Vital Signs News of the Episcopal Church
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In That Great
Gettin' Up Morning:
An anniversary interview
with Barbara Harris
Julie
A. Wortman: On
February 11, 1989, you were consecrated Suffragan Bishop of Massachusetts, becoming
the first woman bishop in the Anglican Communion.
I was one of the hundreds of Episcopalians
from all over the country who crowded into that cavernous public auditorium near
Copley Square for the occasion. Scores of ordained woman, in particular, made it
their business to vest so that they could be part of the opening procession--it took
at least a half hour, if not longer, before all the visiting and local clergy had
filed in. And then there was the ripple of applause that announced that, although
most in the congregation couldn't yet see you, you had finally entered the hall.
Everyone who was there will have their own memories of that event, but after 10 years,
what do you remember best about that historic service?
Barbara Harris: Much of it remains, but the most dramatic thing for me was walking into that auditorium in the procession, seeing that throng of people, which I did not anticipate, and hearing people calling my name, calling out, "We love you," and applauding. It was humbling, it was moving, it was overwhelming. The other thing that sticks in my mind was that I was to come in on some very stately music and the timing got a little out of sync and the St. Paul A.M.E. choir was supposed to have finished the pre-service music, but as our part of the procession came in, they were singing, "In that great gettin' up morning" and "Ride on, King Jesus." And I said to Ed Rodman, who was one of myattending presbyters, "What a hell of a welcome!"
J.W.: Do you have a sense of what your consecration meant to people then?
B.H.: For many, my consecration was the beginning of the completion of the ordained ministry. But for some I became something of an icon. In a Witness article at the time Carter Heyward very wisely cautioned people about placing unreal expectations and demands on me as one person who could not fulfill all their hopes.
What do you
think people hoped?
J.W.: What do you think people hoped? After
all, before you were elected bishop you were associated with The Witness and
had a pretty good reputation as a rabble rouser, a troublemaker.
B.H.: I think many people hoped that I would speak to issues that were important to them in a way that was going to make a difference. But although I could speak to the issues, and I did, it was unreal to imagine that alone I could make any dramatic change. I found that out very early in the House of Bishops because as the only woman there I could be ignored. And for much of that first one or two years, I think I was.
J.W.: What are the issues to which you have given the greatest attention during these past 10 years?
B.H.: Certainly, one of my concerns has been that we be a more inclusive church. But I've also been concerned with issues such as the death penalty, with issues of quality education for children, affirmative action, and equality of opportunity which we have not addressed fully. I have a particular concern about increasing the number of people of color in the ordained ministry and to that end, along with my diocesan bishop here in Massachusetts, Tom Shaw, and the bishops of Ohio and Los Angeles, we are hosting a conference for young people of color to explore vocations and ministry in the Episcopal Church.
J.W.: I have heard it said that the church is not a friendly place for someone who is a person of color pursuing ordination. Do you think it is?
B.H.: Historically the church has not been friendly to people of color. I think there are places in the church that are serious today about embracing people of color in the ordained ministry because there is a realization that they are needed if the church is going to grow among people of color and thereby give legitimacy to the church's claim of being catholic.
Did becoming a bishop change your ability to be a rabble rouser?
|
|
B.H.: The shift has come in that you don't have the freedom to move and do what you could do in a less structured role. You get elected to be a bishop to a much broader constituency and your actions get tempered whether you want them to or not, by virtue of the role to which you have been elected. And certainly, as a suffragan bishop, I didn't have the power of a diocesan bishop.
J.W.: Is there any opportunity, any possibility, that the Episcopal Church is going to be a place where things are going to be turned upside-down?
B.H.: I don't know that the church will ever turn things really upside-down the way that we would like to see them turned upside-down. But I think one good barometer of where the church is, is to track the votes in the House of Deputies. At the last General Convention in Philadelphia in 1997 a vote on blessing same-sex unions lost by one vote in each order. That was a pretty good barometer for me that the church is not as far to the right as it sometimes appears. I think the voices on the right are strident, but their intensity is out of proportion to their numbers. Unless the makeup of the House of Deputies changes drastically between now and the next General Convention in Denver in 2000, that vote might be positive next time.
J.W.: I'm kind of hopeful that there will be something significant around the issue of money and debt coming up at General Convention 2000--especially following Lambeth's call for forgiveness of third-world debt. Do you have a sense that that's likely to be the case?
B.H.: With the subject having been so thoroughly addressed at Lambeth, I would hope that the bishops would take some leadership in bringing that issue to the church in a way that the church could make a positive response, be energized to take this issue and claim it as one for which the church has some responsibility. But that leadership, and the teaching surrounding that, needs to come from bishops who were exposed to this issue in depth at Lambeth. If we fail to take on that issue and if we allow sexuality and the ordination of women to dominate the convention in Denver, then we will have missed the opportunity to fulfill our responsibility as Christians concerned for the lives of fellow Christians in developing countries and foreign nations. I would be content with less legislation, fewer resolutions, and to see a commitment emerge to really positively tackle this whole issue of international debt by in some way addressing the people responsible in and for monetary funds, the World Bank and others. If we could get church people to engage them, and our legislators on the national and state and local levels, that would be a marvelous piece of ministry.