The Editor Goes to "Greenwich"
Episcopal News Service. March 9, 1976 [76088]
The Rev. Charles F. Frandsen, editor of The Western Michigan Churchman
The National Executive Council of the Episcopal Church meets quarterly at Seabury House in Greenwich, Connecticut. Seabury House is a stately mansion that sits in the center of sixty-five acres. On one corner of the grounds, in Dover House, the Presiding Bishop lives with his family. It's what you might call an "Episcopal Compound" - that's the feeling I had when we drove through the gate of the estate.
The National Church regularly invites an editor of one of the many diocesan newspapers, or some other communicator-"type" person, to be the guest at one of the quarterly meetings of the Council. When an invitation was extended to the editor of the Western Michigan Churchman to attend the February meeting it was cordially accepted but not without some reservations. To a Michigander Florida would have sounded great - but Connecticut in February? As it turned out the weather was great (so who needed Florida?), Seabury House is really something to see, the food and accommodations were very good, but the highlight of my experience was the people I met and the friendships renewed. One of the lasting impressions I took away with me from Greenwich was the high caliber of men and women who serve our Church at this high level of Church government.
I have been rewriting, writing and reading stories about the National Executive Council for more years than I want to recall as editor of two diocesan newspapers. Many times I have disagreed with decisions coming from that body, but overall I believe that they have faced an enormous task and have guided the Church well in troubled times. Churchmen in the Diocese of Western Michigan have the privilege of knowing the Hon. Chester J. Byrns of St. Joseph personally or through his column that runs regularly in this newspaper. The Judge has been a valuable member of the Council for several years. I like to think that Judge Byrns and I think about the same about most of the issues facing the Church today - at least most of the time I agree with his views expressed in his column. It is kind of interesting - the editor is considered by many in the diocese to be rather liberal, while the Judge, among his peers on Executive Council, is definitely "labeled" conservative. I guess it's another case in point that "labels" really don't mean too much. At the Council meetings the Judge sits in the back row which is occupied, for the most part, by the so-called conservatives. During my visit a couple of liberals took seats in the back row but the company didn't seem to have influenced their vote. I can't seem to get away from "labels" either.
It was evident that most members of the Council had done their homework before coming to Greenwich. The business moved along with reasonable dispatch but like vestry meetings and annual conventions that so many of us know, the same people did most of the talking, and even though most of the time they seemed to know what they were talking about it did become tedious. When session follows session a good number of "breaks" are needed. And it turned out to be particularly true of the February meeting.
Just before the opening session I asked a fellow communicator sitting next to me at the press table if we were allowed to smoke during the meetings. He nodded his head in the affirmative, the Presiding Bishop offered the opening prayer, and so I proceeded to light up my pipe and get ready for the action. The very first order of business was a motion to "ban" smoking in the council chamber. A pained expression crossed the faces of many liberals and conservatives alike - perhaps for the first time they were sharing that prospect of defeat at the same time. A good-natured discussion was held with such comments as "it's a violation of my civil rights," - "we'll need frequent coffee breaks," - "does this mean I can't chew my 'Tube Rose' tobacco?" The chair solved the problem by ruling that there would be no smoking in the council chamber during the sessions. One member rose and asked for a five-minute break - the request was totally ignored. The press table was next to the only exit from the room, and while this writer did not keep count, there seemed to be a constant parade through the door. Even though I had to give up my pipe, not to mention the Presiding Bishop, I must admit that the air in the chamber was much more breathable. I won't ramble on any more about the smoking ban but I did hear one member of the Council say it was the first action taken in a long time that found him on the winning side, obviously a conservative.
After all the excitement subsided over the smoking ban, my friend from the press proceeded to give me some interesting background information on some of the members of the Council, like for example, who talked and who didn't. He made a point of mentioning two of the women who, he said, hadn't spoken once in the two years he had been attending the meetings - famous last words! Within the space of the next hour both women were on their feet speaking. This was too much, having been proven wrong on two counts, the smoking and the women: my good friend shook his head and muttered: "Don't believe a word I say."
The Council got through a heavy agenda in the two days of sessions - sessions that began at 9.00 AM and ended at 10.00 PM. Part of the more important business handled included: discussion of 1977 Budget and Development Campaign; authorized stockholders' resolutions support; heard seminary deans; upheld Bishop Wyatt's veto of a CAHD grant. The latter action was the most significant taken by the Council in the opinion of the writer. The appeal to override the Bishop's veto was rejected by 16 affirmative votes and 17 negative votes, four Council members abstained. The General Convention in 1970 established the procedure whereby 21 affirmative votes from the 41-member Council were required to override a Bishop's veto of a grant. Since that time Council has never overridden a Bishop's veto. In this appeal, Community Action and Human Development (CAHD), a special commission, was asking Council to approve a black community grant in Yakima, Washington - a project Bishop Wyatt, Diocese of Spokane, had vetoed. The writer shares the feelings of the Rev. William V. Powell, Oklahoma, a Council member who said: "Even if there is a racial problem, I don't live there and don't understand the situation. The bishop and people there understand better."
In the current issue of the "Churchman" you will find in-depth reports on most of the action taken by the Executive Council at their February meeting. Walter Boyd, Press Officer, and his staff provide diocesan communicators (as well as the secular press) with complete coverage of Council meetings. In fact, most of the national news stories and pictures appearing in the "Churchman" are provided to us by Walter's office in New York.