Let the Province In

In mid-July, every incoming first-year receives a thick envelop full of information about advanced standing, Expos and other relevant aspects of life at Harvard. Mixed in with this mailing is a Religious Interest Card, which allows students to request information from College religious organizations before arriving on campus, but the list is not exhaustive. Organizations not affiliated with Harvard’s United Ministries (UM) do not make it onto the card, are not listed in the Harvard directory, cannot advertise on student activities day or on campus billboards and their leaders do not get any University privileges. Without UM membership, religious groups face real obstacles communicating with students—a situation that has the potential to limit religious choice at Harvard. And thanks to a complicated, infrequent application process and poor communication with applicants, the UM is not doing nearly enough to expand these choices.

Case in point. Father Bowen Woodruff, Vicar of the Anglican Church of the Incarnation (ACOI), applied for UM membership in February 2002. His church, a parish of the nation-wide Anglican Province of Christ the King, includes a substantial number of Harvard students and faculty and meets in the Swedenborg Chapel, right in the middle of campus. In April of that year, Woodruff received a letter back from Dennis Sheehan, the chair of the UM’s membership committee, detailing concerns the UM had about the ACOI’s relationship with mainline Episcopalians: “We [the UM] are puzzled by the designation ‘Anglican’ and wonder if your Province is, in fact, a separate denomination.” The UM does not admit multiple churches from the same denominational root to avoid the possibility of churches competing for members—a reasonable rule.

But evidently, neither Monseigneur Sheehan nor anyone on the UM’s membership committee consulted The Encyclopedia of American Religions, one of the official reference books listed in the UM’s bylaws. This book—and indeed even a cursory Google search—would have explained that Province churches were actually not Anglican but Episcopalian. The sect split from mainstream Episcopalians in the late-1970s (with the Province churches retaining a more orthodox doctrine). With different dioceses, liturgies and increasingly different theologies, Province churches cater to a completely different crowd of worshippers.

Including more than one church from a similar denominational root is not alien to the UM either. There are two Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist sects among Harvard’s ministries. Surely, then, there is room at Harvard for two Episcopalian sects with unique traditions. Anything less denies students adequate religious choice.

The irregularities in the UM’s response to Father Woodruff are difficult to explain. Woodruff claims to have addressed the denominational issues raised by Sheehan in his original application. Still, he offered to meet with UM representatives to explain further at a meeting in April 2002. Afterwards, Woodruff expected to hear the UM’s decision by May, as prescribed in the UM’s bylaws.

He got no response; not even a “no.” Bureaucracy, carelessness, neglect—or some other unknown reason—prevented the UM from fulfilling its duty to foster religious choice at Harvard. Bewildered further by a meeting with the UM in January, Father Woodruff had to write a letter the University President Lawrence H. Summers before the UM felt obliged to contact him again. This happened in May 2003, more than five months later, and, coincidentally, after that year’s UM application deadline. In this letter, sent by current UM Membership chair Pat McLeod, McLeod cited “concerns about the legitimacy of [the ACOI’s] receiving body at Harvard and how [it] both identifies and distinguishes [itself] from the Episcopal and Anglican Church” as reasons why the ACOI was not admitted to the UM the year before. Besides re-confirming that the UM’s membership committee knew nothing about its applicant—by reiterating the denominational concern—McLeod’s newly conjured qualm about the ACOI’s “receiving body” puzzled Father Woodruff. A receiving body of 10 Harvard students, Faculty and staff who attend the church must exist for an organization to get UM membership. According to Father Woodruff, however, his receiving body was in order. The UM just didn’t seem willing to admit it.

These inconsistencies notwithstanding—former chair Sheehan never mentioned any apprehension about the receiving body and thus McLeod’s concerns about the receiving body came as an unexpected new concern—the UM’s lack of meaningful communication with Father Woodruff has undermined the ACOI’s chances to gain UM membership for two years. And the UM’s shifting reasons for denying the ACOI membership have confused and disillusioned Father Woodruff. For an organization founded to promote a diversity of religions on campus, the UM has not shown even a modicum of eagerness to incorporate new members. Quite the opposite. The UM’s tactics almost smack of intentional neglect, although it not clear that there is any agenda behind the UM’s pattern of avoidance.

Reached for comment, McLeod expressed hope that the ACOI would soon gain UM membership. However, in the same e-mail, he wrote, “I doubt that the Anglican issue will keep Rev. Woodruff from being admitted to the UM”—referring to the denominational issue that has plagued the ACOI. Considering that Msgr. Sheehan cited that concern and only that concern in the UM’s very first letter to the ACOI back in April 2002, it is maddening that this small issue—which has finally been deemed irrelevent and rightly so—kept the Province out of the UM as long as it has.

Clearly, there are profound problems with the UM’s bureaucracy and membership procedures—problems that deny students worshipping at the ACOI all the resources Harvard can offer. To address these issues, the UM must overhaul the transparency and efficiency of its membership procedures. It can start by actually sticking to its bylaws and notifying applicants of their membership status in May. Further, the UM must consider applications twice a year, in March and October. This step will speed acceptance of deserving members and force the UM to provide more feedback to rejected applicants. In short, twice-a-year applications will discourage the UM from treating other religious organizations the way it has treated the ACOI.

To right the wrongs it has already perpetrated, the UM should also make an exception and consider the ACOI’s membership during this application cycle. By fall 2004, we hope to read Father Woodruff’s name in the Harvard directory.

Most important, however, the UM must communicate better with Cambridge’s varied religious organizations. Throughout this whole sordid ordeal, Father Woodruff has cited lack of communication as the UM’s most grievous offense. If the ACOI had been clearly denied admission to the UM, then Woodruff could have taken steps to fix his church’s application. The United Ministries’ mission is to “honor the religious freedom, human dignity, conscience, personal spiritual welfare and the religious tradition of every person to whom they minister.” We eagerly await the day when they do.