Day 5: Lake Tahoe to Reno

The Reverend Reporter is enjoying the cool breezes and stunning scenery at Camp Galilee, Nevada's "cathedral in the pines," but one consequence of the rustic surroundings is an inability to get an Internet connection on my trusty laptop. I am using the Camp Director's computer at the moment, and this means that I cannot access my notes from the session at St. Peter's last night, and I cannot hog Stuart's computer for very long. We have a long day ahead of us and my ability to report in will be extremely limited, so this entry may be all you see today. Since The Reverend Reporter's mental acuity is not what it once was I will wait to report on the session at St. Peter's and instead give some highlights of our time at St. John's in the Wilderness this morning.

Very early this morning the bus began its climb from the valley floor and pushed on up the pass towards Lake Tahoe. If we had been able to open the windows we would no doubt have caught the delicious scent of pine that The Reverend Reporter always associates with going to a happy place like Galilee Camp and Conference Center. As we crested the top of the pass the first stunning blue glimpse of the lake came into view as the sun began to rise higher in the crispest of fall mountain skies.

Soon our trusty driver was negotiating the short steep road into the camp and the pretty stone building housing the congregation of St. John's. There we were met by Stuart Campbell, the new camp director, members of the Galilee Board, and Jerry Lamb, our faithful Assisting Bishop. After a typically delicious and massive breakfast served up by Chef Mitch we all waddled over to the church for a short question and answer session. Several great questions were asked of the candidates, but in the interest of brevity and so that I can give Stuart his computer back I will post the one which was the most unique of the questions that have been asked so far. It concerns the meeting of the House of Bishops, which is meeting in New Orleans this week to consider, among other things, the demands placed on the Episcopal Church as contained in a proposed Anglican Covenant. The questioner asked each candidate how as bishop they would approach such a meeting:

First, there were several common points of agreement amongst all the candidates. First, they would approach any such gathering in a spirit of prayerfulness and humility, keeping in mind the impact that any decision emanating from the House of Bishops would have on the church at home and abroad. All the candidates would also hope that any meeting such as this would keep its focus on the mission of the Church, which is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, keep focused on issues affecting our common life, and on social justice for all people.

Dan Edwards expressed his desire that all in the Anglican Communion would remain at the table, but he also observed that "we can't tie them to the table either." He sees the proposed Covenant as a work in progress, and if there was any way the bishops could sign off on it he would support doing so, but in its present form the proposed Covenant is not something that The Episcopal Church can agree to support as the conditions and terms of the Covenant violates much of what we have decided upon as a community of faith over the years. He also pointed out that the Covenant's call for adherence to the Thirty Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as the normative standard for worship have never been something that The Episcopal Church has historically understood as our practice.

Eric Funston and Jeff Paul agreed with all of Dan's points, and Eric pointed out that this proposed Covenant is a document which was not a part of the original Primate's Communique issued earlier this year in Tanzania. He is not convinced that a covenant process is necessary, and that our foundational covenants are contained in the New Testament and in our practice of making decisions through the use of Scripture, tradition, and reason. Jeff asked us to consider whether "peace at any price," which adherence to the Covenant would represent, is something we want to agree to when so much of what we would be asked to change would have a direct, negative impact on the lives of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgenderd (LGBT) in our churches and communities. Jeff also cited some of the infammatory language emanating from leaders in African churches as an example of what "peace at any price" would cost us.

Susan Burns was in agreement with all the preceding comments that were made and remarked that the House of Bishops had already responded to the Primates after the Tanzania meeting when they declared that they did not have the authority to change the decisions made at General Convention. Cathy Deats is not convinced that setting a Covenant down on paper is the way to go - God's law is, after all, already written on our hearts. She is concerned that the angry rhetoric and controversy has already distracted us from our ministry and mission in the world, and that we need to re-focus our energies. Al Keeney's response is that we must always speak the truth in love and to reiterate our love and support for LGBT in the life of the Church, and to keep on clarifying our mission, which is to spread the Gospel in a hurting world. Like Cathy, he also expressed concern that our work is being hampered by angry rhetoric and division.

All in all, it was an excellent session with great questions and thoughtful responses. Now I must go and spend a little time enjoying the wonders of God's creation in this beautiful place along with the rest of the group. This has been good but hard work and there has been precious little time for exercise, so now it's time for The Reverend Reporter to take a hike.


Blessings,
RR+