GC 2012: Fr. Todd Wetzel editorial #2 July 8, 2012
General Convention 2012 Editorial by the Rev. Todd H. Wetzel
Bishop Edward Little, Diocese of Northern Indiana, at the evening press conference at Convention on July 4, said that the House of Bishops had, “Worked hard on relationships – levels of trust had deepened and they really felt good about one another.” The next day, the attack against the 9 signers of the Amicus Brief exploded full force on the floor of the House of Bishops, operating that afternoon in closed executive session. This kind of attack is symptomatic of the anxiety brewing beneath the surface of this Convention. In this context what did Bishop Little’s remark mean?
On July 6, I had a brief moment to ask him. His response. “My comment is true, but only for about 90% of the Bishops.” It got me thinking.
In my own parish (from which I recently retired), only about 10% of the congregation (usually the same 10%) tried frequently (and often successfully) to direct the available energy and resources of the vestry, the staff and I towards satisfying their concerns and enabling them to be “happy.” That same pattern holds true in the city of Cedar Hill, Texas where I worked closely with city leadership and community groups. I imagine it holds true for state, federal and diocesan levels, too.
What if those of us in the 90% category simply stopped letting those who repeatedly appear in the 10% minority set the agenda, repeatedly speak at the microphones, and get most of the attention while often directing their rancor, disdain or disappointment toward the rest of us? The General Convention gathered here does not represent Mr. and Mrs. Episcopalian back home. These are diocesan activists, most of liberal persuasion, who love playing at politics. They are told here from the outset that they are not here to represent anyone, but rather to permit themselves to be “molded and shaped by the process of Convention.” A few are here to engineer change; most are simply the means whereby that change is authorized.
Mind you, I am not for a minute suggesting that we stop listening, stop being compassionate or stop being generous with those in need of some form of assistance.
I am saying that paying more effective attention to the “general welfare” might better serve the needs of all of us. Striving to meet the ever growing needs of a persistent and highly vocal minority (and they come in many shapes and sizes and of diverse emotional, physical and spiritual needs) may not be the best way for a group of any size to function, be they secular, religious or a mix of both. In fact, it might propel these groups (be they national, international , or denominational ) into growing dysfunction wherein the dissatisfaction of the few leads to a growing and pervasive sense of frustration and defeatism among the many.
When the above happens-history is replete with these stories- dramatic changes on a grand scale can and do occur.
Back to the actions of a few in the House of Bishops. Not very many years ago, consensus developed that a duly elected and consecrated bishop could do and say most anything without reprisal (witness Bps. Pike, Spong, Robinson). Now, with liberal change agents in charge, this is clearly no longer so. There is a mean and punitive spirit being displayed. That may be politics, but it is a far cry from Christ like behavior. Pray brothers and sisters for our bishops. It sounds like that 10% has gotten the upper hand. Apparently their bonds of fellowship are not as whole and encompassing as they might become.
Bishop Edward Little, Diocese of Northern Indiana, at the evening press conference at Convention on July 4, said that the House of Bishops had, “Worked hard on relationships – levels of trust had deepened and they really felt good about one another.” The next day, the attack against the 9 signers of the Amicus Brief exploded full force on the floor of the House of Bishops, operating that afternoon in closed executive session. This kind of attack is symptomatic of the anxiety brewing beneath the surface of this Convention. In this context what did Bishop Little’s remark mean?
On July 6, I had a brief moment to ask him. His response. “My comment is true, but only for about 90% of the Bishops.” It got me thinking.
In my own parish (from which I recently retired), only about 10% of the congregation (usually the same 10%) tried frequently (and often successfully) to direct the available energy and resources of the vestry, the staff and I towards satisfying their concerns and enabling them to be “happy.” That same pattern holds true in the city of Cedar Hill, Texas where I worked closely with city leadership and community groups. I imagine it holds true for state, federal and diocesan levels, too.
What if those of us in the 90% category simply stopped letting those who repeatedly appear in the 10% minority set the agenda, repeatedly speak at the microphones, and get most of the attention while often directing their rancor, disdain or disappointment toward the rest of us? The General Convention gathered here does not represent Mr. and Mrs. Episcopalian back home. These are diocesan activists, most of liberal persuasion, who love playing at politics. They are told here from the outset that they are not here to represent anyone, but rather to permit themselves to be “molded and shaped by the process of Convention.” A few are here to engineer change; most are simply the means whereby that change is authorized.
Mind you, I am not for a minute suggesting that we stop listening, stop being compassionate or stop being generous with those in need of some form of assistance.
I am saying that paying more effective attention to the “general welfare” might better serve the needs of all of us. Striving to meet the ever growing needs of a persistent and highly vocal minority (and they come in many shapes and sizes and of diverse emotional, physical and spiritual needs) may not be the best way for a group of any size to function, be they secular, religious or a mix of both. In fact, it might propel these groups (be they national, international , or denominational ) into growing dysfunction wherein the dissatisfaction of the few leads to a growing and pervasive sense of frustration and defeatism among the many.
When the above happens-history is replete with these stories- dramatic changes on a grand scale can and do occur.
Back to the actions of a few in the House of Bishops. Not very many years ago, consensus developed that a duly elected and consecrated bishop could do and say most anything without reprisal (witness Bps. Pike, Spong, Robinson). Now, with liberal change agents in charge, this is clearly no longer so. There is a mean and punitive spirit being displayed. That may be politics, but it is a far cry from Christ like behavior. Pray brothers and sisters for our bishops. It sounds like that 10% has gotten the upper hand. Apparently their bonds of fellowship are not as whole and encompassing as they might become.
No comments:
Post a Comment