Bishop Wendell Gibbs: “It hasn’t moved much further than [when I announced to council that it] was an idea, a plan, a desire. Immediately after the letter went out to the diocese, there was a [realization] that ‘This part of the plan is out.’ Two things occur to me immediately about the original plan and that is there was a timetable that began to gather speed that would have caused us to get into a commitment to move far before we were actually ready to do that.
“There are two key pieces that everybody really needs to keep in mind. One, moving the diocesan offices has to actually benefit the budget of the diocese. At our current cost of $164,000 annually for the offices to be here and looking ahead to the 2009 budget and beyond ... that line item of $164,000 looms large to me as a place that something could be done if we work at it.
[The bishop noted that the Cathedral’s cost of being in the building is more than that of the diocese.]
“It is very important to me that as we are searching for a place to move that helps the bottom line of the diocesan budget, it must also not hurt the Cathedral. The Cathedral cannot be put in a place where this makes their being here is even more difficult.
“My desire and plan and hope is to work with the Cathedral vestry, the dean of the Cathedral, the Chapter of which I am the president to find a fitting ministry partner who can make use of this space that the diocesan offices are in, also hopefully the gymnasium building that has classroom space in it, to help to financial status of the Cathedral but also to make a direct and lasting impact on this community immediately surrounding 4800 Woodward and on the City of Detroit. I think that’s possible. ...
The Record: An historical question—and a long one. When the Diocese of Michigan moved toward geographic division, the impact on the urban area was paramount in that discussion. One Detroit priest opposed the constitutional amendment to divide the diocese and called it part of a ‘decades-long flight from the cities.’ The heart of the opposition to divide the diocese [was] his voice and other voices from Detroit. A significant deal-killer in the whole question was averted at the Diocesan Convention in 1992 when an amendment was written on the floor and passed that called on both dioceses to be engaged in ‘reversing the trend of toward abandonment of the urban communities and to develop affirmative action strategies to insure the inclusion of ethnic minorities in volunteer and staff salaried positions.’
My question is this. The overriding concern in 1992 was whether the new diocese would locate its administrative center in an urban area like Saginaw or Midland—which it did. But in this diocese 16 years later, what has changed that makes it important or a possibility to relocate our administrative center?
Gibbs: “I would like to suggest that there is no one trying to run from the city of Detroit. However, it has become abundantly clear to me as I’ve traveled around the diocese that the diocese is in fact larger than Detroit, that Detroit is not the only urban center in this diocese with concerns, problems, needs and a desire to be focused on by the whole of the diocese, and that our present location, while also being a drain on the budget, is not in a place that is accessible to folks that come from other parts of our diocese, including other urban centers like Jackson, Lansing, Adrian. It appears to me that it is important for the bishop and the bishop’s staff to be accessible to everyone in a place that can in fact be a center—a center for meetings, a center for teaching, a center for empowerment of ministry.
“What we are looking for is a place where we can do that, where we don’t have to go off into little corners of the diocese to meet but we can meet in the center and be one gathered household.”
[The bishop described what he discovered about the importance of setting up regional offices, as he did in Lansing shortly after he became bishop.]
“I did not see going to set up relationship with the western part of the diocese as ‘running away from Detroit.’ Frankly, I saw it as a way of trying to bring Detroit and its environs and the rest of the diocese together so we could be one diocese rather than this scattered federation. I think the conversation is still open. Simply saying we don’t want to run away from cities, in my estimation, hides the problem. ...
“I don’t think it’s about running away; it’s about being where one need to be. I think the bishop’s office needs to be in a place where it’s accessible to more parts of the diocese. ... I want everyone to focus on the fact that Detroit is not the only urban area with needs and problems and concerns. If I am going to be the diocesan bishop for the whole diocese, I have to be able to focus on all urban ministry. I recoil at the thought of running away from Detroit. I am not running away from Detroit; I’m here to stay. Does Detroit have problems? You betcha. But so does Pontiac. So does Monroe. So does Ann Arbor. Many people don’t think Ann Arbor has urban problems, but they do. They seem to be able to hide it better than others.
“There are issues that need to be addressed by this diocese. If centralizing the administrative offices helps us do that, then I think it is something we should do. But I won’t do that if it is not financially feasible and if it hurts the Cathedral.”
The Record: You have said before and you have said again today that this isn’t about leaving Detroit; this is about going to a place, a new location that can be more accessible. What have you heard in response from folks at some distance from Detroit about the possibilities of relocation?
Gibbs: “As in Detroit, all the responses have been mixed. There are some that applaud and want to turn cartwheels that the diocese is actually thinking of them and would like to have the bishop’s offices closer to them. There are some who say moving from Detroit to Plymouth doesn’t move it all that close, particularly if you live in Hillsdale.
“There are some that don’t care one way or the other. Their concern [is that] we focus on Gospel mission. And that’s a part of what I am trying to do, making the resources of our diocesan offices more accessible to all regions of the diocese so that we can focus on Gospel mission. This is not an attempt to get us off message. If anything, it’s an attempt to keep us on message and keep us as one body rather than a scattered group.”
The Record: You’ve met with the Detroit clergy recently to discuss the proposed relocation. You’ve also held three major meetings in the past six years with Detroit Episcopalians on re-energizing the Episcopal Church presence in Detroit. Can you comment on both the discussion concerning relocation—what you heard from the clergy when you sat down with them—and also the larger question of re-vitalizing ministry in this urban community?
Gibbs: “The discussion with the Detroit clergy was a beginning. Certainly there is concern that the image, the symbol of moving the diocesan offices out of Detroit could be one of interpreting yet one more institution is leaving the city. Clearly, we are only talking about moving the offices of 12 people whose presence in this building, while certainly a symbol for some and an emotional attachment for others, doesn’t contribute in any way to the life and well being of the city of Detroit. I understand that emotionally and symbolically, there are many who would argue that point.
“Part of what I have heard is: ‘Bishop, watch the symbol. Symbolism is important to us as Christians. Keep an eye on what that symbol is saying.’ I understand that. I have also heard that if we move the diocesan offices to a place where they are not accessible by public transportation, it will make it more difficult for people to get here. ... Most people who come here drive. I am not sure that accessibility about public transportation is the sole concern. I think it is the symbol of a church body, an administrator, moving out of the city.
“But on the other hand, clergy in the city are also of a mixed mind, saying it really doesn’t matter where the bishop‘s office is if there is no conversation throughout the diocese about urban ministry. And I was quick to help them recognize that it cannot be just a conversation about Detroit, but about all our urban centers—about the issues that all of them face in terms of membership in the church, in terms of financial concerns of their members, etc. It really does have to be a much broader conversation.
“The meeting we’ve just had is a beginning of a conversation. I sensed around the room that it was something we want to continue to have conversation around. I suspect that as we have a broader conversation around the concerns of urban ministry, we need to invite to that meeting those who are serving in our other urban centers to discuss it.”
Detroit, MI