Letter from Bishop vonRosenberg
prior to the 20th Annual Diocesan Convention

Dear Friends,

Several months ago, I anticipated that certain times and events would hold the possibility of renewed interest in General Convention issues - and the opportunity to renew the controversies that emerged from that event last summer. In particular, the fall meetings in Dallas and London (both of which were objects of reports in the last "Episcopalian"), annual parish meetings, and Diocesan Convention seemed quite likely foci of attention. As we approach the last of these - the Convention of our diocese - I want to share some of my own impressions and expectations for that gathering.

On one of my recent Sunday visitations, a parishioner complained that some Episcopalians have not been "heard" about their General Convention concerns. That comment frustrated me, I must admit, for it seems to me that I have been doing little else than listening since General Convention! Area forums, visits with vestries and adult education classes, meetings with any congregation that has requested my presence - all these have required nearly undivided attention from me for months … between replies to hundreds of letters, e-mails, and phone calls. In addition, I know that our parish clergy have made themselves extremely available for private and/or public encounters, in a variety of settings. Indeed, the pastoral demands on many parish priests in the past six months have exceeded anything I have witnessed in thirty years as an ordained person.

After that mental reality check, then, I have come to realize that the desire is not really to be "heard" but, rather, that someone - bishop, priest, Presiding Bishop, Archbishop of Canterbury, anyone - would fix the situation by making it all go away! Now, I certainly understand that desire, for a very natural human response to any source of pain is to want that pain to disappear. And, for some people anyway, General Convention actions have been a source of pain, most assuredly.

Yet, my friends, it is necessary for us, as brothers and sisters in Christ, to recognize that this situation is not going away. The Diocese of New Hampshire has elected a bishop, and General Convention has consented to that election. Further, Gene Robinson has been consecrated. The question for us now becomes, "What next?"

Many of our parishes in East Tennessee seem to have gathered this new reality into their perception of the Episcopal Church and moved ahead with it. They are going about their work of worship and service in the name of Jesus Christ. In some cases, they have experienced increased interest, involvement, and pledges this fall. Other parishes, though, continue to struggle with the new reality in our church life. And in all the churches I know of, individuals within each parish find their responses to be very different from fellow parishioners. Thus, again, "What next?"

Some parishes have experienced reductions in pledges - although it is important to note, again, that others have not. A few of those with reduced anticipated revenues after General Convention have asked if their current economic pain should not be shared - with the diocese and with the Episcopal Church, USA (ECUSA). In fact, we anticipate a significant reduction in our 2004 diocesan budget. Also, the diocesan Convention, along with Bishop and Council, will respond to the direction of pledges from some of our churches this year. It may be that in the unusual circumstances of this year, an unusual response in terms of our pledge to ECUSA may be appropriate.

It concerns me, though, that "directed pledges" from parishes tend to detract from the canonical authority of Convention and of Bishop and Council - and, it is important to note also, such pledges from individuals have a similar effect on parish vestries at the local level. We need to be very careful, it seems to me, in allowing such exceptions … but this may be the year to do so.

In whatever decision we make about our pledge to ECUSA, though, we need to be quite clear that the consideration of an exception is very different from changing the rules, through resolution or canon. The first involves a pastoral response in a particular circumstance; the second would change the framework in which we live as a community of dioceses. As one diocese among many, we do not have the right to do that. Indeed, I would argue that individual dioceses - or bishops, or priests, or congregations - making unilateral decisions for themselves that affect the life of the larger community - and the boundaries within which the community lives - points precisely to the source of many current difficulties.

Another suggestion that I hear is to join parishes and dioceses that have formed a loose confederation of Episcopalians opposed to General Convention actions. I must say, though, that the intention of such a sub-group is not at all certain - nor is its official or unofficial status clear. In fact, some members of this group maintain that they represent the loyal opposition within ECUSA. Others, though, speak openly of a split, seeking jurisdiction from another Province (country or group of countries) of the Anglican Communion. To further complicate the matter, within some dioceses that have aligned themselves with newly formed sub-groups, particular individuals and churches have created opposing factions - thus, dividing the diocese, in effect.

My friends, on a practical level, we cannot afford to subdivide in those ways. Episcopalians amount to about 3% of the national population now - a fact that qualifies us as a "religious sect" rather than a "denomination" on some church lists. Subdivision is a step toward extinction, it seems to me.

I want to be very clear that the church groups I intend to continue to support - and to be a part of - are the Diocese of East Tennessee and the Episcopal Church, USA. One of the ordination vows that I have taken three times now is "to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church." I certainly have no intention of breaking that vow or of advocating any alignment in opposition to ECUSA, no matter what my disagreement may be with my church family. When I hold such disagreements, I will speak in opposition from within the church - not from outside it.

Therefore, my answer to the question, "What next?" takes an entirely different tack … a tack that I intend to consider in some detail in my annual address at Convention. We need to focus our energies as a church in positive ways. We need to find opportunities to live into the reality that our common life as Episcopalians includes much more that unites us than that divides us. We need to recapture our sense of "joy and wonder in all God's works."

One particularly appropriate response for us is to focus more attention on the exercise of loving stewardship for the wonderful blessing that we know as "Grace Point Camp and Retreat Center." I look forward to this and other opportunities to carry out the ministry of our Lord in this part of our Lord's world during the year to come!

And I hope and pray that our Diocesan Convention and church gatherings of all sorts throughout East Tennessee will concentrate on giving thanks to God Almighty for the blessings we have received and on finding appropriate ways to be of service to the world in our Lord's name.

Faithfully yours,

The Rt. Rev. Charles G. vonRosenberg
Third Bishop of East Tennessee

Copyright © 2004 The Episcopal Diocese of East Tennessee