Anglicanism for Millennials–Any recommendations?

Over the past few months, I’ve had conversations with several millennials about the Episcopal Church. They found their way to our red doors through various means, find our liturgy attractive, and what to engage the tradition more deeply. I do regular newcomers’ classes, meet with them individually to answer questions and learn about their spiritual journeys, and inevitably the question comes, “Is there something I can read?”

I can answer their questions about scripture, tradition, and reason; I can talk about liturgy, the Elizabethan Settlement. If they’re really interested we talk about General Convention, diocesan and parish structure, well you get the picture. What I can’t do is answer that question, “Is there something I can read?”

My first thought is always Urban Holmes, What is Anglicanism? Unfortunately, I lent several copies over the years, and they seem not to have returned to my bookshelves. And frankly, I wonder whether after 30 years, Holmes speaks to the concerns and lives of young adult seekers. So…

For thoughtful, well-educated, young adults coming from Christian traditions left or right, what would you recommend? They want meat, not fluff, and very often they are dealing with significant baggage from their pasts.

But I’ll bet they won’t be celebrating joint communion anytime soon

Lutherans and “Anglicans” have joint theological discussions. Sorry, not the ELCA and TEC, it’s the Missouri Synod and the Anglican Church in North America. I’m sure they agree on all of the hot button political issues; even perhaps, on the creeds.

But how did their comparison of the Augsburg Confession, the Book of Concord, and the 39 Articles go?

Think we’ve (Episcopalians) got it bad? Check out the Methodists

Tony Jones blogs a reflection on the United Methodist General Conference that took place a couple of weeks ago.

The eye-popping numbers: It cost $1500/minute!!! (I hope someone does the numbers for our own General Convention).

Will Willimon comments. Willimon’s warning applies to us as well:

My organizational guru Ron Heifetz speaks of the “myth of the broken system.”  Heifetz argues that all systems are “healthy” in that systems produce what those who profit from thesystemdesire.  Though the CGC can’t produce a complicated, large scale, two week convention, the CGC produces a General Conference that protects those in positions of power in our church.

Jones concludes:

All bureaucracies are good at one thing: self-perpetuation. They may be good at other things, too, but the propagation of the gospel is not one of those. Bureaucracy is good at distributing drivers licenses. But bureaucracies are bad for the gospel.

Mission, Structure, and Budget–Following the Debate

Here are links to various things I talked about last night.

And if you’re a hardcore Episco-geek, here’s the link to the General Convention website (mature audiences only)

And the blogs I mentioned (where to follow the debate)

Structure and Mission–Today’s ruminations

This evening, I will be making a presentation to a small group of interested Episcopalians on Mission, Structure, and Budget. We’re meeting on Tuesdays in May to talk about the key issues that will be discussed at this summer’s General Convention. This one promises to be a major focus, even though on the surface, it doesn’t seem particularly interesting.

So today, I’m preparing. I’ve got charts and graphs, lots of statistics (I won’t present very much budget detail). But I’m also reading a lot, re-reading the debate that’s been taking place at least since the fall of 2011, and reading other pieces. For example, Seaburynext offers a series of reflections on their “Great Awakening” conference that took place this past January. At it, Bishop Jeff Lee (of Chicago) invited participants to write for themselves permission slips. Bishop Lee, Diana Butler Bass, and others have been reflecting on what was written.

McLaren has this to say:

The same with structure. In the modern/colonial era, colonial structures competed for “religious market share” and each claimed greater legitimacy than the others. As we emerge from that “my structure is better than yours” mindset, we realize that any structure can become problematic … and that any structure (including episcopal ones!) can serve our essential message, meaning, and mission.

That’s why an Episcopal Church that uses organ, incense, and vestments can be more of an emerging church than one that uses a rock and roll band, blue jeans, and uber-casual style. If it’s focused on a missional understanding of the church derived from a Kingdom-of-God understanding of the gospel, it’s emerging from the old paradigms.

If we take those understandings as seriously as we should, we may see Episcopal Churches finding permission to experiment, explore, and evolve into new styles and structures. In that way, Episcopal identity may become more like the fair food or healthy eating movements (united by a common vision and values) and less like the old McDonald’s (united by the externals – the same menu, pricing, uniforms, and golden arches).

I’m struck by what Brian says, given the news we learned today that shows a lack of interest in revising The Hymnal 1982. Those under 30 were most opposed. To use his language, The Hymnal 1982 can be “missional” if it helps us proclaim the Gospel and if we are allowed to experiment and develop new styles alongside it.

Among the things for which people asked permission:

As I read what people wrote on their permission slips, I’m struck by how much we long for permission to turn loose of fear. “Permission to say where the church is failing,” one person requested. “I want permission to try radically new ways of “doing” and “being” (the) Church whether or not they succeed.  I want to be allowed the grace to fail,” wrote another. “Permission not to be afraid of failure,” another requested.

The seaburynext blog is here.

Meanwhile, Steven Ayers has some things to say about the role of the clergy in the Episcopal Church of the future.

Blessings of Same Gender Unions and NC Amendment 1

This evening, Episcopalians from Madison’s parishes gathered to discuss the proposed liturgy for the Blessing of Same Gender Unions that will be debated and voted on at General Convention 2012. In that liturgy, we read:

Dear friends in Christ,
we have gathered together today
to witness N. N. and N. N. publically committing themselves to one another
and, in the name of the Church, to bless their union:
a relationship of mutual fidelity and steadfast love,
forsaking all others,
holding one another in tenderness and respect,
in strength and bravery,
come what may,
as long as they live.
Ahead of them is a life of joy and sorrow,
of blessing and struggle,
of gain and loss,
demanding of them the kind of self-giving love
made manifest to us in the life of Jesus.
Christ stands among us today,
calling these two people always to witness in their life together
to the generosity of his life for the sake of the world,
a life in which Christ calls us all to share.

Our discussion focused on the differences between this liturgy and the marriage rite in the Book of Common Prayer, and it became clear as we talked that there was considerable uncertainty about the Church’s theology of marriage, and how this proposed rite relates to that theology. We also heard from some who struggle with how the church’s teaching relates to their own experiences and the relationships in which they live and love.

I came home to learn of the passage of Amendment 1 in North Carolina, and read on facebook and twitter of the pain that creates for so many. I will admit my own conflicted nature, because I know that this is an issue that divides people, but also because I don’t think the Church has worked out its theology of marriage adequately. One of the things clergy in attendance at the meeting tonight seemed united on was our discomfort with acting on behalf of the state in signing marriage licenses. Until we’re clear on what marriage means for us theologically, it’s hard to make a case for how we should think about same gender unions.

I will say this about the resources provided by the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music. I find the proposed liturgy beautiful, well-conceived (at least for the most part), and perfectly adaptable for a marriage rite between heterosexuals as well as LGBT couples. What troubles me most is the theological reflection, which I find odd. It seems to me it ought to begin with the nature of God (relationship inherent in the Trinity) and in human nature–that God creates and calls humans to be in relationship with other humans.

The SCLM resources are available here and in the “Blue Book.”

Restructuring the Church–the view from the United Methodists

So they’re having the same debate The Episcopal Church is having.

A blog post from an observer outside the meeting provides insight into the similarities and differences between the two debates, and the two denominations.

We might learn from this effort, which apparently got voted down, on how to go about ours. Apparently the plan was devised by outside corporate (!) consultants, gathered steam from the bishops and was supported by some denominational megachurches. It’s largely an effort to streamline authority, which almost always means increased centralization.

The blogger links to the musings of another Methodist, on matters of restructuring and other things. Among the points made:

  • You might be surprised at how quickly a notion, fad or trend can take hold in certain quarters of this denomination. The desire to immediately act on what some perceive as a good idea, although it may in fact be a fad, is what is meant by the need for “nimbleness” in restructuring.

  • You can triple the size of the general-church structure or you can wipe it out entirely and it will make almost no difference in membership gain or loss.

Membership growth has more to do with welcoming congregations that offer compelling ministries and good worship. There’s not enough of that. If we’re going to do it, let’s do it right.

I hope people in The Episcopal Church are taking notes and learning from the Methodists here. It’s not the first time they’ve had something to teach us.

Blessings of Same Gender Unions–latest developments

A bombshell (well, I think it is) from Bishop Andy Doyle of the Diocese of Texas. He has produced a lengthy document in which he charts a way forward for his diocese. With a foreword by former Secretary of State James Baker III, the paper does not attempt to change minds or force clergy and parishes into actions they don’t want to take.

Doyle begins with the premise that General Convention 2012 will approve Blessings of Same Gender Unions. Given that starting point, Doyle plans to permit one parish in Houston and one in Austin to offer same gender blessings, and also to permit clergy to offer them outside of parishes. Here’s the heart of his proposal:

1. Congregations may choose to take no action, one way or the other.
2. Traditional congregations/rectors may state that they will not conduct or participate in rites for blessing persons of the same gender, sponsor for ordination anyone or employ any clergy who are in a non-celibate relationship outside holy matrimony.
3. Following General Convention, one congregation in Houston and one congregation in Austin will be granted permission to bless same-gender covenants. Both the rector and the congregation must support such a liturgy and must complete the congregational education portion of the process. Additional congregations may request permission in the future. A provision for clergy who wish to do blessings of same-gender covenants outside the church is also included.Meanwhile, the government in the UK is proposing legalizing gay marriage. This has led to considerable debate in the Church of England. It’s worth eavesdropping from this side of the pond for several reasons. First, it’s inconceivable that a Republican administration would propose anything of the sort in the US in the foreseeable future.

The Rev. David Boyd, Rector of St. David’s Austin, has this to say.

This is significant news, a bombshell, even, because it may signal a tipping point. For a diocese the size of this one, and one not known for its leadership on progressive issues, to prepare for the blessing of same-gender unions suggests that Bishop Doyle, at least, expects that outcome from General Convention. Whether that result now becomes more inevitable remains to be seen.

It’s significant in another way, however. For bishops who have been reluctant to allow clergy and parishes to bless same gender unions, this action may offer them a way to approach their own situations. For those who have feared repercussions from conservative parishes and clergy, Doyle’s proposal may leave them with little wiggle room. It’s likely that progressive clergy and parishes will demand from their bishops the same sort of accommodation Doyle has offered his diocese. In other words, Bishop Doyle has roiled the waters.

Speaking of roiled waters, it’s not just the Episcopal Church that will be facing these issues at General Convention. The United Methodists are also on track for a lively debate.

There’s a comparable debate taking place in the United Kingdom as the ruling government proposes legislation for “civil marriages.” It has provoked an outcry from conservative Christians (including some Anglicans). But many in the Church of England welcome the development:

The Bishops of Norwich have weighed in on the debate. They challenge the UK government’s proposal to distinguish “civil” from “religious” marriage and conclude:

We are sympathetic to the full inclusion of gay people in our society and the provision of appropriate means to enable them to maintain stable and lasting relationships.  We believe, however, that the redefinition of marriage itself in the law of the land raises other important issues about the nature of marriage itself.  The way in which the Government is going about it appears to create a new and ill-defined phenomenon called religious marriage, a novelty liable to generate more problems than the present legislation will solve.

The Bishop of Salisbury has also weighed in:

So, increasingly, there is an evangelical imperative for the Church to recognise that covenantal same sex relationships can be Godly and good for individuals and society; that they are at least like marriage for heterosexuals, and this is a development that many Christians in good faith warmly welcome. For LGBT people it raises question about whether marriage is what they want, but for us as a Church there are things to affirm in this development. It is a disaster that we have allowed the Church to be seen as the opposition to equal civil marriage.

A group of Bishops wrote a letter to The Times(of London) in support of civil marriage:

It is our belief that the Church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples. It will be for the churches to then decide how they should respond pastorally to such a change in the law.

The Failure of Institutions–In Middletown and across the country

After reading my post about institutional failure in the Episcopal Church, a friend pointed me to an article in National Journal (via Salon) about the failure of institutions in Middle America. It looks at Muncie, Indiana. Muncie is famous as Middletown, USA, an early twentieth-century sociological study of the city.

The article includes a lengthy comparison of a downtown United Methodist Church and a suburban megachurch. The authors do little more than compare the optics, however–attendance, demographics, the gym and coffee shop at the megachurch, and don’t explore some of the other dynamics at play. In fact, they seem not to notice that in an article focusing on the failures of a city’s institutions, the one megachurch member they quote moved there, not from a downtown church, but from a rural congregation.

And although the authors want to blame institutions for the decline in Muncie, institutions including mainline Christianity, the Gallup chart they reproduce shows that confidence in “church and religion” has increased by 3%.

Alex Pareene comments:

The piece as a whole lays blame for the sorry state of affairs in Muncie at the crumbling of institutions — church, school, government — but Whitmire is actually a victim of elites. It’s elite consensus that loan modifications have to be limited and difficult for homeowners in order to preclude “moral hazard” and save banks from having to overexert themselves. Mitch Daniels, a leading GOP presidential contender among George Will-style Republicans, slashed state payrolls, in the name of fiscal responsibility. The sorts of people who pay for National Journal subscriptions are actually responsible for this guy’s life going to hell.

I’m tempted to side with Pareene on this one.

Executive Council decides it is disappointed

I’m glad they can agree on something. Full story from Episcopal Cafe here. It includes both the politburo’s official communique and a memo to the committee responsible for creating the budget.

The meeting took place in a week when we learned more about the disaffection of millennials from religion. Among the key results:

While only 11% of Millennials were religiously unaffiliated in childhood, one-quarter (25%) currently identify as unaffiliated, a 14-point increase. Catholics and white mainline Protestants saw the largest net losses due to Millennials’ movement away from their childhood religious affiliation.

  • Today, college-age Millennials are more likely than the general population to be religiously unaffiliated. They are less likely than the general population to identify as white evangelical Protestant or white mainline Protestant.
  • Millennials also hold less traditional or orthodox religious beliefs. Fewer than one-quarter (23%) believe that the Bible is the word of God and should be taken literally, word for word. About 1-in-4 (26%) believe Bible is the word of God, but that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally. Roughly 4-in-10 (37%) say that the Bible is a book written by men and is not the word of God.

We know too well by now about the dramatic decline in mainline Protestantism, and the overall decline in institutional affiliation and respect for institutions. An organization like the Episcopal Church has to work very hard to rebuild that trust. When a debacle like this week’s budget debate occurs, we do nothing to regain that trust. Indeed, it undermines our message and has a significant impact on our message. When, as others have pointed out, this disfunction occurs over a long term (apparently the budget debate was even worse leading up to GC 2009), there may be permanent damage to the institution.