Has the Covenant Train already left the Station?

There has been much talk of covenants at this General Convention. As that conversation continues, it behooves us all to remember that there are several kinds of covenants in play.

In addition to the baptismal covenant – which does not resonate in the rest of the Communion the way it does in The Episcopal Church – there are missional covenants, structural or canonical covenants; and creedal or confessional covenants.

There are several groups preparing draft covenants to present at Lambeth 2008. Peter Akinola, the Archbishop of Nigeria, is preparing one; Archbishops Drexel Gomez, primate of the West Indies; and Maurice Sinclair, retired Archbishop of the Southern Cone, are preparing another draft; and the Archbishop of Canterbury has appointed a 10-person working group to prepare a draft.

In addition, a group composed of chancellors and attorneys is reviewing the things by which Anglicans order what we do.

They are reviewing the principles espoused in the canons and constitutions, the prayer books, the rubrics, other rules and resolutions and teachings of all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to articulate to the archbishop of Canterbury and the primates in what areas the provinces are in harmony with one another and in what areas they are not.

The members of this group are chancellors from Hong Kong, the West Indies, Ghana, Seychelles, the United States, Canada, and England; and Canon Gregory Cameron, Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies, Anglican Communion Office, and Secretary to the Lambeth Commission; and Professor Norman Doe, Director of the Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff University, Wales, and member of the Lambeth Commission.

Covenants developed and adopted by only a few privileged people have no legitimacy.

The question of whether the Anglican Communion should even have a covenant is still very much in the air. The adoption of any covenant will change the very nature of Anglicanism in deep fundamental ways.

It already is clear that the idea that Anglicans will develop a covenant is moving quickly toward becoming a given. It also is clear that the process of developing a covenant will be left largely in the hands of male primates and other bishops – although three of the chancellors involved in the group reviewing the laws of the provinces are women.

This should be deeply disturbing to people who love classical Anglicanism, because stopping this train could be very difficult.

Katie Sherrod

Say It With Flowers, Not Nails
(abridged with permission from TheWitness.org)

Monday was the day that the two most controversial resolutions assigned to the Special Committee on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion finally saw debate on the floor of the House of Deputies. Some of it was informative. A lot of it was passionate. But one point that a large number of those stepping to the microphone made was not helpful at all:

"I think the resolution deserves to be passed without amendment because the Special Committee has worked so very hard on it to craft it carefully."

There are far, far more important questions for those voting on legislation to ask than how hard the committee worked on the proposed resolutions. With respect to the resolutions related to the Windsor Report, I would suggest that these are the central ones:

1) How far can I go and how much can I personally give to create room for and extend grace to those around me and those around the Communion with whom I disagree?

2) What can I not sacrifice without sacrificing my integrity and the integrity of the Good News of Christ as we, however provisionally, perceive it in this context and community?

3) As the Archbishop of York so movingly put it, where do I see the marks of Christ crucified in this legislation?

That last question is absolutely essential. We are indeed called to mutual submission to one another out of reverence for Christ. We are called to proclaim with our lives as well as with our words "Christ and him crucified," as St. Paul says (though one would hope we would not do so without proclaiming also the resurrection life!). But I have heard far too many people of late suggesting that we are walking the way of the Cross as long as someone gets crucified, and far too often the someone who will suffer most will be someone other than the speaker. This is not the language of Christian faith; it is the rhetoric of empire, of the "rulers of the nations" Christ spoke of who use their power to dominate the weak.

As the Rev. Dr. Ruth Myers so movingly testified today in the House of Deputies, it is not the way of Christ crucified and risen if you're the one with the hammer and nails and someone else -- least of all your sister or brother in Christ, your friend, your mother, your daughter or son -- who did not choose your sacrificing them who will be subjected to your will on the matter.

Christ's way of mutual submission for mutual empowerment of discipleship and mission demands that none of us impose on others a price that we will not pay ourselves. That's how we give thanks – to God for Christ's full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for all of us for all time, and to Christ's disciples (including committee members) striving to discern God's will for us at this General Convention.

Sarah Dylan Breuer

Honor God: Say No to Torture

As the legislative process at General Convention creeps along, a pair of key resolutions calling on the church to speak out for human rights are among the dozens that are in danger of falling into the purgatory of "unfinished business." At least two resolutions from dioceses calling on the Episcopal Church to denounce torture (C-028 and C-033) hung in the balance as of Monday evening, as did a third calling for the closure of the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay (D-028). With torture, the abuse of detainees, and the practice of "extraordinary rendition" all capturing weekly headlines in the international media, it would be a shame for these three to be left unattended.

Fortunately, there are many things that individual churches and dioceses can do this very month whether or not the national church manages to emerge from the Windsor quicksand and speak out on these critical human rights issues. In honor of June 26th, the U.N. International Day in Support of Torture Victims, a series of actions and educational programs will be happening over the next two weeks. The National Religious Coalition Against Torture launched a national campaign on June 13th with a full-page ad in The New York Times, and individual church leaders can sign the petition online at http:\\www.nrcat.org.

If your parish wishes to join in this important campaign, visit http:\\www.signsyourway.com to purchase a 2’ x 6’ banner for less than $70. A number of congregations will be ringing their church bells at noon on June 26th at the precise time when an interfaith group of religious activists are planning to engage in civil disobedience in front of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. The group of progressive Episcopalians, Catholic Workers, Jews, Muslims and others will call for the closure of the Guantánamo prison and for trials -- if not the release -- of prisoners who have been held without charge, many for years. More information about how you can act to speak out against torture can be found at: http:\\www.witnesstorture.org and http:\\www.SayNoToTorture.org.

Ethan Vesely-Flad

A Truthful Conversation, Not Just A Vote

Perhaps, to the extent the world is concerned at all with General Convention 2006, it is now more focused on the election of the Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Shori than it is on the Windsor Report. By any standard electing a woman Presiding Bishop is an extraordinary event, and brings with it a satisfying symmetry since it has happened just thirty years after authorizing the ordination of women. That could be quite a good thing, since we might now begin to look upon the Episcopal Church’s response to Windsor not so much as a matter to be settled at General Convention as an ongoing process of conversation.

Whatever specific action this General Convention takes or doesn’t take cannot appease those in our province who do not want to be part of the Episcopal Church, nor is it likely to soothe those who want to stay but have not accepted the idea of full participation by all the baptized in the life of the Church. Nor will it suddenly fix problems other churches in the Anglican Communion have with their naughty American cousins.

Whatever happens next will depend on conversation – within the Episcopal Church, and with other Anglican churches. That conversation will have to consist of something better than reports and resolutions rushing past one another. It is no secret that up until now, more of the conversation has taken place within the Episcopal Church than elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. Regardless of the fact that Lambeth conferences and the Windsor Report itself have called for conversation in good faith, the Anglican Communion has quite frequently talked about LGBTs but rarely if ever with them. In one country one Anglican Church is even supporting legislation that would actually criminalize any sort of conversation with or listening to its own lesbian and gay members.

Archbishop Tutu would no doubt advise us that reconciliation requires truth as well as a desire to reconcile. If the past thirty years’ journey for gay and lesbian inclusion has taught the Church anything, it is the importance of telling the truth. People who can’t be honest about who they are cannot participate and contribute fully. Just as parishioners all across our Church cannot be asked to return to the closet to avoid discomfort for others, the Church must be truthful as well. Would clergy, counseling a family in conflict, counsel them to create a “space” based on a false reality? By first acknowledging the truth about one another, parties in conversation can move from talking past one another to genuine communication and understanding.

To put it bluntly, “compliance” with the Windsor Report has been highly selective. Some who fault the Episcopal Church’s response have themselves violated provincial boundaries and neglected pastoral responsibilities towards their own LGBT members. So there is a lot to talk about, more in fact than merely talking about us.

That prospect is not so unlikely as some might imagine. Our new presiding bishop brings experience and insights from serving on the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. The discussions at this General Convention have not all consisted of heat to the exclusion of light; something has been learned. We should build on what we have learned and restart the conversation – this time a real one, with talking and respectful listening by both sides.

Bob Van Keuren

Just enough space
to ask that additional donations be sent to The Consultation, 1430 S. Hanover St, Baltimore, MD 21230. Thank you very much!!
Ron Miller

 

ISSUES

2006

TUESDAY JUNE 20

Best Wishes to the new PB

Issues shares in the surprise and joy at the election on Sunday of the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori as the 26^th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. We honestly didn't expect this outcome However, “The wind blows where it chooses . . So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

One of us was reminded of a moderately conservative cleric who, during the Vietnam war, created something of a stir by asking the President, who was in the congregation that morning, some frank questions about the war. The furor that ensued made clear to many people the way in which political leadership, even then, was living in a bubble. It's been suspected that the priest had heard a message from the Holy Spirit and didn't look over his shoulder to see who was talking to him. We commend the House of Bishops for its wisdom and vision.

The Consultation and ISSUES offers the PB-elect its hearty congratulations and best wishes, and they promise support and prayers.

Ron Miller

Three young voices

From a Young Woman

Last week, I turned twenty-one. I have wanted to be a priest at least since I was four. When I was that little, I used to wear a winter scarf like a stole, take a stool up to the bathroom sink, fill it with water, and baptize my stuffed animals in the sink. Needless to say, I ruined plenty of perfectly fine stuffed animals that way.
No one has ever told me that I couldn't be a priest.
I thank you, all you women (and men) who have worked for that change. As I sat in the House of Deputies after the announcement of the Presiding Bishop's election, I looked around. I saw women crying tears of joy, silently thanking Gd with all that they are. You have worked so hard for this change, and I am the one who is blessed to live in a world in which the church I love accepts me as Gd created me, and affirms my calling because of, not despite of, the fact that I am a woman. On Sunday I learned truly for the first time it wasn't always that way. What I have taken for granted has been worked towards for many, many years. The atmosphere was one that must have been like the Israelites coming into the Promised Land for the first time-we came out of Egypt thirty years ago with the ordination of women, and now we have a woman Presiding Bishop. It will not be easy for her, as it wasn't easy for Joshua, but I believe that these words from Gd to Joshua are pertinent: "Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your Gd will be with you wherever you go." (Jdgs. 1:9).
I thank all the strong and courageous women who have made it possible for me to partake fully in the wedding feast, to work toward my calling. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Well done, good and faithful servants!

Rebecca A. Zartman

Dear Bishop Duncan,

Six years ago in a small town north of Pittsburgh, you confirmed me. During the sermon, you talked about not knowing what gifts we would receive from the Holy Spirit when you laid your hands on our heads as we committed ourselves to a life of faith as members of the Episcopal Church. You told us that we wouldn’t notice a change right away, but that one day we would know and see the fruits of the spirit in those gifts.

I am here at General Convention knowing that my current gift can be articulated best as a desire to welcome you back into the communion from which you have removed yourself. Bishop Scriven spoke to how much he loves the Anglican Communion while you have warned us of how the Communion will break as a result of our response to the Windsor report. However, this Communion is already partially broken. We all need to share the bread at the altar. When we passed the peace on Saturday morning at the Eucharist, you barely acknowledged me as I extended my hand. You, who with your hands through the Holy Spirit, welcomed me into this Church. Then you did not come to the table with us to partake in the sacrament.

I have spent the past four years at the Chapel of the Cross in Chapel Hill, North Carolina as a student, hearing stories about your time as a chaplain there. I have prayed where you have prayed and walked where you have walked.

Please don’t walk away from us as a result of the response to Windsor. We know what has been foreshadowed to happen at Lambeth in two years, but that is in fact two years from now. We can’t know what might happen in that amount of time.

I don’t want to see you walk away from this communion into which you welcomed me six years ago. Pray with us. Hope with us. Stay.

Please, don’t walk out.

Yours in Christ,

Lisa Shugert Bevevino EPF Young Adult Presence

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 from 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 to 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.

In light of all I have spoken about, 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

From one of our regular voices

Clouds of Witnesses Rejoice

Saturday night I dreamed that Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected presiding bishop. In my dream I was in a busy newsroom working on the story. People kept interrupting me and my deadline was getting closer and closer and . . . my 6 a.m. wakeup call arrived.

“Darn,” I thought. “It was just a dream.”

But the joy of that dream lingered into Sunday and began to inform my day. It drifted after me to the Episcopal Women’s Caucus breakfast, to the Eucharist and tagged along into the House of Deputies.

There, in the place where pragmatism too often shoves grace aside, my dream-generated joy gave birth to a wild little hope that set aside all the pragmatic cautions I’ve heard people express: yes, Jefferts Schori is the best candidate BUT – the church isn’t ready for this; the bishops would never have the courage; they’ll go for a choice that won’t make waves.

But that wild child named Hope kept whispering: “Why not now?” Why not here?”

I realized Hope was standing on the shoulders of generations of visionary women and men who had struggled to bring women and marginalized men fully into the life and ministry of the church.

By the time the announcement was made, hope had prepared me enough that I was not stunned into speechlessness – but just barely. It literally took my breath away, as it did that of the men and women around me. As people tried to maintain a bit of decorum as the process of confirming the election proceeded, giggles kept breaking out. Little spontaneous dances kept happening. I saw two very dignified women bump tummies with each other and then collapse into laughter.

Images of generations of women such as Pamela Chinnis, Sally Bucklee, Marge Christie, the Philadelphia 11 and the Washington 4, Barbara Harris, and thousands of others rose before my eyes and I could not even begin to imagine what this day meant to those who had lived to see it. The Episcopal Women’s Caucus can and should be justifiably proud of their part in this event.

If they had caved in after the 1976 vote to ordain women to priesthood and episcopate when conservatives threatened to split the church, this day would not have happened. If they had caved in after the election of Barbara Harris, which conservatives called “the final crisis,” this day would not have happened.

If the church had caved into the frequent and loud demands of conservatives to repent of those prophetic actions, this day would not have come.

When the new presiding bishop was escorted into the HOD, hope and joy exploded into the room. People were cheering, standing on chairs, waving their arms in the air. Happy pandemonium reigned for at least three full minutes.

I could feel the joy of the clouds of witnesses of all the women and men who had been set aside, told to wait, told that the time wasn’t right for them to be fully included in the life and ministry of the church because of their color, their ethnicity, their gender or their sexual orientation.

My rejoicing at this election is tempered by the knowledge that some in this church are still quite willing to “create space for healing” by throwing my brothers and sisters out of the boat.

They are quite willing to buy unity by sacrificing gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual brothers and sisters.

But Integrity won’t cave in. And The Episcopal Women’s Caucus will hold to its vision of the church as a place that honors the ministry of all women. We know that such a church will honor the ministry of all people. All people. May the church also hold fast to that vision.

And we pray that God will hold Katharine close, give her vision, courage, grace, strength, laughter, and, most of all, love. Our prayers are with her.

Katie Sherrod

Lunch Time Speakers
under
The Consultation banner

Today at 1:15 -- EPF Young Adult Team with Winnie Varghese

Gentle hints may not be enough!

None of our constituent groups have deep pockets; they are all dependent on the kindness of friends. ISSUES, particularly, is intended to help our friends see the work of Convention in a different way, and to perhaps shine light on an overlooked aspect of the discussions. There is no angel funding ISSUES, life would be easier if there were. So, we need your contribution, large or small.
Please drop by The Consultation booth in the Exhibit Hall and tell us what you think; at the same time you can make a contribution; Envelopes are available there. YOUR help will make a difference.
The Editors

ISSUES

2006

MONDAY JUNE 19

For Trustees of the General Seminary, The Consultation asks you to vote for:
Lay Persons
              Rebecca Clark                                 Marjorie Christie

Priests
              James Kodera                                 Yamily Bass-Choate

For Executive Council, The Consultation asks you to vote for:

Lay Persons
                 Hisako Beasley                                Bruce Garner                Anita George                                     Angela Helt
Robert McGhee

Priests
                Miguelina Espinal                              Winnie Varghese

TODAY--

OPEN MEETING

of The Consultation

in Room D242 in the

Convention Center

from 12:30 to 1:30

No food or drink, please!

The Bonds of Affection

In a Consultation Open Meeting, someone said, “I want to affirm the bonds of affection but not to institutionalize them.” It inspired a chain of thought about relationships and listening. Once a relationship has reached the point where everything has to be negotiated, whatever may remain, it is usually the case that affection has gone. More often than not the breakdown actually came some time before when one party stopped listening to the other and giving the loving attention characteristic of affection. The parties may be able to rebuild the relationship and the trust on which affection is based, but that cannot be accomplished by rules and requirements, and even less with ultimatums.

Is this descriptive of the Anglican Communion now? If it is, the question becomes who stopped listening? When?

Ron Miller

Surely the LORD was in this place!

Friday night’s packed, festive Integrity Eucharist at Trinity Church was marked by excellent music and liturgy, by a procession of dozens of vested lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered clergy, by the presence of numerous LGBT Episcopalians and their allies from throughout the Church – and by one other thing – the unmistakable presence of the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit was, in fact, the focus of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson’s sermon. The Holy Spirit is still speaking to all of us, even to those who have been excluded, to those who told us we were “abomination” and who subjected us to insults and injustice. While we have a responsibility to oppose injustice, and to protest when we are treated unjustly or abused, Bishop Robinson said there is one more thing we must do about those who oppose us – we must “love them anyway.”

Bishop Robinson’s voice cracked with emotion several times, and the congregation was also deeply moved by the sermon and other parts of the service. The overflow crowd made it necessary to offer additional seating with a video feed, and Robinson not only specifically greeted those watching him on video during his sermon, but personally served the bread to each person in the overflow seating. The Rev. Susan Russell was presider, and the Bishop of Southern Ohio, the Rt. Rev. Kenneth L. Price Jr. gave his blessing.

There have been a lot of worship opportunities at General Convention 2006, but this one seemed especially important to those attending. At a time when a few have considered LGBT Episcopalians to be expendable – a readily available sacrifice to appease censorious voices in the Anglican Communion – this large congregation demonstrated through their enthusiastic participation, their applause, their laughter and their not infrequent tears that they have no intention of slipping quietly away or tossing aside the insights gained from thirty years of struggle for full and complete inclusion in the life of the Episcopal Church. There was a sense that we were there not only for ourselves but for the benefit of the rest of the Church.

Some people regard the issues surrounding LGBT participation in the Church simply as questions of civil rights – of things that certain people are asking that the Church “do for” them. Certainly there are things we need from the Church – but the Church needs our witness and our labor and our talents. The Church has always relied on what we have to give, even when it did not acknowledge us for who we are.

But now – in the first part of the 21st Century, we are a good advertisement for the Church in an alienated and unreconciled world. One priest I know found that after he had come out and was known as a gay man, people in spiritual need would seek him out for just that reason – not because they were gay themselves, but because they figured that a Church that would welcome him would welcome them; a Church that could love him could love them.

This is why we testify to what we know, what we ourselves have experienced. As Bishop Robinson said Friday night, we have the mission and the responsibility to share the great gifts we have been given with the world.

Bob Van Keuren

A Gift from Vermont

If you are worried about how The Episcopal Church might look if General Convention authorized the blessing of same sex unions, then the Diocese of Vermont has a resource that will answer your questions and allay your fears.

The Diocese of Vermont is in a unique position to offer such information because in the summer of 2000, a new Vermont civil union law took effect that, for the first time, enabled same sex couples to enter into legal covenants “conferring the rights and responsibilities previously reserved for opposite-gendered couples through marriage.” The law authorized members of the clergy to perform civil unions, and Vermont Episcopalians in same sex relationships immediately looked to their faith community to do so.

Mary Adelia McLeod, then bishop of Vermont, “informed the clergy that those who chose to celebrate and bless civil unions could do so provided that counseling precede the civil union, and that the marriage rite from the Book of Common Prayer not be used.” Bishop McLeod’s successor, Bishop Thomas C. Ely, appointed a task force to help the diocese and the larger church “find a way through this conversation that is affirming of the full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in the mission and ministry of The Episcopal Church and of their ministries that are already so much a part of who we are as the Episcopal Church here in the Diocese of Vermont and beyond.”

A Report to the Bishop and People of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont from the Task Force on the Blessing of Persons Living in Same-Gender Relationships was issued in June of 2004.

The Task Force recommended a unified diocesan policy on Holy Matrimony and Holy Unions that required “1. One member of the couple be a baptized person involved in the life of the church; 2. Thorough preparation precede the ceremony; 3. A Declaration of Intention be signed that outlines the church’s expectations regarding the characteristics such unions should exhibit; 4. A marriage or civil union license be obtained for clergy to officiate at a liturgy of Holy Matrimony or Holy Union; and 5. Liturgies or liturgical outlines authorized by the Episcopal Church for Holy Matrimony or those provided in this report for Holy Unions be used.”

The report also carefully outlines the pastoral care for those who have previously been in a marriage or civil union and states that “permission for third or subsequent marriages or unions will be granted only in rare cases” and only after certain rigorous counseling steps have been taken. The most helpful parts of the report are the description of the approach the Task Force took in tackling ‘head, heart and gut” issues, including the “ick” response factor so common in discussions of sexual intimacy; and its approach to theological considerations. The chapter on the way Anglicans “do theology” may be the best and most succinct discussion of the topic I have seen.

So find a member of the Vermont deputation [pages in the House of Deputies can help you do that] and ask how you can get a copy. It offers the perfect prescription for the relief of anxiety – good information based in thorough research and several years of lived experience.

Katie Sherrod

Fair Trade at General Convention

It is getting to be that time of General Convention to look for gifts and items to take home. The following vendors are either members of the Fair Trade Federation or sell products which adopt fair trade practices of just pay for artists and craftspersons, invest in community development in Third World countries and follow fair labor practices.

Far East Handicraft (member of the Fair Trade Federation)
Shenaini (FTF application in process)
The Episcopal Church Women,
Diocese of Chicago International Outreach Project
Bishop’s Blend Coffee (fair trade coffee) at The Episcopal Bookstore
Andino Fibers
Colores de Pueblo
Colors of Life, Africa
Tree of Life imports from Latin America
Threads of Hope

Buying fair trade supports the Millennium Development Goals (www.e4gr.org). To find more about the Fair Trade Federation, Google Fair Trade Federation.

Dianne Aids
Does this apply elsewhere?

(editor's note: this testimony was given on Saturday at National & International Concerns on Resolution B012 which included an apology.)

I want to speak to this resolution with reference to the use of the word apology.

When I first went to Palestine/Israel in 1983 I was ignorant about the issues of occupation. At that time the occupation had been in place only 16 years. Now it's 39 years. I can remember a young Palestinian Christian boy being excited about the fact that I was an American and the 18 people that were with me from St. Mark's Cathedral in Seattle WA were Americans. I hear his voice still. He said, “America will be fair and see that a Palestinian state will happen. Americans are people who care and they will help us.”

I have often thought of this young man and his family. Especially now that there is a wall that encircles the entire town of Bethlehem. I want to apologize to him and all those Palestinians who have had faith in us and our church to change the occupation policies of the State of Israel. Why have we not acted upon our church's resolutions over the years that have called for a two-state solution, adherence by the State of Israel to international law and the end of settlements? Why can't we learn that violence begets violence no matter which side uses it?

We need to apologize as a church to the 12,000 families that have had their homes demolished from 1967 until now – in order to build settlements and the wall. We need to apologize to those families that have lost their livelihood because of land confiscation to build the wall and settler highways.

We need to apologize to our Jewish brothers and sisters for being silent as we've allowed and funded them to do unspeakable things we would never approve of in the violation of human rights, assassination tactics, and torture of Palestinians which is legal in the State of Israel.

A painful reality for Palestinians is that they have had to pay and continue to pay for the antisemitism of European Christians.

When we Christians fail to respond to the abuses of its Palestinian citizens by the State of Israel as well as the Palestinians under occupation, we are not friends of our our Jewish brothers and sisters.

The State of Israel will eventually find its security in discovering the humanity of Palestinians citizens and Palestinians citizens and those Palestinians under occupation.

The true security for Israel can only be found as Israelis and Palestinians look at each other and discover themselves.

Richard Toll

Gremlins strike again!

Things going wrong and the editor's problem of monolingualism led to a difficult error in Friday's ISSUES. The Spanish for “This room doesn't need cleaning..” should be corrected as follows:

NO ES NECESARIO COMPONER O LIMPIAR ESTE CUARTO HOY. Gracias!

Lunch Time Speakers                                                                   under                                                                                                     The Consultation banner

Today at 1:15 -- Dr. Ian Douglas, Angus Dun Professor of World Mission and Global Christianity at the Episcopal Divinity School

Monday – EPF Young Adult Team with Winnie Verghese

Gentle hints may not be enough!

ISSUES and The Consultation are at Convention to share in the fellowship, to greet old and new friends, and to help the Legislative Houses in their deliberations. None of our constituent groups have deep pockets; they are all dependent on the kindness of friends. ISSUES, particularly, is intended to help our friends see the work of Convention in a different way, and to perhaps shine light on an overlooked aspect of the discussions. There is no angel funding ISSUES, life would be easier if there were. So, we need your contribution, large or small. (Large is preferred, but we don't discriminate by size, either.)

Please drop by The Consultation booth in the Exhibit Hall and tell us what you think; at the same time you can make a contribution; Envelopes are available there. YOUR help will make a difference.
The Editors

ISSUES will be published on Tuesday and Wednesday, Inshallah!

ISSUES

2006

SATURDAY JUNE 17

     ISSUES 2006 may be seen at  http:\\www.theconsultation.org\

Immigration

For the past three months, immigrations have dominated new stories from coast to coast, border to border. The controversy has drawn attention away from the immoral, failing war in Iraq and corruption in the U.S. Government. The victims of this ploy are millions of hard working people dedicated to their families, communities and faith communities including the Episcopal Church.

Economics are the driving force of massive immigration into the U.S. (and other countries), and the U.S. in practice welcomes the immigrant boost to the economy. There are statistics to be tossed about, indignant self-righteousness about “breaking the law,” and with each case of illegal immigration there is a human face.

My home parish was really excited a little over a year ago when we were able to hire a Hispanic/Latino Missioner and Youth Director. Juan is Mexican born and has lived in the U.S. for 20 years (originally coming as an undocumented 14 year old). He was adopted by an Episcopal priest and his wife, an ESL teacher. He graduated from a U.S. college, English became his dominant language and U.S. culture his dominant culture. In the late 90s, Juan gained legal status through a religious worker visa. Due to a paperwork glitch and a lost in the mail application for an extension, Juan’s visa lapsed. Our parish re-petitioned – Juan left in December for his visa interview. Six months and $8,000.00 in attorney fees later, he is stuck in Mexico while U.S. immigration sits on his request for a waiver. Juan is one individual of millions separated from family, his job and community by our broken immigration system.

Compassionate immigration reform should include: