Those who hated him in life will feel vindicated; those who admired him will feel to some extent embarrassed or pained, and some of them have directed their anger at Honor Moore or Bishop Sisk.

But Paul himself is not subject to pain inflicted post mortem. Honor Moore might be held up for criticism for telling tales she knows full well her father did not wish to have exposed. But the anger against Bishop Sisk — and the extent to which that anger distorts perceptions of what he actually wrote — seems to me to be entirely misplaced.

This is difficult for all of us. It is perhaps most difficult for those who have canonized Paul Moore in their memories. I knew and admired Paul Moore in several different contexts: as my Bishop, as Visitor to my community, and as a fellow parishioner. I also know how, in spite of his moving the issue forward, he nuanced his support of gay and lesbian people, and distanced himself with distinctions about “orientation” and “practice” when the House of Bishops came down on him. If you want to see a poignant exercise in Paul’s inability to face his own and others’ realities, and what he knew or didn’t know, read his address to the House of Bishops. He did not want to know of others that which he didn’t want known of himself. He helped us to move forward incrementally; but I wonder how much more he might have done so, had he chosen either the hard task of self-discipline, or the even harder task of self-knowledge and revelation.

For I am very weary of those who blame society for Paul’s double life in the closet, and even more those who blame the closet for his misconduct. He wasn’t “forced” — he made choices, choices which affected others than himself.

Hard as it may be for some to believe, there are celibate gay and lesbian people — some in the closet and some out. There are gay and lesbian people who marry persons of the opposite sex and who remain faithful to them — though this is a painful course I would not urge anyone to follow. There are gay and lesbian persons who remain faithful to their partners, again, some in the closet and some not.

Paul Moore was unable to follow through on his choice; he benefitted from the superficial protection it offered him. Had he been fully honest about himself, he would likely never have been a priest, certainly not a bishop — unless he chose the path of celibacy, or the virtual celibacy of the closet-with-benefits favored in his day in Anglo-Catholic circles, and still urged by some as a way to have avoided the present tensions in the Anglican Communion.

Paul Moore was a man admired by many, including myself. He is a reminder to us that not all great men are good and not all good men are great. Paul Moore did not just have feet of clay. He was, in fact, almost entirely clay -- as are we all. He was inbreathed by God, yet lived a fallible life. He is now dead. He will rise again. Christ died for Paul’s sins as he did for yours and mine, and at the judgment he will stand as we will, acquitted solely because the judge is also our only mediator and advocate.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

When 5'3" meets 6'5" — Tobias and Paul after a 1983 liturgy

Paul Moore and a Thought for 02.27.08

Given that the church is not a society of the perfect but a hospital for sinners, it is good to remember that doctors and nurses too suffer with their own illnesses and injuries.

Tobias Haller BSG
I snapped the photograph of Bishop Moore in the fall of 1983

Where Is that Covenant?

Over at a blog called "Covenant" participant Dave Sims openly wonders why more isn't being said these days about the Draft Anglican Covenant. Sims admits he didn't even know where to find the DAC on-line, but also seems to be unaware of the depth of discussion (albeit one-sided) that has indeed been going on.

For instance, while he notes that I made a brief comment questioning the need for a Covenant back in the fall of 2006 (before the Draft was produced) and that I published a satirical comment just last month, he fails to reference the detailed critique of the Draft Covenant in the response from the Diocese of New York General Convention Deputation, a response of which I was the principle author. This document raises a number of very specific questions about the DAC, and I have seen similar questions asked again and again elsewhere.

And there has been very little response; which goes far to explain why there hasn't been much recent comment since. The current version of the DAC dates from April of last year, after all; although there has been considerable comment since then (most of it in the months immediately following the Draft's release) there has been very little response or engagement from the Covenant Design Group. (I hardly think Ephraim Radner posting a comment at Stand Firm constitutes critical engagement!) There is really very little for those of us not on the Design Group to discuss until we see if and how the Design Group addresses the many critiques in their next (and one assumes, final) draft. This is, after all, how draft documents are refined and edited. At present who knows what if any of the critique already on record has been taken under any kind of serious consideration.

This is most troubling due to the extent to which the Covenant-oriented (both on the Design Group and at places such as the "Covenant" blog) seem not to appreciate the strong opposition to the idea of having any covenant at all, by those of us who see any covenant other than one rooted in shared ministry and mission to be a dangerous and unnecessary innovation. Their response, to date, has been to ignore that opposition as if it were self-evident that a Covenant such as they propose is needed -- an asseveration that does not bear the support of history: since Anglicanism has survived until now without one, and the proposed Covenant will most definitely mark the end of Anglicanism as we have known it up until now, so fundamental is the change in structure and ethos proposed -- as Dave Sims clearly recognizes in noting the importance of this proposal.

It would be wonderful if the Covenant Design Group would share some of the revisions that might have been made on the basis of the critiques that have been offered. Then we might see if in fact some workable covenant could be possible. But without a view of the actual text, vague comments about "drawing people to the truth, through various means of integrity" seem to be more of a kind of wishful communionist jargon than practical ecclesiology.

Tobias Haller BSG

White Smoke, of sorts

The Episcopal Diocese of New York held its 231st Convention this past Saturday, some four hundred voting clergy and laity plus about an equal number of alternates and supporting folk, and visitors from Africa, India, and England -- pressed together and packed down a bit in the half-closed-off and under-renovation but still humongous Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine.

We heard some stirring addresses: in particular Bishop Sisk challenged the state of the state we are in, when leaders of state seem not to know what is or is not torture. A resolution strongly condemning such equivocation was overwhelmingly adopted.

On the white smoke front, I am pleased to report that I was elected to an additional term as a Clergy Deputy to General Convention (2009) and also as a clergy member of the diocesan Standing Committee. The former will allow me to continue to be a burr under a few prelatical saddles, and contribute what I may to the ongoing life and direction of The Episcopal Church at a national and international level. The latter will allow me to address the interesting paradox of having a seat on a standing committee. I imagine it saves a good deal of wear and tear on the chairs, and keeps meetings short and to the point.

Tobias Haller BSG