by Herb Gunn

[February 2008] The appropriate balance and blend of authority and voices in the Episcopal Church is at the heart of what makes our church unique, not only among denominations across the Christian spectrum but clearly among the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. The role of the laity as a partner in ministry and the wisdom, experience and theological insight of everyone in the church is essential to our identity and understanding of God’s providence. This historic blending has not been easy to achieve, but laity and clergy, men and women, gay and straight, white, black, Hispanic and Asian have steadily pressed for equity in authority and clarity in voice.

This blend is at the core of how and why the Episcopal Church was founded; it is essential and worth both preserving and bearing witness to in the intra-Anglican discord surrounding our church. When the Episcopal Church is at its best, this blend is not like water and oil—a temporary amalgam that separates as it settles. It becomes a richer blend and a new substance.

Our Diocesan Convention raised an issue last October, and the bishop commented on it last month in an interview in these pages. The issue is a proposed amendment to the diocesan constitution that would give voice and vote at convention to the members of Diocesan Council. The measure has passed once and its fate awaits a second reading in October 2008.

It has been noted that the change would only impact the lay members of council since members of the clergy already exercise voice and vote at the annual meeting. But slicing the argument in this manner skews the discussion in a way that invites us to miss the point.

As the bishop outlined last month, this question should not be viewed as a lay equity issue; the laity already have a substantial voice at Diocesan Convention. And in the House of Deputies, I would add, which is an enhancement to our ecclesiology that we should help the remainder of the Anglican Communion embrace.

When considering whether to invite members of Diocesan Council to vote on the floor of Diocesan Convention, we should focus on the overarching blend of authority and accountability in our diocese, not an inaccurate sense of symmetry between laity and clergy.

The Diocesan Council and the Diocesan Convention hold different roles. To oversimplify, council prepares a budget; then, through representatives of the congregations, convention decides whether to pay for it. These roles call for different plateaus of discernment. It is not necessary, not essential, and not appropriate to attempt to ensure that convention echo council’s angle on everything.

As the bishop opined last month, the clergy participate in Diocesan Convention for reasons other than their membership on Diocesan Council. Those who sit on council therefore have a dual discernment role.

If the diocesan norms on convention/council need adjustment, two other changes might have a more potent bearing on the balance and blend of perspectives than the proposed change.

The clergy who sit on council could voluntarily recuse themselves from convention if their dual roles become confusing or if they feel their contribution on the topic has been absorbed in council’s pre-convention preparation.

More germane perhaps, we might consider actually electing the lay and clergy representatives to Diocesan Council from those who are members of Diocesan Convention. After all, a chief role of council is to “act on behalf of convention between meetings.” There are logistically challenging circumstances that might frustrate such a goal, but at least it would suggest a proper ordering of the relationship: that council should follow convention’s lead, not presuppose or unduly influence what convention will do.