Bishop’s Address   +  Special Diocesan Convention   +   June 8, 2013

Today, we gather to consider a substantive initiative, a complete replacement and significant streamlining of our Diocesan Canons.  While the specific action that led to today’s Special Convention was my call at the 2008 Diocesan Convention for a Diocesan Review Task Force, there was much work and action prior to that moment.  While serving as Bishop Coadjutor in the Fall of 2006 and continuing into my initial months as Bishop Diocesan in early 2007, I conducted a Bishop’s Listening Tour of congregations, convocation councils and clericus gatherings. The hopes, expectations and dreams of the Diocese discovered during The Tour are:

1. 1.Clear Communication and Connectedness --- people are looking for accurate, clear, and concise information delivered on a timely basis about events and developments in congregations, the diocese, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

1. 2.Equipping Leaders --- the Diocesan Office is seen as being the primary “instigator” for ministries to equip leaders for service in the church with support being given by convocations and congregations.

1. 3.Flexibility --- a great deal of value was placed on the Bishop and Staff remaining flexible while at the same time going further to develop consistent approaches toThis may seem contradictory, but is interpreted to mean that people/congregations are treated with predictable equity while taking into consideration unique local circumstances.

1. 4.Stewardship --- the sluggish Michigan economy is continuing to challenge congregations, but a genuine spirit to enhance stewardship isSpecific assistance has been requested with the following areas of stewardship:  financial, gifts discernment, better use of available gifts, and creativity with “limited” resources.

1. 5.--- while a desire to continue honoring local determination of ministry initiatives is clearly present, a conversation to determine a common definition of “grassroots” is proposed.

1. 6.Anglicanism --- people are proud to be Anglicans and Episcopalians and want some assistance in learning how to articulate what it means to be “Anglican/Episcopalian.”

By mid-2007, I was able to announce the next steps to be taken with the information gathered during The Listening Tour which focused on continuing conversations to further clarify any new directions or dimensions for the mission and ministry of the Diocese of Eastern Michigan.  Initiatives at that time included:

The meaning of “grassroots” is being explored in Anglican Connections and in various leadership gatherings around the diocese

The diocesan communication system, FirstClass, was replaced!

Applications began to be received for an Assistant to the Bishop for Ministry Development who would oversee the various aspects of equipping all the baptized for ministry at the local level (which later would include the Coppage-Gordon School for Ministry)

Conversation among the Bishop, Deans, and Convocation Presidents about how our diocesan and convocation structures might be better structured to serve the mission of the Church

Creation of a Missioner to Young Adults for the Tri-Cities area to reach out to the 18-30 age cohort --- a position which was jointly funded for three years by St. John’s Midland the McElroy Fund of the Diocese of Eastern Michigan

New models for congregational pastoral leadership are being actively explored

An excerpt from the Bishop’s Address to the 2008 Diocesan Convention reads as follows:

When this diocese was formed, the overarching vision was one of collaborative leadership between laity and the ordained, as well as decision-making and empowerment at the most appropriate level in the diocese.  Our fourteen years of experience as a diocese have shown us that while we continue to embrace the overarching vision, our diocesan structures impede our ability to realize the dream.  Some structures --- constitutional, canonical, and programmatic --- no longer serve the mission and thus the dream, but rather function to inhibit possibility and prevent us from realizing our vision. With profound respect for the continuing vision of a new kind of diocese and church and the unanimous support of your Standing Committee, I call for:

a comprehensive Constitutional, Canonical, Structural and Programmatic Review of the Diocese of Eastern Michigan to be conducted by a Review Task Force appointed jointly by the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Eastern Michigan.  The Task Force will be charged with undertaking this review with a goal of reporting its findings and recommendations to the 15th Annual Diocesan Convention to be held October 23-24, 2009 at Grace Church in Port Huron.

While I hoped that such a Task Force could be constituted in fairly short order and begin its work in early 2009, the deepening worldwide economic crisis and the clear need to continue some already-begun diocesan vision work led to a delay in the appointment of the Task Force.  Organized in September 2009, the Diocesan Review Task Force made an initial report of its organizing activities at the 2009 Convention and a recommendation to the Bishop and Standing Committee prior to the 2010 Diocesan Convention.  During that time, Mr. Donald Romanik, President of the Episcopal Church Foundation, worked with me and the Task Force as initial consultant to our process.  Members of the Task Force and their respective congregations (at the time) were:

Over the course of 2009, a series of articles in Anglican Connections, our diocesan monthly newspaper at the time addressed questions regarding the nature of a diocese and the role of a bishop in the 21st century.  From those articles, I quote:

What is a diocese?

In essence, a diocese is a geographic region of the Church containing a number of congregations across that particular geographic region, and classically, a diocese is described as the fundamental building block of the Church.  The implications for such a definition deserve careful attention.  Underlying assumptions of this definition are that the most important unit of the Church is the diocese and that congregations exist because a diocese exists.  Furthermore, these assumptions presuppose a particular worldview:  linear, ordered, predictable, rational, hierarchical --- in short, Western and mechanical.  However, as we enter more clearly into an era being described as postmodern, these assumptions and this worldview begin to lose their effectiveness and truth.

In a world which has become flattened and in which organic networks describe relationships and structures, continuing to live as if the world is linear, ordered and predictable only produces anxiety, discomfort and unintended and negative consequences for all of us.  Let me offer another perspective.

“What is a diocese?”  A diocese is a covenantal community of people and congregations engaged in God’s mission, in the name of Jesus Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Please note that I have not described a diocese in terms of geography or hierarchy but rather, in terms which direct us toward relationship --- covenant, community, people and congregations.  We certainly have geographic boundaries to our diocese and even geographic division within the diocese (convocations) but these are merely tools to bring some sense of order; they are not THE defining elements of diocesan identity or, in particular, who we are as the Diocese of Eastern Michigan.

In our postmodern world, rigid understandings of “diocese” create chaos rather than bring order.  We live in a world which is organic and flexible and is perhaps best characterized by the world wide web, the internet.  The structure and character of the internet is such that relationships can develop between people, institutions, groups, and information in ways that are simultaneously bound and free.  Creative connections and surprising synthesis is possible; the only limits are our willingness to imagine and community-created norms of expectation and behavior.  A diocese which begins to imagine itself as a covenantal community is one which recognizes the infinite and holy possibilities inherent in structures which are flexible but shaped by norms that are mutually agreeable to all members of the diocese.

What is a bishop in a Diocese as Covenantal Community

Re-imagining the character and definition of “diocese” must lead us to consider the role of the Bishop in such a diocese.  Beyond the canonical expectations of apostle, chief priest and pastor, a bishop in such a diocese should reflect the relational character that is required to be a covenantal community.  In addition, a bishop in a “diocese as covenantal community” must exercise collegial and shared episcopal authority.  In other words, the Bishop must recognize that the office of bishop is larger than any single person and that both the office and the officeholder must reflect healthy relationships.  In practical terms, this means that in all areas possible, authority must be shared with the community through its designated leadership whether ordained or not.  Glimpses of this can be seen in the role that rectors play in exercising a measure of episcopal oversight at the local level on behalf of the bishop, in the role that convocation deans play with clergy in a geographical division of the diocese (convocation), and in the role that missioners, whether lay or ordained, play in exercising shared episcopal oversight for those congregations employing non-rector approaches to local congregational leadership.  Also, the role that Diocesan Center staff exercise is a form of shared episcopacy --- serving people and congregations on behalf of both the bishop and the larger covenantal community known as the Diocese.

Beginning with Relationships

This diocese began with a desire to create a community shaped by local initiative and non-interfering centralized support for the local.  It was a desire canonized in structures limiting centralized authority and expecting local responsibility.  We began with an ideal needing room to discover its practical applications but we quickly created rules, regulations, procedures and structures that were born not of our lived experience but rather from our fears of abuse.  The biblical narrative calls for us to stay flexible, to make complex rules and regulations only if needed, to be open to renewal and revision.  Our experience has been one in which the structures often have served us well but equally as often have limited our capacity to be full covenantal partners with God and one another.  We live in a moment when a re-examination of our covenantal relationships must be made in order that we might be more faithful.  Practically speaking, it means that we must be able to shed imaginatively the canonical and structural accumulations of our early history in order that we might rediscover the core of our covenant.

Who are we?

Born out of a desire to try a different way to be a diocese, we have embraced in theory if not fully in practice, a notion that we can be decentralized and connected, episcopal but not authoritarian, diverse yet united.  Both our successes and our failures to embrace these notions have clarified our hopes that we might be a diocese shaped by baptism and characterized by The Baptismal Covenant.  [We still have some distance to go in realizing our dreams, but progress is being made]

The collaborative spirit among congregations and . . . leaders is increasing; mutual respect and responsibility [has been] enhanced among diocesan leadership; a desire to see our community as going beyond our own geography is expanding [--- witness our continued commitment to Eagle Butte on the reservation in South Dakota and our expanding tri-diocesan relationship with the Dominican Republic and the recent naming of Katie Forsyth not only as Director of Communications but also as Director of Public Engagement].  We are finding new ways and new successes in attempts to be decentralized and connected; episcopal authority and responsibility is being shared more broadly; respect for diversity of opinion and unique local circumstances has been enhanced.  However, if we are to move forward in our covenantal relationship, we must follow in the footsteps of Jesus by stripping away the accumulated layers of practice that inhibit our faithfulness to God’s call.  We must [reform and renew] all aspects of our life together and return to our most fundamental ideals.

Who is God calling us to be as a diocese?

Over the past [6 ½] years as your bishop I’ve spent a great deal of time in prayer, conversation and reflection, to faithfully discern God’s call upon our life together as a diocese.  Discerning God’s call is a process that does not easily lend itself to a quick-fix, a weekend retreat, a tightly managed technique, or the use of the latest fad from the business world.  Rather, discernment requires patience, a high tolerance for ambiguity, comfort with loose ends, maximum openness and flexibility, and a willingness to ask questions without easy answers.

We’ve experimented much over these past years.  We’ve tried on structures and processes for size and fit.  We’ve given ourselves permission to experiment, even going so far as to “suspend” the canons for a time to test new ways of being and acting.  These actions have born much fruit and allowed us to build trust with one another, clarify mutual expectations and to expand our flexibility, our nimbleness as a diocese.  In a follow-up to his initial consultation with us, Donald Romanik of the Episcopal Church Foundation helped us to see that a rather wordy and clunky Diocesan Vision, Mission and Core Values Statement needed simplification and update.  Emerging from that strategic thinking process was this statement of who we are as the Diocese of Eastern Michigan:

A People of Hope in a Culture of Fear

Acting today to replace our Canons with the proposal that will come before us, is a step of faith that moves us one step closer to realizing our collective desire to be people of hope.  Let us not be afraid.

The Rt. Rev. Todd Ousley

II Bishop of Eastern Michigan