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.

 

Christtrolling: Christian Meanness - A Rule of Life We Reject

Sometimes we think that believing we are right makes us righteous. Sometimes feeling righteous gives us the feeling that we can and should say whatever we think - regardless of the consequences or the feelings of people to whom they are directed.

What does this look like? When we make jokes about people it is a way of demeaning them. When we call people names or ascribe a label to people we make them less than who they are. When we prescribe behaviors to others that we do not know they have, for the sake of bringing judgement upon them by others, is a form of dark mob mentality. Shaming people or groups of people is also a form of meanness.

Social media is a form of communication that has helped the Christian Church with evangelism and telling our story. It is blossoming and growing.

Christian social media also has a dark side. The dark side of media is that it allows us to anonymously and not-so-anonymously say and do things which are mean with very little social accountability. It can give voice to a minority which is a good thing. At the same time it can also give an appearance of a higher authority to voices which may be untruthful or mean spirited. It can create what are called "dark mobs." This is when people ban together in groups and shame and harass others online for their opinions and beliefs.

This is a kind of "troll" like behavior at its worst. Liberals and conservative Christians pop onto someone else's page or into someone else's twitter stream and accuse them of all manner of things. In real life, even among other interfaith friendships, we typically monitor our behavior and words. Online we are a culture that has become free to say what we are thinking and it is mean and uncivilized.

When Christians do this it is Christtrolling. It sounds righteous. It sounds biblical. It may even sound justified. Instead, Christtrolling is hurtful to the Gospel.

When we participate by doing these things we are being unrighteous and we are destroying the character of God's creatures. When we listen or "like" these behaviors, when we allow them to hang on our blogs and on our Facebook pages, and say nothing we allow our silent approval to give these statements power. Feeding the Christtrolls isn't any better. Sometimes they simply have to be deleted from the feed and sometimes in extreme cases they have to be unfriended or blocked.

We have to treat our cyber worlds and cyber church communities the same way we treat our real life communities. We must maintain a standard of behavior that is Christ like. If you are a Christian you are called to live a Christ like life all week long in the "real world" not just on Sunday; and in cyberspace.

Some people call this bullying behavior (cyber bullying) when it is on line. We are all against this of course - as we should be. Most people who engage in Christian Meanness would not believe they are being bullies at all - because they think they have the right to say what they want to whom ever they want. Let me be clear, Christian Meanness is an equal opportunity abuser and is a sin - even when it happens online.

Christianity is always at its worst when it is pointing its finger at others instead of individually walking by the faith we have received. I am not here talking about civil discourse or the importance of taking our place at the table to discuss deep issues upon which we are deeply committed. Christtrolling, cyber bullying, and Christian Meanness masquerades as righteousness and it is not. It is not conversation or Christian listening.

I can promise you that over the last ten days in the wake of events in our nation around the Supreme Court ruling and the events at the Episcopal General Convention I have been on the receiving end of Christian Meanness from every side.

Christian Meanness destroys our evangelism efforts. It hurts people. It ascribes to God meanness which is out of sync with our witness to a God of love.

So, what is a Christian to do?

A friend reminded me of a wonderful book by Richard J. Mouw entitled: Uncommon Decency, Christian Civility in a Uncivil World. (You can purchase the book here.)  In this book Mouw reminds us that true righteousness comes from modeling outwardly what we experience inwardly of the life of God.

I actually heard a priest tell me once that he did not believe that "kindness" was a Christian virtue. I disagree. I believe, like Mouw, that Christian kindness and courtesy is a revelation of our inner commitment to God to treat one another as neighbor.

Mouw reminds us that this is not some kind of relativism. Instead it is holding our faith, belief, and clear convictions as our own and at the same time being inquisitive and admiring of those of another. Christian Meanness is easy. Christian kindness is hard because it requires us spiritually to admire the other person (gay, lesbian, transgender, heterosexual, conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, muslim, jew, man, woman) as a creation of God. (p22)

When we do this we are actually imitating the divine character of God. God is gentle slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. (Psalm 86.15) Christians are called to imitate God and God's embrace of humanity and creation. We are to reveal in our actions the actions of God in Christ Jesus.

Church, above all else, is the primary center for practicing this behavior. How can we ever expect to share the love of God with others if we cannot model and reveal it online, and in person, through our words to others within and without our own church. (p35)

Author Richard Beck in an interesting book entitled: Unclean - Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality offers some insights into this behavior. (You can buy the book here.) Beck believes that we are very protective of our tribes, families, belief system, and communities. We are very protective of our church - whatever/whoever we believe our church is.  And, that deep inside our ancient DNA psyche we still believe and act out the reality of the ancient myth that those who are outside of our tribe/family/community/church are monsters. This is the very nature of what it means to incarnate for us the notion that they are "other" than our selves. They are some other race, some other color, some other belief system - literally from some other world. The mythic battle is the predisposition, Beck offers, to shun and rebuke the "other."  To truly welcome the stranger, to truly open up our hearts to another, to be neighbor to those we don't believe deserve our neighborliness is to overcome our predisposition to shun and hurt the other. 

I believe this is so deeply engrained in us that it empowers boldness where there is no accountability and gives implicit permission for us to destroy others. 

Christ came into the world to save sinners. He came into the world to bridge the gap between the other and God. Christ came to embrace and to hold accountable all those who would not embrace the other. 

We are to be at work healing history, living with difference, celebrating diversity and building together a peaceful commons in which all people can live. This is the work of reconciliation. 

Mouw suggests that we model Christian Civility instead of Christian meanness by exhibiting these behaviors: empathy, curiosity, teachability, learning from unbelief/where we disagree, and opening ourselves up to see where the lines are blurred. Here is where we discover not only the other person for who they are but we also discover where God may be speaking to us and seeking to help us find healing. (p58ff)

To do this Mouw says we must zealously stay together, seek peace despite our disagreements, go deep into spiritual prayer, cultivate a spirit of appreciation for others instead of being threatened by them, and make room for others within our family, friendship, and community circles. (p68ff)

It is actually possible to hold deeply held beliefs and be in conflict with our neighbor and at the same time not embody Christian Meanness or to partake in Christtrolling. The two statements by the House of Bishops are wonderful examples of a Christian community holding together despite great difference. You can read the statements here: Minority Statement and Mind of the House Statement.

There may be a lot of things that we are debating in a topsy turvy world. There may be things you are unsure about or wondering about. There may be things you are steadfastly FOR and AGAINST. No matter what any of these things are I am clear that Jesus entered the world in a lowly place. That Jesus was himself humble and embodied God's love.

Jesus was prophetic, yes. He was prophetic against all those who were mean and tried to shut people out of God's house. This is why they killed him. He opened up religion and opened up the heavens by giving away power, love, and himself.

This Jesus has taught me: that there is no room in the Gospel for Christian Meanness or Christtrolling and it is a rule of life we must reject. Christian Civility is a rule of life we must take on for the sake of the kingdom and the God we love.

The Arena of General Convention

This week many Episcopalians will make there way to our triennial gathering the General Convention. This is an important and awaited gathering of many leaders from around the church to undertake a portion of the governance we use to support our mission.

People are excited. I am excited. At our best we are a family reunion like no other. We are sharing our difference, we are setting aside deference, we are celebrating our diversity. At our best we are creating a church wide commons where ideas, excitement for the story, dispatches from the missionary front, and our love of God are shared. When we are doing this we are all in the arena. We are there with our tribe. We are dancing and singing together. We are working hard and playing together. We are learning from one another and we are sharing the road together. We hear ideas and we wonder about them together. We are belonging. We are creating. We are loving.

But we should always remember that the General Convention is an arena. If you love it you will enter it with ideas, creativity, and a desire to make something. Hopefully that is always to make our governance and structure work for our mission.

When you do this, when I do this, we are daring greatly. We are trusting one another enough to be vulnerable with our ideas and to share them with the body so that we might discern together what good might we be about on behalf of the God we believe in. When we do this we are the one in the arena. Brené Brown uses the speech often called The Man in the Arena to describe this moment - this space we inhabit when we risk.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

This is taken THE MAN IN THE ARENA is an excerpt from President Theodore Roosevelt's speech entitled "Citizenship In A Republic" delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910,
download PDF of complete speech.

Brown reminds us that when we enter the arena it is not about winning or losing it is about showing up and being seen. What we have to know and understand is that the arena - though we would like it to be otherwise - is dangerous. Showing up and being seen means you will as Brené Brown says, "Get your assed kicked." She goes on to say that if "courage is a value that you hold, this is a consequence, you can't avoid it." What you should know is that if the person who is taking you to task is not in the arena with you then you should not be interested in your feedback. Constructive, helpful, supportive, challenging about ideas, looking for common ground, building consensus are some of the many forms that people enter the arena with you to help co-create.

These people are the people in the support section. These are people who have empathy for you. They see and act as though their contributions are given in the spirit of mutual support for the common good. When the Episcopal Church is filled with people like this we are good. We are together and we are moving our mission forward.

There are others though who are not in the support section or not in the arena with us but are really against us. These are the ones not helping, supporting, or moving the creativity forward. These are people who make the arena unsafe.

We are so "hardwired for connection" that when we pretend we don't care we are actually cutting ourselves off. Even though their messages are ones of shame or even anger, we must recognize them as part of our family, part of the arena. We need to understand they are season ticket holders. they are sitting in particular seats.

The people inhabit three kinds of seats: cheap seats, box seats, and the critics section. The Cheap Seats are filled with the anonymous critics who pass judgment on us. They may be named, have a twitter handle, or Facebook Page, you may even know who they are because they are recognized cheap seat ticket holders. The reality is that they are not connected to you or your idea. They want to see you fail and even though they are sitting in your arena they may be naysayers and be working for an opposing team.

The box seats are filled with people who built or maintain the arena and give us the messages about the expectations we must meet. They are the ones who pass out power and take away power based on loyalty. They are the ones who are deeply invested in the arena staying exactly where it is. They will criticize all ideas, have none to add to the arena, and won't tolerate any thing challenging to shifting or changing who sits where.

The last of these is special seats are held by the critics. The critics are the people who give us the messages of shame, comparison and scarcity. These are the ones who demean people because of their difference, they offer shame messages in order to quite you, they compare you to others who "get it right", and they believe there is no possible way for your creativity to work or have any merit.

Thanks to social media these seats won't only be inhabited by people at Convention but there will be a ton of people all over shouting from the seats at those who this week walk into the arena. I am always aware that the General Convention is a wonderful thing and that it has its shadow side which can be ugly and mean.

What we do a lot of the time is we armor up. We move away from the creative idea, the opportunity for change, and either exit the arena and go quietly into the night - we move away. Or we move against and channel all our energy into defeating the people in those seats! This also saps energy from the work at hand. Or we try to placate the critics, cheap, and box seats.

Brené Brown reminds us that when we walk into the arena we are also in the same spot where we discover love, belonging, joy, empathy, creativity, and innovation

So we what do we do? We allow them to sit in their seats. But we chose to walk into the arena for the sake of these things.

Clarity of values - remember what you believe in. For instance, remember not the church and its structures but remember and hold close to you the image of the family of God that Jesus offers and into which Jesus invites us. Have your someone who will tell you the truth, who will dust you off, clean you up, and help you go back into the arena. Finally, remember that the biggest critic in the arena is you - its me. "We are so self critical. We have an ideal about ourselves. We orphan all the parts that don't fit for us. And, all that is left is the critic." Brené Brown says. But put in that seat you - the person who is your journey, your life, your story, and is excited and supporting you.

I leave tomorrow morning for General Convention. If I am honest I have sat in all of those seats in the past. This year as I step into the arena I want to enter it in a different way. I want to share what I have, listen to others. I want to help heal the past. I want to experience our difference and diversity. I want to create a peaceful commons. I want to be about the work of reconciliation and I want to help us be a better church that is a good steward of its resources and finally is focused on its mission. I am looking for others who want to do these things. I am hopeful we will be at our best.

When we are not and we get into the critics, the box, and cheap seats I hope we will hold each other accountable. When we use shame and other demeaning tactics to quiet people or to deal with our own fear and anxiety I hope we will hold one another accountable.

So I am at first prayerful. Prayerful for safe travel. Prayerful for our gathered family. Prayerful for all those who are going to serve, feed, and clean up after us for 10+ days. Prayerful and grateful for the privilege of serving at this church and being able to afford the time and resources to attend this meeting. And, finally prayerful that we will be at our best.

I am hopeful. I believe we have an opportunity to become the church that God beckons us to become. I believe we have at Salt Lake City the moment to take our next step into the future of a church whose mission is amplified for the future.

Here is a quote from Aeschylus' play "Prometheus Bound." After they have bound Prometheus to the rock...Cratus:[to Prometheus] "Go play rebel now, go plunder the god's treasure and give it to your creatures of a day. What portion of your pain can mortals spare you? The gods who named you the Forethinker were mistaken. You'll need forethought beyond your reckoning to wriggle your way out of this device." 


[You can watch the Brené Brown video from the 99 conference where she talks about this here.]

I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means: Unicameral

People keep using the word unicameral and I am not sure that people are generally aware that it has a variety of meanings.

People keep saying that the unicameral house will undo the two house system we have at General Convention. That could be true but it doesn't have to be true.

In this understanding they are using the term to mean one house. But that is not the technical definition of unicameral.

Unicameral means meeting in one chamber. So the integrity of the different houses in our system that typically meet bicameral form (in two chambers) could be maintained. They could in fact have provisions to meet separately when desired.

The way this works now is that we typically meet bicameral form and have provisions for meeting unicamerally. So it is that this General Convention we will actually have several unicameral meetings of the two houses. For instance on budget and on hearing the nominee presentations for Presiding Bishop. This is hardly going to be the end of the world.

If we chose to move forward with a unicameral meeting we could vastly improve our governance while at the same time providing for separate meetings from time to time in bicameral form. And, we could maintain the two house system and their integrity - which I have always supported.

So as you use the term make sure we are using it correctly.

Our Episopal Default Future is a Racket We Should Divest

The reality is that we, like all denominational churches, face our default future. This reality isn't unique to us.

A friend recently gave me a copy of Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan's book THE THREE LAWS OF PERFORMANCE. In it Zaffron and Logan argue that all humans typically face and receive the futures that they believe will pass. They argue that this reality illusion has more power of humans than actual facts or reasons.

It is like this, how a situation occurs to you goes hand in hand with your actions. This is amplified by the fact that what we see is all there is, and the world seemingly revolves around us as individuals. David Foster Wallace in his Kenyan College Graduation speech offered this understanding of our self-centeredness. He believed that we are deluded by the lens by which we experience the world – this is part of our problem and it hides the most obvious realities. He wrote, "A huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded… [because] everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute center of the universe, the realest, most vivid and important person in existence... Think about it: There is no experience you've had that you were not at the absolute center of. The world as you experience it is right there in front of you, or behind you, to the left or right of you, on your TV, or your monitor, or whatever. Other people's thoughts and feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, real” that it is difficult to hear the other voices. Wallace says, "As I'm sure you guys know by now, it is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive instead of getting hypnotized by the constant monologue inside your own head. In fact some of you are carrying on that conversation right now.”

Daniel Kahneman in his book THINKING FAST AND SLOW calls it "observation bias."

What these authors, economists, and business men are offering is the essential truth that we see the world as it occurs to us and therefore make actions that suit our observations.  We make our future - one way or the other.

The question that Bob Johansen, of Institute for the Future, is asking is what insights are you using to make your decisions.

So lets go back and think a bit about our Episcopal Church (or any denomination thinking about how to structure itself, judicatory, or congregation for that matter). This summer our Episcopal Church will meet in convention and ponder how to structure itself for mission.  It will ask the same questions it has been asking for two decades, and they are similar to all denominational churches in our time. In particular our church structure has spent enormous amounts of time and energy pondering what the future looks like - TREC. Now that TREC has returned with their version what structure could be the population of general convention is thinking - "no". There are other groups offering similar ideas as TREC. There are groups trying to amplify the work of all these people to convince the general-convention-going deputies that they need to vote positively to restructure the church.

But the deputies and bishops have not spent a lot of time on this. They have not spent three years reading and studying things, listening to consultants, dreaming about mission, and then attempting to build consensus in a wildly diverse group of people around common future scenarios of a mission church. This isn't to place a value on the lack of this work, but it is to point out that the deputy or bishop will vote based upon how the church occurs to them. And here is the rub.

The future is as it occurs and is already written by the deputies and bishops - and it isn't the future TREC or any other group is offering. The reason is that it is the default future. The deputies and bishops will vote, as all others have voted, and as of right now the vast majority of efforts towards restructuring will fail. The restructuring offers  a means to an end and that end is not how the deputies see the church; it isn't how it occurs to them. That is just the way it is.

70% of all change efforts fall short because those who are actually in charge of the change don't change but vote or act as the church has always occurred to them. 70% fall short despite our good intentions, sophisticated systems, we have put a great group of people in the room, we have a solid management plan, and good leaders who came up with TREC report (I am biased of course having been a member of the committee).

The reason is that what occurs to the vast numbers of deputies and bishops may be one of the following: a) all structure proposals fail b) I don't think our system is broken c) to change will remove power from me d) I like how things work e) our predecessors chose this system for a reason. Regardless of context, potential, crisis, problems, expressed concern about the continued loss of membership and money, or any other reason these 5 different ways in which the church occurs to the people will rule the day. The 5 different ways the church occurs to the deputies and bishops is not only a voting block to ensure no movement but it is an intimately strong web of occurrences that are not changed by reasonable argument, future forecast, power points, and graphs.

The traditional approach, Zaffron and Logan argue, is for us to make our case. Show our research. Offer a view of what is really happening. Look at the numbers. "See here it is," we might say, "it is clear." Current models for change management hold that people act based upon mental assets of skills, emotions, beliefs, values, attitudes, and knowledge. And the traditional approach is to use incentives, skill training, and motivation to manage the change. Zaffron and Logan point out that this is why the effort fails. None of this deals with how the actual church and future church occurs to the people who actually will be making a vote.

No matter how much money, resources, time we spend throwing at this problem we will fail because we have forgotten (as Simon Sinek points out) The Why.

The reality is that the unanimous vote in both houses to restructure was created by casting a vision of a future church that was involved in mission at all levels of the organization. People believed - even for a moment - that the possible was in fact, well, possible.

Over the last two decades the change efforts have failed at General Convention (not because they were bad ideas) because we never changed how the church occurred to those voting. Consequently, each effort that has failed has reinforced and strengthened the resistance to change. We are so focused on the what and the what has grown stronger and stronger and more resistant to change. Not only that - we benefit from keeping it this way.

We as a church, and General Convention (or any judicatory), have a racket. The first part of our racket is this: we have a complaint about how things work. Everyone is complaining. We heard it clearly at TREC, that everyone has problems with how things work - even if they denied publicly that this was true, we heard it privately over and over again. The second part of the racket is this: we write about it, talk about, speach-ify about it, call for change, we act hopeless and bewildered at how no one will change. The third element Zaffron and Logan offer is harder to see. We all see the above two behaviors of our Episcopal racket. The next behavior is the payoff. The payoff for our particular racket is that we get to be right, the depersonalized system is wrong, avoids the reality that we are part of the system, and we maintain control of our platform or place on the convention floor. The fourth behavior to our racket is the cost. The cost is that we remain hopeless to change anything, we continue to spend money and time with very little to show for it, we disenfranchise people across the church, and we harm the mission of Christ.

We have a default future and it is a racket that costs the mission of the church dearly and hurts the community and mission of Christ. We need to divest from this racket and this way that the church occurs to us. It is not what God intends.

Here is where that old maxim about the sea comes in, attributed to Antoine de Saint Exupery, "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."

Jesus offered us a vision of nothing less than the reign of God. Jesus offered us plenteous redemption. Jesus offered us healing and forgiveness. Jesus offered us a share in his harvest ministry.  Jesus invited us to come along and to meet an intimate transformative God.  This vision held up against the way we do things today brings about change.

The solution to bringing about change will depend on Jesus' vision of the church and the following behaviors of its adherents. 

• We need to focus on the hopeful future potential of our church and our church's mission.
• We need to speak about the future (not the current state of affairs, not the problems, not the racket - for that we need to go to confession and seek amendment of life).
• We must paint a compelling and vibrant future together, speaking and listening one another into a conversion that seeks to be the community that Jesus inspired.

The challenge as we enter this season of preparation and debate will must be a season of inspiration and imagination. So I invite you to lift up your eyes. Take a look towards the horizon. What does a vibrant, beautiful, living, healthy and powerful church look like as it undertakes mission through evangelism and the service of neighbor? What does the future church look like as it sails into the contextual sea that surrounds you? Leave behind the vision of the church that occurs to you, and take up the future church that you are willing to work towards?

It will be those who can cast a vision of this future church who will win the day regarding the future shape of our organization. I believe it will be the bishop who can inspire us to imagine this future church who will be the next Presiding Bishop. We should demand inspiration and vision from our leaders. We should hope together to discover the open sea that is before us. 

I think that Jesus' vision of community is worth working together to bring to light. I think that vision, the one you have in your head right now, that church is worth the labor of change.

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