Message from the Chair
Diocesan Press Service. February 20, 1973 [73052]
FROM : The Presiding Bishop
I happened to be glancing through the 1951 Journal of the Diocese of Texas the other day (part of a tentative "search and destroy," on my part, of countless, useless odds and ends squirreled away over the years) and I saw that I called the Diocesan Council's (for Council read Convention in Texas) attention to the fact that the diocesan, Bishop Clinton S. Quin, had become the oldest (senior) active bishop on duty in the Episcopal Church. That seemed to me -- at my much more tender years -- a mile-stone that could come only to the genuinely indestructible -- to one whom time could not scar nor age destroy. My reverie was rudely shattered by the sudden realization that, since January 1, 1973, with one exception, I am on the very threshold of that dubious honor! So that, if the No. 1 active bishop should retire ahead of my own retirement, you would have seen the Church select the youngest Presiding Bishop and watched him grow older than any other since Bishop Tuttle -- all within ten years!
All of which is apropos of nothing at all -- nothing other than the feeling that time has moved at a compound rate of interest (to mix metaphors ridiculously) in the past two decades. And that it is a very, very different world than the one which Bishop Quin viewed as No. 1 active bishop, and a very, very different Episcopal Church, also.
For, then, we were talking about the effect of there being "no atheists in fox-holes;" and the swarm of older, more experienced, wiser, war-veteran, deeply reflective men who banged on the doors of our seminaries (some of them finding "no room"); and the yeasty "religious" surge on the university and college campuses; and the urban sprawl -- which, at once, revealed the weakness of the Church in relation to a productive down-town, ghetto-type ministry, with the resulting escape to the burgeoning suburbs, with its relatively easy and comfortable, fabric-oriented ministry -- with all of the unexamined implications thereof. Add to this a burst of missionary enthusiasm with the strongest contingent of overseas appointments since the "world-for-Christ-in-one-generation" of Dr. Mott's day. Backed by funds from Reconstruction and advance, and the China Fund, there appeared to be nothing that a "sending Church" could not accomplish, for the "receiving Churches" wherever they were. If only God would allow us in Western Christendom time enough!
Now, two decades later, we are talking about whether or not we can help repair the mammoth "fox-holes" in a tiny Southeast Asia countryside and in the hearts and souls of friend and foe alike, caused by a rain of U.S. bombs ten times more destructive than all the bombs the allies dropped over Europe in that "fox-hole" war; and we are in dialogue (or is it monologue) about how to close up half the theological seminaries (before they are empty and possibly bankrupt) while helping the others to a new effectiveness in the face of the most exacting and frightening dimensions of Christian mission, the memory of man runneth not to the contrary; And we are learning "a little bit" that the "great sending Churches" are less sure of their own infallibility -- as well as the infallibility of their export-product, while recognizing that we may have more to learn about commitment and reconciling human relationships, in Christ's Name, than we have to give -- and from people who have had to plumb the integrity of the Christian Gospel via the route of alienation, and poverty, and suffering, and oppression, and discrimination, and revolutionary hostile anger and despair.
We are here -- as an Executive Council -- for the next four days to hear together what the Church -- in her various diocesan groupings -- has said in response to the question: "What needs in the Church and Society do you think the General Church Program (in the triennial -- or biennial ahead of us) should attempt to meet?" And -- with this data as a very significant part of our information -- we must project, as clearly and intelligently as possible, a proposed General Church Program that will serve God effectively through this Church, one that will both challenge the Church to recover the deep resources of the Spirit of Christ, and symbolize to any who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, a commitment worthy of her calling.
The visits to the dioceses proved to be a monumental undertaking. It was also expensive -- which should be borne in mind when we come to ask ourselves the question, "Why did we not do this before?" and "Shall Executive Council adopt this as an annual procedure?" But, in my view, both money and people were well-spent. I say that as dispassionately as I can, because you and others "bore the burden and heat of the day" -- and paid with your time and skills. I salute you all -- Council membership and staff!
I rejoice that the Church's national leadership and administration has listened and heard -- far more than ever before -- representatives of the Church in their local situations and where they are. But the total "hearing" represents such a vast accumulation of opinion and conviction, emotion and feeling, sensitivity and insensitivity, that even this experienced -- and sometimes battered -- Executive Council will not be able to comprehend, or accurately evaluate it all.
For example -- (and my bias is showing) far too much of the response of too large a segment of a Church, which should be vital in such difficult times as these -- indicates a kind of "conviction-fatigue," a weariness of the fight which many have been waging to help the Church to maintain its sense of priorities primarily in the area where people are being bruised, alienated, "turned-off," ignored -- by the decisionmakers and people-in-power who control society's political, financial and social structures. They see little that the Church has achieved -- either nationally or locally. They see no immediate end or significant relaxation of the pressures emanating from the dissidents. Their traditional image of the Church has been that it is the one place to which a person can repair in response to Jesus' invitation. "Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." But when they seek that "rest" -- they find instead, The Green Book, echoes of the Alianza grant, the Trail of Broken Treaties, women who want to be ordained to the priesthood, abortion-talk, assault on their General Motors stock-holdings -- and all the rest -- but no "real rest."
In the attitude of some toward national leadership -- and toward some of their own diocesan leadership -- there is a reminder of the hurt, baffled, uncomprehending indignation that swept the children of Israel when, caught between the impassable barrier of the Red Sea, and the frightening sight of an avenging Pharaoh's horde pursuing them, they said -- to their leadership, "Were there no graves in Egypt, that you should have brought us here to die in the wilderness? See what you have done to us by bringing us out of Egypt! Is not this just what we meant when we said in Egypt, 'Leave us alone; let us be slaves to the Egyptians.' We would rather be slaves to the Egyptians than die here in the wilderness."
National leadership will have to take the measure of even small intimations of people in the Church who "want to go back to yesterday."
Yes, the survey covered a wide, wide spectrum of opinion and conviction. For example, here are two -- assessments of the meaning of Mission from two different dioceses -- drawn not so much from random but to illustrate the dimensions of the spectrum:
Diocese A: Mission Objectives
1. Education
What it is to be an Episcopalian -- "distinctive qualities of Anglicanism."
More emphasis on specialized ministries.
Less emphasis on specialized ministries (to youth - Black - Chicano - Indian - over-privileged, underprivileged - higher education, etc.)
2. Restructuring
Move Executive Council to more central location (mid-west)
Eliminate office of Bishop of the Armed Forces
Combine existing programs (GCSP, Indian Work, Youth, Hispanic, etc.)
Regional offices for planning and strategy
3. Stewardship
Training at local level
Funding of "new" missions
Motivational education for stewardship
4. General
Aging (self-determining program)
Leisure time activities program
Continuing evaluation of all programs
Innovative ministries to "points of alienation" in society
Clergy deployment
More effective communications media throughout the Episcopal
Church system.
Diocese B: Mission Objectives
1. To provide a sense of mission to life oppression (wherever it exists)
2. To be a voice of conscience in our society
3. To articulate the Church's theology by word and deed, both internally and externally
4. To help enable the above, at all levels of the church -- individual and corporate, clergy and lay.
As informative and productive as the data from the visits to dioceses is bound to be, we can be aware that it is not likely to simplify, and will not resolve, the complex and elusive problems that surround mission and commitment for Christians in today's world. It will help to clarify their dimensions. Most of all, for me at least, the survey indicates that where Church leadership, both clergy and lay, is reasonably well informed, extra-provincially aware, theologically flexible, socially sensitive, people-oriented rather than institution- oriented, less subservient to the power of the purse and more acutely conscious of the fragile nature of a people-oriented ministry in Christ's Name, there are elements of witness and strength and hope, against which the gates of Hell will not be able to prevail.
All of this underscores the healthy, inescapable tension inherent in Executive Council's role, the tension between being "honest brokers" for whatever consensus may be discernible within the testimony elicited from diocesan groups, and being advocates of the nature of mission as it may be agreed upon in our deliberations here. It is the tension between uncritical reactors to discernible areas of consensus within the Church at large in the interest of unity and harmony; and the role of leadership which, because of a degree of perspective and exposure to dialogue and relationships not normally within the purview of the local or regional church must be exercised by us as responsible representatives of General Convention and the Provinces.
The exercise in communication in which we are all engaged (always with an eye on the goal of being more faithful and more intelligent servants of Christ and His Church) should help us to be better, more humble listeners, to one another both within this Council and beyond it. As we witness the many welcome initiatives at different levels on the part of our own brethren in Christ we should not allow effort to abate until we discover how the Executive Council and national Church administration can best serve the appropriate interchange. Disagreements must be openly discussed in obedience to the command to "speak the truth in love."
The therapeutic of listening is especially needed where the fellowship is rent apart by human tension and "where man can only affirm it in darkness." There may be, indeed, occasions when, even after listening intently to one another, we feel bound in conscience to act in ways that divide us. We can only dare to do so, however, if we put our trust in Him Whose compassionate power can transcend these sincere divisions. As Executive Council we may have to learn to comprehend and exercise *hat someone at Utrecht last summer called "the priestly ministry of liberating reconciliation and the prophetic ministry of liberating conflict."
And we should ask ourselves the question: how can we be at once messengers of peace in a world of strife and messengers of strife in a world of false peace without fragmenting the fellowship into one or the other? Obviously, rhetoric concerning this is easy. Practicing such a difficult role in a day of grim ambiguities and imprecise choices is more demanding than ever. However, when caught in this kind of balance of uncertainty, and we will all surely have such moments, we should be willing, in Eugene McCarthy's words, "to make mistakes because of an excess of trust rather than because of an excess of mistrust, because of an excess of generosity rather than because of an excess of suspicion and narrow self-concern."