I should be clear that this is, of course, simply my opinion, not that of the diocese of Rochester, its bishop, nor anyone else in an official position. I share it with gratitude to Kendall for his recent words regarding Bishop Gene’s recent “Open Letter to the LGBT Community from Bishop Gene Robinson”, which I will quote for those who did not see them. Canon Harmon wrote about Bishop Robinson’s letter: “I applaud this truthful witness, and what I believe to be an accurate explanation that the bishops were misunderstood. Why can’t we have more people in this church who are willing to tell the truth?–KSH.”
Though I know Kendall’s position is diametrically opposed to Bishop Robinson’s, it is to his credit that he sees that the way forward for all of us, re-appraiser and re-asserter alike, relies on a willingness to stand by our actions with conviction and honesty, and not by trying to satisfy all by political church-craft, which ultimately satisfies no one and is further weakening the ties that will hopefully remain after a blessed ”˜divorce’ takes place.
Of course there will be the complicated issues of the terms of separation (property, etc.), but first both sides must admit that due to their own sense of calling, the ”˜marriage’ is no longer life-sustaining on either side. I for one am ready to admit this to be the case, and my gut tells me that I may not be alone. I pray that honesty and boldness may lead us all into a new birth, where we may no longer be as intimate as we once were, but will be able to once again see each other as beloved children of Christ, regardless of our divisions.
Perhaps I’m missing something. Clark West’s proposal for divorce is like one where the adulterous spouse gets the house, the car, the bank account, and custody of the kids and the innocent spouse gets out. Both parties are free to have whatever sexual affairs they want. There’s no fairness in that.
If we’re to have divorce I’m content for an equitable division of property, including the endowments.
I don’t understand his proposal. He simply says: “Let’s get divorced,” but does not indicate how to go about disposing of the property and “children.” If it comes to a divorce, I suggest the following:
1. We set up two provinces – each with a new name. Say “The Episcopal Church in America for the reappraisers and the American Episcopal Church for the reasserters (similar to PCA, and PCUSA). Each are allowed full and equal access to ECUSA parachurch organizations and funds such as the Crump Fund and the Church Pension Fund. Clergy will be able to switch between the two provinces.
2. We let each diocese provide the “default” position for its congregations. So, for example, Ft. Worth decides to join the AEC and Newark joins the ECA. All funds and endowments for that diocese go with it.
3. If a congregation is at odds with the decision of its diocese, it can (by a super-majority say 3/4) join the other province.
4. For a period of time (say 2 yrs) after the “split,” churches that have left ECUSA can rejoin one of the “provinces.”
5. Each province will have its own HOB and Primate. All bishops in “continuing” churches that have valid apostolic succession will be allowed to be a bishop in the new province. But, they may have to do double duty as the rector/vicar of a congregation and as a assistant/suffragan bishop in a diocese.
6. Each province will ask that the other be invited to Lambeth and the Primates meetings and to ACC meetings, pending the decisions of those bodies on whom to invite.
7. Endowments and trust funds will be used for the furtherance of both provinces for a period of time (say 5 yrs) and then divided between the two provinces based on ASA or membership or some other mutually agreed on metric.
This will be difficult to do, but I believe it is the best way to acheive such a divorce and minimize the pain and trouble caused.
I don’t want to see a divorce either in a married couple’s life or in the life or the Church. If a divorce is to occur, then we need to be gracious on all sides and not fight this as a battle to be won because, if it comes to divorce, then we have all already lost.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Tom is right about the situation unfortunately. If there is a cry for justice then let there be justice. Why do faithful people get left in the dust of the “new thing” moving forward?
Clark West is to be applauded for his honesty. I especially appreciated his recognition that the Prayer Book and canons are being upheld by re-asserters. Such honesty opens the door to true dialogue!
Dear Tom and Phil,
thank you for responding to me. I have written more explicitly on my blog about what I think might be a good solution for the issue of property, etc. If you e-mail me, I’d be happy to give you a link.
The short answer, to follow the divorce analogy, is that I believe ‘joint custody’ of any parish building involved in this ‘divorce’ would be the best. I do not believe that ECUSA’s house of bishops should go the route of depositions, lawsuits, etc, except in cases of outright bad faith. My sense is that in many cases, those parishes that want to separate from ECUSA are acting in good faith, and that a solution could be worked out that would not require lawsuits. I am deeply distressed by these lawsuits, as I am sure you both are.
Yours in Christ,
Clark
Here is a brief paragraph from my earlier post on this issue, which I hope clarifies my views:
This vision of Trinity Church, which I have only briefly outlined, was, is, and will continue to be, I suspect, the source of my vision for the Episcopal Church, USA and beyond. I do not see why it might not even be a model for the current trials afflicting our own Anglican Communion. What if it were to be applied to a diocese in ECUSA today? I can see a situation where a diocese that supported full inclusion for gays and lesbians might have a parish in its midst which had chosen, due to a different take on this particular issue, to affiliate with one of the newer African missions here in the US. Here, instead of lawsuits, depositions, accusations of heresy and mutual recriminations, I can see an opportunity for something truly unique in the life of our Anglican Communion. The diocese might choose to designate this parish as its “mission outpost” to serve the neediest of its brothers and sisters in Africa, funneling mission funds from both the diocesan and parish levels towards the many desperately needed projects currently underway in the fastest growing region in the Anglican world. Though a full level of communion might not be possible here, and alternative Episcopal oversight be the safest for both parties, this would maintain the deepest level of communion possible between the wealthiest of all churches in the world, and the poorest, and the gospel charge to serve the neediest would not be broken.
The link is:
http://resignatio.blogspot.com/2007/09/anglican-communion-proposal-for.html
Yours in a holy hope of peace,
Clark
It will work……speaking from experience, divorced, rough road before and after for about 4 years, remarriage for him, staying single for me. One child of our union. Right “step-mother”, additional children for him. We shared our son, who is dearly loved by the “step-mother”. Additional children are not “half” to my son. “Step-mother loves him. Our grandchildren have 3 grandparents. His sisters think of me as an aunt (per the oldest). We three sat together in the pew at the grandson’s wedding last year. If all would just put the children first (and future generations) it can work…….and yes, there was no fight over material things…..when my son stands at my casket, it will be his three sisters standing beside him……when their mother and father pass on, he will stand with them…….it can work…..
Clark,
I’m not sure how “joint custody” would work. Would there be two rectors or a rotating rectors where there is a reappraiser 6 months and a reasserter for the next 6 months?
I do like your idea of “missionary outpost” for the churches that leave for international oversight, but I don’t think it would work long term. I think we could leave TEC or ECUSA as an “umbrella” organizatoin and keep things such as the pension fund and other endowments (such as the Crump Fund) at that level so that each of the new provinces could have access to them and then divide after a set period of time. This way, we could welcome back into the American Anglican expression those churches that have already left for international oversight. We could then leave it to the rest of the Communion who is or is not invited to international conferences such as Lambeth or ACC or the Primates’ meetings.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Dear Brother Philip,
I’ve seen dual rectors in parishes where they actually agree on their theology, and even that ain’t pretty! (Like herding cats, actually), so no, that is not what I have in mind. My vision is that if a re-asserting parish were in a re-appraising diocese, they would keep their rector, be allowed to associate with a bishop and Communion church that fit their theology on sexuality, etc. My comment above (# 5) gives some more detail, but quite honestly, this proposal is right now just my own little idea–it would obviously need a real situation, with real people working together to see how much it could work. A lot of prayer, a lot of hard work, and a lot of God’s extravagant grace, not to say a little luck along the way!
I suppose my main point is to say that I think a charitable, godly separation is one in which both sides honor each other as seeking Christ, even if they don’t see the other side always faithful to the moral implications of the gospel. (Dee in Iowa’s beautiful words capture this, for example) And for what its worth, I think that is how both sides, re-asserter and re-appraiser do see it–that each side is missing something crucial, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about divorce. It doesn’t mean we don’t love each other in the name of our creator and redeemer, in the union of the Holy Spirit.
Phil, I count you as my brother in Christ’s love, even though we likely don’t see the mind of Christ in one another on the issue of sexual ethics. As my post about my former parish, Trinity, suggests, I have been given much gospel truth and the hand of fellowship by the former rector, The Rev. Dr. George Sumner (now at Wycliffe), whose views on these same issues are very different from my own. I think it safe to say we both count Trinity Church, Geneva as a spiritual home of great significance for us, and I for one would not like to see it ever become a place where either one of us is not welcome. The Holy Spirit has blessed that parish, and it is a sign for me of Christ’s power to keep us in communion when we might on our own rather be miles apart. Relationships in Christ do not end with a divorce, but may offer the safety and freedom for his love to be born again in our hearts.
Your brother in Christ,
Clark
Rather like the suggestion of ++Mouneer Anis in his presentation to the HOB. Acknowledge the reality of the division and be ecumenical.
But the call for honesty and courage of convictions with full facing of the consequences is bracing.
Dear Jeff Marx, and dwstroudmd,
Thank you for your kind words. I too was struck by ++ Mouneer Anis’s words, and they helped me to formulate my own thoughts. How amazing to hear, in this time when we are told there is no common ground, folks like Kendall and Bishop Robinson at one, at least in this one crucial area if nowhere else: their plea for utter, humble, courageous honesty about who we are! Praise be for such small miracles from our beloved triune God!
Yours,
Clark
Clark
Your proposal does not address situations where churches have been split nearly fifty-fifty. My parish was largely conservative all the way around, but when the rector and vestry fled to African oversight, many, who are not reapparaisers at all, questioned his timing and motivation and decided to stay with TEC. Both sides paid for the property and both sides want it. What then?
Dear Suwatchalapin,
Wow! That is an agonizing situation–my prayers are with all of you.
I am tempted to mumble something about the wisdom of Solomon taking the baby who was being fought over and threatening to cut it in two and give a half to each side. But I fear that is too quick. I do think it is dangerous to say that ‘both sides paid for the property.’ The church is not ours, not a possession, as I am sure you know, to claim for ourselves, but Christ’s alone, and he is not divided. Here, maybe Phil’s suggestion of two parishes in one building might make some sense, though I suspect that given the antagonisms and breaches of trust that we have all been through lately would make that very very difficult to do–as, oddly enough, mergers between two parishes are also difficult–who owns the church silver, why is the altar book on the wrong side, etc. etc.
So I suppose my proposal is limited, Suwatchalapin, (love the name, by the way) and a lot more prayer and thought would need to go into a way forward for the situation you describe. Quick solutions often make for bad outcomes, as it sounds like in your case, so in the end I would always want a lot of open dialogue, a transparent process and plenty of time to hear all sides of this issue before making a decision that does have, as you suggest, quite painful ramifications.
May peace be with you and your congregation(s) this night.
Clark
It could work, but the TEC as an institution will not do it.
Dear Br. Michael,
fair enough. I’ve become a bit of a cynic myself about institutions, on the whole, acting justly, so I fear you may well be right.
But I pray otherwise, as pray I must for the love of God.
With just a glimmer of hope against hope,
Clark
Clark
You are to be commended. I do not think it fair that you be asked to work out every detail of this. I believe the idea of a super majority does in fact take care of the 50-50 situation.
Truth be told, there is no painless way for people (or groups) to experience irreconciliable differences. This is an attempt to address a difficult situation in a Christian way. I can think of lots of problems (do regular attenders and tithers get more votes than those who show up inconsistently and given little? Are active members who do ministries allowed more votes? Do you get credit for more years in a parish than the newer folks, etc. etc.) but I see this as still better that the current offer (like it or leave it—or sue for it). If a parish is that torn then it is not of one mind. But in those cases where 75% or 80% or 90% are in agreement, then why not?
Personally, I think the shadowside of Protestantism (reform through division) is presesnt here. I wonder what ten years from now it will all look like. But Clark has provided us with a way to avoid WASTING millions of dollars on law suits…… It might also free up lots of energy to be actively engaged in ministries to glorify God and faithfully follow Jesus……
Clark,
I have a couple of questions
1. How do we deal with diocesan assessments? Would a parish be able to designate that its assessment would go to another diocese?
2. How do we deal with people entering the ordination processes? Would people from dissenting parishes be allowed to send their nominees through another diocese’ process?
3. How about the calling of future rectors? Would there be safeguards in place so that a parish could call any priest from within the Anglican Communion?
These are sticking points and of vital interest to the reasserters who do not with to fund lawsuits and who wish to see reasserter clergy as their rectors and assistants and wish to see their nominees move through the ordination process.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Dear Phil,
As Jeff has said (thank you, Jeff!), it feels a bit scary to be out on a limb with this kind of proposal, so everything I write here is tentative.
But I have thought about assessments. I for one feel that if an parish that affiliated with, say an Anglican church in Africa wanted to send its apportionment elsewhere than to the ECUSA diocese in which it was located, this should be considered. What if the diocese continued to assess on its regular formula, but instead of giving the money to the diocese, it sent it to a mission fund in the African church with which it is affiliated. Then this parish, far from being seen by re-appraisers negatively, could be seen as a positive, mission oriented outpost serving the least of our brothers and sisters in the fastest growing and neediest part of our Anglican Communion.
Now this would be tricky, as money tends to bring out the suspicious side in all of us. So how about a named, clearly demarcated fund in the African church–when Trinity was affiliated through our mission partner with the Anglican Church of Rwanda, they were, I recall, just starting up a seminary. How about sending the apportionment to a seminary, or to a fund to address the AIDS crisis? Again, the level of mistrust on both sides is high, so I think this kind of situation would need to take a lot of time, and the ECUSA bishop and the African bishop would need to set egos aside and take some political risks to make it happen. But in principle, I do not see why it couldn’t work, unless dioceses, congregations and bishops simply have the almighty dollar and a fear of losing it driving all their decisions. I am firmly convinced that money and property are often insidious idols for both sides in our current situation, and we must renounce them, I think, if we are to find a way forward. I favor a theology of abundance, and not scarcity. The American Church is rich, no matter how you slice it, and a way to send a lot more of our resources to our sisters and brothers needs to be found. With some creative thinking, a spirit of charity (2 Cor. 8 and 9 spring to mind) I think this could be one way.
I think I’ll take a breather and let some others take a crack at your questions 2 and 3, which are fascinating and need to be thought through (actually, I’m off to class for a few hours and won’t be able to check back in until much later tonight).
Guide us waking O Lord, and Guard us sleeping.
YBIC,
Clark
If anything good and hopeful is to come out of our present strife, I believe it will have to be like this – we will have to be honest with each other and extend Christian charity to each other. And *make room* for each other. Thanks for sharing your ideas, Clark.
Father West’s notions will not work because they are entirely out of touch with reality. The bitterness engendered by TEC’s leaving Christianity behind – and this is what they have done – is not subject to negotiation and should not be. TEC’s attitude was and still is ” my way or no way.”
His words are simply more of what we have had to put up with now for years, that is, (a)unworkable concepts offered in such a way that rejecting them puts oneself in a bad light, and this is such a one, (b) qualifications and divigations, to-ing and fro-ing
whose purpose is to stall and obscure, (c) overlooking the present facts that the homosexual subculture has made it clear that they are going to go right on with SSB, regardless of what anyone else says, and I might add, regardless of what scripture says.
In short, TEC and the rest of the AC are not brothers in Christ, for TEC has made it clear that Christ is a useful device to advance their own agenda while the rest of the AC obviously repudiates such a position.
And finally the harshest reality is that TEC is dying: Its congregations are shrinking and it is spending itself into something like bankruptcy. His citation of TEC as the richest church in the world has a life expectancy of a few years at most. Indeed, this set of suggestions strongly implies that he is only too well aware of the dying church and is looking for a way to postpone its demise. In short, he and TEC have made this bed, and now he wishes to find a way to avoid lying in it. He remedy: Let’s be friends. But I say again, ‘With friends like this….” The reality is clear: TEC has lied and falsified and manipulated in ways both subtle and manifest,and it has castrated scripture in the hopes that this will make it so passive that it will no longer bite, but be obediant to its owners. There is not a shred of evidence that it will not continue to be intransigent. LM
Clark,
Good luck with class tonight (are you teaching or taking?). I do want to offer my thanks for your willingness to go out on a limb here and work with the reasserters. I, for one, appreciate your willingness to see us as something other than homophobic bigots who are in it only for power and property.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Clark, I commented on your site, but I felt I should come and commend you here as well. Many solutions could be worked out. I think that is the strength of your proposal. Rather than a zero-sum game that is like Sherman’s March to the Sea, solutions can be tailored to local situations. We attempted this at my parish but the small group of dissenters were encouraged to move elsewhere because their presence in the same facilities would weaken the legal case for taking the entire property. The strongest point of your argument is that we all have to act with integrity. If I could sweep these issues aside I would, but I cannot in good conscience do that. One day I may come to the realization that the opposing “reasserters or reappraisers” are right and I would hope there be enough of a bridge left for us to cross in repentance and reconciliation.
Dear brothers and sisters in God’s love,
Thank you all for your comments, critiques, and kind words of encouragement. They mean more to me than I can say. It is often hard to write on such emotionally charged topics where anger and strife are in abundance all around. You all have given me hope and courage that together we can forge ahead, even if it means that we will be taking different paths for a time–I trust we will meet again at the crossroads, the cross and throne of our glorious, life giving God.
May our God grant us all a holy rest and sleep at the last.
Your brother in Christ’s reconciling love and goodnight to you all,
Clark+
Clark!
How great you have entered into the fray! I admit some hesitation about the marriage or divorce metaphor on this, but you added a wrinkle I hadn’t considered. You’ve demonstrated a worthy patience with this. I think your proposal is a coherent way forward, although as anonymous – and Larry Morse – demonstrates, reasserters really don’t think of us as Christians in the first place.
Gawain
Dear Gawain,
I know I said goodnight, but I am assuming that you are the Gawain of my old U. of Chicago days and I didn’t want to let pass your kind words before I hit the hay. If I’ve got the wrong Gawain, do let me know!
Thank you for what you write. The only thing I am uneasy about is your lumping all ‘reasserters’ in with a few comments by some of the post-ers here. I know a number of reasserters who I count as friends and brothers and sisters in Christ, and I trust from their words of love and encouragement, that they count me as the same. Clearly there will be those who cannot recognize Christ at all across the divisions that so vex us, but my hope and prayer is that many, many more can see Christ, even if, due to our strongly held convictions, he often looks obscured or veiled more than we would like. I have experienced Christ’s presence on this website, as I have experienced it in my work with gay and lesbian members of the church. And I will stake my own integrity on that and never, never allow politics to force me to choose. We may be divided, but Christ is not, I trust and I believe.
I hope we can keep this conversation going, Gawain. Keep up your good work advancing the gospel of love and forgiveness.
YBIC,
Clark
What a refreshingly honest discussion. Had this attitude been on display years ago, things would not have gotten so toxic. I pray there is still the possiblity of an a settlement along the lines suggested.
Bill Matz: How would this discussion have stopped the situation from becoming so toxic? TEC has openly denied many of the fundamental tenets of Christianity and has shown itself to be dishonest in most respects, and it now shows that it will pursue homosexual marriage without regard for the advice and demands of the entire AC. This is where the toxicity has come from. It is moreover, a dying institution, as you can see. They have alienated themselves of their own free will. How would this
Clark’s essay have altered anything, and why would you want or hope to alter the present course now?
Unity in impossible and is now undesirable. That one should advocate for it is, as I said to him, quite out of contact with reality. LM
#2: Philip, a perhaps minor detail. As one who has fled pecusa to CANA, I appreciate being an Anglican now and would be loath to have to embrace the word Episcopal in any context at this point. For many of us and I would expect some in the culture outside pecusa, Episcopal means all that is negative to conservatives (liberal theology, nasty politics, ugly lawsuits, etc.).
An earlier recognition of ireconcilability could have allowed the equivalent of a mediated or collaborative divorce. We are now well into litigation with hardened positions and rising levels of vitriol that do no credit to Christ.
I totally agree that TEC has abandoned the faith. And it may well be that the left’s intent all along was a sub rosa campaign to steal an institution. In that case there may never have been any real chance for a negotiated settlement, as that requires both sides to cooperate.