Bearing One Another's Burdens
Diocesan Press Service. November 2, 1964 [XXVI-13]
The call to begin the major task of over-hauling the Episcopal Church's concept of mission was accepted by the 61st General Convention. Such action was the beginning of response to the summons of the Primates and Metropolitans of the entire Anglican Communion to re-evaluate and revitalize church work throughout the world.
The Convention began this re-tooling for action by accepting the 1963 Anglican Congress' proposals for "Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ." It responded further by establishing a commission to stimulate, support, and co-ordinate the Church-wide process a of renewal.
The answer to this call continued in the Convention's recognition of the Church's responsibility for its share of the immediate needs of the whole Anglican Communion. By the Convention's action, the Church is now committed to "projects of responsible, co-operative partnership among other churches of the Anglican Communion and the Wider Episcopal Fellowship. "
The nature of this partnership involves, over and above the budget for the General Church Program, "voluntary acceptance of projects which are undertaken on the basis of mutual participation" and which total for the whole Church $6 million in the next three years.
To fulfill this partnership, maximum emphasis was placed on the "responsible initiative of parishes, dioceses, and provinces, in setting their own commitments and in their choice of projects."
Triggering this response was the report of the Church's Committee on Mutual Responsibility, which was established solely to determine ways for the Church to begin its participation in this world-wide program of renewal.
The report, recognizing that the dollar sign can often be a danger sign, declared: "We do not propose that we Episcopalians set a price tag on our obedience to mission, and buy ourselves the reputation before God and man of being missionary-minded. Rather, we join in the call for renewal and deepening of our own faith and hope and charity, looking upon our giving simply as a God-given way of expressing our relationship to Him and to His people here at home as well as across the world."
Chaired by Bishop Thomas H. Wright of East Carolina, the committee described "renewal" as including better training for the laity and better use of them in Christ's service; re-organization of parishes "around things that are important to God and man, rather than irrelevant activities"; and a "stronger life of prayer and sacrament, a greater understanding of what it means to be a Christian which will give us a new awareness of the great fact of our baptismal brotherhood with non-Anglican Christians."
Evaluating our present means vis-a-vis our present performance, the report noted that "too often our Church life is a charmed circle of irrelevance, bathed in a dim religious light." Accordingly, the laity drive a bargain with their parish church, "in terms of comforts provided and services rendered", the parish drives a bargain with the diocese, and the diocese drives a bargain with the Executive Council. "Under such conditions," the committee asserted, "the normal round of our Church life is theologically unsound and spiritually deadening."
"Theologically, we cannot tell the world the truth about what the Church is until we begin treating the Church as what it is: the living Body of Christ, in which we are mutually interdependent members; spiritually we cannot grow in the love of God until we begin responsibly to do what He calls us to do and to love those whom He loves."
The goal of the Church's participation in this program of renewal, the report concluded, is "the establishment of truly Church-to-Church, person-to-person relationships across the world."
In addition to Bishop Wright, the Committee on Mutual Responsibility consisted of 4 bishops, 6 priests, and 10 lay persons. One of the laymen, Prime F. Osborn, II, vice-president and general counsel for the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, witnessed to the importance of this undertaking after the committee report had been read to a joint session of the Convention.
"We can no longer look upon our largesse as a one-way street," Mr. Osborn declared. "We cannot give money with a sanctimonious feeling of having discharged our responsibility to God. We cannot call on the sick and feel that we have done a great Christian act. We cannot accept the job of teaching a Sunday School class ... and think what great sacrifices we are making, All these are good -- yes. But it is only half way. We must do these things with the heart-felt knowledge that we are receiving as much, if not more, than we are giving."
Citing the oft-used "All things come of Thee, 0 Lord, " Mr. Osborn went on to ask if the Church's priorities and those of each of its members coincide with this statement of belief. "Is it not time that we began conducting our lives in accordance with the beliefs to which we give lip service commitment? This would be the beginning of real mutual responsibility."
A representative of the Brazilian Episcopal Church, where mission's meaning has not been obscured by churchly niceties, added support to Mr. Osborn's words of witness. The Rt. Rev. Plinio L. Simoes, Bishop of Southwestern Brazil, emphasized the importance of the older, stronger churches' making the younger and, consequently, weaker branches of Christianity feel that they, too, have something to offer rather than merely to continue recipients of missionary funds for overseas work.
"How tremendous, then, is the responsibility that is going to weigh on our shoulders, from now on, in the younger churches," Bishop Simoes stated. "It is my hope that our Lord will make us worthy of this responsibility."