Message by the President
Diocesan Press Service. October 14, 1974 [74278]
Rt. Rev. John M. Allin, Presiding Bishop
October 14, 1974
Brother bishops, allow me to reflect some observations as we begin this meeting.
We gather here with a number of issues and concerns in our minds. We are all in the midst of varying pressures -- some motivating, some repressive, some frustrating, some in combination causing ambivalence.
We experience crises of varying degrees in our world, our environment, our society, our Church, our relationships and in our selves. Some of us, like some of the clergy and other human beings are suffering in a crisis of identity.
In varying measure there is confusion within us and among us. And in varying measure we are weary -- in some cases more than has been registered.
In spite of our failures and our faults, which many proclaim (unstintingly), there continues to be evidence that God's grace is operative among us. In spite of charges to the contrary, there is reason to believe that no one of us is entirely devoid of commitment to the cause of Christ or faith in His Gospel, nor are we totally lacking in the sensitivities and compassion which accompanies Christian faith.
Our vision of the Lord may be blurred. Our perspective of the Church and Christian mission may be distorted. Our priorities may differ accordingly. Discouragement may at certain times limit our efforts. Nevertheless I do believe all of us desire to be faithful to the vocation of Christ's ministry.
Amid the confusion of the human predicament, our definitions of the Christian mission and ministry, our perceptions of the Church, even our understanding of the Gospel, can become confused. Different and even conflicting definitions, perceptions and interpretations of mission, ministry, Church and Gospel may be raised up among us within the community of faith with the capability of destroying or dividing the community and denying the faith. The assumption of one faith in one Lord can become a presumption rather than a reality if not frequently subjected to faithful testing, lovingly and humbly by those of us who would share in communion.
Discovering ourselves to be in disagreement with one another or with other Christians or non-Christians is not an unpardonable sin.
The measure of our Christian responsibility, the measure of our common faith, and likewise the measure of our willful or irresponsive sin or separation is gauged by the manner and methods of our endeavors to resolve our differences in seeking the truth of the Lord Jesus so that we can together serve Him as He wills us to serve Him.
Can it be true, brothers, that much of our difficulty results from too loosely claiming too often the familiar Anglican doctrine of "comprehensiveness " ? Have we too often chosen to ignore conflicting opinions among us in hopes such could go unchallenged, rather than seeking together the common truth we profess to serve? And do we believe that truth can be determined by a vote of the majority present?
Our discipline as Christians is to learn the truth and share the truth and live the truth among us. It is not sufficient that some have the truth and others do not. Fulfillment comes through sharing the truth and through the Spirit motivating the sharing.
The history of the Church -- including our own recent history -- records many sad incidents of divisions resulting from opposing efforts in the name of truth and justice. We have ample examples and much experience in dividing. Can't we now take time to seek the ways and means of coming together in truth? In such an endeavor good examples and reliable experience may seem lacking. Yet do we not profess and possess sufficiently faith to try? I believe we do.
Certainly, we all are expected to have a concern and dedication to just and effective relationships among our Church people and all other human beings. Fulfilling that expectation as bishops will be greatly helped or hindered by the quality of our relating to one another. My concern here and now expressed is not for the happy maintenance of an episcopal club or the invoking of sentimental rhetoric about episcopal brotherhood. I am concerned about the manner in which we deal with one another individually and in groups. My concern has developed and has been little diminished during my thirteen years in this House. During that time we have struggled with many issues, passed many resolutions (often by a very narrow vote), and often become fractious and fragmented in the process. We have berated one another, added to our feelings of guilt, and lowered the trust level unnecessarily by our frustration-born efforts to outmaneuver or drag along those with whom we disagree.
The cause of much of our predicament is not, in my opinion, that some of us are good and some bad, some clever and some foolish, some arrogant and some humble, some important and some not. Rather, much of our predicament, our "win-lose " encounters, our community-dividing behavior, results from our style of operating and our pre-conditioned responses. For the sake of Christian Mission, if for no other cause, I believe we have a mutual need to revise our life style, both individually and corporately, and together find a means of re-conditioning ourselves as bishops.
Here in Mexico we have an immediate and excellent opportunity to begin our reconditioning and revision of style. And I don't believe this requires hiring a consultant, or appointing another committee, or extra sessions. I believe we can accomplish much as we live and work together here if we will consider our "how of doing" as well as what we consider is to be done. I believe we are capable of evaluating -- and revising -- our methods of operating while we are operating.
Allow me to make some specific suggestions and applications:
1. Being continually mindful of our time limitations and with the assistance of the best committee arrangements we can devise, I would hope we can keep to a minimum the number of plenary parliamentary sessions of this House at our interim meetings. I believe this can be accomplished if we are willing to operate more frequently as a "committee of the whole" to receive reports, to present causes, cases, needs and positions, to clarify our understanding and resolve our differences. Yes, to strive for consensus. I realize this calls for a change in the by-laws.
These "committee of the whole" sessions can in turn be serviced, supported and facilitated by more frequent sessions of Provincial groups and ample provision for the workings of our committees with their multi-provincial memberships. The point of all this is to give every member of this House greater opportunity to be heard, to clarify his perspective, to share in reasonable compromise and to be engaged in decision making.
My hope is that by such means of preparing for our formal parliamentary style business sessions, we will have determined together in advance the mind and will of this House and can more efficiently formalize decisions without resorting to parliamentary gamesmanship.
2. Next I would gently remind us again that we must be free to consider some delicate or personal matters within the loneliness of this House. I am not talking about "keeping secrets." I am speaking of the necessity to share some burdens of personal concerns with greater candor and freedom among a particular group sharing mutual responsibility than is possible in a public arena. I believe we have the discretion and merit the trust to accomplish this without abuse. We demonstrated this discretion in making the correct decision in Chicago to remain in open sessions there. We also manifested some accumulated anxiety in reaching that decision which I believe we should examine.
3. Thirdly, I would express the hope that we will not insist or find it necessary to work morning, noon and night. I do so for two reasons: first, we need more opportunity to appreciate one another as human beings with perhaps more in common than sharing episcopal offices. Secondly, we need to relax as a group occasionally.
I am trying my best to tell you that I feel there are a number of differences and divisions among us -- some of long standing -- that need to be resolved by us in as orderly manner as possible for the sake of the Church, for the Church's mission and for our own sakes. Too many times, like the psalmist, we have occasion to feel: "It is not an open enemy that has done this to me, but mine own familiar friend."
And I don't believe this condition can be referred to a committee for solution. We must look at ourselves and at one another, consider our behavior, examine our motives and with charity and integrity and God's grace work together on working together, as together we work, in carrying on the mission of Christ's Church.
We all know the tasks we face are legion. Please let us give renewed attention to how we can best work together.
Certainly our agenda provides us every opportunity. The role and right recognition of women is the most pressing example. The predicament of the women desiring ordination is our most obvious crisis. To illustrate the complexities of our predicament, however, the question must be asked: Is the ordination of women the primary issue or only symptomatic of much greater needs?
The present struggle is around the question of the particular ordination of particular women. This has divided the Church and threatens even greater divisions on the present course.
How to set the correct course to meet the greater needs while at the same time dealing constructively with our sisters' distress is the problem. As to the latter, to borrow an analogy from the hospital emergency room, there is such angry inflamation around the broken members of our body, that any move, and especially an awkward move to set right the break, is met with fearsome outburst. Thus far there is no clear picture of the extent of the damage done or an accurate measure of the threat of further complications.
Now, brothers, in the face of this acute predicament, with the intense emotional involvement surrounding it, and with some recognition of the gravity of the problem and of the personal anxiety being produced, we have been given a responsibility which must embrace, but is not to be limited to or by this acute internal problem within this Church. While at present this problem may be recognized as the most pressing and obvious one, would it not be irresponsible to become so preoccupied with it as to suggest it to be the only problem? In reality, our assigned role and accountability requires us to place this very serious problem in perspective. Is it symptomatic of a greater need or needs?
The purpose of this meeting is to survey and examine both the needs and opportunities for Christian development within and without the Church. We all know the list to be long. Before we begin to tell one another which is the greater or what we must do, I most earnestly pray that we will be circumspect and together relate and rank needs and opportunities. Having done so, let us then measure our resources, determine priorities, plan how we can best act as a communion and community, assign tasks, coordinate our efforts, and try again to lose ourselves in His service.
For starters, allow me to direct your attention to some needs which are so obvious they are ironically overlooked, so pressing they are numbing.
What of physical needs? (1) World hunger on a geometric scale, (2) wretched living conditions, (3) inadequate health care, (4) environmental pollution, (5) dehumanizing prison conditions.
Are these proper concerns of the Church? No question?
Let's not waste time proclaiming our guilt and passing resolutions. Let us reorder our resources of wealth, personnel and talent, join allies and do something.
And what of needs of the Spirit? (1) Human desperation and despair -- no faith, (2) human loneliness and fear -- no love, (3) human ignorance, illiteracy -- no hope, (4) growing nationalism -- false gods, (5) self-destruction, self-interest -- phony relationships.
Do these needs offer us opportunity for Christian service?
Does Elijah's haunting question to the priest of Baal echo here?
"How long halt ye between two opinions?"
Is the Christian ministry an ascending scale of privileged professional rank or does its greatness exist only in expanding circles of service? And who does what? And how? And why?
Does such an examination suggest a need for the renewal of the Christian ministry? Are the laity included? Is it possible that bishops and presbyters are meant to be networks of servants, support-systems, if you please, for an expanding diaconate, rather than vice versa?
Is there evidence of role confusion? Do we understand the nature of our relationships? Are we a mystical body of inter-related and inter-dependent members and functions or are we an organization of ordered associations?
Do we believe that baptism incorporates every member into the full life of the Church with provision to share in leadership and decision making as a part of service?
Is there need for renewal of and in the Church's ministry?
No question, save how comes this renewal?
Certainly so vital a need can't be left to unsupported, unrelated, uncoordinated committees.
If there is to be a renewal of Christian ministry and mission, can it occur without a renewal of the Church's vital functions -- worship, offering, evangelizing, teaching, serving?
No question here either, save how do we enable Church members to cooperate?
Brothers, I beg your further consideration for I know we all are striving in various ways for renewal.
1. Consider worship:
My pastoral concern compels me to urge you as I urged our Liturgical Commission, who have worked so hard, to continue the careful efforts to express the catholic and evangelical Christian faith in the most beautiful, awesome, meaningful and varied means possible. So much has been accomplished to provide greater freedom, flexibility and variety. My concern is that we not inadvertently reverse ourselves and become restrictive and divisive in our testing process by requiring conformity (no longer helpful) to our Book of Common Prayer in place of another Book of Common Prayer. Certainly in an age in which we need to be gaining appreciation for other valid forms of worship, we are sufficiently versatile to continue indefinitely providing services from the present Prayer Book for those who desire them as well as more contemporary services for those who so desire. Do we not believe that development is more readily stimulated by freedom than by restriction?
I urge your favorable consideration of two possibilities in adopting the current revision: one, that no unnecessary restrictions be placed on the future use of our present Prayer Book, and, two, the first Eucharistic service in the proposed revision be the exact text of the 1928 Book with the newly revised rubrics which provide greater flexibility and variety. Many faithful souls will be cheered.
2. Consider offering -- giving.
Renewal must include new and more flexible means of funding Christian mission. I must repeat here what I have stated to the Executive Council and others. Our present funding method is antiquated and inadequate. Our budgeting system must be enabled to give more by giving it more directly to where the action is and thereby receive more directly the stimulus to give. Our budget-making process must cease to be a competitive exercise in a small arena. Our old annual, so-called "Every Member Canvass" pump with one pipe-line, is simply not capable of drawing enough from the well to fill three pools, much less create a great national reservoir from when all blessings flow. The well is not dry. The pumps are too small. We need a new watering system and more effective means of tapping the springs. Together we have the talent and experience, and even computers, to develop and manage a renewal system.
And, I believe, we can reach the same conviction as to the talent and experience and commitment being available if we accept the discipline of working together when we consider the needs and opportunities for (3) evangelism and (4) Christian education. We've been given the "what it is." Our common task is to work out the "How to do it."
And this brings us again and again to Christian service. Are we not reminded that the Gospel may be preached and heard, but the Good News is only incorporated when the hearer becomes a doer of the Word?
What are our answers to such questions as:
1. What is the goal of evangelism?
2. What is the purpose of Christian education?
3. What does the Lord of the Gospel say of obedience and freedom, of service and salvation, of emptying and fulfillment? And in what sequence?
4. Is the goal of evangelism and the purpose of Christian education to bring human beings to baptism whereby they become members of Christ and doers of the Word or not?
5. Is the function of Christian ministry to share with others the experience or benefits of ministering or serving in the power of the Christ Spirit? Or do we minister as we choose to others only for our self-gratification and fulfilment? (These are difficult questions for me. What about you?)
6. If Christ be lifted up, is His purpose to draw all into His life so all can be reconciled to God and each other through sharing the obedience of His service?
Or is there a pragmatic divinity who has made provision for a chosen and diminishing few to be brought to his perfection by setting apart an adequate number of imperfections upon whom the elect can work out some other means of salvation, or at least consolation?
Can we offer some the benefits of Christ without offering to share His life with them?
Is this perhaps a reason the Church, as we know it, is not growing?
Are we offering stones, when the request is for bread?
Are we halted between opinions?
Are we confused as to our purpose?
Are we preoccupied internally with who is to sit in the chief seats and preside at table rather than how all members offer the bread of life to a starving world?
Are we more concerned with who does what, than with how, together, we can be "doers of the Word," witnesses to the Gospel, servants of the Lord?
Are our systems too complicated?
Is our life-style detached? Are our relationships confused?
Our responsibilities are burdensome, brethren, yet our Lord Jesus Christ offers us the faith by which they can be lightened.
The Christian discipline of prayer and fasting and communing and sharing has not ceased to be the means of renewal. By the power of His grace we can revise our life-style, overhaul our systems, coordinate our participation, offer our gifts and be renewed and expanded in our relationships.
During this week, let us not take too much upon us as sons of Levi; but rather respond in his faith to the questions and needs and opportunities surrounding us and among us with gracious and patient persistence, trusting Him and one another enough to relax and give cheerful thanks from time to time for the hope that is in us and for the love who is among us. He will deliver us from our human predicament if we are faithful.
Our help is in the name of the Lord!
Who hath made heaven and earth.
Blessed be the name of the Lord!
From henceforth and forever. Amen.