A072 The Future of Liturgy And the Opportunity for Constitutional Amendment

By

The Rt. Rev. C. Andrew Doyle

In the season after the General Convention 2022, there has been debate about 2022-A059, which is now returning to the convention as A072. The Anglican Theological Review posted an article by The Rev. Dr Matthew Olver of Nashotah House.  As a member of the drafting group for the House of Bishops regarding the 2022-A059 revision, we bring background and clarity into the ongoing dialogue with an eye to the argument made by Olver. He wants to convince the deputies that the actions of the last Convention were not wise. Below, I offer a defence of General Convention actions regarding 2022-A059 and a response to Olver’s argument. 

I first offer seven critical contexts operating on the floor of the House of Bishops during the debate and within the group assigned to work on a means forward. These themes of conversation are: a) the 2022-A059 as presented was not going to be approved; b) there were issues raised about what belongs in the Constitution vs what belongs in the canons; c) members of the House did not want the process that has been underway for existing trial rites to be delayed – specifically those regarding marriage; d) bishops who hold a traditional view on marriage, or whose diocese were in their processes of dealing with the change, were concerned that a passage of the new rites would require canonical obedience; e) there was a lot of concern over having an actual paper bound book; f), there were issues about the continued translation of texts; g) and finally, there was concern that bishops had not been attentive to and that rules were changing around those rites permitted by bishops alone as the chief liturgical officer of the diocese.  While it may be suggested that 2022-A059 in the form presented was simple, the context in which it arrived upon the floor of the House of Bishops for debate was decidedly not simple, and failure was its immediate apparent outcome. 

Another subtext is that the typical member of the General Convention seated in either the House of Deputies or in the House of Bishops do not understand the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, especially regarding those with an effect upon liturgical forms and the use of liturgical terminology. This context means that when different liturgical resolutions come before the two houses, people may very well pass them but not understand if they passed a text for "Experimental Use," "Supplemental Use," or "Trial Use." There is also confusion over which are to be used freely and which are not. Not all of these are oriented towards the revision of The Book of Common Prayer.  This fact was admitted by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. These terms were generally used among the liturgists but not understood by the wider church.  

This is essential background because the history of how things are changed and the context in which they are changed is essential to the continuing life of the Episcopal Church's constitutional, canonical, and liturgical life. With the above in mind, I turn to the text of 2022-A059, now A072 itself. 

Let us begin by saying that we do not agree with all of Olver's constitutional and canonical points about The Episcopal Church's Constitution generally. Part of the work of this proposal was to help TEC navigate the future regarding the nature of a physical book, an online book, and the wide variety of approved BCP liturgies and liturgical forms available to the local priest and churchgoer alike. Many churches today use booklets and projection and even devices to help with the service. Some still use the book itself. This clouds the issue. The reader should remember that the context of the amendment included different understandings of the proposal's intention. These sometimes-conflicting perspectives were and are at the very root of the issue that faced 2022-A059 and our Constitution and Canons. These opposing forces and disagreements might be categorized in this way:

• Those who envision a Book of Common Prayer produced by a printer and those who envision an Ebook of Common Prayer
• Those who envision marriage equality within the Book of Common Prayer and those who are concerned they will be constitutionally forced to bless all marriages for an ever-expanding LGBTQ+ community by placing the marriage rites in the Book of Common Prayer.
• Those who experience the latent reality that translations of liturgical materials are not seen as essential to a multiethnic and multinational church and those who don't understand the issue of flexibility with liturgical texts achieve parody across our diverse church when it comes to liturgy
• Those who want structure and clarity for revision and those who didn't know we were without such clarity and structure
• Those who want to create openness in the process and those who don't want openness
• Those who want to be able to work with others to develop mission-responsive and those who want to slow down the process 
• Those who want to build a new prayer book from scratch and those who don't want this at all

The conflict we saw in 2022 regarding 2022-A059 was very much rooted in the same conflict, which has been building for three decades and came to a head in 2018, resulting in B011. I helped author this proposal with the very best liturgical minds of the church, as was my participation in creating the amendment that will surely be before us.  

To this end, the great revision underway in the 21st century regarding liturgy hoped to create a constitutional framework that would allow for the existence of these views, not to continue the muddled past which was created as times and contexts have changed, and enable us to move forward, while holding onto one of our greatest assets The Book of Common Prayer as the shared prayer of this church. Olver implies this was slapdashed and needs more consideration. That is just not the reality of the overall history of the proposal, the authors involved, and the bishops and deputies in the last convention.

Unfortunately, The Episcopal Church does not have the time, money, or clarity of intention to produce a single book today. Therefore, we agree with Matthew Olver's perspective that, indeed, "yes", we had to find a way for the Episcopal Church to revise the contents of the Book of Common Prayer in steps.  However, as Olver implies, this was not to mimic the ever-expanding books of liturgies as in the Church of England. Instead, it was to make clear that the doctrinal and unity of the BCP must be maintained and that a process for relieving pressure and allowing the work of liturgical formation to move forward also needed to be dealt with constitutionally and canonically. 

An astute friend once quipped, ‘The Book of Acts is about the church catching up with a resurrected Jesus and the mission of God.’ The truth is that in our era, the Book of Common Prayer cannot keep pace with the mission underway, and we need time for that mission to bear fruit theologically and liturgically.

Olver also implies that 2022-A059, now A072, as we have it before us, rejects a systematic doctrinal revision and does so piecemeal.  That is not true. Olver's argument infers that the modifications to the marriage canon do not come out of deep thought and wrestle with doctrinal theology. Yet, they do, and several texts illustrate the work the Episcopal Church has done through convention over thirty years to build a doctrinal case for the passing of these liturgies. Indeed, those who hold to this church's traditional view of marriage might disagree and side with Olver.  We need to remember, though, that the church has made a particular decision about marriage and that those rites are going through a process of liturgical approval for the Prayer Book as outlined in previous texts – it has been approved for trial use. We also suggest that this is not true for other proposed and used texts of material that have come before the General Convention for entrance into The Book of Common Prayer – if we are deliberate in how we proceed. The fear of a crashing plethora of liturgies entering our doctrinal life is a "fear", not one founded in the 2018-B011 or 2022-A059 proposal that is now before the church for a time of consideration. It is instead a fear and an anxiety. Those against the amendment hope to share this unnecessary fear to defeat the text.

Olver and Robert Pritchard’s proposals that will also come before the constitution and canons and possibly liturgy committees will indeed create precisely the problem that they fear – multiple books. You will discover as you read is that all of the other proposals seek competing Books of Common Prayer in one form or another. The proposal I have helped to write and argue for below is the only one that keeps a solo Book of Common Prayer while maintaining the use of 1979 and older books.

It is true that in the end, the church may choose to reject the offer made by 2022-A059, now A072, to engage in careful, theological work, which allows us to overcome our church's liturgical lethargy and offer a both/and solution. This solution would allow the competing desires mentioned above to all be true during this season of revision while we give time for the church to determine if it will have both an ebook and a physical Book of Common Prayer. However, our work here creates an adaptive and doctrinally centred church liturgical life.

It is an approach approved by chancellors and carefully written in the language outlines of the constitutional language.

Please note that both 2022-A059 and Olver’s proposal retain the current and historical requirement that neither an "alteration" (which I understand to mean a change in the existing text) nor an "addition" (which I understand to mean adding text, not just a phrase or two, but a significant addition) may be made to the BCP without the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Convention. 

 

The next concern by Olver is the implication that A072 will get rid of the two-convention rule. Both 2022-A059 and Olver's proposal would add to Article X the requirement that, in addition to the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Conventions, no alteration or addition to the BCP could be made without previously – that is, previous to the first voting General Convention – being authorized for Trial Use. The good news for marriage equality advocates is that the marriage rite has already been set up this way and will not keep it from moving forward. Moreover, under the carefully proposed A072, Article X would speak only to the BCP and its alteration and amendment; it would be silent as to other liturgies that the General Convention might authorize and would leave any discussion of such liturgies to the canons. Why? Because only the liturgies in our BCP are doctrinal. 

Moreover, the authors 2022-A059 suggest a canonical amendment that would add text to Title I.1.2.n.2 addressing liturgies authorized for use. Returning to 2018 B011, this canonical change must follow the approved four-part articulation – with careful editing.   This suggestion is essential to the success of A072. The order of approval here makes the accountability work. The group of authors and I would not be in favour of approving the new A072 without the amendments to Title I.1.2.n.2. Let me explain. By contrast, under the ATR proposal, Article X would address liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and liturgies permitted for "Supplemental Use." In Olver's words and the words of the authors of the Constitution, amendments need to be precise. Olver writes and quotes from the following:

The function of a constitution is to provide "a concise statement of the most basic and important of the Church's laws," to embody "the organic law or principle of government of an organized society," and to articulate "those laws which are 'constitutive' of the nature and function of a community." (Stevick, Canon Law, 97.) Williams Jones Seabury wrote that a constitution is "a law to lawgivers." (Williams Jones Seabury, Notes on the Constitution of 1901 (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1902), 8; qtd. in Stevick, Canon Law, 97-8.) "It lays down broad powers; details are left to the Canons." (Stevick, Canon Law, 98.) Unlike the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Preamble to TEC's Constitution is not aspirational, which is to say, its purpose does not communicate the intentions of its framers.

As proposed, this is correct, and A072 makes clear what the Book of Common Prayer is and what it is not. This keeps the "Prayer Book for the Episcopal Church is enormously disproportionate compared to other related churches"…regarding the "teachings of the church."  It also keeps other liturgies from using doctrinal power as the Constitution prescribes. This is essential. Olver’s proposal would leave such vagueness.

 

The process and limits for liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and "Supplemental Use" under the canon suggested by 2022-A059 are identical to the process and limitations set out for such liturgies by Olver's proposal, with one important exception.  Disregarding the need for missional liturgical application, Olver's submission seeks to slow down the experimental and supplemental use under the direction of a bishop. His proposal actually places more power for mission principles to guide liturgy at the local diocesan level and places them at the General Convention level. Moreover, it potentially places all liturgy at a doctrinal level. The 2022-A059 proposal to amend Title I.1.2.n.2 spells out those processes and limits in the canons where they belong. Instead, Olver's proposal spells them out in Article X of the Constitution, tremendously slowing the operation of any missional adaptation. It is not our opinion that a church as diverse and needing liturgical breadth (not doctrinal breadth) is better served by having experimental and supplemental use in the canons and not the Constitution. The proposers desire a way for the liturgy to be crafted for mission purposes. 

 

The group’s edit of Article X includes the words "is intended to be…" We disagree that it is aspirational but argue instead that it is intentional. It is not "aspirational language", as Olver suggests. Etymologically the word “intended” is to direct and move forward – borrowed from the French in the 14th century. It is to call attention to in Latin. It is a plan and a purpose. It is to direct a course of action.  The Constitution offers a course of action for the church and the people of the church to use this doctrinal text in common and private devotions.   

The full phrase with which Olver regards imprecise is this: the book’s nature is “intended to be communal and devotional prayer.” The church knows that not everyone uses the Book of Common Prayer as intended, and not every person uses it as a devotional. Yet it has been something that sets the course of action within and without the church. Olver overlooks this in his argument. In this way, the intention is more than aspirational; it is a statement of rootedness in our prayer book tradition. The book is in the language of the people, clergy have been at times constitutionally ordered to say the daily office – daily. Cranmer and the reformers desired that the Book of Common Prayer become all that was needed besides the bible to stir and support reformation. Each American Book of Common Prayer included prayers for saying at home, and the Daily Office itself has become a rule of life for many baptized. Priests and bishops have so many well-worn little Book of Common Prayers given to them that observation alone suggests they were used more than on Sunday. 

Olver's stated concern is the addition of the statement in 2022-A059/A072 that reads, "The Book of Common Prayer in this Church is intended to be communal and devotional prayer enriched by our church's cultural, geographical, and linguistic contexts." Olver suggests that this is wholly unnecessary. I have already addressed the nature of the word "intended" above and believe we ought to revise the term. 

His second concern with this statement concerns the time "devotional". He states that the Book of Common Prayer was never meant to be devotional. Yet, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is used by church members as a devotional text. The framers of the 1979 Book have included the daily office and compline. They included the prayers for "Daily Devotions for Individuals and Families". Also, there are the collects for all kinds of settings, the psalms, and the prayers for the sick – often prayed by the sick. While it is likely that Thomas Cranmer would not have imagined private devotional use of the Prayer Book, by the 13th century, clergy were using it as a private devotion, which has expanded wherein today, many use the book for private devotion. 

Olver's point that Cranmer might not have imagined it does not mean Cranmer didn’t mean for The Book of Common Prayer to be a tool in the hand of the church for the formation of individuals and congregations alike. We know that there are examples of families reading from The Book of Common Prayer and using it for devotion in their habitations.  If it is to continue to form us, then attention to both its devotional and worship implications for the church needs to be raised to the level of Constitutional consideration.

Prayer book commentaries have taught the baptized the importance of the liturgy – to pray constantly. And, there was published even the Family Prayer Book; a commentary for the home on the use of the Book of Common Prayer. Marion Hatchett notes in his Commentary on the American Prayer Book that ancient private prayer has always been prevalent and that the 1979 reformer (not unlike Cranmer’s tradition) sought to make the daily offices accessible and even to add simpler offices for individuals and families.  Therefore, we would suggest then that both by title, inclusion of prayers, and history it is meant for both communal prayer and individual.

I now take up the issue Olver and others have with the translation requirement. Given the concern over the diversity of context and the awareness of past colonial behaviours, our lack of respect for translation for the wider church and the many unfulfilled resolutions promising translation, the second part of the sentence was added by the group who felt strongly about justice. We as a church cannot shy away from the truth; we have yet to have a Book of Common Prayer in Navajo. A corrected Book of Common Prayer in Spanish has finally come to fruition while printed on cheaper paper than the English version. The Episcopal Church is a multinational and multiethnic church in which many languages are spoken, including Asian and African dialects. The Church's Book of Common Prayer needs to hold before the reality of being a Book of Common Prayer for all the people of our Church. This, like many arguments, seems lost within the current debate.

Matthew Olver suggests that the recent attempts to amend Article X "attempt to shift the Church's awareness that contemporary and future methods of publication may not be restricted to the form of a book. What the General Convention adopts as a Prayer Book is not a form of publication (a book) but rather the content, i.e., the text of the liturgies.  This has always been so and, in fact, was not copyrighted until recently. Moreover, even Olver points out that the church has a history of approving liturgies that have not always been readily published in book form.

The writing group and I believe we will have printed Prayer Books for the foreseeable future. If we took creation care more seriously, we would use the book and electronic media more often. The church cannot pretend that even now there is a strong use of liturgies printed in bulletins and online usage. Ebooks of Common Prayer are emerging and in gatherings it is more normal to see people using iphones and other devices. This is true in the House of Bishops. We even have ebinders now at the General Convention, so no future prayer book revisions will be seen in writing until a book is published.

As a church we need be aware that those who are legally blind, or have difficult with paper books because of physical challenges, find the eBook of Common Prayer accessible because they can enlarge the text, or even have it read to them. Inclusivity cannot be limited to ableist understandings of prayer book publishing.

Will ebooks, over decades, replace printed Books of Common Prayer? We do not know. However, the Constitution should not be shortsighted. As a constitution, it resides under the reality of the present and future context it seeks to guide. The design of Article X’s words need make room for such to happen without amending the Constitution at every convention to deal with change. 

Therefore, the logic is that the Book of Common Prayer is at once a collection of texts that can always be found in a physical instantiation that one can open and read to the name given to all readers that receive two sequential General Conventions to authorize their presence; and, that it may also be found online. This is a both/and solution that many have a problem reconciling. Yet it is time to reckon with our present reality and provide constitutional and canonical frameworks to do.

Some approved Book of Common Prayer liturgies may exist electronically before the custodian of The Book of Common Prayer issues an entirely new edition. Both liturgists and canonical lawyers have a problem with this latitude and open possibility. However, the church must hold both these ideas simultaneously (a Book of Common Prayer and an eBook of Common Prayer). This is all the more reason to be clear about what is a Book of Common Prayer liturgy and what is not. 

Another fear that many remain concerned about and Olver seeks to prevent is a new Book of Common Prayer. I have been in conversation with the liturgical leaders both past and present.  There is no urgency of a total rewrite of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. 

We are at least 4 to 6 General Conventions away from a new Book of Common Prayer being created slowly within the financial means of the Episcopal Church and given the fast-moving tech trends of our culture it could be 2035 or 2040 before we could financially fully underwrite and bring to fruition the task. A conservative estimate places a new Book of Common Prayer out 20 years or more, given convention timelines, finances, and the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music's ability to bring forward the new book written wholesale plus accomplishing all their other tasks.  

Olver suggests that we have to do a revison of the Book of Common Prayer as one thing knowing full well that is not possible and placing the ability for change even further. 

The final problem that Matthew Olver notes is the importance of clarifying the process of new prayer book liturgies within Article X. He notes that the concern arises from the ability to bring the new marriage rites forward for inclusion. Olver omits this from his argument and reveals in his proposed changes that he would prefer to have the marriage rites defined as Authorized Liturgical Rites. 2018 B011 suggested this, which was itself a suggestion following the past authorization guidelines for the Book of Common Prayer book rites. (I believe it is essential to get such guidelines into the canons.) There was never an intention to locate an approved Book of Common Prayer rites not printed in a new book. 2018-B011 was meant to provide a way to create diversity in liturgical use without building a collection of texts in a new Book of Common Prayer.  While memorializing the continued use of the Book of Common Prayer 1979.

Olver's proposal implies relegating the new marriage rites to a new category that is not a Book of Common Prayer rite and has yet to be created by the SCLM and Convention. His suggestion does not exist and actually proposes creating paths for many liturgies that will create the very problem he hopes to avoid regarding the multiplication of rites. 

The Church has already decided to set the new marriage rites towards Book of Common Prayer status. We are already in a time of trial usage, and it comes before the convention. Olver’s proposal for the new marriage rite changes the midstream process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the writing group, liturgical leaders, bishops and deputies who passed what is now A072 supported the amendment because it represent a better understanding of our church's expression of common prayer. I continue, as do the authors, to support this amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, to then work and draft the necessary canons to further define our church’s process of liturgical revision. It is true that not amending Article X is in the power of both houses – to do so is also to continue a dangerous course where many do not have clarity about guidelines for liturgical use in this church.

 

Christmas Eve Sermon, St. Thomas Wharton, 2023

Sermon
Christmas Eve 2023
St. Thomas, Wharton
By C. Andrew Doyle


Lena

His wife called him
A mad scientist
Most people knew him
As Leo Auffman

One day
A whimsical notion
Came to Leo
An inventor
He would 

build a machine

He built
An 8ft square
Orange
Box

It was
A happiness machine

He and his machine
Were located in
Green Town
(Itself a place
Imagined by
The creative mind
Of author
Ray Bradbury)


Once inside
The machine
Sitting in a chair
Enclosed by
Its orangeness
Knobs and whistles
Thing ama-bobs
And buttons
The machine
Would show
You
Lovely things
Happy things
All the best things

Lena got in it

To see what it was all about


It showed her
Sunsets
Her in her youth
Her and Leo 

Dancing in Paris

(despite the fact they had not

been to Paris)

It showed her
Whatever
Happiness
she
Imagined


[pause]
We stand
Upon the eve
Of
boxes too

an eve
Of happiness
And hopes
The gift
That will make
Life just right
Boxes to be unwrapped
And opened

The only
Thing we
Really wanted

It all awaits us
Magically so

We look into
Boxes every day too

phones

computers
Boxes we carry
In our pocket
Sit on our lap

We can
work and play on them

they
show us
Endless streams
Of the things
That make us happy

They record
All our favourite
Things
Even
Fix our blemishes
For the perfect picture
To share

These boxes
Help us curate
Our lives
Displaying
To others
Everything
Neatly tied
with a bow
Festooned for
Public consumption

[Pause]

I have been
On several pilgrimages
To Israel
With some dear friends

Every time we go
We start one of our days
At a site near
The prophet Amos’
Hometown

There we
Climb
And scuttle
Down into a cave
And there
We see
It is actually an
Old manger
Where animals
Were kept
Over a
Thousand of
Years ago

We are told
About caves
And their use
Years ago

And
how
It is possible
That just such
A site
Is
Similar to the
Birthplace
Of Jesus

And
in that
Little cave
I remember
Standing there
With the walls
partly caved
In
Damp
dusty
And
Yet feeling
As though
Perhaps
I was experiencing
Something
Quite close
To holy

And there
Is a stone
manger

a Carved out
stone box
rough hewed

A manger
For feeding
The livestock

Something
Perhaps like
What Jesus
Might have
Been laid
Within

[Pause]

I imagine the
Hopes laid
Upon him
By parents

But others too

People
With whom
In that moment
The child
Had not met
And could not
Fathom

Yes
The hopes
And fears
Are met
In thee…we sing

I wonder
If you might
Ponder with
Me tonight
This very
Curious thing

Christmas
Isn’t about
The boxes we open
Or even
Our celebration

Christmas
Is not about a
New beginning
Another attempt
At the best-curated life
Or the most toys

It isn’t about something
That might happen

I hope you see with me
Christmas
Is about the
Child
That was laid
Within that
Stone box
That manger
Those many years ago

a present
Already opened
The gift already received

Consider what
The reformer
Martin Luther
Wrote:

I would not have you contemplate the deity of Christ, the majesty of Christ, but rather his flesh. Look upon the baby Jesus. Divinity may terrify a person. Inexpressible majesty could crush one. That is why Christ took on our humanity, save for our sin, that he should not terrify us by rather that with love and favor he should console and confirm us.

Tonight
Is about
Remembering
That gift
That birth

Yes,
We know the rest
Of the story

Our prayers
Hymns and carols
Will tip our hand
And seek to
Draw the end
Of the story
To the beginning
A reverse chronology
an inverted narrative
- And some folks love that

But tonight
Perhaps
Tonight
We let the
Beginning
Be

Well

The beginning

And we ponder
That this person
Jesus was
So close
So deeply connected
So filled with love
So godly
That
Those
Who gathered
Around him
Saw
Something…
Someone
They had been waiting for

[Pause]

Lena
(Leo Auffman
The inventor’s
Wife)
Arose
Out of the
Happiness box
That great
Orange thing
In their basement
In Greentown
And said

When
The box is opened
And we
Climb out
We must face
The fact that
We grow old
There is life,
Dirty dishes,
Children to be fed
…she says

She suggests
Happiness Machines
- That box of yours Leo –
Lies
And promises Things
it can’t deliver upon

perhaps
from Lena
we can learn something too

all the boxes
that promise
happiness
can’t deliver

and what we need
as people
as family
and friends
brothers, sisters, siblings
coworkers
and churchgoers
and all the rest

what we need
is actually
to marvel
at Jesus
Saviour
messiah
wonderful counsellor
prince of peace
Emmanuel – God with us

who was born
such a long time
ago
in a little town
called Bethlehem
and
who
was laid
in a stone box
open for the world
to receive

Charlie Holt, Florida, and a Signal Moment About Who We Episcopalians Aim to Be

Since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, 

Jesus, the Son of God, let us with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, 

that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 4: 14, 16

Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, 

and respect the dignity of every human being?

Book of Common Prayer, p. 305

Dear Members of the Episcopal Church:

For the past several months, news of the Rev. Charlie Holt’s election as bishop coadjutor in the Diocese of Florida has been roiling The Episcopal Church. It is a complicated situation that has raised questions about the right of dioceses to choose their own bishops, the church’s commitment to include all people, our denominational judicial system, our canons, and bishops’ accountability for historical actions and decisions. 

It is not a situation that has been made better by social media. As I consider my response to this election, I am concerned that we have become willing for people to cut and paste comments and videos together in lieu of speaking to the elected person or the diocese and willing to raise the alarm without seeking information and mediation. Will this be the future of all disputed elections?

As Christians, we are invited to go to those whom we have a problem with and try to work it out. We are invited to go with others with whom we disagree and work it out. We are invited to a higher engagement than the world in order that we might build a beloved community with all people, not just with those with whom we agree. In this matter, we have fallen short of that mark.

What I know about the situation as it stands today: 

Many standing committees and bishops have made decisions without speaking with Charlie Holt or leaders in the Diocese of Florida. In a case where we are deciding a diocese’s future, I wonder if that is a faithful and responsible process?

The Diocese of Florida has invited Bishop Mary Gray-Reeves, an experienced leader and vice president of the House of Bishops, to help create a listening and mediation process. That process is well underway and making progress.

I know that people across the Diocese of Florida are now grieving that the church that is saying “no” to their bishop, and many are receiving that as a personal “no” of them as Episcopalians. These faithful people have stayed and continued to work for the kingdom of God in their diocese as a loyal part of the Episcopal Church. They were told the tent is big enough but are now are being told it is not quite big enough for them.

I understand the Diocese of Florida’s leadership is working to gather the diocese to fix its canons. I also understand that the problem with the canons, coupled with the division in the diocese, may mean that it is very difficult to elect any bishop (even a bishop provisional) at this time. We might believe that people in the Diocese of Florida will keep showing up to hold elections until one of them finally gains approval, but I think that will not be the case.

My experience is that the politics of the world can be all too often mimicked in the church. 

I know that the litmus test of theology is not a good precedent. We have tried it before from every side. It is not pretty and does not have an outcome that is Gospel-oriented.

I also know that not all people of color in the Episcopal Church disagree with Charlie’s theology. Yet, I have actually heard it said regarding those of color that Charlie has worked with, “Well those are not the people of color like us.” I just didn’t think that was the vision of the kingdom of God we were all striving towards.

Finally, I have never been big on caucuses and church political groups, though they have a long history in both the Anglican and Episcopal Church. I find it helpful to remember that caucuses, like other political parties, gain authority by stark contrasts and represent the members of the caucus, and not always the greater good.

Here in Texas, we have a particular responsibility to wrestle with the questions raised by the Diocese of Florida’s election. Charlie, who has twice been elected bishop coadjutor in the Diocese of Florida, has been a faithful priest of our diocese for six years. The Diocese of Texas is a big and wide tent, and it is also home to people who have expressed grave concern about this election. As I have thought about my own response, I have done my best to consider all these perspectives together with the canonical matters at hand. 

In so doing, we are working diligently on racism and racial justice. We are standing with the Episcopal Church and paying our full share requested and more. We are speaking for and with women, LGBTQ+, immigrants, the disaffiliated, and those without care; more than that, we are working together to make Texas a better place for all people. 

So here are the key issues I see:

--First, there is a ruling of the Court of Review that casts doubt on the Diocese of Florida’s election. It says that several clergy who serve in that diocese should have been given canonical residence, and therefore a vote at the electing convention but were not. The Diocese of Florida is clear that none of the clergy named in the report qualify for canonical residence under the Diocese Florida’s longstanding policies.

The Court of Review’s ruling raises issues about our church’s canons that govern canonical residence and clergy cures. Many dioceses have policies about clergy canonical residence that are similar to that of the Diocese of Florida, and those policies now seem to stand in opposition to the Court of Review’s ruling. Regardless of what happens with this election, the Diocese of Florida and all dioceses in the Episcopal Church will need to review their policies regarding transfers, cures, and letters dimissory in light of the court’s opinion and ensure that those policies are in line with the canons and protect the bishop’s oversight of cures and authority to select who serves in their diocese. Many of our dioceses will also need to review our canons on lay quorum at convention which may be, like that of the Diocese of Florida, outdated and difficult to implement.

--Second, there is the need for the church to care for the people of the Diocese of Florida. They are suffering under the expense and weight of two elections, a church media firestorm, and the use of social media to spread half-truths. As fellow Episcopalians, we must concern ourselves with the welfare of this diocese, recognizing especially that its laypeople elected the Rev. Holt by significant margins in both elections. 

Some people in the Diocese of Florida have raised concerns about their relationship with their current bishop diocesan, the Rt. Rev. John Howard. These concerns must be taken seriously and reviewed in light of both our current canons and an understanding that the canons on marriage and human sexuality have changed dramatically since Bishop Howard’s early episcopacy. 

I also hope that as Bishop Howard prepares to retire, all of us will thank him for the work he did in the early years of his episcopacy, at great personal cost, to keep the Diocese of Florida in the Episcopal Church. He and the people of the Diocese of Florida have remained resolutely committed to the Episcopal Church despite the pain and expense they incurred when many of their clergy and laypeople left it in the early years of this century. The Diocese of Florida is a full and faithful part of the Episcopal Church, and we must proceed with care for their long-term health and flourishing as our siblings in Christ.

--Third, there is the matter of the Charlie’s suitability to serve as bishop in the Episcopal Church. Because he has been under my care since 2017, I believe I can speak authoritatively to the questions that have been raised. 

During his time in the Diocese of Texas, Charlie has been a good member of our clergy and has made positive contributions. He has been in relationship with diverse members of our clergy with no cause for concern. I would add that I don’t always recommend priests who are nominated for the episcopate, but I believed Charlie could help the Diocese of Florida move forward and become a more inclusive and welcoming diocese. If I did not think so, I would not have endorsed his nomination.

At the meet and greet sessions in Florida, Charlie made some clumsy and unexamined comments that revealed his need to work on understanding the experiences of people who are different from him. Those comments were circulated in videos edited for maximum effect by people who did not wish him well. 

Since then, Charlie has apologized publicly and privately to individuals he knows were harmed by this words, including to a member of the House of Deputies LGBTQ+ Caucus, despite that group’s reports to the contrary. He has committed publicly and privately to upholding marriage equality in the Diocese of Florida without forcing congregations to have oversight from another bishop. He has said privately and publicly that he will work with others to listen and heal relationships in the Diocese of Florida and resolve issues regarding the disparate treatment of LGBTQ+ clergy and lay people.

Charlie has a history of public ministry against racism, and many Black clergy who worked with him in Sanford, Florida, have written to support his election as bishop. After Trayvon Martin was killed, he worked there as part of an ecumenical coalition to oust a racist public official. In the Diocese of Texas, he worked with a diverse coalition to address the effects of Hurricane Harvey on communities of color and with an English as a Second Language ministry with students from 45 countries. In the Diocese of Florida, he has already begun working with members of the Union of Black Episcopalians and the Anti-Racism and Reconciliation Commission to develop a path forward toward Beloved Community and learn from other dioceses that have embraced this work. 

Charlie has also been clear publicly and privately that he will uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church, and that he is committed to involving the Diocese of Florida more fully in the Episcopal Church. If the Diocese of Florida gains consent to his election, he will be a part of the College of Bishops and House of Bishops, and benefit from the great mutuality in these bodies that supports our unity in mission.

 

After considering all of these issues, I have consented to Charlie Holt’s election as bishop coadjutor of Florida. He and I have some theological views that differ. But the Episcopal Church has declared itself to be a church where all people are welcomed, and a church that does not hold to a purity culture enforced by either the right or the left. I am satisfied that Charlie truly intends to promote healing in the Diocese of Florida, and I have seen many bishops grow and change as they have done that healing work in other dioceses. 

Conclusion

In my episcopate, I have learned the difficult lesson that loving all people is much harder than loving only a few people. And sometimes loving all people means loving the ones with whom you disagree, or loving the ones who are in the midst of transformation. That is what I believe we will be doing if we allow the Diocese of Florida to have Charlie Holt as its next bishop. 

Consider this: at the very moment the Diocese of Florida has listened and begun to work towards a new expression of unity that truly includes all people, at the moment new unaffiliated people in Florida and dissenters of the election are being allowed voice and presence in the process of healing, at the moment that we are seeing transformation and the first steps in a long time towards full inclusion with the promise for marriage equality, as we are seeing repentance and amendment of life by those who have hurt people – the Episcopal Church bishops and Standing Committees are saying by their votes "some of you are no longer to be included."

Recently people have told me that their “no” vote was a vote for inclusion. But I believe that a “no” vote in this consent process is a vote to exclude people we are okay with excluding. For 25 years of ministry, including 15 years in the episcopate, I have stood in the middle and advocated for those left out or left over. I have worked to allow God in Christ Jesus to do God’s work through the power of the spirit and bring that post-apocalyptic feast of people into clear vision. I see it ever more clearly. I know what exclusion from that table looks like, and I fear that in this situation, I am seeing it dressed up in the same clothes it has worn for centuries. You will find me a difficult ally if in the end you only want me to be an ally for some.

It is not too late to change your consent and allow the good faithful work of all the people in Florida to be recognized. It is not too late to consent as many have not yet done so.

I believe Christ loves all people and died for all people. I want us to be the church that follows that example--the church that proclaims plenty of grace even when it may hurt.

“Amazing Grace! How sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see. 'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear, the hour I first believed!”

Church, pray for this sinner who is a bishop, but believes he remains a member of the Good Shepherd’s flock and is redeemed by Him,

C. Andrew Doyle, D.D.

IX Bishop of Texas

A Presiding Bishop to Lead A Generous Community Amplified for the Future

With the Presiding Bishop nominations about to be released I wanted to share some thoughts from my new book entitled Church: A Generous Community for An Amplified Age. This is taken from the chapter on vocations. I believe this applies to the role of the Presiding Bishop as it applies for the local bishop. The community, the meetings, and the structure may be slightly different but the leadership skills needed will be the same.

ON FUTURE LEADERSHIP


As we look for these leaders, we will be challenged because in some ways they are not like us. Yet we know that the future Episcopal Church is beckoning and calling them into service. It is our work, our vocation, to help call them forward. To say out loud that we need individuals who have the characteristics of the second-curve leader. We must look at the church we have described, and believe lives in our positive future, and we must raise up leaders who are also representative of the great ethnic and social diversity that makes up our context. We need people who come from every kind of background with every kind of skill set. We are looking for mission-focused, entrepreneurial, collaborative, and adaptive leaders. We are looking for people who can see the church that we are seeing. These new leaders believe in and will do anything they can to work towards our positive future of a diverse people of God.

This means that we need leaders who are not only representatives of diverse populations but who are “cross-culturally competent.”[i] Leaders need to be adaptable to shifting ethnic population movement, customs, and social complexity. The younger generations are globally aware and global travelers – even just electronically. This will help them be leaders in the future church. It is important to speak another language, but even that is not as important as being able to be sensitive to the complex social customs of a particular ethnic group. Scott E. Page, director at the Center of Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan writes, “Progress depends as much on our collective differences as it does on our individual IQ scores.”[ii] He believes that crowds/commons that show a “range of perspectives and skill levels outperform like-minded experts.”[iii] Therefore the people we raise up for leadership will need to be able to illustrate in their lives some ability to achieve cross-cultural competency.

The future Church is looking for people who love God in Christ Jesus. They have a deep reverence for the sacraments at the heart of their own lives. They have a sacramental worldview and are able to tell the story of God by using many images and tools. They will be digital natives who are not afraid of the multiplicity of contexts and are able to move in and out of them seamlessly. These future leaders will already be connected and networked through a wide web of social media outlets. They will have an ability to “critically assess and develop content that uses new media forms, and to leverage these media for persuasive communication.”[iv] In other words, they will have the ability not only to navigate but also utilize constantly evolving media. They need to be “new media literate.”[v]

This will mean that we are looking for people who are “novel and adaptive thinkers.”[vi] New situations, new tools, and new cultural shifts in an uncertain world mean that the Church needs to have individuals leading it who can think and develop/create/innovate solutions.[vii] Rule-based solution makers are less effective in the VUCA world. Just as industry will need these kinds of people, so too, the church will depend upon them. In fact, no new church starter should be sent out if they are not novel and adaptive thinkers.

The future leaders will be people who are “socially intelligent.”[viii] Machines, even artificial intelligence (AI), will not be able to assess the emotions of groups.[ix] Teams and collaborations will be essential (even electronic team work now has video that enhances communication). People read people’s faces and situations in a way that today is unmatched by machines. The more we return to an age of living and working in groups/pods the more this social intelligence will become essential. [x]Leaders of the future must be literally able to read the room and use that information for leadership.

These leaders (lay and ordained) will share their story easily and be of interest to their peers and those they engage. People will want to listen and connect naturally – in part because of the three characteristics above. The future Church leaders are trustworthy and accessible. They communicate and collaborate across cultural and ideological boundaries as agents of God’s reconciling love in the face of cultural forces that polarize and divide. They are transparent, but manage to shape shift easily, as they hold to their convictions with clarity of faith, and show a capacity to stay in relationship with many different kinds of people.

The future Episcopal Church leaders are pilgrims. They are themselves making their way through life as seekers. They are authentically on a journey and are interested in their own growth spiritually. These leaders are self-aware of how they are perceived. They tolerate failure in others, they expect to fail themselves, and they are able to talk about failure because they know intrinsically that this is where growth occurs.

These leaders are conveners. They naturally are people who gather others for formation, learning, pilgrimages, studies, conversations, and storytelling. They are able to hand off leadership easily – they share leadership. They build their mini -communities with such diversity that they are always strengthening and gathering for the purpose of the overall health and vitality of the community. They are willing to share leadership but also willing to help do/experience all parts of community life. They do this in person and virtually. They are adept at figuring out the kind of collaboration that is needed, and then the means for making those connections happen. They have grown up in a world of virtual gaming, which mixes real-world parallel play with virtual peer groups. The digital native is accustomed to “immediate feedback, clear objectives, and staged series of challenges.”[xi] The new group of leaders is less limited by time, travel, and the economy, in accomplishing the task. The will naturally work better in groups and they will desire to connect with others for the sake of building stronger teams. They do not see a difference between doing this in person or online. Moreover, and importantly for all supervisors, they are not going to waste their time doing something in person if it can be done just as well digitally. They value their in-person and personal time, and want to use that for themselves.

The leaders of the future will be wise counselors, preachers and teachers. They are able to articulate the deep meaning of things. They do this for religious stories and sacraments. They also do this for secular movies, stories, and for city events. The future will need “sense-makers.”[xii] They are able themselves (before they ever go to seminary) to communicate the Gospel in ways that people and communities find engaging and relevant to their lives: in the pulpit and in personal conversation. Machines and technology will never tell a good story or be able to navigate complex sense-making. Thinking, contemplating, metaphor making, and the sacramental interpretation of life will depend upon the future leaders being gifted sense-makers.

Along with this sense-making skill they will also need “computational thinking.”[xiii] This does not mean that they need to be computers. The amount of information that is traded in a knowledge economy is huge. The complexity of the socialstructured world is illustrated by the variety and number of networked communities. The future leaders, as digital natives, will not see this as strange. They will also be able to “manage their cognitive load.”[xiv] They are able to “discriminate and filter information for importance.”[xv] While the digital immigrants are awash in a sea of competing information bytes, the digital native is able to assess importance quickly, take what is needed, and leave the rest. Those who are able to translate what they see, read, experience, and learn, into abstract concepts and new ideas are the ones who will rise above their generation in leadership.

This means they will also need to be “transdisciplinary.”[xvi] In every axial age, the key people have been those who were not specialists in any one thing, but able to navigate across specialties, piecing seemingly divergent ideas into holistic life strategies, new sciences, and new philosophies. Howard Rheingold, and author, writes, “transdisciplinarity goes beyond bringing together researchers from different disciplines to work in multidisciplinary teams. It means educating researchers who can speak languages of multiple disciplines – biologists who have understanding of mathematics, mathematicians who understand biology.”[xvii] This means we need people who understand church, sociology, culture, history, business, and accounting. It is not that we are looking for people who are experts in everything. We do not need that. Remember these leaders work in commons, networked relationships, and groups. They will build teams of depth. It does mean that we are looking for leaders who are “T-shaped.”[xviii] The people we want to engage will bring a deep understanding of one field but have the ability to speak the language and culture of a “broader range of disciplines.”[xix] It will not be enough to know a lot and be able to put it together in a novel way. In order to truly engage sense-making, the future transdisciplinarian will be able to put the pieces together in the right way so as to make them work. Computational thinkers and transdisciplinarians are the kinds of people the Church will need to help navigate the future mission context.

The future leaders will be people who have a “design mindset.”[xx] The future leader will need to be a person who can look at the task and create a strategy, plan, or ministry to reach the desired outcomes of the mission. It is not just about planting a Christian community. It is about creating a mission in a particular context with a unique combination of people, language, and culture, then after assessing and making sense of it, putting together the pieces to accomplish the goal of a new service ministry or Bible study. They will do this as a secondary act of designing, based upon what they experience and see as needed. The present church simply does what it does. The future Church will depend upon individuals surveying their mission context and then designing the mission to fit it, rather than believing they have the answer to questions that are not being asked or a healthy church for people who do not know they need one. A design mindset looks first and then designs.

Leaders of the future will be humble. They have to be humble in order to tolerate the failure necessary for learning. This will also breed in them a tenacious spirit. Tenacity is not doing the same things over and over again until you accomplish the goal. Tenacity is the willingness to try everything until you are successful. This group of leaders is willing to work hard and spend their own capital in order to achieve their goal. They will use their cognitive surplus to bridge the gaps between where they are and where they believe they (or their community) are heading. This will be seen by many as a deep and abiding sense that they are entitled to very little, but will work hard to experience the creative process. This adventurous, almost frontier spirit, will mean they are vocationally flexible. They enjoy new things and participating in different exchanges and experiences. The future Church leaders, and their families, are willing to move to and go where their interests lie. Meaning, if they are devoted to a missionary opportunity, and there is no full time position, they are more likely to get a secular job so they can make the vision happen, than they are to take a job of less interest because it pays.

These leaders will reshape the nature of the ordained ministry. What seems essential to say is that, as a bishop, I know that looking for all these qualities in any one person, is like looking for the messiah. And, if the leaders of today can raise up such a person, the future Church needs her! Here is the big news though, for Commissions on Ministry, and those who are going to participate in this raising up of future leaders: we are not looking for a person - we are looking for a group. Remember the digital native is a creature of the pack. What we have to do is raise up T-shaped individuals with those Ts fitting together to form a group that will bring all of these skills to the new church. T-shaped leaders are people who have a broad variety of skills with one or two skill expertise. When you put T-shaped leaders together in a group you multiply expertise and cross over skills. The present past Church looks for leaders who are specialists or who can become specialists, and will be solitary leaders. The future Church looks for team members who help build a team that will have a depth of these skills and the ability to scale their other talents with their fellow missionary leaders. This is how the future Church will build its cadre of leaders.

THE FUTURE BISHOP

The bishop in the future Church will continue to guard the faith of the church, but will be more of a hub, than a person who polices the boundaries of the Christian community.[xxi] They will be a unifying figure; at ease with their own beliefs and willing to listen and bring others along. The bishop will be a person who redefines the continuing discipline of the Church. They are wise enough to hold quickly to tradition, but transparently and honestly know that things have not always been any one way. The bishop of the future Church will be present in their communities – churches and wider culture. They will be known more by their geographical area than where their office is located. They will have a see and cathedra[xxii] but they will sit in the midst of their Christian communities and sit within the wider cultural context. They will no longer be associated only within their own church but as a community member who desires the best for the people who live within their diocese – and I don’t mean only the Episcopalians. The people of any given area and of any given denomination will know the Episcopal bishop of the future Church. The bishop will be a celebrant of sacraments in the world and within the community. The bishops of the future will be bishops of the people, and go about with and among their people. They will not be one to stay in an ivory tower or diocesan center. No matter what the administrative call might be, the bishop of the future Church remembers that he or she is to be out and going (as an apostle) to God’s people where they are.

Bishops will see the different kinds of ministers that are needed and will raise up people from every walk of life, and of every profession, to take on the mission of the church. This future bishop will ensure that there are many paths to ministry. They will send people to all kinds of programs and courses. The bishop of the future will place the highest priority on the mission – the criteria being the growth of the kingdom of God and the transformation of the world through the reconciling power of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore they will make the measure of success not one of degrees but on how well the life of the future Church leader accomplishes the work we have discussed throughout this book.

The bishop of the future church is a bishop who is himself or herself a second-curve leader with all of the criteria and characteristics we have already discussed. They are people who work with other bishops of the same kind to move the future Church and its vision forward. The future bishop represents well the best of leadership throughout the ages and is always willing to be a prophetic voice. Yet the bishop of the future is not one to shake his fist at the wider world. No. The future bishop is willing to offer leadership to change those institutions that must be changed. This kind of a bishop is willing to work hard to make change happen in those areas of the culture where change is needed. Words without deeds will be a foreign concept to the bishop of the future Church. This bishop is a bishop of hope.

The future bishop believes in the positive future of the Church they serve. They believe that life and vitality are present and they offer a living vision of a living Church to their people. The bishop is willing to work towards that vision, making hard decisions along the way. The bishop believes. The bishop joins God on God’s pilgrimage to reconcile the world. The bishop is always willing to serve and figures out ways in which the most good can come from the church’s presence in any community. The bishops find joy in upholding and supporting the many ministries of their diocese. These bishops of the future love their work and would do nothing else. They thrive in a sea of challenge and are excited (which shows) by the prospect of making a difference.

The future bishop lives a particular and disciplined life. He or she is faithful, and continues the practice of studying. The bishop knows the scriptures and the life of Christ and the saints well. The bishop is also willing to seek revelation and vision from other sources because the bishop knows that God in Christ is present in the world too – drawing the world into communion. It is important for the bishop to study the world and to know and understand the forces at work and the people behind them. The bishop is therefore willing and able to speak the language of their mission context. They are able to proclaim a vision of the Gospel of Good News of Salvation to their people, in a language and using symbols and images they understand. The bishop speaks as one of the people and is able to move the hearts of men and women for the work of ministry.

The future bishops will accomplish this work because they will support all the baptized to be sure. This bishop, though, must be connected in ways unseen since the early days of the Church. They are known, and they know their people, and those who minister to them. They are able to be continually in touch, and through this connection, build-up the wider community. The bishop is a unifying pastoral presence for the people entrusted to their care. Through the network of relationships, with the bishop as the hub, the internal life and ministry of the church, its members, the secular leaders, and those who are seeking are all connected into a much broader family of God which is greater and stronger than any particular group that gathers on any given Sunday morning. It is in this way that the bishop is able to marshal support for those who need it, those without a voice, and those without a community. The bishop of the future Church will no longer be given authority or be considered a prince of the church because of station. The bishop of the future Church will be the chief servant of all, the friend of many, and will receive leadership because of her humility and careful guiding hand. The bishop of the future Church is seen as the shepherd and spiritual guide of her people. This will all be done, not by lording power over those in their care, but rather by working with them.

---

[i] “Future Work Skills 2020,” IFTF, 2011, http://www.iftf.org/uploads/media/SR-1382A_UPRI_future_work_skills_sm.pdf

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] BCP, 517ff. Adapted.

[xxii] A cathedra is the bishop’s chair in the cathedral