Of Dark Tunnels, Faith, and Nothing Left to Lose: Some Reflections and Themes for the Future

His thesis was that the recession would someday end. And at the end of that recession, he wanted his department to own the industry of the products that they sold, lock, stock and barrel. While competitors were hunkering down to "ride out the recession" this company was pushing hard, even as low as they were, so that when the sun broke out from behind the clouds, they would look around them and see that much of the market previously owned by their competitors was now theirs . . . and that those markets were back to expansion and optimism, with happily increased sales.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several years ago, during a business recession, my business partner and I were serving a particular Fortune 500 manufacturing client. Their business -- indeed the entire industry -- was down significantly, and sales were limping along. Furthermore, that particular industry was simply hammered by the events of 9/11 -- indeed, the week after the attack on the World Trade Center, in one department for a major type of product, they sold precisely ONE product. The bottom simply dropped out of the market during the very challenging aftermath of that significant event.

As a part of my company's duties for various marketing projects in that company, I had to interview and write for the leader of a certain department and every month or so we would get together and sculpt a "state of the unit" article. I greatly enjoyed writing with and for this man. And the most impressive part of his articles -- when life was down and morale was low -- was his unflagging focus on what he had set the department to accomplish.

In a brief sentence, he simply desired that the department would significantly increase "market share" in a recessive economy and industry. In other words, even if the available "pie" of sales had shrunk -- and even though their actual numbers were spiralling downward -- he wanted a larger percentage of the available pie. As a result, they became more agressive in the market and pushed much harder than they had in years past.

Needless to say, this attitude made a deep impact on me, as I heard it month after month, year after year.

Flash forward to the "Paddington Bear Goes to the House of Bishops Meeting in New Orleans" escapades of StandFirm in 2007.

During the times that we were not frantically typing documents into our smoking computers, or meeting people to film them, or delivering documents to be scanned by our compadres hands, or researching madly in Greg's palatial suite, while skyping one another across town at midnight, we had the time to do a lot of talking.

I expect that the results of all that talking have been displayed -- and will continue to be displayed -- in the general tone and focus at StandFirm over the past two months since the meeting. There is much more to come.

A part of what we talked about, over meals and skypes and while trudging down Canal Street for batteries and lugging our computers and paraphernalia, or until Greg threw us all out of his suite at nights [or early in the morning] into the harsh snows and storms to fend for ourselves, was the general landscape of what we were observing in New Orleans. And a part of what we discussed was . . . "given what we are observing, what will we be or should we be doing in the future?"

I want to share a bit about the different principles and themes that we observed and discussed during those ridiculous days. In particular, I want to pay close attention to that audience of which I am a part -- those of us who, for one reason or another [personal, familial, theological, ecclesial, vocational, strategic, or "my back's against the wall and I ain't leavin'"] are staying within ECUSA for the forseeable future [while always acknowledging that different orders from our command center could be delivered at any time].

Two observations here, beyond the obvious appalling and seemingly vacuous theology of so many [but not all of] our bishops. First, the general ethos of the house is that of "former rebels without a cause." These folks are desperate for meaning, and relevance, and hipness, and even when they fail miserably at attempts to do the equivalent of "breakdancing on the sidewalks in Harlem," they mistake the throngs gathered around the sidewalk curb for admirers rather than horrified spectators. The illusion is complete and it really is impossible to make them understand otherwise.

The most telling remarks made by the Archbishop of Canterbury were his comments at the close of the break-dancing attempt, in a press conference. Imagine being forced to be "diplomatic" in your efforts to describe what you have just experienced to the New York Times.

. . . I know, I know . . . you wouldn't try to be diplomatic. But imagine if you simply had to be nuanced and discreet and subtle in your statement to the press, and come up with positive things to say about what you have learned and what has been "encouraging" for you.

Here is what he said: " . . . yes, I have a clearer understanding of the polity of TEC and some of the assumptions that the bishops of the TEC make about the Church and its polity. Some have spoken to me about the baptismal covenant, as it works here, its importance, and how the concepts they take from the covenant make it easier to come to conclusions here that others cannot come too world-wide. . . . I was particularly moved by the diocese of Louisiana and their efforts at reconstruction. I am also encouraged by the patience of the bishops here and that we have been able to continue talking and listening."

I have no doubt that that is the absolute best that the Archbishop of Canterbury could do to describe his experience observing our bishops' efforts. And I congratulate him for that nuanced and civilized response. But the moment I read those words, I knew -- and smiled at -- what he had experienced with the "dialogue" in the house.

Second, and well beyond the ex-hippies-swathed-in-massive-metallic-threaded-prayer-shawls ethos, we also have an immense "old-boy" network run in part by a small network of 10 or so bishops. Those 10 set the agenda, communicate it to their next "tier," which communicate it to their tier, and so on and so on. Eventually the "tiers" connect with some 57 or so bishops, as you could note by the notes from the meeting of that group at this HOB meeting. But at the end of the day, one has the "inner ring" and their deal making negotiations, coupled with sculpted and calculated rhetorical obfuscations, as the rulers of the house. It takes a lot of work, frankly, to produce what was produced at the most recent meeting. It's not by accident or luck that such things get created. And I can guarantee you that many bishops in the House have no clue as to how the sausage was actually made.

What if you are not one of the 57 bishops who get invited to the "meeting" to express your "concerns"? What if you don't have a "protection gang" to escort you in the 'hood? What if, in fact, you're just adrift in the outer space of the "final ring" whence no one enters but you and your fellow remaining half of the house?

You get what I mean. If you're not a part of the leather-wing-back-chaired-scotch club . . . you're just basically clueless about even being clueless. Some may vaguely wonder if they are not quite aware of all that is going on, but there is no real way to insert oneself, like the unpopular kid in the school lunch room, at a table that does not want you.

At this point we come to the group formerly known as "the Windsor bishops" which met five times over the past year or so, in order to establish some identity, common purpose, fellowship, and strategy. The goal was simple -- gather together whoever really wanted to hang on to Windsor and the Anglican Communion and try to come up with some sort of unified stance in the House of Bishops.

After all, for reasons delved into elsewhere, some orthodox bishops were unwilling to participate in the Network, since they did not trust or understand the Network's goals, nor were they quite certain that the Network knew themselves what they wanted. Those goals have developed in a particular trajectory as of now, but there was some real and understandable confusion when the Network was launched as to what its purposes were. So we end up with the group formerly known as "the Windsor Bishops," those both within and without the Network. And while the start was decent -- two excellent resolutions by different bishop groupings to adhere to the Dar Communique -- the end was shatteringly incoherent.

Some have tried to put the blame for this on the four or five bishops that departed early for their own commitments -- the Common Cause meeting. I do not think this is either just or realistic. After all, if the group of some 22 Windsor bishops had to depend on the four or five CCP bishops to speak up, gather the group, plan the strategy, initiate the Roberts Rules maneuvers, and all the other efforts of leadership that you and I know must take place in order for a group to move in a focused and unified direction, then one can only say that it appears that there is a reason why five bishops no longer will attend House of Bishops meetings with their peers!

One can speculate on any number of reasons for the total collapse. But the fact remains that the 16 or so remaining bishops had a unique, public, and important mission, which was to present to the watching Anglican world, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury a coherent and cohesive [though small] unified face of orthodox Anglicanism in the Episcopal church.

This does not mean that the bishops in that group are "bad" bishops. Or "not orthodox." Or "deceivers." It simply means that they are not able.

But . . . they're just not able to lead in any significant way outside of their own diocese, if that.

Understand that my standards are low -- the bar is very near the ground. They don't have to "lead their dioceses out of ECUSA" or "join Common Cause." They simply have to work and work hard to differentiate themselves from the revisionist herd around them, and step up to leadership in both national and international venues. There are numerous ways that they could stand strong, and stand publicly. But we now all understand that it would take a miraculous and happy accident for them to stumble into some sort of cohesive, public stance like that.

I'm not counting out such a miracle! Stranger things have happened. Indeed, on a single individual basis, some will stand and lead; I have no doubt that we are in for some pleasant and individual surprises.

But taken on the face of things, and given the past four years, I think we all recognize that the truth is that as a group . . . they are just not able.

This is okay. It is not the end of the world. And again, it does not make these bishops wicked, or shameful, or despicable. Crown the StandFirm blogging team bishops, and I'm not certain at all that we could do any better. But I confess a very odd feeling with the recognition of the lack of leadership as a group of bishops -- it is a sense of relief.

Because you see . . . once a layperson or a priest who is remaining within the Episcopal church recognizes that the orthodox bishops are simply not able, a great, free song begins to fill the chest, and burst out from the lungs. Once one recognizes that one cannot look to one's bishop . . . something new begins to grow.

I am reminded of an acquaintance whose husband was in the hospital in dire sickness, and who had [insult added to injury here] been given a drug that he was allergic to. As she frantically tried to find a thermometer [the nurses were unresponsive] and consider whom she could call [outside of the hospital, since the staff were not assisting at all] for help, she came to a sudden and peaceful realization -- despite being in a large place full of professionals, she was alone. She remembers praying "Well, Lord . . . it's just you and me now."

For those of us in the Episcopal church, it really is . . . just you, and me, and God with us. We can't count on bishops any more . . . and indeed that was probably an illusion that needed to be shattered anyway. It means that we're the ones that have to organize, to speak, to lead, to strategize, to connect, to work . . . and it means that the pressure really is off our bishops in one way. They are by and large quite nice and wonderful people, but there is little now that they can do any longer.

Thus, you will notice a key difference in tone at StandFirm. We won't spend nearly as much time pondering the words of Episcopal bishops, or "hoping that they get together" or make decisions in tandem. We know now that as great as they may be as individuals, they're just not able.

We also will be urging actions that may well run counter to a bishop's goals. The petition that advocates designating money away from dioceses -- even Windsor dioceses -- that continue to encourage, facilitate, and aid the national church entities rather than resist them is an apt illustration. It may well be that some Windsor bishops do not wish to resist the national church's agendas and purposes, but that is really not up to them, from a layperson's perspective. Laypeople recognize now that such resistance and confrontation really is up to them, and it certainly starts with lessening the funding of the national church.

That should lead all of us to ask ourselves what we can do, together with our lay and clergy allies, to connect with others, plan for our search processes, and vestry elections, discern diocesan leadership, and all the myriad of other things that people do when it really is not going to be handled by others.

We have nothing left to lose. And there is nothing, outside of legal and moral restrictions, that need limit our action within the Episcopal church.

As I observe the Common Cause Partner ship loosing its moorings, as I observe countless flocks of fellow parishioners joining Rome, Geneva, and Constantinople, as I observe the complete abnegation and repudiation in action of the Windsor Report and the Dar Communique by Rowan Williams, as I observe the bishops of our church behave with flagrant disregard of Scripture, tradition, reason, and certainly of common morality, as I observe the rather crass and blatant actions of our Worthy Opponents, I trust you can see why I say that we really have nothing to lose.

We have lost many friends and allies. We have lost parishes. We have lost bishops. We have lost the Episcopal church as a national church. We may even have lost the Anglican Communion . . . although that remains to be seen.

And friends . . . the recognition and acceptance of all of that that brings a smile to my lips and a fresh wind to my sails.

There should be no "holding back" or "waiting until things are more desperate" or "not wanting to say something that others may not like."

What those of us who are left in the Episcopal church should recognize is that once we are gone, we have truly lost it all but Jesus. So we should have a wonderful freedom with that knowledge while we are in the midst of this church.

You may recall that King David was informed of the consequences of his sin -- the loss of his beloved child -- and fasted and wept for days, before his child's death. But when his terrified servants informed him that the child was gone, he rose, washed, and ate. He had lost his deepest love, his child. He had nothing further that was of as dire import to lose. The consciousness that we are facing the loss of the Communion . . . the shattering of the Communion such that it may be obliterated . . . while at the same time that we acknowledge that our identity is found in Christ, should give us immense freedom from fear and constraint, [always accepting those constraints of law and morality, of course] and immense freedom for focused, concerted, unified action parish by parish, diocese by diocese.

Such opportunities will periodically be made available here at StandFirm, from petitions, to volunteer activities, to, shall we say, more strategic and bold adventures. But these opportunities certainly will be available elsewhere as well -- there is no need to wait on occasional StandFirm initiatives to take action.

We are in a time of immense upheaval and transition that will last for some years. It remains to be seen what will eventually "settle out" as viable options of integrity. If anyone believes or acts as if they can predict the future with accuracy, run away from them. They really don't know what will happen -- the variables are simply too many, random, and free-floating.

The House of Bishops meeting was a sort of Rubicon. All of the opening skirmishes, flourishes, bellows, rhetorical sleights-of-hand, and beginning chess moves have been made. There is a nice rounded sense of completion to the past four years, culminating with the House of Bishops' rejection of the Primates second offer of a deadline for response. There is no turning back from that, for the Episcopal church at the national level.

But at the same time, it is as if we ourselves have purposefully and consciously entered a very long and dark tunnel. We have left the sunshine behind us, and we walk in faith, hopefully in a long chain and holding hands, feeling our way, towards the tunnel's end, where and when we do not know.

It is very very hard to walk this way, without seeing the end. But that is simply where we are as people who remain within ECUSA. For one reason or another, we have not chosen the "closure," new and different adventure, and release from tension, confrontation, and conflict that those who are moving towards Common Cause have. We have chosen to both stay and confront. I do believe that that is a very hard thing to do. It is often considered an "easy" or "simple" choice to leave [although I do not grant that it is always so for some who are answering the call to leave]. Some announce that they have found peace by leaving the war, and I certainly agree that when one leaves a war [often for very good reasons] one may feel very peaceful. It is also "easy" or "simple" to stay and be silent, to "opt out" of anything but numbness, despair, and passivity; this often serves to decrease the "stress" of engagement and conflict. But to do both -- staying and engaging, that's awfully tough.

There is no such thing as "remaining still" when one is in the dark tunnel. While one remains within the Episcopal church, there are no faithful options for inactivity, passivity, or waiting on other purported leaders who are not leading to take action.

The key then, is not to waste the time that we have been given -- this "long game" of walking through the tunnel together, to mix metaphors.

If one plays the long game, then what matters is not "why aren't we there yet" or "have we won yet" or even "when do we get to stop." What matters is if the community of leaders and active participants -- lay and clergy -- is being connected and built, on a local, contextualized basis based on unique and distinctive circumstances, one by one by one by one, action by action by action, event by event be event, fellowship by fellowship by fellowship. At this point in the tunnel, we are not remotely ready for what awaits us at the other end. Our parishes are not strong or unified. The people who are ready to become leaders, are not formed into leaders. The structures of integrity and mission and discipleship in our dioceses or our communities are not developed. We don't even have a community, much less the tools needed to educate and strengthen the community. We have few communication tools, other than the Internet. And I could go on and on.

To use another metaphor, we are a small group within a much larger group which is a community of chaos, disorder, and unfaithfulness. How do we, as a small group -- somewhat like an abby or a monastic order -- make very clear our own differentiated nature, thus standing out from the larger group and building our own identity for the future walk out of the long tunnel? To stand out is challenging. It's not as easy as blending in. But it is so necessary.

What matters is that when we leave the tunnel and arrive once more out in the bright clear skies to see what awaits us, we leave with a much stronger, wiser, braver, more loving community than when we began that walk in the tunnel. And with that community that we are prepared to engage with what we find waiting for us as a unit of integrity and cohesiveness.

For those of us within the Episcopal church who are remaining, what actions might we take that constitute differentiation from the Episcopal church?

For those of us within the Episcopal church who are remaining, how might we form and disciple communities of action and connection and fellowship within our dioceses and parishes?

For those of us within the Episcopal church who are remaining, what methods do you suggest for selecting and discipling leaders?

If all of this sounds a bit like the business leader who wanted to come out of the dark recession with a stronger department, and more market share, than that's good.

There's no doubt that, in the Anglican Communion "industry," we are in a severe recession. Eventually, that recession will end, either with the total wipeout of our industry, or something else. But those of us that continue within this very challenging marketplace have a responsibility to push hard and become stronger, rather than hunker down and "wait it out", as an investment in a future that we do not see yet.

That is something of the essence of faith, isn't it. Working actively and faithfully -- perhaps even ploddingly and unglamorously -- for a future that we can only hope for.

If a businessman can do that, shouldn't Episcopal Christians who have the great hope of the gospel be able to do the same?

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

The bishops aren't the only ones here who are kidding themselves.

It is time to Get Out. Past time.

We finally left in 2003, and discovered to both our embarassment and joy that we had been sitting and mourning beside a dead body for years . . . while the real Church was alive and beautiful and waiting patiently for us right around the corner.

immense freedom for focused, concerted, unified action parish by parish, diocese by diocese.

What kind of action? He writes in several places about the opportunities for lay people to "organize, lead, innovate, something something something" in the absence of leadership from the Bishops ... but to what purpose?

If he's talking about evangelization, works of charity, or personal and communal spiritual renewal, then I don't see how that would be constrained by episcopal leadership or non-. I can decide today to worship God with zeal, repent of my sins, share Christ with my neighbor, and give my coat to the poor without the "leadership" of my pastor or Bishop, nice gents though they are.

However, if the writer is talking about people's devoting time, effort, and resources to agitation within TEC (or whatever it calls itself this week), then I'm afraid he and those with whom he works will find themselves in despair. Institutional thrashing about - even if it seems necessary, which I suppose it might - is a diversion from living the Gospel. It must wound the spirits of those who make it their primary focus.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.