Episcopalians Defend Their Brand

The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church USA is meeting in Quito Ecuador this week. The Council is roughly the equivalent of an elected non-profit board of directors which carries out the mandate of the membership meeting and also holds fiduciary responsibility for the national organization. This week at the Hilton they are debating budgets and program priorities and the thorny issue of a vocal minority who oppose gay leadership in the church.

For those laypersons like myself whose language and framework is centered outside of organized Christianity, finding the genuine voice of the Council takes patience. The language of the church leadership is so gentle and loving that their words mask the fierceness of the group’s commitment to inclusion. At stake are which programs get funded, which ministries get prioritized, and of course, what to do about those who oppose lesbian and gay inclusion in the church. The battleground is the process, and the council members eat and breathe the maze of chess moves that shift the winds of power. They make earnest gestures toward everyday chitchat during their meeting breaks, commenting on the Presidential primaries or swapping stories about the pull of gravity on the equator line. But this is only a minor pause in the conversation chain about procedure and prose.

Don’t get me wrong - they are a remarkably energetic and intriguing group. With very few exceptions they are terrible salsa dancers but will take to the dance floor with great enthusiasm if asked. They are curious — they discovered the best bottle of rum on the continent right here in Quito within hours of arrival. They are like a human myspace page, there seems to be only two degrees of separation between any Episcopal priest in the United States, and maybe only three if you include Latin America. They would be unbeatable contestants on The Price is Right and Jeopardy, and would bring elementary school contestants to tears on “Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader”.

The Episcopal Church in San Joaquin California is on their minds this week. This congregation, led by Bishop John-David Schofield, has refused to ordain women for more than 20 years; predictably, they recently have openly defied the church on gay inclusion as well. I can only speculate that the election of an openly gay Bishop and the election of the first female head of the church threw Schofield into moral tailspin. A few months ago Schofield formally left the Episcopal Church USA but announced he would keep church property and other assets - including the “Episcopal” brand. Schofield’s actions were like quitting your job but keeping your office, your title, and your salary.

When Priests break their vows they are first “inhibited” - which basically means being fired - and then ultimately “defrocked”, which is the equivalent of losing your license to be a priest. Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefforts Schori immediately “inhibited” Schofield and put to rest any notion that the church would be compromised, “The Episcopal Church will continue in the Diocese of San Joaquin, albeit with new leadership.” A new group called “Remain Episcopal” launched a website and is already organizing a post-Schofield ministry in San Joaquin. But Schoefield still has the keys to the church properties, and it is this delicate situation that the council is attempting to address.

In recent years news reports about the Episcopalians have been dominated by stories about whether the Church will fall apart in the aftermath of the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay man. While the media reports continue to ask the question, “Will a split happen?” the Episcopal Church USA is already in a post-split reality. It’s a bit like the reality gap between political leaders warning of a recession while millions of families are losing their homes to foreclosure. The church’s top leadership worldwide continues to move the chess pieces on the question of an international theological split while the church leaders in the United States are already managing the messy aftermath of church defections.

San Joaquin brings the philosophical debate to a very practical level. How do you manage to wrestle your brand (and your physical assets) from a wayward local leader? How do you minister to a congregation whose leader has been defrocked but remains on the premises?

Episcopalians in Quito offer a first hand look at what happens when priests and bishops break the rules. The Bishop in this region apparently veered off the Episcopal path when he began stealing money and other assets from the local churches. By the time he was defrocked by the regional Episcopal leadership (years after the financial irregularities were discovered due to a bulky process), he had literally decimated the church’s structure in this region. Churches, schools, and other programs that directly benefited some of the poorest people in the world were either destroyed or ruined.

I visited a local church that was the victim of this leadership abuse. A few dozen determined and faithful Episcopalians were building a new church to replace what had been decimated, where they will house a public health center, a day care, an education program, and a food program, among other social services. When I say they are rebuilding I mean literally, they are working for $10 per day and then using what funds they can save to purchase materials and they are themselves laying the concrete stones.

It seems unfathomable that a bishop-turned-crook could get away with bringing a diocese to ruin. Equally unfathomable is the notion that the church can’t get its property back. The Council members have now personally witnessed the aftermath of a powerful minister who broke his vows. What is not yet clear is how the lessons this executive council learned in Quito will be brought to San Joaquin.

A bishop who breaks his vows because he cannot be true to a church with gay leaders is quite different from a bishop who breaks his vows by stealing money and buildings from his church. But the fundamental question remains the same: how does the Episcopal Church USA move aside wayward leaders and maintain its assets and congregations?

In the end this council is not in Quito simply to map out the most Christian-centered plan of action for power struggles like San Joaquin (although that accomplishment alone would be admirable). The council holds in its work product the trusted relationship between the public and the institution. Will the public see a church that allowed its assets and its essence to disintegrate in the morass of social politics? Or will the public see an institution that fiercely protected the donations and goodwill upon which it built its power? Is this Council perceived as the freedom fighter or the embattled establishment?

By the end of the week the Council issued this statement about San Joaquin:

“We are deeply concerned for those who are members of The Episcopal Church but now
find themselves in parishes or dioceses attempting to depart. To the members of The
Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, know we stand with you. Your struggles and needs
inform our prayers, deliberations, and plans. This is a new and unfamiliar landscape for
all of us. We stand with you and commit ourselves to provide pastoral care, to aid in re-
organization, and to support legal actions necessary to retain the assets of the diocese for
ministry. We will hold clergy leaders accountable to their vows to uphold the doctrine,
discipline and worship of this Church, and lay leadership accountable to the fiduciary
responsibilities of the offices they hold. Up to $500,000 of income from trust funds will
be made available in the calendar year 2008 to support the mission work of the Diocese
of San Joaquin and similarly situated dioceses.”