Some Career advice for me (sorry), or is it better to join the establishment?

[Tim Mathis]

http://relativelyfaithful.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-second-anonymous-...

What's your take? Specifically, can the Anglican Communion cope with Anglimergence?

[Mike Croghan]

Hi Tim and Aaron and all,

I'm going to go ahead and "out" myself as Tim's mysterious (not originally anonymous, but Tim was kind enough to protect the guilty) unasked-for-adviser. I'll go on record as saying that if I'd originally known I was going on record, I would have said some things differently, and I'll try to clarify that in a bit. I'm not backpedaling, but I would have qualified and softened some statements a bit for a general audience - adding nuance I was thinking I'd fill in during a potential ongoing conversation with Tim (which I guess we're having now!) It's obvious from Aaron's reply that, taken out of context, (or possibly even in context), it's easy to make a lot of assumptions about my point of view that aren't all that accurate, so I guess I'd better clear those up. Also, if Karen reads Tim's blog, she was probably going to figure out it was me and kick my ass anyway, so there's no point in me hiding behind Tim's graciously-extended anonymity. :-)

So first, I feel like I need to address a few of Aaron's assumptions. I can see why, based solely on my email, Aaron might have jumped to the conclusions he did about the axe I have to grind, but as a matter of fact a lot of his guesses, though reasonable, are pretty far off the actual case.

First of all, my concern regarding Tim's marriage was a direct response to Tim's own concern in that regard in Tim's previous blog post to which I was responding. Obviously Tim knows that, and if I were Aaron I wouldn't necessarily have taken the time to read a history of blog posts to get context on something like this either. But Aaron, if you're interested, read a couple of posts back on Tim's blog to find out more about his worries.

Regarding the version of the BCP that we use in the community I'm a part of: we use the 1979 Prayerbook, Rite II, thank you very much - slightly edited for brevity. :-) We've also been known to use the New Zealand BCP, which kicks ass. I'm certainly aware that Episcopal churches form ecumenical alliances, because I'm a part of an Episcopal church (I participate in two or three ministries and a Bible study group there) which has strong friendship ties with my nondenominational community, among many other non-TEC organizations. As I said in my original email, I'm well aware that TEC is chock-full of Jesus-followers, including a great many dear friends of mine, and (again, as I said), a great many of TEC's priorities are, in my take-it-for-what-it's-worth opinion, abundantly Kingdom-oriented. Again, in my personal judgment, many of its priorities are *not* Kingdom-oriented. I can make you some lists if you really want to know my opinion - and I recognize that this is true of any organization of any size (except, I suppose, for those that have nothing at all to do with God's Kingdom).

Regarding "hierarchy" - Aaron has defined "hierarchy" to include the concept of "compromise" - so I can't argue with that. My community certainly does compromise, both within our community and with the wider networks of which we're a part. But as for what I would think of as a more traditional definition of "hierarchy" - an organizational structure characterized by "vertical" accountability - "bosses" with authority over subordinates - no, really. We don't have that. Within our community, leadership is very dispersed. There is no role that can only be played by certain positional leaders. We do have a leadership team of three (currently one woman and two men) who are charged with paying attention to what God is doing in the community as a whole and encouraging and equipping whatever that is, but most major decisions are made by congregational consensus, and most minor decisions are made by whomever's in charge of an activity - most likely not an LT member. Accountability is mutual - each member of the community is accountable to the community as a whole, not just to their “boss”.

Regarding the wider networks we're a part of, I was referring to things like Emergent Village and the strong local and bigger-than-local friendships we have with other communities - including Episcopal churches, but also other denominational churches, nondenominational churches, neo-monastic communities, etc. As within our community, it’s not that we just love doing our own thing and aren’t accountable to anyone. Our friendships within these networks are strong enough that friends who aren’t a part of our community are very aware of what we do, and are free to question us and hold us accountable if, for example, an idea for a worship service series sounds a bit heretical to them. This really happens, and it’s mutual, horizontal, and bidirectional (as contrasted with traditional hierarchical accountability, which is vertical and, generally speaking, flows one way). The other major difference is that any authority in horizontal accountability is voluntary. It depends on mutual openness and humility; neither party has the power to threaten or discipline the other one. It’s abundantly fallible – but then, so is hierarchical accountability.

OK, I think I'm finally getting to the crux of Aaron's guesses about my perspective. Sorry to take up all this space.

I'm not denying that I have an axe to grind with TEC, but it's really not theological. I'm pretty far away, theologically, from the folks who have left TEC for AMiA and CANA and whatnot. I'm staunchly in favor of the full inclusion of women and gay folks in the life of the church, including in every leadership position, and in general I'm very happy with "the theology of TEC" (to the extent that such a big and diverse organization can be said to have such a thing). My issues have to do with authority structures and polity (including clericalism), as well as *practical* priorities regarding mission and growth (or shrinkage). Not that these aren't theological issues - they are - but I don't think they're the ones Aaron is thinking of. Again, I could go into detail about my specific concerns, but for now I suspect I'm running on plenty enough. Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure that every single one of my concerns about TEC would apply even more strongly to AMiA, CANA, etc. Which does stop me from formally affiliating with any of those organizations - but doesn't stop me from forging peer friendships with members of those organizations. I don't think the Anglican Communion is a straight jacket - it's a fine place to be a lay person, as long as you don't mind that, practically speaking, leadership opportunities for lay people are relatively limited. But I do think that taking vows to become an ordained member of its clergy restricts one's freedom in ways that I, personally, find far too high a price to pay.

Sorry, Aaron, to go point-for-point through your reply - again, I don't think the assumptions you were making were unreasonable ones, based only on my out-of-context email, but some of your guesses were pretty far off, and I felt like I needed to clarify those.

OK, moving on a bit, I wanted to qualify a couple of statements in my original email. Some of the words I used, taken alone, probably fail to express where my heart is. Where I said that TEC is made up largely of well-intentioned, faithful people, please read that in my experience, TEC is made up almost *exclusively* of well-intentioned, faithful people. I've run across one or two jerks and gits in TEC, but far fewer than in the general population. I have many, many dear friends within TEC, both at my local TEC church and elsewhere. Episcopalians are good people. However, I do have some major beefs with Anglican polity and TEC priorities.

Also, when I go back and read "you don't need them", I cringe, painfully. I feel like I need to whack myself over the head repeatedly with a hardwood plank with 1 Corinthians 12:21 engraved on it in flaming red letters.

Let me be clear about what I meant. You do need TEC, and so do I. Here's what I think I (and, perhaps, you, Tim - to the extent that you're like me and I'm not full of s#!t) need from TEC folks:

- Friendship
- Mutual peer-to-peer accountability
- Mutual support
- Mutual encouragement
- Mutual learning
- Mutual prayer
- Openness to partnerships in ministry, mission, etc.

Here's what I don't think we need from TEC, in order to "do church" (by which I mean something like "follow Jesus and worship God in community by loving God and neighbor together"):

- Permission
- A collar
- A building
- A professional position
- A pension

We do need other things, of course - but we don't need to get them from a denominational system. There are other options. We need enough income to support our families, and we need some kind of retirement plan. We need fellow community members. We need a calling discerned in community, and Spiritual gifts and passions. We need boldness and humility. We need to be prepared for it to suck. A lot.

All of these can be found outside a denominational system, as well as inside one. I'm not saying that looking for them inside TEC, or any other such organization, is in any way wrong or bad in the general case (i.e., for everyone). What I am saying is that it's not the only option if God is calling you to be a leader in the church. You need to discern what God is calling you to - but all I ask is that you don't make the mistake of thinking your options are much, much more limited than they really are.

So finally, I get down to not just trying to shed light on my previous far-too-hasty words, but adding a bit - Tim, you posted this to a whole bunch of places asking for career advice. The only advice I have is: don't think of this as a career. You're being called to follow Jesus. Talk prayerfully with a wide variety of wise people (read: don't just effin' listen to me!), most especially your wife. Discern what kind of life he's calling the two of you to. If you're being called to a leadership role within the body of Christ, you could go down the ordination route, if that seems to work best for you. Or, you could find some other Christian leaders in [wherever it makes the most sense for your family to live]. If they've already got a church/community going that resonates with you, join. Follow Jesus together. If they don't, start a house church. Figure out a way, between the two of you (or, possibly, between the whole community) to put food on the table, and to leave enough time to devote to worshiping God and/through serving God's people together. Cultivate and maintain strong friendships (friendships that are open to support and accountability) with people and organizations who aren't a part of your primary church community, including (yep!) Episcopalians and other Anglicans.

I know that's all fuzzy and idealistic, but all I'm saying is that it's a possibility. Becoming part of a denominational system is not the only possibility. And if you're concerned (as I am) about the loss of freedom involved with becoming an ordained member of the clergy, other possibilities are worth considering. That's all.

Sorry to be such a jerk in my original presentation. I really do love a great many of the people of Anglican Communion, and I really do love the Anglican tradition. But I'm afraid I really don't love the institution(s).

Peace,
Mike

[Tim Mathis]

Hi Mike and Aaron--once again, thanks for the well presented and well communicated advice. I'm still not posting my feelings yet, but the discussion is really interesting and helpful. I think folks--you and Aaron included--have expressed the issues tugging me in opposite directions very well.

And Mike, apologies if I was out of line posting this before I got a response back on your permission. Take heart in the fact that you've generated some helpful, spirited and meaningful conversation around a difficult issue! Also--for the record, I don't think you sounded like a jerk in your original letter. I think you brought up a lot of good points, worthy of discussion, which have obviously struck a chord with lots of folks. I've never had this much discussion around a blog post (except maybe one time when I was angrily ragging on the evangelical college where I did my undergrad).

Tim

[Mike Croghan]

Hi folks,

Kit, I think your story is extremely relevant and helpful, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm ignoring it by focusing on just the first paragraph, but I don't have much time at the moment, and I did want to quibble with a couple of your statements:

"[T]here ARE some things one can't do as a free-floating lay person. Like preside at the Eucharist. Like hear confessions and grant absolution. Like devote all your professional/vocational energy to a parish. If you are called to these things, or think you might be, get the into spiritual direction of some useful format and into a discernment program that won't preclude any options."

Just to be clear - all this is true if one is operating within the vertical authority structure of the Anglican communion. But just for the record, anybody in the community I'm a part of can preside at the Eucharist. Any of us can take each other's confessions, and when we pronounce absolution, we do it with "us" language, not "you" language - and anybody can lead it. It's true, no member of our community can devote 100% of our professional/vocational energy to the church - there's not one of us who doesn't have at least a part-time "secular" job. But quite honestly, our community is so low-overhead (no building, no formal programs, etc.) that I truly believe that we get to spend a roughly equivalent amount of time doing things that really take advantage of our spiritual gifts as does the average mainline clergyperson. The time we spend on our day jobs, as far as I can tell, is roughly the same as the time the average parish priest spends on parish administrivia and business/property/staff issues.

Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there. Options are limited as either a lay person or a clergy person within the Anglican Communion's vertical authority structure. But options within the Body of Christ as a whole are much less limited. Which isn't to say that operating outside that structure is easy....

Peace,
Mike

[Kit Wang]

Yes, you are right to some extent, but I guess what I've learned from my experience at MCC, where there is a more lay focused liturgical approach, like your church, is that for some of us (myself in particular, just speaking for me!), the structure that upholds the sacraments matters, first, and because of the broader nature of a denomination. When I was MCC, there weren't any other local options or more regional options aside from NYC and San Francisco that were substantially (liturgically, etc.) like the congregation in Boston. I confess, I'm an Army brat--endurance and portability loom large in my life as an institutional creature. Oh, yeah, I'm also an institutional creature, so I am more moved to work from the inside, and it's more of a need for me.

[Kit Wang]

my reply follows Mike's reply to my reply--I edited it to show the icon, which is MUCH bigger than expected.

[Kit Wang]

Tim, It's all about discernment. What is it you are called to do? Mike's points are well taken, and I mostly understand them, however, there ARE some things one can't do as a free-floating lay person. Like preside at the Eucharist. Like hear confessions and grant absolution. Like devote all your professional/vocational energy to a parish. If you are called to these things, or think you might be, get the into spiritual direction of some useful format and into a discernment program that won't preclude any options.

Some back story--I've been in the "ordination process" for more than 25 years now...ok, it's been a lot of discernment, not just mine. God and the Bishop and Standing Committee willing, I'll be ordained sometime when it's warmer. I finished seminary in 1984, fortunately with both MDiv and Certificate of Anglican Studies so I was set to pursue ordination whenever the opportunity arose. I've traipsed through a few other churches since seminary--I came in UCC, attempted LCA Lutheran (this was pre-ELCA), poked around campus chaplaincies, and eventually landed in Metropolitan Community Church for about ten years or so, much of that parallel with an Episcopal parish in Boston. Along the way, I did lots of church stuff--vestry, liturgy, choir, eucharistic ministry, preaching, search committee, discernment committee, etc. I also managed to aquire a spouse and child. And the Church--or at least the diocese shifted around a bit--new bishop, etc., so when my ector approached me about discernment, I said Yes. I applied for postulancy and was turned down. Which sucked big time, let me tell you. So after a brief cooling off period--and time to wrap up my DRE job, I entered another discernment, packed up the family and MOVED.

It has been a struggle and at times a battle. My partner commutes more than an hour for work and has for the entire time we've been here in Maine. My son, who has special needs, has finally, after four years, adapted to school and is beginning to settle in.

I will add that "Peace" is highly overrated, in some ways--or perhaps what I mean superficial peace. Moving a household that doesn't want to move is not peaceful. Living with a child with special needs is often not peaceful (then again, neither is living with any pre-adolescent...but parenting is another part of my vocation that I had NO peace with out). Being a poorly employed semi-suburban housewife really sucks--not too peaceful, either, especially when the bills need to get paid, BUT, it's a lot more peaceful than the years I spent with the Holy Spirit tugging at my ears, pulling my hair, and finally bashiing me about the head and shoulders, metaphorically speaking.

So what kind of peace is it you are looking for?? Discernment is a lifelong process. I heartily commend you to it, and it to you.

The icon that's hopefully at the top is one that i wrote a few years back during Lent in a class offerered at my parish (by our rector, Paige Blair, who's part of Anglimergent, too). It's based on a Pantokrator, but incorporates elements of Christ Cleansing the Temple. The combination of the symbols speak volumes about my discernment and spiritual journey.

Blessings!

[Mike Croghan]

One additional thought by way of "career advice" to Tim and others who might be in a similar place. IMHO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with getting paid for church work. Let me get that out of the way up front. But speaking for myself, I would never, ever bank my family's home, food budget, education, future, etc. solely on a church paycheck. I would/will always have "secular" sources of income, between my wife and myself, that can get us by. This is for one simple reason: what happens when God is calling me to do or say something that could get me fired?

I have a great many friends and acquaintances in the "emergent" conversation to whom this has happened. There's even a semi-official Emergent Village euphemism for it: "I got resigned." I met a *lot* of folks at last year's Emergent Village Gathering who "got resigned", and many of them had been working for "liberal" mainline churches - not just fundamentalist/evangelical ones.

I'm completely certain that this moment comes for a great many professional clergy, and that most of them decide that the better part of valor is to keep their big mouth shut. And I'm not for a single moment judging them for that - they have families that depend on them! But speaking for myself, I will never, ever put myself or my family in that position - I'll always be a tentmaker.

Peace,
Mike

[Kit Wang]

I'm with you there. I'm fortunate to have a partner who has a decent, full -time job. Otherwise, I'd probably be teaching school. On the otherhand, I was going to say that there's no security in church work, but it seems that there's precious little security in much work at all these days.

[Bob Griffith]

This comment is way after the fact, but one thing I would like to mention is that by definition Anglicanism is hierarchical, unless one wants to reject a primary part of Anglicanism.

Anglicanism is hierarchical because it's ecclesiology is Catholic, while it's way of doing theology is Reformed and Catholic.

I started my process to be a priest at 38 years old, reluctantly, a few years after becoming an Anglican out of American-Evangelicalism. A few priest friends of mine kept on me about going to seminary until I relented and agreed to go through the discernment process. I am now a priest doing tent-making work and attempting to work at a wonderful parish that just can't quite afford a second priest right now. I can't tell you how frustrating it is having to divide my time when I want to be doing ministry full-time. Yet, God know what is needed. He knows where I am to go and what I need to do in preparation. I trust that.

One thing to consider, also, is the capitulation to our culture. This may not be fair, but when I read Mike's comments I hear our American proclivity to hyper-individualism coming through. I was reluctant to be a priest because I knew that I would have to make vows before God concerning obedience and conformity. I always said that I trust God with my life, but I trust no man with my life. When I made my vows during ordination I knew what I was doing and I humbled myself in doing it. It was very difficult, but I trust God! I trust God to work whether through informal structures or formal, and I also know my infallibility and hardness-of-heart and that at times I don't listen or hear God's voice very well.

The Episcopal Church has problems, as does every group. Seek God, listen intently, and you will know. If He is calling you to Holy Orders, you won't be able to get away from it.

[Mike Croghan]

Hi Bob,

Yeah, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool congregationalist, and I freely acknowledge that this is one of the things that makes me a terrible Anglican.

I'll also be quick to acknowledge that congregationalism, as typically incarnated in the real world through history, has been extremely individualistic.

But I do believe that God's doing a new thing in this age of "postmodern" culture-shift, and that truly new alternatives for human organization are becoming real. These alternatives include closely-knit horizontal networks bound together by friendship, not authority, and which (like traditional hierarchies) emphasize broad community (well beyond the individual congregation), accountability, and support, though in different ways. For example, in these models accountability is horizontal, mutual, and multiple, whereas in a traditional hierarchy it's more vertical, one-way, and less multiple. Also, these networks are more agnostic about denominational and ideological boundaries - the rich distinctiveness of denominational traditions is valued, but denominational differences are not viewed as an obstacle to friendship, partnership, communion, and mutual accountability.

I don't believe Anglicanism needs to abandon its hierarchical ecclesiology to effectively emerge into the postmodern culture, but I do suspect that it will need to expand its ecclesiology in a "both/and" manner, and to allow its definition of itself to encompass non-hierarchical models of organization, community, accountability, etc. alongside existing hierachical ones. If it doesn't, I don't expect it to go away, by any means - I think Anglicanism will certainly continue to flourish and grow in those cultures for whom the Western "modern/postmodern" cultural shift is irrelevant - for example in much of the Global South.

But if Anglicanism is going to recover and continue to be a vital expression of the Body of Christ in North America and Europe, then I suspect this ecclesiological broadening will be unavoidable, because, in my experience, a great many postmodern folks don't "get" hierarchy in a spiritual context, even as they (we) long for broad community, accountability, help in discerning and obeying God's voice, etc. (all contra the charge of cultural individualism).

I could certainly be wrong, though.

I did a blog post recently that talks more about some of these issues.

Peace,
Mike

[Kit Wang]

Mike, you would fit right in here in Maine, and in most of New England. Up here, if we aren't from Rome, we're congregational. Even the Episcopalians. It does make things interesting. However, it is worth pointing out that NO ONE does clericalism like the laity--and frankly I've seen it in spades in Congo Churches. My take is that since there isn't the "special" sacramental ministry, what really differentiates clergy from laity in no-sacramental traditions??? (ok, i'm conflating a few other discussions here, but i just met w/my rector about my transitional deacon ordination, so it's all rumbling around in my happy brain)

[Mike Croghan]

Good point and good questions, Kit - I sometimes make the mistake of giving the impression (or even thinking) that one aspect of "postmodern church" as I understand it - which may be very different from a 100% authentic way someone else understands it - is key. One aspect such as "congregational freedom" or "real living out of the 'priesthood of all believers' with no clergy/laity gap" or "small congregations where nobody is anonymous" or "bold humility / generous orthodoxy in worship, doctrine, ecclesiology, missiology, etc." But I recently realized that whatever set of practices a community adopts, those practices must support each other - changing one or two things alone will probably have unintended consequences (such as the small, congregational community with a *huge* clericalism problem). At the risk of tooting my own horn, I recently did a blog post on this topic too.