Some of you know I’m a huge fan of the singer-songwriter John Prine. And it’s a testament to my love and devotion to the Church and to this Diocese that I’ll be present at this evening’s Convention Eucharist because John Prine is performing tonight at the Savannah Civic Center. Prine’s lyrics are magical and almost always funny while also plumbing the depths of the human condition. A song he sings as a duet with Iris Dement evokes an affect that I want to share in my Bishop’s Address this year. The song is entitled “We’re not the Jet Set,” and part of it goes like this:

No, We’re not the jet set. We’re the old Chevro-let set
Our steak and martinis, Is draft beer with weenies
Our Bach and Tchaikovsky, Is Haggard and Husky
No, we’re not the jet set, We’re the old Chevro-let set. But ain’t we got love

In this Diocese, we’re not the jet set. Most of us are more comfortable with draft beer and weenies than we are with steak and martinis. Haggard and Husky are more likely to be on our play list than Bach and Tchaikovsky. Here in the Diocese we don’t have what a lot of dioceses have in terms of financial resources. We don’t have many large metropolitan areas that provide amenities that would draw people to move to them. With a few exceptions, the counties in our state that are projected to have significant growth are all in that certain diocese to the north, just above the gnat line.

So the demographics aren’t very favorable to us. Demographics, however, aren’t destiny and dwelling on them isn’t faithful. We trust in a providential destiny only God provides. Plus, as John Prine sings, “ain’t we got love.” We have God’s love for us incarnated in Jesus and we have our love for one another. And we have hope, hope that God is moving in our midst working out through us God’s plan of salvation.

Our call, then, isn’t to bemoan what we don’t have or what’s not favorable to us. It’s to celebrate and be thankful for what we do have and the favor God has shown us, and then to put all that we have and all that we are into the coming of God’s Kingdom on this earth, as it already is in heaven.

No, we’re not the jet set. We’re the old Chevro-let set. But this Chevy has many great miles to go and we’re fueled by the hope of what God will do through us to bring about the Kingdom.  And I want us to dwell on that sure and certain hope for these next few minutes. For as the Scriptures say: such hope will not disappoint us.

Now, we’re schooled by cable news and through social media to be afraid of just about everything from Ebola to the dirty ring around our bathtubs. If that were all the news we had, then it would be prudent to be afraid and to feel hopeless. Yet, if we have eyes to see, there are hopeful signs all around us.

1. While as a whole our diocesan Sunday attendance is basically flat, we now have more congregations that are significantly growing than are declining.

2. The core leadership training we’ve offered for clergy and laity through the Church Development Institute (CDI), Emotional Intelligence training, and peer coaching has now begun to bear fruit in many places. Clergy and lay leaders in many congregations are now better equipped to lead growing, vital congregations in the 21st century.

3. Our support for and focus on community ministries has led many congregations to reach out in real, concrete ways into their neighborhoods developing signature ministries that serve to transform people’s lives. We must remember that Jesus did not leave people stuck in their hunger or their sickness or their sin. He fed, He healed, and He liberated them. That’s what our community, signature ministries are all about. From Thomasville to Augusta, from Cordele to Darien, our congregations are embracing a vision of vitality through engagement with their communities.

4. Honey Creek, as you will see this afternoon, is being reborn into a more strategic missionary asset of the Diocese. In the last year, 70% of its ministry directly supported the mission of the Diocese. And 93% of its ministry was church-related. That didn’t happen by accident. We consciously renewed Honey Creek’s mission to be all about supporting God’s mission in and through this Diocese. And, I should add, we’re doing all this operating in the black for the 3rd straight year. When you see Honey Creek’s Director, Dade Brantley, this afternoon, please give him a big hug and a thank you.

So, there are many things we’re doing to help our congregations thrive. And thriving congregations must be our goal if we’re to accomplish God’s mission.

In this last year, while I was on retreat with the Sisters of St John the Baptist, I spent long periods of time praying for you. I did. I spent hours of time praying just for you and for each of our congregations.

There on retreat, thanks to Canon Logue, I brought with me the Field Guide to the Diocese. With that objective data and with my own direct experience with each of our congregations over the last four years, I placed each congregation in three, separate categories: Those that were thriving, those that were treading water, and those that were in decline.

I had some assumptions ahead of time about what congregations in each of those categories had in common that would tell me why they were in the category they were in. I discovered that my assumptions were mostly wrong (it’s good to have our assumptions challenged on a regular basis). It wasn’t the congregation’s location, or its size, or the amount of financial resources it had that defined whether it was thriving. The thriving congregations were of all sizes, in vastly different locations, and had widely differing resources.

There’s only one variable that all the thriving congregations have in common and it’s this: they’re all focused beyond their own doors and their own property lines. They’re concerned with that co-worker who had given up on God saying that if Jesus were real, then he must not love him. They’re focused on that hungry child down the street who won’t have enough to eat tomorrow. They’re alarmed to learn about that senior citizen who was all alone in the nursing home across town. Those are the topics dominating coffee hour conversations and discernment at vestry meetings. How might we reach them with the Good News of Jesus? How might we love them? How might we humbly serve them? Those are the questions being asked and discerned in our thriving congregations.

In contrast, what about the congregations in the two other categories? They’re anxious about their inward issues and talk mainly about surviving and protecting what they now have. Rather than be open to their community, they may feel that they have to struggle against it. While not always the case, this may lead to an unhealthy focus on things like the color of the new carpet in the narthex, or the rector’s recent haircut, or the choir’s lack of musical range. Or more dangerously, they may become focused on finding someone to blame for why their church isn’t thriving. And that blaming, often of the clergy, becomes what fuels the congregation’s life.

So my epiphany while I was on retreat is really quite simple: if we want thriving congregations and thus the transformation of our Diocese, then that’ll only happen when, as Bishop Lesslie Newbigin wrote, local congregations renounce an introverted concern for their own life, and recognize that they exist for the sake of those who are not members, as a sign, an instrument, and a foretaste of God’s redeeming grace for the whole life of society. (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society)

Now, it would be wonderful if the Diocese had the financial resources to help congregations engage the Gospel in their communities. We’re trying to raise those financial resources. We’re working to get every ounce of mission out of the limited resources we have in the Diocese. We have one of the smallest diocesan staffs in the Episcopal Church for a diocese our size. Frank, Mary, Elizabeth, Rudy, Vicki, Gayle, and Libby, not only put up with me on a daily basis, they’re committed to help all our congregations thrive. I’m blessed to serve with these amazing people.

Yes, it would be wonderful if we had more money and as I said, through the Capital Campaign, we’re working on finding those financial resources.

But, you know, we don’t need money to love our neighbor. We don’t need deep pockets to care about what happens to kids in the school next door or the overwhelmed single mother across the street or the lonely man in the nursing home around the corner. Each of our congregations can make a Gospel difference in their communities without having a dime to do it. All we need is the will to set aside our inward focus and embrace our neighbors with the Good News of God’s redeeming grace in Jesus.

I see hopeful signs of this in so many of you and in our congregations. We must not lose heart or believe we’re incapable of changing our local mission strategy. As a church, we’re facing nothing short of an avalanche of social and cultural change. I don’t need to list all those changes for you. You’ve read about them and you see them every day in your community.

When I was first ordained in 1983 to serve Lake Wobegone Episcopal Church, all we needed for what we understood to be “success” back then was a nice church building in a semi-decent location with passable worship and acceptable music. It didn’t hurt if the priest’s sermons were mildly entertaining, but not too challenging. If we added a clean, safe Church school, then we had a congregation sizable enough to pay all the bills.

But those days are gone and they’re not coming back. Please hear me when I say this: Those days are gone and they’re not coming back. Nostalgia for the past is hindering us from embracing our present mission.

The old road maps for “success” in our congregations are no longer applicable. We can’t just show up anymore, say we’re the church, and people will pay attention. We must take the Gospel into the public life of our communities with a passion and a commitment we’ve not had before. The people of our society are suffering from a lack of grace and compassion in their lives. They’re living in the “mean time” in both senses of that term. Mercy and empathy for one another is in short supply. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ has the power to renew and redeem us and our neighbors.

As Bishop Newbigin wrote: If the gospel is to challenge the public life of our society…it will only be by movements that begin with the local congregation in which the reality of the new creation is present, known, and experienced, and from which men and women will go into every sector of public life to claim it for Christ, to unmask the illusions which have remained hidden and to expose all areas of public life to the illumination of the gospel. (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society)

Many of you are realizing that. That’s why I see so many hopeful signs of God’s redeeming grace in our congregations. You and I need to see more of these hopeful signs from one another, so we can encourage each another to live into the changes we must make locally in order to grasp the new mission God is placing before us.

The congregations that recognize what time it is will be the congregations that will thrive in the future. Those congregations who don’t, who insist on making the church’s mission only about those who show up, or only about what’s good for me and mine, those congregations will die a slow and banal death. That’s simply the truth.

So, can we let go of our inward focus and embrace our neighbors with Jesus and his Gospel in new and creative ways? Can we take the Gospel out of our churches and into the public square, not to nag or cajole, not to finger point or to blame, but to love and to serve and to bring hope to those who, as St Paul so aptly described, are literally perishing without the Gospel?

Can we do this? I know we can.

It’s true. “We’re not the jet set. We’re the old Chevro-let set. But ain’t we got love.” We sure do have love. We have the love of Jesus for us and for this wonderful and beautiful, yet sinful and broken world in which we live. And the love of Jesus is all we truly need.

 

As you may have read, our Presiding Bishop, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts-Schori, has announced that she’s discerned she won’t stand for election to another nine-year term as Presiding Bishop. At our most recent meeting of the House of Bishops in Taiwan, she shared with us her discernment process. Her own letter to the Church described well that discernment. I think her decision is a wise one. She’s led our Church in a remarkable time of transition. We’re still in that transition. Indeed, our Church along with every other religious institution in our culture is going through significant transition. In such a time, no leader will find universal approval or support. While I haven’t always agreed with her decisions, I believe she’s shown remarkable and courageous leadership in this very tenuous time. I also believe she wisely discerned it was time for another bishop to lead the Church in the next decade.

A challenge of our present time is to recognize that we don’t need complete agreement in order to remain in fellowship with one another to support God’s mission through the Church. In our culture, where tribalism has taken hold, one instance of disagreement seems to mean one must condemn the other side for their perceived lack of purity (just look at our national political culture). This relatively new notion is disastrous to any group, especially the Church. We ought to be able to disagree on particular decisions or positions and still rest on our unity in Christ.

One point of disagreement I’ve had with our Presiding Bishop is the focus on the internationalism of our Church. We have 16 nationalities represented in The Episcopal Church. While this does provide a rich diversity to the Church, it runs counter to the Anglican ethos we’ve received over the centuries. At our Church’s core is the belief that our catholic heritage is best lived out locally. That’s why the Church in England became the Church of England. No Bishop in Rome could define particularly how the catholic faith would be lived out in England. As Anglicanism spread, we were faithful and effective when we deliberately indigenized the church. Throughout the world Anglicanism is most faithfully led by indigenous leaders who follow the local expression of the catholic faith. The strength (and some might say, genius) of our Church has been Anglicans who come together around the authority of a bishop and other chosen leaders to lead a local diocese in God’s mission. That bishop and other leaders then maintain communion with other Anglicans. An example of this is in the Episcopal Church of the Philippines. As long as the American Church directed and funded it, it didn’t grow significantly. But once it gained indigenous leadership and autonomy in the 1990s, it flourished. Prime Bishop Edward Malecdan of the Philippine Church presented their remarkable witness and story to us this week at the House of Bishops meeting.

Our next Presiding Bishop, I believe, needs to lead us to a more diocesan-based focus for God’s mission. That means we need a smaller national church with fewer resources leaving local dioceses to support the national church structure. My hope is that our efforts at re-imagining our Church’s structure for mission will lead us in this “back to the future” direction reclaiming our Anglican ethos for a new thriving Church.

+Scott

 

Broken bottles broken plates, Broken switches broken gates
Broken dishes broken parts, Streets are filled with broken hearts
Broken words never meant to be spoken, Everything is broken – Bob Dylan
 

I was saddened when I heard that the Disciplinary Board for Bishops charged the Bishop of South Carolina, Mark Lawrence, with abandoning The Episcopal Church “by an open renunciation of the Discipline of the Church.” They made that determination under Canon IV.16(A). You can read the details of this on the Episcopal News Service website and read reactions from the Diocese of South Carolina on their website. I commend both websites so you may better understand what is transpiring.

Bishop Lawrence is my friend. He has been and continues to be a good colleague of mine. I respect him as a person and as a disciple of Jesus. Our relationship has always been marked by candor, mutual support, and affection. We always have great discussions, with only occasional disagreements, on the challenges facing the Church as we engage in God’s mission. Our disagreements have only been “occasional,” because we’re united in our commitment to spread God’s Kingdom on earth and make disciples for Jesus while making a difference in God’s world.

I have prayed that the ongoing tension between Bishop Lawrence (and leaders of his Diocese) and The Episcopal Church would be resolved by other means and would come from our Anglican ethos of comprehensiveness and a generosity with those with whom we disagree. I regret that the Disciplinary Board for Bishops felt they had to act in such a way at this time. I’m not judging them harshly for I don’t know all of what they know nor was I privy to their deliberations. I simply believe that the pastoral work of grace is sometimes impeded by the application of the letter of the law.

I also regret the actions that Bishop Lawrence and other leaders in the Diocese of South Carolina have taken. Their actions have been and continue to be provocative and have not been marked by self-restraint and our Anglican ethos. The escalation of this conflict mirrors other conflicts we have all seen in human history where two sides are unwilling to back down. Both are acting out of fear that the other side will get the upper hand, so they escalate their defenses, begin demonizing the other side, and the drum beat for more drastic action continues unabated. Bishop Lawrence, like some of those in disagreement with him, has in my judgment participated in this escalation.

I hope we will find a way forward together. It would be a painful loss to lose members of the Diocese of South Carolina from our Church. It is, however, way too early to make any sort of conjecture about what will or will not happen next. Pray for our sisters and brothers in South Carolina. Pray also for our Church that together we will live out God’s will on earth as it already is lived out in heaven. Dylan’s lament that “everything is broken,” however true, is never the last word for Christians. We believe everything will be mended through the merits and mediation of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #107

Many of you may have already heard that my brother bishop, Mark Lawrence of our neighboring Diocese of South Carolina, has had Title IV disciplinary charges brought against him.  You can read the actual charges here:
http://www.diosc.com/sys/images/documents/lawrence_ch.pdf

I am personally saddened by this on many levels, but mostly because I have come to know and love him as a friend and brother in Christ. Upon investigation of these charges, I hope the members of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops will dismiss them appropriately.

Before arriving at any conclusions or engaging in any wild conspiracy theories, we all need to recognize the facts. The Presiding Bishop (nor anyone in her office) did not bring these charges against Bishop Lawrence. Also, no one in the House of Bishops brought these charges forward. Communicants in the Diocese of South Carolina have made these charges. Please refer to this fact sheet so you will have the facts and are not relying on rumor or the blogospehere, which often traffics in the same:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/From_Bishop_Dorsey_Henderson.pdf

Our new Title IV Disciplinary Canons have a specific process. If charges are made, they cannot be ignored or kept quiet. The process requires that the Disciplinary Board convene its Reference Panel, investigate the merits of the charges, and then make a recommendation either to dismiss them or to send the charges onto a Conference Panel comprised of three bishops, one priest or deacon, and one layperson. The Conference Panel’s membership is taken from the ten bishops, four priests or deacons, and four laypersons on the Disciplinary Board for Bishops.

The Conference Panel listens to those who made the charges, the bishop who is responding to the charges (in this case, Bishop Lawrence), and then it can do a number of things: dismiss the charges, work out an Accord between those bringing the charges and the responding bishop, or refer the charges to a Hearing Panel comprised of different members of the Disciplinary Board’s Conference Panel. The Hearing Panel has three bishops, one priest or deacon, and one layperson. It functions much like a traditional ecclesiastical court. (See Title IV Canon 17 for a complete explanation at
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/pdf/CnC/CandC_2009pp123-166.pdf

In my experience, no healthy, faithful Christian enjoys conflict or its consequences. Yet, conflict is a part of life and the Church is not immune from it. My hope is that this matter will be handled with justice and compassion for all concerned. The Title IV process, while cumbersome and more public than previous processes, does offer the hope of that. Please keep Bishop Lawrence, our Disciplinary Board, and the people of the Diocese of South Carolina in your prayers.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #84

As I listen to leaders in our churches, I hear a common refrain: “People outside our church don’t know who we are. They’re not even sure we’re Christians, especially in small town in Georgia.” People should know better, but often they don’t. So we have a choice: we can blame them for their ignorance or we can do something about it. We need to be ready to tell folks about our church, who we are, what we stand for, and how we are disciples in community. What follows is my apologia for our church.

We are Christian. God has uniquely and particularly revealed God’s self in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. And through that complete revelation, God has acted and is reconciling the world to God. As Christians, our vocation is to seek “the mind of Christ” and to do “the work of Christ” so we become instruments of God’s holy mission to the world.

We are sacramental. All of life offers us “outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace.” As Christ is the sacrament of God, the Church is the sacrament of Christ in the world. God uses the stuff of creation, like bread and wine, to communicate God’s love for the world. Individual sacramental life is rooted in daily prayer and in Sunday Eucharistic prayer both of which shape our discipleship in Jesus.

We embrace God’s creation. We see the creation as fallen, to be sure, but we also see it as good. That means the stuff of creation like the air we breathe, the water we drink, the land we till, the music we sing, the candles we light, the flowers adorning our gardens all matter to us as they matter to God. Our worship is physical, tactile, and olfactory. Beauty matters. It is a way to glorify God and God’s creation.

We seek a holistic life. We are balanced in our approach to life. We value the rhythm of life where family, work, rest, and play all are important and contribute to the whole of a holy life, even as those different aspects of life sometimes cause tension in us and in those we love.

We expect maturity. We honor diverse viewpoints. We encourage people to work out their spiritual lives in ways that make sense to them. We avoid prescribing one way of worship and discipleship. There is an inevitable tension between what an individual may desire and what the community may choose to do. At our best, we live creatively and appreciatively with this reality.

We recognize life’s uncertainty and finitude. We don’t have answers to all of life’s problems. Sometimes the answers we have are in conflict with one another. By staying in community with one another, however, we are able to listen deeply and respectfully to one another while humbly and patiently waiting on God. Our unity is not in uniformity, but rather in a shared trust in God’s sovereignty and providential care for all. This stance helps us maintain a “big tent” of a church with space for many people.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #82

In their new book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell share the results of their extensive research into the contemporary religious practices of Americans. In many ways, their work builds on the excellent work done by the Pew Forum on Religion and other research groups.

Putnam and Campbell describe a growing group in American religious life that they call Nones, as in no formal religious affiliation at all (“none of the above”). But these folks are not atheists or agnostics. They believe in God, and they seem to want a meaningful spiritual life. Putnam and Campbell have followed this group closely and have interviewed many of them twice or more. What is actually happening, they contend, is that about one third of these Nones are moving in and out of religious traditions. They call these folk Liminal Nones because they are partly in and partly out of a particular faith tradition. And these Liminal Nones are disproportionately under 30 years of age. So, if you ask them one week they might say: “I’m probably a Methodist.” But the following week, they might say: “I’m not sure I am anything right now.”

The authors argue that this is a rapidly growing demographic cohort in our culture. And they suggest that the Episcopal Church might appeal to the Liminal Nones, but these people just don’t know what the Episcopal Church is all about. These Liminal Nones do know that they are turned off by what they perceive to be secular, partisan politics in church, whether it be of the liberal or conservative brand. Putnam and Campbell suggest from their research that what might well attract these folks back to church is an evangelical style of religion but without the politics of fear mongering, blaming others, or a more righteous-than-thou attitude toward one’s neighbors. That is what has turned away this group of people from their most recent church affiliation.

Our tradition at its best is most certainly evangelical. But it’s a humble and gracious type of evangelicalism. We Episcopalians have rightly shied away from arrogant pronouncements that claim our way of discipleship is the only way to be a Christian. We have resisted partisan politics. Our leaders do not instruct church members on how they must vote in elections. At our best, we have not scapegoated immigrants or blamed particular ethnic groups for the problems our society faces. Again, at our best, we steadfastly avoid claiming that our faith tradition makes us morally superior to others.

What Putnam and Campbell have identified is a growing trend among many people in our culture who are tired of religion being used to baptize prejudice, greed, and indifference to other people’s suffering. These people believe in God and want to have a spiritual life. They just don’t want it with the religious experience they are leaving. They might want to live out their discipleship in the Episcopal Church. But first they would have to know that such a church as ours exists. That means we will need disciples in our church who are willing to go out and tell them and then show them. God is giving us this opportunity to evangelize many people who have found their previous experience of church toxic. I hope we are paying attention.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #49

While on holiday this summer I found myself praying about the growth of our Church. What initially prodded my prayers was looking at the website of the Methodist Church’s North Alabama Conference. My old colleague from Durham, Will Willimon, is the Bishop there. Check it out: www.northalabamaumc.org/weeklyreport

Bishop Willimon publishes weekly statistics on things like membership, attendance, outreach, and the giving of each of the conference’s churches. It’s there for everyone to see. As one might guess, the conference clergy don’t universally love this. But regardless of how one feels about such reporting (don’t worry, I am not proposing such a thing in the Diocese of Georgia), growth in membership, attendance, outreach, and giving matter – a lot. Jesus unambiguously pronounces the Great Commission. We are in the disciple-making business. And if we are not making disciples, then we need to change something we are doing (or start doing something we are not doing) so we make disciples.

Here are some random reflections on this challenge:

  • My hunch is that most people in our congregations think growing would be just fine but actually give little real energy to it. The energy is around the people who are already there and their formation in faith. That’s energy well spent. But we need to free up more people in our congregations to focus on making new disciples.
  • As a Church we have been involved in some international, inner-church conflicts. This has taken a lot of time and sapped our energy for making disciples. This has to change. Still, I don’t believe that our international church issues are a valid excuse for our lack of growth. There are a fair number of Episcopal churches that are growing, so there is no legitimate reason why each of ours can’t as well.
  • For too long we have looked to non-Episcopal, mega-church models to tell us how to grow. That hasn’t worked because it does not fit our identity and potential new disciples can sense the lack of congruency.

So, what can we do? Let’s look at the Episcopal churches that are growing by making new disciples and see what they have in common. In these churches, growth is a by- product of manifesting their mission in a way that is consistent with their identity. They have a clear, shared understanding of their mission. They are not growing because they focus on growth, per se, or because they will die if they don’t get more people and thus more pledging units/money (the American people are too smart and savvy to want to join a church to share in its death or debt). They grow because they are clearly and unapologetically engaged in mission.

Growth in membership, attendance, outreach, and giving then are important metrics to see how we are doing at manifesting our mission consistent with our identity, but they can never be the goals in and of themselves. Get mission going (not just be “mission-minded”), focus on making disciples, and then the growth will come.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #48

The Ecrozier is going on summer hiatus, so I’ve packed my “electronic crozier” away for safekeeping and I will take it out again mid-August. Until then, I hope y’all take time for a holiday. Do not take a vacation. That just means you vacate one place for another. Take a holiday; a holy day, to rest and renew yourselves. Matter fact, while you’re at it; take more than one holy day. Just remember to hydrate regularly and, if you are like me, wear your sunscreen as needed. From mid-July to mid-August Kelly and I will be on holiday in Maine, Chicago (with hopefully a visit to the friendly confines of Wrigley Field), and Charlottesville.

But before my holiday I want to alert y’all to a resource that you could use this fall (and beyond) when you resume a full ministry schedule in your congregation. The resource is simply titled an Anglican Spirituality Course. It is a three-session course that will help increase the competency of your parishioners in the foundational spiritual practices of Anglicanism. The course includes an educational design that is a mix of presentation, discussion, and experiential activities. The course comes with a variety of handouts and resources for the leader and participants to use. The cost is $40 and payment comes with permission to use the materials only in your congregation. You can make as many copies as you need in offering the course. See at this link at:
http://www.congregationaldevelopment.com/Parish%20Booklets%20and%20Handouts.htm

To order it, get the form at this link:
http://www.congregationaldevelopment.com/Order%20Form%20-%20booklets%20and%20handouts.htm

I recommend this course because one of the most important aspects of our ministry as church leaders is to make sure our people take mature responsibility for their spiritual growth. To do that, we need to equip them and help them become competent in that responsibility. This three-session course is something y’all could offer on a regular basis (say four times/year or even more) in your congregation. It would also be a great addendum to confirmation preparation.  If you find the cost a problem, let me know and we’ll work out some assistance.

Get some rest.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #46

Some in the Diocese have inquired about the recent communiqués in the Anglican Communion between the Archbishop of Canterbury (and his staff) and our Presiding Bishop. There are actually more communiqués than that as Primates and other leaders around the Communion are responding with their perceptions. I urge you to go to the Episcopal Church’s website and to the Anglican Communion’s website and read all these documents. Any commentary I might provide on all this cannot replace you actually reading the various missives yourself.

Let me share, however, my understanding of what is occurring. The Archbishop of Canterbury has proposed, and the Secretary General of the Communion has acted, to withdraw our Church’s representatives from a couple of ecumenical committees, or in one case, to reduce our Church’s representative to that of “consultant.” The Secretary General’s action, as stated, was a result of the consecration of Bishop Glasspool last month. It seems the Secretary General has every right to take this action, which he justifies based on our Church’s violation of one of the three moratoria laid out in the Windsor Report.  What strikes me as unfair is that other provinces (Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, & Southern Cone) that have had recurring violations of the moratorium on cross-diocesan incursions for the past seven years are not being addressed as well.  We will have to wait and see if this double standard persists.

There are many other ways the Episcopal Church[1] is officially connected to the Anglican Communion, but in those instances, it seems we are not being asked to withdraw. For example, The Compass Rose Society, which is a wonderful organization that supports the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion, has nineteen board members, the majority of whom are from the Episcopal Church. Are we not being asked to withdraw from the Society because the board members are a prime source of funds? I wonder.

I believe we need to accept the judgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General while also continuing the conversation and the many mission relationships our Church has throughout the Anglican Communion. The Communion operates in very different ways depending on the particular constituent Church. The Episcopal Church has a very democratic polity while other Churches in the Communion have highly hierarchical polities where archbishops alone make decisions for the entire Church.  This makes communion a challenge because different bodies “speak” for their respective Churches. It will be a long while, maybe decades, before all this is settled. In the mean time, my hope is we can always be gracious, open to the voice of the other, and ready to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all things.

+Scott


[1] I prefer to use “The Episcopal Church” rather than “ECUSA,” because we are an international Church. We are not just in the USA. Our Church has dioceses in Taiwan, Micronesia, Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, German, Italy, & Switzerland).

 

eCrozier #30

A few of our colleagues in the Diocese asked me if I gave my consent to the Reverend Canon Mary Glasspool’s election as Bishop Suffragan of Los Angeles. I did. While it is not usual for bishops to report on individual consents, I realize that for some people this is different, so I will try to explain how I came to give my consent. I cannot do so in a sound bite or even in a few sentences. Thus, you might wish to read this when you are not in a hurry.

1. Prior to my election as the 10th Bishop of Georgia, my theology and practice on the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the Church was well-known. I do not understand homosexuality to be barrier to any of the four orders of ministry in the Church. I have been quite clear in that theology and practice. So, my consent to Canon Glasspool’s election was consistent with what you had already known about me.

2. I would not have given my consent if I knew of any theology or practice of Canon Glasspool that was contrary to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Episcopal Church. Canon Glasspool has been a faithful priest of the Church for decades leading parishes to a renewed sense of their baptismal identity and purpose. More recently, she has served quite effectively as Canon to the Ordinary in the Diocese of Maryland. From my perspective, we need more bishops like Canon Glasspool who have had extensive experience in the leadership of parishes so they are better able to be strategic partners with congregational leaders for the growth and mission of our parishes.

3. I am aware of some concern about the so-called moratorium. The House of Bishops did agree to a moratorium a number of years ago. That moratorium, however, was not one-sided. It was accepted in the context that certain of our Anglican brothers would refrain from crossing diocesan boundaries. While the House of Bishops exercised the restraint of the moratorium for seven years, others did not practice such restraint even for a year. So, in my judgment, the moratorium was no longing a compelling consideration.

4. I, of course, recognize that some in the Diocese of Georgia disagree with my consent. I welcome that. Disagreement in the Church is hardly new. In some ways, Anglicanism was forged out of an unresolved disagreement in the Elizabethean Settlement. After Queen Elizabeth, Protestants and Catholics within Anglicanism did not somehow see their differences go away, but they were committed to living with one another and serving Jesus together in the church. They were willing to live with what they perceived as significant differences. In many ways, the challenge we face today is not new.

5. I believe that this current dilemma we face needs to be seen and understood in the larger context and truthfulness of Church history and tradition. The catholic faith has always lived with differences while holding fast to the Nicene faith. For example, the post-Constantinian Church has lived with difference in how we interpret the Sixth Commandment. Some have insisted that all killing is wrong all the time. This is the so-called pacifist position. Others have insisted that there are times when violating the Sixth Commandment is the lesser of two evils. From this came the Just War constructs of St Augustine that provided ethical boundaries for the violation of the Sixth Commandment. We have had both positions held faithfully in this Church (with many nuances in between) and neither has insisted that the other is not welcome or that the other is not orthodox.

6. More recently in my lifetime, we have had disagreement about violating Jesus’ teaching on divorce. Jesus is clear: If one marries after divorce one commits adultery. That seems to be the plain sense of Scripture. Yet, many have recognized that while divorce is never a “good,” sometimes it is the lesser of two evils for all parties. Others, however, still insist that Jesus’ words must be interpreted plainly. There are still others in our Church that hold even more nuanced understandings about this that fit somewhere in between the two extremes. Yet, in all these, we remain together in the same Church and receiving God’s gracious sacrament from the same altar.

7. I understand our current dilemma in a similar historical context. Faithful people will disagree about this. I do not understand such disagreement as a problem to be solved, but a dilemma God is asking us to live with for the time being. There are faithful people in the Diocese of Georgia who are anxious for a definitive resolution. I do not believe that is possible right now and may not be in my lifetime on this earth. If that is true, how are we to live together with this dilemma? I think the answer to that question is this: We will live together just like the saints who have gone before us who heeded Blessed Paul’s admonitions. We will love and honor one another. We will bear one another’s burdens. We will not have a higher opinion of ourselves than we ought. We will not look only to our own concerns, but the concerns of others. We will forgive one another as we have been forgiven.

8. There is a prayer in the Marriage Rite that has always touched me deeply. When praying for the newly married couple, the Church proclaims that “their life together” will be “a sign of Christ’s love to this sinful and broken world, that unity may overcome estrangement, that forgiveness heal guilt, and joy conquer despair.” I see this as an image of our relationship together. I have been Bishop of this Diocese for three months now. In that sense, we are newlyweds together. Like in any relationship that is not worked at and nurtured, we can fall into patterns that lead to estrangement, guilt, and despair. You and I will work hard not to let that happen. We will seek unity, forgiveness, and joy. We will seek to make our life together as bishop and people “a sign of Christ’s love for this sinful and broken world.” Of course, we will not always achieve those virtues, but I know will constantly seek them and commit ourselves to practicing them.

As your Bishop, I am committed to leading this Diocese faithfully and effectively. I want those who have differences on the issue of human sexuality to know that I will not play favorites by rewarding those who agree with me or seeking to punish those who do not. All of us share in the mission of Jesus Christ together. All have an important role to play in that mission. I pray that we not allow whatever differences we have to distract us from taking the saving Gospel of Jesus to the world.

+Scott