Presiding Bishop Address to Executive Council: Message from the Chair
Diocesan Press Service. February 5, 1974 [74033]
Welcome to the annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. For some of you the annual meeting is a "first." For others it is "old hat." I am not sure as to why I am highlighting the fact that this meeting of Executive Council is what it is. For annual meetings of any corporation are usually dull affairs unless cantankerous Church people decide to vote their shares contrary to management's advice, or some other rarity troubles the calm. But even we operate by certain rules and regulations -- by-laws, we call them. And certain things must be done -- not only decently, but "in order."
Our attendance is noticeably slender -- and I am really to blame for that. The normal annual meeting date would have been next week -- and members already serving on this Council had marked it. But I had committed myself to a final swing around the Pacific visiting several of our dioceses and sister communions -- and you were kind enough -- at cost to the attendance mark -- to alter the date. I thank you, while apologizing for the inconvenience.
I record -- for all of us -- with the deepest sense of loss, interlaced with lasting gratitude to God for his life and ministry -- the death of one of our former colleagues on this Council, the Rt. Rev. Stephen Fielding Bayne. A great bishop, and chief pastor, Stephen Bayne casually -- and unassuming1y -- bore accolade after accolade which his adoring Church, and many other admirers, placed upon him as a sign of their recognition of God's superior craftsmanship in the long story of Creation. Bishop Bayne responded by immersing himself in sound biblical scholarship, genuine devotional life, and acute social conscience, the willingness to take on the impossible tasks (so long as the remotest chance prevailed that God would be glorified), all the while remaining a warm and caring human being.
He left his artistic, thoughtful mark upon the field of the articulation of the Christian faith on the college campus; on the episcopacy, as Bishop of the Diocese of Olympia; on the entire Anglican Communion as its pioneering Executive Officer, and architect of the movement labeled Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ. Few are they, in the area of ecumenism and the movements in Church Unity who do not remain deeply in his debt.
It is characteristic of him that when I became Presiding Bishop, Bishop Bayne abandoned any personal claims he may have rightfully had to any office in this Church which nurtured him; and, without reservation, supported my own feeble efforts to be this Church's Chief Pastor and Chief Executive Officer -- often at immense cost to himself.
I fully realize that I probably could not have survived the nine and one-half years of my tenure without the kind of grace his counsel and loving friendship freely conferred upon me. When Bishop Bayne died, a part of this Presiding Bishop died with him. Though his death leaves an almost irreducible void, no one's sorrow should persist. His temporary physical loss is swallowed up in the victory which is the crown of all who -- in triumphant joy -- hold the faith that Jesus Christ is Lord.
When I first heard of Stephen's death, an assurance of P.T. Forsythe spread its healing upon my hurt: "There are those who quietly say -- as their faith follows their love into the unseen -- 'I know that land. Some of my people live there. Some have gone abroad on secret foreign service, which does not admit of communication. But I meet, from time to time, the Commanding Officer. And when I mention them to Him, He assures me that all is well.'"
Since the next meeting of this Council will be in June, after Bishop Allin will have assumed office as Presiding Bishop, it would seem appropriate to elect Bishop Allin's successor on this Executive Council at this meeting -- effective, of course, at the June meeting. The bishop elected would fill the unexpired term until General Convention of 1976. I thought it prudent to alert a potential nominating committee, advising the three of them that Council may not wish such a committee, and, if so, they were unemployed without benefit of unemployment insurance. They wait in the wings, and I recommend the procedure to your approval. But I am not prepared to die for the procedure if Council decides otherwise.
The label "annual meeting" -- like the reconvening of Congress the other day -- suggests the appropriateness of a "State of the Church" address by the Chief Executive Officer. It might contain as careful a construct of historic achievements over the past year, or years, as well as a careful skirting of the damaging "pitfalls" that seem to haunt chief executive officers per se, and one in particular. If I detect some anxiety rising in your ranks at this point, I urge you to relax. I have no intention of trying to assess "the state of the Church." You are now delivered from most of the wild prescriptions I occasionally made in the interest of what I called "progress." "Progress" can wait until after June first -- when it can go forward under legitimate authorization. But -- you aren't to be let off "Scott-free" (whoever Mr. Scott was -- maybe "Dred" himself) -- for I have worked myself up into a kind of habit. I'm somewhat like Pavlov's dog, salivating at the sound of the dinner-bell. Whenever I see a sight of pure beauty such as The Executive Council, it sets me off again. So -- I must say a few words:
(1) concerning the role of Executive Council, and the shadowy but persistent idea of "The National Church," (2) the Office of the Presiding Bishop, and (3) the love affair with theology which is beginning to be heard in the Church.
In the "Gospel According to Peanuts" Charlie Brown is standing on the pitcher's mound about to deliver the ball to home-plate. Lucy comes running in from the outfield saying, "Oust him off, Charlie Brown. Throw him a bean ball."
To which Charlie Brown, with admirable simplicity, replies, "That wouldn't be right!"
"Right!" cries Lucy, "Who are you to talk about right? What do you know about morality, Charlie Brown? Remember how the Pilgrim Fathers treated the Indians?"
Another "peanut" joins in -- until, finally, the whole team is clustered around the pitcher's mound arguing the finer points of morality!
All the while, Charlie Brown stands there in silence —with a passive resignation that only Charlie Brown can achieve. Finally, he utters the punchline of the whole episode: 'We never win any ball games, but we certainly have some wonderful discussions."
Some in the Episcopal Church think that is precisely the situation at the Episcopal Church Center -- with the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council.
Mention the "National Church" -- or the "Executive Council" -- in the midst of some Episcopalians -- and you have a repeat of the "Peanuts" episode. Arguments fly thick and fast. Some of the points made are well considered. Others are strictly emotional reverberations. Meanwhile, there is a ball game being played. In some ways, a lot of people are waiting for the Church to make the next pitch. It would be pathetic if all we could say is, "We never win any ball games, but we certainly have some wonderful discussions."
It may be that the unhappy experience which this nation is now witnessing in the contest between the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary branches of our government will tend to accelerate a process of decentralization -- within the Episcopal Church -- in program-planning, in educational and missionary effort, and in administration - evident to some extent prior to Louisville, and since. The heightened interest in -- and concern about -- elections to this Executive Council so transparently visible at Louisville would have been unbelievable ten years ago. It points -- rightly in my view to the place of responsibility and importance an elective representative Executive Council has achieved in the course of a creative and dynamic decade. And it underlines the concert of "a national Church" which has been seeking a center of cohesion. Because it is even more visible -- over a triennium -- than the Church in General Convention, Executive Council therefore becomes the focus both of hope and despair on the part of many in the Church. My view is that this is a healthy situation, contributing to vitality in the Church -- and care should be taken to guard its place. For some are able to see the role of Executive Council as:
Servant of the God we find in Christ Jesus -- and a channel for Christian Mission.
Servant of the Episcopal Church through its General Convention.
Repository of corporate efforts in mission -- not really possible -- in the same manner -- through unilateral diocesan effort, or even area effort.
Catalytic agent -- to help things to happen consonant with the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God.
A well-spring of innovative and experimental ministry from which the whole Church can learn, and to which the whole Church contributes its learnings.
Significant linkage in all branches of ecumenism and Christian unity.
Bold challenger of culture, and the social order, in the name of Christ -- while remaining healthily self-critical and open.
Consonant with this role -- and interacting with it -- is a strong concept of the office of the Presiding Bishop. This is not to be confused with an authoritarian concept of the office of Presiding Bishop -- and certainly not a monarchial concept.
"Suffer not the old king under any name" is still a healthy stance for American Anglicanism! But -- as someone pointed out -- in relation to the Presidency: "The opposite of the Imperial Presidence need not be the 'Messenger-boy Presidency.' And there can be strength without surrendering to the corruptions of 'inordinate power.'"
And Walter Lippmann's observation in another era (as quoted by James Reston) is still on target: "Those in high places are more than the administrators of government bureaus. They are more than the writers of laws. They are the custodians of the nation's ideals, of the beliefs it cherishes, of its permanent hopes, of the faith which makes a nation out of a mere aggregation of individuals."
I am not one to confuse the office of Presiding Bishop and the American Presidency. There are far fewer similarities than there are dissimilarities. And I am thankful for that! Yet -- anyone who occupies a post of executive dimensions is not totally unaware of both the privileges and the perils that are the executive lot!
It has been often pointed out that the American Presidency is the most demanding office in the world -- and the least forgiving of error. Some men were made by the Presidency: Abraham Lincoln, and Harry Truman -- to name two -- were lifted out of obscurity and into history by decisions that were thrust upon them. But other men have been broken by the Presidency: Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover were severely damaged by events they could not control, and for which Congress -- and the public alike -- held them both personally responsible. But -- in our system -- this is part of the price of the office. John Steinbeck wrote (in the pre-Nixon era):
"The President must be greater than anyone else, but not better than anyone else. We subject him, and his family, to close and constant scrutiny and denounce them for things that we ourselves do every day. A Presidential slip of the tongue, a slight error in judgment -- social, political, ethical -- can raise a storm of protest. We give the President more work than a man can do, more responsibility than a man should take, more pressure than a man can bear. We abuse him often, and rarely praise him. We wear him out, use him up, eat him up, and, with all this, Americans have a love for the President that goes beyond loyalty or party nationality; he is ours -- and we exercise the right to destroy him."
Since I am now totally vulnerable -- and therefore not vulnerable at all -- I will admit to you that I was somewhat "taken aback" when I first caught sight of the "Nobody for Presiding Bishop" button at Louisville, Until the demon within me -- impervious as yet to the crafts of the Exorcist -- whispered, "Buck up, old boy -- Lester doesn't realize that for nine years that's what they've had!" And still the problem persists.
The office of Presiding Bishop should—in my opinion—periodically come under review in the operations of this Church. "New occasions" do "teach new duties." Time does make "ancient good" uncouth -- not inevitably, but frequently, Church people are sometimes stretched between the charm of nostalgia and the mirage of utopia. So much so that they may be persuaded—too quickly—to exchange a difficult reality for an appealing but impotent symbol! This Church is on the light track in its honest probing [or the enduring substance of "primus inter pares." And I doubt if the Church is willing to settle for an inadequate substitute.
As I have tried to indicate, these words are not an attempted "mini" self-evaluation of my performance in this office of Presiding Bishop. That would be an exercise in futility —"maxi" rather than "mini." It is a rather sober, if not too probing, reflection upon the nature of that office in a time of institutional stress, and salutary questioning. But one thing I do know -- and from which I have drawn "maxi" satisfaction -- has been the rewarding experience of working closely with Bishop Blanchard's executive office in charge of operations. While I lately occupied a similar post with the Council, moving into an academic field where he was equally, more of us thought: an adequate replacement could easily be found. But Bishop Bayne had lived by a "theology of hope" and had encouraged us to do the same. So, I went for the best man in the Church to come and fill a larger-than-life vacancy. I'm glad now that the fact that he was already one of the top bishops in this Church, pastoring and administering one of the top dioceses in this Church; did not deter me. And -- after saying no quite firmly -- once Roger Blanchard came to us, as I persisted after the manner of the importunate widow. If I have been able to work with even modest effectiveness, Roger Blanchard deserves any praise, and none of the blame. He is like a quarterback -- able skillfully to operate the ecclesiastical equivalent of a "wish-bone," triple-option offense. He is at the center of the operating group. possessed of General Convention's mandated game-plan, but resourceful enough to suggest audible check-offs at the "line of scrimmage" if the defense shifts significantly. He is prepared to run the "up-the-middle" tactic -- to keep the opposition honest; or run the "wide sweep to the outside." In such a complex, precision-oriented structure, an occasional fumble is to be expected. But the surprise, and power and sheer fun of varied participatory action by all the team, compensates for that risk. He has been beautiful to watch, absolutely unsparing of himself-- and totally dedicated to his Lord and mission. Selfishly -- his presence has permitted me to practice any loose, unpredictable style -- and to gain additional years of retirement by coming to the end of my tenure still able to "sit up and take nourishment..."
Roger Blanchard is a big man -- with the kind of gentle bigness that enables those around him to be bigger than they ever thought they could be. He will endure, as I hope I also may -- until the bewitching hour of midnight, May 31st! But by no stretch of the imagination can anyone conceive of his being turned into a pumpkin! This small token symbolizes enduring affection and lasting gratitude for Big Bishop Blanchard.