Category Archives: Episcopal Church

The Episcopal Church is to McDonald’s as . . . what?

Yesterday in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Fairfax Circuit Court ruled in favor of the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church in litigation to recover church property from seven congregations that left the Episcopal Church. These congregations, which became affiliated with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) did not, however, vacate the buildings. The ruling states that the CANA congregations “must promptly relinquish control over the properties to the Diocese.” This is good news for many of my old friends there.

You can read the entire ruling here, but there’s one section that really caught my attention, making me both laugh a bit and wanting to order a Big Mac for lunch:

(8) CANA disputes the Diocese’s assertion that vestries are agents for the church. Rather, CANA argues that “[a] closer analogy” of the relationship between the denomination and a local congregation is that between a “franchisor and a franchisee.” Thus, “McDonalds may dictate the restaurant’s accounting practices, layout, menu, promotions, prices, employee uniforms, employee training, and placement of the golden arches,” and a “franchisee [that] fails to do business in a prescribed manner … may be enjoined from continuing to operate in any manner that suggests an affiliation with the franchise,” but that does not mean “a disaffiliating franchisee will forfeit any land it purchased with its own money in furtherance of the franchise relationship.” (CANA Brief #2 at 35-36.)

This analogy is not apt at any level. The nature of the relationship between a hierarchical denomination, its diocese, and a local congregation is not analogous to that between a hamburger company and a hamburger outlet. The contributions made by a diocese to a local church, especially one which begins as a diocesan mission, and the contributions made by a local church to its diocese, is not analogous at any level to the fast food industry or its franchisees. The constitutional and canonical requirements for serving as a rector or a member of a vestry, and the requirements governing the alienation and encumbrance of consecrated and unconsecrated properties, and the role that lay leaders in a congregation may play in the governance of the Diocese and even of the denomination, simply do not compare to the business of running a McDonald’s franchise. While it is true that “placement of the golden arches” may be no more complicated than the placement of a street sign announcing the presence of an Episcopal Church, what lies behind that sign is infinitely more complex.

Reading those words reminded me of this clever poster by the good folks at the Church Ad Project. It features a photograph of a couple of communion wafers beside a wine-filled chalice. The title says, “Over 10 Trillion Served,” and the last sentence at the bottom says, “We don’t have a drive thru, but we always have room at the Lord’s Table.” That’s true, and we’re also open on Sundays!

The Episcopal Church: Scripture, Tradition & Reason

Last spring there was a wonderful thread of comments in response to a post on Osler’s Razor about the pros and cons of the Episcopal Church. At the end of that thread, I added something that I called “Haiku for the Anglican Way,” which is:

What makes sense of things:
scripture, tradition, reason,
intertwined with love.

Best Practices, Survival Guides, and Walleye Fillets

So yesterday, the day after I finished the last personnel review of those under my direct supervision at St. Stephen’s Church in Edina, Minnesota, there appeared in my Twitter feed a link to this post on the blog of the Harvard Business Review: “Delivering an Effective Performance Review.” I’ll save that in a file for next year.

Later that same afternoon, five days after the end of the annual convention of the Episcopal Church in Minnesota, there appeared in my Twitter feed a link to this post by the Rev. Tim Schenck, a priest in Massachusetts: “Diocesan Convention Survival Guide.” If only I could have read those words of wisdom last week!

Because I don’t want this experience to happen to you, gentle reader, I would like to share the following information, which is both timely and, hopefully, useful:

Constructive Engagement: Marriage Amendment #4

Today marks the fifth day after the 154th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minnesota was adjourned. Today also marks the first time that I have been able to share with others the text of a resolution that was passed by that convention about our state’s proposed marriage amendment:

Resolved, the Episcopal Church in Minnesota opposes the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota banning same-sex marriage. Furthermore the Church will join other denominations and non-profit organizations in signing the “Resolution against the Constitutional Amendment to Ban Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” as prepared and presented by Minnesotans United for All Families:

‘We oppose the amendment to the Minnesota Constitution banning same-sex marriage. Minnesotans United for All Families may use my organization’s name in opposition to the constitutional amendment banning the legal recognition of same-sex couples.’

This resolution was neither given to the faith communities of the Episcopal Church in Minnesota beforehand nor made available to the delegates to the convention from those faith communities beforehand. So there was little time to reflect on its language or the intended goal. Needless to say, there was also little time for a thoughtful discussion about whether the resolution, as it was worded, was the best tactic to achieve that intended goal.

I agree with those who supported this resolution in their belief that the issue is a weighty one, that it affects individuals whom we know and love in our churches and our families, and that it deserves to be engaged by our faith communities. It seems to me, however, that our faith communities were denied the opportunity to do that very thing in at least two ways.

On the one hand, we could have been invited to discuss this resolution in our congregations beforehand so that our delegates would have carried those reflections with them to the convention before voting on a statement that presumes to speak for the entire “Episcopal Church in Minnesota.” This would also have allowed everyone to learn about the organization that we were being asked to let use our name. More information would have been helpful.

On the other hand, an alternative resolution might have done the same thing by encouraging our faith communities to engage this important matter over the next year through conversations among those with different opinions about it. These people are already in our pews and in the neighborhoods that surround our churches. Acknowledging that fact and inviting them into a conversation allows them not only to be heard but also to hear. That’s how minds are changed.

Both of the scenarios that I have described would have resulted in a differently worded resolution. My remarks on the floor of the convention, in that case, might have been differently worded too.

You can read all of the reflections in this series here.

Martyrs Topic: Sedaris, No . . . Convention, Yes

I came to St. Stephen’s Martyrs meeting with copies of this interesting reflection: “What Air Rage Says About Human Nature: David Sedaris on Delayed Flights and Pecan-Frosted Wraps.” It’s hilarious and ponders something important at the end about who we really are or might be as human beings, “not just hateful but gloriously so?” I especially like this comment about that reflection:

… most people interpret “To thine own self be true” as “Follow your instincts… do what comes naturally to you.” Based on THAT interpretation, we Christians would say it’s a bad piece of advice. BUT… if you take the phrase to mean, “Be honest with yourself… recognize that your instincts are flawed”… then it becomes GOOD advice.

Instead I was asked to begin with an explanation of a resolution about our state’s proposed marriage amendment that was passed at the Annual Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minnesota. As I mentioned in the previous blog post, this resolution was not presented in writing beforehand, and I still do not have a copy of the text of the resolution to share with others. So stay tuned for that.

Nevertheless, four of us who served as delegates to the convention were present at tonight’s meeting and able to facilitate a discussion about the resolution. It was a down payment on a promise that I had made to the people of St. Stephen’s on Sunday morning. I had read to them my remarks on the floor of the convention and said that we would be talking about the proposed marriage amendment before it appears on the ballot next fall. That conversation started tonight.

Learn more about the St. Stephen’s Martyrs and how to find them here.

Constructive Engagement: Marriage Amendment #3

Yesterday the 154th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minnesota was adjourned. The theme was the hospitality of God, which provided an interesting background for a resolution that addressed our state’s proposed marriage amendment. Because that resolution wasn’t sent out beforehand, there wasn’t much time to consider it, and I didn’t have a written copy of it. As soon as the text of the resolution, which was passed without amendment, becomes available, I’ll post it here so that you may consider it yourself (together with this and this).

Nevertheless, it stated that the Episcopal Church in Minnesota opposes the proposed marriage amendment and would allow an organization to use our name on its website as part of its work to defeat the amendment next fall at the ballet box. Some delegates were fine with the first part of the resolution but not with the second part. Other delegates were fine with the spirit of the resolution but not with the actual wording of it. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

I was the first delegate to speak to this resolution on the floor of the convention, and I think it’s important for people to know what I said and why I voted against the resolution. So here are my comments to the chair of the convention:

Right Reverend Sir:

The truth is that I will be voting against the marriage amendment.

The truth is that most of the people at St. Stephen’s Church in Edina will probably be voting against the marriage amendment – most but not all.

The truth is that the Episcopal Church in Minnesota includes more than those who work at 1730 Clifton Place and more than those who are delegates to this convention. It includes both the gay and lesbian children of God in my congregation and those who disagree with me and with the gay and lesbian children of God in my congregation about the marriage amendment.

The truth is that the only way that anyone’s mind is going to change about this issue – which I presume is the end goal for most us – the only way to do that is to have conversations with those who disagree with us and to have those conversations in congregations that are sanctuaries, where people on both sides feel safe enough to be honest with one another. That last point about providing sanctuaries for both sides was advocated very eloquently by my friend and colleague Michele Morgan at the fall clergy conference, and she has kindly given me permission to state that publicly.

So I stand before you to speak against the resolution as it is currently worded because it is not a truthful statement about the Episcopal Church in Minnesota, which includes all of us.

The circle of love around the Lord’s Table is always greater than we imagine it to be and, therefore, must include our neighbor who disagrees with us about the marriage amendment. Loving our neighbor isn’t always easy, but that’s how minds and lives are transformed. This I believe.

You can read all of the reflections in this series here.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Remembers 9/11