REFLECTIONS ON THE PEARSON INTERVIEW

All the talk around the Advent nowadays is about "the Pearson article." On July 4, 2021, reporter Greg Garrison posted on al.com, "'The Advent has changed': Andrew Pearson on why he left Advent Cathedral, dealing with the diocese, starting an Anglican church in Birmingham." To say it has caused a stir around Birmingham would be an understatement. 

Find the article here  .

The article is a long piece in which Garrison gave Pearson all the room he wanted to expound on his side of the story quoting him at length. There was no effort at journalistic investigation to verify assertions, or even other interpretations. The author gave no remarks from anyone else. Apparently, Pearson took this perfect opportunity to unload. He did. In essence, he blamed everyone else for the situation at hand.

Again, I must emphasize that these are my own opinions. I speak for no one other than myself.

These are the main issues I see in the article:

WHY DID PEARSON RESIGN AS DEAN?

Pearson said he was asked to leave. 

He says he was asked to leave.

"I was asked to resign."

Whether Pearson was fired, we would have to get from the wardens and the vestry. At the moment, the only public statement we have from them is the April 28, 2021, "Letter from the Wardens," that went out to the parish. The letter was from the two wardens, John Hargrove and Jay Ezelle. They clearly implied that Pearson voluntarily resigned:

"With significant sadness, the Vestry of the Cathedral Church of the Advent has accepted the resignation of Andrew Pearson as our Dean and Rector. Andrew has discerned that the ongoing tensions he feels serving in the Episcopal Church makes him no longer able to serve as the spiritual leader of the Advent."

Pearson gave no details or evidence to support his claim of being fired. I know of no evidence that he was asked to leave. From what we know now, it appears that his resignation as dean was by mutual agreement.

WHAT LED TO THE RESIGNATION?

Pearson emphasized three factors, first and foremost the Covenant, then the liturgy, and the financial issue with the diocese.

"After 30 years of straddling through all these issues [e.g., sexuality], the Advent has made a fairly definitive decision to be an Episcopal Church full-stop," he said. "Two lawyers from Advent and two from the diocese came up with the idea of a covenant, which I was against."

The problem here is that the Advent is and has always been an Episcopal Church. It cannot be otherwise. The last several bishops of Alabama all gave the Advent a very wide latitude to self-identify as an evangelical church, even to the dubious points of unauthorized liturgies and hiring non-Episcopal clergy (to oversee worship!). The implication that the diocese was heavy handed or intolerant of the Advent's rights is not borne out by the historical facts.

Another aspect of the falling out was over the liturgy. The Covenant required the Advent to "transition" out of "Our Liturgy" which Pearson had introduced for Holy Communion and Morning Prayer. Bishop Sloan had agreed to allow Pearson to use "Our Liturgy" several years ago. "Our Liturgy" is not in the current Book of Common Prayer. The BCP has all of the approved rites for use in Episcopal Churches. Conservative evangelicals often use Rite I of the BCP which is very close to the 1928 prayer book. (It was Rite I that Zac Hicks denounced as "anti-Christ".) So, to Pearson the Advent should have remained free to use unauthorized liturgies of its own choosing. The bishop thought not and the vestry agreed with her. Apparently there was a big division between Pearson and the vestry on forms of corporate worship in the Advent (which Hicks' shocking video did nothing to change). Hopefully, Bishop Curry will give her view of the liturgy issue in the Covenant.

Then there was the money issue. The Covenant required the Advent to eliminate the "Advent Only" box on the pledge card. To Pearson this was unacceptable:

"If somebody designates their giving, you have to honor that...has anything really changed in the Diocese of Alabama that would make us feel good about taking 'Advent Only' off. Of course, the answer is that Diocese hasn't changed, but with this covenant, the Advent has changed."

The "Advent Only" box appeared several years ago as a way of reducing parish contributions to the diocese (it may have been introduced by Pearson in 2017). The obvious purpose of such would be to show parochial opposition to the diocese, and by extension, the Episcopal Church. Every diocese relies heavily on parish contributions for its financial well-being. A parish is expected to contribute a certain percentage to the diocese. As the largest parish, the Advent's reduction had an out-sized impact on the administration and programs of the diocese.

Pearson implied that the Advent Only giving had been going on a long time, originally approved by Bishop Parsley (Bp. Alabama, 1999-2012): 

"The Advent has never done any teaching on how people should give," Pearson said. "We left it to people to pray through and decide. That was an agreement we made when Henry Parsley was the bishop."

I contacted Bishop Parsley to ask about this. He responded and gave permission to quote him:

"What he said is misleading. After the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire there was unrest at Advent and it needed a pastoral response. The temporary agreement we made was expressly and specifically that 'Advent only' giving would not be invited or placed on Advent pledge cards. Diocesan giving would remain unchanged but it was understood that if members on their own insisted that their giving not be shared with the national level we would honor that for a period of time as a temporary pastoral accommodation. After I retired it was very disappointing to learn that this had been changed and 'Advent only' giving was invited and encouraged."

All of this goes back to the institutional  nature of the Episcopal Church. It is hierarchical and not congregational. A local church is not an independent unit. It is an integral part of the diocese which is an integral part of the national church. The idea that people can support the local parish only and not the diocese and larger church is in conflict with the nature of this denomination. Thus, it is the "Advent Only" provision that was in deviation from the institutional norm, not the Covenant's removal of the provision. The bishop was right to put into the Covenant the elimination of the "Advent Only" choice. Apparently, this was something Pearson could not countenance.

WHAT ROLE DID THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES PLAY?

Clearly, this was very important in Pearson's ultimate decision to leave. After all, on the day after he resigned, he joined the Anglican Church in North America. It seems that Pearson had a highly Vertical view of religion. This was at odds with the increasingly Horizontal attitude of the Episcopal Church.

Pearson said he was very uncomfortable with the Episcopal Church's emphasis on Jesus as the way of love.

"That [the way of love] is part of Christianity, but that's a deficient view of who Jesus is and what he came to do."

In Pearson's Vertical view, Jesus was God's sacrifice for the salvation of lost souls. Personal salvation is the whole issue. Saving individual souls is what the church is all about.  

In Horizontal religion, personal salvation is the starting place not the ending place. What is the purpose of salvation, only to save the individual from damnation? That would be a selfish, and dead end, or to use Pearson's words, "a deficient view." A Horizontalist would say personal faith is immature until it flowers into action to make a better world. God created human beings to be his agents in the world. The person of faith is the person of God whose mission is to do His work in the world. Therefore, the true Christian must indeed follow the way of love.

We can conclude that theological differences were highly important in Pearson's choices.

WHAT WERE PEARSON'S RELATIONS WITH THE BISHOPS OF ALABAMA?

Pearson had little good to say about bishops Parsley, Sloan, and the current diocesan, Glenda Curry. One should hope to hear from all of them about their reactions to what Pearson had to say about them. No one else should dare to speak for them.

In fact, it was Bishop "Kee" Sloan who had allowed the controversial changes Pearson had made, as in liturgy and pledging. Sloan was diocesan from 2012 to 2021. In reality, Pearson owes his life at the Advent to a highly tolerant and supportive Sloan.

Concerning Sloan, Pearson made a strange statement implying Sloan was open to the Advent leaving the diocese:

"Kee Sloan had reached out to me to say would the Advent be open to mediation," Pearson said. "One of the options was Advent's departure from the Episcopal Church."

I do not know what Pearson means by this. Under Episcopal Church law, a parish cannot leave the diocese and church. The Dennis Canon specifically prohibits such. 

Pearson put a lot of blame on the bishops. To Pearson, they suppressed the necessary freedom of the parish:

But [Bishop] Curry was determined to pull Advent back in line, he said.

The main issue was Advent had to conform, he said.

"At the end of the day, it was an issue of, and she articulated this and so did Kee, that if the Advent wasn't going to change, then there was no place for us in the Episcopal Church," Pearson said. "There needed to be a greater degree of conformity."

A parish in the Episcopal Church has to conform to a certain amount in order to be in the Church. The facts show that the bishops of Alabama gave the clergy of the Advent a great deal of space to follow their own understanding of evangelical religion. This has been borne out very clearly in the new Covenant. Obviously Pearson believed that the "conformity" in the Covenant was unacceptable. 

CONFORMING TO THE ANGLICAN WORLD

While Pearson opposed the Advent conforming to the diocese and the Episcopal Church, he went on and on in the interview about why the Episcopal Church should conform with the wishes of the majority of Anglicans in the world. It is true that most Anglicans in the world today are in Third World countries that adhere to highly conservative social and cultural values. GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference) was created to oppose the social reforms of First World countries, particularly the Episcopal Church in America. GAFCON and its sexist and homophobic allies in the U.S. created the Anglican Church in North America, in 2009, to replace the Episcopal Church. The ACNA was set up to keep women and open homosexuals from equality and inclusion in the life of the church. It rationalizes these reactionary stands in Vertical religion.

WHAT ARE PEARSON'S PLANS FOR THE FUTURE?

Pearson left the Episcopal Church and is now a priest in the Anglican Church in North America, the American branch of GAFCON. There are several ACNA churches in the Birmingham area.

Pearson said he is going to plant a new ACNA church in Birmingham:

"I am in the process of working with others to plant a new church in Birmingham," Pearson said.

Who will be invited to this new church? According to Pearson it will not be "angry" Adventers:

"No one wants to plant a church with a bunch of angry Adventers," Pearson said. That would be a terrible idea."

Terrible, really? It was not terrible when Pearson sent out a letter to selected "Friends" in the Advent, on May 17, 2021. He wrote:

"Later in the summer, we will begin to gather weekly to pray and discern what the Lord is doing, and we hope you will prayerfully consider joining us. In the interim, Lauren and I will make ourselves available for one-on-one meetings..."

(BTW, rumors abound that Pearson is looking to buy the Shades Valley Presbyterian Church property in Mountain Brook. I have been told on good authority that he is not looking to buy the property.)

CONCLUSION

This article does give us an expansive view of Pearson's take on his experiences at the Advent and his plans for the future. What we need now is the other side of the story and this should come from the sources, namely the wardens and vestry of the Advent and the present and past bishops. Pearson has put a great deal of blame on them and they need to speak for themselves. If Garrison will not publish interviews of them, they should find ways to get their sides of the story out to the public.

A highly important truth that I learned while studying the schism in South Carolina is the importance of dominating the public perception of matters. He who controls the public message controls the public. In SC, the schismatic-prone leaders of the diocese operated a highly efficient, and ultimately successful, propaganda machine. It overwhelmed the field. They misinformed and misled the majority of the people to the effect of schism. The importance of dominating the public message is a lesson that the church leaders in Alabama ought to take to heart. 

In this case, the departed dean is still stirring up resentment. It is all rather sad really, especially since he left the Advent on at least superficially good terms. What are his motives now for lashing out? I hesitate to talk about motives because no one can really know what is in another's heart. However, since Pearson is now working to establish a new congregation, I think we can draw a reasonable conclusion.

Our concern now should not be about Pearson. He has left the Advent. I think we can wish him well. He has made his choices and he will have to live with them. He is a young man gifted in many ways.

Our concern should be for the welfare of the people of the Advent. For the last twenty-five years, they have gone through a lot. The deans tried all along to move them from the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. I imagine that, in the end, the disruptions and tensions were altogether too much for the majority of the congregation. They decided the hostility had to end and peace had to reign. Hence the new Covenant. 

The Advent is in a difficult place now as it moves to sorting out how to apply the Covenant to parish life. From my perspective, the parish is in good hands. We should all have faith that peace, order, and stability will return and better days are ahead.