We are Christians
We proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord. We are baptized into his death and resurrection. We strive to follow him in all things.
We are Catholics
Our faith and practice is grounded in the tradition of the Church–that is, what has been handed on to us– going back to Jesus and the apostles. (No, we’re not Roman Catholics, though we have much in common with our friends in that tradition.)
We are Anglicans
Our spiritual ‘DNA’ comes from the Church of England, and we are part of the family of 38 churches, all over the world, in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
We are Episcopalians
The Episcopal Church, established in 1789, is the American expression of Anglican Christianity. We are one of 110 dioceses that mutually support one another in a common doctrine, discipline, and worship.
We welcome you …
… to walk with us, worship with us, work with us, and otherwise share our life. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to use the Contact Us link above.
I want to thank everyone who participated in or helped with what I consider to be a very successful 137th annual synod of the Diocese of Springfield. For me personally, it truly is one of the highlights of my year. To see so many folks from around the diocese gathered in one place gives some substance to the reality that we are “one church, organized for mission …”. Of course, the highlight of the highlight is the celebration of the synod Mass. Whenever the bishop is with the presbyters and deacons and baptized faithful around the altar of God, this is a deeply significant moment, theologically and spiritually. In that moment, the assembly constitutes a living icon of the Church’s fullness, possessing every gift, every resource necessary to be an effective witness to the world that Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and the Kingdom of God is very near us.
During the Saturday morning session of the synod, the principal topic of discussion was the proposed 2015 operating budget for the diocese. This is somewhat unusual–that is, that there was extensive discussion of the budget–according to the pattern of recent years. Of course, the reason for this was that the proposed budget included a line items under expenditures to fund the creation of a new staff position at the diocesan level, a Canon for Mission Development. In the end, the proposed budget was adopted without amendment, by a roughly 3:1 majority. What that tells me is that there is widespread conceptual support for the addition of this staff position.
But that’s not the whole story; it’s still not a done deal yet, and here’s why: In order to fund this position, we need an increase of approximately 12% in the amount of money that our various Eucharistic Communities give to ministry at a diocesan level. The way our system works, the period between now and the end of the year is when parishes make their pledges to the common work of the diocese during 2015. In February, the Diocesan Council, armed with this information, will amend the budget adopted by synod to reflect actual anticipated income. As I said to the synod, it seems prudent that we not call someone as Canon for Mission Development until it appears that the funds will, in fact, be available.
So let me make a case as to why your parish will want to respond generously to this call for increased giving. I won’t repeat here what I’ve already said about why we need someone who will focus directly and intensely on the implementation of our mission strategy. I will simply refer you to my synod address for a refresher in that area. But do let me describe what the Canon for Mission development will actually do–do for you and for your Eucharistic Community. I expect this person to be spending two or three evenings meeting with vestries and other lay leaders, along with their clergy leadership, in a sequence of events that looks something like this:
- Assess available resources–interests, passions, specialized knowledge or experience–that already exist and may be untapped.
- Assess the area of the geographic parish–analyze demographic data, learn where the needs are, find segments of the populace that are the most unchurched, potentially open to a word of good news.
- Match the resources with the needs and identify a particular mission field within the general mission field. Begin to focus prayer on that identified field.
- Develop a strategy for proactively connecting with the people in the mission field. Organize the implementation of the strategy.
- Identify individuals who will carry out particular tasks as the implementation phase unfolds. Provide appropriate theoretical and practical training.
- CMD serves as coach/consultant as strategy is implemented, advising about tweaks and adjustments that may be necessary.
This is actually just a continuation of the work that the three members of our Strategy Resource Team are already doing with the people of Trinity, Mattoon. Adding the Canon for Mission Development will enable us to multiply that effort several times. We’re doing the right things’ we’re pointed in the right direction. We just need to do what we’re doing a lot faster, or we will be overwhelmed by the twin tsunamis of demographic change (the advancing median age of our communicants) and the secularization of our society (loss of an underlying Christian narrative in our culture). I cannot promise you that adding this position will guarantee that we will succeed in our goal of behaving in a truly apostolic missionary manner. But I probably can promise you that not adding it will increase the chances that we fail in that endeavor.
May grace and peace abound for you,
This is now the fourth annual synod over which I have presided as Bishop of Springfield. It continues to be a singular honor for which I am grateful on a daily basis. I love the rhythm of a “normal” week—that is, one when I’m not traveling—with four days in the office doing the business of the diocesan center through emails and phone calls and meetings, perhaps an evening on the road to talk with a vestry or search committee, a Saturday to take slightly easy, but usually catching up on some stray bits of business from the week in the office, about a third of the time heading to a hotel somewhere on Saturday night, then the climax of my week—communing in Word and Sacrament with the Lord’s own people around the Lord’s own table on the Lord’s own day. It truly doesn’t get any better than that.
And my joy in all of this is made more complete by the people I have to work with. The staff in the diocesan office is something I inherited, which I have learned from some of my colleagues in other dioceses can be a bit of a risky proposition, but in my case, I just plain lucked out. Archdeacon Shawn Denney is veritably my right arm, offering sound advice and always anticipating what will make it easier for me to do my job. Most of you don’t need me to tell you that Sue Spring is the gold standard for competence and professionalism. Jim Donkin is a devoted disciple of Jesus Christ and has been a stellar steward of the financial resources of this diocese. Jim has let us know that he will be stepping all the way into retirement sometime during the next fifteen months, so there will be a change. In the meantime, I will continue to be grateful for his labors. Most of you probably won’t know Molly Henderson, our very part-time clerical assistant. I think if you look up “sweet” and “generous” in the dictionary, you might find Molly’s picture in both places. I certainly don’t have the largest diocesan staff in the church, by a long shot, but I can’t imagine that there’s a better one anywhere.
When we broke camp in Decatur a year ago, I thought I knew who the host of the 2014 annual synod should be. But things didn’t turn out as I had hoped and expected. Instead, we got something even better. St Michael’s is the newest church plant in the diocese—that’s not a point for bragging, because it’s been three decades—and our largest mission. Fr Ian Wetmore and his flock have been cheerful from Day 1. What a wonderful parish family they are, and what gracious hosts they have been. It’s good to be in O’Fallon!
I could probably spend the rest of the afternoon continuing to thank people, but let me just throw out the grandest and hugest expression of thanks I can put into words, to the entire diocese, all the people in all of our 34 Eucharistic Communities, for the overwhelming love and affection that I encounter wherever I go. Thank-you! I love you back.
Every synod address that I’ve delivered so far has focused heavily on mission strategy. I’m not going to roll out anything new this time, but I do want to give you an update on the progress I think we’ve made, and pivot from there into a new kind of progress I believe we need to begin making.
As you’ve heard me say before, our missionary vision is apostolic in its character, but an apostle must first be a disciple, and we probably don’t have enough fully-formed Christian disciples among the baptized faithful in the Diocese of Springfield. So what are we doing to make more disciples? Beyond what’s going on uniquely in our various Eucharistic Communities, here are some resources that we are endeavoring to refresh, renew, or introduce at a diocesan level:
- Cursillo: Some of you have been on a Cursillo weekend; some of you haven’t. Some of you who have been on a Cursillo weekend are growing in your discipleship through piety, study, and action; and some of you aren’t. I realize there is a diversity of opinion about Cursillo among the laity and clergy of the diocese. Some of those opinions are negative. Some of those negative opinions, I have to say, have a solid foundation. Others of the negative opinions are based in fear and falsehood. Those who have negative perceptions of Cursillo based on fear and falsehood need to get over it and put the mission of the church ahead of their preferences and prejudices. Those who have negative perceptions that are based in fact need to hear me when I say that I am holding the Cursillo secretariat’s feet to the fire over the need to stop living in the 1970s, to quit doing things that foster the notion that Cursillo is some sort of elite cult with a secret handshake. It’s not that. It has the potential to play a pivotal role in the development of Christian discipleship in this diocese, and I ask you to get behind it.
- A little later in the synod, Fr Ian Wetmore and Fr Dave Halt are going to talk to us about something called the St Michael’s Conference. This is a six-day event for youth–hopefully an annual event. In other places where the St Michael’s Conference has been held, it has proven to be an absolute game-changer for the youth who attend. I won’t steal any more thunder, but I want you to know how excited I am about this.
- There’s a program called Renewal Works that St George’s, Belleville has already been through. Renewal Works is an assessment instrument that shines a light on the spiritual maturity and vitality of the people whom you worship with every Sunday. For the Episcopal Church, it’s under the umbrella of Forward Movement, the company that publishes the familiar daily devotionals, and on whose board I serve. I would like all of our Eucharistic Communities to participate in Renewal Works. I guarantee you it will give you some information you would probably rather not have, but which is essential for you for the simple reason that it’s true.
Moving now to the other bubbles in the far left column of our grand Mission Strategy schema:
- Our Strategy Resource Team, composed of Mark Waight from here in O’Fallon, Archdeacon Denney, and Fr Bruce DeGooyer, has been tasked with developing a step-by-step process by which parishes can discern where within their mission field they are called to focus their energy, and how to organize and equip themselves for their missionary effort. The idea is to create a sort of field manual, something that can be replicated, with slight modifications, and used across the diocese. I’m pleased to say that the good people of Trinity, Mattoon have agreed to serve as guinea pigs for this, to be the ones on whom we make our mistakes, and learn from those mistakes, and further refine what we’re doing. That effort in Mattoon is underway, with some measure of hope and enthusiasm on the part of all concerned, I would say. Do stay tuned, because this roadshow will eventually be coming to a church near you.
So, we’re doing some good things, I think. We’re pointed in the right direction. But here’s the problem: It’s not happening fast enough. Even though we’re headed in the right direction, if we don’t pick up the tempo, and pick it up pretty drastically, we’re going to be overtaken by two tidal waves—one a demographic tidal wave, because our median age keeps getting older and older, and the other a cultural tidal wave, because the days when Christianity enjoys any sort of privileged position in our society are fading into memory very, very quickly, almost as we speak. We need a steroid shot. We need to turbo-charge our efforts. We need, I believe, to add a Canon for Mission Development as a staff position at the diocesan level. I will admit, I have only come to this conclusion within the past few months. Until recently, I have taken a perverse sort of pride in the leanness of our staffing in the diocese when I’m comparing notes with my colleagues from other dioceses (though I will admit that I’ve occasionally been envious of those who have a Communications Officer). But lately I’m repenting of my pride, and this is why I’ve brought it up, first to the Archdeacon and the Treasurer, then to the Standing Committee, then to the Finance Committee, then to the Diocesan Council, then to the rectors of our larger parishes, then to the Rural Deans, and personally to two deanery meetings, and now to you. As I’ve said, we’re pointed in the right direction and we’re doing good things, and now we need somebody who will do those right things on a full-time basis, who will be out in our parishes two or three evenings a week, and quite often on Saturdays, meeting with clergy and vestries and bishop’s committees and parishioners, in the trenches, coaching and consulting in that work of discernment, strategizing, preparing, and implementing.
You might say, “Bishop, this sounds good, but we just can’t afford it,” and you would be right. But we need to ask ourselves, Can we afford not to? One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing you’ve always been doing in the hope that you’re going to get a different result. If we do the same thing we’ve always done we’re going to get the same thing we’ve always gotten. And ten years from now we will no longer be able to sustain worshiping communities in our smaller county seat and rural towns and villages. We will have retreated to what passes for urban areas in our part of Illinois: maybe one viable congregation in each of Springfield, Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, possibly two in the Metro East area, and maybe Decatur. Everything else will have gone by the wayside, and we will be under increasing pressure to divide up and attach our various parts to neighboring dioceses. I don’t believe this is the future God calls us to, but it’s a future that may quite plausibly be thrust upon us.
Now, this feels like a good place to pivot once again, this time to some observations about the proposed budget, on which we will vote tomorrow. Another thing I’ve taken perverse pride in when talking with other bishops, after the small size of our staff, has been the lack of conflict and anxiety that typically surrounds our whole budget process, including and especially when it comes up at synod. It seems to me that we’ve grown very comfortable with our process because we’ve developed a system that insulates all but one person from it. Jim Donkin has done a tremendous job for a number of years, but because of his position in the system, not through anyone’s intention, I’m sure, he’s been the one to absorb and contain the agony of the difficult information that we should all be engaging. Every year—indeed, every quarter at the Diocesan Council meeting—the bottom line seems rosy—we start out with a deficit, but somehow we magically end up in the black, building up a reserve for bailing out a mission congregation from the clutches of a commercial loan or repaving the parking lot at the diocesan center … or something. But that’s only because we keep cutting expenses, either by eliminating ministries—for instance, as recently as four years ago there were two full-time clergy positions in the Hale Deanery subsidized by the diocese, and now there aren’t—or by perpetually budgeting line items that we don’t actually spend. But the fact is, while we ask for a small incremental increase in giving from the parishes each year, and we all sit here and approve that budget, sometimes without one word of debate, our total regular income has eroded steadily, every year, for several years. We ask for an increase, we approve a budget that assumes an increase, but we don’t actually get the increase. Now, there isn’t time to go into the mechanics at the moment, but let me just say that our system is a little difficult to understand, a little bit idiosyncratic, and I’m hoping that the work currently being done by the special task force on constitution and canons, will help us find a way to something simpler and clearer. But in the meantime, we’re in a pattern that is not very long sustainable, and even less so if we are talking about adding a diocesan staff position.
So let me just make sure that everyone here realizes that, when you vote for a budget, you are committing yourself to doing all in your power to see that your church actually gives the amount represented in the income detail. There’s a page that lists every congregation, and its share of what the proposed budget would be. If you vote for the budget, you are committing your parish to that specific number. Now, if we are going to add a Canon for Mission Development, your figure not only needs to be paid, but, collectively, we need to raise an extra $65,000, which is a 12% increase over what the diocese is receiving from the parishes and missions in 2014. As I think you understand by now, I sincerely hope we pass a budget that funds the new position, but please hear me on this: If you are not committed in heart, mind, and soul to your share of the cost, you cannot in good conscience vote for the budget as proposed, without amending it in some way. Maybe this is not the Lord’s timing for us to move ahead in the way I’ve described. If the position doesn’t get funded, I’m not going to go away and sulk, or feel rejected. I’ve got thicker skin than that! But we need to either swallow the horse pill just in increased giving, or find another way of getting there. Some of the seeds of potential “other ways” have been broadcast in the past few weeks, so when the budget comes up on tomorrow’s agenda, I expect to see a line at the microphone. OK?
I want to conclude on a less somber note, and simply say that, despite the challenges, this is still a great deal of fun for me. I enjoy a great deal being the Bishop of Springfield. But I am all too aware that our time together is not infinitely long, and there is so much I would like us to accomplish. I’ve shared with some of you that my personal goal for the remainder of my episcopate, which is a maximum of now less than nine years, is to leave behind, under the care of the 12th Bishop of Springfield, a church that knows how to thrive in a post-Christian society. That is indeed an audacious goal, and it is every day on my mind and heart and in my prayers. For now, I will only re-emphasize what I wrote in the fall issue of the Current: Let’s learn to travel light. Let’s lay aside everything that hinders us, and joyfully take up the labor that is set before us. The fields are ripe. The harvest is plentiful. It’s time we bring in the sheaves.
Thank-you … so much.
Every March and every September, the bishops of the Episcopal Church (virtually all the active ones, and a few of the retired ones, at any rate) gather for a regular meeting of the House of Bishops. (The September meeting is dispensed with in General Convention years.) Later this month, the House will convene … in Taiwan. I will not be there. It seems appropriate to offer an explanation. Indeed, my colleague bishops and the clergy and faithful of the Diocese of Springfield deserve an explanation.
The Episcopal Church has, since 1835, been coterminous with an entity called the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (DFMS). Indeed, all Episcopalians are presumed to be members of the DFMS, which is conceptually a very good thing, I would say; the community of the baptized is intrinsically a missionary community. As members of the DFMS, Episcopalians participated in the burgeoning missionary activity from North America and Europe to Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. There were giants and heroes in those days, and some of them now populate our calendar of saints.
As part of this general missionary effort, Episcopalians were among those who introduced Anglican Christianity in China. After the communist takeover of mainland China in 1949, many Chinese Anglicans escaped to Taiwan, and, in 1954, the Diocese of Taiwan was organized, and admitted into union with General Convention the following year, which felt like a logical move, since they already had so many close ties with Americans. So, even though it is almost completely on the other side of the world, the Diocese of Taiwan remains to this day part of the Episcopal Church. We also have dioceses in Central and South America and in the Caribbean, but these are virtually in the shadow of the Mother Ship. There is also a small convocation of Episcopal churches in Europe, which exist for a variety of historical reasons. But Taiwan is by far a geographic outlier.
The Bishop of Taiwan, the Rt Revd David Lai, invited the House to meet in his diocese, and the Presiding Bishop, presumably in consultation with her Council of Advice, accepted the invitation on behalf of the House. We have known about it for at least the last year and a half. I have attended every meeting of the House since March 2011, the very month of my consecration. I have blogged every day of every meeting, right here at this site. (Indeed, I am acutely aware that this post is the first since the spring meeting six months ago; I hope to remedy that pattern!) I enjoy the camaraderie with other bishops. Valuable things happen at those occasions. Nonetheless, after extended thought and prayer, I made a decision not to attend this Fall 2014 meeting. Here’s why:
It would not be good stewardship of the financial resources of the Diocese of Springfield. I have no doubt that the Treasurer and the Standing Committee and the Diocesan Council would have accepted the news of my intention to attend this meeting with no detectable degree of pushback. It’s not like we’re just too poor for me to go. But it would be considerably more expensive than last year’s Fall meeting, which was in a hotel near the airport in Nashville, and the one three years ago (2012 was a General Convention year), which was in Quito, Ecuador. While we are not presently an impoverished diocese, neither are we a wealthy one. It would feel inappropriately extravagant for me to requisition checks to cover airfare and lodging for me to spend a week in Taiwan at this point in the life of the diocese.
The optics are bad. The Episcopal Church is flourishing in a handful of demographic/geographic pockets. In most places, we are slowly dying, like California nut trees in the midst of the extended drought. Dioceses are downsizing their staffing. At least three dioceses have part-time bishops. The median age of our communicants continues to creep upward. There is real doubt as to whether we will be able to sustain ministry in rural areas very much longer. Our infrastructure at a churchwide level is likely to be significantly smaller following the next General Convention. And now, against such a backdrop, nearly a hundred bishops (some with spouses, but, in any case, considerably fewer than would normally attend a regular meeting) are jetting off to Asia for a meeting that could have been held much, much less expensively in any number of locations, both domestic and foreign. It just doesn’t look good.
It would abet a polemical narrative about the character of the Episcopal Church. “The Episcopal Church,” is, in fact, an alias, a shorthand for the more unwieldy Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The dioceses that originally confederated to form PECUSA were all in areas that were part of the USA. Only a few decades ago, what is now styled the Executive Council was known as the National Council. Despite regular admonitions from certain quarters not to do so, at a local level, Episcopalians still routinely refer to the “national church” in casual parlance. In many of our liturgical forms, we pray regularly for “the President of the United States.” Anglicans in other lands are wont to speak of “the American church” when they actually mean TEC. Of course, because Americans once tended to congregate in expatriate enclaves while living in Europe for business or personal reasons, chapels were established in various countries there. Many of those congregations perdure, and are no longer merely serving expatriates, but include many natives of the countries where they are located. Because of our DFMS efforts, we planted churches in Latin America, Haiti, and the Caribbean. The result is that the Episcopal Church is present in some 26 countries (one of which is Taiwan).
This is not the fruit of some grand missionary strategy; it just happened that way. But lately there has been an effort to make political hay out of happenstance. From at least 2006 (I can’t remember whether it goes back further), the dais in the House of Deputies at General Convention has been decorated with the flags of all 26 countries where TEC has a presence. In conversation at official levels, the use of the expression “national church” is vociferously discouraged. In the same time frame, the conflict level among (and within) the 39 member provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion has risen markedly. TEC has found itself increasingly at odds with provinces representing an overwhelming majority of the world’s Anglicans. I have no direct knowledge of any conspiracy toward this end, but one cannot help but make speculative inferences from the available information, to the effect that there are those who wish to foster a narrative that TEC is indeed, intrinsically and inherently, an “international” church, with the not-quite-implied but deftly suggested corollary that we are somehow thereby less in need of our relationship with the Anglican Communion, that we have the capacity, if circumstances warrant, to become a rival thereto.
As I have said, I have no idea whether there’s someone masterminding the construction of this narrative, but I do know that, whether it’s accidental or intentional, I cannot in good conscience assist in propping it up. One of the ways the Taiwan meeting was “sold” to the House of Bishops was that, by gathering there, we would be shining a light on the international character of our church. I nearly made my decision on the matter in that moment. We are an American church. That we have foreign dioceses in our own hemisphere is testimony to the missionary zeal of our forebears, but the final stage of a responsible missionary strategy is always to spin off such churches as they mature into self-sustainability. We have already done so with Mexico and Brazil, for example. Rather than exploiting our Latin American dioceses for purposes of TEC branding, we should be focusing on helping them reach the point where they can form a new autonomous (but interdependent, of course) Anglican province. The number of flags on the dais should not be a point of boasting, but a source a mild embarrassment that we haven’t done a better job in bringing the missionary cycle to an organic conclusion.
My feelings about missing the meeting are not unalloyed. While I do not relish trans-Pacific air travel in economy class (having once done Chicago to Tokyo to Bangkok and back all in a middle seat), I’m sure it would be interesting to see the land, the people, and the church in Taiwan. I will very much miss the interaction with my colleagues, especially my Class of 2011 friends. And I’m facing in the direction of paranoia that, just because I’m not there, something crucial to my interests, or the interests of my diocese, will come up, and my voice will not be heard. There are no doubt those who will judge me pejoratively for not being there, or for the reasons here articulated why I am not there. So there are risks in my decision, and my eyes are open about those risks. Perhaps I err. But, as they say nowadays, it is what it is. I do hope those who attend have a good meeting. I will be holding them in my prayers.