Leadership From the Top

Episcopal Life Online is reporting today on the recently concluded meeting of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church. I imagine much will be made of statement in response to the Draft Anglican Covenant, and perhaps of the response to the recent statement from the September meeting of the House of Bishops. However, I wanted to highlight a later note, something that says something not only about our Presiding Bishop, but also about the Episcopal Church.

The report on Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori’s remarks to Executive Council includes this paragraph:

Jefferts Schori also asked that the Council consider whether there is a way to conduct a mutual ministry review of her work. She suggested that such a review would be a way to ask the question of "how is this office reviewed and challenged."

The link in the paragraph is to a report prepared jointly by the Episcopal Church Foundation, the Office of Ministry Development, and the Church Deployment Office, and, as the report says, “Many Diocesan Representatives.” The report discusses the meaning of mutual ministry, purposes of review and evaluation, and procedures for such a review.

There is a section specifically titled, “Ministry Review for Designated Leaders.” It includes principles for preparation, and for the review itself. It calls for the review to include all orders of ministry from the “congregation,” and also participation of all the “designated leaders” of the “congregation.”

What I think is most important, and most challenging, about this request from the Presiding Bishop is her willingness to be accountable for her work for the whole Episcopal Church. We might debate how well we’re pursuing “mutual ministry” as a whole Church, but in many places it has been an important focus, and a successful one. Bishop Jefferts Schori is modeling for the Episcopal Church her sense of accountability to all she serves.

I would also suggest this can be a challenge to other Primates of the Communion. I assume all are willing to be accountable, but this is a call specifically to be accountable to all orders of clergy and laity in the province. This has been an important issue, visible in the Draft Anglican Covenant and in responses to it. The proposed focus on the Primates Meeting, and corollary proposed restriction of the Anglican Consultative Council, seem to indicate a pull away from including all orders of ministry in discernment and decision making for the whole Communion. The response from the Executive Council, reflecting the majority of reflections from the Episcopal Church, highlights this as a specific concern.

I think we should honor the courage and openness of our Presiding Bishop. She is open to review and feedback from all orders of ministry within the Episcopal Church. Let’s hope that others will be willing to follow her lead.

Finding Some Clarity

I have sometimes been told I have an obscure sense of humor (commonly, by my best beloved). Perhaps it had something to do with coming up with a series of book titles from relatives of Martin Heidegger – the one from Richard the gardener, titled Bean and Thyme; or the one from Edward, the commercial photographer, called Sign and Sight. Perhaps it had something to do with referring to our rescued shelter dog as a “Melange” (a practice I stopped after the third person said with all sincerity, “A “Melange?” I’m not familiar with that breed. Where is it from?”).

It has also been said when someone noted that I am a fact-junkie. I like browsing reference sources, just to pick up something new. When I pick up USA Today I find myself looking at the state by state snippets, starting with the state where I live, and then states where I have lived, and then states adjacent to states where I have lived….

So, I was playing recently in the Digital Archives of the Episcopal Church, looking at legislation of past General Conventions. (Take some time to browse there yourself. It’s a wealth of information on the statements and actions of General Conventions since 1976.) There I ran across Resolution 1997-A014:

Resolved, That Canon IV.15 is hereby amended by adding thereto a definition reading as follows: "Doctrine": As used in this Title, the term "Doctrine" shall mean the basic and essential teachings of the church. The Doctrine of the Church is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer.

First, that led me to consider this definition: "the basic and essential teachings of the church… [are] to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer.” (emphasis mine) Whatever some may say about the importance of Scripture in the Anglican tradition, the General Convention in 1997 affirmed in at least one place in Canons the importance of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture rather than a sola scriptura tradition. That is even more clear when we consider that this definition was accepted as amended. The original version of the resolution was,

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That Canon IV.15. is hereby amended by adding thereto a definition reading as follows: "Doctrine": The Doctrine of the Church shall be found in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Sacraments, Pastoral Offices, and Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer, and is in all cases to be supported by Holy Scripture.

The difference is subtle, but the amended version essentially reverses, I think, the original. Rather than Tradition being understood through Scripture, Scripture was to be understood through the Tradition.

Then, it led me to Title IV Canon 15, the title of which is “Of Terminology Used in This Title” It is, in fact, a list of definitions of terms used in Title IV, which encompasses the Disciplinary Canons. In addition, it includes definitions of such terms as “Amenable for Presentment for an Offense” (“a reasonable suspicion exists that the individual has been or may be accused of the commission of an Offense”); . “Discipline” (“found in the Constitution, the Canons, and the Rubrics and the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer”); and “Minor: (“a person under the age of twenty-one years of age;”).

It also includes a definition of “Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy:”

“any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church.”

and a definition of “Offense:” “any conduct or acts proscribed in Canon IV.1.1. “

One of the complaints about the Episcopal Church has been lack of clarity and of definition. Here are some clear definitions, affirmed through the constitutional processes of the Episcopal Church. I wonder what use we might make of them.

In the Worst Case: Pandemic Ethics

What if the flu comes – not the ordinary, every-winter, best-guess-for-the-vaccine flu, but the pandemic? Most of us are aware in one way or another that folks have been thinking about that. A few years ago the fear was a biological terror attack; and then there was SARS; and then bird flu. Folks remember the Spanish influenza of 1918, and then think about how connected we are – remember that Patient Zero for AIDS was a flight attendant? – and are all too aware that it could happen again.

So, what if pandemic flu comes? Suppose you have 100 mechanical ventilators available. Now, suppose you have 105 eligible patients. How do you decide who gets on a ventilator, recognizing that those who go one the vent might never get off; while those that don’t will almost certainly die?

That is the archetypical scenario of discussions of pandemic ethics. They are discussions of limited resources, limited time, and establishing difficult priorities. They are discussions of rationing, and rationing when people are at their most anxious and least rational.

Monday the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft document describing priorities for vaccinations in the event of pandemic flu, that is, once a vaccine has been isolated and manufactured. You can read a news report here, and the HHS document here. I encourage you to read both.

There are some points in the HHS draft that aren’t a surprise. The first to receive the hypothetical vaccine would be critical health care workers, public safety workers, and others critical to keep the essential services going – health, fire, police, power, communications, and, of course, military and Homeland Security. Note that this doesn’t include all workers in those sectors, but only those identified as critical. Among the general population pregnant women and infants and toddlers are in the first rank.

There are two ranks after that for most employment categories. Among the general population there are, in fact, four: children are in the second rank, high risk elderly and adults are in the third, and all healthy non-senior adults are in the fourth.

There’s not much in this surprises me in the document; but, then, I’ve been aware of the conversations in my metropolitan area for some time. There may, however, be surprises to you. That’s why it’s important that HHS has opened this document for public comment beginning this Saturday, October 26. You can link from the HHS page above to offer your own comments.

When we as professionals talk about these decisions, we come back to one critical question: how do we inform the public and get some commitment from them to support these decisions, decisions that might well restrict access in the emergency for some, perhaps for many? We all project enough fear and anger and chaos if the pandemic comes – or, for that matter, any other major disaster: we remember all too well what happened to health care systems in New Orleans. We hope that an informed, reflective public will reduce that somewhat. It won’t eliminate it, but perhaps it will help.

Release of this draft is a prime opportunity to do just that: to inform the public and to discuss among ourselves how we want these decisions made, and how we think we should behave in such dire circumstances. Read the news story. Read the document. Then, take the time to offer some comment. Those of us in health care think about when, not if, the pandemic will come. Please think with us about how our society should respond, and how we should go about making the hardest decisions.

More of Rowan's (New?) Anglican Ecclesiology?

While he was making this defence, Festus exclaimed, ‘You are out of your mind, Paul! Too much learning is driving you insane! (Acts 26:24)

There are many today who want to make that response to the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. A letter from him to John Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, is causing consternation and confusion. You can read the letter here. You can read commentary on the letter at all the usual suspects, and across the Anglican blogosphere.

The letter from Archbishop Williams came in response to a letter from Bishop Howe describing the concerns of a number of parishes that are considering leaving that diocese so as to definitively separate themselves from the Episcopal Church. As one might expect, Archbishop Williams expressed his hope that congregations might not need to separate from Bishop Howe and Central Florida, noted as being “Windsor compliant” and on the more conservative side in American disagreements. In the process of making his case, Archbishop Williams wrote this:

However, without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I've said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.

That might have been well enough had he left it there. However, he went on to say,

Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor. Action that fragments their Dioceses will not help the consolidation of that all-important critical mass of ordinary faithful Anglicans in The Episcopal Church for whose nurture I am so much concerned.

He went on to say,

I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the 'national church'. I think that if more thought in these terms there might be more understanding of why priests in a diocese such as yours ought to maintain their loyalty to their sacramental communion with you as Bishop.

Those statements make sense in “understanding of why priests in a diocese such as yours ought to maintain their loyalty to their sacramental communion with you as Bishop;” but they surely make difficulties regarding “[t]hose who are rushing into separatist solutions.... Breaking this [vision of the Church] up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision.” For, after all, does this not literally suggest that dissenting bishops can do with their dioceses what dissenting clergy and their parishes cannot?

I have noted before parallels between Rowan Williams’ vision of an Anglican Communion more closely integrated, and statements from the Pope Benedict XVI when, before his election, he issued Dominus Iesus. This letter to Bishop Howe would seem right in line with that vision: more of a centralized “church” and less a “communion of provinces,” with individual dioceses in some sense relating to the office of Canterbury directly. It certainly seems to discount provincial structures, and accountability of dioceses to their respective provincial structures.

On the other hand, in the press conference at the recent House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, he had the following questions and responses,

Mary Ailes: one thing we have heard often is that we are free to go but we have to leave the buildings behind. Some hear that as: We have no need of you but we need your buildings. What would you say to those who want to be Anglican but cannot in good conscience remain Episcopalian?

ABC: Start by looking for arrangements and situations within what is there because grace is given through even hopeless places. Isn’t God’s grace still given sacramentally in the Episcopal Church? I would be slow to look for solutions elsewhere.

It is distressing to see the levels of litigation. I would hope and pray that there is a possibility of stopping this from being dragged through the courts interminably.

ENS: There have been interventions throughout the Episcopal Church Does this trouble you?

ABC: yes, there is a long history of unease about this in the Church. I would really, really prefer and hope to work for a local solution. My predecessor would not recognize illicit bishops I find myself in the same difficulty. More interventions make it difficult to find viable solutions.

How are dioceses to seek “a local solution,” one that doesn’t “take refuge in foreign jurisdictions,” without respect for provincial structures? Without provincial structures, what could “local” possibly mean with respect to a diocese?

Indeed, he has responded in this letter “without [intending to forestall] what the primates might say.” He is certainly consulting primates, an act that has raised for many a more curial vision that Archbishop Williams has repeatedly denied. According to one report, the primates were asked to report "your view as to how far your province is able to access the Joint Standing Committee Report assessment that the House of Bishops have responded positively to the requests of Windsor and of the Dar-es-Salaam message of the Primates." That is perhaps less “curial” in intent than some might fear, although some primates may well project their own vision of the Joint Standing Committee’s Report without further consultation within their provinces. At the same time, without provincial structures, what is the ministry of, or even the need for a primate? Moreover, what primate in any province of the Communion would be happy with such a discounting of provincial structures? What diocese in some province other than the Episcopal Church might see in this license to seek a direct relationship with Canterbury that bypasses provincial structures?

It seems as likely as not that what has happened here is that Archbishop Williams has responded to a specific question about a specific concern, and has made his best argument for those in that specific concern to seek the most “local” solution, especially when that keeps very conservative clergy and congregations in communion with a conservative bishop and diocese. Like Paul perhaps, he responded so specifically as to miss how this would reflect in the larger Communion. It is certainly consistent with his earlier statements (and for that matter elements of the Windsor Report) that emphasize resolution of these issues within existing provincial structures. (After all, once again, what meaning is there to Designated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, or, for that matter, similar Canadian and English provisions, except within the respective provincial structures?) So, perhaps it is his continued emphasis on seeking the most local solution: for parishes, the diocese; for dioceses, the province.

Still, how shall we respond to this? Well, not reflexively, certainly. I stand by what I have written elsewhere that sometimes truth, like onions, takes low, slow, steady heat to become clear and sweet. At the same time, it also takes close attention: onions can burn and truth can become extreme without constant, careful work. Perhaps we need to work harder toward an agreement – call it a concordat perhaps instead of a covenant – that recognizes that dioceses represent the unity of the Communion but function meaningfully within the context of provinces. Perhaps we need to see responses from Anglican bishops within and beyond the Episcopal Church to this vision. We need to see with just how much glee dissenting bishops actually receive this comment, and how Archbishop Williams might respond to that. It is perhaps serendipity (or grace) that this arises just before the Feast of James of Jerusalem, whom we turn to so often these days for his gift of maintaining unity by separating essentials from distractions within the faith. What voice(s) will rise to help us understand more clearly how we might continue to live and work together within what some see as irreconcilable divisions?

But we certainly need to be watching. Untended, onions and truth will not clarify but will rather darken. This is no time to turn away from the stove.

Updated 10/23:

There has now been a response from Lambeth Palace to clarify. You can read it here. It helps; although perhaps it doesn't help enough. We'll see....

A Christian General

Browsing again through Anglican news, I ran across an interesting story. General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff of the British Army has said that part of the responsibility of a good military officer is to prepare those who serve for the possibility that they might die, and in light of that possibility, to prepare them for what comes after. Ruth Gledhill, coauthor of the news story in the Times (and a well known commentator on things Anglican), reported on her blog,

This is what Sir Richard officially said, in full: 'In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal, and I think there is very much an obligation on ...a Christian leader to include a spiritual dimension into his people's preparations for operations, and the general conduct of their lives. Qualities and core values are fine as a universally acceptable moral baseline for leadership, but the unique life, death, resurrection and promises of Christ provide that spiritual opportunity that I believe takes the privilege of leadership to another level.'

In no small part I agree with the General. One of the reports we’ve heard again and again in light of the extensive use of military Reservists in Iraq is that they didn’t really expect they’d ever face combat. They hadn’t really considered that dying in combat was one possible consequence of enlisting, made more likely by recent changes in the military to shift many important combat support responsibilities to the Reserves. Perhaps there’s no way to really prepare them. I can only imagine that officers did their best to call Reservists to take this seriously.

On the other hand, Sir Richard seems to have a rather specific, and specifically Christian, understanding about which troops should be informed. I don’t question the stability of his own beliefs in this instance. I question how respectful it is of the troops under his command who may not share his understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything. I can well imagine how such a statement would be received if it had come from in that form from an American military officer.

Well, we’ll just have to wait and see.