I'd like to know more about the circumstances surrounding Abp Tutu's second "statement" that was posted conveniently on Trinity's web page. Did Trinity call him directly after his first statement? Did they go through his office? What did they say? What exactly did he say, and is it accurately represented in their reporting? Was he tricked? I hear from sources that there's a story there.

The occupiers I talked to this weekend said that Trinity's offer of meeting space was a tiny room and that it was not easy to book. Trinity's PR and reality might not square. The good things are that I heard no one speaking poorly of the Episcopal Church, and I heard many people speak of Bishop Packard and the other clergy who supported them in very high regard. If anything suffered, it was the idea that there are Christians (any denomination) out there who take the Gospel seriously.

Exactly Jim -- ya gotta wonder - what were they thinking?? or maybe not thinking. Very smart people saying dumb things IMO. I preached on the question of where is God in all this re: 2 Samuel reading. Wherever the people of God gather- in the streets and in the buildings -- but will not be constrained by any.

It seems to me that Desmond Tutu was ill-used by the people at Trinity, and I have no idea why the Presiding Bishop thought she had to weigh in and involve the reputation of the entire church in Trinity's actions. Pressure from the rich folks at Trinity?

True, we're involved anyway, but the PB's statement makes it kinds, sorta official.

June Butler

"kinda, sorta"

June Butler

That good name is now somewhat the worse for wear, I think, and I am wondering how we get it back.

I'm really not sure you can.

After the 2009 General Convention, I was so thrilled about our official policy of inclusion for LGBTs that I ordered a bumper sticker that says "The Episcopal Church Welcomes Absolutely Everyone!" Today I am removing that sticker from my car, because it isn't true. The Presiding Bishop has spoken for the church--and the message is that maintaining control over property is more important than promoting justice or equity.

I am grateful that Bishop Packard and Father Metz were willing to put themselves on the line for the Gospel. I am heartbroken that the wider church did not.

In situations like the one that was playing out in Lower Manhattan it might have been wiser to acknowledge that people of good faith and judicious temperament can come to differing conclusions, urge further conversation, and remind both sides of the need to eschew violence.

Very well-said, Jim. Would that this had been heeded.

***

That said, ++KJS is *not* TEC's Pope (Alleluia in Excelsis!). She NEVER automatically speaks for all Episcopalians---her words should never be seen that way. In this case (among others) she does not speak for me.

JC Fisher

It was kind of you to say: "I can’t determine from the distance at which I am watching this unfold..." The discussion might be a little more healthy if others admitted that as well.

Paige,

I've been mulling words to post for awhile, but your post has led me to immediate response:

The Episcopal Church (wider, as you say) has not spoken on Occupy Wall Street.

Many Episcopalians, some bishops (including the PB) and other clergy, along with a few Episcopal churches and even some Dioceses are speaking and acting concerning Occupy: and not all on the same side. There are some who have firmly placed themselves in one camp or the other, and there are some still wrestling with all of the viewpoints and invested interests.

For me, this speaks well for the Episcopal Church as a whole, even with what I consider to be an unfortunate response by Trinity Wall Street and the Presiding Bishop, because it shows people who are passionate, real, discerning, and even flawed. And they all remain connected through their church community even as they argue.

Kurt Wiesner

PS: John Dornheim...I'm so glad you mentioned Jim's wise words! I so agree with you!

I should mention that my opinion of an "unfortunate response" refers to agreement with Jim's conclusion that:

"Trinity embarrassed Desmond Tutu into publicly reversing himself and induced the Presiding Bishop into weighing in on a fractious parochial matter in which the wider church has nothing at stake."

Kurt

I can’t determine from the distance at which I am watching this unfold..."

should be taken together with this:

"In situations like the one that was playing out in Lower Manhattan it might have been wiser to acknowledge that people of good faith and judicious temperament can come to differing conclusions, urge further conversation, and remind both sides of the need to eschew violence."

What the Episcopal leaders failed to do was to communicate anything of substance concerning the underlying causes of or even the rationales for the positions on either side of this dispute. They might well have not spoken at all since what they said did nothing but support the worst of what many, at least from afar, feared were their motives -- namely, that protection of property was what counted the most, that protesters, in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world, are little more than mindless rabble or impulsive children in need of pastoral care, and that the body of Christ, as supposedly represented by the church, can never tolerate, let alone sanction, acts of civil disobedience in furtherance of economic justice, or seek to protect those, even with whom they disagree, against police violence.

Many of us who recall the excesses of some protesters in the 1960's and 1970's can well imagine circumstances in which people of good will can be caught between their sympathies for the ideas or causes espoused by the protesters and serious doubts and questions about the way they are being expressed or even the character or the motives of the people involved. Consequently, a good many of us graying folks on the sidelines very much wanted to extend the sentiments Jim articulated to the leadership, as well as the protesters, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they had good reasons for what they were doing. But they gave us nothing and even less to those already viewing them with suspicion.

In other contexts, these leaders have spoken in ways convincing, at least to Episcopalian insiders, of their faith and commitment to Christian values and concerns. But here was their chance to speak to the world at large, to all those they say we, as the Episcopal Church, not only welcome but cherish, the dignity of each and every human being, in accord with our baptismal covenant. And without at least acknowledging in their recent statements that they and we all need to put those words into action in our lives, both corporately and individually, their previously spoken words now ring hollow.

I don't mean to berate any of our leaders as individuals. While I have disagreed with, for example, our Presiding Bishop, over her words and actions at GC2006 and in some of the ways she has governed the church and seeks to change its governing structures, I also recall her presence with me, our diocese, and many of our parishioners, at our diocesan convention, literally days after my husband died so suddenly. Indeed, I have shared a meal with her, and I have listened to and been inspired by many of her words, and felt the warmness of her heart. The others and, of course, Desmond Tutu, have also been good servants of Christ and all His people on many occasions, no doubt far better than I have ever come close to being.

But my regard for our leaders and our church is precisely why I find their words and actions so heartbreaking. I do not automatically assume that they simply should have caved in to the protesters' demands, nor do I have any solid information about the extent to which they were open to compromise and alternative forms of assistance or even whether they had good reasons to back off from the prior support. And I did not expect them to provide the details of their private negotiations.

But I did expect and need to hear something about Christ and the concerns expressed by many of the protesters about growing economic inequality and the ways in which people everywhere in the world are impacted by the actions and inactions of powerful financial interests, some of which scarcely have names or faces but operate as giant technocratic and autocratic robots, clicking away, following the path of the greatest profits second by second (and nano-second), with no persons of conscience who can or will exert any control or guidance in light of global needs and long-term consequences of policies often driven by the dynamics of the corporate structures they inhabit and the marketplace in which they freely roam.

What I heard instead was a simple and stilted "no", we cannot and will not help you, with no expression of sympathy or even principled disagreement with the protestors. Worse yet, the "no" was couched in the patronizing language that clearly put the church in the position of authority and power, looking down on those around them rather than speaking as (if, at least) equals. I do, indeed, sympathize with the difficulty of composing and issuing public statements, but surely these generally wise persons could have sought and received some assistance when, in fact, the whole world was watching. The point however, is not to harp on what they should have done, but rather to lament for the sake of the church as a whole that "we" have much damage to repair.

Or to put it in a different way, as someone recently remarked about Episcopalians in the context of diocesan affairs, "we" do a reasonable job, now and then, of feeding the hungry in soup kitchens and the like, but do so little in the way of healing wounds. I would add that Christ's wounds go far deeper than our individual hurts and concerns and need to be addressed by concerted and principled action, as well as words, to not only comfort the afflicted but to speak boldly and peacefully against the needless affliction of the many at the hands of the few, whether it be at the end of a police baton, a corporate, computer-generated foreclosure, or global economic forces that leave so many poor, hungry, and with little or no hope. But without making ourselves vulnerable, listening closely to others, in person and in the streets, and encouraging others to do the same, and by too often allowing ourselves to be wrapped up in and distracted by our attempts to design and even implement structures for "corporate mission," we may not have a prayer of a chance of finding where God's will is in all of this, let alone God's face in each and every one.

That said, ++KJS is *not* TEC's Pope (Alleluia in Excelsis!). She NEVER automatically speaks for all Episcopalians---her words should never be seen that way.--JCF

The Episcopal Church (wider, as you say) has not spoken on Occupy Wall Street.--Kurt

It's all well and good to make those arguments--but I guarantee you that, for those who are paying attention from outside, KJS+ is seen as the equivalent of our "pope." When the media want a statement about TEC, they call her office. What she says will be taken in wider circles as the "official" position of the Episcopal Church.

And it is all well and good to talk about how it is too easy for those of us at a distance to judge the actions of TWS--but Kathryn Jensen has eloquently articulated the major FAIL here.

And I would ask--just how did TWS's actions support and further the Gospel? If someone outside the church looks at this situation, what is the lesson zie will draw from it?

We are all so busy wringing our hands over our loss of members, and blathering endlessly about "mission"--but here was the perfect opportunity to show that we, as a faith community, are truly committed to the Biblical values of justice and mercy, and we blew it. The people who represent us to the public sided with the 1%--and called the massive power of the state down to "protect" a tiny piece of property from people who are actually committed to those Biblical values, by their actions if not their affiliations.

I cannot find any justification for that use of force in the name of the church. Again, I will ask: Just how did TWS's actions support and further the Gospel?

Paige,

I agree with your points, and concur that at the very least TWS did miss an opportunity, or as Jim says, that TWS failed "crisis management".

But I do not agree with your "guarantee" as to how those outside the church now see TEC.

I think that there were many people who saw Bishop Packard, in purple cassock, first over the fence and then arrested by police. (Honestly, probably more people than those who took the time to read a statement by KJS).

My feeling is that, to those outside TEC, seeing and hearing about the Episcopal Church on both sides of Occupy is puzzling more than it is definitive.

It is up to Episcopalians everywhere to be clear that no one person speaks for us AND that we are among the first to criticize and act differently from our leaders when they do not further the Gospel, just as you are doing. Just because KJS weighed in does not mean that TEC has decided the "end of the story". We Episcopalians are not unlike the country as a whole, where we entrust our elected leaders to work towards a vision for the world of justice and peace, and then actively participate in the process: sometimes even coming in conflict with our leaders' decisions.

That is, for me, is the promise to be found in the Episcopal Church.

Kurt Wiesner

"But I did expect and need to hear something about Christ and the concerns expressed by many of the protesters about growing economic inequality and the ways in which people everywhere in the world are impacted by the actions and inactions of powerful financial interests"

Kathryn: my thanks for a great point!

Kurt

The TIMING of it all drives me crazy. The week before Christmas and there's "no room in the Inn"? That's some unfortunate symbolism, guys...