On my last official Sunday at
the Cathedral, the Acting Dean, Neal Michell, did an interview with me during
the adult education hour. Most of the
questions were fun, but one question deserved a more serious answer. Here is the question and my response.
Q. You’ve
seen many changes in 41 years of ministry – Bishop Hines and the Special
Convention Program, a New Prayer Book, Women in leadership including
ordination, a change in the church’s teachings on divorce and human sexuality,
can you share with us your perspective on all this change?
First,
I want to talk about how our leadership and culture have changed.
I became a member of the Church in 1958 which
was the year of the greatest number of new members joining the Church. By 1965, we had 3.8 million members and then
began to decline. When I joined the
Episcopal Church, I would say that the majority of members were what I would
call traditionalists. By this I mean
that most Episcopalians were people who valued high English Culture, including
and especially, the English language, the arts and music. While the Episcopal Church was never a State
Church as in England, still we had an embracing attitude toward education and
the arts. I like to say that we were the
State Church of the educated including scientists and artists.
The leaders of the Church in
those days were remarkable people who survived the Great Depression and the
Second World War, often bringing out of their experience a strong determination
to give back to society. They were in
every way the greatest generation. Take
Bishop Hines who you mentioned for example.
While Bishop of Texas, he started several high quality Episcopal
Schools, he launched a seminary, he oversaw the planting of over 40 new
congregations, and he gave good and progressive leadership to the wider
community. Like many of his fellow
leaders, he believed in an active Christian engagement with society. As presiding Bishop in 1968 when many of the
inner cities of America were literally on fire, he determined that the Church
could not sit back in its cultural place of privilege, but rather must engage
the issues confronting our society.
I believe his impulse was both
necessary and courageous. He was a
dynamic preacher and outspoken leader especially regarding racial
equality. Unfortunately, he made several
mistakes. For example, in dealing with urban issues and civil rights, he
largely bypassed the already existing African-American clergy leadership in the
Church. He even ended up funding radical
groups and organizations in dioceses directly against the wishes of local
bishops. When he realized that he had
lost the confidence of his fellow Bishops, he resigned.
He was followed by Bishop John
Allen, another remarkable leader. Within
five years, Bishop Allen had won back the 44 dioceses of TEC that had stopped
funding the national budget. While
conservative on the issues of a new prayer book and women’s ordination, he
oversaw the Church’s affirmative actions and implementations in both these
controversial areas. He urged the Church
to hold together and it largely did.
In the early 1970s, I could
point to a number of outstanding leaders in TEC, not just leaders of the
Church, but leaders of society. These
included Bishops Hines, Allen, Bayne, Professor Massey Shepherd, and Dean Urban
Homes just to name a few. I want to
underscore the ability of these leaders to value intellectual conversation and
engagement with culture.
Things have changed and I think
not for the better. For example, as a
seminarian I attended the General Convention held in Houston. I remember the hearing held on the proposed
new Baptismal Rite. It started with a 20
minute presentation by a leading theologian and seminary professor on the need
for changes. This was followed by a 10
minute “response” by another theologian from a different perspective. This theologian began by affirming a number
of points made in the initial address, and only then did he respectfully
present a differing opinion. This was followed
by a panel discussion among a group of outstanding leaders and thinkers. Only then was the discussion open to deputies
in the audience who could ask questions.
Compare all this to a discussion
at the General Convention in 2000 over the issue of ordination of gay and
lesbian persons in same-sex relationships.
The initial resolution that would be taken to the floor of convention
was read by the Chair of the Committee and then members of the audience were
invited to give testimony limited to two minutes. Participants went to a set of microphones
labeled either pro or con. I saw a seminary
dean given only two minutes to speak to the Church’s theology of marriage. This was followed by a two minute personal
sharing by a woman who was married to a transvestite on how accepting their
local parish had been. I sat watching as
a once thoughtful and intelligent community that valued substantive engagement
with issues reduced itself to a community of passionate partisanship who
reduced discussion to a superficial series of slogans and clichés.
Second, I want to
discuss our present political climate.
In the 1970s, Forward
Movement produced a short booklet on the different groups, movements
and worldviews that were represented in TEC.
I remember that they identified at least seven of these. The main point of the booklet was not the
differences, but rather the community that could embrace such a number of
differing perspectives. I would say that
we were an “Embracing Community” that recognized that Christianity allowed for
numerous and different worldviews and all of these contained some truth that
needed to be embraced in the fullness of the Church. While I had begun as a part of the
Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church, been active in the social action wing, and
had become an active part of the Charismatic Renewal Movement, I still felt
fully included in the Church’s life and listened to with respect.
As the Progressive Wing of the
Church began to grow with its concern for the full inclusion of all people
including race and gender, things began to change. Those who had other views and concerns began
to be discounter. Since then, I have
spent many years as an Episcopal clergy person being marginalized by so-called
“Inclusive” people. By the mid-1990s,
the Church was being divided between conservative/orthodox and
progressive/liberal people. This fight
was largely won by the progressive/liberal folks when Bishop Gene Robinson
received consent as Bishop of New Hampshire while living in a same-sex
partnered relationship. By the 2006
General Convention, progressive/liberal clergy and laity made up 70% of the
House of Deputies. Since then the losers
in this struggle have either left TEC or have been completely marginalized by
the denomination.
In many ways, this move from an
Embracing to Inclusive Community has been a bitter pill to swallow even for a social
moderate like myself. In the last 10 years,
we have lost 1/3 of our membership and we are now living with a number of crises
created by this decline including a major financial shortfall that is leading
to a major restructuring of the Church’s budget with decreasing commitment to
Christian education, seminarian training, evangelism, and stewardship while
increasing the salaries and support to the Presiding Bishop and the President
of the House of Deputies so that they can continue their “advocacy” ministry.
Of course from what I have
already said, I want us to return to the kind of thoughtful and engaging
community that was embracing of true diversity and stop being an agency for
essentially a limited agenda of advocacy.
Having said all this, you may be surprised to know that I remain
hopeful. I see new leaders emerging in
the House of Bishops that can provide this kind of leadership. I also think that the decline in membership
and decrease in financial support have created a kairos moment that could
bring about a new sense of mission and direction for TEC. My prayer is that the present crises will
turn us in a more positive direction and move us toward an intentionally more
embracive community.
No comments:
Post a Comment