INTERVIEW:
Rev. Martyn Minns
June 9, 2006 Episode no. 941
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week941/interview2.html
Read more of Kim Lawton's interview with the Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia:
Q: How key is this General Convention to the future of the church, not only to the overall denomination but also to your parish in particular?
A: It's very important. In many ways this is the decision point for the Episcopal Church, whether or not it wants to continue to be within the mainstream of the Anglican Communion or to go into a separate place. And that's a very important question for us, because as a church we really see our identity as a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and that's kind of how we're defined, and if the Episcopal Church isn't, then that causes a great deal of tension for us and, indeed, I think, some more deliberate separation.
Q: What would you like to see happen at General Convention? What would make you, and churches like you, feel that the Episcopal Church is going in the right direction?
A: Well, I think, first of all, I'd like to see some honesty. I mean, I think right now there's lots of talk about listening to each other, but in fact the truth is I believe the Episcopal Church needs to decide whether it wants to keep pushing the agenda that it has embraced or whether it wants to basically turn back and to move more in step with the rest of the church. I think, to me, all I'd like to see is honesty, you know, and not subterfuge, not some fudge, but really just be clear, and I think that would make life easier for all of us. It's a battle that we've been fighting for way too long, and I think the time has come for those who believe this is what they need to do, they need to get on with it, and for those of us who cannot, we need to be given the freedom to not have to follow that path, but to go where we believe God's called us.
Q: Do you think anything can happen at General Convention that would make it possible for people like you to still be part of the Episcopal Church?
A: I'd love to believe that. I mean, I'm a Christian, so therefore I'm always fundamentally optimistic. I believe God is still at work. I'd love to see the Episcopal Church say, "Whoops, we've gone in a wrong direction here; we need to listen to the rest of the church and turn back." And we pray for that, and we work for that. But honestly, it seems highly unlikely. And I think the response from our special committee that had the resolutions -- they are even more of a compromise than the Windsor Report itself, which itself was a compromise, so a compromise of a compromise doesn't seem very much, and if that's the direction we're heading, then I think it's just a very sophisticated fudge, and that's not really going to help.
Q: How important is the election of the presiding bishop? Will that send a signal?
A: I think it will, but less so, because I think in many ways most of the candidates are not that easy to separate from each other, and I think they all seem to be much more in track with where this new thing of the Episcopal Church is. I think it will be an important signal, but I think they're deliberately positioning it after the discussion of the Windsor Report. I think they understand that that's the main piece -- where are we with the rest of the church? And once that's decided, then the presiding bishop actually becomes a secondary issue.
Q: If, indeed, there isn't a signal at General Convention that the Episcopal Church is going to move in a different direction or turn back from the direction that it's been going in, where does that leave your church and churches you've been networking with?
A: I think it places it in an increasingly alienated place from the rest of the diocese, particularly, and the rest of the wider church. And I think, for me, honesty would call for us to begin to find some way to disengage. I mean, I think that's -- in a way we already are disengaged, but I think that would become more finalized and more concrete, and that's sad, but I think that's an honest reflection of where we are right now.
Q: What are the complications?
A: Well, the complications are that those, if you like, who have the control are reluctant to recognize that reality, and I think that, for me, is going to be a challenge. I think that the diocesan structure still wants to kind of keep things the way they were, and [it is] not willing to recognize sometimes that things have really changed radically. And it's complicated because there's lots of issues, legal issues, in terms of how we're standing, how we're defined, and I think also a desire in some ways to hold onto the way things were in the past, and I think it's always hard. Change is hard, you know, and so I think to move forward with some new, creative ways -- I think it's going to be a bit of a challenge, but I think we have to do it.
Q: What kind of realignment would you like to see in the U.S. Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion? How you would like to see these creative new ways that you're talking about take shape?
A: Well, I think what's happened right now, and I think it's interesting in terms of just how the world's working, is that there's far more networking, relating to people just not simply by geography or by national origin. And I think what we're looking for is, you know, to embrace that fully. The Anglican Communion is a vibrant church. It's a growing church, an evangelical church, and that's who we are -- mission-minded, engaged with all these kind of ministries, and I think that's the identity we've claimed for ourselves and want to continue. I think, for me, we want to be free to do that. That's why what I think we're looking for is that kind of freedom. I think that's going to be important -- that we need to find ways to live into that freedom.
Q: Up until now, it hasn't been the case that churches like yours could be identified with the worldwide Anglican community if they were not part of the U.S. Episcopal Church.
A: Correct. Well, I think in some ways the Episcopal Church has claimed what I might call a kind of unique franchise -- that you cannot be Anglican unless you're in the Episcopal Church, and in some ways it's a rather restricting idea. But that's -- some would say they're still living in the old paradigm, really, of geography defining your identity, and I think what we're saying [is] no, that's no longer the way it works -- I mean, just the way the world is -- and we need to change that, and I think that is changing, and I think we want to embrace that more fully. Now the specifics of how we relate to other jurisdictions -- that, I think, we're working on. We've got right now a number of our own congregations where they've actually been adopted by a bishop in Uganda, and obviously that's a temporary thing, because it can't really work in a long-term relationship, but I think it's a creative way where they begin to share their life together, and that's a wonderful thing, but it's rather frowned on by our own structures. We're looking for something new that's creative, that's got more fluidity, where we can begin to live into a far more international, relational model of the church and far less rigid and bureaucratic model of the church.
Q: And you feel that you are part of the majority of the rest of the world, if not the majority of the U.S. church?
A: Well, I think the truth is the views we hold aren't very new. I mean, that's basically the way the church has been functioning for a long time. I mean, obviously we're engaged in the culture in creative ways, but truly we are simply living out the faith that's been the Christian faith from the beginning, where we believe every person is loved by God; there's no marginalization of any person, but we also believe that God calls us to be transformed and to live into a new way of relating to each other. And I think, for me, it's that radical inclusion, that radical transformation that we want to live into, and I think that's part of who we are as a church. We want to express that freely.
Q: How much of the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion would share your view?
A: Oh, by far the most of it. I think it's mainly what we call the global South, but I think that even in England there are also significant chunks of -- especially growing churches. For instance, the whole Alpha network is very much a part of this understanding of the gospel. And within this country, there are a large number of congregations who were not the voice that you hear in terms of the kind of denominational voice.
Q: You were talking earlier about alternative structures. Bishop Peter Lee has asked Archbishop George Carey to do some confirmations in Virginia. He told us that he is really trying to find ways to accommodate people who are unhappy with him. Are you pleased with that? Is there enough he can do to keep churches like yours part of the fold?
A: I think this is important. We're not unhappy with him. I'm very sad about the things that he's done, but it's not a personal thing with him at all. I respect him as a man who is operating out of his own convictions. His convictions are different from mine and, in fact, right now, it seems to me, irreconcilable. I spent years meeting with him, talking with him, trying to find a way to reconcile these different views, and we've haven't been able to find it. And the Windsor Report itself says this is what we want you to do as a church. We want you to stop what you're doing, turn around, and if you don't want to come back, then recognize that by so doing you are walking apart. And that's the vision of the church that Bishop Lee shares. It's one I don't share with him. He's been gracious to us, and I appreciate that. He's not used law to go after us, but we still are not free to express our faith in ways that we want to do. We're not free to have the kind of churches that share our views. So there are many aspects of that freedom that have been curtailed, and frankly we've been waiting to see whether or not the Episcopal Church would turn around. We cannot live in this place where he's no longer connected to our life in any way, and I think that's the temporary place that we appreciate, but it's not a way to go forward.
Q: You talked about the worldwide Communion coming up with creative ways of reorganizing. Are there things that could happen under the auspices of the Episcopal Church here and the diocese here that could do that?
A: I'm not sure, because the bishop is such a central figure, and I think his vision, his theology, sort of, in a sense, kind of is the prevailing theology of the church. I think there needs to be more structural relief, more structural separation. Sadly, I think that is the way we need to be heading, because I think it is a very different view of the Christian faith, and I think that sort of overlays everything.
Q: Do you indeed feel the views are so different that they are not all part of the same church?
A: Well, it depends on what you mean by "church." I've got a lot of Christian friends in the Catholic Church, and the Pentecostal church, and the Baptist church. So, I mean, in that sense we are united through lots of different ways. In no way am I questioning Bishop Lee's Christian faith at all. It's just a view he holds that is clearly, I believe, held sincerely, but I believe he is sincerely wrong.
Q: How central an issue is property? If you were to separate, what happens to this historic property?
A: That's a big question the lawyers, I'm sure, have already been thinking about. Property is not the essence of the issue. I mean, property is important. I mean, we all like to live in houses and not live in tents, and we like to worship in beautiful buildings and not under the trees, but that's not the fundamental question. The fundamental question is, what is the vision of the church? Who are we, what are we about, and how do we relate to each other? I live in a house on this property, and I'd like to keep my home. The church here has been invested in this property for many, many years, and it seems to me that this is their home, so why should they abandon their home when, in fact, they've not changed anything? It's the rest of the church that's changed, not us. And so, in that sense, I think the question really should be on the other side, because why would they want to take away from us our own property when they're the ones that are kind of changing the rules, not us? I think that the fundamental question is, how can we do our ministry with integrity and, the question is, in as high a degree of communion as possible? In other words, what degree of separation do we have to have to continue that way? And that's exactly what we are exploring. Property is one of the questions; clergy is another question -- how we do ministry. All these things are part of it right now. I'm not a lawyer, but I think what I understand is this: first of all, you've got some competing claims between property laws, which tend to be state laws that are not in federal courts, and then canonical laws, which are church rules. And what you're finding right now is that they are actually -- they contradict each other at times. They say different things about how the property is handled. The question is, does the property, for example, at Truro Church, belong to the national Episcopal Church? Some would claim maybe it does. Others say no, it doesn't. Typically, in Virginia, there's very much, clearly, a local investment kind of a mindset in terms of, kind of, who's locally here, who uses it, who has maintained it, as a higher claim. In California, the judge has so far ruled that, indeed, the local community is entitled to the property, and it doesn't simply defer back to the hierarchical church.
Q: As you are looking toward General Convention, what are you praying for? What is the outcome you would like to see?
A: Clarity. Honesty. If people really believe what they're saying, I want them to be able to claim it and do it and not keep fudging and hiding, saying, "We're waiting." So I guess I'm praying for clarity, and unfortunately the church is very good at not being clear. You go about your business to help make sense [of] what they say, and I'd like it not to require all of your efforts to do that -- that the headlines actually make sense, that they're clear what they have done and get on with doing it. Fundamentally, I'd like to see Christ honored in all this, because I think he does weep when his body is torn, and I'd like to find a way in which we can celebrate the Christian faith that is our life.
Q: How frustrated are some of your parishioners, as well as others who are very upset about what's been happening? Some conservative leaders have been saying, "Let's just wait until things are ready." How frustrated are people about being in limbo?
A: I think they're very frustrated. We've lost 75 families over the last two or three years, key families, people we love who simply said we cannot keep on with this battle, it's too much, too distracting. We want our children to be in churches where the teaching is clear, and time is too short. So it's been very difficult. I think our congregation has sort of held together because of their commitment to the Lord and support for what we're trying to be about as a church, and also because our identity is far more, if you like, in the Anglican world and far less narrowly focused within the Episcopal Church. But I think they've about had enough, and I think it's a time of saying, "Let's be clear." I guess that's my constant thing, is let's be clear, let's get this thing out in the open. If people really do believe something different, they should own it and get on with it and be willing to pay the price for it, not keep fudging it, and that's what I fear keeps happening. I think there are folks here who are very frustrated with that; they're looking for clarity.
Q: Some people in other churches say they are sick of dealing with this. A lot of people are just tired. They feel that all people want to talk about in the church is sex. Do you hear that? Are you concerned that other issues haven't been adequately focused on?
A: We've worked hard to make sure that isn't the case. I think we want to make sure that everyone knows they're welcome. We're all broken, and we all need God's transforming love. And so I think we try to keep the particular issue of human sexuality, you know, as an important one but not the fundamental one. What's even more than that is, you know, you rightly say that, really, it is an anthropological question: What does it mean to be human, you know, is part of what's underlying this. What does it mean to have biblical truth undergirding our life? So there are bigger issues. But I think we're trying to stay mission-minded and reaching out to new folks and doing those things. It is a big distraction, and I think that's what I'm saying is I'd rather get clear if folks want to believe this and teach this and live this. I disagree with them, you know, but I think this battle has got to stop so that we can get on with the work of the ministry.
Q: This is about more than sex or homosexuality, isn't it?
A: I think it's several issues. I think, first of all, it is an issue of anthropology. What does it mean to be human? Is it male [and] female? Are there other variations? And how do men and women relate? What is the way in which they are designed to relate? I think that's part of it, if you like -- an anthropological, sociological question. It's also a theological question, and that is: How do we understand truth? Is it we kind of make it up as we go along, or is it that it's been given to us? Also, how do we understand the power of the gospel? Is it able to transform lives, or do we simply come as we are and stay as we are? And to me, I've been involved in ministry around this country where I've seen human lives transformed by the power of God, and I can't deny that. And to say that someone is simply locked in a certain behavior pattern, I simply can't say it. It's also, I think, about being a church where everyone is welcomed and loved and cared for and can experience the love of Christ within the context of a community, and no one is marginalized. So I think these are the big issues. As you know, the presenting issue has been on homosexuality, but I think that's simply like the tip of the iceberg, and there's far more that's underneath it.
Q: Do you have any other concerns?
A: I think there is another topic being discussed at General Convention which you might want to note, and that is this whole disciplinary approach to how we discipline laypeople that is called Title IV. That's how we regulate our lives. This Title IV thing is a fascinating development in the Episcopal Church, where they're actually trying to discipline laypeople, you know, if they step out of line. And that's a whole area that I think some folks aren't watching. And I'm very disappointed by that, because it seems to me that we're moving in, instead of what I would call a freer, more fluid kind of structure, I see the response of the Episcopal Church right now, it's become more bureaucratic and more rigid and more legislative. And to me, that's the very opposite of how the church should be moving or how the rest of the world's moving. … And I'm disappointed by that, because I think, to me, the church is going to miss a very important opportunity to show the world how truly we can live in that kind of relational way. So I think that's the fear I have, that we're going to become more legalized and all rules and regulations about how to discipline laypeople who get out of line. It's also a power issue, I suspect. What I see is that power is being more and more consolidated in the hands of the bishops, when in fact I think it needs to be the very opposite. I mean, I can't imagine starting to have laypeople have to go before these ecclesiastical courts. I mean, really. It feels bizarre, but that's what they're trying to do. I think that's a bad move.
Q: How are some of the churches around the world going to view this? How closely are they going to be watching General Convention, and what are you anticipating their reactions are going to be?
A: Good question. I think, first of all, they're watching closely. They also will not be easily deceived by fudge. They're very sophisticated people, and I think, thanks to the Internet and rapid communication, they'll be very much aware of everything that is being said. I think their prayer still is that the Episcopal Church will turn around. They really are praying for that, and even though it's been a long time and the pattern seems pretty clear, they still see the power of God in their own lives and want to see the Episcopal Church change. If it doesn't change, then I think they'll have to reevaluate their relationship with the Episcopal Church but also, particularly, all those congregations in this church that share their faith and how they relate to them. Right now it's a bit messy, and my anticipation is that it will become a little more organized and a little more coherent. They've held back on that for now, because they want to basically give the Episcopal Church a chance to essentially turn around, but if it doesn't, then my suspicion is that there'll be an effort to bring a little more finality and structure into the relationships so that they can be more helpful.
Q: How messy do you anticipate things to be, and for how long? Is this something that's going to happen right away?
A: Oh, no. I'm afraid the church tends to move slowly. But we're people, you know -- people have a hard time with change, so I think it's going to be messy for a while. Again, in the middle of all this I'm hoping that we can still keep clear about our message, which is God's transforming love, and keep that out there all the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment