wfn.org | ADDRESS FROM THE VICE CHAIR TO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

[ENS.parti@ecunet.org]

TITLE:ADDRESS FROM THE VICE CHAIR TO EXEC
June 26, 1996
Episcopal News Service
James Solheim, Director
(212) 922-5385
ens@ecunet.org

96-1514
ADDRESS FROM THE VICE CHAIR TO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

THE ROAD TO PHILADELPHIA
           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.

A TIME OF TESTING
           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: 
           þ a dogged love for each other, 
           þ an unwavering hope in the promises of Christ, and 
           þ 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.

STRUCTURE VIS A VIS ISSUES
           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. 

A CAUTION
           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.

THE GOVERNANCE/ADMINISTRATION TEST: POLICY OR PROGRAM?
           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.

STRUCTURE AND WORLD MISSION COMMISSIONS EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES
           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.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET
           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?!

THE POLITICS OF STRUCTURE
           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