Why, yes, that is my church (again)

Huzzah for Google Alerts — which led me to spot this.

“Hey!” I shouted to Margie. “We’re in the news!”

“Who we?” she asked, understandably.

“Good Shepherd — we’re in the Rocky — and it’s …” My heart sank. “… a Jean Torkelson article.

Jean has not been kind to our parish in the past, nor to Episcopalians other than the “Boy, do we have a quote for you about how radical and unChristian and nasty those liburrrals at the diocese, including the Bishop, are” crowd. So I was more than a bit worried. The article is about the brouhaha in the Anglican Communion, as reflected in two Colorado parishes, and in the Colorado diocese as a whole. Ms. Torkelson spins (lightly) the conflict mostly from conservative press releases …

In Tanzania this week, Anglican leaders from around the world are debating how – or whether – the maverick Episcopal Church USA, one of 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion, can be brought back into the traditional fold.

Actually, there’s a lot more going on in Tanzania than just that. And it’s not just the Episcopal Church — the Church of Canada is in similar “hot water,” and plenty of “factions” in other provinces of the AC.

A majority of the provinces, many of them centered in conservative Africa, are disturbed by the Episcopal Church’s vote at its 2003 general convention to ordain openly gay bishops and allow for same-sex blessings. But critics say that’s just the most visible symptom of an array of departures the American church has taken from classic Christianity, like the tolerance for alternative views of Scripture and core beliefs, including divinity of Christ.

First off, GC03 only allows bishops to continue to exercise local control over the matter of same-sex blessings, recognizing that they had happened. It didn’t authorize them, condemn them, create liturgy, or recognize them as such. That was far too much for conservatives, of course (and too little for liberals), but let’s not lose the nuances here.

As to the rest — “the tolerance for alternative views of Scripture” is hardly just an “American” thing (indeed, I’d say such tolerance is probably a good thing). And, honestly, I haven’t heard many folks debating the divinity of Christ in the hallowed halls of our church or diocese or in the national church.

In short, the denomination that launched the Reformation 500 years ago has become a microcosm of modern cultural change and spiritual angst. Its roots, the Church of England, were replanted in America in the 1700s. Now this historic church faces hundreds of defections, disbandings and a growing number of lawsuits. In Virginia alone, the Episcopal diocese has sued 11 breakaway conservative parishes – one of them the parish of George Washington. At stake is who gets reportedly $25 million in church property.

The picture given of Good Shepherd, and our new (well, a year or two now) rector, though, is pretty positive, even if Ms Torkelson made hay of the news back in the hard times, and even if the literal picture (photograph) looks kind of … sinister, shadowed, even bereft of hope and light.

Consider Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Centennial, which is undergoing a $1.7 million expansion. Good times are back since this parish underwent its own crisis related to the churchwide angst: In 2004, the lesbian rector, the Rev. Bonnie Spencer, and her partner celebrated a private, unauthorized same-sex “commitment ceremony.”

Rev. Bonnie was, in fact, assistant rector. And, in fact, the expansion was already underway (and continued thereafter), and has been done for over a year.

“That was our defining moment,” said the Rev. Craig Mac-Coll, who succeeded Spencer after she took a job with another parish out of state.

No, he succeeded Rev. Need, who was the interim after Fr John left (which was before the events above) and continued on as interim after those events, until, in fact, we hired on Fr Craig. And while I won’t say that the events around all that were what caused Bonnie to leave — she became a rector at another parish, and had been looking prior to that (which is pretty standard for assistant rectors when the main rector leaves). And while that event was one of the “last straws,” for a
number of folks in the parish, it was on top of both national church news, the church expansion (as noted), and the departure in the midst of this by our long-term rector.

“Some people could not accept it, and left . . . though we lost a number of people, we bounced back stronger than ever.” Today, he added, “we’re a moderate, inclusive parish that includes gay and lesbian couples.

“People who said the 2003 general convention was bringing about the demise of the Episcopal Church – I’m not sure who they’re referring to,” MacColl said. “It’s not affected this parish; it’s helped us define who we are.”

I’d clarify here, only to the extent that it’s not the definition of who we are. It’s certainly part of the story, an aspect, even an important one, but it’s background, a foundation. We don’t open our services celebrating our moderation and inclusiveness, even if I think most of us are very proud of us..

This being a success story, the article places it in contrast to a congregation in (more conservative) Colorado Springs that not only broke from the church, but disbanded. The article goes on to discuss the Bishop.

Holding together this bouquet of Colorado diversity is Bishop Rob O’Neill. While a supporter of gay rights, he took office in 2004 pledging to go slow out of respect for conservative sensibilities. He’s had varying degrees of success.

Actually, he has had great success in “going slow.” He’s had varying degrees of keeping conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) happy about it.

And, y’know, I was there at the election of Bp O’Neill (and he was not my first choice, in fact, though I support him and consider him my bishop, even where I have and do disagree with some of his policies). His election was not all about GC 2003 and gay ordination and all that (though it was an issue). Defining him by that issue is unfortunate and even unfair.

Of the 114 Colorado congregations, about one-third are regarded as “conservative” and troubled to varying degrees over the direction of the denomination. Hundreds of lay conservatives, including a half-dozen parishes and a number of clergy, fled in 2000- 2001.

Which wave happened prior to GC03’s recognition of Gene Robinson as bishop, one might note.

In the past 18 months, four parishes shut their doors – one of them Pearsall’s St. Francis.

Still, O’Neill has managed to remain friendly with many priests who question his direction. “He knows I believe the Episcopal Church is squirrely, and has left orthodoxy – but we always hope for a turnaround,” said Pearsall, who received a six- month financial package and hopes at some point to pastor an Episcopal parish again.

It was precisely O’Neill’s leadership that drew MacColl from his post in Oregon. “Rob is a very gifted teacher, a great listener, and you don’t get the sense he comes in with an agenda,” MacColl said. “At the same time he makes his views clear . . . he’s genuinely committed to bringing about reconciliation with people of very diverse views.”

Well, having been on the rector search committee, I hope it was more than just Bp Rob who attracted Fr Craig, but in my interactions with the bishop, I’ve had much the same reaction to him.

Having quoted a favorable bit about the bishop, the article goes on to speak to the “opposition.” Unfortunately, with regular source Rev. Don Armstrong currently under investigation (thus his lack of being quoted here), that leaves Can. Ephraim Radner, who’s solidly “conservative,” but probably a lot more intellectual and interested in common life in the Episcopal Church than would warrant headline notice.

One expert who’s giving a cautiously hopeful answer is Yale- educated author and theologian the Rev. Ephraim Radner, rector of Ascension Episcopal Church in Pueblo. Radner, a conservative, casts a long shadow from his small-city parish – he’s part of an 11-member international committee that has prepared a “covenant design” for the Tanzania gathering – in other words, a blueprint for possibly reaching a compromise agreement so the Episcopal factions can live together.

“Those who agreed to the covenant would be agreeing to something about what it means to be an Anglican Christian – it would be a central expression of Christianity,” Radner said in a recent interview. “It would not be an explicit list of moral requirements.”

In a sprawling communion of 77 million members, how such a covenant design would be implemented, what it would say, and who in the splintering church would agree to it, is all unknown. What Radner knows isn’t working is the growing blizzard of defections, accusations and lawsuits that have engulfed more than a dozen states, from Virginia to California. “It is clear to me that Scripture and apostolic tradition calls us not to sue one another,” Radner says. “The fact we have descended into lawsuits is a sign we’re
way on the wrong path.”

It’s certainly indicative. The problem with most of the suits stems from the idea that parish property belongs to the majority of the congregation, whereas most dioceses make it clear that it belongs to the dioceses and the church as a whole. You can leave, if you want, but you can’t take it with you. In such a circumstance, if a congregation is trying to leave the church and keep the property (or give it to another organization), should the Episcopal Church stand by and let it, or should
it hold onto it? And what are the precedents and long-term effects of such a stance.

(Interestingly, I’ve heard some pretty good things about the covenantal work that Rev. Radner (who I also had the privilege to hear as a candidate for bishop in Colorado) is doing. It’s by no means the “toe the line and vote this ticket” sort of document that a lot of people were worried about (or hoping for), it appears.)

Regardless, it’s actually … not a bad article. It’s somewhat informative, though in a somewhat shallow way, depending as much on tugging on the heartstrings, and spinning the current conflict in certain directions as on informing someone of what’s going on. To the casual reader outside the Episcopal Church, what does it say? It sounds like We’re In A Lot Of Trouble, whereas, in point of fact, most Episcopalians are really tired of this particular debate, which seems to stir the blood of muckrakers,
demogogues, and theologians more than the average guy-in-the-pew, who’s more interested in, oh, I don’t know, how we do what Jesus talked about us doing — feeding the poor, clothing the naked, giving comfort, spreading the Good News, all that unsexy jazz.

I’ll be interested in chatting about it with Fr Craig next time I see him.