zeitgeist |ˈtsītˌgīst, ˈzīt-|noun [ in sing.]:
the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time: the story captured the zeitgeist of the late 1960s.

So far in my presence on this blog, I’ve refrained from commenting on the political debates consuming the larger church - largely because they’ve been addressed very well elsewhere with conclusions that largely concur with my own, by such dignified people as Scott Gunn at Seven Whole Days, the Crusty Old Dean, and Susan Brown Snook at A Good and Joyful Thing. These debates have been formulated, rehashed, and are pretty well-trodden.

At this point, almost everyone in the Episcopal blogosphere agrees that something about our governance has to change, and sooner, rather than later. But this post isn’t about the budget, or restructuring, or changes in governance. Rather, it’s about the zeitgeist of the Episcopal Church’s gathering in General Convention. And when I speak of the spirit of the gathering, I’m not talking about the Convention’s “theme,” or its hot-button issues, but rather, how we act as the gathered church.

First, a bit of background from which this post comes. I’ve sat and observed from the sidelines at the last two conventions - in Columbus in 2006, and in Anaheim in 2009. I am not averse to the idea of Convention at all - in fact, I’ve always been a political junkie - even when it comes to church politics. In fact, as scary as it may seem, I finally realized I was called to ordained ministry while sitting in the galleries of General Convention in Columbus. I love walking around in the Exhibit Hall, meeting new people, and seeing old friends. But as much as I can “nerd out” at Convention, and as much as yes, I generally like it - I’m not looking forward to this one, most especially because of all the infighting. Perhaps the reason why is more evident when I look at the spirit in which the two houses of General Convention - and in reality, many of us in the church - currently live with one another.

Consider two examples:

• YouTube Gate (January 2012) - The Presiding Bishop makes a video, released to the whole church, and specifically sent to Bishops and Deputies, on the issues at the upcoming convention. The President of the House of Deputies describes it as an unprecedented intrusion on the affairs of the House of Deputies. Back and forth ensues.
• Budgetgate (Ongoing) - A proposed budget is released to the general consternation of the church as a whole in early 2012. Infighting and fingerpointing ensues. Annotated drafts are released. The Presiding Bishop releases an alternative proposal, which in turn provokes spirited responses from all corners.

Clearly, the way we live together as a church is not doing us any favors in our efforts to spread the gospel, or engage in the work of mission and ministry. My sense is that we are not living as the people Jesus wants us to be - especially with the present volume of dirt and mud that flies through the air at supersonic velocities.

So I want to propose something new. Not a new governance structure (although I do support a new structure.) Not even new leadership in the church (although I desperately believe its needed.) We need a new way of living with one another, because regardless of how all of these emerging changes play out at Convention, we still have to live together until the process is over. And that process that will likely span not only this General Convention, but practically speaking, the next two after that as well.

At 27, I don’t particularly relish the idea of doing ministry in a church that has the current zeitgeist for the next 10, 20, or 30 years of my career.

So let’s not just change structures. Let’s change the spirit of convention. In condensed form, here are my bullet-points for change.

1. Evalute presented ideas on the merits of the idea, not the proposer.
   
   As our current governance structure stands, no idea is going to pass without the concurrence of both the House of Bishops & the House of Deputies. No one house can force its will on the other, provided each house is diligent with exercising its own conscience. So let’s tone down the rhetoric that seems to presuppose that, if a Bishop presents an idea for the church, its passage will magically turn the church into a Roman Catholic-style bishop-heavy magisterium. Or the rhetoric that the passage of an idea from the Deputies or Executive Council will magically transform us into a congregational church. Both ideas are ludicrous on their surface, and both will never happen - so let’s all relax.

   Instead, let’s discuss ideas as ideas, and use them to build on one another. For instance, instead of arguing about how the budget evolved and who drove the process, let’s look at both the EC-approved and the PB’s alternate proposals as just that - proposals. What works in each? What doesn’t? What do our budgets say as our church’s “statement of mission”? How does it meet our goals from past conventions? And how does it station us for the future?

   If the PB’s idea for a budget is the best, vote to pass it, even if the PB wrote it. If it isn’t, don’t. But don’t deny a proposal a fair hearing based on its source.

2. Let the battles of the past be the battles of the past - and let each morning start new.
   
   B033 was a terrible choice, but it was also six years ago - and everyone knows something like that couldn’t pass now.

   The Budget presented by the PB may have had different starting numbers from the Executive Council budget - for whatever reason - but that’s where they are now.

   Rehashing the battles of the past will leave everyone licking their wounds. People make mistakes, bad ones. But we believe in forgiveness - so let’s move towards it. Working beyond past offenses will produce results - dwelling in them will leave more people hurt, again. In part, this actually leads to the next point…

3. Let’s be adaptive with information, ideas, and proposals.
   
   When discussing, for instance, the proposal for a unicameral legislature (full disclose: I work for the Bishop of Long Island and will be at convention, in part, to lobby for its passage), instead of seeking to shoot it down because it doesn’t have the capacity for vote by orders, or may produce a less diverse convention, or that it’s different from the past - why not seek to alter the proposal - either through another submitted resolution or in legislative process - to do that?

   If you outright don’t like the idea of a unicameral legislature - that’s ok! But instead of shooting down the proposal outright from the beginning, use your input to make this idea - this proposal - the best possible one you could live with - save for that one, issue at the core of the proposal. Then vote against final passage after you’ve made it as good as an idea you oppose can possibly be.

   A personal example - I really don’t like Holy Women, Holy Men, and were I deputy, I really couldn’t vote for it as it stands for a variety of reasons. But if I have to use it, I’d love to see some of the collects rewritten in useable, speakable, chantable, you/who/do/through form. So were I a deputy, I’d work for that, and then vote against re-authorization. At least if I “lose,” I have something better to work with, that I helped to influence toward the better.

   If you have new information, build on it, rather than reacting to it. For instance, with the changes of information concerning the budget proposal, build a better budget of your own and present it!

   Being adaptive to change produces results. Denying that change happens doesn’t. Let’s be adaptive, not reactionary and responsive.

4. Let’s live what we say about being representative in our governance.
   
   We claim to have a fantastically democratic and representative system of governance; we also claim to want to incorporate, for instance, the under 40 demographic in the governance of the church. Yet out of 852 deputies, 529 (62%) are over 50. Only 56 (6.6%) are under 40. Only 21 (2.5%) are under 30. Let’s actually commit ourselves to letting new people come to the discussion, to the table, and to the governance process - so it becomes as democratic as we claim. So, multi-term deputies - especially if you’re on a legislative committee, consider letting your alternates sit on the floor for more than the customary single day - so that their voices can be heard, too. With the same voices, we’ll get the same results.

5. Let’s all worship and pray together. No, seriously.
   
   Everyone should attend worship together at General Convention every day, no exceptions - even if its not to your liturgical taste. I was dismayed by the declining attendance at worship over the course of the last convention - based on personal preferences, the given preacher or celebrant, or political planning sessions.Hey, I strongly dislike Enriching our Worship, and liturgical dance drives me up a wall. But I’ll be at worship every day - even though I suspect both of these will appear. Let’s celebrate the beauty of Common Prayer by living it together. Because we need to be the church gathered not only in legislation in debate, but in adoration.

6. Let’s gather together. No, seriously.
   
   Dinner or drinks together can go a long way to changing our opinions of one another. At the very least, it changes us from nameless blogosphere faces into human beings. We all love this church dearly, and want the best for it - and sitting together socially will prove it.

There you have it. Six ideas to change the spirit of convention. Who’s in? Any others?