Episcopal Press and News
Address from the Vice Chair to Executive Council
Episcopal News Service. June 26, 1996 [96-1514]
Pamela P. Chinnis, President of the House of Deputies
It's good to see you all again as we continue our bumpy ride through this triennium. Just thirteen months from now we will all be packing for Philadelphia, for a General Convention bound to be more than usually momentous. Looming over it will be the election of a new Presiding Bishop -- a decision that will be widely interpreted as an indication of the direction we wish to take as we enter the 21st Century.
Despite a popular myth that we have alternated between liberals and conservatives, all but one of those elected as full-time presiding bishops -- Henry Knox Sherrill, Arthur Lichtenberger, John Hines, John Allin and Ed Browning -- were accused of being "too liberal." Obviously, labels like"liberal" or "conservative," "traditionalist" or "progressive," are at best simplistic and misleading.
The fact that we continue to use such labels reflects our awareness that there are radical differences within our ranks. As long as we are Anglicans, this will be the case. We are not called to an enforced unanimity that would make labels useless, but to a love that resists using labels as weapons, and a generosity of spirit willing to tolerate ambiguity and conflict no matter how painful it gets.
It is getting very painful.
The limits of our willingness to endure ambiguity and conflict are being sorely tested. This is not, in itself, a bad thing. The whole world is being sorely tested, as ethnic, economic, religious and political conflicts proliferate around the globe. The church cannot escape pressure in this era of instant communication and multi-national everything. Instead we must respond with the resources of our faith:
- a dogged love for each other,
- an unwavering hope in the promises of Christ, and
- an absolute conviction that God wills the reconciliation of all.
With God's grace we can use these resources to offer the world a model for promoting justice while maintaining unity and peace.
Decisions made as we prepare for Philadelphia will shape the context and atmosphere within which the Convention will act. Structure and finances are the major areas in which our institutional life is being put to the test, even though more attention is given to "issues" like ordination, sexuality, and how we use the Anglican trio of Scripture, tradition and reason to discern the will of God.
How we make decisions about those issues depends on our openness to God's grace -- and I hope we will be able to recreate the gracious spirit of the House of Deputies in Indianapolis. Making and implementing decisions also depends on the organizational and financial structures of the institutional church.
As you know, these structures are in transition. Major reforms of the legislative process began in 1994. The Executive Council and PB&F (the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance) have worked with a series of Treasurers to streamline financial systems. The staff of the Church Center has been reduced and reorganized, with certain responsibilities reassigned to provincial and diocesan groups. I am very proud of the work done by so many groups and individuals thus far, and I am generally optimistic about the next steps.
However, I want to register a caution as interim bodies -- including Executive Council -- prepare recommendations and resolutions for the 1997 Blue Book. We need to be careful not to confuse the legislative with the executive aspects of our organization.
Only the General Convention can legislate for the whole church. Only its officers can govern us, and only within the bounds set by the Convention. The Trial Court in the case of Bishop Righter made very clear that neither a court, nor the House of Bishops or Deputies acting separately, nor any group of individual bishops, clergy or laity, nor any staff unit, and certainly no single individual -- has authority to impose a decision on the rest of us.
We think of ourselves as a hierarchical institution, and I suppose liturgically we are. But our polity protects us from rules and decisions handed down from "above." We rely instead on democratic legislative processes for decision-making, and parliamentary procedure that encourages the contribution of all points of view to the discussion. We also take our time about it, meeting for decision-making only once every three years, and requiring two consecutive votes on many topics.
Between Conventions, Standing Commissions and Committees created by the Convention study emerging issues and prepare recommendations for the next legislative gathering. That's the legislative aspect of our organizational life.
Complementing it is an administrative structure through which officers and staff, dioceses, agencies and individual Episcopalians implement the decisions made by the Convention. Some involve governance, such as creating new dioceses and consecrating bishops, certifying the prayer book and updating the canons. Others involve the mission of the church: supporting missionaries, investing funds responsibly and communicating church policy to civic authorities, maintaining networks for youth ministry and evangelism, theological education and stewardship.
The Executive Council stands at the intersection, responsible for overseeing implementation of Convention decisions about both governance and mission, and for monitoring the policy studies of interim bodies. It is a complex arrangement requiring continual adjustment. but its evolution over the 75 years since the Council was created has served us pretty well.
However, you've probably noticed that I've left out a few things. Our national structures do not divide neatly into policy and program units. Again and again the line between recommending policy and implementing program has proven elusive. Again and again we have set up entities to handle policy and program in specific areas on behalf of the whole church: the Church Pension Group, Forward Movement Publications, the General Board of Examining Chaplains, the Council for the Development of Ministry, the Board for Theological Education, and many others. We recently invented another hybrid policy/program category, "committees reporting to the Presiding Bishop and Council" such as Racism, now subsumed under JPIC (Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation) and the Status of Women.
Some of these are canonical and others exist simply by virtue of Convention resolutions. Some, like the Pension Group and Forward Movement, operate as fully independent agencies. Some function more as staff-assisted networks -- the Council for the Development of Ministry and the BTE, for example. Some are fully in the hans of the volunteers appointed to serve on them, like most Standing Commissions and Committees, while others have become staff-directed programs with volunteer advisory boards.
The Structure Commission is trying to sort out this muddle. I'm eager to see the recommendations they will be circulating for comment after their meeting next week. Their focus begins with Convention and the policy-making responsibilities of its interim bodies, but necessarily spills over into program areas.
The World Mission Commission is pondering these issues from a different starting point. Alarmed by a 1994 threat to eliminate appointed missionaries from the Program Budget, the House of Deputies approved Resolution D016a, authorizing World Mission to work on a theology of mission and to recommend new strategies for continuing the work of the Church's official sending agency, the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society itself. Although the House of Bishops never took final action on D016a, Council authorized the Commission to proceed since the study had been included in the budget approved by both Houses.
Some of you may have seen the resulting "vision" paper the World Mission Commission is circulating for comment. It picks up on the current pressure for decentralization and goes well beyond D016a to address all the program support services provided by the Society through the Episcopal Church Center.
World Mission comes at structural questions from the program side, while the Structure Commission starts from the policy side. Ultimately, the Convention itself will have to determine how the two fit together. Executive Council and PB&F have a particular responsibility to be aware of these developments when determining our own recommendations to General Convention. I want to mention two aspects of "structure" to keep in mind in this process.
First, let me build on a spirited discussion at PB&F last month about the consolidated budget. As I indicated to Council in February, I have had some misgivings about this approach because it risks confusing our governance and program functions. In addition, eliminating the Assessment and consolidating the Convention Budget and the Program Budget into a single Asking can appear to make diocesan financial support of our governing body and the Primate voluntary. I don't believe that's what we intend.
The canons presently require funding the General Convention Budget through mandatory assessments to every diocese, linking participation in our government with financial support for it. If we change the canons to authorize a consolidated budget, we must be very careful not to alter the fundamental nature of the covenant between the Episcopal Church in the USA and its constituent dioceses.
The consolidated budget is an approach to the question, how do we make sure we can pay for program? Bishop Browning has argued eloquently about the importance of program to the life of the Church, and I second his view enthusiastically. There are many aspects of our ministry and witness that benefit from the coordination and expertise possible when we pool resources for a common effort. But there can be no program without an authorized agency to carry it out, and there can be no agency without a strong General Convention to authorize it and provide financial resources.
It is helpful to remember that this is an old, old debate. From the moment the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society was established in 1820 it "competed" with dioceses for financial support of program. Some bishops refused to authorize chapters of the Society in their dioceses, fearing they would drain off funds from local work. Others recognized the value of cooperative effort and supported "national" programs for missionary sending and religious education, but the tension remained.
A hundred years later, when Council was formed to administer consolidated programs for missionaries, religious education and social service under the umbrella of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, opponents argued that "bureaucracy" would eat up funds needed for local ministry. When the Presiding Bishop's job became a full-time thing, the same argument was made. In the 1950's -- which so many like to think of as the golden age of the American Church -- a letter in The Living Church complained: "The Church is being taken out of the hands of its members, and being made the property of a small, clever, liberal clique who try to impose their partisan policies on everyone..." (The Living Church, October 12, 1958, p. 16-17; as quoted in The Role of the Presiding Bishop by Roland Foster, Forward Movement, 1982, p. 101).
Does this sound familiar?!
Conflicts about structure and budgets, and radical proposals to change them, are fueled by disagreements about other matters. We all know this but are usually reluctant to name it. I think we must. We must recognize this dynamic as part of the process, in order to make good decisions about structure and money.
The traditionalists are clear about it. For years, traditionalist organizations have wielded financial clubs and tried to create alternative structures -- a "church within the church" -- whenever the established structures produced decisions they opposed. The Episcopal Synod of America has long sought an independent jurisdiction to protect its opposition to the ordination of women. The new American Anglican Congress takes a similar approach in connection with sexuality.
Some of these efforts are responses to decisions of the whole General Convention, while others react to events in the House of Bishops. Minority bishops issued sharp protests following both the bishops' vote last fall about the acceptance of the ordination of women and last month's Righter court ruling, vowing to continue the search for alternative structures to avoid accepting the majority view, and naming diversion of funds as a tool in that process.
They know that structure and money are both about the power to make decisions, decisions that shape what this Church is and how it will witness to the Gospel in our time. It's silly for the rest of us not to acknowledge the same thing.
Disagreements about policy based on conflicting theologies, and the resulting attacks on program, are inextricably entwined with debates about organizational and financial structures. Let's not be afraid to name this and deal with it forthrightly. Whatever "label" others might ascribe to our personal commitments, all of us have an interest in protecting the bonds between dioceses and the governing structure that enables us to function as the Episcopal Church in the USA.
There are threats to our unity from many sides. If we allow these to make us defensive, hostile or resistant to change, the institutional cost will be very high indeed. Instead, let's remember that our only true unity lies in the love of God, the hope of the resurrection, and the power of the Holy Spirit. Our call as leaders and stewards of the institutional church has meaning only if we hold fast to our primary identity as members of the Body of Christ. If we trust in that unity, surely God's grace will lead us to right decisions, no matter how painful the process.
I close with a heartfelt expression of affection and gratitude to Bishop Browning and to each of you -- no one could ask for better companions for what is sometimes a frustrating and painful journey. Thank you!
Pamela P. Chinnis, President of the House of Deputies
Charleston, West Virginia
June 11, 1996