Let me state
clearly that I admire our Presiding Bishop.
She has done some things that have made great strides in helping the
Episcopal Church respond to the aching problems of our Church, not the least
what she has done for the Diocese of FTW.
But there seems to be something in the training of bishops in general that
allows them to think that they should not only lead the Church but also fall
into that ‘Father/Mother knows best’ syndrome.
In an
interesting conversation I had with a colleague who had spent considerable time
in the Church of England, she found the many of the laity wishing to leave the
governance to “me betters” part of the thinking that made change in the CofE
difficult. Is this the kind of thinking
that is afoot in TEC? I dearly hope not.
Part of what
drew me to the Episcopal Church was its governance. I was steeped in a democracy in which people
were elected to represent the people of a local district. They were to voice the needs of their
areas. We used to laugh at the pork
barrel politics of Nance Garner and LBJ but we could see their work in jobs and
public projects, good roads, and new facilities. They did not line their pockets with public
moneys. ( I am sure that there were
those who did line their pockets but it was not with gov’t money)
When I went
to seminary, I soon found out that my working-class roots were not appreciated
there. One professor even said to me,
wearing his tweeds and smoking his pipe and with a decided Boston brogue: “We
Episcopalians do not do well with the poor.
The Roman Catholics seem to do a better job.” The only students in this most liberal
seminary who came from working or poorer class were former Roman Catholics who
had gotten an education and wanted to help their people. And nearly all of the candidates for Holy
Orders came from large well-to-do parishes.
The first
thing I realized as I entered the Episcopal college of clergy was that I was no
longer perceived as working class. I had
become a WASP in the truest sense of the word.
And there was a bit of thinking that we were supposed to be better than
others. Yes, there was a compassionate
desire to assist those who were poor, but never with the thought of becoming
poor ourselves. Poverty was seen as an
evil, something to be avoided at all cost.
Budgets seem
to raise the ire of everyone. We always
have to deal with our poverty. It is
always about whose ox is being gored.
But in the case of the various budgets that have been proposed, it has
to do with the mission of the Church and who should determine what that mission
is. I happen to
believe that is why we send lay and clergy delegates to General Convention—to work
out the directions of mission and the way we spend our resources for the 3
years between Conventions. We have some
very talented lay people who are quite capable (in fact usually more capable
than those of us called to the ordained ministry) of helping formulate not only
focus for ministry and prepare budgets for the various ministries. And I do not doubt that the Executive Council has
referred to them.
But when the
PB and the COO have offered significantly different budgets, I am wondering if
the PB and COO and the Executive Council are ‘making Church’ in their
meetings. They do not seem to be
listening to each other. And most likely the 815 leadership doesn't want the Executive Committee messing with their budget.
But we practice
Church—the living out of our Baptismal vows--in community. Granted the Executive Council is a fairly large body. Are they making Church when they meet? Are they trying to live out their Baptismal
vows? I would hazard to guess that such
meetings are seen as ‘meetings’ rather than Church. If our meetings do not have the same quality
as our liturgies—that sense of being open to the Holy Spirit—then we can’t
really call it Church. But knowing some
of the members of the Executive Council, I think that they probably try to make it
Church as best they can.
Often times
our bishops get in the habit of ‘doing for’ others rather than doing things ‘with
others.’ And here lies the problem. It is all too easy to for clergy to do
something themselves that they think is a wonderful solution and present it to
the rest of the church only to find that it isn’t accepted. Then we are likely to think the people
ungrateful when it is not received joyfully.
But it is the process that has
been ignored. It is the listening that
has not been appealed to. The process of
becoming community in the production of that budget is what has been lost. And most importantly the bishops and the Executive Council have not had to deal with their poverty together. The process has not produced “Church” that
sense of community that makes us all members in the same standing.
I do hope
that this mistake by the leadership of the Church—both bishops and Executive
Council can be learned from. That is the
point of haveing a Church in the first place.
It is where we can practice our Christianity, practice our Baptismal
vows and work out the process of making ‘church’ so that we can all listen to
the needs of the whole Church. We need to be willing to approach the poverty of our hearts, our souls, our budgets together in order to live into our Baptismal vows.
I do believe
in the democratic system that allows all classes 'to mark, learn, inwardly
digest' and speak on behalf of those who are in need. It is a charism of our Church and we need to
safeguard it from those who would ignore it.
1 comment:
The whole thing makes my head spin and my stomach sick. I have said it before and I'll say it again, we clergy have fallen down in our role as Rabbis. An educated, empowered laity would never allow The Purple to get away with this.
Post a Comment