June 3-5, 2002

Episcopal Church Center, NYC

Monday, June 3, 2002

The meeting convened at 9:03 am.  Terry Bowes led morning devotions.

Andrea DeGroot-Nesdahl was unable to attend.  Ron Warren was to arrive later that day.

Don Brown chaired the Monday session which began with introductions followed by approval of minutes from the February meeting.

Update on consecrations/installations

Discussion of consecrations and installations followed, noting in particular that of the new Episcopal bishop of Washington, DC; Lutheran Bishop Ted Schneider participated.  New ECUSA bishops have also been elected  in SW Virginia and Massachusetts.  In the ELCA, Bishop Bouman was re-elected in Metro NY on the first ballot.  The ELCA has also had the first “translation” of a bishop, where one bishop who had reached term limits in one synod was elected in another.  There are also new synodical bishops in Milwaukee, St. Paul, and the Sierra-Pacific synods.

Ordination by-law exceptions

With regard to the ordination by-law, it was noted that there was one request pending for an exception.  Presiding Bishop Hanson has been notified, and the synodical bishop is considering granting the exception.   There is in addition one other possibility; a formal request has not been made, and there has been no conversation with the Presiding Bishop yet.  Discussion centered around the fear of precedent setting in terms of reasons for requesting exceptions and that of granting them; it was noted that this was not the intent of the exception by-law.  Duane Larson noted that certain seminaries have lobbied to recommend to their students that they request exemptions, and have allowed people on campus to make this argument to students.

Jon Enslin discussed possible reactions if the ordination bylaw candidate was approved: first, with the principle that exceptions were possible proven, the issue would dissipate; second, that those seeking to overturn CCM will gain momentum in this regard.   Grant Abbot asked what the tracking system for such persons would be; Randy Lee replied that there is no planned database, but that the roster of ordained ministers notes who ordained whom.  Donald Brown expressed concern about having accurate information in place for the 2003 General Convention.  Grant Abbot expressed concern about “lawyerly” attempts to void agreement based upon the “unilateral” changes by the ELCA being raised in some areas of the church.  Al Moss pointed out that accurate knowledge and information were “protectors” of full communion.  Duane Larson was impressed by the thorough, “juridical” investigation of tracking and call in ECUSA; would it behoove the two churches to look together at how we do paperwork?  Chris Epting gave an update on diocese of NY resolution, which requests that, given the unilateral change by the ELCA, to ask the House of Bishops to form a committee to explore this matter

Norman Wahl said that the ecclesiastical spectrum was “wider” in ECUSA; that challenges to the ELCA by leadership in parishes is in some cases a greater problem than ordination exceptions, which he termed “leadership issues”, noting that in some synods lay ministries being licensed for pastoral ministries to circumvent pastors and that some congregations were censured for this.  Jon Enslin agreed that this is a difficult internal issue.

Chris Epting noted that this relates to the Episcopal Church’s discussions on Canon 9 clergy.

Al Moss asked a question of clarification: is it that ELCA folks are licensed, and ECUSA people episcopally ordained?

Greg Villalon responded that the ELCA Division for Ministry is having discussions on local ordination, and that they don’t want different rosters of ministers, and that local licensed people are eligible for call and episcopal ordination.

Jon Enslin asked if could we have those requesting non-episcopal ordination only be licensed for local ordination?

Grant Abbot  brought up the diocese of Sydney and the Anglican Church of Australia’s debate over lay persons presiding at the eucharist.  It was noted that some of this discussion also relates to development of Hispanic and Native American ministries, as well as “alternative route” tracks towards ordination.

Don Brown returned to the canonical issue of the “lawyerly” opposition to CCM, and Grant Abbot offered to work with folks to come up with a “lawyerly” response to potential opposition at the 2003 General Convention.  Nancy Curtis asked if it would be helpful to have an ELCA voice as well in the discussion.  Jon Enslin encouraged the group to note positive elements, some of which came up at the National Workshop on Christian Unity, and to get LERN representatives to bring in stories about relationships which have sprung up from full communion.  Significant things happening around country; he noted, and we need to change focus of the argument.

Discussion of Confirmation Report

Bishop Irish urged that we need to engage in a discussion of Confirmation together given the wide variety of practices, and that the goal is ministry and full initiation of Baptism, and that pastoral concerns should supercede canonical obligation. Grant Abbot reminded the ELCA participants of the decentralized nature of ECUSA, which allows for a wide variety of practices.  Norman Wahl noted that the manner in which being received in the ELCA is not as uniform as indicated in the Task Force report quoted in the paper on p. 12; does ELCA need to include full communion partners in its guidelines?  Nancy Curits pointed out that distinctions are made, though not in regard to actual rite of Confirmation.

Bishop Irish commented that we need to engage theology and  practice together; is this better addressed apart from the House of Bishops?  Donald Brown wondered if we should include language of conferring with other bodies in the report.  Terry Bowes averred that if we take this seriously, it goes way beyond hoops one must jump through, and becomes more about how we are equipping the saints; perhaps discussion should be elevated to that language rather than juridical; how to live out faith with fewest “hoops”?

Duane Larson asked that if we are to develop a resolution with this “elevated” strategy, to which body should it go?  Bishop Irish suggested adding a paragraph on what we share, where we hope to go, and in that light move forward in affirming the practice suggested; she noted the difficulty in solving a pastoral issue through legislation.

It was moved that Terry Bowes work with Tom Ferguson on rewording p. 14 of paper.

Break

Meeting re-convened at 10:45 am

The meeting moved on to a discussion of the Episcopal Church’s “Blue Book Report”, the official summary of ecumenical work to be presented to the 2003 General Convention. Donald Brown requested thoughts and suggestions for content.  The following were suggested: people need to know who is on the Committee and what the by-laws are; to emphasize the larger picture, present a positive image; to provide an emphasis on the “multitude of awesome things” that are taking place in order to put human face on relationship; that the LECC is a microcosm of what full communion could be; and to use welcoming language, with less of an emphasis on the bureaucratic.

Update on March 23-25 Diaconal Ministry Conference

Bishop Epting discussed the Diaconal Conference.  He noted how it emerged from the CCM mandate to mutual discussion of the diaconate, and of a conference a year ago sponsored by NAAD (North American Association of the Diaconate) which began such a discussion.  A task force was appointed, and representatives from Ministry Development offices attended.  Bishop Epting distributed the minutes from the meeting, and noted that the eventual goal was “some sort of guidelines” akin to the Orderly Exchange of Ordained Ministers document but perhaps not as formal.  Bishop Irish asked whether the question of transitional diaconate was involved, and Nancy Curtis inquired as to the place of the ELCA’s category of associates in ministry (AIMs).  Both will need to be a piece of this discussion.  Randy Lee pointed out that the people in the Lutheran deaconness community are closest to Episcopal deacons, but are rostered as deaconesses of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and not as diaconal ministers.  Duane Larson noted some other interesting sociological issues, namely that the diaconal ministry community has been proactive in giving itself an identity; AIMs need more than a voice but to help define self-identity and community.  Norman Wahl wondered about those persons who are seminary-trained but specializing in lay ministries but not AIMs or diaconal ministers?

Jon Enslin discussed the compromises made in the formation of ELCA that led to some problems: has the diaconal minister situation led to a conception of AIMs as “second-class lay ministers”?  Ron Warren worried that the ELCA might have “created a caste-system.”  Duane Larson said that deacons have always been creating their own job descriptions, and that flexibility and innovation had always been a characteristic.  It was noted that it might require canonical changes at a Churchwide Assembly to have diaconal exchanges.  Bishop Irish expressed concern about sweeping all lay ministers within one category, and noted the need for looking at context in terms of region; also about place of Commissions in laying down too many guidelines.  Grant Abbot noted that all of this discussion is part of a larger issue of restoring ministry of baptized.

Greg Villalon expressed some concern about recommendations coming from the LECC, and would prefer gathering and discussions first. Nancy Curtis agreed, noting that anything the Coordinating Committee might do right now might be premature before discussions of various categories (AIMs, diaconal ministers, deacons, etc.); energy directed to articulate mission component, then on to structure.

Randy Lee expressed some frustration that the exchange of deacons is not possible at this point; agreeing with Nancy’s point but also noting the need should not necessarily be top-down but be welling up from the local scene.   Jon Enslin suggested that we should not be premature, but we should also not ignore; otherwise local situation will take over.

Duane Larson asked that more diaconal representatives be added to the Diaconal Task Force.  A discussion followed, with some thinking such a move would be premature, while others thought that it would provide important visibility to the respective diaconal communities.   There was some discussion of the need to hear all voices, but whether membership on the LECC was the only way to do this.

Added business:

Grant Abbott rasied the question about voice and vote at Episcopal diocesan conventions by Lutheran pastors serving in Episcopal congregations.  How do we encourage dioceses to permit this?  He also noted that often the paperwork for the exchange of clergy does not reflect full communion arrangements, and that the two churches should have “mirrored documents.”  In the discussion that followed, it appeared that voice and vote were being extended in most ELCA synods, but less so in Episcopal diocesan conventions.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened at 1:31 p.m.

The guests for the afternoon were introduced: the Rev. Marcia-Clark Johnson, Associate Director of the Deparment for Synodical Relations, and Bishop Donald McCoid, Chair of Conference of Bishops

Randy Lee provided the context for a discussion of episcopal ministry which followed, noting that such a discussion was “imbedded” in para. 17 of CCM, which called for “structures for collegial and periodic review” of the ministry of bishops.  He noted that at the February 2002, meeting, there had been a request for initiation of a study of the ministry of bishops.  He said that the goal at this meeting was to ascertain whether this was the appropriate time for a joint study of ministry of oversight, and what elements that such a study might contain.

Bishop Irish opined that “oversight” seemed to have more emphasis on the administrative and less so on the sacramental aspects of episcopal ministry.

Randy Lee spoke briefly about understandings of episcopal ministry which had emerged in bilateral talks, specifically the 10th Round of Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue which dealt with episcope.  Entitled “Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries”, it took the concept of koinonia and looked at the question of ministry.  This dialogue articulated an understanding of church gathered around Word and Sacrament.

Bishop Epting noted numerous Anglican-Roman Catholic agreed statements on ministry, most notably the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission's Final Report, as well as the Mississauga Report, which sought to build on convergence.  Discussion on how to work together “on the ground”, the place of the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue’s “Gift of Authority," polarities between centralized and diffused authority, and the inauguration of the Episcopal-bilateral followed.  The volume produced on episcopal ministry and oversight by the Methodist-Roman Catholic dialogue was noted, and Randy Lee discussed the current focus in that dialogue on sanctification issues, in particular the current revival of Wesleyan theology.  Further, Randy briefly described the Orthodox-Lutheran dialogue, whose current theme is the Holy Trinity and the Mystery of the Church, and pointed out the agreed statement on Filioque, and that the ELCA may recommend that the Nicene Creed be confessed sans Filioque, at least in ecumenical settings, a recommendation also made by the Lutheran World Federation.  The next round of Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue will look at oversight. 

Marcia Clark-Johnson briefly outlined the nuts and bolts on orienting bishops in the ELCA, which is focused on more practical matters.  Orientation consists of two days, followed up with a second phase the spring following installation in conjunction with the Conference of Bishops’ meeting.  This involves a day for orientation to legal issues.  The 2 days’ orientation includes theological discussion of oversight and the office of the bishop.  Orientation also involves a “parade of people” from various offices and persons from the Lutheran Center.

Currently the ELCA is conducting a three-year study with the Alban Institute consulting project, asking, what do new bishops need to support their ministry?  how can orientation meet this need?

There is a Bishops’ Academy which meets each January, and lasts six days; this is seen as a time of retreat rather than business, and has a focus on worship.  The Conference of Bishops meets twice a year.  Content for orientation includes candidacy, the assignment process, the Division for Ministry discussing those issues as well as lawyers on legal issues; human resources training, particularly in relation to synodical staff; sexual misconduct; and every division of Lutheran Center talks about their ministries.

Bishop McCoid pointed out that the Constitution of the Synod contains a job description for a bishop as the chief pastor of Word and Sacrament in the Synod, with particular responsibility for attesting calls; the bishop is the ecumenical officer of the Synod. Constitutionally, the Conference of Bishops is advisory to the ELCA; legislative responsibility rests with the Church Council between meetings of the Churchwide Assembly.  The Church Council includes a bishop from each of the nine regions for consultation.  In addition he noted that the bishop has great influence within the Synod.  Bishop McCoid also pointed at that there is a mentoring program for newly-elected bishops.

There are only four remaining bishops from the time of the formation of the ELCA in 1987, indicating an almost wholesale turnover in the Conference of Bishops, with  multiple turnover in some Synods.

The question was asked if there was a need for corresponding polity with one another’s denominations.

Several members suggested that it might be an opportune time to hold a second joint meeting of the Conference of Bishops and the House of Bishops.  Such a meeting might provide the opportunity to focus on examples of joint mission, and ways to develop sharing of common mission opportunities.

Bishop Epting noted that in addition to a College of Bishops which orients bishops in the Episcopal Church, there are also meetings on mid-career as well as pre-retirement sessions, as well as mentorship programs.  After a particularly difficult House of Bishops meeting at the 1991 General Convention, it was felt it was necessary for the House to meet more often.

Randy Lee asked if is there is any reason why we should not proceed with joint study.  In addition Duane Larson wondered who should do such a study.  There was consensus that it was a good idea, but that it was important to frame parameters of the study and not to lose the “evaluation” of the office piece as requested in paragraph 17 of CCM.

Discussion adjourned at 3:17 pm

 Meeting reconvened at 3:45 pm

Introduction of The Rev. Dr. Jonathan Linman, Assistant Professor of Ascetical Theology and Director of the Center for Christian Spirituality at General Theological Seminary (GTS) in New York City.

Professor Linman provided Reflections on spirituality in our traditions, noting that some have called Anglicanism spirituality in search of a theology; and Lutherans a theology in search of a spirituality .

Linman described spirituality as lived theology, noting there were many books by Episcopal authors in spirituality, also more centers for spirituality in Episcopal rather than in Lutheran seminaries; for instant, there is no comparable position in Ascetical Theology at Lutheran seminaries

The Center at General Seminary was originally founded as a Spiritual direction center; Linman noted the place of spiritual direction within Anglican tradition, and that Lutheran tradition historically had suspicion of spirituality as latent works-righteousness.

For Lutheran spirituality, Linman described the opportunities to see Luther as a person of prayer: with justification as much a spiritual discipline as a doctrine, and that mysticism was not absent in Luther.  He also mentioned the contrast between rationalistic scholasticism and pietistic traditions.   Regarding spirituality and Christian Discipleship, Linman noted that the church has been focusing outward to the world than previous generations; for witness to be credible, it must be grounded in spirituality.  Regarding spirituality and theological education, Linman emphasized the crucial role in formation for ministry of people as persons of prayer, and the place of a devotional ordo to sustain them in their ministry.  He also described the paradoxical role of spirituality:  should it be part of courses for credit or extra-curricular?  There are ethical and curricular issues involved in such a discussion; how can one grade someone’s prayer life?

Sharing of resources is a central a component of CCM: Center for Spirituality at GTS as a resource; Master of Divinity students from other seminaries could study there.

Jon Enslin asked about the ministry of the laity and spirituality.  Was there any work being done in “corporate” spirituality?   Professor Linman replied that spirituality was lay-driven in many regards, particularly discipleship, and that corporate spirituality was a crucial component; not only an individual thing; how to organize meetings, set agenda, facilitate different “spirit” in group meetings through intentional prayer.

Professor Linman also spoke on what is was like to be a Lutheran teaching in an Episcopal seminary.  He said it was a “delight” to embody this aspect of full communion, especially since faculty live on campus.  He said that it has come naturally, and soon he may no longer be thought of as “the Lutheran”…but that he also does not want people to forget that fact.  He outlined nine challenges his experience presented:

            1)         task of learning a new culture, new language, new glossary of terms;                              “disembodied” at times

            2)         staying fresh as a Lutheran; still rostered in synod; attend synodical assemblies,              etc.

            3)         differences in terms of social class

            4)         overcoming stereotypes, misinformation, unfamiliarity with the other’s traditions

            5)         pride in one’s own tradition over and against others?

            6)         also dealing with “family history”, Episcopalians who have been Lutherans

            7)         familiarity can also bring unintentional slights?

            8)         burden of representing a tradition; is GTS getting a skewed understanding of                  what a Lutheran is?

            9)         perhaps greatest challenge is inspiring interest in ecumenism; some dioceses                   requiring course in Lutheran polity?

Tuesday, June 4

Meeting convened at 9:01 a.m.

Bishop Irish led morning devotions

The Committee went on a tour of the Episcopal Church Center.

The meeting re-convened at 9:39 am

Bishop Epting introduced Bishop Clay Matthews, Executive Director, Office of Pastoral Development for The Episcopal Church.

Bishop Matthews noted that The Episcopal Church has experienced a trend towards more bishops suffragan and fewer bishop coadjutors, and that most dioceses elect their diocesan bishop and have immediate succession.  The Episcopal Church has put a limit on the amount of time which can exist between consecration of a coadjutor and resignation of a diocesan bishop; the 2000 General Convention recommended a two-year timeframe;  a three-year timeframe was legislated.

Bishop Matthews also spoke of other trends within the episcopate, noting that in 1997 the church began to change its nomenclature; suffragan bishops became bishops suffragan, in light of the understanding that episcope means oversight, and that bishops suffragan should have some sort of oversight.  Only bishops with jurisdiction can consent on episcopal elections, and that has been part of a larger question as to under what conditions do bishops keep their right to vote in the House of Bishops?

Bishop Matthews noted that his position was created in 1970, and coincided with the establishment of Commissions on Ministry in each diocese.  The role has been developed by his various predecessors.  Part of the job includes working with Commissions on Ministry, clergy misconduct, coordinating the role of the Presiding Bishop in conflicts between bishops and dioceses.  It also deals with the question of inhibitions of clergy by bishops.

The position has three main foci:

            1)         The first involves episcopal formation on a number of levels and through a variety of services and programs.  He assists in consulting in the election process when invited by dioceses.  In such cases, he can offer the wisdom of the national church but according to the polity of The Episcopal Church, only as much as local practice/custom usually allow.  There is a standardization but not uniformity in the manner in which dioceses elect their bishops.  In addition, his office handles psychiatric and physical exams for bishops-elect.  Bishop Matthews also contacts candidates before elections, and follows up with bishops-elect and spouses in a mentoring program.  The office also runs a  “college of bishops” to orient newly elected bishops, as well as mid-career program and pre-retirement conference, and he also serves as the deployment officer for Bishops.

            2)         The second is pastoral, providing pastoral care to bishops and their families. The pastoral work of the office also includes misconduct procedures for bishops.  He noted there has been significant turnover since 1998: 53 have been elected, and by 2003 the Episcopal Church will have elected 69 bishops.

            3)         The third involves mediation in disciplinary charges made against a bishop.  According to canon law, the Presiding Bishop’s office has 90 days to mediate and determine whether charges move forward in the canonical process.  The charges investigated range from the trivial and minor to serious ones.

General discussion followed the presentations.  It was noted that there has been a trend to elect persons as bishops formally serving in smaller congregations.  The question was asked whether bishops-elect are adequately prepared for what is expected from them, and indeed whether it is even possible to do so.  Bishop Matthews agreed in part, and described how the office was embracing research to better assist in training and orientation.  The question of diversity within the episcopate was raised, and Bishop Matthews noted that leveling off in the number of women in the episcopate along with an increasing, but still numerically small, number of non-European descent; percentage still insignificant, and that a new generation entering the House of Bishops.

There was break at 10:59 am, and the meeting reconvened at 11:15 am.

The Committee considered the revised paragraph from the Confirmation Report.

            Motion moved/seconded to strike last sentence in regards to allowing local options;       Additions to wording agreed upon

            Motion to change “member” to “disciple” defeated

            The Revised Proposed Resolution was read:

In both our traditions, Holy Baptism “by water and the Holy Spirit” establishes full membership in Christ’s body, the Church (LBW, p. 121; BCP, p. 298).  Baptism is the sacramental basis for mission and ministry of the whole church and all its members.

Through our joint acceptance of Called to Common Mission and the full communion to which it invites us, the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America affirm that confirmation in either denomination is fully and mutually fully transferable by the rite of reception in their respective liturgical traditions. 

            Resolution passed.

Moved to table further discussion of resolution until Wednesday morning.

Resumed discussion of episcopal ministry with Bishop Clay Matthews.

Meeting adjourned at 11:46 a.m. for members to attend the Peace Mass at nearby St. Peter Lutheran Church.

Meeting reconvened at 2:00 p.m.

Jon Enslin announced that a woman bishop was elected upstate NY: now six out of 65 ELCA bishops are female.

Emily Perow spoke of Lutheran-Episcopal cooperation on the upcoming Episcopal Youth Event.  Al Moss spoke about the age issue in the Episcopal Church, noting the lack of younger persons in ordained ministry.

Duane Larson asked if the Committee needed to flag as an agenda item future discussion on youth ministries/campus ministries.

Bishop Epting read email from Bishop George Packard, Bishop of the Armed Forces, Prison, and Health Care Ministries, about the role "Called to Common Mission" might play in military chaplaincy.  Bishop Epting suggested the Coordinating Committee invite the Reverend Gerry Blackburn from Office of the Armed Forces to speak.

Jon Enslin noted that military chaplaincy is one last place where ELCA is in contact with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Bishop Epting introduced the Rev. Gerry Blackburn.  Father Blackburn spoke about Bishop Packard’s role as endorser of Episcopal chaplains, and noted that the ELCA and LCMS have a closer relationship in the military than in the civilian world.  The corresponding endorser of chaplains for the LCMS expressed concern about how "Called to Common Mission" might impact LCMS-ELCA relationships in the military.  The Rev. Lloyd Lingdahl, ELCA endorser of military chaplains, has been reluctant to move to explore closer Episcopal-ELCA cooperation because of the possibility of imparing relations with the LCMS, while at the same time ELCA Presiding Bishop Hanson has wondering why ELCA is not closer to ECUSA.

Duane Larson asked whether female ECUSA chaplains have had a part in reluctance of LCMS.

Father Blackburn provided an example of cooperation: an ECUSA chaplain was deployed overseas.  During her deployment, the ELCA chaplain covered.  When the ELCA chaplain was deployed abroad, retired chaplains stepped in and covered.  However, in a similar circumstance where there was a LCMS chaplain stationed at a post, the ELCA chaplains were reluctant to cover for the ECUSA chaplain.  In particular, Father Blackburn noted this is usually specifically in regard to Sunday morning eucharistic services.

Randy Lee noted again that this was one of the few remaining places of ELCA-LCMS cooperation; Jon Enslin noted that the LCMS voted in convention that ELCA no longer authentic Lutherans and asked whether we need to look at ELCA attempts to continue to maintain relationships with LCMS.  Does this give up too much?

Father Blackburn asked whether this was also a problem in prison and health care ministries.  He said that while there were not the specific examples as noted in military chaplaincy, health care chaplaincy is another place where full communion allows wider coverage through ELCA and ECUSA cooperation.

The Commissioned asked that Lloyd Lingdahl and Donald Steiger (who supervises in health care and prison ministries) be contacted by representatives of the LECC to express the concerns raised by Father Blackburn.

The presenters from St. Paul’s Chapel/Trinity Church arrived: The Rev. Dr. Frederic Burnham, Director of Trinity Institute, and Dr. Courtney Cowart, Program Associate for Spiritual Formation Grants.  After a deeply moving presentation of the relief work provided by St. Paul’s Chapel in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Septmber 11, the LECC paid a site visit to the World Trade Center Site and St. Paul’s Chapel.

Wednesday, June 5, 2002

The meeting convened at 9:01a.m. with introductions of Bishop Stephen Boumann and the Rev. William Hurst for a presentation on the synodiocal diaconate in the Metropolitan New York Synod of th ELCA.

Emily Perow led morning devotions.

Before beginning the presentation, the Chair highlighted the work which we still need to finish at this meeting, including looking forward to the Austin, TX, meeting in February of 2003.  Duane Larson introduced Bishop Boumann and the Rev. William Hurst

Bishop Boumann introduced the synodical deacon program as part of a Latino ministry strategy, and gave a brief history of the NY synodical diaconate.  It began in the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, a predecessor church body of the ELCA, when Pastor Boumann took a call in Jackson Heights, Queens.  He noted the need for leaders authorized by the churches, and explored a variety of programs for training, most of which were unsuccessful.  In 1976 he established Diakonia, which involved two years in a local church, six academic courses per year, and formation through integration with urban and local communites rather than  a seminary community.  He began to expand this ministry beyond Queens.  He did not start out to reclaim the order of deacon for the church, but to bring the charism of diakonia to the church,  he said, and that the ministry that is “not near the chancel”, but that by serving at the table becomes an icon.  There has been a sustained attempt to prevent clericalization of the office.

The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches began to incorporate the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry convergence statement of the World Council of Churches so that this diakonia could be incorporated into an order of service.

In the early 1980s Diakonia developed a Spanish language component, and graduated 45 Spanish-speaking persons.  Bishop Boumann detailed that the Spanish component is not a separate but equal program but an equal but different training program.  Diakonia spread to Poughkeepsie, Kingston, the Bronx, and the Hamptons; ministries led by deacons in most Anglo communities experiencing Hispanic growth.

The program began linking deacons with disaster response, and Bishop Boumann noted that at one point FEMA called the Diakonia program in this regard the “most magnificent response” they have seen.  There is currently a  FEMA person in Lutheran social response office.

The most important aspect, he affirmed, was that the synodical deacons never allow the church to turn its face from the poor.  He also discussed some of the messy implications of the programs, including various bishops and pastors who “don’t get it”, and that the synodical deacon is an “an order on trial” because it is so different.

Pastor Hurst noted the difference between Diakonia and the Synodical Diaconate.         Diakonia is not a deacon training program but the first phase in candidacy for synodical diaconate, and that Diakonia is a formation for the baptized.  In fact, the rite of Affirmation of Baptism from Lutheran Book of Worship is the graduation rite for Diakonia.  He noted that the Synodical Task Force on Ministry was ensuring that  Diakonia did not become a “guild” over and against other forms of ministry including the ministry of the baptized.

Diakonia graduates about a 100 people a year and operates in Chicago, SE Pennsylvania, NJ, and metro NY Synods of the ELCA.

Pastor Hurst noted that out of every 20 graduates of the Diakonia program, perhaps two will apply for synodical diaconate, and one will move toward seminary training and ordination as a pastor.  In terms of preparation and formation for the synodical diaconate, Pastor Hurst said that graduates of the program contact the synod office and began the theological and practical grounding in diakonia through a required internship of 12 months.  The deacons are synodically rostered but use ELCA rostering guidelines.  Pastor Hurst discussed the 1997 enabling bylaw by ELCA whereby synodical bishops could order ministries appropriate for a synod that are not permanent, and that this would be only authorized in that particular synod; and furthermore that even in that synod it would be one year at a time, renewable, and based on need.

Concerning the 12 month internship, Pastor Hurst said that they are careful about content.  Though not looking to form liturgical deacons, liturgical life is important.  The key issues during the candidacy period are usually collegial issues: synodical deacons must be able to both work as part of team and in community. 

Bishop Boumann noted that the Episcopal diocese of Newark used the Diakonia program to train their deacons.  He added that like ECUSA deacons, synodical deacons are also associates of the bishop but not in a hierarchical sense.

Ronald Warren asked whether this was a call or an appointed position?

Bishop Boumann replied that candidates meet with a candidacy committee, which makes a recommendation to the bishop who then chooses to move forward or not.  With acceptance, a candidate goes to a congregation which either calls a deacon or support them in exploration of a call.  Bishop Irish asked whether they were ordained.  Bishop Boumann replied that they are consecrated at a synod-wide liturgy.  They can be licensed for sacramental ministries and start new ministries, and in some communities almost function as pastors, usually in Hispanic/Latino communities. The consecration has included some of the marks of ordination.  The candidates wear a stole during the rite and are prayed over by the bishop, but there is no laying-on of hands as in the ordination of a pastor.

It was noted that the requirement of a Master’s degree is often a difficulty in qualifications for rostering as ELCA diaconal ministries.

Grant Abbott asked how pastors are trained to be able to work with synodical deacons.  Bishop Boumann said it was part of “boot camp” for pastors who come into a diocese.  Deacons are part of this orientation and at heart of every order of ministry.

Bishop Boumann in turn asked the Coordinating Committee for some advice, wondering what to do in mission situations where the diaconate has become a “quasi-novitiate”?  The Coordinating Committee discussed the positive and negative results of the Episcopal Church’s Canon 9  for ordaining local clergy.  The question was raised as to why Canon 9 provides only for ordination to a place, and why not just ordain?  The complexity of the economic, social, and cultural factors of Canon 9 clergy were discussed.  In particular, Bishop Irish noted that some Utah congregations would not give up their Canon 9 clergy even when seminary trained clergy could be provided.  She particularly stressed that the Canon 9 process helps create a team model of ministry.

Pastor Hurst noted the terminology “install to place” in the synodical diaconate rather than ordain to place.

Jon Enslin said that he was not surprised by levels of “messiness.”

Bishop Boumann highlighted another growing area: often the worshipping community thinks the synodical deacon is a pastor.  If the deacon is not a pastor, then do Hispanics think the ELCA is cynical about Latino ministry?  Yet the best way to form a pastor is in service in a congregation.  Bishop Epting expressed caution lest the synodical deacon function as a  “creeping transitional diaconate”.  Gregory Villalon noted that the ELCA also looking at variety of models of training and formation.

Thomas Ferguson asked if the Metropolitan New York synod has received any criticism about this synodical diaconate within ELCA.  Bishop Boumann spoke about the larger issues within formation with the coming together of ELCA.  He noted that it was accepted as a local option but that concern has been expressed as to whether this is a definitive part of Lutheranism.  Gregory Villalon said reaction has been more curious than opposed, and usually concerned with how can we strengthen the ministry of the church.  Norman Wahl said that different options make more sense in different contexts.

Duane Larson asked Bishop Boumann if CCM could provide in this emerging ministry, and how can the LECC could advocate.

Bishop Boumann said there were other things like the synodical deacon in ELCA, and theCCM and the LECC could help local orders find each other and name one another.    Pastor Hurst added that the LECC might help both denominations decide to pilot joint projects, perhaps the  ELCA and ECUSA in the New York dioceses/synods.

Break at 10:34 am

Meeting reconvened at 10:50 am

The LECC discussed the presentation from Bishop Bouman and Pr. Hurst, and wondered whether the Lily Endowment might be interested in funding a pilot program.  They are interested in theological education, open to creative proposals.  Volunteers agreed to make contact with Lily to get conversation rolling.  Donald Brown said we need to consult with dioceses as well, and Ronald Warren said he  would be willing to discuss with Bishop Neil Alexander and his other Episcopal counterparts.  Gregory Villalon asked that Ministry Development people be included, and to be careful and clear about terminology and titles in ministry. 

A motion on the Confirmation report was proposed and withdrawn, followed instead by general discussion on how to include the resolution passed from yesterday within the context of that report.  The complex understandings of definitions of lay ministries within our two churches was noted.  The LECC asked the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of The Episcopal Church for more discussion on the question of lay ministries, particularly in reference to the discussions in this meeting.

A motion was made to strike Section IV; of the Report and add: “With regard to confirmation and reception the LECC passed the following resolution:  In both our traditions, Holy Baptism ‘by water and the Holy Spirit’ establishes full membership in Christ’s body, the Church (LBW, p. 121; BCP, p. 298).  Baptism is the sacramental basis for mission and ministry of the whole church and all its members.  Through our joint acceptance of Called to Common Mission and the full communion to which it invites us, the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America affirm that confirmation in either denomination is fully and mutually fully transferable by the rite of reception in their respective liturgical traditions.”

Motion passed.

The Committee asked what needed to be included in the press release for this meeting.  Items highlighted included: the presentation on the synodical diaconate and the on-the-ground nature of servant ministry; that this be encouraged by joint training and study; the moving quality of presentation from the St. Paul’s Chapel team and the site visit to Ground Zero; the reception of the report of the diaconal task force; the ordination bylaw exception report; common mission together the youth events discussed; and that the stage was set for the next meeting on cooperative work in education.

Alfred Moss agreed to draft the press release with assistance from Terry Bowes.

Next meeting agenda items were raised:  The LECC would focus on cooperative theological education, especially in context of Latino ministry formation.  There would be reports from seminaries on ecumenical study and full communion, with Bishop Irish volunteering to work with Virginia Seminary.  The question of the place of military/health care/prison chaplaincies was also raised.

Ronald Warren invited the LECC to come to Atlanta in February of 2004 for discussion of African-American ministry and military chaplaincy, noting that Atlanta has large military installation and connections with military chaplaincy.  Randy Lee said that the ELCA needs to have some internal conversation before bringing it to the LECC.

Duane Larson requested an update on those internal conversations at the next meeting, and that the LECC should continue but not control conversation on the development of the diaconal task force.

There was general affirmation for a meeting February 2-4, 2004, in Atlanta and the

June 2004 meeting to be set in conjunction with the Historical Society of the Episcopal Church in Chicago.

Emily Perow asked that youth ministry and Christian education be part of the work of the LECC in the future.

Meeting adjourned at 11:56 am