Copyright © 2006 The Episcopal Diocese of East Tennessee

The East Tennessee Episcopalian sat down with the Rt. Rev. Charles vonRosenberg within a day of his return from the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, held June 13-21, 2006, in Columbus, Ohio.

ETE: One of this convention's two primary objectives was to elect a presiding bishop. This was the first time you've participated in a primate election.

CVR: Business was conducted within the atmosphere of prayer, reflection and hymn-singing. It was a respectful process with very few apparent political conversations.

The rector of Trinity Church, where we voted, gave us a copy of a new book about that place called "Be It Remembered" - certainly an interesting title! I did a tally sheet and journal of the election in the back of this book.

The rule was, if two-thirds who were eligible to vote were present, we needed a majority. If two-thirds of those eligible to vote were not present, a two-thirds vote would be required. Eligible to vote were 187. Number present was 188. Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori led from the first ballot [tying only Bishop Henry Parsley on the second ballot, but leading in all others and garnering the needed 95 votes on the fifth ballot.]

One very moving thing happened during the election: We signed several sheets testifying to the election, and all the women in the house signed on the same sheet in the order of their consecration. One of the secretaries of the house made copies and had them framed for all the women bishops. That was a real affirmation.

It is important to note that the Windsor Report complimented us on our procedure of consultation around the Anglican Communion regarding the ordination of women. Once that decision was made, that opened the door to a female presiding bishop.

ETE: The other objective was to respond to the Windsor Report. The process of hearings and attempts to pass legislation seemed an incredibly difficult one. What's your take on what's been accomplished?

CVR: I believe we've done what we could do, both to maintain our own identity and autonomy - which is traditionally who we are and who all provinces in the Anglican Communion are - and at the same time recognize that our actions do have consequences and that we ought to try, in the future, to be more aware of those consequences. My perception is, we said that we're not going to give up who we are in the Episcopal Church, but we also don't want to give up the Anglican Communion.

I had an enlightening conversation with the Archbishop of York. He happened to be at the same restaurant on one of the last evenings of the convention, and so we were chatting after dinner. He was expressing his observation that we had indeed struggled mightily, and he recognized that we were having a difficult time coming up with language. I said to him, "It seems to me what we should do, in order to keep the conversation going, is say that we're committed to the Windsor Process as it has been set forth by the Windsor Report. Period." He took a step back and looked at me and grinned, and then he pointed at me and said, "That's right! You've got it!"

That's the intent of what we've done, to say we recognize the Windsor Report is a guideline. We're committed both to staying in the Communion and to the Windsor Process. If he was speaking not just for himself, I think what we've done will be recognized for its intent.

ETE: Do you have a feeling for what happens next?

We'll be besieged by a whole lot of heat about what we've done or haven't done. My sense is that there will a good deal of examination about the care with which we follow these resolutions - or don't - and there will be repercussions in the headlines if we don't. Unless the Archbishop of Canterbury says something first, the primates' meeting in the fall is the gathering where the next step in the conversation will happen.

And the convention voted to fully fund the increased asking for the Anglican Consultative Council, even though Episcopal Church members were asked not to participate in that body's last meeting beyond providing information.

One of the resolutions that was looked at earlier was funding the ACC and putting that money in escrow, and that failed. What happened was that PB&F [Program, Budget & Finance Committee] did everything they could to take money from the bureaucratic expenses of the budget - the constitutional and canonical areas (like meetings) were really cut to fund ministries such as historically black colleges and in Appalachia. And there was significant budgetary attention given to seminarians' training and to their debt.

ETE: What other work of the General Convention would you highlight?

The Millennium Development Goals - attention to that and recognition of our responses as stewards of God's gifts for the rest of the world, not just us. That's also part of the conversation about Windsor: our involvement in the world. We need to have a place at the table not just for ourselves, but also for those who depend on us. That's an opportunity for us to focus on what we're called to do. I was grateful for that decision. I wish we could have done the Windsor response early in convention - that was the plan - and then have the Millennium Development Goals to kind of send us out. But it went the other way, because it was so complicated. The MDGs surely provide one of the top subjects from General Convention.

ETE: How significant is it that the Revised Common Lectionary becomes "the" lectionary next year - though the transition continues through 2010?

We're not changing the prayer books, so some will have one lectionary and some another for a time, which seems very strange to me. Apparently the lectionary is considered an appendix; canonically we can change it without changing the prayer book. That seems a bit confusing. But again, this is a reaching out to others - the RCL is being used ecumenically.

The work on Title III - ministry - is another significant matter that did pass. It's important that we continue to live into this, recognizing that we can make canonical changes at every General Convention; it's not Mt. Sinai on tablets - some things even were changed this year from the 2003 convention.

ETE: There were rumblings, at least in the House of Deputies, about difficulties achieving forward progress. Some conspiracy theorists wondered whether delays were being built into the process, to prevent accomplishment.

General Convention has gotten too big and cumbersome, and some questions don't have legislative answers. For example, when the bishops heard that the Windsor resolutions were being voted down or amended or otherwise slowed, some began to plan for the possibility that we would have to write a "mind of the house" resolution that would be sent to the deputies for concurrence. If they did not concur, it still would be understood by the rest of the Communion as the bishops speaking - not the way we like to do business, but something.

Why were things not being passed, why was the process so slow? A way to look at it is that the folks who might be labeled "liberal" had major issues with the Windsor Report and the requests made by it. Out of their own legitimate convictions, they had issues, and they were joined by folks from the other end of the spectrum who had other reasons for slowing things down or backing things up or keeping things from happening. That's a conspiracy theory that has some justification behind it.

I talked with [Bishop] Duncan Gray, and he said he was going to address the conspiracy theories in terms of Katharine's election - to quote St. Paul saying, "you meant this for ill, but God will use it for good."

There were folks at both extremes that voted the same way for very different reasons. The liberal folks have convictions that would not allow them to vote for some things, and some of the archconservatives made decisions about voting that same way for very different reasons. They're getting very good at leveraging their votes and causing mischief, pushing us so that our position in the Anglican Communion may be less secure.

ETE: A resolution to reduce the length of the General Convention to eight days - nine if it included the election of a presiding bishop - was voted down.

We've tried to move the hearings earlier, with the legislative committees meeting sooner and beginning the flow earlier, but things like attempts to specify that a committee can only present so many resolutions have never been put into effect.

My first convention as a deputy was Phoenix in '91. Seems to me we spent two days just sitting there. It was well into the second day before we got the first piece of legislation. By the last day, my goal was to be able to flip the pages of the notebook fast enough to find what we were voting on - not to consider it, just to find it. Sometimes I succeeded, and sometimes I didn't. It's crazy, and it needs to be changed dramatically. There are an awful lot of special interest groups that have a stake in continuing the way it is. For example, moving the consents to bishops out of convention [to diocesan standing committees] could be perceived as giving up power.

ETE: Most of the secular press has been referring to resolutions as "non-binding." Can dioceses and parishioners just take or leave non-canonical legislation passed by a General Convention?

You can't be brought up on charges for breaking a resolution of General Convention. You can be for breaking a canon or the Constitution. In that sense, resolutions are non-binding, but they represent the mind of the church - and we are bound by that. The practices in individual dioceses - like ours - are governed by resolutions, but in some others, they are not. I consider them binding in terms of the order of our church: This is how the church has said it wants to order itself.

ETE: Is there anything else you want to say to East Tennessee?

My first entry in the Web log was to say that General Convention is a reunion of the church and a gathering of the people to say our prayers and to dream about what the church can be. At the same time, it's a legislative reality. I intended by making that distinction to communicate that I know what we read in the papers is primarily the second thing - the legislation. My perception is that we do the first better than we do the second.

General Convention does need reform in order to serve us as a legislative body that does the work of organizing and legislating our church. That part of General Convention does not operate with the efficiency that our church deserves. And yet, having said that, we addressed most of what we were anticipating we would address, and we did it in a fairly reasonable and organized way. We came out of that experience with lots of resolutions passed and canons changed and the work of the church furthered - even in our imperfection.

For more information about the General Convention from East Tennessee perspectives, please visit http://etdiocese.net/GenConv2006/index.php