A few hours after his election was announced, Bishop Sean Rowe sat with TLC’s Kirk Petersen for his first one-on-one interview as Presiding Bishop-Elect. This transcript has been lightly edited.
A couple of months ago, I did an interview with Presiding Bishop [Michael] Curry, sort of an exit interview, and I’ll start with the same question I started with him. He talked about each Presiding Bishop being chosen for their time. Bishop Katharine [Jefferts Schori] had to be the Iron Lady. The church was kind of at war, with the schism. Bishop Curry had the opportunity to refocus more on Jesus and evangelism and beloved community. My thought about the next presiding bishop has been that part of the work is going to be to help the church gracefully decline. Because I don’t think the numbers are going to turn around.
I think what the next Presiding Bishop is going to do …
That’s you, by the way.
[Laughs] That’s right, yes. I think the goal is going to be to help us take these values that we’ve identified, these priorities that we’ve identified — evangelism, creation care, racial reconciliation, and others we’ll identify — and to operationalize them for our time.
So, yes, the church is in decline, in terms of our numbers. Given the hand we’re dealt, given the situation as it is, given the state of Christianity, given the demographics of our various regions — how do we most effectively participate in this mission that we’ve called ourselves to? I don’t know if it’s about helping us to decline gracefully, as much as it is to rethink the whole enterprise, particularly the way that we do it.
Is the church going to be larger or smaller by the time you’re done leading the show?
All trends point to a smaller church, at least in the next decade. I think my particular role is to help us reposition. We think about strategic planning. So we’re looking at the external factors that are at play, we’re looking at what we’re dealing with internally, and we’re saying, how do we reposition the organization to best take advantage of that?
And I think it’s going to be leaner. It’s going to be smaller, at least in the short term. There’s no question about that. The question for me more is, can we get to a level, to a greater level of effectiveness, and can we lay the groundwork in which to grow? But that doesn’t happen overnight. We’re talking about a multi-decade process here of rethinking, to use an old term, how we prosecute the mission of the church.
You’ve talked a couple of times about coming from a family of steel workers in Western New York. Now in addition to being the head of the Episcopal Church, you’re going to be one of the most prominent primates in the global Anglican Communion. What is that aspect of the job going to look like for you?
In light of my background, you mean?
I’m saying, you come from steelworkers, and then you’re going to be in Lambeth Palace. And dealing with primates with different views from other places.
What I learned from my roots is how to be in relationship with people who are very different, who are speaking very directly, but also who are ultimately practical. I think one of the strengths I’ll bring is a kind of pragmatism and an ability to get along with most people.
One of the great joys of the General Convention work I’ve done over all these years is the kind of negotiation that takes place, the kind of give and take and the mutual discernment that happens. Sometimes it’s very hard, and sometimes there is a high level of conflict, and sometimes it’s very uncomfortable. Often I don’t agree. But some of my closest colleagues in the church are people that I really have fundamental differences with about the polity of this church — but whom I’ve been able to work with and have a high level of respect.
In terms of the worldwide Anglican Communion, I think I have a lot to learn about what to do and how that will all work. But I think I’m going to bring the kind of common sense and resilience that comes out of that background to this work. I’ll listen to people who know more than I do, which is probably most people when it comes to that area.
Rowe was a member of the Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church (TREC), as was President of the House of Deputies Julia Ayala Harris. In 2014, TREC released a 73-page report proposing sweeping changes in the governance of the church, including dramatic reductions to the size of General Convention and Executive Council. Virtually none of the changes were adopted.
Talk a little bit about TREC and that experience, and what that might do to inform what you do in the next nine years.
I try to have a sense of humor about my time on TREC. I actually enjoyed it. The people there were tremendous, there was tremendous creativity and commitment to the church there. But we weren’t ready then. We thought we were, and we just weren’t ready. We got to Utah in 2015 and it was clear that we were going to be able to make very modest movement.
That said, what I think TREC did was plant the seeds for what is now coming into being. I think there’s a greater awareness of the kind of change that is going to be necessary. I think that some of it is already under way. I think we’re seeing it. I think that much of what we talk about in TREC is going to come back around to us now, and I think this is actually the time of reckoning. And part of the strength that I will bring to this role is understanding how this institution works, the General Convention, how we legislate, how we do business, and the art of working with these two houses to make things happen.
In one of the discussions about the assessments, there was language about keeping the weak dioceses alive. Is that a worthy goal?
By itself, is that a worthy goal? No. I think that what is worthy of our time and attention is, what is the best missional approach? If you just think our job is to keep the weak dioceses alive, what you may be saying is that we have a system that doesn’t work, and we just want to double down on that and prop it up. What I’m suggesting is that it’s possible that we need an entirely different system.
Of course, it’s important to invest in and support the weakest among us. But that doesn’t mean investing in keeping structures that are part of the reason we’re in the predicament that we’re in, because that doesn’t make sense, right? Why would we want to do that? Why wouldn’t we want to create strength?
How are things going with your two dioceses in terms of their working together? I interviewed you five years ago about the two dioceses, and you told me the purpose of it isn’t to merge. It’s to use resources more effectively. You talked about it being a five-year experiment. Where are we with that?
That experiment is in its final year. Given COVID, we extended it for 18 months, but it’s now being evaluated. We brought evaluators in from the outside to look at all the goals that we set at the beginning. There’ll be a report in the spring to the standing committees, and then the standing committees will decide what to recommend.
So it could be, we want to continue what we’re doing. It could be, we want to continue what we’re doing with these modifications. It could be we’re going to go our separate ways. That process is now under way, and there will be a vote in October of 2025 about its future.
Merger is just one of the many options. There’s nothing that keeps dioceses from working together, creating economies of scale. That should be happening, and it isn’t at the level it needs to be.
You talked about your work with General Convention over the years. There’s a debate going on: “General Convention is too big” — but “don’t you dare make it smaller. We need to give the voices their opportunity to be here.” Do you see making significant changes to the structure of General Convention?
I think it has to be on the table. And I will want to work with the president to put these matters on the table and see how we can reimagine what we’re doing. Yes, I see significant changes. I think we want to run different scenarios. What could it look like? How could it be different? Maybe it needs to be smaller. Maybe not. I don’t know if I want to start with how big it should be or how small. I think I want to start with, what are we trying to do? What do we want to accomplish? And what’s the best way to do that now?
Anything else you would like the readers of The Living Church to know?
I do want to make clear: I talk a lot about organizational structure. I talk a lot about budgets, strategy — but it’s all in the service of the gospel. If we don’t get the vehicle working, you can have all the values and all the high aspirations you want, but if the vehicle can’t get us there, what good is it?
