A Deeper Crisis for the Episcopal Church in Minnesota???
I am ever the optimist, I always assume that people are operating out of the general good of their hearts, for the betterment of whatever it is they might be working or advocating for. I am also not one to hold a grudge, and will jump on board with the decisions made by a body that they believe are what that particular body needs.
So, of course, when I was on the losing end of just about every resolution presented at convention I was able to look forward to what would come next and prepare myself to support the decisions I need to support as we move forward.
Tonight I put all my eggs into the basket to try to get a coadjutor process passed as the way we would proceed in calling a new bishop. We missed that by three votes, granted, a majority of the Diocese wanted to have a coadjutor, but because of a motion to have the vote by orders it lost, clergy passed it 86-59 and the laity narrowly missed it by a vote of 114 to 117. Makes for some nail biting prime time entertainment, let me tell you.
I am fine with the decision, and will wait to hear from the bishop on what our next course of action will be. But I have really gotten to wonder if we are facing a deeper crisis than we ever could have imagined as we move forward together, or maybe not so much together. I have been warned that the BCMS process is possibly pushing us towards a stronger congregationalist way of life as the Church. A way that would strip the Episcopate of much of its power and grant more and more authority to the individual churches as we live into what this process is about for us.
I have been warned, and can see how easy it would be to move down that path, a path that is much easier to traverse, I believe, than the path to truly reform and re-imagine and reclaim what it means to be an Episcopalian in this state. Tonight I fear I have witnessed a further push to isolate and congregationalize ourselves so as to pretend that the more money and the more authority we keep in our parishes, the better off we will be as a Diocese.
I realize now, a little too late, why I was so compelled to put my energy into the process of a coadjutor. We are the Episcopal Church, Episcopal, according to Wiki means "in principal 'Of Bishops'" My hope was to try to tie the BCMS work in with the future election of a new Bishop. Now I sit and wonder, as I watched people put most of their efforts into fighting a budget, and fighting a resolution about accountability, if people are going to be able to grasp fully what the BCMS report is calling us to do and be as I understand it to relate to us as the Episcopal Church.
Anyway, it has become more clear to me that the silos that separate us and the barrier's that have blocked our way forward are deeper and stronger than we could have imagined because they are not where we suspected them to be. Our identity and purpose according to the BCMS work is good, but I wonder if it was formed too much in the fear of what was going to happen globally with the Anglican Communion, and not enough in the truly local judicatory we most fully exist.
What does it mean to be EPISCOPALIAN, what does it mean to be "of Bishop's"? The BCMS work and mission and ministry and results must be tied intricately to how we live out our life with a Bishop. Not to say that we need to have a bishop as we have had bishops since 1857, but rather, we are being called to enter into a deep transforming conversation about what BEING an Episcopalian means and looks like, how authority of the Episcopate is disbursed and what a Bishop does as the leader of an institution.
This is where I am going to try and focus the conversation going forward, we must remember that we are a whole, not several parts, and I fear we have forgotten or at least willingly put aside a piece of our identity that is vital to our future as the Episcopal Church in this state of Minnesota.
More to come, this is going to be a good and productive conversation.
Be well,
A+
So, of course, when I was on the losing end of just about every resolution presented at convention I was able to look forward to what would come next and prepare myself to support the decisions I need to support as we move forward.
Tonight I put all my eggs into the basket to try to get a coadjutor process passed as the way we would proceed in calling a new bishop. We missed that by three votes, granted, a majority of the Diocese wanted to have a coadjutor, but because of a motion to have the vote by orders it lost, clergy passed it 86-59 and the laity narrowly missed it by a vote of 114 to 117. Makes for some nail biting prime time entertainment, let me tell you.
I am fine with the decision, and will wait to hear from the bishop on what our next course of action will be. But I have really gotten to wonder if we are facing a deeper crisis than we ever could have imagined as we move forward together, or maybe not so much together. I have been warned that the BCMS process is possibly pushing us towards a stronger congregationalist way of life as the Church. A way that would strip the Episcopate of much of its power and grant more and more authority to the individual churches as we live into what this process is about for us.
I have been warned, and can see how easy it would be to move down that path, a path that is much easier to traverse, I believe, than the path to truly reform and re-imagine and reclaim what it means to be an Episcopalian in this state. Tonight I fear I have witnessed a further push to isolate and congregationalize ourselves so as to pretend that the more money and the more authority we keep in our parishes, the better off we will be as a Diocese.
I realize now, a little too late, why I was so compelled to put my energy into the process of a coadjutor. We are the Episcopal Church, Episcopal, according to Wiki means "in principal 'Of Bishops'" My hope was to try to tie the BCMS work in with the future election of a new Bishop. Now I sit and wonder, as I watched people put most of their efforts into fighting a budget, and fighting a resolution about accountability, if people are going to be able to grasp fully what the BCMS report is calling us to do and be as I understand it to relate to us as the Episcopal Church.
Anyway, it has become more clear to me that the silos that separate us and the barrier's that have blocked our way forward are deeper and stronger than we could have imagined because they are not where we suspected them to be. Our identity and purpose according to the BCMS work is good, but I wonder if it was formed too much in the fear of what was going to happen globally with the Anglican Communion, and not enough in the truly local judicatory we most fully exist.
What does it mean to be EPISCOPALIAN, what does it mean to be "of Bishop's"? The BCMS work and mission and ministry and results must be tied intricately to how we live out our life with a Bishop. Not to say that we need to have a bishop as we have had bishops since 1857, but rather, we are being called to enter into a deep transforming conversation about what BEING an Episcopalian means and looks like, how authority of the Episcopate is disbursed and what a Bishop does as the leader of an institution.
This is where I am going to try and focus the conversation going forward, we must remember that we are a whole, not several parts, and I fear we have forgotten or at least willingly put aside a piece of our identity that is vital to our future as the Episcopal Church in this state of Minnesota.
More to come, this is going to be a good and productive conversation.
Be well,
A+
Comments
I did not get that impression from reading the report. I don't think Minnesota Episcopalians particularly care what happens globally with the Anglican Communion, since most of us have only recently figured out that we are part of it, and only then because they're trying to throw us out! We think of ourselves as Episcopalians first, Anglicans second, don't we?
Question: Will the "networking" of congregations be a steppingstone to consolidation, i.e., closing smaller parishes; or might the diocese simply breakup into metro/outstate, big/small, wealthy/not, progressive/conservative, etc.?
>> we must remember that we are a whole, not several parts, and I fear we have forgotten or at least willingly put aside a piece of our identity that is vital to our future as the Episcopal Church in this state of Minnesota. <<
Well said, Bishop! I agree wholeheartedly. Lately, however, the entire world seems to be more interested in tribalism, so maybe we will have to go with the flow of history. The Episcopal Church in Minnesota, as an institution, should not become our idol (I cannot believe I just said that). Perhaps the Provinces will become more useful in this period.
"A Deeper Crisis" not only for our diocese, but for the national church, the communion, and the world.
Also, where did we expect the silos & barriers to be and where do you think they are?
Betty, I agree that most folks have only recently heard of the Anglican Communion and our part in it, but with the heavy clerical bend to the report, and their full knowledge of what is happening globally, I do still think that played a significant part.
The networking question is interesting, cause I could see it in two ways, one in the way you describe, consolidating, God knows we heard specifically that from people on the Convention floor, "let's close those small churches so the bigger churches can keep more money for themselves." Ok not exact words, but actions speak louder than words, and I do see that as holding some truth.
The other option is to truly identify the strengths of those large and small parishes and create a network that is not unlike the trinity, we as Episcopalians could exist as 110 in 1 and 1 in 110. To build a network is foreign to the Church, the National Church is attempting to do it, and I think we should model ourselves on their actions.
I have heard from many that they think we are ready to move forward with creating the Diocese as a Network, I disagree, I believe there still needs to be some deep cultural shifts, like actually having a majority of our members understand and not fear the internet, which is where this idea comes from. The Church is still going to be immensely resistant to creating this network and if we move too fast, we will see the wealthy/strong parishes become hubs and many others will wither away unable to stand with those parishes who see themselves as the center. If we can move our wealthy parishes into places of understanding about what a network is and does, which they are unwilling to see right now, it could be good. My thought is that all our hubs and central or decentralized places should be Total Ministry parishes or Native parishes. They KNOW what a network is and looks like.
And Monica, I will do some work with the BCMS report and how I see it looking as we move forward together.
Interesting, let's have more conversation.
A+
>> Not to say that we need to have a bishop as we have had bishops since 1857. >>
I'm not resistant to change, but surely we need to have a bishop. I assume you are talking about the bishop's responsibilities within the Diocese or the "network"? What is the difference? Are we just tired of using the term "diocese" -- isn't the diocese a network of parishes already?
Also, you mentioned that Total Ministry parishes or Native parishes *know* what a network is and looks like, but I don't (dunce that I am, sorry). Please explain what this network would be and might look like, if possible. Sharing resources, I imagine. Do we do that already? How would the internet become so important in this transformation? (I don't think I agree that "a majority of our members [do not] understand and ... fear the internet." It's the "network" that is a big question mark for some of us right now.)
>> If we can move our wealthy parishes into places of understanding about what a network is and does, which they are unwilling to see right now, it could be good. >>
Agreed. (See above question.) "Unwilling" might be replaced with "unable at the moment".
I meant to say not that we don't need Bishops, but rather that we may not need a Bishop in the same way (functioning) we have had Bishop's since 1857. It is time to really re-think the role of all clergy, I am assuming that the great shift I feel in the role I play as priest is probably being felt in Deacons and Bishops as well.
I think at the core of the BCMS report is this great and mighty transformation, not just to something similar to what was, but to somethign drastically different than what we are today. Take Denominationalism for instance, as we know it, there is a good chance that we have entered a time in the world when denominations have become virtually irrelevant.
What does that mean for us as Episcopalians and the structure that we have put in place for our Church?
As far as the network question, you are right, we are a network of churches, we are potentially in this place where we could move towards effective networkedness that would be really fun for the Church to experience. Up to this point there has been great resistance to collaboration, collegiality and connectedness. Clergy have been super competitive with each other to the detriment of many things.
Why haven't we had a new Church start in so many years? Not because our bishops were visionless or lazy, but rather because clergy and parishes in the areas of those proposed new starts fought against the plans tooth and nail to prevent them from happening.
I am sure the Bishops, not just ours today, played a role in the thing, but for the most part, it is the clergy and parishes of the Diocese who resist these things.
I will write a piece about the idea of the Total Ministry and Native parishes on the blog, it is really intriguing to think about.
There is a lot going on these days!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
A+
Good stuff! It is great to hear younger clergy speaking in this way. I especially appreciated your voice during the debate concerning the coadjutor process.
Your thoughts resonate very well with those of the clergy in Region IV who met yesterday to debrief convention.
Good blog. Keep it up!
Paul
If I wanted to be a congregationalist I would, but as a cradle E that is not where I want this process to lead us.. Flatten somewhat the hierarchy somewhat, sure, but not at the expense of our tradition.
For me, the sadness of convention was that the big elephant was never painted. The elephant of course is money, as in I can do a better job with my $$ than the diocese, or the TEC...sounds way too libertarian and caring for the common good. However, these are the times we live in....
shalom, Rex