Bishop Charles vonRosenberg's presentation at "Reclaiming God’s Mission for Church of the Ascension: Finding Our Way" parish meeting

I want to begin this series of reflections by offering my thanks. Thank you, first of all, for inviting me to be a part of this time for considering the topic, "Reclaiming God's Mission for Church of the Ascension." Also, I thank the committee responsible for this day and the speakers who have made their thoughtful presentations - Dr. Thomas Ladd, Dean Kenneth Swanson, the Rev. Richard Kew - and, in addition, your rector, the Rev. Ladson Mills. Finally, thank you, people of Ascension, as you struggle with trying to be faithful to God's will for this parish in our day.

May I offer you an analogy as a way to suggest one perspective on these reflections? My momma taught me to avoid speaking of religion and politics in polite company. With apologies to her memory, though, I present this analogy to you, and in doing so, I mix those two very explosive topics.

I imagine that there are people in this room who believed strongly in the principles, positions, and politics represented by George W. Bush, on the one hand, and by John Kerry on the other. In each case, you agreed with your candidate's ideas about improving the economy, about advocating certain policies for Iraq, about dealing with matters of moral consequence, and about encountering what has been called "the war on terror." And so, some of you were disappointed with the results on November 2, while others were quite elated. Now, though, supporters of John Kerry stand in the position of the opposition - at least, opposition to the party in power in the White House. However, probably you have not considered renouncing your citizenship or joining some group intent on undermining the future of the country. And, if the election had gone the other way, the same could be said about supporters of George Bush. Why would you not seriously entertain such reactions? Because you are an American … an American, that is, living in the United States. An essential part of your identity is tied up in being an American - even if the party in power is not your own; even if you disagree strongly with the politics promoted and presently accomplished in the name of the country of which you are a citizen.

Today I want to reflect with you on that part of our identity represented by the Church of the Ascension and by the Episcopal Church, USA. You see, identity is a very powerful reality. Any group with whom we identify is extremely significant for our own sense of self-worth and fulfillment … our sense of who we are. That's why we are here today, is it not? Any group with whom we identify is extremely significant for us. Further, at least for some people, the Episcopal Church has become less attractive recently, in terms of our own self-identity. Put another way - in terms suggested by my political analogy - some of us find ourselves in the party out of power. What does that reality do to our sense of identity at this moment?

Now, I need to add this. There is no group that can do complete justice to our self-expression, to our identity … no group, that is, larger than one person. Anyone who is married, for instance, knows the crucial and essential nature of the art of negotiation and the reality of the need to compromise within any human grouping. I am Annie's husband; she is my wife. And I can testify to you today that neither one of us gets our way all of the time. Yet, I am blessed - wonderfully blessed - to claim my identity as Annie's husband. That's part of who I am - not all, you understand. Not everything that we do is what I want to do. But I am blessed indeed to claim as part of my identity "Annie's husband." And so, this cautionary note: when we identify with any group, we give up the right to have everything go our own way all of the time.

Therefore, as we seek God's will in "reclaiming God's mission for Ascension", it is important to deal with the fundamental question of identity. Has some essential part of who we are been lost? What does indeed need to be reclaimed? As we contemplate the task before us, we need to be serious about the work of clarifying our identity - who we have been, who we are, who God calls us to be.

Let's have a quick look at your identity, in terms of history. As the Church of the Ascension, your identity began to be formed some fifty-six years ago. In 1948, a parish meeting at St. John's made the proposal to explore developing a mission church in West Knoxville. After a while, a group began regular meetings for worship and for fellowship. In 1954, land was given as a memorial and architects were commissioned to design a Chapel of the Ascension, named for the Ascension window in the nave at St. John's.

A footnote at this point of history might be instructive. As Church of the Ascension began to form its own identity, there certainly were not any openly-gay bishops in our church. However, we need to recognize that neither were there women priests or deacons, for women were expressly forbidden those orders. In addition, people who divorced found themselves excommunicated - refused communion - in response to church discipline fifty years ago. Certainly, no divorced person was allowed to remarry in the church. It is important to note that biblical justification for each of these church policies was quite clear to people of that day.

Now, though, back to your identity, as seen on a time-line. Soon after the land had been given for the new church - in 1956 - a groundbreaking service was held, and the Rev. David Potts was called as vicar. Then, in quick succession, the church nave was completed, and an education building was also constructed.

Very soon afterwards - in 1960 - the parish began to consider another missionary enterprise further west, and in fact, property for that effort also was given. Then, in 1965, the mission Church of the Good Samaritan on Cedar Bluff Road was founded, as a missionary effort of the Church of the Ascension.

Through the years, you have identified various ministries of service and outreach to which God seems to have called you - disadvantaged preschool children from the neighborhood, a youth crisis center, and a food pantry, among others. You also have been involved in other building programs and in a variety of parish nurture and worship groups, such as special Christian education programs, the Daily Office group, and your Lay Eucharistic Ministers. I suggest to you that such ministries of outreach, of parish nurture, and of worship form the core of your identity as Church of the Ascension and the essence of God's call and mission for you.

Along with everything else that has been a part of your life and history, though, it seems to me especially impressive that your connections to other Episcopal churches play a very prominent role - especially your beginnings as a mission of St. John's and your own missionary work in helping to found Church of the Good Samaritan. Such connections name an attribute that lies near the heart of our identity as Episcopalians. We are a church that emphasizes our connections to one another. You - as Church of the Ascension - stand connected in a wonderful line of mission. You hold hands with St. John's on the one side and with Church of the Good Samaritan on the other, as a testimony to God's call to mission in the Diocese of East Tennessee. My friends, this too represents a core feature of your identity and of God's mission for Church of the Ascension.

In a statement issued last January, the vestry of Church of the Ascension spoke quite clearly of your identity and, as part of that identity, of your connections. In summary, the vestry affirmed your unity in Christ's call - to follow him, to serve him in others, and to share his Gospel. The vestry encouraged members of Ascension to persevere in prayer and in dialog regarding matters of faith. Affirmations followed in support of your rector, your bishop, and the current policies of East Tennessee regarding ordination and marriage, in terms of human sexuality. In addition, the intent to welcome and to respect all persons into the life of Ascension was clearly indicated. It seems to me that the points made in that resolution represent a clear and important statement of identity … a response to God's call and to God's mission for Church of the Ascension. Therefore, I commend the vestry's statement to your attention and to your prayers.

The recent Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission enlarges our conversation about identity and connections, for we are not only the Diocese of East Tennessee, nor only Episcopalians in the United States. In addition, we are part of the world-wide Anglican Communion. What does that recognition say about who we are, about our identity? In light of our identity as Anglicans, the Windsor Report calls us to continue our conversations about human sexuality within the Anglican Communion, for the sake of unity … unity that our Lord emphasized and cherished. Indeed, just prior to Jesus' Passion and death, he prayed to God the Father, on behalf of his disciples. And then, our Lord continued his prayer: "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (Jn 17:20-21). Jesus himself associates unity with the call to mission.

By the way, the charge in the Windsor Report - to engage in the task of conversation about human sexuality, for the sake of unity - this charge is quite consistent with our actions and our intentions in the Diocese of East Tennessee. Many of you from Church of the Ascension attended such a diocesan conversation held recently at the Episcopal School of Knoxville.

As I have reflected on current circumstances - and, especially, the perspective of the Lambeth Commission - it seems to me that we in the United States have tended historically to emphasize our individuality, in awareness of unique contexts for ministry. That is, in the US, we are prone to point out the particular situations and circumstances of our ministries - where we uniquely live and move and have our being. From the awareness of such particularity, then, we sometimes deduce that different styles and forms of ministry may be appropriate here, even if not elsewhere. And from such deduction, we may determine also that certain people might be appropriate as ordained clergy here, even if not elsewhere. To be fair, though, we need to add that such self-justification in light of particular circumstances is not a uniquely-American phenomenon. For instance, the practice of polygamy in parts of Africa - even among Christians - has been tacitly accepted by the Anglican Communion as a cultural norm in certain countries in that part of the world.

Nevertheless, on the point of raising individuality to an ethical standard - as well as on other points - the Windsor Report challenges the Episcopal Church in the US. Indeed, the Report criticizes the consecration as bishop in New Hampshire of an openly-gay man in relationship with another man and the authorizing of blessing same-sex unions in the Canadian diocese of New Westminster. The Report tells us, quite clearly, that what we in the US - or in Canada - choose to do does have an impact on the rest of the world … and, further, that we bear some responsibility for such reactions. Such occasions for significant impact and reaction do strain the fabric of the Anglican Communion.

Let me offer a related comment at this point. Actions of General Convention, 2003, surely caught some Anglicans in other parts of the world by surprise. That is one issue. But another issue is that those actions also caught many Episcopalians in this country by surprise. While we live in different cultural contexts - even within this country - we do have certain responsibilities for communicating with each other … both in sending and in receiving such communication. Heightened awareness of such responsibilities surely has been one result of General Convention reactions, here and abroad. And that actually is a good thing.

Thus, you see, part of our identity as Church of the Ascension and as the Episcopal Church, USA, is that we are members of the world-wide Anglican Communion of churches. One of the growing issues before us today involves the meaning of that membership and the significance of it. What does it mean to be part of the Anglican Communion … and to be so identified? We surely will not answer that question conclusively today. However, I do believe that it is a good and healthy thing for us to consider it, particularly from the perspective of self-identity.

Specifically in terms of the Windsor Report, it seems to me that we may make several observations that refer to the Anglican Communion and our part in it. The Lambeth Commission, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the charge to submit a report back to him, truly represented the entire Anglican Communion. Thus, it was an extremely diverse group of folks from around the world. I have commented previously that it is a minor miracle - at least - that such a group could agree on any document dealing with the matter of human sexuality! It further should not surprise any of us that the document did not completely satisfy anyone. After all, it was by nature a compromise - a negotiated statement from diverse points of view on a complicated and controversial matter.

The several emphases within the Windsor Report are these, it seems to me. First, this report represents part of a process. It does not attempt to be the final word. It encourages us - all of us, Episcopalians, Anglicans - to continue to engage each other on the matter of human sexuality, as we seek God's will in our day. Secondly, the report makes clear the relational nature of the Anglican Communion. That is, we are not a legal entity. We do not have institutions of central authority, like the papacy. We are a group of national churches in relationship with one another, and those relationships need greater attention. Finally, the Windsor Report is even-handed in its criticisms. It does indeed criticize the Episcopal Church, USA, and the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada for isolated, unilateral actions. However, it also criticizes those bishops and primates who cross jurisdictional lines, in spite of years of Anglican tradition and practice and in contradiction of resolutions of recent Lambeth Conferences.

As you can imagine, quite a number of bishops, national churches, and other groups have responded and reacted to the Windsor Report. And, from what I have said about the diverse membership of the Lambeth Commission and about the negotiated compromises that is the Windsor Report, you can also imagine that reactions have been quite varied indeed.

For instance, I read the published responses from both the American Anglican Council and the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The first thing to notice is that the two organizations released a joint statement. Apparently, there is considerable overlap in perspective and in personnel between these groups. Secondly, reactions from the AAC and the Network expressed a clear distance and distinction between themselves and the Episcopal Church - not only in terms of the decisions of the General Convention but, also, in terms of the Church itself. For instance, the joint statement indicated "strong concerns…(because points in the report) fail to recommend direct discipline of ECUSA." Further, they stated that they are "grateful to those Primates who have provided temporary pastoral accommodation" in these times- and that point is a direct contradiction of a major source of disunity identified by the Windsor Report. Finally, the AAC and the Network stated that "The Episcopal Church is now faced with serious and difficult choices" - an observation with which I certainly would not disagree. However, criticisms in these statements go on to characterize possible subsequent actions by the Episcopal Church. That is, choices before the Episcopal Church are put this way: either "they can follow the lead of Bishop Griswold … or they can choose to embrace the core covenant recommended by the commission…" Note please, that in referring to the Episcopal Church, the choices are "they can … or, they can." Where is the "we", my friends? Is there no longer the sense that we are in this together, trying to work out a faithful way forward? Or is the criticism true that the AAC and the Network have already separated themselves, in effect, in hopes that the Archbishop of Canterbury will designate them as the official Anglican presence in this country … or, at least, as an alternative one?

You also need to know that the Network has assigned a special bishop and a dean, to have some kind of authority for this diocese. Those assignments were made without any consultation with me, the duly elected and consecrated bishop of this diocese. Such action stands in clear violation of Episcopal Church canons, of Windsor Report recommendations, and of Anglican Communion policies, practices, and tradition through the years. My friends, by their own words and actions, the AAC and the Network give unmistakable evidence that they do not intend to live within the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church … nor do they intend to live their lives consistent with the spirit of the resolution from the vestry of Church of the Ascension.

Our diocesan convention considered the possibility of association with networks last February. The matter was presented and discussed prayerfully and carefully. However, as a diocese we decided not to take that step. For an individual parish to make that decision on its own - in spite of the diocesan decision - would represent the same kind of individualistic, unilateral action that has brought about the disharmony, distrust, and contention that we are experiencing in the Anglican Communion. For Church of the Ascension to act on its own by associating with a network would place yourself in a similar position relative to the Diocese of East Tennessee as the Diocese of New Hampshire finds itself, relative to the Anglican Communion. I, therefore, offer you my strong pastoral counsel as your bishop to avoid taking that step - for the sake of unity, for the sake of your own identity, and, indeed, for the sake of God's mission for Church of the Ascension.

Now, I am nearly finished - and I thank you for your attention and your patience. Just a bit more. There is now - and there always has been - considerable diversity of opinion and of practice within the Episcopal Church. Such diversity is characteristic of who we are, among those who identify ourselves as "Episcopalians." Part of that diversity involves the possibility that some of us may believe that actions of the majority at General Convention were simply mistaken. However, neither the minority nor the majority is any less Episcopal as a result. We continue to draw strength, assurance, and - sometimes - pain from our identity as Episcopalians in the US, which is the only recognized branch of the Anglican Communion in this country.

I will conclude with some other words from my mom … advice that I perhaps have been more prone to follow than the earlier example I cited. As a child, when I would venture forth on some outing with friends …. or, later, when I went to college … or, still later, when I began my own family, mom would repeat words that I suspect many of you may have heard in your own past. "Remember who you are, and remember where you come from!" Those words of support and of assurance intended to call to my mind the essential matter of identity. Annie and I have encouraged our sons in similar terms through the years. And now, I am happy to say, our sons are in the position that soon they may be repeating such advice to children of their own.

Finally, then, as you consider God's mission for Ascension, I suggest to you the foundational affirmation of identity: "Remember who you are, and remember where you come from!" May God bless you in these days, in your prayers, and in your faithful efforts to respond to God's mission for the Church of the Ascension!

Copyright © 2004 The Episcopal Diocese of East Tennessee