| |
 |
|
[Back to index of October articles]
By Diane Ney
Washington Window
Vol. 73, No. 10, October 2005
The Rev. Paul Abernathy, rector of St. Mark’s Church on Capitol Hill, is president of the diocese’s Standing Committee. He spoke about the Standing Committee with writer Diane Ney.
Before you tell us about the Standing Committee, tell us a little bit about yourself.
Well, I’ve been in the Diocese since 1988, at St. Mark’s since 1998. I was rector of Trinity on Piney Branch Road for nine and half years. I’ve always been one who believed that a priest, particularly a parochial priest, is to tithe time and talent to the larger church and in our Episcopal polity that means, at least in instant measure, the Diocese. So, I’ve always been active in diocesan affairs, ever since I was ordained in 1977.
Standing Committee isn’t a particularly descriptive name. What does the Standing Committee do?
We stand around a lot! Sorry, bad joke! The national Church Constitution says that the Standing Committee is “the Bishop’s Council of Advice.” Given the disposition, personality, history, need of a given bishop, she or he may use the Standing Committee however he or she chooses. With Bishop Chane, we have evolved into a council that seeks to give him space. We respect his confidence, to say whatever he wishes to say to us, to speak opening and freely. Our minutes tend to read, “Bishop Chane met with the Standing Committee and discussed matters of import.” We leave it very vague, because often times he is talking about things very close to his heart and mind, things that concern him, things that delight him, and we keep it under the seal of confidentiality.
Is that relationship common to most bishops and their standing committees?
That’s hard to say, for the relationships between bishops and standing committees are very individual. Here in Washington, we - Bishop Chane and the committee - continue to work at our relationship. We appreciate his openness to engage because, frankly, he doesn’t have to do it. It’s the right of the Bishop to use the Standing Committee in whatever way he or she chooses to do so.
So, in effect, he could just show up, say very little, shake hands and leave?
That is correct. Or, not show up at all. Or send a representative.
It sounds like a valuable and amicable relationship you all have going there.
And we try to offer, each and all of us, direct and informed advice, always knowing that is what it is - advice.
What other duties keep the committee busy?
One of our standard pieces of business is our responsibility, in tandem with the Bishop, to approve all encumbrances or alienations of property by congregations.
A very interesting issue these days.
You bet. And it’s going to become more interesting. Clearly, alienations of property is a big concern in the American Episcopal Church in light of folks’ reactions to General Convention in 2003. But generally I’m talking about if a congregation says, “Well, you know we need to sell our former rectory because we need some income flow, we want to retire some debt, we want to establish a fund for outreach, whatever” they bring that to the Standing Committee. If a congregation says, “We need to buy land or we need to buy a building to house our day care program and so on,” then they come to the Standing Committee for that.
Why can’t congregations make those decisions themselves?
Having this particular canonical provision keeps a wayward rector or vestry from deciding “Let’s buy Capitol Hill” and encumbering the congregation for generations to come, or “Let’s sell off all our property because we don’t need it anymore” and then finding out later that there are some mission opportunities that can’t be had because there’s no place to put them.
You also recommend candidates for ordination.
Well, it’s funny you would raise that point. The General Convention of 2003 actually did talk about something other than sex, although from the secular media you would never know it. But we did revise the Title III of our national canons that govern discernment and ordination processes, expanding the role of the diocesan commissions on ministry and reducing that of the standing committees. It’s a “Jesus/John the Baptist thing” - the Commission on Ministry must increase, so the Standing Committee must decrease! Now the role of the Standing Committee is at the end of the process, when a person has gone through it all and is desirous of being ordained we are to certify that the process of discernment leading up to ordination was faithful and in accord with the canons. To some extent, it’s almost a paper function. Now, I will say this, the Rev. Billy Shand of St. Francis, Potomac, chair of the Commission on Ministry, and the other members of the commission have been very open to engaging in a dialogue with the Standing Committee to figure out what is our relationship one to another in this new world. And how can we, as members of the Standing Committee, continue to have connections with postulants and candidates so that at the end when they’re talking about ordination, we’re not just signing off on a name on a paper? That process is still evolving.
What do you hope to accomplish with the committee during your term as president?
One of the things that Bishop Chane has been considering the past several months is taking a hard look at the congregations of this diocese. A number of congregations are in difficult straits and need help. We have said to the Bishop in our burgeoning discussions about how we are related to him and how we can advise him that we would be willing to be his eyes and ears and ambassadors and agents, as it were, going out into the diocesan field and engaging in dialogue and conversation with congregations who might need diocesan assistance. We’re willing to go beyond the measure of the monthly meeting and to do other things on behalf of our God, our Bishop, and our diocesan community.
[Back to index of October articles]
|
|
