from Donald Vinson

CLEARING SOME COB-WEBS
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 from Donald Vinson

I hope it might be helpful to some to clear up some apparent misconceptions about activities out here in Anaheim.

ON THE GENERAL CONVENTION SCHEDULE:

For all of us, the schedule is tight. Sessions begin by 9:30 and run until at least 6:00, and there are always evening activities to attend. Just getting meals takes some time. Some of our Deputies are not assigned to committees, but for those who are, meetings take even longer. My committee is “Church in Small Communities,” and one thing we just did was change our name to “Committee for Small Congregations.” We had only three resolutions to deal with, and though a few members yammered heroically to fill the time with off-topic talk to make up for lack of business, we have completed our work. Deputies also have an alternate for each order (Beth Marquart and Richard Heller), and we take turns having a session or day off so that they can have time on the floor of Convention. That gives all of us some much-needed rest, and some time to reflect.

For Bishop Klusmeyer, there are no such mercies. He was assigned to “Program, Budget, and Finance” (“PB&F”), which meets from 7:00 a.m. until well into the night, in addition to the sessions of the House of Bishops. He has no Alternate to give him a break. I am certain he will report thoughtfully to the Diocese once he is able to gather any thoughts, but unlike some bishops on less active committees, he has had no leisure to do that yet.

ON REPORTING OUR DEPUTATION’S VOTES

“Votes by Orders” are a matter of public record and can always be found on a number of internet sites. However, our Deputies are committed to openness about our work, and have never declined any request for such information, despite implications to the contrary. If anyone asks us how we voted, we answer, to the best of our ability (things are flying by fast!) If reports on this blog are delayed a day or so, that is because we were busy working.

ON BISHOP AND DEPUTIES

In this I speak for myself only. Yesterday, I voted with the entire Deputation, clergy and lay, to affirm D 025 as it was amended by the House of Bishops, which resulted in its final enactment. (The text will be posted separately.) While I know there will be repercussions to that act in the United States and abroad, I would submit that we have already been feeling similar quakes and would be anyway, no matter what we did on that particular question. B 033 from 2006 did not spare us schism—it happened anyway. I am comfortable with my decision, and I believe the resolution was as amicably and non-aggressively worded as it could be, while still affirming the structural independence and moral imperative of our church.

I am told that Bishop Klusmeyer chose to vote differently in the House of Bishops, and I am comfortable with his decision, too. Since my election as Deputy, I have joined the Bishop’s staff, so he is now my boss. He has never, at any time, suggested or implied to me or, to my knowledge, to any other Deputy, that we ought to vote a particular way on any matter before the House of Deputies, or that our vote should ever conform to his. He has treated us all, as far as I can tell, with respect, affection, and generosity of spirit.

On this one matter, we have a difference of opinion, and it is an important one. However, to imply that Bishop Klusmeyer’s decision has been made thoughtlessly, carelessly, or immorally is presumptuous and unfair. I am honored to serve with a Deputation in which there is such a bond of friendship, mutual respect, and trust. I can testify to the Diocese at large that this Deputation does know how to agree and disagree without being disagreeable with one another.

ON CIVIL DISCOURSE

I do understand the disappointment of some that all of their leaders do not unanimously subscribe to their own convictions (though personally, I cannot remember that ever happening to me.) However, I would submit that even those of us who believe we have achieved perfect moral clarity should remember that even we have not always been so crystal clear in our own rightness, and should allow space for others to grow and evolve in their views as we have done. At the very least, aggressive provocation is a bad tactic and usually produces results opposite to those espoused. Beyond that, though, we owe to our brothers and sisters, who are traveling the same pilgrim road as we are, the respect and civil regard due to all people of good will. I am not asking anyone to agree falsely: I am asking that we express our disagreement without personal rancor and derogation.