WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?

By Kevin Martin

7/22/2004

What has been the consequence of last year's controversial decision to consent to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire?

As I travel about the Episcopal Church — my most frequently asked question these days is, "What do you think will happen next in the Episcopal Church?"

As we approach the first-year anniversary of the consent to Gene Robinson's election, I would like to address some of the issues related to this question.

This decision has badly fractured and divided the Episcopal Church. Further, it has provoked a crisis throughout the whole Anglican Communion.

Locally, many congregations and dioceses have experienced a drop in financial support. They have had to cut staff and program and make serious adjustments. Many congregations have lost significant families.

Many congregations have redirected funding. Some congregations have removed themselves from ECUSA. A series of spin-off congregations have formed that are looking to the Network or AMIA for affiliation and support. Of course, we also have become inwardly focused as a denomination and less concerned about the great commission or the great commandment and more concerned with who will be in control.

Meanwhile, our national leadership seems to be largely in denial over the negative effects of this decision. Our own Presiding Bishop and many others try to spin present events in a positive light. In fact, we seem to be following the culture in its political life in two ways. First, spin has become the name of the game for both liberals and conservatives.

Second, there is a great deal of demonization and lack of tolerance and understanding toward those on the other side of issues. We show all the signs of a growing polarization. Most of our present leaders seem to be fueling this polarization and few seem to be addressing it.

Many people on the pro side of this issue claim that this decision has opened the doors of the Episcopal Church to thousands of new people. Some have pointed out the threats of a major split have not played out. On the other hand, many people on the conservative side have claimed that large numbers of people are leaving. What is really happening regarding membership and numbers?

As I said, many of these comments are just spin. What we mostly hear are anecdotal stories. For example, from the liberal side, we hear of people joining the church because of our decision. I think this has minimal statistical effect. We have been a declining denomination and we will continue to be so. The current crisis is predictably accelerating this decline.

It is true that even a declining church brings in new people and it is probably true that our front door is more open right now to those on the political left of the current culture wars in America. This is a bit of a shift at the front door when you consider that the primary evangelistic tool of recent days has been the Alpha program.

In addition, the Episcopal Church, which has had a very low public profile, is now unfortunately seen as a divided church. Most un-churched people don't look for a polarized community when seeking a spiritual home.

Some conservative people are attempting to spin events too, but it is clear that the Church has clearly taken a hit. We saw this first in 2004 financially and will see this further in 2005. Remember, the financial effect in 2004 was based on 6 months, not a full year's effect. This means that some dioceses and parishes have over projected income for 2005.

We will not see the total effect upon our attendance until the 2005 parochial reports are out. When they are out, we will see a decline in average Sunday attendance. There will also be a turn down in membership, however this will not be seen fully statistically until the 2006 parochial reports.

While the financial turn down is of significance, the more important issue for the long run will be average Sunday attendance. I believe we will see a 5-to-10-percent decrease over the next four years. We don't know yet how deep the drop will be because many issues are still yet to be decided.

What will be the next steps in this crisis?

Right now we are living in a transitional moment. Things are on hold. I know personally that many people are waiting to hear from the wider communion and are being very patient, surprisingly so. We have reached a point where there seems to be little that the Episcopal Church can do to resolve this polarization. Essentially, we are waiting on three predictable next steps.

First will be the report of the Eames Commission in October.

I believe this commission will make some effort to distance the whole communion from the American and Canadian Church. It will be impossible to hold the worldwide communion together without some strong language directed at North America. It will be interesting to see if beyond the strong language whether any proposals will be made with real teeth in them. I predict the report will contain both strong language and typical Anglican ambiguity when it comes to actions. In the long run, the Commission will attempt to hold the Communion together by affirming all sides.

Second will be the reaction of the Primates to the report.

If the report is not strong enough, the global south may very well threaten alternative action. A key player in this is, of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. While I believe he will want a more moderated response, he may be forced to choose between the global South and North America. Given that choice he must choose the vast majority. Without Asia and Africa, there would be no global Communion. What he will predictably do is twofold. He will take a moderating role and he will continue to point out that he has little authority to actually do anything. I doubt the communion wants to give him this power, but by default this power may revert to the Primates — the right to declare who is an Anglican and who is not.

Third will be the first House of Bishops meeting following these two events.

This will be a sort of last chance for the American Church to moderate its strident and self-righteous tone and take a more reconciling position toward the wider communion. This will be a most critical moment for ECUSA.

Personally, I don't believe the present House of Bishops is up to the challenge. I believe they will attempt to defend their decisions and hold the line affirming their autonomy as a province. If they do this, they will hasten the realignment of Anglicanism both here and on the international level.

What should the Bishops of the Church do?

Following the controversial decision last August, I believe the Bishops' task was to bring the church back to stability by finding a resolve to the present polarization. They needed to find a way to affirm those who in good conscience were dissenters from the Robinson decision. I can't say too strongly how much I believe the Bishops failed in this task. At their meeting last March, they voted to maintain the status quo and thus to extend the controversy. It was a sad moment for the Church.

Didn't the House of Bishops provide a means of alternative pastoral oversight for dissenters?

No. When 11 of the 12 Network Bishops were not in the room at the end of the meeting, the solution offered was not an effective reconciliation. Any solution that did not have Bishop Duncan and Bishop Griswold shaking hands failed the resolution test. Now the decision passes to the wider communion.

Have Conservatives been effective in their response to these developments?

"We" (I consider myself to be one) have been effective in articulating our dissatisfaction with the Robinson decision. The various "Plano" conferences and the formation of the Network point clearly to the depth and degree of dissatisfaction that is out there.

We have been ineffective in developing a strategy and response beyond voicing our unhappiness. Essentially, I think conservatives are hoping the communion will bail us out.

As I said above, the Communion's answer will take some time to play out. Our laity may not be patient enough to wait out the next two years. This is the time I believe it will take to get to the next place of stability.

Why have Conservatives been less effective on the strategic level?

Conservatives are not a single group, but rather a coalition of dissident groups without a common vision for the future. Essentially, I see at least four primary dissenting groups:

There are the true Evangelicals who see the Church's authority arising from Scripture and who cannot reconcile same sex relationships with the clear Biblical teachings against this. Then there are the conservative Anglo-Catholics. Their long-standing vision has been for reconciliation with Rome and a unified catholic church. The Robinson decision has dashed their hopes for this. I predict that many in this camp will move to Rome over the next few years. We also have culturally conservative people — especially among our laity. These folks don't like the change and are unhappy with this new direction. Lastly, I would mention the traditionalists. These folks believe the mission of the Anglican Church is to preserve the brightest and best of English (and European) high culture. They have been dissenters since the passage of the '79 Prayer book.

What holds the present coalition together is twofold. First, the dissenters share in common a strong reaction to the Robinson consent. Second, the dissenters correctly sense that the progressive wing has decided to force conformity to their agenda. Most progressives are so convinced of the rightness of their views in these matters that they cannot tolerate those who will not conform. While these threats hold the conservatives together, it makes planning a strategy almost impossible.

Will Progressives really try to force conformity on this issue?

Yes, we have already seen this begin. However the biggest test of this will come when one of the Network Dioceses has to elect a new Bishop. Suddenly, most of the Bishops who argued that the Church had to respect the local decision in New Hampshire will argue that any new Bishop must be willing to accept the ministry of "all" the Bishops including Gene Robinson. We already see the forces gathering together for this in both Rio Grande and San Diego. These elections will push the true level of tolerance within our denomination to its limit.

Are there other outcomes of last year's decision?

Yes, one of our most unintended consequences is that our national leadership decisions are forcing our local congregations into further and further isolation and congregationalism. People expect local congregations to be places of mutual love and support. They don't go to church to fight with people or to have deeply felt emotional disagreements.

A second consequence is the end of the 2020 movement. Any sense that ECUSA could double its size by the year 2020 has evaporated with this controversy. Over the next five years, ECUSA will get smaller, not larger.

Recently, the Executive Council voted two elements of 2020. One is to run an ad campaign for the Episcopal Church. The other is to authorize a major gifts campaign. Both of these are good ideas. The church needs a more positive image out there than one of a divided church.

The church also needs to take advantage of the tremendous resources still out there in the GI and Silent Generations who might be willing to support the Church that they have loved and supported for so many years. But these two elements are not the essential heart of the 2020 movement, they are just strategies. The strategies alone cannot return us to the initial vision — one church, united in mission, doubling its size by reaching secular people and making them disciples of Jesus Christ.

Another unanticipated consequence of last August has to do with planting new congregations. I learned recently that ECUSA planted fewer churches over the past three years than in any 3-year period during the last four decades. Ironically, if we looked at the larger picture, it could be that ECUSA has caused the largest number of new church plants in recent memory. When we count the number of Anglican congregations that have split or new ones spun off from ECUSA congregations, we may see the seeds of a major new surge of Anglican mission in North America. It wasn't what ECUSA or 2020 intended, but it may be what God intends to do with our present turbulence.

Prior to August 5, 2005, there were 38 different groups that claim Anglican roots or identity in North America. By 2005, this may number closer to 45. This is sad news in one sense, however these non-ECUSA churches are showing an increasing willingness to work together in common mission. A critical issue for the future will be how Canterbury relates to these different groups. I predict that we will see growing affirmation of them.

The Rev. Kevin Martin heads Vital Church Ministries based in Plano, Texas.

END