Public Narrative at TEC Province II Synod (after)

AFTER

Read "BEFORE" here.

Well, I survived, but just barely. I have learned that I would be a better participant than a "coach." I probably knew that. My adherence to time and topic were lousy, even with a great time-keeper.

In this model the coach gives a personal narrative as a model for the rest of the group, then each member of the group is given 2 minutes to tell a story and the group 3 minutes each to respond, telling what worked, what seemed to detract and what to give more emphasis and detail about. The first phase is the story of ME. What brought me to my sense of mission? What makes me feel called to leadership? But it is not an esoteric personal reflection it is to be a focused story of one event in my life that, upon reflection, showed that I had a calling to leadership on an issue.

Later we moved to the story of US and the Story of NOW. What will bring us together to focus on this mission? Why is it urgent? Why must we act now?

It was a great grooup of folks who knew each other so well and their pastoral instincts were in full gear as people really told compelling stories. We all wanted to hear more and focus of the exercise was to put more into less.

When I am in a business meeting like a vestry, standing committee or task force, my tolerance for bird-walking is very low. Stick to the agenda. Keep to the time limits.

But when compelling personal stories are at stake, I want to hear more and say more.

As I mentioned before picking the story was difficult for me. Should I go with a safer, less intimate, less trauma laden story? As the "coach" I was torn. I wanted to tell the more powerful story, but did not want to intimidate or make anyone feel manipulated.

I went full bore and the group was very supportive. I still wonder if my leadership in LGBT issues taints my ability to be a trusted facilitator. I will forward this post to the folks in Western NY and ask for their feedback as comments or private e-mails.

Originally I thought that in an effort to bridge gaps it would make more sense for Deputies from various Dioceses to be mixed. Now I can see the reasoning for keeping Dioceses with divergent "reputation" on the scale of traditional to progressive apart.

I do hope that we can move from this segregation toward integration at General Convention.

The recent position paper from ACI, singed by bishops, including Bishop Love and resolutions from ACC in Jamaica (Embarcing the Windsor Continuation Report) will not make the process of listening to each other's public narratives easier.

The irony is that in calling us to be more sensitive to the needs of the Anglican Communion the ACC will certainly have a chilling effect, if accepted, on our internal listening process to move forward in the Spirit.