Yep, Mainline Leadership is Killing the Church (Reassessing a Previous Blog)

i like your thoughts a lot, Ed. Thanks.

I appreciate, if nothing else, the call to reflect on simplicity in this post. Vestments, rings, etc. are not necessarily wrong, and they may even take on a very good symbolic meaning. However, I think the deeper question is whether or not some "good" things need to be set aside for "better" things. The trouble will come in debating what is better than what, but I think we can agree that the church still has a significant role to play in meeting the physical needs of our world because the Gospel speaks to both our spiritual and physical situation. I'm not Episcopal, but I wonder what would happen if the ordination took place in the meeting hall of a homeless shelter or in the chapel of a prison? What if the ordination took place where we're supposed to be ministering anyway? If you have a relatively new prison, you may find that the chapel is a pretty nice place anyway! The chapel at the prison I visit is quite nice. :)

Why is it that we Episcopalians can't seem to be civil on blogs? I don't know Kevin what gave you the gumption to make such huge assumptions about Deacon Hall's parish priest but it was unnecessary. I'm not even a progressive and I didn't feel the need to bring up bishop elect Glasspool's sex or sexuality.

If I may respond a bit for myself, too, one of the main reasons I am Episcopal is because of its dependence on ceremony, in fact, a unified ceremony. That's one of the high points of this Church, as I thought I'd made clear. Nor am I opposed, as the saying goes, to the bells and whistles. All the better! The blog, then, is really a matter of two questions for me. How much do these bells and whistles cost as compared to how much the church has? And, where should the bells and whistles be located. With regard to the latter, I am non-Episcopal enough (or at least what it means in relationship to this occasion) to say that the bells and whistles belong in the parish first and, if there's leftover, the diocese. Such is my point with calling the Bishop a pastor of pastors; only when this is recognized can a healthy relationship between bishops and what they need and parishes be set in place. As I already said, I strongly believe that the parish is where the life of the church is, even if that's not where it's been defined in the traditional Episcopal understanding of things. Secondly, we also have to ask which bells and whistles are necessary for the functioning, not of the diocese, but of the parish. And, frankly, I'm not sure. That depends, I suppose, on the parish and what the people expect. I tend to think that one of the still attractive things about the Epsicopal church is that it has beautiful services. That's, in fact, an outreach tool, in my mind. But, again, outreach is usually really done at the parish level, at best supplemented by the diocese. As Julian has already mentioned, too, our rector is a woman. Moreover, ours is a parish where both women and homosexuals are welcomed as equals, and both I, the rest of the Vestry, and our rector stand with the parish on these points. The reason I say that is because, if I may be frank, you'e hit a sore spot for me: be careful that you don't project national political issues and the usual talking points for these "hot button" items onto the living and breathing parishes, who are all too often not as classifiable as the usual pundits would like them to be. Based on the thoughtfulness of your response, my guess is that you don't usually do that. But you have, here. That said, the stand I am making is one against the excesses of diocesan self-aggrandizement and diocesan pomp.

Thanks for your responses, Kevin and Julian. You've both said some things that I need to reflect on, too. To be honest, Julian, you've written this blog better than I did.

Hi Deacon, Are you going to tell Kevin Matthews that your rector is a woman, and that the objection is not to two women being consecrated but to the extravagant cost incurred that congregations ex post facto are now being strongly invited to share? In the information received from the Diocese of Los Angeles, it is one suffragan-elect's ring that is specifically mentioned; for the other suffragan-elect iit is specifically the episcopal vestments. Perhaps it IS traditional for families and friends to bear this cost: however, in this case, the congregations and the clergy of the diocese are being solicited for funds to pay for these gifts. Congregations are also being solicited to share in the cost of the ceremony at the Long Beach Arena (not a cheap location) and the accoutrements of the ceremony itself, plus the reception for probably at least 7,000 people. You are correct in saying that most congregations in the diocese which are paying their full assessment are struggling to do so, and struggling to do so in spite of the fact that many other congregations are not even coming close to paying a full assessment for the operational budget of the diocese. While it's true that the solicitation from the diocese is being expressed as an invitation, it's an invitation that comes with a not-so-subtle guilt trip packed into it IF the congregation does not choose to participate. It's that sort of top-down use - or misuse by assumption of the right to ask with a guilt trip implied - of power that your blog really addresses, and one of the primary reasons that some people are seeing denominational and hierarchical churches as not only irrelevant but damaging to the whole of Christianity. I am an Anglican of decades-long membership and activity. I remember well when our bishops were primarily pastors to the clergy, pastors to the postulants and candidates for Orders, annual Visitors to congregations so that each congregation was connected directly and viscerally with the diocese through the person of the Bishop each year. The work of the Bishop was almost all done within the diocese: politicking and schmoozing and meeting several times a year with other Bishops and without the other Orders (lay, diaconal, presbyteral) represented. In those meetings the Bishops solemnly deliberate and then disseminate lengthy pastoral letters as though the Bishops were the primary voice of leadership for the Church were not among the time-consuming actions of Bishops. Personally, I deeply respect and delight in our Diocesan Bishop. I'm sure in Los Angeles, almost all will come to respect and delight in the two who are about to be consecrated Suffragan. But that's not the point of your blog. And for Kevin Matthews to twist the focus of your blog toward whether or not your rector likes women bishops is to miss the point. So let's reiterate: the point is that in a difficult economic time, the Diocese of Los Angeles leadership has committed to a huge and unnecessarily expensive extravaganza for the consecration of two suffragans and now wishes to have that cost shared by congregations who had no input into the celebration arrangements. The question is not "Do Anglicans stand too much on ceremony?" NOr is the question, "Why doesn't your congregation want to feast and celebrate as Jesus did?" For sure, consecrations are a special time. For a diocese, not for the whole world. I was at one consecration held in a lovely outdoor location that was offered to a diocese gratis. The reception was token food and beverages, not a flamboyant repast. Other arrangements were in keeping with the diocesan wallet. The question is, "Is the Diocese of Los Angeles spending too much money that they don't really have, and then seeking to make up shortfall by pushing for contributions?" This smacks more of the 3 or more 'free will' offerings that sometimes appear in congregations in which some leaders produce tins or baskets and loudly praise those who fork over and berate those who cannot or choose not to give again beyond what they have already sacrificed to do.

Fellow Deacon, as much as there is merit to what you say, there are also a few missing pieces here. You are about to ordain the first openly partnered lesbian in the Anglican Communion, an event that will be a major witness to the diocese and the rest of the world, and one that would be unlikely to fit into any church building you have. You may or may not like that reality, but it is part of what is happening here. I suspect, however, that your rector does not like this--or the fact that you are consecrating not one but two women on that day. Otherwise, he would have been more honest and said that most of the vestments, rings, etc. are given by family, friends, and home parishes of the soon to be bishops. The parishes of the diocese usually like to participate in giving one piece of the puzzle (or two in this case) as a sign of their support for the new bishop(s). Big church events are not inherently evil, even when they cost more money than most of us would like--and yes, I do wince at the cost of these things too, but sometimes you have to spend it; Jesus was not anti feasting on occasion, and this one comes along only once in several years. Does the Anglican communion stand too much on ceremony sometimes? Absolutely! But given the diocese you are in and the number of creative responses to homelessness, immigrants, education, evangelism, etc. that they are doing, it hardly seems fair to characterize them only as concerned with ceremony. A solution that might ease your conscience a bit? How about the vestry decide to take a free will offering from the congregation separate from the regular giving, with a promise that 50% will go towards a local outreach project?

Ah the bishops indeed.

Ha! You're right to call me out on that use of "brand;" it was a bit snarky :) I like your response and the way you've posed it. I think I may have misstated myself, however. It's precisely something like the creed I think is absolutely necessary, though I'll phrase it in less intellectualist terms. In this regard, an a priori commitment to Christ, his divinity, and his role in salvation seem necessary, although I'm not sure if I can affirm the Nicene to have gotten it absolutely correct. Since you're more Anglo-Catholic, I suppose I'd be more Anglo-Lutheran, and this discussion may in fact come down to the debate between Lutheran and Catholic interpretation of Christ. Which, if I may read into your position and one which I'm in agreement with, we're able to do in this tradition, so long as we take that initial Creed seriously in the first place. I'm glad that you're dedicated to the Episcopal church, by the way. I grow closer to that position. At this point, only the Bishops can actually drive me away!

Well Deacon, I imagine that if you asked that to 5 different Episcopalians you'd get 6 different answers, not that there's anything wrong with that :) Judging by your post I'd answer that I'd be in a decidedly more 'traditional' camp than yourself, being as I am rather firmly on the 'anglo-catholic' side of things. So I'd say yes, it ought to be a true confessional boundary to what Episcopalians need to affirm by virtue of being baptized into the Church. (Of course everybody has doubts, etc... It's not like one needs to consciously assent with no shadow of turning for every waking moment of every day else one becomes a heretic, but it is of more than antiquarian interest) But again, 'the truth is that I ... do have a priori commitment to this “brand” of church.'

Great points, all around. Also, I agree that the creeds we say, Nicene or Apostolic, are not optional. But my question is (and it is a real question without a predetermined answer) whether the are non-optional in a confessional manner or a liturgical/historical manner. That is, do we have to believe it as it stands or is it a reference to our historical lineage bound up in the liturgy as such. I think that you're ultimately right about the creed's role insofar as the creed expresses an identity between Father, Son, Spirit, as God and the Church; I've argued previously, against more liberal trends, that some such recognition of identity is absolutely necessary. Though I'd question the exact formulation. (In my more Lutheran turn, the identities may not go far enough for me.) Any more thoughts you have are welcome!

As an Episcopalian I am grateful for your bringing this up and agree with all your points. It is deeply ironic in a very bad way that we constantly wax eloquent about how much we care about "social justice" et. al. but refuse to face up to drying budgets, lack of mission, and the fact that we are the white upper crust denomination still trying to save face with proper vestments. Though I wouldn't say we have no creedal foundation; the Nicene Creed is not "optional."