Special GC Feature: Presiding Bishop Nominees Interviewed
By Louie Crew
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
The Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander, Bishop of Atlanta
The Rt. Rev. Francisco Duque-Gomez, Bishop of Colombia
The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr., Bishop of Kentucky
The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of Nevada
The Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins, Bishop of Louisiana
The Rt. Rev. Henry H. Parsley, Jr., Bishop of Alabama
The Rt. Rev. Stacy F. Sauls, Bishop of Lexington
Interview with the Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander, Bishop of Atlanta
April 17, 2006, 2:00 p.m. EDT
If a gay or lesbian person is elected on your watch, would you consent to the election?
If a gay or lesbian person is elected on your watch, would you be willing to serve as key consecrator?
If the consecration is the order of General Convention, then the answer is yes. In our polity, unlike that of some other provinces of the Communion, when the councils of our church give orders for ordination, the bishops have to carry that out, unless for them it is a severe matter of conscience.
In terms of giving consent, I would probably answer the question in the other direction. I can see no reason why a gay person with a partner would not get my consent. That would certainly not be the reason for my not giving my consent.
I never have completely bought the argument that consent is only about 'Have the canons been properly followed?' If that were the only aspect of it [consents], there would be no reason for that [the canon] to exist. Have the canons been properly followed is a significant piece of the consent process, but it's not the only thing. I would not give my consent to people who held certain positions that I thought were against the greater welfare and mission of the Episcopal Church.
So, whether or not I would give my consent would depend entirely on who is elected. The fact that they were gay and with a partner would not in and of itself be an issue.
 |  | |
|
| |
| ||
You mentioned in your part of the official DVD [of interviews with candidates for Presiding Bishop] that your first priorities would be to the bishops and to the Anglican Communion. What would your model be in bringing order, respect, and common cause in the House of Bishops, where there has been so much rancor? How would your own conscience be a factor? You won't be the Bishop of Atlanta anymore. You'll be the Bishop of Quincy, the Bishop of San Joaquin, the Bishop of West Texas ... How will that play out were you to become the Presiding Bishop? What would you have to give up?
First of all, one actually has to believe as a first principle that there really is room in the church for all of us, regardless of where we are on particular issues, regardless of where we are on the theological spectrum. If in fact we do believe that we have all been died for, then there's a place for everyone of us. That's a fundamental conviction of mine. Obviously if one is Presiding Bishop of the church, one has to take steps toward those who are in a different place on issues, a different place on theology, different place on the nature of the mission and ministry of the church, But moving toward somebody doesn't mean that you are giving up your own convictions. Moving toward somebody means that you are making room for theirs.
It's not about people giving up their autonomy. It's not about people giving up what's important to them. It simply comes as a conviction. "Is there room for everyone in the life of the Church?" My answer to that is a profound 'Yes.'
You said in the DVD that the Anglican Communion is not about structure but about relationships .... You said that we should do everything possible to get together.
The Windsor Report talks about structure. The primates have talked about structure. They want a covenant. They want some common canons. They want the primates to be the members of the Anglican Consultative Council. Those are all some very heavy structural changes. Something like a theological litmus test is talked about in some of them too. How would you hope to function as a member of the Primates body?
I would hope that one's own life, one's own integrity, one's own personal witness will be the principal way into the relationships with other parts of the Communion, whether that is in a meeting with the primates or in other contexts. When we talk about structures in the Communion, I would like to refocus the conversation away from structures that are juridical or canonical to structures that are in fact focused on mission. We have these structures internationally on God's green earth here to enable us to do mission.
In my conversations with bishops in other parts of the world
How would you empower or make good use of the talents of Executive Council? What has been your own experience of collaboration?
We are at a bit of a crossroads in how a number of pieces in our church life fit together
I say this with some trepidation, because whoever is the next Presiding Bishop won't be the first to think that he or she had a mandate toward making the structures of our own church work more effectively. In making some attempts to do that some have basically got put down or slapped down. In some cases possibly the approach was wrong, and the person should have been slapped down. But it seems to me that a number of points are converging to give the new primate together with the President of the House of Deputies and other key leaders the opportunity.
We need an ecclesiastical version of re-inventing government.
My issues are basically two: (1) any dollar we are spending on maintenance is a dollar that we are not spending on mission. Obviously we have to spend money on maintenance. I understand that, and that's millions of dollars. (2) Structures exist to lead, guide, and deliver services. Are they doing that in ways that are as effective and mission-oriented as possible?
I have to concede that certain departments at the Church Center and certain leaders at the Church Center are in fact doing a better job now than some of their predecessors. Some of the reorganization in the last ten years has increased effectiveness. At the end of the day I believe that still more moves of that kind need to be made.
I am not particularly hard on +Frank [Griswold], because it seems that some of the good things that he did to move that along were early in his archiepiscopate, and then of course in the last five years of his time in New York has clearly been, what shall we say, 'busy with other things.' He's been working much harder outside New York than in. I honor him and respect him for that.
Speaking of damage control, what do you think you can do to reduce the rancor in the church? Is reconciliation possible with Network folks? We have spent enormous time in a battle that diverts us from mission. How can we move from that?
A couple of things would be useful
I have never had any question about where +Frank's mind and heart were, and I could see the many good things that he was doing behind the scenes.
I also understand that this is one of those occasions when you ought to be careful about how you criticize somebody until you have walked in their shoes. I am sitting here in a diocese where a bishop's charismatic authority is still fairly significant. But a Presiding Bishop virtually has only charismatic authority to work with. The Presiding Bishop does not have a whole lot of canonical authority. We have a Presiding Bishop, not an Archbishop.
In addition to boldness, the Presiding Bishop needs to take initiative, to be proactive in including those who are upset.
We have lost no parishes in our diocese since General Convention. We could have lost a whole lot with some missteps on my part
For example, going into one parish and saying, "Maybe we need to initiate a DEPO arrangement" completely diffused their need to do it. They thought, "If he cares enough to offer it, I bet we can figure out a way to work with him." Another parish that was a DEPO-like parish prior to General Convention has dropped the DEPO-like arrangement since General Convention. I had not made a visit to that parish prior to the 2003 General Convention, but I have been there twice since. It's a matter of walking toward them and finding some common ground.
At the end of the day, trust is the issue. People want to deal with people that they trust. One of the things that has happened in my diocese
My audience is primarily the progressives of the church. What would you bring to the office of the Presiding Bishop that would be of particular importance to progressives?
I always find it difficult to know how to characterize myself. I find it interesting to listen to how others characterize me. I sometimes say that I hang out in the middle of the church with only two or three friends because I am too conservative for the liberals and too liberal for the conservatives. Consequently I go to meetings with Wayne Smith a lot, who finds himself in the same position.
For me it is about fundamental principles, the fundamental ideas. I really believe that there is a place at the table in the life of the Episcopal Church for absolutely everybody. When I say everybody, I really do mean everybody. The witness of my ministry, my personal history is clear. I believe the Church should be radically reflective of the hospitality of God. If one gives one's life to Christ and to the Church, then one gives up being able to pick your own friends. God picks them for you. That allows you to relax.
Another thing that bodes well for me with moderate to progressive side of the Church is my theological orientation in the reading of Scripture, in the reading of the history and life of the church. I actually think this is an exciting time to be the Church. We are blessed to be at a particular junction in history and in culture. The Episcopal Church should have a much broader witness and much deeper traction than we seem to be having in some places. Those are things we can work on.
Recently someone asked me, "Is 20/20 dead?" Northing that has fourteen more years of life is dead.
I want us to focus much more intently on the goals of 20/20. There is no way to accomplish any of the 20/20 agenda unless we are willing to look at the whole populace, the whole world, and everybody in it. Some of that mission is going to be with Hispanic folks. We are going to have to re-double our efforts in African American communities. We are going to have to work on all fronts if we are going even to begin to accomplish those goals. But I still think they are possible. We have a 20-year plan. We did some good groundwork, and then we got sidetracked and we lost maybe three or four years with these diversions, but let's get back to business.
Someone asked me what I would hope to be my legacy if I am elected. I would like in the year 2015 to hand off to the Presiding Bishop who is going to take us the rest of the way to 2020 (20/20) a church that is driven in mission, positive in its focus, growing and dynamic, so that in the last five years under the next Presiding Bishop's watch that really is achievable. We must put together the machinery and the groundwork and everything necessary to accomplish that.
The 26th Presiding Bishop may be the last to be elected only by the House of Bishops. Do you support the movement which Dean George Werner has initiated to have subsequent Presiding Bishops elected by both houses?
I have been doing a lot of thinking about that, and it is a hard one to know. My normal inclinations would be to open it up to election by the whole convention. What are the positives and the negatives? What are the costs of that? The honest answer is that I really have not sorted it out yet. It has always been curious to me that we haven't always had both Houses elect the Presiding Bishop.
What do you value the most about the Episcopal Church?
I value that we are liturgical and sacramental. I'm not a good enough Christian to function without the support of liturgical and sacramental church. I need those gifts of God to keep walking and doing the kind of ministry that I believe God is calling me to do.
There is a marvelous spirit of graciousness and openness in the Episcopal Church that I have found absolutely nowhere else. That means that some days it is not real pretty or not real tidy, but if you are willing to roll up your sleeves and get in there, you will experience the life-giving potential of The Episcopal Church.
All Christians pray. An intentional life of prayer plays a role in the fabric of the spirituality of The Episcopal Church that for me is enormously life-giving.
I am very much drawn to the incarnational quality of Anglicanism and the way that we live that out in the Episcopal Church in the flesh and blood nature of the Christian life. Most churches that I know anything about will give theological assent to the notion of incarnation but you don't see much evidence that it plays out in the warp and woof of their life. In Anglicanism the incarnation plays a special role that has the effect of opening us up to be able to see the grace and mercy of God in all kinds of places and in all kinds of people that we might not see otherwise.
Interview with the Rt. Rev. Francisco Duque-Gomez, Bishop of Colombia
 | | |
| | |
| ||
[Editor's note, June 8, 2006: As this article was first published, Bishop Duque had declined to be interviewed. The Witness is glad to report that he recently agreed to be interviewed. The text in Spanish of that interview is available here; the text in English as translated by the Rev. Edgar A. Gutiérrez-Duarte, Associate Rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Paterson, NJ, follows below.]
If a gay or lesbian person is elected bishop on your watch, would you consent to the election?
We need to have in mind that within the Episcopal Church there are conflicting opinions on that subject. In light of that, if the consent for the consecration is sought at General Convention in accordance with the Constitution and Canons, I would abstain from voting and I would follow the majority decision of the General Convention. If the request for consent goes to the hands of the majority of the Standing Committees and the Diocesan Bishops, and the majority of them grant it, I would add mine, always following the majoritarian decision of the Church thus expressed, because I believe that the Presiding Bishop must always shed light on and give witness to the sentiment and the clamor of the Church in general even above his or her own personal opinion.
If a gay or lesbian person is elected bishop on your watch, would you be willing to serve as key consecrator?
Following on the answer to the prior question, if the elected person has followed the established canonical process for that position, and if he or she has the consent from the majority of the Standing Committees and the Diocesan Bishops or from General Convention depending on the situation, as Presiding Bishop and Primate, I will be the key consecrator.
How will you move from being Bishop of Colombia, to being PB? What will you do to serve those with whom you disagree?
I believe that the service continues to be the same but with a global agenda pertaining the national and international matters of the Church. I will assume it with great openness to respond with loyalty, courage, and continuing prayer, in the face of new challenges and responsibilities, always listening to the clamor of the Church which is expressed through the voices of the bishops, presbyters and lay brothers and sisters.
Those who are in disagreement always will find in me a steadfast and open accessibility to fraternal dialogue, looking for consensus so that we can build together pathways toward unity, peace and resolution which are always positive to the life of the Church.
You voted not to consent to the consecration of +New Hampshire. How can you lead a church which voted to consent?
When I cast a negative vote for the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, as Diocesan Bishop of Colombia I was interpreting and expressing the feeling of the Diocese of Colombia in the sense that at that moment we were not sufficiently informed to say yes.
After that decision, we began in Colombia a process of sensitization on that subject which is still in progress because, in addition, we had to provide an answer to candidates who were in the same situation. At the present time we have homosexual clergy in our diocese whom I ordained in November 2005.
Are you a member of the Anglican Communion Network? Do you support the goals of the Network?
I am not a member of the Anglican Communion Network but I will do everything necessary to start processes of reconciliation as pathways to unity in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
How will you heal our unhappy divisions?
I believe that divisions occur when a group refuses to listen to others, when the channels of communication do not work, when we lack enough information about specific topics, when the flow of information about the processes conducted by the Church to allow everyone's participation is interrupted, or when someone is convinced that he or she has ownership of the entire truth, or the only truth. This generates deep wounds and above all a huge anti-witness of the unity that our Church must demonstrate to the world.
The healing of wounds implies that we all must be able to acknowledge a part of the truth in each other, and that only through prayer, dialogue, listening, reconciliation, and, above all, acknowledgment and acceptance of each other we will be able to become one body in Christ.
How will you address the current property issues and other litigiousness?
Current and future properties owned by the Church will continue to be be internally managed according to the established by the Constitution and General Canons (trusteeship) and externally, the Presiding Bishop's Office will offer consultation services and resources so that all dioceses legalize the properties, placing them under the name of the Episcopal Church according to the laws of the states in which they are located.
In terms of the rest of the litigation, I will always seek assistance from the Primate's Chancellor, and if necessary from experts according to the situation, always aiming at safeguarding the interests and properties of the Church, as well as her good name and legal representation.
Are there limits to bishops' behavior that you will not tolerate? For example, many of us are disturbed with reports that some bishops refuse to take Eucharist with other bishops. Is such refusal tolerable? What would you do to encourage us all to come to the Lord's table?
I am not a friend of intolerance; the behavior of each one must have some justification (subjective or objective). As believers we should always embrace the evangelical attitude of the fraternal admonishment (Mt 18:15-17).
Because of the above I will always be ready to pursue the dialogue that will allow us to accompany our brothers without implying with it that they are being exonerated from the civil or ecclessiastical responsibilities that their attitude may involve.
Describe how you would work with Executive Council. As you know, the PB is chair of the board instead of reporting to the Board, and while our constitution gives to Executive Council the authority to initiate programs and oversee them, in current practice, the staff reports only to the PB and the management team reports to Council as a largely passive body except when it needs our approval. Please comment on your ability to collaborate with others.
Effective leadership is such that delegates and gives room for advice and recommendations from others. The leader knows that he has been entrusted with many things, but he cannot do them by himself, although he is the one to be held accountable for everything. The secret is to coordinate effectively the task and to be attentive to the management of time and reports.
Transparency? Closed vs. open sessions?
Obviously transparency and honesty are very important in everything and for all. The sessions must be open, with a possible exception: that is, when it is required to protect their privacy because of special legal reasons, according to the bishops' judgment.
My audience is primarily the progressives of the church. What would you bring to the office of the PB that would be of particular importance to progressives?
In my opinion, one of the truly glorious aspects of the Anglican Church is the Vía Media. I am a believer in that position and I am firmly convinced that it can help us to achieve a balance between the progressive and conservative positions. The balance is in realizing that we can walk together, that the Church is a space where all of us can fit in. Therefore we will continue to promote the opening of spaces for dialogue, reflection, agreement ... to be able to walk together.
The 26th PB may be the last to be elected only by the House of Bishops. Do you support the movement which Dean George Werner has initiated to have subsequent Presiding Bishops elected by both houses?
In fact the Diocesan Bishop is elected by both houses. However, given the unique character of the function of the Primate, Bishop of the Bishops (primus inter pares), I believe that it is more appropriate that his or her election continue to take place within the jurisdiction of the House of Bishops and be ratified by the House of Deputies.
What do you value the most about the Episcopal Church?
The election of the bishops. The Book of Common Prayer. The Holy Scriptures as the foundation of Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship. The absence of discrimination in holy orders by reason of race, gender, sexual orientation, social condition, ethnic background... The democratic process which allows the participation of both the clergy and the laity. The openness to the new. The constant evolution. The multiethnic and multicultural expression.
Anything you would like to comment upon that I have not asked?
To conclude: I just want to thank my brothers and sisters in the episcopacy and in general to the entire Church, because of the fact that that we are walking together in this historical event in the Episcopal Church as we nominate and vote for the first time in our history for a Bishop who is not North American, and neither comes from an English background; is a foreigner, Latin and, besides, Colombian. The mission that Christ has entrusted as a Church, fortunately, does not have boundaries. As I have always said, in this entire journey the hand of God is ever present and, as a "clay jar in the hands of the potter," I will humbly follow his plan.
Interview with the Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr., Bishop of Kentucky
May 3, 2006, 3:00 p.m. EDTOn your part of the DVD, you reminded us that we are the most democratic church and acknowledged that is where some of the strains are in our relations elsewhere. How important is it that we preserve that democracy? Is it under any threat by the Windsor Report and some of the things that the primates have asked us to do?
Although I am interested in democracy, what I am most interested in preserving is the integrity of the ministry of the Baptized exercising appropriate authority in the body of Christ. For me it is more a theology of Baptism issue than an understanding of democracy.
I am very proud to be in a church that so dignifies the Baptism of every Christian that we actually believe that those Baptized folks should exercise power in the decision-making process.
|  | |
|
| |
| ||
I was deeply moved by how you lived into that as you described on the DVD how you came to vote for consents to the consecration of +Gene Robinson. You stressed that he is a Baptized person who had made the same commitments as others elected to be bishop and had gone through the same screening as others. You communicated well your respect for him in that holy moment. That was very powerful for me, and I thank you for it.
In the same DVD you said the church needs to refocus away from gays as issues, and that the Presiding Bishop needs to be one to help focus, to be the "eyes for the head."
What would you say to gays and lesbians that you hope would bring them hope in that statement? While I don't think you would mean to say this, there is a threat that we might say "We've been there, done that, and the gay and lesbian issue can sit on the back burner now, and gays and lesbians can go back into the closet.
Here again I begin and end with Baptism. The way that I see people primarily is as Baptized persons. That is how I fundamentally understand myself in Christ. I would think that gay and lesbian Christians, along with their brothers and sisters, would take some comfort in any bishop whose fundamental ecclesiology begins with Baptism.
Leaping ahead to the Special Commission's report and recommendations: I have given that a lot of thought, as you would imagine. As a bishop who voted to affirm and sustain the election in New Hampshire for the reasons that I articulated on the video and for some other reasons that I have articulated elsewhere, I think that the way a bishop like myself who was very clear in reasons why I voted to sustain the election in New Hampshire
As a kind of strategy, I don't think conflict is resolved by people absenting themselves from the table. A good thing that I can see coming out of the Special Commission would be providing an environment where as many voices in the Communion as possible can stay at the table and work through this conflict.
I don't think that conflict gets resolved by marginalizing either extreme, although I must say that if in order to be consistent with the Commission we would have to turn down the election of a gay or lesbian person that would be a hard thing to do, given my theology of Baptism. I could imagine myself doing it for the sake of keeping the work going, but it would be hard. It is part of what I am praying about, and I am sure that other people are praying about it too.
So would you consent if a diocese elects a lesbian or gay person as bishop on your watch?
One of the things that +Frank [Griswold] warns us is not to opine on things before they become a reality.
I will be saying my prayers. This is not dodging it, Louie. If the deputies send to us the recommendations from the Special Commission's report and we as a church vote in favor, generally speaking, of those recommendations, then I think it would be a disjunct then to confirm an election of a gay or lesbian bishop.
We are in a post-Windsor world, at least for a season, so for me the primary issue will be resolved as we engage the work of the Special Commission.
Even if you voted not to consent and the consents nevertheless were given, would you as the Presiding Bishop be the chief consecrator?
If the consents were given from both Houses and if I were the one of the seven chosen to be Presiding Bishop, then as I read the canons, the liturgy of the consecration of a bishop is in the purview of the Presiding Bishop, so I think that is part of the job. I would do it, or if I were sick, I would exercise the canon that allows someone else to do it.
But if my church, my particular church of which I were a member, were to sustain the election, then I think it would be the job of the Presiding Bishop to do the job of the Presiding Bishop. The rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and the canons say that the consecration of a bishop is the ministry of the Presiding Bishop.
Any of us elected know that it a possibility. However, having said that, there is a caveat and it is not a dodge. It's based on history, and that is, subsequent things can occur even after canonical assent. Other information might come to light, other realities might happen like they did in the election [of the Rev. Robert Trache] in Atlanta… I am not going to say "under no circumstances would it be possible for a Presiding Bishop not to preside."
I think that +Frank [Griswold] made the right call in Atlanta. It was rather precedent-setting, actually. He based it on the tradition that no one can be forced to officiate if to do so violates one's conscience. In that case the Standing Committees had already given their consents and the bishops had given their consents. I am not an expert on canon law, but it was a very, very precarious place to be, and I think it was a very weird moment in the life of the Church.
I think that what we understand in this particular church of the Anglican Communion is that the deciding authority regarding consecrations is in the hands of the bishops and in the hands of the Standing Committees (or the House of Deputies). Once that decision is made, the way I understand canon law, the Presiding Bishop is basically the servant of the decision process.
How will you move from being Bishop of Kentucky to being Presiding Bishop? What would you anticipate doing to serve those with whom you disagree?
I think it will be a huge emotional and spiritual move. I am a bishop of a diocese where when the wardens and treasurers come together; I know every one at the table. For me it will mean moving from a relational ministry to one where that won't be the day-to-day reality.
However, there are certain core values that I have that I would hope if I were chosen to do this would do fine. One is a real commitment to justice and jubilee. In this diocese we have been very intentional about the formation of Jubilee Centers, and we have a pretty high percentage of them for a small diocese. One of the things that I like to do here is to have some of our social legislation and social resolutions at diocesan convention bring a Jubilee approach to society that comes out of the work of our Jubilee Centers.
Rather than having people opining out of their best-conceived opinions, what I think is more interesting is to have the people who are actually doing the on-the-ground justice ministry telling us what we need to be about and telling us where the rubs are in society. I would bring that passion.
I am very interested in raising up the next generation of lay and ordained leaders from our young people. That has been a passion of mine. I think that we have been pretty successful in this diocese doing that. We have some passionate people in ministry. I just had lunch recently with a young woman who is at Harvard. She will enter the ordination process, and she is getting an STM there. We already have some very bright Gen-X clergy in significant leadership positions in this diocese. I hope that piece of my ministry would continue if I were elected Presiding Bishop
I hope that we would live into our name, that we would be about "Domestic and Foreign Mission." I think that is what people are passionate about. In this diocese some of our most conservative parishes and some of our most liberal parishes have had teams down in the Gulf. People experience exhilaration when doing mission together, and they discover that some of these divisions don't seem as important any more.
Some seem bent to make the job difficult for whoever is elected Presiding Bishop. They don't seem to have a candidate of their own. Do you have a good closet of asbestoswear?
Who knows? One of the things I am beginning to worry about, and I don't know if anyone else names it this way, is that I think we might see what I am going to call the "Jonah Syndrome." If the Episcopal Church through accepting some of the recommendations of the Special Commission does repent of something like moving too quickly or moving precipitously, or moving without consultation, or whatever language we will, and if we do some kind of repentance toward the Communion that will keep us at the table, then I am wondering whether in the light of that repentance there will be a lot of Jonahs sitting under their gourd vines. There are some people who have gone so far down the road of separation that this repentance would keep them from rejoicing. We might watch out whether the Jonah Syndrome catches on and how extensive it might be.
Already some have shown that nothing is repentance unless it fits their full prescription.
Right, and some of us just will not be able to do that. I will not be able to do that.
As I pray through this issue of late, I try to keep a friend of mine, who's not an archbishop but an African bishop … I pray with his face in my mind and I pray with +Gene's face in my mind. Actually those two kind of iconic faces are very helpful to me. I think, "How in the world can I act and behave in a way that maintains my loyalty to Jesus Christ and in the integrity of that maintain relationships with both of these?"
What worries me as I think about the report of the Special Commission which I have grown to be more supportive of, I worry that perhaps +Gene will be very much like that dear Chinese woman [Li Tim Oi] who was ordained [long before other women]. +Gene may end up being alone as a gay bishop for a while. She [Li Tim Oi] was the first woman I ever received the Eucharist from. David Leighton, who was Bishop of Maryland in 1975, invited her as a canonical priest in the Diocese of Hong Kong to celebrate the Eucharist at the Church of the Redeemer in Baltimore, and I received the Eucharist from her hands, the first time I ever received from a woman, and it was powerful. She was an icon that it took the Church a generation to get.
Are there limits to bishops' behavior? Is there behavior that you will not tolerate?
You are asking about the bishops who will not receive Communion with some other bishops?
Right.
First of all, there is not rubric or canon that forces people to receive Communion against their consciences. However, Miroslav Volf in his wonderful book Exclusion and Embrace quotes the orthodox theologian Zizioulas. Zizioulas talks about people who think that in the Eucharist they can receive the head without receiving the parts.
One of the things I have come to understand about participating in the Eucharist is that when I receive Jesus I receive every single person who is in Jesus. There is no way that one can receive the head without receiving the parts. If bishops absent themselves and have their own private Eucharist, they are still receiving all of us, because we are in Christ, by God's action in our Baptism. In one sense, it's misinformed theology: [those who absent themselves] are trying to be a part of what they are comfortable with rather than a part of that marvelous body that has been constructed by God's action.
Even if you try to have a private Eucharist of people who are of one mind, God's great trick is that when you receive Jesus you receive everybody in Jesus.
What about other acts of disruption in the Network, e.g. creating a parallel church?
My diocese has been invaded by the Bishop of Bolivia, who has without my permission and against my direct wishes come in and ministered to a group of former Episcopalians in this diocese. I think it is simply wrong.
There are ways that people of good will and good conscience can accommodate each other's consciences, and I think the House of Bishops has been very clear about how to do that. I have certainly let the clergy of this diocese know that any bishop of the House of Bishops under most circumstances can be invited to this diocese, so I think that trespassing in dioceses is chaotic.
Please speak to your sense of collaborative work with bodies like Executive Council.
I perceive myself to be rather naturally collaborative, and I need a community to think with. One of the things I have learned is that sometimes when a leader thinks out loud before she or he has made final decisions, that can be sometimes confusing. Having said that, I value collaboration, and I value the community of leaders we have raised up in this diocese. I could not imagine doing ministry without them.
I am writing this article for The Witness magazine, which as you know is one of the major voices of progressives in the Episcopal Church. What will you bring to the office of Presiding Bishop that would be of particular importance to progressives?
The more progressive part of the Church needs to know that I learned to think theologically at a Disciples of Christ college called Lynchburg College in Lynchburg, Virginia, from about 1966-1970. One of the great graces of my life was that I majored in English but I got interested in some of the smart, young newly minted Yale Ph.D. Disciples clergy, and they had me read things like the literature out of the confessing church movement in Germany in the late 30s and 40s. They had me read Dietrich Bonnhoffer and know about the Barmen Declaration. That's where I began to be formed theologically, and it is where I live theologically to this day.
I understand how the developing world can read some of our actions at the last General Convention as yet one more extension of colonialism into their life. They have certainly said that. I would hope they would also know that people like me
Those of us who see this as at least partially a human rights issue cannot possibly un-think that.
I have come to believe that you cannot arrange unity and justice hierarchically. You can't put one on top of the other. I said publicly to this diocese at the first diocesan convention after General Convention 2003 that I think I stretched or came close to breaking my vow to guard the unity of the church as I was keeping my ordination vow to help those who had no helper. If we have to tilt back towards guarding the unity of the church, that may feel like the temporary refusal to help those who have no helper. I hope that for all of us who feel led to do that it will be at that moment a bitter pill, a bitter medicine. I think we should always be pretty uncomfortable.
The church has to be unified to do its work. The reason that I have spent a lot of my ministry working for the unity of the church is for the sake of its mission. Sometimes we have to attend to issues of unity so that we can do mission. I understand that. But a church that spends all of its time on its own inner life ultimately, I think, will die, because we cease then to be what Christ wants the church to be. Christ loves the world and uses the church.
What do you value the most about the Episcopal Church?
I have just read a book that I enjoyed a lot and wish that I had written, Brian D. McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy. I value the Episcopal Church's creedal faith, its deep catholicism, and its generous orthodoxy.
Interview with the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of Nevada
April 18, 2006, 4:00 p.m. EDTIf a gay or lesbian person is elected on your watch, would you consent to the election?
If a gay or lesbian person is elected on your watch, would you be willing to serve as key consecrator?
That is a hard question. I have to tell you that I was not certain how I would vote on +Gene until that day.
I was deeply moved by your part of the DVD in which you told of the two things that struck you the most about that.
Louie, I don't think I can say right now. I don't think I can. I need to tell you if you don't know that my heart bleeds for the position of gay and lesbian people in this church. I think I must wait on the movement of the Spirit. I was part of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. What we asked, what we recommended, was that electing dioceses, and Standing Committees, and nominating committees act with very considerable caution.
How does that caution translate in behavior? You don't get much of a choice if a diocese elects a lesbian or gay bishop.
That's right, and if God brings us to that day, I think we will act according to how the Spirit moves us. I am sorry not to be able to be more direct.
 | | |
| | |
| ||
Obviously the whole church wants us to move toward more unity, but there is also the question of how far we will get if we don't take a stand. It's a flip side.
There is a piece of me that doesn't want Gene Robinson to be the next Li Tim Oi.
I know. I lived and taught in Hong Kong for three years. I am close to Christopher Hall, son of Bishop Ronald Hall, who ordained her.
What do you see as the major pressures that would be upon you in moving from being Bishop of Nevada to being the Primate? I realize that primates have a responsibility to all of the people. What is and is not appropriate in terms of your own leadership?
The only parallel that I can draw is moving from Oregon to Nevada. I remember telling people the learning curve was not steep; it was overhanging. Having done some rock-climbing, I knew what that meant.
There is an opportunity, a charism in that position, that really offers the possibility to cure the whole body, and to try and stand in that crucified place that addresses the whole body.
My sense is that we still live very much in a colonial church. The eastern establishment still rules much of the church. There is a hunger in other parts of the country, and in other dioceses that are not part of this country, to hear and see some other movement that addresses their concerns.
Somehow being able to hold the whole body in prayer and in tension with the rest of the body.
What about those who seem bent and determined to leave or to wound the body if they don't get their own way?
I think they need to be challenged, more so than they have been. I see signs of hope in the House of Bishops, an unwillingness to continue to put up with bad behavior. We haven't seen any action yet, but I think it is coming.
Do you have any sense of what that action might be? Would a verbal rebuke be enough?
It won't be enough in some cases, I am sure. But I have the sense that there is some desire to hold each other accountable for actions that are not canonical, for actions that have the appearance of being downright schismatic.
Like a separate church ... not even doing Eucharist together: I find that the most painful part.
Absolutely.
As the Presiding Bishop you would be chair of the Board rather than reporting to the Board the way most presiding officers do. There is not structurally much tapping the talents of one of the most talented groups that I have ever been a part of. Could you say some things about the way you work collaboratively?
One of the challenges here in Nevada was the historical reality that members of the Standing Committee were also members of Diocesan Council. When I came, the Standing Committee would meet on Friday and decide all of the important things, and then Council would show up on Saturday and there wasn't anything left to do.
We separated them and clarified their canonical roles. Both bodies have grown enormously in their ability to take appropriate responsibility for their spheres of influence and responsibility. It has been an incredible joy to watch.
There is a great deal to do here. The population growth is still stymieing us in our ability to respond to it. My role here has been to take the lid off, to give permission and empower people to move where their passion is.
The Episcopal Church is not unwieldy. That can happen on a larger scale.
Do you have congregations in the Network or other dissenters?
The rector of one congregation
Since you don't bring many wounds from such struggles might it be easier to move to that space where we all need to be, that you talk about on the DVD
My sense of the larger church is that sexuality is not a big issue except in the Southeast. In most of the West, it's a non-issue. We got the heat here in Nevada at our diocesan convention after General Convention when there was an Integrity resolution asking for diocesan policy on blessing unions. People had little trouble with it at General Convention, but when it came face to face and they had to talk about it, some got kind of reactive. That said, they passed the resolution by about two to one; and I said I would permit blessings if there were parish policy, if there were a congregation who could gather together to bless, and if there were counseling akin to pre-marital counseling.
Thank you. So many think that we need just to model Brides Magazine instead of something substantive.
We had one priest leave us after that. He went off to the Charismatic Episcopal Church..
My audience for this article is The Witness magazine. They are primarily the progressives of the Episcopal Church. What will you bring to the office of Presiding Bishop that would be of particular importance to progressives?
I have a passion for the marginalized. When I heard Richard Rodriguez speak at the House of Bishops meeting in Spokane about a year and a half ago, he helped me put language on something that I have been growing to recognize for quite a few years. I would put it this way: My heart is brown.
I just came back from two weeks in Mexico working on my Spanish, and to hear the immigration issues deliberated from people on the other side of the border was fascinating and instructive.
We must clean up the immigration situation and provide some just way to citizenship.
I hope you have good asbestoswear, because if you are elected you are going to need it.
[Laughter.] My favorite language about that is 'put on your Teflon raincoat.'
What would you see as your major efforts in being a healer and a reconciler to the unhappy divisions of our church without encouraging further hostility?
I am a pretty good listener. I don't have any problem listening and being in dialogue with people who are willing to talk with me. The challenge in the House of Bishops has been the few who won't come. I have reasonable relationships with all of those who do come.
As a church we have got to be better self-differentiated. We have to decide what it is we are going to stand for and be clear about it, and then say 'these are the consequences.' Yes, Anglicans don't much like to do that, but we do do it about some things: We have over the years said we don't believe in the death penalty. We have said that we don't believe that abortion is a good choice, but that it needs to be available. We stand up over and over again for social justice issues in the government. So we're able to be clear on some things even when there is a variety of opinion across the church. I think we are getting there about the issues that are dividing us right now.
Some have noted that three of you who are nominees have served only 5-6 years as bishop, and I think you served as priest from only from 1994 to 2001. Your length of service is not an issue for me personally. Would you like to comment on it for others?
I don't bring the history of forty years in the same parish,
[Crew laughs.]
But I bring different life experience. I bring the training to see the world carefully, which comes along with a scientific background and an analytical mind. The gift to me has been to be able to serve in a lot of different ways in the church
I particularly like your emphasis in your part of the DVD on how you struggled to reconcile science and faith and did so by an awesome recognition of Mystery.
I am most worried when people are absolutely sure that their view is the right one.
What do you value most about the Episcopal Church?
I value most its historic ability to live with diversity and to celebrate that diversity. We have gotten better in some areas over the years, like liturgical diversity. We are wrestling mightily at the moment with theological diversity.
I love the Episcopal Church's ability not to define everything, to allow for a varied interpretation. Some see that as a mighty sin, but I see it as one of the gifts of the creator. To be created in the image of God doesn't mean just one thing.
Do you favor Dean Werner's movement to have both Houses elect the Presiding Bishop in 2015?
I would. Our current practice of having only the bishops elect is the legacy of the time when the Presiding Bishop functioned only as presiding officer in the House of Bishops and was not the Primate of the whole church. We are far the most democratic creature in the Anglican Communion, and it would make theological sense for us to invest the wider body with the responsibility for that election.
Is there anything I haven't asked that you would like to add?
I think the structure of the Episcopal Church needs to be far more agile than it has been. It needs to be dispersed across the breadth of the church. I am not sure yet what that looks like.
We need to be clearly semper reformanda. We didn't get it totally right when we first put it together. There has got to be more goodness and truth out there that hasn't been realized yet.
Interview with the Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins, Bishop of Louisiana
April 19, 2:00 p.m. EDTIf a gay or lesbian person is elected on your watch, would you consent to the election?
If a gay or lesbian person is elected on your watch, would you be willing to serve as key consecrator?
That is cutting right to it. In both cases probably not. Let me respond to the second question first, would I be the chief consecrator. I don't think that as Presiding Bishop I would see my role as chief consecrator around the church. I think that it is important for the Presiding Bishop to be able to establish relationship with clerical and lay leadership of the various dioceses, and that doesn't happen at a consecration. Bishops fly in and fly out, and everybody is so involved that the Presiding Bishop does not have sufficient opportunity to sit down and mainly to listen to the lay and clerical leadership of the diocese. So I hope that it would be possible to allow the provincial leadership bishops to be the chief consecrators and that if I were the Presiding Bishop, I could find a better venue for visiting the dioceses of the church and putting myself in a position to speak with and listen to the leadership of the diocese.
You have been to more consecrations probably than even I have, and you know that there's no time for real exchange. I would not intend to be the chief consecrator for the Episcopal Church unless somebody were to change my mind about that. That's the reason for my 'no' to your second question.
In answer to the first, you well know that I did not give my consent for the then-Coadjutor Bishop of New Hampshire, and if that were to come up again, I probably would not give consent now.
If you were to be Presiding Bishop and a lesbian or gay person is elected, would you expect the church to give you a conscientious objection?
No. I would not. I don't think the solution is in attempting to honor the conscientious objection of people who object. We need to search for a "more excellent way," and I cannot give a thoroughly clear explanation of what that "more excellent way" would be. I would try to engage lay and clergy leaders around the church for us mutually to discover what a "more excellent way" would be.
I think that some of the characteristics of a better way would be that we can find a way to honor individual consciences, not one conscience over against another. If a diocese elects a person who is in a gay relationship, that's the conscience of the diocese speaking. What we need is to seek justice that does not promote another injustice. It is my perception that the Episcopal Church is fused. Sometimes we have an expectation of closeness, an expectation of likeness, an expectation of adherence to a certain standard or a certain theological position, but in fact it is probably not realistic and it is probably not traditionally characteristic of the Episcopal Church.
I would like for us to look for a way to be together but not have to be together so closely. I think that too much closeness is as destructive to a family as is too much distance. We have had some opportunities to speak to that, and we have chosen not to do it. We have got to speak to the opportunity of being too close.
Nobody remembers that on the day of the House of Bishops' giving consent to +Gene Robinson's consecration that I introduced a resolution that happened to come up that afternoon before the House of Bishops suggesting that we need to take a look at the closeness in the Church, and the resolution was put in terms of how we do consents. I suggested that the consent process ought to be more at the provincial level than the national level. Maybe that's correct; maybe that's not; but I did not know how to address the issue of fusion other than by trying to get that example.
When I came back from Lambeth 98 I was convinced that the whole system of Anglicanism had changed, and we had not the slightest idea what the change meant and how we were going to deal with it. That's true in the Episcopal Church.
|  | |
|
| |
| ||
You had the experience of being at Nottingham as the spokesperson for the minority point of view in the Episcopal Church at the last General Convention, and to represent the Episcopal Church in our wholeness and not speaking in one voice. What did you learn about gay and lesbian people in that process?
Thank you. I made some very good friends, and I will tell you the last email that I received prior to our servers being put out of order by hurricane Katrina was from Susan Russell, who assured me of her prayers and support. I will never forget that. I have told her that. The last word before I went into the darkness of that disaster came from Susan.
I learned a lot of things in Nottingham, Louie, and not just there. People on both sides of the issue
Also I have learned that people who have endured a lot in their lives generally have a tolerance of others. People that have been through hell often are not as anxious to inflict hell on another. I have sensed amongst some, and this was true of our deputation to Nottingham, a graciousness and a kindness towards me. I told +Frank [Griswold] before, and even as we were rehearsing our addresses at Nottingham, that I felt like a fish out of water and that if they wanted me to stand down, I would stand down without a word being said, that it would not be an issue.
What do you think we can do to move away from this issue so that we get focused on mission? This major plague is not about sexuality, but it's about diversion.
Correct. I said the Episcopal Church must have been on the edge of greatness and our Adversary saw that, and has diverted us with this issue. I was frankly surprised and blown away by the reactivity to the consent that General Convention gave to the consecration of the 'then-Coadjutor of New Hampshire.' I say it that way because I try not to personalize it with +Gene. I'm not trying to be disrespectful of +Gene; I'm trying to be more respectful. I was surprised at how easily, though painfully, the church was thrown off course by that reactivity.
From where I am living right now, on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is pretty darn low down, we have not been worried about issues of human sexuality, much less about anybody else's sexuality. When you are concerned about issues of water, about food, housing, health, education, life and death … I am not saying the issues around sexuality are not important, but I'm saying that they take on a relative importance.
Don't you think that's also very much true in the Anglican Communion? Maybe some primates have the luxury of being concerned about the Bishop of New Hampshire, but most people in Africa and much of the rest of the Communion would not know where New Hampshire is, or care?
Definitely. There are some people in Louisiana who don't know where New Hampshire is. They get it mixed up with Massachusetts. Absolutely.
I have friends who recently visited the Sudan where they mentioned the Windsor Report and three bishops said, "What's the Windsor Report?" Why should the Sudanese Anglicans know about the Windsor Report? They have genocide in their living room.
Correct.
As the recipient of perhaps the greatest outpouring of mission graciousness in the recent history of the Episcopal Church, and perhaps forever, I have to agree that we must get back on the path to mission. Mission requires of each of us that spiritual discipline of being able to do to the other. The most destructive thing I have seen, Louie, is when people try to tie their supposed generosity to a particular theological position. That has been terrible. Nobody has yet said to me, "We're going to give this money to Bishop Jenkins because he voted the way that he did or withheld it because he voted the way he did." Instead, people are saying, "What do you all need?" And they are listening to us.
Indeed, there is a graciousness of spirit that has to be concerned with mission.
Fussing is a luxury, a luxury that we can't afford. The only difference between San Francisco and New Orleans is the difference between a hurricane or an earthquake.
When you become a Presiding Bishop, your life changes from being Bishop of Louisiana. Any bishop is influenced by those for whom you are the bishop. How do you see making that change, specifically making it from Province IV, so that you are the Presiding Bishop of Newark, you are the Presiding Bishop of California?
I hope that the lay and clergy leadership of the Episcopal Church can sit down and begin to truly listen to one another and work out a collaborative process and a shared vision of what the future of the Episcopal Church can be. I understand that the vision in Newark may not be the same as the vision in Baton Rouge.
One of my strengths is the capacity to be in relationship, especially with people who disagree with me. I think that it is important that I be clear about myself, but also important that I make room for difference. It is a tyrant who allows no difference.
I would hope that I can make relationships around the church. I am pretty good at nurturing relationships, and making relationships, and encouraging relationships. I understand the perspective of the Episcopal Church is that we have been a relational church.
We get reports that people go off to the House of Bishops meetings and don't even have Communion together, that some stay away, and they certainly do that at General Convention. Many don't pay their dues and yet have
I have worked with a few bishops who perceive themselves to be caught in a Catch-22 position between the diocese and the need to be at Christ's altar at the House of Bishops, and I have always encouraged bishops to be present at God's altar. I mean, whose body and blood is it anyway?! Theologically, that's where I come down. Again I would try to sit down and listen to and talk with the bishop. I believe that it is Christ's body and blood and that it is a sacrilege for us to turn our back on it just because I disagree with others who are receiving communion or even with the person who in Christ's name is saying the prayers over the bread. I would try to work with each individual. We're not talking about a big church, Louie. In terms of the bishops we have less than 200 who are active.
Right. Currently there are 148 active.
You can have pastoral relationships with 148 people.
I would hope that as the Presiding Bishop you would find a way to be more collaborative than currently seems to me to be the case. The Presiding Bishop has an extra edge by being the chair of the Board, instead of reporting to the Board as would the heads of most organizations. The canons clearly envision an Executive Committee that initiates programs, and not a body that passively responds to the management team and staff. All the verbs about Executive Council in the Constitution and Canons are very strong verbs. Yet Council is now more of a rubber stamp unless the Presiding Bishop wants it to be more. I would urge you to be as collaborative there as you indicate that you want to be throughout the church.
That would be my style, Louie. That would be my hope.
One of my strengths is that I realize that I have many weaknesses. I am not a micro-manager. I am not a detail person. I invite and encourage people to help me in areas where I am insufficient. I think you will find that I give people not only the permission, but also the authority and the power to fulfill what we ask them to do.
I would also urge as much transparency as possible.
That's where I was headed. When you are transparent, you have a much higher level of accountability
I am writing this article for The Witness magazine, which as you know is one of the major voices of progressives in the Episcopal Church. What will you bring to the office of Presiding Bishop that would be of particular importance to progressives?
I would bring a heart for the work of justice in this land. And I will be honest with you and tell you that Katrina changed me. Prior to Katrina, I definitely did not have the same sense of urgency about justice. I don't know how anyone could watch what happened in my own See city and in my own state
I bring a real commitment, and not just talking, to the undoing of racism.
I bring a commitment to the issues around economic justice, access to capital, transformation of communities.
I bring a lack of fear. When you've been through what I've been through, Louie, there's not a whole hell of a lot that scares you.
I hope, and I say this with some degree of humility, I bring a degree of spiritual maturity that would be received by folks on the progressive and the traditionalist sides of the aisle as well.
You said at one point that you were not allowing your name to go forward because of Katrina. How do you answer those who say you are abandoning Louisiana?
For the record, I am not aware of ever saying that I am not allowing my name to go forward because of Katrina.
I'm sorry. I was misinformed.
No problem. I am just setting the record straight. Nor am I abandoning Louisiana. I had wondered about that; I have prayed about it. Reading Evening Prayer, I will sometimes use for the second lesson a book called Drinking from the Hidden Fountain, which is work of the Fathers. St. Benedict himself said that where there is a crisis in the monastery no monk is free to leave. I believe that we are beyond the initial crisis in Louisiana. We pretty much have our scope and our direction set before us. Things are in place, so I would not be abandoning Louisiana. I know that I would no longer be Bishop of Louisiana, but I believe could continue to do things
I don't know the answer to the question, Louie, and I'm not seeking this. I am praying for what St. Ignatius of Loyola calls 'indifference.'
I don't know what "winning" looks like. If winning means staying in Louisiana ... I am having now the best time I have ever had as a bishop. Prior to God's change of my heart
What do you like the most about the Episcopal Church?
I like the challenge to spiritual maturity that the Episcopal Church gives to me. I don't have to fill somebody else's spiritual expectations of what a Christian ought to be to be a good Christian.
I like the worship of the Episcopal Church.
I like the intellectual freedom and challenge of the Episcopal Church. Ours is not simply a church of the heart, but also of the mind. That's so very important to me.
I love the characters of the Episcopal Church.
I love the relationships that we have in the Episcopal Church.
I love the generosity of the Church.
Do you support Dean George Werner's movement to have subsequent Presiding Bishops elected by both houses?
I don't know yet. I have not looked at it closely enough to say.
Is there anything that I haven't asked you that you would particularly like to talk about?
Windsor. I have already hinted at what I want to say about the Report. I am not disinterested in the content, but view the Windsor Report as a symptom of the lack of relations in the Anglican Communion. It is an attempt on the part of some in the Anglican Communion to speak to the crisis that I mentioned earlier, that I noticed after Lambeth 98. I hope that we as Anglicans worldwide can find a way of being together that honors the various strands of Anglicanism while at the same time does not necessarily mean that all Anglicans have to be one. As Archbishop Rowan himself has suggested, we need to do more work on the theology of personhood rather than individualism or community.
Interview with the Rt. Rev. Henry H. Parsley, Jr., Bishop of Alabama
April 24, 2006, 4:00 p.m. EDT
In the DVD you describe how King Lear moved you when he experienced the price of his pride. You also mentioned an epiphany in the chapel while at school. Have you witnessed the new creation that you talk about from St. Paul in any lesbians and gays?
I've experienced glimpses of the new creation in many people that I have worked with over the years
Also, one of my favorite parishioners in the Diocese of Alabama is a young gay man who is very kind to his bishops and his diocese, and we have great conversations about all these issues with mutual respect, openness, and Christian love.
I think that one of the great dangers of our times, as the movie Crash demonstrates, is to see each other as "its" and "things" more than as individual, unique, sacred human beings.
If a diocese elects a lesbian or gay male as bishop on your watch, will you consent and will you be the chief consecrator?
The question calls for conjecture in a way that I cannot answer. If I were the Presiding Bishop I would have to look at every situation in the life of the church and respond to it as appropriate to that situation. I would do so as faithfully and prayerfully as I know how. I have great hope in the listening process that we have now launched in the Anglican Communion around issues of human sexuality, and I think the listening process will lead us to discern more the mind of Christ about these matters. I intend to participate fully and eagerly in that process, whether I am the Bishop of Alabama or the Presiding Bishop. I feel it offers us a way forward, which is important and hopeful. I would address a situation that came up as it unfolds, in the context of the listening process and the koinonia of the church.
How would you move from being the Bishop of Alabama to being the Presiding Bishop?
I have not decided whether I would go through Chattanooga or Atlanta.
[long laughter by Crew, joined by Parsley]
My feeling is that the Presiding Bishop continues to be a bishop in the church. Our polity in the American Church has always recognized that this person is not an Archbishop. There is not a new ordination. You continue to be a bishop of the Church serving in a presiding role for the House of Bishops and in a primatial role for the whole Church and in the Communion. My sense is that it is a new ministry as a bishop in a different context, and most importantly, being a bishop for the whole church, listening to the whole church, doing one's best to be a symbol and a means of unity for the whole church, and someone who can help the church gather itself in mission.
So it would be a larger role, and it would mean embracing a larger part of the Body of Christ in the Episcopal Church, that is, the whole of it. My heart would have to be enlarged, and my arms would have to embrace even more widely the whole church.
In your DVD you make a compelling point that we need to articulate the Gospel challenges. Do you see doing that in Alabama as different from the way that the Presiding Bishop might do that or encourage it in New Jersey or New York?
The church has many different contexts, and Alabama is just one of many in the Episcopal Church. I think we have to respect our many different contexts and how the Gospel is communicated. The timeless truth of the Gospel
Also, we need to form Christian lives more intentionally and more passionately. Christian formation is one of the great challenges before us, and something our Church needs to really focus on.
You mention in your question, 'What would I do to serve those with whom you disagree?' I think the Presiding Bishop is called to be the pastor for the whole church. He or she has to listen to everybody
 | | |
| | |
| ||
Do you have to forfeit your own convictions if you are to lead?
I don't think you have to forfeit your own convictions. You need to be well defined in what you believe. As you know, I am a well-defined moderate. I say that slightly tongue-in-cheek, because not many people think that moderates can be well defined. I am actually a passionate via media Anglican. I think that the middle way has led us into paths of wisdom and reconciliation and courage in the past, and can continue so to lead us in the future.
I think the Presiding Bishop has to contain all voices and help this church contain all voices. God needs us all; and He needs us together, not in warring camps.
How invested are you in the Report of the Theology Committee which you chaired and brought to General Convention 2003?
I would not say I am "invested in it." I still think it was a good solid report and told the truth about where the Church was in that year of 2003. Having to deal with a very difficult and important decision about Gene, the Church was pushed to
I think the leader is called to serve the whole body. I believe in servant leadership. That means not to force the individual's opinion on the whole, but to be a facilitator of the work of the Holy Spirit. That means having a viewpoint that you feel and respect and articulate but that you don't force. I respect the way that +Jack Allin had his own convictions about the ordination of women but was willing to let the Church make a decision with which he disagreed. I do think that Port St. Lucie did not make the wisest choice, but Jack was able to lead as a servant leader and have a different view from the majority. That's okay.
The leader needs to be well defined, but also needs to be sacrificial for the good of the whole. The leader needs to make sure that all voices are heard and that all people are at the table.
To me the genius of Anglicanism is our comprehensiveness, our recognition that in the Church there have always been three great traditions
When we live in constant dialogue and mutual respect, we operate not out of power but out of love and listening and prayer. Then all those three traditions work together for good. But when we allow ourselves to become politicized, this creates inordinate and unnecessary tensions between those three traditions.
In the DVD you speak of the need to move from conflict to mission. Most of us want to do that. Can you describe ways that we can do that without making lesbians and gays scapegoats? For example, one of the clear ways to move to mission would be just to dismiss gays and lesbian, or to put us in a place where we didn't exercise episcopal leadership or other kinds of leadership, so that lesbians and gays become the objects of discussion rather than a part of the 'we' who issue the invitation to the discussion or part of the 'we' who organize the mission.
God needs all members of his family. No one should be left behind, and no one should be scapegoated. However, in order to live together in unity, we have to give and take for each other. Somehow we have to keep concerns about justice and concerns about communion together. The Windsor Report does not say either do justice or be in communion. The issue is not either/or, but how to do both. That requires us to give and take in the spirit of tolerance, listening, and patience.
I understand well that justice delayed is justice denied. Nonetheless, the church is different from society. We're called to a different way of working on problems, a way of being in communion as we struggle to discern the mind of Christ and to do the work of Christ.
We have to keep that concern for communion in everything that we do, or else we get polarized and conflicted to the point of splitting. When the Church gets to the point of splitting, we all need to step back and say, "Wait a minute. This is not what we want to do. None of us want that." So let's figure out how we can step back and come together at the table and see how we can go forward together. That's what I think the Windsor Report calls us to do and the listening process invites us to do. I think we can do it.
I think our society has gotten terribly polarized, and we should not let that happen to our church. We are called to a higher standard of community.
Are there limits to bishops' behavior that you will not tolerate? E.g., many of us are disturbed to hear that some bishops absent themselves from Holy Communion at House of Bishops meetings. Is this tolerable?
Of course all bishops need to share Holy Communion together. I think that when we really listen to each other, we grow in communion and understanding. You cannot force people to do this or that. You have to love and listen, and as you do, communion grows. There are some times when people get in a snit, step to the side, and won't come to the table, but you have to keep seeking them out like the lost sheep in Jesus' story and not let anybody go. But you can't coerce people's behavior. God always invites us and woos us; he doesn't force us.
Please comment about your commitment to collaboration.
I feel strongly about collaborative leadership, and in every group I've been a part of I have collaborated all I can. It seems to me there needs to be some bridges built between the national and the local level and probably between the Executive Council and the Church Center staff.
Substantive collaboration is the key. We need that.
Our Church should be a place where we recognize the dignity of our differences. We have a lot more in common than we have that divides us. Jonathan Sacks in his book The Dignity of Difference says that God confers on human life a dignity and sanctity that transcends our difference. I think he is absolutely right, and we as the Church need to live that truth. The Church embraces our differences but recognizes that our unity transcends them.
My audience is primarily the progressives of the church. What would you bring to the office of the PB that would be of particular importance to progressives?
I value the progressive part of our tradition. I honor all the aspects of Anglicanism, and would try to include progressives, catholics and evangelicals all at the table should I be called to be Presiding Bishop. I recognize that we need each other's wisdom. We also need to live together with the mutual respect, patience, and humility that make us value all three traditions and keep them together. All three need each other, and one cannot take over.
The Body of Christ is composed of many parts, as Paul told us long ago, and all must work together in unity. This commitment to unity in diversity is part of the genius of Anglicanism.
What do you value the most about the Episcopal Church?
We have a wonderfully positive Gospel that we preach and live, a Gospel focussed on God's unconditional love in Christ showed forth on the cross and in the new life of resurrection. We have a tradition of generous orthodoxy deeply rooted in Scripture and traditon, but open to the wisdom and creativity of the Spirit. We are blessed with a sense of balance and tolerance and good sense, woven together in the beauty of holiness. All of this enables us to be a Christ-centered church deeply engaged with the world and its needs.
Do you support George Werner's proposal to have future Presiding Bishops elected by both the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies?
I think that needs a lot of conversation and study. We have obviously done it this way for 200 years, but that does not necessarily mean that we need to do it this way forever. I also think that it is important that the person that we choose is not an Archbishop but a Presiding Bishop. That is a different office.
There are some dangers of going the other way. We might communicate that the office has more power than it now has.
Exactly. The President of the House of Deputies has considerable power, and the bishops don't elect that person. Maybe the bicameral system is pretty good.
Interview with the Rt. Rev. Stacy F. Sauls, Bishop of Lexington
April 20, 2006, 1:00 p.m. EDT
If a gay or lesbian person is elected on your watch, would you consent to the election?
If a gay or lesbian person is elected on your watch, would you be willing to serve as key consecrator?
Those are good questions, and they are hard. I had rather not speculate about a particular action in a particular election. I was convinced three years ago that there was no reason to withhold consents to Gene Robinson's consecration, and I have not been convinced that I was wrong about that.
The somewhat new wrinkle is the amount of turmoil in the Communion, but I think people would have to say that we went into that with our eyes open three years ago. We were certainly told it would happen, and I don't think that has really been a surprise. I factored that into my thinking last time. I am not convinced that I did the wrong thing before, and as a matter of integrity, I don't see how I would do something different.
Everyone who becomes a primate, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, suddenly is no long the Bishop of X, but the Bishop of all those places. You would be the Presiding Bishop of San Joaquin. How do you see that affecting what you could or could not do that maybe you can do now as Bishop of Lexington?
In some ways it may not be so different. Although I don't think that Lexington is in the same place as I understand the Diocese of San Joaquin to be. If there had been an electronic voting machine in the pews on the Sunday we voted on consents to New Hampshire, the people in the Diocese of Lexington would have voted differently than I did and would probably preferred a different result.
What I mean in saying that the two dioceses may not be so different is that as bishop the only thing that you can do is offer people who you are, including what you think. It would be a disservice to the people of a conservative diocese and to the people of my own diocese not to be true to my own conscience. That doesn't mean they have to agree with my conscience. I don't see how I could be in relationship if I were to behave otherwise.
How would you heal the unhappy divisions?
I have certainly not healed them so far and I am not going to be able to by myself, but I have done a lot of work in that regard in the House of Bishops and also in this diocese.
There are two aspects to it. One I have already mentioned: it is incumbent upon the leader to state a position as articulately as possible and at the same time bring all of his or her energies to stay connected to others, especially those who disagree with that position. Doing those two things simultaneously will take us a long way down the road.
|  | |
|
| |
| ||
Are there limits to behaviors of bishops that you would not tolerate? For example, one of the things that has many of us concerned is rumors that some bishops don't attend and if they attend, they don't take communion.
Yes, there are limits, and I can certainly rattle of a number of offenses that I would not tolerate, like sexual abuse of minors. But more within the context of the example you gave, I can tell you that that grieves me deeply, but the Presiding Bishops does not have authority to do much about it, because there is only so much responsibility that the Presiding Bishop can take for the behavior of others. That's not something that I would try to do something about, except improving the atmosphere in the House, but not directly.
How would you go about improving the atmosphere in the House?
There is a sense maybe across the spectrum that the House of Bishops may not be a safe place to be. I notice that from our conservative colleagues who say that the minute we start talking about justice, they feel shut down, but the more liberal members of the House, who constitute the majority at the moment, could say the same thing when the conservatives talk about orthodoxy and morality. I think we are in a pattern of using catch phrases to lock others out of the conversation.
Is it because we are in a win/lose model instead of a model of embracing diversity?
I think so. One thing that I think is the answer to this is calling us to remember the Elizabethan Settlement, which is constitutionally as foundational to Anglicanism as the Windsor Report.
In regard to the Anglican Communion, the Presiding Bishop will need a whole new wardrobe of asbestoswear. It almost makes me wonder why anyone with a right mind would want to be a nominee.
[Laughter] I have thought about that.
I have a good supply but all of it is singed.
[Laughter] Well used.
And a little too large for any of the nominees.
What would you see as your role at the Primates meetings?
The role must begin with listening. The Presiding Bishop is going to be the new person in the room, and I have learned that when you are the new person there are underlying levels of the conversation that you just have to pick up over time. At the same time, I think our Presiding Bishop needs to take what seems to be the position of the Episcopal Church and represent that position as our position. The Presiding Bishop can foster healthy relationships with other primates, which does not mean backing down on our position, but being open to the fact that others have a contrary position and may be right.
The new primate will very soon be senior to those coming on.
That may well be true.
So in forging relationships, you'll be forging them as you do in the House of Bishops, and you will fairly soon be in the senior half of the body.
It did not take me long to find my voice in the House of Bishops, and I don't think it would take me long to find it at the primates meetings. I would not go into the meetings arrogantly.
What would be your role with the Executive Council? I have shared with you my own concerns that I think that body has much more talent than is tapped. I don't put the blame particularly on +Frank [Griswold], but it is the way that the last three Presiding Bishops have responded to it. It has become much more of a passive than an active body.
I do think you are onto something with the change in that. I would really like to see us take the next triennium to devote ourselves to retooling the operation. I know for example that the committee structure on Executive Council, the structure of standing commissions, and the structure of the Church Center staff are in no way related. It would seem to me that we could work much better in concert with one another, with the Executive Council probably taking the lead. If we re-thought that and brought the structures somewhat into line with each other.
As a grammarian, I did a study in about the second year that I was on Council, of the verbs that come in sentences where 'Executive Council' is the subject in the Constitution & Canons and compared it with the ones in the Handbook. Almost all the verbs in the Handbook are passive and indicate passivity. Almost all the verbs in the Constitution & Canonsare active. For example, the Constitution & Canons stresses that Executive Council will "initiate programs."
That's a very interesting observation. The way that I phrased a similar question in the past is "who is the keeper of the vision of the Episcopal Church?" There is not a clear answer to that at all. You would have to say that General Convention has some role there, and indeed, the canons make Executive Council accountable to General Convention and charge Executive Council with implementing the program of General Convention. Executive Council is the more immediate keeper of the vision, and I think you can make the argument that the staff sees itself as the locus of the vision of the Episcopal Church.
And we [Executive Council] are the rubber stamp, to call them on it if they get way out of line.
Yes.
I do hope you will work on that. I think it is best not to think of it in terms of territoriality, though there is some precious real estate, but using the talents that are there to enrich the vision and the program of the church.
Absolutely. I think we are working not quite a cross purposes but on different pages, which serves to keep the energy divided, and because it is divided, subject to something that I cannot quite identify.
I encourage you to have more transparency than we have had. The last significant office at the Church Center to get a web presence was the Treasurer's Office. It should have been the first.
I agree.
I don't fault the Treasurer particularly. I think that he was operating within the mindset of the Management Team, that doesn't want questions.
You are probably right.
My audience for this article is The Witness, and of course that is primarily the progressives of the church. What would you bring to the office of Presiding Bishop that would be of particular importance to progressives?
I think I am one, though I guess you can define progressive in lots of ways, and it goes astray the way lots of labels start to run astray.
I bring a commitment to the direction in which we are going that I am not willing to negotiate away. I am willing to work with all my energies to build bridges to people who are not happy with the direction where we are going. We need each other.
The 26th Presiding Bishop may be the last to be elected only by the House of Bishops. Do you support Dean George Werner's initiative to have subsequent Presiding Bishops elected by both Houses?
I certainly support taking a look at it, and I would see that as a part of the effort over the next triennium to take a look at how things are done from top to bottom all the way through.
I have some questions about whether there would be some unintended effects in doing that, particularly whether it might inadvertently give the Presiding Bishop a prominence in the whole church that we might not need to happen.
An archbishop through the back door?
Yes, an archbishop through the back door.
That was I believe part of the reason for the House of Deputies turning down a similar proposal in 1997 when the House of Bishops approved it.
It's one of those things that sounds quite right on the surface. What it may be doing is calling us to look closely at what our process is and making adjustments to it. I am not in theory opposed to it, I just want to make certain that we don't inadvertently do something that we didn't mean to do.
What is your Myers-Briggs score?
I am an ISTJ.
I am an ENTJ. I am not surprised we are both the same on the latter two, especially since you are a lawyer, and most bishops, I think, are J's.
I don't know across the House, but among my closest contemporaries, that's not true. I was surprised by that. We did this thing with the Lutherans
[Laughter] I would never have thought that. I thought it would be exactly the opposite, that they would be the 'P's" in 'sinning boldly'!
Is there anything that I have not asked you that you would particularly like to comment on?
I am fairly hopeful about our life. I am not in denial that we have some serious problems, but being on the ground, I see lots of positive things happening in the life of the Diocese of Lexington and other places in the church. We are eventually going to be okay.
In the last five days I have called 100 parishes, one for each domestic diocese, using parishes of deputies randomly chosen by the computer, asking "Are gays and lesbians welcome in your parish?" Hearing their answers has made me realize how exciting this church is and how it has changed. While there were some pretty bad responses, they were in predictable places and very few.
We have had a terrible situation at Cumberland College, a Baptist school, where a student revealed that he was gay on his myspace website talked about a romantic interest he had, and the school immediately expelled him. They called him in one afternoon and he was gone that night. The local press has given prominent attention to the matter.
I preached a sermon on Easter Sunday about how the Resurrection necessarily implies change. Living into the Resurrection necessarily requires being open to change. I didn't mention anything about the gay or lesbian issue, although I certainly thought it applied. What struck me as very interesting was the number of people afterwards who made the connection without me having to make it for them, and brought up the Cumberland College case because it has been so prominent in the news. I thought it was a pretty hopeful sign.
Louie Crew is a writer and a well-known collector and disseminator of statistics and little-known facts about the Anglican Communion, which may be found on his website. He is a contributing editor to The Witness and publishes a regular column. Louie may be reached by email at lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu.