Episcopal Bishops Continue Journey Toward a More Collegial Style of Leadership
Episcopal News Service. September 16, 1992 [92183]
With the impatience of the ancient Hebrews in the wilderness, more than 180 bishops of the Episcopal Church concluded their six-day annual meeting in Baltimore with the conviction that they were headed toward a new style of collegial leadership -- even if they had not yet reached the promised land.
The September 5-10 meeting was an extraordinary departure from previous bishops' meetings in many ways -- not the least of which was the absence of contentious public debate and the adoption of resolutions. Yet, even more significant was their determination to forge a new climate in which to deal with controversial issues that confront the church and society.
Ever since an explosive exchange between bishops during the church's triennial General Convention in Phoenix last summer forced the house to meet behind closed doors in order to repair their fragile collegiality, the church has watched expectantly to see whether the bishops could find a way to move forward together with a new style of leadership.
The meeting in Baltimore followed the format of a special meeting of the bishops held last March at the Kanuga Conference Center in North Carolina, at which the bishops met in small discussion groups and grappled with a variety of questions about their common life.
Yet, even before the Baltimore meeting began, a sense of urgency loomed over the gathering, spelled out in a stark hypothesis approved by the bishops at Kanuga: "The House of Bishops as a collective body has no clearly stated or agreed upon understanding of the episcopacy: what it means to be a bishop, what it means to be a community of bishops. This leads to individual interpretations, different expectations, idiosyncratic behavior, a loss of unity, and lack of discipline."
The sense of urgency was echoed in Baltimore by what Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning called "an imperative for change" in opening remarks to the house. "I truly believe that the erosion of community and the ignoring of the baptismal vow to respect the dignity of every person are at the root of the systemic and societal ills...all around us, and that we are called to confront," Browning said. "A beginning of that confrontation is in our own lives -- in the House of Bishops. That is why we are called to embody what community really means in the deepest sense."
Browning reminded the bishops that the participants at the Kanuga meeting left with a new determination to move forward together. "If we cannot be bishops together, we cannot be bishops alone," he repeated from the statement adopted at Kanuga. Browning said that through their life together, the bishops "have an opportunity to give to the church a sign of what Christian community is all about. Surely our church, and our world, hunger for such a sign."
In no time, Browning's contention was confirmed in the reports from the first session in Baltimore. "The church is at a critical turning point -- the society in which we live is also at a critical turning point," one group of bishops said. "Are we really ready to commit ourselves to the major transformation we believe is necessary?" they asked. "Are we willing to hang in long enough to experience the transformation?"
A significant number of bishops clearly blamed the "legislative process" of their previous meetings for a climate of rancor -- what one bishop said had reduced their meetings to "a Yugoslavia without guns." Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina, a member of the Kanuga Planning Committee (KPC), the group responsible for much of the planning at both meetings since Phoenix, said that there was a "groundswell in the church of seeking a new way of doing things -- a deep sense of need for change.
"Too often we have been driven by the tyranny of the moment," Salmon continued. "The former way was a costly way of working together, functioning in a win-lose climate. The new mode is not an attempt to minimize conflict, but to debate the issues and come to decisions out of a different context."
In a later presentation, Bishop Rogers Harris of Southwest Florida said that the House of Bishops had "functioned in a political paradigm -- not unlike the U.S. Senate -- with pressure groups from the left and the right."
"We [the KPC] began to plan for a paradigm shift -- one that would have us organized less like a political body and more like the Council of Apostles [described in the Book of Acts]," Harris added. "We are in the process of beginning to be different." he contended.
The "new mode" -- seeking to form a renewed sense of community and shared leadership among the bishops -- transformed the meeting into a series of brief presentations, followed by extended conversations around 19 tables, each with seven or eight bishops. Each table included a balance of geographical and theological perspective -- an attempt to encourage intimate conversation among bishops who might normally have opposed one another behind rhetoric at microphones.
For three days, bishops turned their attention to the subject of biblical authority -- a concern that had bubbled beneath many of the recent debates in their house and in the wider church. "You and I are aware of the main problems pressing us as a church and a society hut, because we believe the Bible to be crucial for our mission as God's church in the world, so it is important that we from time to time make it central to our study and reflection," said Bishop Frederick Borsch of Los Angeles, chair of the bishops' theology committee, in a letter prior to the meeting.
Discussion of four academic papers written by seminary professors -- ranging from one that argued for a "literal" interpretation of Scriptures to one that viewed Scriptures from the perspective of feminist liberation theology -- was the heart of the meeting.
In introductory comments about her paper, the Rev. Dr. Ellen Wondra of the Colgate Rochester Divinity School summed up the importance of the exercise. "The discussion in which we are engaged is an important one, not just because of the subject matter -- which is important in itself -- but because the same questions undergird this discussion as many other discussions. Who and what has authority?" Wondra asked. "Who decided? What is authority? And how does the church speak the Good News in the world today?"
Following hours of discussion spread across three days, a survey of comments from the table groups revealed that bishops found that the process was informative-if not transformative. "I learned once again that it is important to listen to positions and opinions that differ from mine," one bishop said. "Talking about Scriptures helped me to know and understand others in the group," said another. One bishop suggested that the table groups offered "a new pattern for us to address other topics."
However, in spite of enthusiasm for the small-group process, there were some notes of doubt. "We fear that we might not use these learnings in dealing with controversial issues that divide us," one table reported. It was a concern that would be left hanging throughout the meeting.
In small-group sessions, brief plenary presentations and around the edges of the meeting, bishops expressed some confusion, some impatience with a process aimed at building community and setting aside controversial issues. Consultants from the Center for Parish Development in Chicago laid out a several-phased proposal for a complex planning process meant to help bishops make changes in their leadership style. The proposal included several planning sessions by committees that would prepare for two meetings of the House of Bishops in 1993.
"The House of Bishops is one of the first bodies in North America to say that 'something very serious is wrong,'" said Paul Dietterich, who, with his wife, Ina Grace, was a consultant to the house. Dietterich painted a very bleak picture of the future of mainline Protestantism if church leaders are not willing to face the changes necessary for survival. Pointing out that "55,000 people leave church each week never to return," Dietterich said that "unless a major change occurs, we'll see the churches of today become relics -- interesting, but obsolete."
After proposing a timeline with a series of planning meetings -- and a budget of more than $125,000 to support the proposal, Dietterich posed a litany of questions later described by Bishop Vince Warner of Olympia as "a wake-up call." "Is the House of Bishops ready for long-term change, or merely looking for a 'quick fix'?" Dietterich asked. "Are the members of the house ready to invest the time and money required for significant changes? Are people aware of the resistance [to change], and are they willing to learn from it?" he asked.
Almost immediately resistance to the proposal surfaced. For several days the KPC received negative feedback from bishops who balked at the high price tag attached to the proposal -- especially for consultants' fees. Many bishops expressed concern that the "transformation process" did not encompass the leadership role of the House of Deputies and the Executive Council. Others continued to be confused or suspicious about where the process would lead the bishops. Yet, there was overwhelming consensus that the house must not turn back to the previous way of doing business.
"There is a general commitment to change the way we do things," said Bishop Salmon. "I think we are beginning to see that the way we live together is not merely a matter of process -- but really speaks about who we are. We know that any process leading to change will be bumpy," he continued, "but we must decide whether we will be in charge of the change process -- or victims of it."
By the conclusion of the meeting, the bishops reached a consensus -- albeit not unanimously -- that they would hold another meeting at the Kanuga Conference Center in the spring of 1993 to explore "the meaning of the episcopacy." Still to be worked out were details regarding financing of the meeting and the role of consultants in the ongoing process. Yet there appeared to be enough goodwill and trust in the process to take the next step -- wherever it leads.
In a presentation on the final day of the meeting, Chicago Bishop Frank Griswold was the first to compare their grappling with change to a sojourn in the biblical wilderness. He said that the special meeting in Kanuga represented "leaving Egypt" and the meeting in Baltimore represented "entering into the wilderness." Griswold said that, like the ancient Hebrews, the bishops were on "a journey of testing and purification that included angels and wild beasts, manna and oasis. The wilderness exposes us to the personal and collective sinfulness that undermine transformation."
Griswold said that the bishops were in a period that "requires endurance and faithfulness. It is a process that is positive, though painful and costly." He reminded his colleagues that they -- like the children of Israel -- had experienced murmuring, discontent and anger directed toward their leaders. "Like them, we are tempted by idolatry -- to fashion golden calves that seek a quick fix instead of a long-term change."
Griswold added that a great deal of faithfulness was exhibited among the bishops. He described the table fellowships as "experiences of manna." And, despite some impatience with the process, Griswold said that he encountered no sentiment that "we should go back to Egypt. We will continue to experience a climate of hope and realism, sin and grace, incredible possibility -- if we are faithful," he concluded.
"The process begun in Kanuga and continued in Baltimore will have an effect on the way we do business in our dioceses," said Bishop Sam Hulsey of Northwest Texas, chair of the KPC. "We are called to be in a constant process of learning -- including how to be bishops."
Beginning his first official tour of the United States in conjunction with the House of Bishops meeting, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey sounded as though he had been a part of the house's struggle when he told the bishops that "a new world order requires a new church -- outward looking, vibrant and confident." Carey said that he envisioned "a diaconal church...reaching out and relating the faith in communities where the needs are real."
Calling on the bishops to "keep a sense of perspective," Carey warned against an "introverted" view of the world that ignores "sisters and brothers who are persecuted for their faith on the frontiers of human existence." He asserted that too much concern for maintenance and too little emphasis on mission can lead to "wallowing in our own little world."
In a reference to the bishops' struggle with collegiality in their deliberations, Carey said that they should "be united to a degree in that [they] don't do solo acts" without consulting their colleagues. He also said that the church should be a place of martyrs -- that is, of witnesses -- "so committed to one another [that we are] prepared to go to the cross for our faith."
Carey joined the conversation on biblical authority with a major address to the house in the final hours of the meeting. "We cannot engage with Scripture or interpret it without entering into a dialogue with the word of God," he said. "We are not simply sponges who soak up the word of God, nor are we vessels simply waiting to be filled. Our own experience, worship and prayer engage with Scripture and invite it to have an impact upon our lives."
Linking the concern about scriptural interpretation to the role of bishops, Carey said that there is a temptation for bishops to assume "an authoritarian teaching office." He suggested that bishops should instead be "a living canon -- a focal point where dialogue with issues of Christian belief is invited."
"Episcopal authority is not given so that we dispense answers to every question," Carey said. "But it is given so that you and I might direct people to Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth and life itself."
At a press conference following the meeting, Carey emphasized that Christian ethical decisions must be made in the context of conversation, "never divorced from the journey of others." It was a comment that rang true for many bishops who continue to struggle with the goal of collegiality and the demand that bishops exercise leadership.
"It is not yet obvious how to translate our experience and deepen it, and to use it to help the whole church," said Suffragan Bishop Chester Talton of Los Angeles at the conclusion of the meeting. "It is not completely clear how we can take our study and put it to work as we face new demands and challenging opportunities in the world."
Yet, the Baltimore meeting ended on a hopeful note, despite some unanswered questions about how to move forward. "The point [of grappling with a new leadership style] is that we are interested in a more fruitful episcopate that will support our mission in the world," Hulsey concluded.
- The bishops participated in discussions about racism in the Episcopal Church. A panel led by Presiding Bishop Browning and Bishops Wantland (Eau Claire), Epting (Iowa), and Tennis (Delaware) spoke about their experiences in confronting racism. In his remarks to the house, Browning asserted that racism was "ripping apart our global village...infesting and infecting our own church." He said that it was not possible "to be a Christian and a racist."
- Browning reported on developments surrounding the controversy between the Diocese of Southern Virginia and St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Richmond. He told the bishops that he had written retired Bishop Donald Davies to express his disapproval of Davies's recent unauthorized visit to St. Luke's. Browning described Davies's action as having "broken a sacred trust between the bishop of Southern Virginia and his congregation." Browning said that he hoped the situation at St. Luke's could be resolved "within the pastoral relationship," although he did not rule out canonical action in the future if the problem persists.
- Spouses of bishops reported that they had begun to build community within their group, although they continue to wonder "where do we fit in?" Reporting for the spouses, Mary Williams of North Carolina said that there is "considerable diversity" among spouses of bishops, and that most of them maintain their own careers and serve the church "in creative and intelligent ways." For the first time, a male spouse -- David Dixon, husband of Washington's Suffragan Bishop-elect Jane Dixon -- participated in a portion of the spouses' meeting.
![[thumbnail: Archbishop Cary Joins Bis...]](/e-archives/ENS/photographs/thumbnails/92183_1_thb.jpg) |
![[thumbnail: Browning and Eastman Exam...]](/e-archives/ENS/photographs/thumbnails/92183_2_thb.jpg) |