Is this a formula for growth?

Recently the Bishop of Arizona opened his weekly newsletter with this paragraph:

It is probably a truism that Episcopalians generally tend to be theologically conservative but socially liberal. We usually do a pretty good job of holding these two perspectives in tension. In fact, this tension is what makes our denomination so attractive to many (myself included).

K. Smith, Bishop of Arizona, December 2009

The Bishop continues by expressing his views on what these words mean, but I must admit that when I read the first sentence here, I was first of all taken aback by such a statement, and had to check the definition of "truism" lest I was misreading his words. (truism: A claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device. That word meant what I thought it meant.)

I find his statement in the first sentence quite telling. The average age of an Episcopal church parish in the US is a bit over 57. In Arizona, the average age is likely to be higher, given the popularity of the state for retirees. The average age of the US population is about 34. So I suspect that an equally valid statement would be this: "It is probably a truism that population groups with an average age over 57 tend to be theologically conservative." Even if the Bishop's statement is true, it does a serious disservice to the church to declare it a truism, because making it such an inherent assumption silences dissent and leads to actions that are not well considered.

Here's a situation that shows what I mean here. My (now former, as of two weeks ago when I resigned from the Bishop's Committee) parish was founded to try to construct something new, to truly be inclusive, and to hold in tension a disparity of theological perspectives while building a community of faith. Eventually, the parish built a building, moved in, and continued holding services for the diversity of the membership: a music free Rite I service, a rather traditional Rite II service, and a contemporary service that included both traditional elements and readings from more contemporary authors as well as different faith communities.

Shortly after moving in to the building, the founding Vicar retired, and a search for a new Vicar ensued. A rather progressive priest was found and hired, but did not work out for a number of reasons. At that point the Bishop appointed, without input from the community, a new Vicar. That was 2 years ago. In the ensuing time, the new Vicar has proven to be quite theologically conservative, and insistent that there was no other way to God for the parish than through the conservative path. At this point, there are only a handful of theologically progressive members left in the congregation; the rest have been driven out, oh so gently, from the community that we love. There is now only one progressive Episcopal parish in the Tucson region, and it is in the process of searching for a replacement for the recently retired Rector. The Bishop has insisted on vetting all candidates.

If you start from the premise that Episcopal parishes are by definition theologically conservative, you'll end up with theologically conservative parishes, particularly when you insist on applying pretty heavy control over the process of selecting parish leadership.

So, to quote another one of those of us that have been dispossessed from our community by these actions, "Now what?" It is no longer clear that the vaunted large tent of the Episcopal communion extends to those of us that hold to a progressive theological perspective, at least in the state of Arizona. We have no place to go, in spite of years of effort to be inclusive of all.