Town Hall Meeting
Town Hall Meeting
St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church
Living into the Reconciling Love of Jesus Christ in an Age of Diversity
The Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes
Bishop of San Diego
PART I:
Introduction
Throughout the history of the Church, conflict has been present in various degrees. Groups have formed and splits have occurred. There really has been no single period in Church History when this has not been the case. The constant has been a conviction by all people and parties that they were attempting to live out their spiritual lives faithfully.
Today, we experience division within the Episcopal Church. The presenting issue is human sexuality. The flash point is the election, consent, and ordination of V. Gene Robinson as a bishop. In addition, there is an open division around whether or not to bless same sex unions and the role of gay and lesbian persons in positions of leadership in the Church.
What is becoming clear is that homosexuality and the attendant issues of ordination and blessings are merely evidence of a deep divergence on how Holy Scripture is interpreted and used. It is not sufficient for one side to simply say that others are fundamentalists and for the other side to claim that their opponents have rejected the Bible all together. This radicalization of the position of those who oppose us, while delicious, feeds our self-righteousness, and is antithetical to the spirit of Jesus who prayed,
As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. John 17:21-23
There have been enormous efforts to debate the questions of sexuality and Scripture. I am not sure if anything new can be said by one side or the other that will be convincing to those who have taken an opposite position. Nevertheless, I ground these reflections in my fervent commitment to do the ministry of reconciliation, which is the fundamental work of the church, and is given to us through the reconciling love of Jesus Christ. As Paul notes in his Second Letter to the Corinthian church,
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. II Corinthians 5: 18-19This work is always bringing people closer to Jesus, closer to the truth of his saving grace and word, and proclaiming the gospel. It is never about reconciling away Biblical truth, our baptismal commitment or our ordination vows. Reconciliation is relentless and at times creates and abides tensions and conflicts.
The Rev. Mark McIntosh, Chaplain to our House of Bishops, told the story recently of Abba Poemen, who on his deathbed, as his friends were congratulating him on having lived such a virtuous life, cried out, “I am still only a beginner. I have barely started with my own conversion.” It is in that spirit, always as beginners, that I invite us to practice reconciliation in our life together. It is my prayer that this offering will be first an offering of myself and an opening to the continuing work of reconciliation.
As a bishop of the Church, I have been described by some in our diocese as progressive, revisionist, or liberal – choose your label. I would describe myself as a moderate in that I always seem to see both sides of an issue and feel comfortable in that via media. I also consider myself an orthodox Christian. Holy Scripture holds the essentials of our faith; it is where we find the saving grace in Jesus Christ. Through its stories, we come to know God and God’s Son Jesus Christ. It moves us to the ancient proclamation, “Jesus is Lord.” In our liturgy, the reading of Holy Scripture comes first as a testament to that primacy. The Nicene Creed is for me not simply a rote liturgical exercise. When I say that creed, I am testifying to my belief in who the Triune God really is. I do believe that God created the world, the heavens and the earth. I do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he lived, died, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. I do believe in the Holy Spirit, that it remains with us, empowering and guiding the body of Christ.
I am really quite conservative in my theology. I am particularly formed by the works of the Twentieth Century neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth and turn to his Church Dogmatics regularly. I believe that the Prayer Book rubrics should be taken seriously and am decidedly uncomfortable with liturgical innovation. As a child who experienced infidelity and divorce in my family of origin, I am very concerned about sexual promiscuity. I believe that just war theory should be our ethical standard, and I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times for military use and believe in a strong and committed military as a deterrent to war. As someone who voted for Ronald Reagan, I am likely seen in a distinct minority in the Episcopal House of Bishops!
So you ask, why do I get labeled a revisionist? The answer is really quite simple. I believe that people do not choose their sexuality but it is a part of their God-given created state. Because of this I believe that God is calling the church to see in this time a more complete way of including gays and lesbians persons in the church, including at some future time, in the fullness of God’s time, blessing of committed relationships and ordination. There are those who believe that in simply stating that position that I have moved beyond the acceptable limits of a bishop and for that matter a Christian.
Yet, if you ask my revisionist colleagues if I am one of them, they will look unconvinced. For all the theological presuppositions I have already mentioned, they would find me simply too conservative.
Strangely, throughout my life, I have found it exhilarating and spiritually healthy to be in the middle. It has given me a position where I can hear and appreciate all sides of a question and form what is for me a considered and thoughtful perspective. I should hasten to add that this has not afforded me the luxury of finding the correct or right position. One of the aspects of those of us in the middle is that we always hold our positions gently and humbly because we have found ourselves changed by others. We might be wrong. The words of Abraham Lincoln have always been instructive to me on this perspective,
In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time….it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party …The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Meditation on the Divine Will" (September 2, 1862?), pp. 403-404.
What I can also tell you is that in our present state as a church, it is increasingly lonely and disheartening to try to remain in the via media. I have felt the criticism of both extremes who suggest that people of my disposition are weak and bland, that is that we stand for nothing. It is also a barren place because I am friends with people in two distinct and increasingly vicious camps. As our church fights, people talk about winners and losers. If there are further splits, I will be representative of the true losers. And I suspect that the vast majority of our church will find themselves in the same place.
In fact, I will even go one step farther. Conflicts give power to those at the center of the conflict. We now have organizations that exist to promote one side or the other. Their leaders get the attention and adulation of followers. These organizations create staffs which have a vested interest in continuing the fight or institutionalizing the same. If there is a split in the church, those who are leading the fringes in the combat will simply become more powerful. They are the most prominent Episcopalians both within the denomination and in the public eye. If the crisis is resolved and ends, they loose power and a public profile.
From my vantage point in the middle, I offer some suggestions on how we could move forward in the latter months of 2006 and beyond. I do so with the conviction that there are those who have already made up their mind about promoting their position and agenda no matter what happens at our next General Convention. As a true moderate, I have not made up my mind about anything except that the Episcopal Church is home. I intend to serve it the rest of my life. It is my prayer that we will come to see this time as one when we decided to be totally about Jesus rather than about our own presuppositions, about totally being a Eucharistic people that is fed in the holy mysteries and goes into the world to build the Kingdom.
A Way to Use Scripture
As I have already suggested, Episcopalians have divergent ways of interpreting Scripture. Some talk about the clear reading of Scripture. Others have said that there is nothing clear in Scripture. This divide leads to great consternation. Some call others literalists or fundamentalists, decidedly unhelpful and untrue labels. In response, the accusation is thrown in the other direction that the Bible has been totally dismissed as a source for theological discourse, also neither true nor helpful.
What is clear in our heritage, our liturgy, and our canons is a real commitment to root our common life in faith in Holy Scripture. At all ordinations, the ordinand states and signs a proclamation which includes the words, “I declare the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation…” In addition, our Eucharistic lectionary provides a robust offering of Scripture, from the Old Testament, Psalms, an Epistle and a Gospel. We do not have the luxury of choosing our own texts. For those who preach, the Scripture is placed over us in the required Lectionary as a means of placing authority over the preacher, and we are called to discern God’s active and engaging word to us today.
We must accept the primacy of Scripture in our common life and theological discourse or we fail to be true to our Anglican heritage. However, this does not answer the question of how we interpret Scripture. There are in fact many modalities of interpretation that are at work. In the life of the community, there has been an historic and broad acceptance of many ways to interpret Scripture. In reality, those who may seem the most literalistic in their means of interpreting Scripture at times, can be decidedly contextual or metaphorical in their interpretations of certain passages, as they equivocate over divorce and remarriage or explain away the delay of the Parousia. Others who take a more critical reading of scripture can be very literal, particularly on the more social justice passages. What each of us does is to choose from our own theological center a canon within the canon. I am particularly using the word canon as the measure or rule of scripture.
And by canon within the canon, I mean that each of us has a particular part of Scripture that we hold at a higher level than other parts. For myself, the Epistle to the Philippians, the story of the Prodigal Son, the passion as recorded in Luke’s Gospel, and Jesus’ vision of judgment found in the 25th chapter of Matthew have particular power for me. They have been critical in my own spiritual development. That is not to say that other passages of Scripture are not highly important. But these are the ones that continually form who I am as a person of faith. Another person’s formative passage may be similar to my own, while others will be distinctly different.
For the Biblical Christian, this canon within the canon leads us to certain assumptions about Jesus Christ and salvation. How we view Jesus and his saving acts is informed by which passages we find the most important to use. This, of course, is particularly true when we are dealing with theological issues upon which the Bible offers more than one way of considering the question or ones in which there is great divergence of opinion.
In our spiritual lives and as believers of the Bible, we find God speaking to us through these texts. We believe in God and we believe in the truth of the Bible. Over time, we find that certain Biblical images, assumptions, and theologies come to be the lens through which we read the totality of Scripture. As for myself, I am overwhelmed by the compassion of Christ seen in the parables and actions of our Lord and in my own life experience. It is that compassionate heart that I glimpse so incompletely that leads me to be gentle with the more judging parts of Scripture, particularly those that are perhaps best understood in the context of the time in which they were written.
This is not to say that the Bible does not have objective truth. I believe it does. Perhaps a specific example is instructive. The passage from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, the first chapter is often seen as critical in the debate about homosexuality.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received their own persons the due penalty for their error. Romans 1: 24-27
In the Episcopal Church today there has been much talk about not talking about the elephant in the living room. I think I am talking about the elephant in the living room.
There are those who see this passage as a clear statement of condemnation of homosexual acts. In my humility and because I believe theology is best done with those who differ, I must begin by granting them the possibility that they may be right. However, my own study of this passage has led me to a different place. I am aware that the study of this passage is often done by heterosexuals only, rather than groups that include both heterosexuals and homosexuals, where the homosexual voice can be truly heard. The task of Biblical study with the community of diversity is after all what The Windsor Report and Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 calls on us to do—to engage in a process of listening. My own study and reflection begins by with this question. Is what is being described a root sin (homosexual acts) or is it a symptom of a root sin? Is it the basic sin of which is God is concerned, or a symptom or sign thereof? Partly because Paul goes on to list a whole laundry list of other actions, I have come to sense that his example of homosexual acts is the symptom of sin rather than sin itself. In this case I believe the root sin named by Paul is rather idolatry and its attendant companion, narcissism. I would also suggest that the symptom is not universally a malady but may also be benign. In point of fact by focusing on the symptom of the sin, we let ourselves off the hook from going deeper to the root sin to which in this case Paul may really be concerned, and so should we! Perhaps more importantly by discerning the root sin, we are more likely to recover a more decidedly Biblical and Anglican understanding of sin which is always concerned about intention, purpose, and the life of the community, not simply the actions by an individual. By asking, “what is the root?” we have the capacity to discern what is sin and what is acceptable.
Again to those who reject my logic as unconvincing, I acknowledge I may be wrong. I simply ask in return, that you abide with me in seeking the truth on the chance that you might be wrong. If you cannot abide the possibility that you are wrong, then you may be practicing the root behavior of which Paul was concerned, by making an idol of your theological certainty rather than a God whom no human being can fully understand AND a narcissism of your own superiority. In addition, each of us may be evidencing other symptoms of the same to which Paul refers, in particular, “insolent, haughty, boastful…”
So perhaps, we really do need each other to rightly interpret the Bible. I know that I need to hear the person who reads the Scripture differently from me. I think we all do. The wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas speaks through the ages to us a word of encouragement to do just that:
We must love them
both
Those whose opinions
we share
And those whose
opinions we reject
For both have labored
in search for the truth
And both have helped us in finding
of it.
In this wisdom, we find an approach to Scripture. It is what Reginald Fuller correctly notes when he writes,
What the Bible offers by way of norm is model of procedure, whereby we too in our own day and age can move from the fundamental message or kerygma to our own problems and questions. The Study of Anglicanism, p. 92This manner of approaching Scripture gives us the possibility of honoring both Scripture as the Word of God and each other as fellow interpreters with something powerful and important to say to and with each other.
Divergent Practices
In 2003, the Episcopal Church seemed to move forward with actions that many have suggested ended the debate on human sexuality. By the ordination of Bishop Robinson and the acknowledgment that in many parts of our church blessings of same sex unions were happening, those who passionately disagree with these things suggest that the Episcopal Church has made a decisive decision. I do not believe that the Episcopal Church has made a decision, rather it took an action. There are dioceses and congregations where the reverse action is being taken, that is explicitly and clearly stating that condoning homosexual practice through ordination and/or blessing will NOT happen.
A church with such diversity seems to me to be the best possible way to experience and test conflicting interpretations of Scripture, incarnationally and in communion. It’s a little bit of what Stacey Sauls, Bishop of Lexington, calls complementary integrities, where these two seemingly divergent practices are allowed to coexist so that truth may emerge.
If we don’t stay together, a group of like-minded people, convinced that they are right, reinforce their own idolatry and narcissism. If we split, the historic place of Anglicans as the via media will be potentially lost. Those who are not settled on this matter, or do not see the issues as a topic to occasion schism, are left to pick up the pieces having lost friends of both perspectives. However, if we remain in together, sharing our divergent theologies and practices there is a greater chance that in the fullness of God’s time, the truth that God is inviting us to discern will emerge.
Now, some will say that the position emerging in the Episcopal Church is in contrast to the vast majority of the rest of Christendom and the tradition of the Church. I think this cannot be denied. However, it then begs the question, “What are we afraid of?” If it is errant, it will not last. If it is Godly, it will be sustained. This perspective is consistent with the first disciples when they were facing the first debates over essentials and non-essentials. What is remarkable about what happens in the Acts of the Apostles is that after the Council of Jerusalem, a delegation is sent to those in Antioch to those with whom they disagree. Their letter of greeting is instructive:
The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. The Acts of the Apostles 15: 23-29
The effort is one of connecting and being clear about essentials and abiding all else. Abiding conflicting theological perspectives as a possible faithful, biblical, Christ-centered, theological perspective will only be in service to the truth. The church should be a place to seek the truth. I believe that is what faithful liberals, conservatives, straight, gay, men, women, orthodox, progressive Episcopalians are trying to do. What is the harm of doing it together? I know the danger of doing it separately. That danger is to risk eliminating the wisdom and understanding of faithful Christians with whom we disagree. As Paul notes, “If the foot would say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body.” I Corinthians 12: 15
If our disagreements are over interpretation of Scripture and if in this primary place we find breaches and lack of common ground, then it begs the question, “What is it that we hold in common?” I believe the answer is found in the historic creeds of our church and our fundamental practices, which leads me to a consideration of our Book of Common Prayer.
Resting on this solid ground, we are able to move towards reconciliation because we are secure in the bonds of both our sacred conversation and the truth of who God is in the midst of that conversation.
Taking our Prayer Book Seriously
As Episcopalians, we find our theological perspective articulated and lived out in common prayer. This is the heritage of Thomas Cramner and others who have gone before us and is rightly seen that through our ordered daily life of prayer, Scripture reading, and Eucharistic fellowship, we achieve the unity of spirit and purpose to which we are called.
It is for this reason that I am so troubled that some feel compelled to break communion with those with whom they disagree. Communion, as has so often been said, is a gift of God. It is not a human devise to be trifled with. It is a mystery that when we try to control we exercise the exact hubris and narcissism that Paul warned us about in Romans.
What is it that we fear in being in communion with those with whom we are theologically opposed? Are we afraid of contamination? Do we not trust the truth of Christ to be victorious? As Jesus said in Mark’s Gospel, when the disciples complained about others casting out demons in Jesus’ name, “for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.” So, when we come together in the name of Jesus, we find our common ground. We find our common prayer under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, in our church, we gather each Sunday in a celebration of a “mini-Easter,” we celebrate Eucharist. In this remembrance of Jesus, we are called together as the people of God to do the ministry of the Church that God has called us to do. It is a human error to question the character and beauty of what God has drawn around God’s altar. This is a matter of trust; trust in God, that through a life of common prayer and Eucharistic discipline and discipleship we can discern the voice of God.
Admittedly, this calls the Episcopal Church to be attentive to others who differ with them around the Global Eucharistic Table. We must and do recognize that we are in many ways speaking a word and exercising a practice that is divergent from their own. I simply suggest that it need not be an either/or choice but a both/and.
I will always be grateful for the wisdom I received from Bill Wiedrich, who served as my bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Chicago. He pointed out that remembering Jesus in the Eucharist is more than a memorial. He suggested that by turning that story slightly, we should look at what happens in the Eucharistic action, when we take, bless, break, and give the bread and wine made holy. It is fundamentally about re-membering of Jesus, of bringing Jesus together in the assembly. It is an action that celebrates the once for all action of Jesus that continually happens. It is the action of bringing the Body of Christ together incarnationally with particularity in our communion and community. It is a paradox of our faith that in division (fraction) we are fed and made whole. Thus, in our divergence, we find ourselves as different parts of a whole, wherein Christ is re-membered and is the Head. This is a necessary state for our assembly as a Kingdom bearing community.
PART II:
What is Truth?
The question that Pilate asks of Jesus in John’s Gospel has already been answered by Jesus. “What is truth?” Pilate asks. Jesus first answers the question in his ministry. He witnesses to the Truth in his being, in his teaching, in his healing. The cross and the empty tomb are the symphonic crescendo in which the world knows the reality of his words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” The story of Jesus as the Son of God is a story of paradox: through descent there is the ultimate ascent, through death there is eternal life, through poverty there is found an imperishable treasure. “The Way, the Truth, and the Life of Jesus as the Christ” is not membership in a distinct club but is the only way to find salvation through a life of surrender to God.
There is much being made about Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel in this time of division. A sort of litmus test has been created in the minds of some with this question, “Is Jesus a way or the way?" It seems to be continuing a Pharisaic exercise of drawing a line in the sand. In the gospels, whenever anyone draws a line, Jesus draws a circle. Think of the woman caught in adultery as told in John’s gospel. The Pharisees draw a line with a law that would put her to death. Jesus draws a circle which includes all humanity: “Whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone.” John 8:7 And on the cross, Jesus though sinless joins us in that very circle.
You see, if one answers that Jesus is “a” way, then the revelation of God in Christ is reduced to a subjective truth among others. The Christian obviously finds that Jesus as the Christ is an unequivocal and objective truth that must be proclaimed as a mandate of faith. However, if humanity is divided into the saved simply as defined by those who say that Jesus is the Way and others are labeled as the unsaved or more bluntly the damned, then we have made Christianity into a club with a password rather than a people of pilgrimage, which in addition to proclaiming Jesus’ Truth as the saving truth, have put upon themselves the role of judge which we must leave to God. In our interfaith companionship, we must be comfortable both claiming the Truth we have received without denying the work of the Spirit in other faiths and traditions. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That way of descent, surrender and sacrifice as the only way to eternal life. However, we must be open to the reality of a new creation through surrender and self-sacrifice being revealed in the other faith traditions. This posture of humility yet confidence will be more evangelically convincing that an absolutism that denies the presence of the holy in others.
It is not a matter of “a” truth or “the” truth, but simply a quiet confidence in the reign of God. It is returning to Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus live out the Truth; as the community of Jesus, we find that reality continually affirmed and one that we can in confidence simply proclaim.
Authority in the Church
For the past ten years or so, we have experienced significant questioning about authority within the church. While this is not the first such time, it is made markedly different by an element of certitude on both sides, which is making the conflict more impassioned and thus more dangerous to our fundamental character as Christians. As I have sometimes said, because this conflict is occurring in a multi-media/Internet age, the speed of communication and the quick acceptance as fact things which are posted on Websites and said on Discussion Boards wholly changes the manner of communication and increases the possibility of misunderstanding.
In the 1990s, the emergence of the AMIA, the Anglican Mission in America, represented a significant breach in the customary assumptions about appropriate authority within the Church. Bishops interfered within the dioceses of other bishops. Their justification was the perceived abandonment of apostolic faith by bishops in his or her diocese. However, the AMiA was most present and effective in dioceses with conservative traditions, Upper South Carolina, South Carolina, and Colorado to name a few.
In recent years, the American Anglican Council emerged as a voice for conservative Episcopalians, committed to working within the church. After the General Convention of 2003, a new organization began, the Anglican Communion Network which seems to have a parallel role but whose long-term objective seems ambiguous. Over the course of time, I have grown increasingly concerned about the objectives of both organizations. It appears as though both organizations have made assumptions about what the Episcopal Church is and will do, and are making plans to depart in the wake of these anticipated actions. I found sobering watching the DVD, “Choose this Day,” which features the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, and other leaders of both the AAC and the CAN. It is highly polemical. Its criticisms of the Episcopal Church are, in my view, not designed to create dialogue and potential change or reform, but to inflict damage. The language is loaded. The Episcopal Church is described as counterfeit and pagan. I take great exception to this on behalf of us all. I would say to you that in visiting our 51 congregations that has not been my experience. To brand a whole church in this way is just plain wrong.
I have now worked with three churches in which splits have occurred after the 2003 General Convention, one in Chicago and two here. These events are one of the most challenging aspects of being a bishop. I feel their weight. Oddly, Ed Salmon, arguably one of the most conservative bishops in the Episcopal Church, Jon Bruno, one of the most liberal, and I share this burden. Each of us has breakaway congregations. The presenting issues are the same: Biblical faithfulness and the faithful leadership of bishops. It is thus a fundamental question of acceptance of authority. What I have experienced is that each case represents a level of failure of pastoral leadership of the clergy of the parish. In each case, there were significant breaches of decorum, management, and/or pastoral care. In two of the cases, the pastoral contacts with the people of the congregation were eerily similar to my work in congregations after abuse. People felt wounded and betrayed.
I suspect part of this is because these situations necessarily contain a degree of deception. Actions are taken in secret. To affect the departure of a congregation or a large portion thereof, vilification of bishops and other leaders is necessary to get the people motivated. Ambiguity is not helpful when motivating people to such decisive actions.
In the end, when a member of the clergy of our church chooses to leave the Episcopal Church and presumes to take his or her church and a significant portion with him or her, they take the total pastoral responsibility on their shoulders. At that moment, they assume that they know what is right, and they alone. They are saying to their bishop that you do not have a rightful place in this congregation. They are saying to all of us, that we are separated from you. They presume to choose their own community. They presume to choose their own bishop. That is totally unprecedented. It is essentially denying the very foundation of authority within the Episcopal Church and deeply violates the spirit and intent of the Windsor Report and other fundamental documents about how the Church is structured.
As I have suggested earlier, I think you would be hard-pressed to find fault with me on matters of orthodoxy. You might say that you worry about what I might do in the future. Or you might say that I should take some of my Episcopal colleagues out to the proverbial wood shed, that my failure to do that is reason enough. You might point to our recent convention’s resolution on “open communion” and say that as your bishop I am failing to uphold the canons. Just for the sake of argument, let’s hang on to that one for a bit.
I actually have never practiced what is called open communion in congregations that I have served. When I came here, I inherited a situation where this practice was going on in a few of our congregations. As I understand the situation, this was occurring with the acquiescence of my predecessor. I don’t particularly like liturgical freelancing and I have privately encouraged the clergy in these congregations to look carefully at what they are doing relative to the whole church. In those conversations, I was persuaded that an abrupt change of practice would be detrimental to the spiritual lives of the people of these congregations. The result of these conversations was the resolution that was offered and passed at our convention. The resolution calls on us to do our theology together, with those who tend to find different conclusions on this question. Clearly, as bishop, I could have compelled canonical obedience on this issue and picked up the pieces. Or I could have simply ignored the practice and let things happen as they might. Instead, what I hope in was a resolution which allowed for a middle way where people might mutually engage with each other and find a new way to move forward. You should also know that because of these conversations clergy have altered their communion practices to conform more clearly to the canons. By engagement and opening the possibility of theological conversation, greater conformity was reached.
Ecclesiastical leadership, whether in a congregation as priest or in a diocese as bishop, is art not science. It is best done in the context of a committed and connected community where trust can thereby be constant companion. In that environment, leaders are free to be vulnerable and to risk appropriately, knowing that they will be coached and guided by fellow leaders and followers. That is part of the reason for me sticking my neck out with you tonight. That is why I value the leadership structure of our church. At its best, it is collaborative and representative of divergent perspectives.
What comes with this, however, is the inevitability that we will disagree with those who are called to lead us. As I reflect on my own episcopal leadership, I have never served a bishop with whom I fully agreed. In one case, I found a bishop’s leadership severely flawed. However, in an ordered church, one in which I have taken vows…now for three different orders, I do not have the option of choosing who has authority over me, unless I choose to leave that order altogether. If I presume to do so, I have at some measure made myself my own authority when I deny the authority of the church. And such an attitude makes all authority subjective, even the authority of Christ. Again, the sin of narcissism and idolatry knocks at the door.
Obviously, congregational departure has happened twice in our diocese. There may be plans already made or being made for it to happen again. I have been as restrained as possible over the last few months to give sufficient space for the grace and healing necessary to happen, and I am eager to continue to do so. However, I am also becoming increasingly cautious on your behalf. And so I need to be clear.
In an effort to be clear and to forestall further secessions from the Episcopal Church and our Diocese, I issued a Pastoral Direction to all rectors of our diocese on April 19, 2006. The Pastoral Direction instructs the rectors of our diocese to provide to the Office of the Bishop and to me, legal documents that memorialize their connectedness to the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of San Diego. It also directs them to inform me of any changes to the same before those changes are made. Most importantly, rectors are alerted that any attempt to move their congregations out of the Episcopal Church will result in their immediate inhibition from exercising their priestly ministry with the attendant suspension from their office as rector. These are normative practices in our Church. This Pastoral Direction was taken with the unanimous consent of our Standing Committee as an essential task in faithfully caring for the people and congregations of our diocese. After extensive consultations, I believe it lays to rest the risk of further attempts at congregational departure. It permits us to focus on the question of how, not if we will remain together.
So, in the interest of absolute clarity, let me lay out what will happen if a church attempts to secede. The first thing is that this church, its clergy and lay leaders will be breaching their own commitments and, in the case of the clergy, their ordination vows. Second, because ordination conveys interconnected responsibilities and privileges, when a cleric rejects the oversight of the bishop, it is necessary to remove privileges of ordination, first by inhibition and ultimately by removal through deposition. In all cases, where clergy breach their vows by abandoning the communion of the Episcopal Church, this action will follow. Because a congregation has no mechanism to leave, it is after all a creation of the Diocesan Convention, it will then be incumbent on me to appoint a priest-in-charge and provide for the continuing life of the congregation. Some will say that this is all about property. Let me hasten to add that property, while an appropriate fiduciary concern that I take seriously, is secondary to the concern about the people of our communities. I have witnessed the pain when this occurs. If you are going to try to take your congregation out of the Episcopal Church, you will actively hurt people… make no mistake about it. If I tried to take this Diocese out of the Episcopal Church, I would grievously hurt people, make no mistake about it. Your offense is not just against the bishop but the entire community of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church.
I have said that while people and clergy from time to time leave the church, congregations do not. Parishes are created by the diocese in which they reside and dioceses are created by the General Convention of the Church. Their existence has its source in this hierarchical structure, which gives form to a relationship in mission, which is characterized by accountability and mutual support. It is simply not possible to unilaterally change this under our polity and traditions. If we have further events, like we had in Oceanside, I will immediately appoint a priest in charge, and organize leadership. If the property is in question, I will work with the chancellors of the diocese to take appropriate action. Even though nothing has happened in Oceanside on a legal front, I do not wish you to take inaction as a signal of anything but patience.
As we move towards the 75th General Convention in Columbus, Ohio in June, I believe that we have a possibility before us to create a holy place and space where our divergent theological views can be honored. Having good boundaries and clarity is a service to that end. It creates a space in which we are called to abide with each other with care and consideration. The Windsor Report, which the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion received in October of 2004, seems to be the primary instrument for creating this space. Our Episcopal Church’s response will be debated at the General Convention, in a series of 11 resolves offered by the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion co-chaired by the Rev. Ian Douglas of Episcopal Divinity School and Bishop Mark Sisk of New York. The executive summary of their report is available to you tonight and on our website. The essential effect of these resolves will be to acknowledge of our failures in process in the 2003 General Convention and offer our repentance for the harm done. Furthermore, it offers a posture of our church going further with significantly more restraint and intentionally connected to the wider communion. It is my sense that these resolves will be passed substantially as submitted by the General Convention. It is also my belief that our actions at the 2006 General Convention will be seen as helpful in most places and largely inadequate by those on both the extremes.
Because I am so convinced that the Episcopal Church in this age is called by God to this very type of via media engagement in the midst of conflict and diversity, I believe that these offered resolutions will be a holy outcome and a place where we can build from. I believe it will be a place where all Episcopalians and Anglican should find a place to stand. I suspect that some will choose to walk away. While that will be regrettable and an occasion for sorrow, we will need to bless that action with grace and understanding. However, if either in walking away or in staying, some choose to attempt to inflict damage to our church, that will need to be decisively confronted with firmness and care.
On behalf of the Episcopal Church and the people of our diocese, I will, in my own humanity and imperfection, try to balance gentleness with firmness, compassion with responsibility. I will act with the consultation of our Standing Committee, Diocesan Corporation, and Council. My hope will always be reconciliation, recognizing that from time to time firmness may be in service to that effort.
Holding Opposites in Tension
I am powerfully persuaded that when Jesus brought together his first disciples he brought together people who would never have been with each other fishermen, harlots, tax collectors, zealots, and members of the Sanhedrin. Archbishop Rowan Williams’ quotation comes to mind, that our baptism places us in “solidarities not of our own choosing.” I believe this is the wondrous work of the Holy Spirit.
It also means that in all times we will find ourselves working to hold opposites in tension. As I have suggested, this is in service to the truth. It is also simply the call of God. It is perhaps most importantly a witness to the world of the gift of reconciliation.
In my diocesan address and at other times, I have advocated as passionately and as vocally as I could, for the work of reconciliation to be the central aspect of our work. Some have criticized this by suggesting that you cannot reconcile away belief. I could not agree more. However, it comes full circle back to where we started. Who decides what is essential? How do we decide? And do we decide that better separate or together? The age-old mantra is worth remembering,
In essentials unity;
in non-essentials liberty;
in all things charity.
I believe that the essentials are guided by our Creeds. They are reasonably unambiguous, Biblical, tested over time through our traditions, and central to our life and worship. The unanswered question is whether or not a breadth in Biblical interpretation will make our common life elastic enough to discern issues of ethical conduct as non-essentials in which liberty can be exercised.
As a church, we haven take actions which assume that this liberty is present, in particular blessing of unions in some places, the ordination of partnered homosexuals, including the ordination of a bishop who is a homosexual in a committed monogamous relationship. Others see these events as a breach of essentials. The practice of charity would require us to see these variances as not the final word, but actions in which the church tests its own spiritual journey. In our companionship, and dare I say communion, we come to know in the fullness of time the mind of Christ on these matters. As my good friend, the Rt. Rev. Jeffery Steenson, said at our recent Convention, “I don’t need to fix the church.” I find that a helpful posture for all of us. Our call is to serve Jesus Christ through the church and the people of God. When we become the fixer, we are likely to do damage rather than good.
Where Do We Go From Here?
I would suggest that the way forward is remarkably simple. We need to accept that God has called us together as a people of God. As your bishop, I will stand with and among you as the apostolic leader praying and believe that Jesus is Lord. I will stand with you and say the creeds and believing every word of them. In the end, I plan to continue doing what I have done throughout my ordained life. I will love God, follow Jesus, say my prayers, read my Bible, love my family, and serve the community which God has placed before me. I will continue to be fed by my Sundays with you, which I find an immense blessing. I will simply try to be faithful. I will try to live a life consistent with my calling. I will endeavor to be pastoral and care for you and all people, with a particular focus on those who have no one else to speak for them, the poor and the outcast. I will strive to maintain the order and unity of the church, understanding that law is always mingled with grace. And finally let me repeat a commitment that I made in my convention address:
You see, Jesus said to me, “Follow me” in the Episcopal Church. I was formed in my faith in Jesus in a church full of differing opinions on a host of issues. In the midst of that, I grew in grace and love. I will fight for each of us to have a church where our divergent theological perspectives can and will be honored, whether I agree with them or not. Likewise, I will protect this church from every effort to cause it harm.
In the wonderful movie, Apollo 13, the character Gene Kranz, played by Ed Harris over hears Chris Kraft say, “This could be the worst disaster NASA has ever faced.” He responds with the prescient and bold words, "With all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour.” I believe that the same is true with us. I believe that if we continue with the conviction that our main work is the work of reconciliation the same will indeed be true for us. As Mark McIntosh said, “It is always an illusion to think that we are finished with our conversation.”
And so it comes down to the truth told in an ancient story. It goes something like this:
A young man tried to discredit a teacher whom he greatly envied. He too used a bird that he had captured. Holding the small bird in his had he said, “If you are so wise, tell me now is this bird in my hand alive or is it dead?” His plan was this: If the teacher said the bird was dead he would open his hand and the bird would fly away. If he said it was alive, he would quickly crush the bird in his hand and open it and say, “See, the bird is dead. Either way the teacher would be wrong. If you are so wise, tell me now is this bird in my hand alive or is it dead? The teacher looked back at him with great compassion and answered quite simply, “Really, my friend, it is in your hands.”
And so, it is in our hands, it is up to us to care for the church. The church is not an institution or buildings. It is the people of God who have taken vows at baptism to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is not easy citizenship. It is challenging and difficult, but it is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. These days are going to be our finest hour. God has given us the gift of doing something extraordinary as a model of fidelity in love, reconciliation in the midst of travail. My friends, it is up to us to practice the ministry of reconciliation.
A Prayer for the Church
O God of unchangeable power and eternal light: Look favorably on your whole Church, that wonderful and sacred mystery; by the effectual working of your providence, carry out the plan of salvation; let the whole world see and know that things which were cast down are being raised up, and things which had grown old are being made new, and that all things are being brought to their perfection by him through whom all things were made, your Son Jesus Christ or Lord; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.