"Clarity And Charity" From Bishop Jenkins

Since I do not know whether the comment moderation is kept up to date on the Diocese of Louisiana website, I'll go ahead and post Bishhop Jenkins' response along with my email to him at the website: (See Bishop Jenkins' Response below)

A Response to the House of Bishops
The Clarity and Charity of a Self-Differentiating Act

Each action taken by a leader or a group in leadership towards clarity is not necessarily a movement towards differentiation. The difference between mature leadership and tyranny is that the former makes room for points of view differing from the majority, while the latter can hardly tolerate divergence from the majority opinion. As Ed Friedman once noted, “the more monolithic the system, the more dissent is seen as destructive.” Both the differentiated leader and the tyrant may be clear and well defined but clarity alone does not make an action a mature response. To quote Ed Friedman, “The critical issue in determining differentiation is the ability to tolerate difference.” The paradox between clarity as differentiation or as tyranny is defined in part by the attempt of the leader or group in power to coerce the other into accepting the majority opinion.

Dissent from the actions of various General Conventions does not imply a desire to “divide our Church.” I am one who has a deep “love for the Episcopal Church, the integrity of its identity, and the continuance of its life and ministry.” I have for years suggested that the Episcopal Church should separate (do not hear what I am not saying) in order that we need not separate. Again, this is a concept put forward by Rabbi Friedman. By “separate in order not to separate”, I do not mean division or schism. I am not talking about parallel jurisdictions, as the concept seems to have been put forth. I am not talking about two Anglican Churches in North America or anywhere else. I am saying that we Episcopalians have lately become too close and as in a marriage, such over-closeness, or fusion, often leads to separation or even divorce. I have been told the Canons do not allow for an appropriate sense of distance in our ecclesiastical relations to avoid an absolute separation for divorce. I may be the only person in the Episcopal Church who believes that we have become fused with one another (I have not been able to sell this concept).

I disagree with the widely held perception by members of the House of Bishops that the “Communication from the March 2007 Meeting of the House of Bishops” was in fact a differentiating move. For sure, it was clear, but the inability of the majority to tolerate dissent, to engage a spirit of adventure (one would hope under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), and the tendency towards historical gloss make me question the value of the Communication as an act of self-differentiation.

The Lambeth Conference of 1998 was a clear demonstration to all in the Communion who had eyes to see that the traditional connections and relationships of the Anglican Communion were under great challenge as insufficient for the future of the Communion. The traditional axis of the United Kingdom, North America, and Australia was not alone representative of the future of the Church. I think the great adventure for us as Anglican Christians is to seek prayerfully the guidance of the Holy Spirit to discern humbly where God would have us grow as Communion. The opportunity to avoid fusion and herding as well as separation and schism, is the exciting adventure that is sidetracked by the Bishops’ rigid appeal to our polity. Episcopal Bishops have said repeatedly that brothers and sisters from around the world do not understand the polity of The Episcopal Church. Such a statement seems to suggest that if our brothers and sisters did understand our Episcopal polity, they would accept it. I am not willing to make such an imperialistic assumption. I think many outside of the Episcopal Church do understand our polity. They just do not buy it. I assume that to engage a great adventure of where the Holy Spirit would lead us does not necessarily mean that we know the answer before we even bend our knees in prayer.

I was not at the March 2007 meeting of the House of Bishops when the “Communication” was discussed and voted on. I had returned from Camp Allen to New Orleans for a series of meetings and events that demanded my presence. I would have spoken against and voted against the “Communication” had I been present. It was a done deal by the time I was able to return to Camp Allen.

The Gospel of John tells us of Jesus’ prayer from the Upper Room “that they may be one as we are one.” (St. John 17.22b) As we keep this Maundy Thursday, let us pray that God will in all truth make real in our lives even a dim shadow of that perfect unity of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.

04.04.2007


Here's my comment:

Dear Bishop Jenkins,

I understand that you are under great stress since Katrina and the flood, with scattered members of the flock, priests who have no congregations, priests who have moved on to other locations, ruined churches, and your own home flooded. I want you to know that I pray for you, because I know you bear heavy burdens at this time, and that there is still much work to be done.

I read your response to the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen. I understand that you were not present for the discussion and vote on the "Communication" that the bishops released, and that you would have spoken against it and voted against it, had you been there.

Beyond that, I confess that I understand little of the rest of your response. Where is the "tyranny"? Is it in the House of Bishops? I am not familiar with Rabbi Friedman's books, and I do not understand your statements that reference his ideas.

What can you mean by saying that the Episcopal Church must "separate in order not to separate"? What do you mean when you say that the church has become overclose or fused, which could lead to a divorce?

You say that certain members of the Communion "just do not buy it" [the polity of the Episcopal Church] So, what then? It is not within the power of the House Of Bishops, by itself, to change the polity of the Episcopal Church. There is another House, the House of Deputies. There is a process for making changes in the Canons of the Episcopal Church. I like the democracy in the Episcopal Church, and I would like to retain it.

You say what you don't mean; you don't mean schism or division, nor do you mean parallel jurisdictions, but I'm not sure what you do mean.

I can't think what sort of "great adventure" you have in mind. If the adventure involves putting the Episcopal Church under the authority of the likes of Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria and Archbishop Orombi of Uganda, who are already intruding in our church in a manner which they have no right to do, I would be greatly disappointed. There are many problems in their own countries which need to be addressed, and they should stay home and tend to them.

Let me make myself clear, Bishop Jenkins: I pray that the Episcopal Church is not excluded from the Anglican Communion, but should that happen, I would take my place firmly within the Episcopal Chruch. I pray that you do not have in mind to press for a withdrawial of the Diocese of Louisiana from the Episcopal Church.

Although I am only a humble Episcopalian in the pew, I feel sort of dull and stupid not to understand more of your response, even after reading it several times. Perhaps you can shed light for me.

UPDATE: At church today, Sunday April 15, we received a printed handout of Bishop Jenkins' "Response To The House Of Bishops", but without an explanation or translation.