From The Living Church:
Posted on: January 18, 2010
By Ephraim Radner
In the face of the tragedy in Haiti, I want to make a proposal. It’s not a realistic proposal, I grant; but it is a serious one. My proposal is this: that all those Anglicans involved in litigation amongst one another in North America — both in the Episcopal Church and those outside of TEC; in the Anglican Church of Canada, and those outside — herewith cease all court battles over property. And, having done this, they do two further things:
a. devote the forecast amount they were planning to spend on such litigation to the rebuilding of the Episcopal Church and its people in Haiti; and
b. sit down with one another, prayerfully and for however long it takes, and with whatever mediating and facilitating presence they accept, and agree to a mutually agreed process for dealing with contested property.
Before addressing the “unrealistic” character of this proposal, let’s be clear about the money that may be involved. As I read TEC’s national budget, for instance, over $4 million has been spent already on “Title IV” and litigation matters in the dioceses, and over $4 million more is budgeted for the next triennium. Let’s assume that some comparable amount is being spent by the opposing parties — maybe not as much, but still a lot. I don’t know … $3 million over the past three years and $3 million more over the next? Maybe less. Then there are the dioceses alone that are spending their own money. I know that Colorado has spent upwards of $3 million in these matters, and its opponents again, perhaps less again but certainly a sizable amount. I really don’t know what we’re talking about here — maybe $20 million already spent, maybe more? And certainly another $10 million in the pipeline.
Isn’t this rather crazy? Isn’t this in fact unfaithful? Isn’t this, indeed, perverse and even blasphemous?
And it is certainly so in the face of the needs we have just been witnessing in Port-au-Prince, needs which, it must be said, have been around us all the time these past years, but here have come into a blinding and heart-rending focus.
In this case, however, we are also facing something rather concrete with respect to Anglicans: a large and active and vibrant Anglican church in Haiti now overturned in so many ways: church buildings in rubble, schools destroyed, nutritional projects undercut, training programs gone, a seminary in ruins, hospitals and clinics collapsed, irreplaceable religious artwork gone forever, the means of supporting priest, teacher, doctor, nurse, evangelist, worker dissolved. American Episcopalians have been extraordinarily generous in Haiti, through individual parish outreaches and other programs. But this is now beyond anything anyone could have dreamed. TEC, through various national funds (none of them, as far as I can tell, detailed in public budgets), has also, over the years, helped to support the work in Haiti, but again, in ways that pale in comparison with the sudden void now placed in the midst of the church’s life there. And in ways that pale in comparison with money spent in interchurch litigation! From what I can see, only 25 percent of the amount budgeted for suing each other is currently budgeted for Haiti! Who cries for justice?
But let us go further into the question of opportunity here. The Episcopal Church’s life in Haiti — and Haiti is a diocese of TEC — is vibrant in many ways. But it is also a mess (I speak from experience), like much of the country has been a mess. The seminary has been valiantly run on despicable shoestrings for years through devoted efforts of a few; monetary contributions are generally channeled through one-on-one parish projects, with little coordination and not a little competition and therefore sorry inequity, and despite some efforts at common work, money is jealously guarded for local needs; long-range planning under these circumstances is difficult and often ineffective; evangelization and Christian formation is weak; because of her TEC membership, conservative Anglicans have tended, over the past few years, to ignore the Haitian church in favor of Africa; many educated leaders have left the country altogether; and so on. The opportunity, then, of a significant redirecting of resources on the basis of some common commitments across polarized and hostile lines within Anglican North America, and in the face now of undeniable and staggering human and evangelical need, raises some promising possibilities:
1. some rationalizing of ministry and its support during a time of equalized rebuilding, where people and projects are not left to the successes of entrepreneurial individuals but of common purpose;
2. a reworking of coordinated priorities that includes taking Christian formation seriously, including evangelization and ministry training;
3. the reentry of conservative North American Anglicanism into a common partnership in mission for the sake of those in need, and outside of ecclesial struggles.
And maybe, with these kinds of movements in place, there could be, through God’s mercy and spiritual movement, a rethinking of the shape that North American Anglican struggles have taken, the toll they have wrought, and the call to a different form of engaging deep disagreements, even ones that, in themselves, brook little resolution on a theological plane. Who knows what God might do to people who humble themselves enough to give themselves away?
This is all very serious, as I said. Whether or not I have this or that detail correct, the general thrust of the proposal is clear enough and, to my mind, compelling enough in terms of gospel truth and divine demand. What would Jesus do? I think we all know.
But I also realize that it is all rather unrealistic: TEC leaders will say they have a fiduciary responsibility to sue for disputed property, and that this is “mission”; departed congregations and dioceses will say the same thing in a different guise, and add that “TEC started it”; each will say the other won’t listen or has never responded to overtures for mediated discussion; the level of mistrust and hostility is seemingly too high to overcome with either reason or charity.
Meanwhile, we will text our $10 to the Red Cross, give $25 to Episcopal Relief and Development or Anglican Relief and Development, wire a little money here, dig some trenches there, salute Paul Farmer and microcredit programmers for good work, and go back to court. Haiti will struggle, but not alone; Christ will be there, even as he leaves us behind.
In the face of the tragedy in Haiti, I want to make a proposal. It’s not a realistic proposal, I grant; but it is a serious one. My proposal is this: that all those Anglicans involved in litigation amongst one another in North America — both in the Episcopal Church and those outside of TEC; in the Anglican Church of Canada, and those outside — herewith cease all court battles over property. And, having done this, they do two further things:
a. devote the forecast amount they were planning to spend on such litigation to the rebuilding of the Episcopal Church and its people in Haiti; and
b. sit down with one another, prayerfully and for however long it takes, and with whatever mediating and facilitating presence they accept, and agree to a mutually agreed process for dealing with contested property.
Before addressing the “unrealistic” character of this proposal, let’s be clear about the money that may be involved. As I read TEC’s national budget, for instance, over $4 million has been spent already on “Title IV” and litigation matters in the dioceses, and over $4 million more is budgeted for the next triennium. Let’s assume that some comparable amount is being spent by the opposing parties — maybe not as much, but still a lot. I don’t know … $3 million over the past three years and $3 million more over the next? Maybe less. Then there are the dioceses alone that are spending their own money. I know that Colorado has spent upwards of $3 million in these matters, and its opponents again, perhaps less again but certainly a sizable amount. I really don’t know what we’re talking about here — maybe $20 million already spent, maybe more? And certainly another $10 million in the pipeline.
Isn’t this rather crazy? Isn’t this in fact unfaithful? Isn’t this, indeed, perverse and even blasphemous?
And it is certainly so in the face of the needs we have just been witnessing in Port-au-Prince, needs which, it must be said, have been around us all the time these past years, but here have come into a blinding and heart-rending focus.
In this case, however, we are also facing something rather concrete with respect to Anglicans: a large and active and vibrant Anglican church in Haiti now overturned in so many ways: church buildings in rubble, schools destroyed, nutritional projects undercut, training programs gone, a seminary in ruins, hospitals and clinics collapsed, irreplaceable religious artwork gone forever, the means of supporting priest, teacher, doctor, nurse, evangelist, worker dissolved. American Episcopalians have been extraordinarily generous in Haiti, through individual parish outreaches and other programs. But this is now beyond anything anyone could have dreamed. TEC, through various national funds (none of them, as far as I can tell, detailed in public budgets), has also, over the years, helped to support the work in Haiti, but again, in ways that pale in comparison with the sudden void now placed in the midst of the church’s life there. And in ways that pale in comparison with money spent in interchurch litigation! From what I can see, only 25 percent of the amount budgeted for suing each other is currently budgeted for Haiti! Who cries for justice?
But let us go further into the question of opportunity here. The Episcopal Church’s life in Haiti — and Haiti is a diocese of TEC — is vibrant in many ways. But it is also a mess (I speak from experience), like much of the country has been a mess. The seminary has been valiantly run on despicable shoestrings for years through devoted efforts of a few; monetary contributions are generally channeled through one-on-one parish projects, with little coordination and not a little competition and therefore sorry inequity, and despite some efforts at common work, money is jealously guarded for local needs; long-range planning under these circumstances is difficult and often ineffective; evangelization and Christian formation is weak; because of her TEC membership, conservative Anglicans have tended, over the past few years, to ignore the Haitian church in favor of Africa; many educated leaders have left the country altogether; and so on. The opportunity, then, of a significant redirecting of resources on the basis of some common commitments across polarized and hostile lines within Anglican North America, and in the face now of undeniable and staggering human and evangelical need, raises some promising possibilities:
1. some rationalizing of ministry and its support during a time of equalized rebuilding, where people and projects are not left to the successes of entrepreneurial individuals but of common purpose;
2. a reworking of coordinated priorities that includes taking Christian formation seriously, including evangelization and ministry training;
3. the reentry of conservative North American Anglicanism into a common partnership in mission for the sake of those in need, and outside of ecclesial struggles.
And maybe, with these kinds of movements in place, there could be, through God’s mercy and spiritual movement, a rethinking of the shape that North American Anglican struggles have taken, the toll they have wrought, and the call to a different form of engaging deep disagreements, even ones that, in themselves, brook little resolution on a theological plane. Who knows what God might do to people who humble themselves enough to give themselves away?
This is all very serious, as I said. Whether or not I have this or that detail correct, the general thrust of the proposal is clear enough and, to my mind, compelling enough in terms of gospel truth and divine demand. What would Jesus do? I think we all know.
But I also realize that it is all rather unrealistic: TEC leaders will say they have a fiduciary responsibility to sue for disputed property, and that this is “mission”; departed congregations and dioceses will say the same thing in a different guise, and add that “TEC started it”; each will say the other won’t listen or has never responded to overtures for mediated discussion; the level of mistrust and hostility is seemingly too high to overcome with either reason or charity.
Meanwhile, we will text our $10 to the Red Cross, give $25 to Episcopal Relief and Development or Anglican Relief and Development, wire a little money here, dig some trenches there, salute Paul Farmer and microcredit programmers for good work, and go back to court. Haiti will struggle, but not alone; Christ will be there, even as he leaves us behind.
h/t Fr. Dick Kim
No comments:
Post a Comment