House of Bishops Meeting, Pocono Manor
Diocesan Press Service. October 29, 1971 [96-9]
POCONO MANOR, Penn. -- Of several themes which ran through the deliberations of the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops during its Oct. 24-29 Meeting in Pocono Manor, the one which recurred most persistently was mission.
The word began to be heard on the day before the full Meeting opened, when the over- seas bishops spent a day together talking through their particular concerns. The Rev. John Spong of Richmond, Va., sounded the theme firmly to the 14 men, urging them to persuade the whole House to insist that at the 1973 General Convention, mission with a capital M shall receive prime attention by the most creative and compelling means that can be devised.
Newly-appointed Vice President for Development Oscar Carr, Jr., one of the guest speakers, urged the House to "issue a creative call to mission" to serve as a "cornerstone" on which to begin the entire resource development within the Church.
When Presiding Bishop, the Rt. Rev. John E. Hines, made his major address at the Meeting banquet, the theme sounded once again. He suggested the Church "look both lovingly and analytically at the great theme of mission, with an eye to clarifying its dimensions and demands" in today's world.
"Our responsibility as bishops," he continued, "is to offer ourselves as channels for the effective operation of God's compassionate judgment and grace, as we find it mirrored in the life and death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This requires imaginative, creative, and courageous response on our part to God's persistent overture, 'Who will go for us?'"
Day by day, this is what happened at the meeting of the House of Bishops
SATURDAY, October 23
The Overseas Bishops at their customary full day's gathering in advance of the House's Meeting:
* heard the Rev. John Spong of Richmond, Va., point up forcefully the urgency for the whole Church to address itself now to the task of Mission, redefining the term and developing strategy to act on the definition.
* discussed the recent deportation from Guatemala of its Bishop, the Rt. Rev. William Frey. Commended this matter to the House's Committee on Social and International Affairs, for possible response after Bishop Frey shares with the House a summary of the event.
* submitted 10 or 12 requests for revolving fund loans of $50,000 each from $300,000 presently available for overseas uses. Many requests were for efforts of overseas Dioceses to become self-sustaining; others ranged from clergy housing needs to the formation of corporations by Alaska's 12 Indian and Eskimo groups in order to qualify to receive federal monies from the resolution of native land claims.
* were delighted to hear Dr. Paul Tate (Deputy for Jurisdictional Relations) state that he anticipates the Church will be able to fulfill, in toto, the 1972 budget askings of the overseas jurisdictions.
SUNDAY, October 24
The House of Bishops:
* adopted the prosed informal Meeting format.
* applauded news that the Episcopal Church Foundation has made available two funds of $300,000 each, one for bishops and one for other clergymen, for mid-career retraining and/or continuing education opportunities.
* learned that the Rev. Quinland Gordon, a field coordinator for the General Convention Special Program, has been named first director of Absalom Jones Theological Institute, the Episcopal segment of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Ga.
* greeted the Anglican Communion's secretary general, the Rt. Rev. John Howe, who will address the House.
* welcomed 14 "baby bishops" consecrated since the House's 1970 gathering.
MONDAY, October 25
The House of Bishops:
* spent the morning in sections, discussing authority and power in relation to social issues. Section conveners reported to the entire House in the afternoon. Some expressions indicated wishes for the House to speak now to the Church on the nature of faith and mission. (Randomly chosen quote from a section report: " If we have loving people, who love people, there just ain't no power greater than that.")
* following the noon Eucharist, heard the Rt. Rev. John Howe deliver greetings from recently visited Anglican Provinces, and give glimpses of concerns, Anglican and ecumenical, he notes.
* following a report from the Rt. Rev. Robert F. Gibson, Jr., on ecumenical relations and COCU in particular, compared views on familiar and new directions the movement is taking. At issue: Does the failure of "middle judicatory leaders" (bishops, synod officials, et al in all nine participating churches) to give a strong lead in interdenominational study of the proposed Plan of Union indicate lack of support for COCU? Does the House of Bishops really intend to act on the resolutions it has adopted, nearly unanimously, in past years? How great is the need for more canonical flexibility, to give legitimacy to present surreptitious inter- church experiments? What part do spontaneous grassroots movements play in advancement toward unity?
* expressed the wish to hear, later in the week, reports on the Anglican-Roman Catholic conversations and those with the Orthodox.
* applauded Mrs. Richard Emery's presentation on new trends in the United Thank Offering work, including pointers on how the Bishops can foster both the giving and the granting.
* heard the Rt. Rev. Stephen Bayne explain plans of the General Board of Examining Chaplains to make the general ordination examinations available, for the first time, Jan. 31 - Feb. 5, 1972.
* heard Oscar Carr, Jr., Vice President for Development, spell out his emerging tasks as they now appear, and relay the expressed hope of many Episcopalians that the Church will clarify and define the mission of the Church. He said "a creative call to mission" can become the cornerstone on which to start efforts to marshal the human and financial resources within the Church.
* heard secretary, the Rt. Rev. Scott Field Bailey, enumerate 14 matters which have been referred to committees and will need House consideration before the week's end.
* seemed to enjoy one another's sartorial variety. Jackets must be worn in the dining room at dinner. Daytime garb includes a navy blazer with scarlet slacks, a soft mauve pullover, a much-displayed red wristwatch band, a purple clerical shirt of boxy casual cut. Hirsute hint: longer.
TUESDAY, October 26
The House of Bishops:
* after testing the wishes of its members about agenda procedures, agreed to spend the morning considering, in small groups, discussion topics selected earlier: racism, theology and spiritual life, unity-diversity, the proposed Initiatory Rite, the ordination of women, and the mission of the Church, especially world outreach.
* accepted resignations of nine Bishops (Bishops Claiborne, Crowley, Foote, Gooden, Kellogg, Kinsolving, Mills, Quarterman and Warnecke). Five have reached retirement age; one is in ill health. The others resigned in order to make way for the election of indigenous Bishops in Panama and the Canal Zone, the Dominican Republic, and the Virgin Islands.
* discussed and forwarded, as an advisory item, to the Joint Commission on the Church in Human Affairs, a proposed amendment tempering the canons regarding the remarriage of divorced persons. A Commission subcommittee is currently preparing revisions of these canons for action by the 1973 General Convention.
* voted it to be "the mind of the House" that unconfirmed children now allowed to receive Holy Communion shall be allowed the same privilege, should they change residence, even though in the new city and/or diocese this practice is not in use.
* commended to its Theological Committee a reconsideration of the wording of the "He is worthy" acclamation which the congregation uses during the ordination rite in the trial ordinal. (Sotto voce alternative offered by one Bishop: "Should we change it to 'He's OK?' ")
* referred a second time to committee the thorny matter of the ordination of women to the priesthood and their consecration to the episcopate. A fairly wide-ranging debate indicated the House's reluctance to deal with this item until 1972, after there has been time for the committee (to which non-House members can be appointed) has provided background documents for the Bishops' careful advance consideration. One speaker made explicit what several had implied: that the House is in no way "stepping back from" the issue, but rather is deferring action only to allow for deeper study of it.
* decided on a similar referral of a request for canonical changes to permit "joint ordination. " It would allow Episcopal priests to be ordained by a church with which this one is not in communion, and other clergymen to be ordained priests according to the Episcopal rite -- each continuing to maintain full clerical standing with his original church. Purpose: to enable one clergyman, where conditions warrant, to serve two congregations if both congregations so wish.
* referred to the Joint Commission on the Structure of the Church a proposal for re- writing and updating the entire constitution and canons, unrevised in any major way for several decades. The action asked the proposed revision to be ready for the 1973 General Convention to consider.
* heard the Rt. Rev. Clarence E. Hobgood describe his work as Bishop to the Armed Forces, a ministry newly youth-centered, person-centered, crisis-centered, family-centered -- and exceptionally ecumenical.
* listened with interest to the new Roman Catholic/Anglican statement on the theology of the Eucharist. The statement, not yet for release, evidences "substantial, though not full" agreement on Eucharistic doctrine. The House is expected to respond to the document before the Meeting's end.
* enjoyed in-person greetings from four seminarians, who invited the Bishops to take the initiative in establishing closer relationships with their theologs, at least half of whom they said do not yet feel free and open toward their man in purple. As a thanksgiving offering, the young men brought along a bottle of Scotch. They opened the Episcopal Church Annual, at random, and the bottle fell to the Bishop of Chicago (retired). (Since it was Johnny Walker, somebody suggested it really should go to Washington's new Suffragan of the same name!)
WEDNESDAY, October 27
* The Rev. Dr. John B. Coburn, rector of St. James' in New York City and president of the House of Deputies, conducted a Quiet Morning, taking as his theme, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."
* During the free afternoon, a film was shown entitled "Crisis in the Ministry." (For information about this 30-minute, 16 mm color film, write: Roa's Films, 1696 N. Astor St., Milwaukee, Wis. 53202.)
* The sun came out at least a little bit, to the delight of golfers, walkers, and gatherers of autumn leaves.
* At a banquet for which Diocese of Bethlehem clergymen and their wives were guests, Presiding Bishop Hines addressed the assemblage. A reception followed the banquet.
THURSDAY, October 28
The House of Bishops spent the morning in executive session. In the afternoon they:
* heard the Hon. Reynolds Cheney of Mississippi and Mr. Ross Sidney of Iowa describe some dilemmas facing the Joint Commission on the Structure of the Church. Among them: diocesan boundaries, formed along political lines for reasons now outdated, but not apt to change significantly unless the Bishops themselves take the initiative. The speakers said that, although more than $500, 000 and millions of dollars in man-hours have been spent on Structure study in recent years, few suggested changes have been brought to fruition. Commission chairman Bishop Craine pointed to the make-up of General Convention, the Church's entire executive operation, and "umbrella" coordination of commissions and committees as added areas for which change proposals will be forthcoming.
* received a fine-man panel presentation from the Ministry Council, an unofficial body headed by the Rev. Robert Rodenmayer which coordinates nine groups working variously in this area of concern. The Rev. Edward Sims of Potomac, Md., itemized needs which have brought into being the present 15 or so Episcopal clergy associations, and the ends (vocational upgrading, professional excellence, and personal renewal) toward which they are working. The Rev. Roddey Reid, Clergy Deployment executive, termed the Church's new computer a sophisticated and flexible system of unsurpassed excellence; more than 4,200 questionnaires (42%) have been returned by the clergy, and more than 3,600 are accessible via computer now. He urged the bishops to "lay claim to" the fine new system, "comforting the faint-hearted" who still are unclear about the fact that the computer leaves the priest total freedom of choice in selecting a new post. He said that within a few weeks, each clergyman will receive from the New York office a copy of his own profile as the computer has spelled it out, said profile to be approved by the man himself. The Rev. James Lowery of Massachusetts told the House 1,500 to 2,000 active Episcopal clergymen now receive half or more of their income from non-ecclesiastical sources; he described as "a unique 20th century contribution to ministry" the multiform non-stipendiary patterns now emerging across the Church. The Very Rev. George Ross of Idaho described the indigenous ministry training offered there during the past five years, as a Pilot Diocese project, and the skill with which the 12 men now ordained are undertaking their new vocations. Laymen with demonstrated leadership ability were prepared at home for ordination via seminary visits, a telephone-teaching plan which "brought" seminary professors to them, and other means devised in part in consultation with the congregations the men were to serve; resources of other Idaho Episcopal and non-Episcopal churches came to play in the process. Bishop David Richards, fifth panelist, updated the Bishop's collective understanding of resources available to them personally via the Committee on Pastoral Development of which he is executive director: highly individualized means for personal growth and professional development, means designed in response to specific questions the bishop asks in describing his needs. More than 20 bishops, being :trained in consultative skills, are available to work one-to-one with, for example, a new bishop who seeks supportive counsel in his recently changed role.
* approved a pastoral letter, "band-aid" changes to be made by its authors in response to various suggestions from the floor.
* welcomed the Rev. Quinland Gordon, the newly appointed director of the Absalom Jones Theological Institute of the ITC in Atlanta, Ga.
* accepted the invitation of the Rt. Rev. Iveson B. Noland, Bishop of Louisiana, for the House of Bishops to meet in New Orleans in the fall of 1972.
* granted permission for the Missionary Dioceses of the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Panama and the Canal Zone, and the Virgin Islands to elect their own Bishops.
* approved the division of the Missionary Diocese of The Philippines into three Dioceses. After the present Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Benito C. Cabanban, decides which Diocese he will head, the other two Dioceses have permission from the House to elect their own Bishops.
* elected the Rt. Rev. Robert F. Gibson, Jr., Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, vice president of the House.
* adopted a pastoral letter to the Episcopal people in Guatemala, assuring them of peace and love in Christ, and offering "encouragement and comfort to our fellow Christians, signifying our solidarity with our fellow Churchmen," so that "your nation may live in peace, dignity, and justice for all people."
* adopted a resolution stating that the House of Bishops in the U.S.A. is grateful for the strong Christian witness of the Dean of Johannesburg, the Very Rev. Gonville A. ffrench-Beytagh, commending him for his faithfulness and courage and assuring him of our continued prayers. (Note: The House cabled this resolution to Dean ffrench-Beytagh.)
* adopted a resolution affirming "its great concern over disappointment and dismay presently being experienced by the Bishop and people of the Diocese of Taiwan," and expressing the House's "continuing dedication to justice for all people in international relations, and its support of and solidarity with the Church in Taiwan," assuring "the Bishop of Taiwan of its affectionate concern and prayers on his behalf."
* adopted a resolution endorsing the action of the Executive Council whereby dioceses, parishes, missions, institutions, agencies and related organizations of the Episcopal Church are requested to seek approval of the National Headquarters of the Selective Service System as acceptable alternative service agencies for conscientious objectors when they apply, and requesting the National Headquarters of the Selective Service System to accept such requests.
* adopted a message to Bishop Frey assuring him and his family of its affection, pride, thankfulness and support.
* approved a resolution dealing with prisoners of war, calling for the governments involved in the war in Southeast Asia to release names of prisoners, to provide information on those missing in action, to release the sick and wounded, to provide humane treatment, to allow impartial observers of facilities, and to permit the regular flow of mail.
* approved a resolution calling for the communication to the Church at large the theological basis for the social action program of the Church.
* approved a resolution requesting the Selective Service System to accept service in Vista and the Peace Corps as alternative service for conscientious objectors.
* refused to grant collegial membership to the Rt. Rev. Edward Crowther, who was expelled from South Africa several years ago for his opposition to apartheid, when he failed to receive the required two-thirds vote of the House.
* voted to ask the Credentials Committee to recommend criteria for determining collegial membership and to circulate to the Bishops proposed names in advance of the meeting of the House.
FRIDAY, October 29
The House of Bishops:
* heard that $877 had been received at the morning Eucharist for the 150th birthday of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.
* received a statement on Eucharistic Doctrine from the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission and, when released for publication, commended it for study and adoption at the next General Convention.
* heard from Bishop Bayne a report on the Episcopal-Orthodox dialogue.
* heard Bishop Allin present the proposed new structure of the National Council of Churches, with the request that Bishops respond to the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council about the proposal.
* accepted as "the mind of the House" a statement from the Committee on Theology concerning Holy Baptism and its relation to Confirmation.
* adopted a resolution expressing a concern for continued ministry to and support of conscientious objectors and specifically those who have sought refuge in Canada and Sweden.
* tabled a resolution protesting the expulsion of Taiwan from the United Nations and requesting that body to reconsider its action.
* affirmed support for the principle of the program and strategy of the M. R. I.
* adopted a resolution of sympathy for the Philippine Independent Church which recently lost by death its Supreme Bishop, the Most Rev. Isabelo de los Reyes.
* approved a resolution expressing its congratulations, appreciation and joy for the Missionary Bishops who resigned for mission strategy.
* heard a report on suggested standards for the election of Suffragan Bishops, and referred to the Committee on Constitution and Canons the matter of the role of assistant bishop, to be reported to the House in 1972.
* referred to the Committee on Interim Meetings the matter of the frequency of meetings of the House.
* heard a request from the Committee on Memorials and Petitions that the Deputy for Jurisdictional Relations of the Executive Council and the Agenda and Arrangements Committee of General Convention provide a balanced presentation of overseas and domestic mission at the 64th General Convention in Louisville, Ky.
* commended Jeannie Willis' "Mission Information" communication for study and generous support by the Church.
* agreed to circulate with the pastoral letter a definition of Christian mission which was presented by the Overseas Bishops.
* referred to the Committee on Interim Meetings the invitation of Bishop Craine for the House to meet at Kenyon College in 1974, possibly the week after Labor Day.
* heard a report from Bishop Robinson on the revolt at Attica prison.
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDING BISHOP
House of Bishops, Pocono Manor, Pa.
October 27, 1971
Brethren, I rise to greet you, and also to greet our respective wives at this meeting of the House of Bishops so graciously provided for us by our host bishops, Fred Warnecke and Lloyd Gressle. There will be a time in our official sessions when the more formal appreciation will be spoken for us to the Warneckes, the Gressles, and to those who have helped with the arrangements which we are enjoying. But I will steal this moment, in your name, to make it plain to our thoughtful hosts and hostesses that we are not ungrateful! And that we will go from this place cherishing the memories that will follow us.
This is the second time -- in recent memory -- that the House has met in this diocese and under this roof. When we were here in 1956 we were little more than half as strong numerically as we are tonight. In fact, the House met in a room that could not begin to accommodate us now. What we said and did I am unable to recall. Sic transit gloria -- which for the uninitiated means we never are as important as we think we are. I do recall that Archbishop Carrington, of Quebec, provided a rewarding intellectual and pastoral repast. And it did snow. Others may have more vivid memories.
But the whole universe has "turned over" since we met in these halls. A revolution of durable proportions has taken place and is continuing to take place, so that General Smuts may have had our own day in mind when, of the turn of the century, he said, "Humanity has struck its tents -- and is on the march."
It was a quieter day when we came before. The full impact of the Supreme Court's desegregation decision had only barely begun to prick us. And Sputnik's outrageous "beep-beeping" was irritating but not yet devastating. Vietnam was still a French "faux-pax" -- to which we paid scant attention. And college campuses were a missionary field -- rather than a battlefield. We still tended to interpret the "meaning of mission" for this Church as sending of people and money from here to there -- in the name of Christ and Anglicanism -- although, to our credit, it must be said that a not-too-quiet uneasiness could be felt wherever Christians gathered to ask the important question, "whither mission?" -- the question that created Toronto and the brilliant if eventually somewhat frustrated concept of "Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence within the Body of Christ."
It may or may not be providential that we are meeting close to the Church-wide celebration -- balloons and all -- of the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Frankly, if the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society could survive such interminable nomenclature we ought not to complain that M.R.I. died because people, after pronouncing its name, did not have time left to work at its goals!
I do not wish to get bogged down in historical details. But the General Convention of 1820, which created by resolution a Missionary Society -- sounds, in methodology -- much like recent ones we have known! After a motion to form a missionary society had been tabled, and subsequently removed from the table -- a proposed constitution for the said society was considered on the final day by the House of Deputies, dispatched to the House of Bishops during the final hour of the final day -- and the Bishops concurred, as they drew their last parliamentary breath! But it was not until a year later, in the light of less hurried reflection, that the plan was revised, tidied up, and put into effect.
It was a "stroke of genius" -- and must have required considerable imagination and courage -- for the General Convention to turn its back upon the time-honored formats of S.P.G., S.P.C.K. and C.M.S. -- and make every baptized member of the Church a Missionary Society member! In so doing it looked past the liability in voiding some kind of "age of consent" and it came on like "gang busters" for the idea of the whole Church as mission! We ought to be indebted to our forefathers for that insight -- even if it obscured individual responsibility! Incidentally, the Convention of 1821 was the only Special General Convention to be held by this Church -- until South Bend, in 1969 -- which ought to tell us something! For both of them spoke eloquently to the theme of Mission -- in differing circumstances, and in differing times!
But, lest we fall into some kind of euphoria, I would remind us all that General Convention -- or more pointed Executive Council -- and bishops of 1822 behaved remarkably like their counterparts in the 1970's. For when the Executive Committee of the Missionary Society met in 1822 -- to carry out the instructions of the Board (according to the Church Historical Magazine of September, 1971) -- the first item of business was to request all bishops to take measures to support the work of the Society, and to suggest methods for raising funds either through agents sent by the Board, or auxiliary societies formed for this purpose! The "feedback" (they didn't call it that) was instantaneous. Except for Bishop Griswold, who did not reply, other bishops were vocal.
Bishop Hobart wrote, "Any systematic attempt to collect funds for the general purposes of the Missionary Society, in this diocese, would -- in my judgment -- on many accounts be inexpedient."
Bishop Brownell of Connecticut agreed, in principle, with the plan -- but questioned the timing of the appeal in view of diocesan solicitations then being undertaken.
Bishop Chase replied, "As it regards the raising of funds in this state, in aid of the general Missionary Society, by the appointment of an agent . . . I hope it will not be considered in me an instance of indifference or selfishness if I remark that, in my opinion, the measure would be inadvisable." And so with other bishops.
In Virginia " THE " Seminary had just been started in Alexandria and while the Missionary Society was felt to be "most certainly an object of leading importance, " Bishop Moore said that the appointment of an agent at this time would be "impolitic."
Bishop Bowen of South Carolina was virtually alone in responding enthusiastically about the plan. There is an expression, you know, that "the more things change, the more they remain the same." It possesses a slightly Episcopal overtone!
I must say that I -- and others -- have been delighted and pleasantly surprised at the warm response -- on the part of parishes and dioceses -- given thus far to the suggested sesquicentennial commemoration! It took off like the birthday balloons that accompanied it. No one knows how much financial support can be realized through the suggested $10. 00-per-Churchman birthday present. Few would cavil at the concentration of these resources on the hope of self- support for six of our overseas and domestic jurisdictions -- as symbolic of the over-riding theme of "Self-determination" for all! But I -- for one -- would be disheartened if the Church -- in a time of grateful recollection -- should fail to look both lovingly and analytically at the great theme of Mission -- with an eye to clarifying its dimensions, and its demands in a world which is as little like the world of 1821 as the Philadelphia of that day is like the Philadelphia of today! A lead sentence in an editorial in one of our Church-related news magazines observes that "Episcopalians who want to see their Church get back into business as a missionary Church have a God-given opportunity to do so as they celebrate the 150th birthday of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church."
I hope the Church will seize upon this occasion to examine and deal intelligently with the assumption implicit in that sentence of an editorial. Did the motivation, captured by the concept of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society in fact make this a "missionary Church" -- as, in later years, the Church authorized Jackson Kemper for the Northwest, Caleb Ives for Texas and John Payne for the West Coast of Africa (Liberia)?
At the heart of the "uneasiness" that intrudes upon any dialogue about "mission" today is the fact that the Church has begun to question the traditional understandings of her mission! For decades now this Church has thought of herself as offering people the "Good News" and the gifts of Christ by which salvation became available to them. And for longer than that, the Church has assumed that her mission was to extend her boundaries overseas and intensify religious life at home. The present questioning of the nature of mission is a part of the cultural transformation so apparent in this age.
Since 1621 (indeed, since 1945) the "radius of human responsibility" has been extended beyond all expectation. Technology has guaranteed to man the means to transform the material conditions of his life. It has also confronted him with the dark potential of self-annihilation! The possibility -- yea, actuality -- of wide-spread dehumanization of society colors all of human experience. The Christian, too, is frightened by the new dimensions of collective responsibility. But he believes that the "mystery of redemption" takes place within the framework of man's free decisions. It is here that God's grace permits men the awesome freedom to choose their own future. And it is because of this indestructible hope that Christians hear the Gospel as the divine reply to man's present condition.
Listening to the Gospel in the midst of our present predicament, we are coming more and more to realize the social meaning of conversion! As Gregory Baum once put it:
" Conversion is the critical self-awareness of society, the readiness of men to discern the dehumanizing in their associations, and to seek more truly human forms of social life." Obedience to God, by which men enter into eternal life, does not seduce them into "otherworldliness," but on the contrary -- compels their participation in the transformation of the world! To be sure, God's saving action includes the conversion of individual men and women. But more than ever, today, we can understand how the personal liberation induced by a man's encounter with God in Christ Jesus makes that man a more responsible person in society. At a time when man's power over his environment, and therefore his responsibility for the future, were quite limited, the Church conceived of "Mission" mainly -- though not exclusively -- in terms of personal salvation and eternal life. Today -- when man holds the power to destroy himself, and his world -- it is essential that the Church perceive of the salvation brought by Christ -- and operative through the Church -- in a wider social and political sense.
This means that -- overseas -- the main thrust of mission will not be to draw people of other religions into Christianity. But rather to help them to see God's redemptive presence in their own history, past and present. It means that Christians will bear the burden along with the people in their own culture, will search with them for the power and means to liberate themselves and arrive with them at the meaning of life in new situations. The Church will summons people "to critical self-awareness, social change, and to human realization." And this will not differ from the Church's responsibility for mission at home where, through dialogue and cooperation and confrontation and overt action -- the Church will seek, in Christ's Name, to affect the consciousness both of individuals and society as regards the threats to human life -- and the bringing into being of greater humanization, personal and social.
In this sense "mission" is seen as one -- not divided, save for the necessities of administration, into overseas and home. And we shall be on the road to putting an end to the disunity that threatens to tear us apart, and nullify our all-too-meager effectiveness as a part of the undivided Body of Christ.
If -- fearful that a Church with such an understanding of mission will not attract new members -- people raise the question of the Church's "survival," I commend Bishop Baum's observation:
" If the Church is dedicated to the service of others, and proclaims a message that sheds light on human existence, then many following the impulse of grace will want to join her. People will become Christians not because they fear that divine salvation is not available to them where they are, but because they believe that the Christian message is the key for the understanding and transformation of human life.
"What is specifically Christian in this wider understanding of mission? In Jesus Christ is available to the Church a divine principle of judgment and renewal, which becomes effective in her engagement in society. Jesus Christ is the divine critique that indicates the direction of her action with others and brings to light God's healing presence."
If you will bear with me a few minutes longer I would look, with you, at the vital matter of leadership implicit in ordination and consecration and supported by the representative constitutional structures of the Church. In times of relative peace, and relative economic prosperity, and relative calm in our social structures, no great burden of responsibility devolves upon people who occupy places of leadership. Indeed, a shared euphoria and a shared "don't rock the Boat" philosophy tend to play down the leadership role. But our world has known very little of such so-called "normalcy" for several generations and what little it knew proved to be entirely false. So that conflict and rapid change and shifting social values and failing institutions, and tottering moral assumptions tend to set a very high premium on the quality of leadership in places of decision and responsibility.
I find some parallels for Bishops -- as well as some pertinent overtones -- when the time comes -- as it now is -- for presidential nomination to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court -- in a sense -- is "where the buck stops," just as is the Bishop's office -- though the parallel should not be pushed too far. But when the President sent to the Senate a nomination several months ago -- at the time of another vacancy -- a nomination which was rejected, the columnist, Anthony Lewis, made this observation:
" Intellectual qualifications are not mere embroidery for the Supreme Court. A Justice is faced, day after day, with questions of the most immense difficulty. There is no simple place to find the right answer, because the case would not be there unless there were conflicting rights, each with strong claims."
More than any other government official, a Supreme Court Justice is on his own, without a cushioning bureaucracy. He has to draw on his own resources, moral and analytical, to find the answers. Not long ago one member of the Court gave up the job after only a few years because he found the burden of decision so great.
The classic view stated by Judge Learned Hand, is that a man who passes on questions of constitutional law should be as acquainted with history, and philosophy, and poetry -- as with the law.
" For in such matters, " Judge Hand wrote, "everything turns upon the spirit in which he approaches the questions before him. The words he must construe are empty vessels into which he can pour nearly anything he will. Men do not gather figs off thistles, nor supple institutions from judges whose outlook is limited by parish or class."
The worst of a bad Supreme Court appointment (comments Lewis) " is that it is like a piece of bad architecture; we may be stuck with it for a long time."
I welcome -- indeed rejoice in -- the beginnings of a national concern for the continuing education of bishops and clergy announced to us from the Board for Theological Education. I am grateful to the Episcopal Church Foundation for funding it. I hope these beginnings will unlock a rush of concern and funding on the part of the Church and private foundations that will enable this effort to help re-new all of our clergy and many lay-people. But I would defend the move that began with bishops. Here leadership in and for the Church is at a peculiar vantage point. And it is subject to peculiar temptations and perils. I remember James Reston, viewing the Washington political scene and writing, " It would be hard to overestimate the damage done in our national life by tired minds fighting relentless and sometimes unnecessary battles." And an article in a recent issue of Anglicanism speaks even more pointedly to some of us.
" The real trouble about the episcopal office in England is that the bishops are being killed by bearing burdens which they ought not to carry. Some dioceses have proper diocesan offices; others do not. Some dioceses provide their bishops with adequate clerical help, others do not. The bishops are pulled this way and that by those who insist on their attendance at a multiplicity of trivial functions. This hinders them in the exercise of their proper office as fathers-in-God. It is only rarely that a bishop succeeds in producing a serious work on theology. Perhaps there has never been a time at which the bishops have been more serious, more diligent, and more devoted to their responsibilities; and never a time at which it has been more difficult to be a good, let alone a great bishop."
My guess is that most of us have read the survey of United States Roman Catholics featured in the October 4 issue of "Newsweek" under the title, "Has the Church lost its soul?" Such surveys should be subjected to careful analysis and evaluation. This one must be pretty discouraging reading to United States Roman Catholics -- with no joy in it for non-Romans either! But a sentence strikes a resonant -- if jarring note: " Both liberal and conservative spokesmen among the laity attribute the Church's current malaise to a lack of Episcopal leadership. " And -- later -- this observation: " Indeed, it appears doubtful that the United States Church as a whole can survive its current 'crisis of acculturation' without some kind of visionary leadership from the top -- plus a dash of soul."
As bishops we are charged by the Church with the responsibility of defending the Faith. Our reaction to this role -- particularly in times of ferment too often has been to surround the Faith with such protective solicitude that we have all but smothered its flame! We should know -- better than anyone else -- that God's truth cannot be domesticated even by the most skillful and persistent of hierarchical rigidities! It will break out into the world of men's needs, of men's suffering, of men's cries for community and for love and justice and hope! And our responsibility as bishops is to offer ourselves as channels for the effective operation of God's compassionate judgment and grace -- as we find it mirrored in the life and death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This requires imagination, creative, and courageous response on our part to God's persistent overture, "Who will go for us ?" It often means the leaving of the security of the institutional womb to stand amid the pitiless winds of criticism and indignation often directed at the non-conformist. It means pioneering by the dynamic of, and in the interest of, new Truth. And it should mean standing without being paternalistic -- with the friendless, the alienated, the exploited, the powerless, and the pointedly indifferent -- sometimes over against the "righteous" who already are safely within the Church.
The Gospel must be proclaimed to all men, and the sacraments administered to the faithful. As bishops we are charged with this responsibility -- along with all the ordained clergy. As ministers of Christ we must go to the world, to the outsider -- and we must minister to those who come to us in the Church. But -- as someone has said, "Our education has fitted us better to help those who come than it has prepared us to go to the others." The Provost of Notre Dame has startled some of his brothers by observing that what a Roman Catholic does at work is more important for man's salvation than what he does in Church. "A Christian will never find the Father in Church unless he first finds him in his brother -- and in the transaction of goods and services which will help that brother to become nourished and to grow. The Church dare not offer its own activities as a short circuit around one's neighbor."
ADDRESS BY OSCAR C. CARR, JR.
Vice-President for Development
Executive Council of the Episcopal Church
TO THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS Pocono Manor, Pa. October 25, 1971
My Brothers:
I stand before you as one representative of the laity of our Church. I stand on unfamiliar turf. Were I to meet you, individually, or collectively, on more familiar turf -- say a small town in the Mississippi Delta -- I would probably ask you four questions in this order: Why are you here? How do you feel? What do you think? What do you plan to do while you're hanging around?
I think these would be very logical and apropos questions for you to pose to me this afternoon. I will answer them -- briefly!
I am standing in this spot because the Presiding Bishop asked me to address you, and Bishop Cadigan's Agenda Committee was gracious enough to give me a slot on the program. I put myself in a position to be asked by the Presiding Bishop by saying "Yes, I'll try" to the sub-committee of Executive Council on Development chaired by the Rev. Dr. John B. Coburn, in their response to General Convention action at Houston. I came to the Episcopal Church Center after much deep thought and discussion with my family and with others over a period of several months. I tried all the ways I knew to say no. I would not be here if the Diocese of Rochester had not made the generous tithe to the Executive Council, part of which is being used to fund this pilot development office. I would not be here if it were not for the personal inspiration afforded me over a long period of years by men in this House -- not just the Bishops of Mississippi and Arkansas and the Deep South, but Bishops from Manhattan to California, from Olympia to Georgia, from Central America to Central New York, as well. That's how I happen to be here.
How do I feel? I think that there has been a broad enough proliferation of interest in professional football, so that to draw an analogy of how I feel from that sport will be understood generally rather than by just a few. A professional football squad is divided into three units -- an offensive, a defensive, and a suicide squad. The suicide squad punts and returns punts, kicks off and receives. I feel like one of those receivers standing under the goal post awaiting the kick-off, playing his first big league game before a packed house and a national TV audience, waiting for the ball now in mid-air -- and even after saying a silent (or maybe even slightly audible!) prayer and crossing myself -- vacillating between wanting to catch the ball and run up field (wondering what kind of interference is out there!) , and wanting to turn tail and run in the opposite direction, yelling at the top of my lungs, "But, man, I don't want the ball!" I don't know whether I am committed or need to be committed for accepting this awe-inspiring, all- inclusive office "to develop the human and financial resources of our Church in order to strengthen her mission."
As to what I think -- after forty-eight years in Mississippi and exactly forty-eight work days in Manhattan, after almost half a century in the Church-and half a quarter with the Church, after changing my mode of transportation to work from a pick-up truck to a subway, after trading mint juleps and magnolias for hustle and bustle and polluted air -- I would like to claim O decani praesidesque, the ancient privilege of immunity for saying what I think, after such a short tenure in this office. I run the risk of being discounted as either naive, or innocent, or even impertinent -- but if I "catch the ball", I've got to run and that's risky! I am only slightly comforted by Jacques Ellul's remark, "The risk of a failure or setback is exactly the condition for a responsible human life."
I think the time has come when we as a Church (and we as a nation) need to put less time, talent, and treasure on our fears and more on our dreams. The problems of our society so far have proved to be bigger than those with which our Church institution -- as it presently functions -- can effectively deal. I don't think our Church has sufficiently challenged our people to our responsibility in ordering our lives and our world according to God's order. I think the Church is ready for such a challenge. Rather than being tolerant of our Church in its mediocrity and contemptuous of our leaders, we should be offering our leaders -- at all levels, parish, diocesan, and national -- our real respect and affirmative support and demanding absolutely that they deliver. I think that "any institution which has the audacity to speak in theological language has the obligation to keep its experience close to its rhetoric."l Some believe that we need to be further admonished by the fact that "one of the emerging phenomena of our technological society is the fact that separation of thought and action has given modern man the capacity to rationalize everything, without making him feel that he has compromised his conscience or values."2 I think there is "no higher vision of the Church than as a Servant of the World, not withdrawn but participating, not embattled but battling, not condemning but healing the wounds of the hurt (all the hurt!) and the lost (all the lost!) and the lonely (all the lonely!) -- not preoccupied with its survival or its observances or its articles -- but with the needs of mankind." I think the fundamental core of development is choice -- the choice of possibly this vision, and that the choice is ours to make -- or not to make. This, in a capsule, is what I think that I think is important today.
What do I plan to do while I'm hanging around? After first stating that "technique, as sin, always conceals in itself a finality which cannot be evaded",4 I feel that it is interesting to recall my first advice on "what to do", which came from another Southern layman, who, like me, was a some time inhabitant of the Episcopal Church Center. Walker Taylor, a fellow member of the Executive Council, who replaced me on its Executive Committee upon my resignation, told me to do two things : First, "cultivate the Bishops like you would a field of cotton"; and secondly, "keep a psychic distance from your job, since the Church delights in devouring her own!"
Literal response to the first suggestion was momentarily confusing, since there were very dangerous actions implicit in this advice, if Walker knew as much about cotton culture as the Bishop of Arkansas and I know. To raise cotton we first plow the soil, and before planting the seed, fertilize the soil, by injecting anhydrous ammonia under pressure. Next, we weed it with sharp sweeps and hoes -- in days gone by utilizing slave labor -- in many instances still exploiting some labor. We poison it with methyl parathion, toxaphene, DDT, endrin, and malathion sprayed on by dangerously low-flying aircraft. If need be to eliminate grass, vines, or broad-leafed weeds we use post directed sprays of arsenicals and flame cultivators, spouting flames of burning propane gas. Once it is mature, we defoliate it with phosphates or sodium chlorates (as we have done the jungles of Vietnam!) , then pick it, destroy the stalks with tractor-powered rotary blades -- eliminating all residue left standing -- and begin another crop. I could hardly see myself acting in this manner toward the House of Bishops! Walker clarified this for me, however, at the Province IV Synod when he said he meant "more in the line of handling each Bishop's account as he would a client, while serving as his insurance broker. " This, sincerely, I will attempt to do!
As to Walker's second suggestion, my wife, Billie, is the self-appointed watchdog -- for which I am extremely grateful -- and she has provided a beautiful banner to decorate my office, which says in bright yellow and orange letters, "Remember, brother, they are after your soul!" She informs me that if the institution gets it -- in her opinion -- I'll know it, because she'll come get the banner!
In all seriousness, I see myself doing three things; first, serving as a member of the Executive Council staff team; second, participating in staff decision making as a member of the Staff management team; and third, working with a small "think-tank" Development Committee and the. Standing Committee for Development of Executive Council to develop a thrust of priorities and program for this office in marshaling our human and financial resources for the long term well-being of our Church.
If we are to be successful with development, we will not only have to work in concert with the Holy Spirit, but in concert with that fine Communications team headed by John Goodbody -- and this I intend to do. I know no man that I trust more or have more confidence in -- and we should all be grateful to the Presiding Bishop for John's appointment and for the excellent work of Bishop Allin's Executive Council communications committee in setting up the style and stance of his office.
As we progress in the development of our human resources, I also envision tie-ins with Roddey Reid's computerized resource bank -- adding lay persons with special talents to the list of clergy already being accumulated. I see the Development office as one of enabler -- of helping the Church to develop its resources, as opposed to attempting to develop resources for the Church. We cannot be counted on to invent motivation -- only to help unlock it. And all the while we recognize the sine qua non of any successful development process or program as joy. (Maybe I'll recommend at a later date that Zorba be canonized a saint for our time!)
I will keep you advised as progress is made, and I continually solicit your advice, counsel, and creative and constructive criticism. My door is always open and I'm as close as your telephone.
My first action on taking office was to write bishops and a cross section of Church leaders throughout the Church, asking their counsel and advice as to how this office could meet their needs and those of our Church -- as they see them. The response has been gratifying, supportive, and most enlightening. These responses have produced some thoughts that I feel are well worth your time, reflection, and consideration. First, the collective wisdom available for assistance in this task is incredible. Secondly, I am extremely grateful for a long list of creative suggestions that have come by letter, by phone, and by personal visit. Thirdly, there is one area of concern that has been dominant throughout many of the responses -- and in this arena I need your help. Time and time again I hear from bishops, priests and lay persons that before we can develop anything we must clarify and define "mission" -- Christ's mission for this time, this place, this Church. This data, in response to my requests, is corroborated by other data. For instance, Bishop Bayne, in his recent reflections on the ministry, said, "Christians can take nothing for granted; we are back at square one again in our mission. "6 The President of the House of Deputies, for his meeting with his Council of Advice in December has planned the agenda out of -- and I quote -- "decisions rising from my own conviction, corroborated by others, that the present difficulties in the Church are occasioned, not fundamentally by differences over political and social issues, but by a serious crisis in faith and by an equally serious confusion over the mission of the Church. "7 The Executive Council meeting September 27-28 stated that it must attempt "to provide direction to help the Church overcome traditional dichotomies regarding mission" and "design a national strategy for achieving more genuine mutuality in mission."
I respectfully and specifically request that the House of Bishops speak to this matter of mission while in session here. I feel that historically and traditionally and practically you are the only body of the Church who can do so with authenticity.
If this House of Bishops speaking with unity, out of a trusting relationship, one with an- other, speaking with determined optimism, could issue a creative call to mission, as to how we Episcopalians could most effectively respond to Christ's mission for our Church, it would give us the cornerstone on which to start building the case, on which to develop the leadership, with which to release our resources -- both human and financial -- for Christ's mission in our world. I would hope that such a call -- if issued -- would not be in the style of a position paper or even in the style of a traditional pastoral letter, but would be creative in style and substance. This is not an easy task, but there is great wisdom in this House. I trust that wisdom.
There is a new breeze -- and a new spirit -- wafting its way through our Church. Those who serve on Executive Council and on Council Staff have felt it. Those of you who met with Council-Staff teams in various jurisdictions may have noticed it. I hope it gains in velocity, is contagious, becomes all pervasive, blows in all directions; and that those who occupy pew and pulpit, serve in congregation and diocese, on Executive Council or its staff, as members of the House of Bishops or as Presiding Bishop, can all look at each other and say, " I'm OK; you're OK!" That maturation will put us a whit closer to our goals of justice and peace and beauty and true joy in our creation. And it won't be that difficult an attitudinal change, if we just pause and reflect for a moment, on one thing all of us professing Christians most certainly have in com- mon -- that we are sinners, to be saved if at all, by Grace. Our time is now; our span is short, and we shall be called to answer both individually and corporately for our lives. History will record if only in the echoes of eternity whether or not we sought seriously to incarnate His body in the life of our era.
Six years ago Pope Paul VI proclaimed that development is the new name for peace. I certainly hope so!
DEFINITION OF CHRISTIAN MISSION
The following definition of Christian mission, from the Overseas Bishops, has their unanimous endorsement.
The Christian mission is one.
It is not faith or works, but both.
It is not home mission or overseas mission, but both.
It is not giving or receiving, but both.
It is not growing in personal piety or empowering the powerless, but both.
The Christian is sent to all other men at all times and in all places, to declare by word and action the life-giving Good News of the Risen Christ.
The Christian mission is eternal.
Our Lord's command to go into all the world overarches all of time, reaches from Roman Empire days to the space age to all the tomorrows to come.
Yesterday's missionary barrel, today's self-determination of peoples, tomorrow's as yet unformed designs -- all are Christian mission, expressions of the infinite love of God for each of His children.
The Christian mission is unique.
Many people offer food to the hungry.
Many agencies offer economic and medical and educational help.
Many faiths offer partial remedies for life's incurable ills.
Many creeds offer a measure of understanding of the mysteries of life and death. But only the Gospel of Christ offers all of these:
steadfastness in the face of tragedy or oppression;
humility stronger than any earthly power;
a loving man-to-man bond that transcends time and space;
the freedom to celebrate life, whatever one's condition;
an inexhaustible joy which grows in those who share it;
never-failing forgiveness of sins.
God intends that each Christian shall offer his brother more than an ecclesiastical pattern; he must offer a personal Saviour. If the Christian, the committed man, does not offer all of these, no one else will, because no one else can.
PASTORAL LETTER FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS
Pocono Manor, Pa.
October 28, 1971
To our brothers and sisters of the Episcopal Church, greetings.
We speak to you as fellow members of the body of Christ. We also speak to you as Chief Pastors of Christ's church. One of the privileges of our coming together as Bishops is that our meeting is one in which every single parish and mission in the Episcopal Church is known. Out of that closeness to all of you have come certain common observations and assurances which we want to share with you.
WE AFFIRM THAT OUR MESSAGE IS JESUS CHRIST.
Through His death and resurrection God has reconciled the world to Himself. Through Him God offers unity to all mankind. He has brought us into the new life lived in the power of the risen Christ. We witness to a common faith and a common life of love and service.
WE AFFIRM THAT OUR LORD HAS TRIUMPHED.
Therefore we live in sure hope and certain faith even in the midst of the fears, troubles and perplexities of the present day. His Spirit works through these also. God has shown us His mighty works in history. We stand expectantly at the beginning of a great period of the church's history -- a more glory-filled day than has gone before.
WE SEE ALL AROUND US EVIDENCES OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ... IN THE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS AND IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH.
There is a new hunger for the certainties of the spiritual life outside of the church as well as within it. We see a search for a deeper and more truly human life. We observe a newly awakened understanding of the sacredness of God's creation.
WE SEE A GROWING AWARENESS OF THE PENTECOSTAL POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO TRANSFORM MEN AND WOMEN.
He is working in the devotional lives of His people, and in their experience of His charismatic gifts of prayer, praise and healing, and in their joy in the sacramental life. We praise Him for showing us again that faith without works is dead, and that there can be no divorce between religious faith and active concern for justice and brotherhood.
WE SEE IN OUR CHURCH A NEW OPENNESS IN WHICH DIFFERENCES CAN BE ACCEPTED: A NEW WILLINGNESS TO FACE THE FUTURE AND TO GRAPPLE WITH THE PROBLEMS OF RELATING THE GOSPEL TO THE REALITIES OF RACISM,; WAR AND POVERTY.
We believe the church is ready to pay the price for witnessing to the difference that Christian discipleship should make to attitudes toward society, and its unexamined assumptions.