Episcopal Press and News
The Presiding Bishop's Address from the Chair Executive Council of the Episcopal Church New York November 2, 1990
Episcopal News Service. November 8, 1990 [90298]
Let me begin our time together this morning by sharing a half dozen or so provocative thoughts, all gleaned from the life of our church in the last few weeks:
If religion is a purely private matter [as many people misguidedly suppose], and essentially a matter of subjective feeling, then one person's feelings are as valid as another -- there is nothing objective against which to test them. Thus there can be no such thing as authority in religion. Indeed, to individualistic Americans there is little sense of valid authority in any sphere.... It is... an exacting discipline to try to be the church in a culture such as ours...[for]...it is...necessary to demonstrate, in the face of cultural skepticism, what a community of loyal and committed believers is really like.
...[T]o be a person, in the image of the persons of the Trinity, is to be neither an individual nor a part of a collective. It is to be one who is irreplaceable to another, so that my identity is bound up with your identity, but not lost in it; and your identity is bound up with mine, but not lost in it. So that the particularity of each is sustained, even generated, by their relationships.
We have been called to recognize that, no matter how deeply each of us may feel about homosexuality, there are other people of good faith who also take seriously the authority of Scripture and may conclude differently. We have been called to recognize that we cannot carry out our ministry if we each simply assume that we already have the whole truth and nothing at all to learn. We call on you to share our recognition of the inherent faithlessness of a closed mind, one that blocks God from illuminating old truths in a fresh way, from calling us to new understandings or from leading us into new ways of thinking.
We see in what is being called the "environmental crisis" a challenge of far greater proportion. Environmental integrity and economic justice are inseparable. Oppression of Earth's natural systems is intimately linked to exploitation of its poorest people. Abuse of God's handicraft is the direct result of the mindless pursuit of profit and addictions of consumption, primarily among the world's wealthiest. Neglect of land, sky and water reflects alienation of humans from one another.
Have we not sent our young men and women to the Gulf, as our president has said, to "protect the American way of life"? But what way of life is it that allows the homeless and unemployed to huddle on our streets and our inner cities to decay? Is it possible that the "American way of life" -- unbridled consumption -- has not become for many millions a "way of death," unendurable poverty? Let us examine our national priorities and our addiction to unnecessary consumption. Let us be the nation we imagine ourselves to be -- a beacon to the world's poor, a standard-bearer for justice and peace.
Evangelism begins with listening.... Jesus gives us the model in his own struggle to be present and listening to all whom he encountered.... We commend to the church the necessity of creating a prayerful environment for listening so that persons may be honored and welcomed, affirming diversity of expression and bonding to God in truth.
How have these very different threads come together for me? I would summarize them as follows: The crisis of authority in a deeply individualistic and consumerist culture. Personhood in the image of the Trinity. Living together and ministering to a broken world even in the brokenness of our own body. The inescapable unity of all the earth's creatures. Obedience to our Lord as first a matter of hearing and listening. The dangerous delusion of national omnipotence.
These are themes that speak to us all -- particularly those of us charged with leadership in the church.
Two weeks from now, when you pray the collect "Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them," I hope you will apply that beautiful prayer not only to the Holy Scriptures, but also, perhaps, to what you have just heard. For if we do not come to understand, at the deepest levels of our being, the radically interdependent nature of our life together -- as a church, as a nation, as a family of nations, as a planet and ecosystem -- then, in a profoundly concrete way, we have no future.
Do you think I exaggerate? I think it is simple reality. If we are to lead, we must do so with legitimate authority. If we are to speak with such authority within our own household, it must be with the authority of those who, like Jesus, persuade, not merely manipulate. If we are to speak with authority to the world, we must first be seen to be a true community, where each member is heard and honored and cherished, where faith and love and respect are realities and not mere words.
Let's be straightforward. Suppose we performed an audit of our exercise of leadership, of the way we approach issues of substance. What would that audit demonstrate? Would it demonstrate an unflagging concern for the common good? Would it show that we speak with integrity and honesty from within our own body? Would it show that we honor the Lord of the poor and the oppressed? Would it show that we act as faithful people who look to the future in hope? Would our audit, in a word, demonstrate the authority of the people of God?
Think about that with me for awhile as I reflect on three current issues in our life together. These are matters that affect not only our internal life as a Christian community; perhaps more important, they affect our ministry and our mission in the world. One is the issue of how we deal with homosexuality and how we relate to gay, lesbian, and other members of our community. Another is the issue of faithful witness regarding the environment and economic justice. Another is the crisis that confronts the global community in the Middle East.
There are of course many other matters of importance to our church. I hope that what I say about these three particular issues will spark your own reflections. That is what I always hope for as I address you at the beginning of each council meeting: that we take time to reflect together -- to think and pray together -- about issues of substance and urgency.
Many positive things happened when the House of Bishops took up the topic that is so much before our society and our church -- that of homosexuality. Though we only spent a few brief hours on the subject, it was time well spent. Most important, I believe that the bishops have offered something of wisdom and substance to the church in the statement that was produced (which I believe you have all seen in the Episcopal News Service).
What did the bishops do? We agreed that the church is not in agreement on the subject of homosexuality. To some, that will sound like a typical Anglican waffle. I believe it is an honest confession of where we are as a church.
For the House of Bishops did not leave the matter there. The house wanted to model for the church how a body in deep disagreement, with firmly held opinions on all sides, could wrestle with a complicated issue and together produce positive pastoral guidance. I believe the bishops accomplished that.
I ask, how different is the House of Bishops from the church at large? The bishops have taken the high road, and it is my hope that the rest of the church will do so as well. If we are to speak with authority -- both to our own people and to the larger community -- then we must somehow begin as the bishops have begun: with honest sharing, sensitive listening, and forthright speaking. I am convinced that God is calling us to be more than we are, and I am convinced that God is faithful to all who follow that call.
Dear friends, the issue of the ordination of gays and lesbians is not going to be settled anytime soon. And, during our time of struggle, no one is likely to be entirely happy. We will have those who see that justice is not being done by our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. We will have those who believe that what they see as sin according to Scripture is not being named as such. No one is going to be entirely happy or comfortable. But I remind you that we are not called to be comfortable. We are called to be faithful. To be faithful at this time in our life together, I believe, is, like Jacob at the Jabbok, to wrestle, to struggle. It is not seeking to vanquish the other side. It is not trying to legislate the problem away.
It will not surprise you to know that I am pressed for my opinion on this issue, as if that would win the day one way or the other. It will not surprise you to know that some -- such as Episcopalians United -- claim to have pinned me down. Don't believe everything you read; and certainly don't believe Episcopalian United claims in their fund-raising literature!
It is not that I don't have an opinion. It is that I have a larger vision -- a vision of a faithful church, honestly seeking God's will, tending pastorally and lovingly to those in its own fellowship who are wounded in the struggle. That is my vision, and I will not let it grow dim. I will not cease to hold it before you.
In your packets for this meeting you received the report of the Presiding Bishop's Consultation on the Environment and Sustainrable Development.
I think this is a remarkable and challenging report, and I am tremendously grateful to the participants in the consultation for the riches they have laid before us. (I must tell you that I found Bennett Sims's reflections on the relevance of Trinitarian theology to the environmental crisis to be particularly compelling.) The best way we can show our gratitude to the consultation's participants is to take the report seriously. I do, and I make the following remarks as a way of commending this document to you.
The core affirmation of the report for me is the assertion that environmental integrity and economic justice are one. Common sense -- as well as theological reflection -- tells you they cannot be separated. And yet, I am afraid that is what typically happens. Too often, to people who are suffering from economic injustice, talk about the environment sounds like a middle-class neurosis, a luxury, irrelevant to immediate concerns for survival. (Ask those who were in Seoul for the JPIC [Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation] Convocation; they will tell you precisely this.)
The report of the consultation therefore witnesses to the truth by pointing out the linkage between environmental destruction and the destruction of human communities by poverty and neglect. Our love of our natural home, therefore, will always be demonstrated in part by our love for future generations -- particularly for the little ones, the children in crisis.
But I wonder if the report goes much beyond this initial assertion. It seems to me not to have developed the connection between the environment and economic justice as much as it might have. This is important, because the Episcopal Church is poised to take national leadership in its particular approach to economic justice. When I visited the Lilly Endowment in September, I was amazed and gratified to learn that our adoption of the Michigan Plan places us at the forefront of U.S. churches' involvement in issues of economic justice. Let us not fail, then, to demonstrate similar leadership in the consistent linking of economic justice to concern for the larger environment.
The many recommendations of the report you will consider later. Take a critical look at them. Ask yourself, what is the unique role -- if any -- of the church in the environmental crisis? I have a feeling that role may be tied in with our missiology, our Anglican way of speaking about partnership in mission. Are we not in a special position to speak with authority about the reality of global community? About the global nature of issues? The JPIC process is bringing special insights to our thinking about mission. This is a golden opportunity to think and act creatively. Let us not lose such an opportunity.
One of the best things that happened at Fresno for me was the discussion on partners in crisis. We were able, I think, to listen sensitively to concerns from the Philippines and to respond in a helpful and healthy way. We were given up-to-date briefings on the situations in Kenya and Liberia, and we were led to think about how we can best be responsible partners when our partners are in distress or crisis.
Crisis abounds, as we learn every day.
The Liberian tragedy is yet unresolved, although I am afraid it has been eclipsed in our news media by other events. How many people are suffering in silence, out of sight and out of mind? Monrovia has been cut off from the outside world for almost six months now. We know that half a million Liberians are displaced within their own country. Perhaps 5,000 have been killed in the fighting (though we believe that Archbishop George Browne and his family are still safe). What is our ongoing responsibility to this partner in deep distress? Are we doing everything we can do? What more should we be doing?
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait has raised questions the likes of which we have not had to struggle with since the Vietnam War. The House of Bishops tried to deal with some of those questions in a resolution issued at the Washington meeting. That resolution reflected the deep division in the public's opinion on the U.S. role in the Middle East.
I have myself issued a statement, which I trust you all found in the Episcopal News Service release. Response to that statement has been overwhelmingly positive -- if not always in agreement on every point I made, then for the fact that I spoke out as forthrightly as I could on a matter of deep national and international concern.
The response from our partner church in the Middle East has also been entirely positive. When Bishop Samir Kafity of Jerusalem spoke at the House of Bishops meeting, I was afraid he was not being heard. Bishop Kafity refused to see the situation in simplistic terms. He called our attention to the complexity of Middle Eastern history and conflict. He would not separate the Palestinian issue from the Iraqi-Kuwaiti question. He questioned the Western powers' interest in the latter and its neglect of the former and wondered if it didn't have something to do with oil and Western lifestyles. As Professor Bellah reminded us, these are hard questions for a generation raised on cold war rhetoric and whose views of human nature are shaped less by the Bible and more by the Milton Friedman school of economics (that is, the view that sees human beings as exclusively self-interest maximizers).
In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, I reflected on the church's role in public debate of the Persian Gulf crisis. I noted that the special offering of the religious community is a way of approaching the difficult questions of global conflict. We must say and keep saying: "Look at the world in ways that transcend the geopolitical. Look at the world not simply through the lens of expediency or self-interest."
While the religious community -- and here I mean Jewish and Muslim as well as Christian -- may not have all the answers to the problems of a Middle East or a Northern Ireland or a Central America (and who does?), the community of faith does offer a foundation upon which we may ponder the imponderables of human folly. It offers an understanding of moral discourse and the need for prayerful reflection and faithful discernment. It offers access to a wisdom that cannot be summed up in television sound bites.
What shall we say and counsel if we go to war in the Persian Gulf? Are you prepared to reflect prayerfully with me on this question, even amid all the work we already have to do at this meeting on the budget and preparations for General Convention? There are at least half a dozen Episcopal chaplains on active duty in the Persian Gulf, and who knows how many hundreds of other Episcopalians among our men and women there. They look to their church for guidance. What is our word for them?
Much in the manner of issues of sexuality, the questions raised about our nation's role in the world community by the Persian Gulf crisis and the end of the cold war will not soon go away. The questions are deeply moral ones at base, having to do not only with war and peace, but also with the stewardship and allocation of precious resources, human as well as environmental and material. I call our church to exercise its rightful and irreplaceable role in the great public debate now underway. We have much to offer when we speak from the authority of our life in Christ.
Let us, then, out of our authority, make our offerings. Surely it is not a moment too soon.