It's Friday evening and I am rather tired. I'm not certain I should be blogging at this very moment, but the Spirit has never steered me wrong yet. It is 70 degrees for the first time this year and the goldfinches are swarming at the feeders. I spent a little while in the hammock chair on the porch just being.
The saga of the selection of the next Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Northern Michigan continues. A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from the bishop elect in his continuing role as Missioner/Ministry Developer at the congregation that I left last Fall. You may remember from other posts, I gave him a memo in which I stated that I was "going on a leave of absence, perhaps indefinitely." I did this because I didn't want to make a dramatic exit from the congregation.
I no longer had faith in him as a leader in the church and if the chance existed that he would be chosen as the next bishop, which has since come to pass, I did not want to leave following that announcement. Once the discernment group made their announcement in February, I knew I would not return to St. Paul's and perhaps would be forced to leave the Episcopal Church.
In response to my statement of going on leave, I was informed that my leave would last for six months at which time we, the missioner and members of the Ministry Support Team and myself, would meet to discuss where I was and work to reintegrate me into the team. This six month time frame was his idea, not mine. At the time I received the e-mail last month, I was waiting until about now in order to formally inform the Vestry that I would not be returning to St. Paul's and submit my resignation from the Ministry Support Team.
The e-mail was essentially polite. However, he felt the need to include the following, "If you would be prepared to bring us up to date on how you are. Also, it would be helpful for you to talk with us about your role as a blogger and how that relates to your ministry as a deacon on the MST." My response was simple and to the point. I informed him that I had no intention of returning to St. Paul's and felt, therefore, that no meeting was necessary.
You know, I came out my senior year of high school. I started dating this guy who had previously dated my good friend Margaret. She was acting strangely and we figured she had figured us out. We sat down to have a talk to get it all out in the open. We were mistaken. She hadn't known or suspected and now she was pissed. Soon thereafter she would walk the halls of school with a hangdog expression and folks would ask her: "Margaret, what's wrong?" She would reply, "How would you feel if you just found out your boyfriend was sleeping with your best friend?" They would be shocked and say, "Oh, no! Anita?" She would hook them then with, "No, Larry!"
My point in sharing this non sequitor is that in the end - no one knew for certain what to believe. Some folks believed that we were gay for the right reasons; some folks believed we were gay for the wrong reasons; some folks disbelieved Margaret's tale for the right reasons; and, some folks disbelieved it for the wrong reasons.
A similar situation has developed over this selection of bishop. There are those that oppose it for the right reasons and those that oppose it for the wrong reasons. Similarly, there are those that support it for the right reasons and those that support it for the wrong reasons.
IMHO the folks that are supporting or opposing for the wrong reasons tend to be arguing on a much higher plane. They are arguing about the purpose of the consenting process and what the bishops and standing committees should consider in determining their "vote." They are arguing about what Buddhist lay ordination means in conjunction with priestly vows within the Episcopal Church. They are arguing about Christology. Accusations are flying from both sides of the aisle.
I think tonight I would like to talk a bit about the folks who are opposing or supporting for the right reasons. For example, if you believe that the unusual and new selection process adequately met the canonical requirements of the church, and you haven't seen adequate evidence to suggest that the process was flawed, and you believe that the Episcopal church should embrace a widening view of theology, then you are likely to support this selection, and I would state that you are supporting it for the right reasons.
In a similar fashion, if you don't believe the new and unusual selection process adequately met the canonical requirements of the church, and/or you believe that irregularities in the enactment of said process raise a cloud of doubt over the legitimacy, and/or you believe that there are some key theological points that cannot be fudged, then you are likely to not support this selection - unofficially 20 of the 110 bishops thus far have publicly stated that they intend to vote "no" -- and, I would argue that you are opposing this selection for the right reasons.
I myself have some very personal reasons for not supporting this choice. I fully admit, though, that had a traditional selection process occurred in which he was the chosen candidate from a slate of potential bishops, I would be in a position to accept that the diocese had made our choice.
What has happened though is that an untested, theoretical process, drafted essentially by the man ultimately selected as the final candidate, kept it's deliberations in closely guarded secrecy, enacted significant changes from the traditional selection process (namely, forbidding open application and eliminating a true election), and then kept essential information from the special convention delegates.
The rationale for having the discernment team put forward a single name was this: in true discernment the team will identify the one correct individual who will be the best fit for the diocese. Unfortunately, the one correct individual unexpectedly rescinded leaving the discernment team uncertain on how to proceed.
Apparently according to participants on the team, they were told that, despite previous information disseminated to the diocese, they could not afford to start again from scratch, so the team was forced into a candidate by default, the present nominee. None of this was shared with the delegates at the Special Convention who were there to affirm (not elect) the slate of members of the Episcopal Minsitry Support Team. The delegates were allowed to believe that everything proceeded as planned and that the choice for bishop was THE one correct individual who would be the best fit for the diocese. This was misleading at best.
I raised the very issues that may be undermining the selection with members of the discernment team months ago before the selection was made. I have been told by those individuals that when they tried to introduce these concerns, they were shut down. Yes, I have been commenting on blogs, initially in a very anonymous way, and then more and more openly. I have been called names by individuals completely removed from the process. It is possible that others have brought my comments back to the nominee. There is nothing that I have shared that I regret or is false.
This past week two very prolific bloggers have been duking it out in cyber space over this issue and my name was dragged into some of their comments. I had settled in and was quietly moving on. I had accepted that what would be, would be. I had found some new places to feed my spirituality in real time and real space and in cyber time and cyber space. However, here I am blogging tonight about this very issue.
I look forward to a time when this is all behind us. Perhaps he will be bishop, perhaps we will no longer be a stand alone diocese. I will be glad when it is settled.
The saga of the selection of the next Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Northern Michigan continues. A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from the bishop elect in his continuing role as Missioner/Ministry Developer at the congregation that I left last Fall. You may remember from other posts, I gave him a memo in which I stated that I was "going on a leave of absence, perhaps indefinitely." I did this because I didn't want to make a dramatic exit from the congregation.
I no longer had faith in him as a leader in the church and if the chance existed that he would be chosen as the next bishop, which has since come to pass, I did not want to leave following that announcement. Once the discernment group made their announcement in February, I knew I would not return to St. Paul's and perhaps would be forced to leave the Episcopal Church.
In response to my statement of going on leave, I was informed that my leave would last for six months at which time we, the missioner and members of the Ministry Support Team and myself, would meet to discuss where I was and work to reintegrate me into the team. This six month time frame was his idea, not mine. At the time I received the e-mail last month, I was waiting until about now in order to formally inform the Vestry that I would not be returning to St. Paul's and submit my resignation from the Ministry Support Team.
The e-mail was essentially polite. However, he felt the need to include the following, "If you would be prepared to bring us up to date on how you are. Also, it would be helpful for you to talk with us about your role as a blogger and how that relates to your ministry as a deacon on the MST." My response was simple and to the point. I informed him that I had no intention of returning to St. Paul's and felt, therefore, that no meeting was necessary.
You know, I came out my senior year of high school. I started dating this guy who had previously dated my good friend Margaret. She was acting strangely and we figured she had figured us out. We sat down to have a talk to get it all out in the open. We were mistaken. She hadn't known or suspected and now she was pissed. Soon thereafter she would walk the halls of school with a hangdog expression and folks would ask her: "Margaret, what's wrong?" She would reply, "How would you feel if you just found out your boyfriend was sleeping with your best friend?" They would be shocked and say, "Oh, no! Anita?" She would hook them then with, "No, Larry!"
My point in sharing this non sequitor is that in the end - no one knew for certain what to believe. Some folks believed that we were gay for the right reasons; some folks believed we were gay for the wrong reasons; some folks disbelieved Margaret's tale for the right reasons; and, some folks disbelieved it for the wrong reasons.
A similar situation has developed over this selection of bishop. There are those that oppose it for the right reasons and those that oppose it for the wrong reasons. Similarly, there are those that support it for the right reasons and those that support it for the wrong reasons.
IMHO the folks that are supporting or opposing for the wrong reasons tend to be arguing on a much higher plane. They are arguing about the purpose of the consenting process and what the bishops and standing committees should consider in determining their "vote." They are arguing about what Buddhist lay ordination means in conjunction with priestly vows within the Episcopal Church. They are arguing about Christology. Accusations are flying from both sides of the aisle.
I think tonight I would like to talk a bit about the folks who are opposing or supporting for the right reasons. For example, if you believe that the unusual and new selection process adequately met the canonical requirements of the church, and you haven't seen adequate evidence to suggest that the process was flawed, and you believe that the Episcopal church should embrace a widening view of theology, then you are likely to support this selection, and I would state that you are supporting it for the right reasons.
In a similar fashion, if you don't believe the new and unusual selection process adequately met the canonical requirements of the church, and/or you believe that irregularities in the enactment of said process raise a cloud of doubt over the legitimacy, and/or you believe that there are some key theological points that cannot be fudged, then you are likely to not support this selection - unofficially 20 of the 110 bishops thus far have publicly stated that they intend to vote "no" -- and, I would argue that you are opposing this selection for the right reasons.
I myself have some very personal reasons for not supporting this choice. I fully admit, though, that had a traditional selection process occurred in which he was the chosen candidate from a slate of potential bishops, I would be in a position to accept that the diocese had made our choice.
What has happened though is that an untested, theoretical process, drafted essentially by the man ultimately selected as the final candidate, kept it's deliberations in closely guarded secrecy, enacted significant changes from the traditional selection process (namely, forbidding open application and eliminating a true election), and then kept essential information from the special convention delegates.
The rationale for having the discernment team put forward a single name was this: in true discernment the team will identify the one correct individual who will be the best fit for the diocese. Unfortunately, the one correct individual unexpectedly rescinded leaving the discernment team uncertain on how to proceed.
Apparently according to participants on the team, they were told that, despite previous information disseminated to the diocese, they could not afford to start again from scratch, so the team was forced into a candidate by default, the present nominee. None of this was shared with the delegates at the Special Convention who were there to affirm (not elect) the slate of members of the Episcopal Minsitry Support Team. The delegates were allowed to believe that everything proceeded as planned and that the choice for bishop was THE one correct individual who would be the best fit for the diocese. This was misleading at best.
I raised the very issues that may be undermining the selection with members of the discernment team months ago before the selection was made. I have been told by those individuals that when they tried to introduce these concerns, they were shut down. Yes, I have been commenting on blogs, initially in a very anonymous way, and then more and more openly. I have been called names by individuals completely removed from the process. It is possible that others have brought my comments back to the nominee. There is nothing that I have shared that I regret or is false.
This past week two very prolific bloggers have been duking it out in cyber space over this issue and my name was dragged into some of their comments. I had settled in and was quietly moving on. I had accepted that what would be, would be. I had found some new places to feed my spirituality in real time and real space and in cyber time and cyber space. However, here I am blogging tonight about this very issue.
I look forward to a time when this is all behind us. Perhaps he will be bishop, perhaps we will no longer be a stand alone diocese. I will be glad when it is settled.
5 comments:
Loong post,..I'll read it..lol..then I'll say my say ..Yooper Style Eh!!
........
.........
............I'll read it, eventually, ... My Late Mother was Deacon in TEC, in Gladstone,... twas in the 80's so it may have been forgotten,...but NOT BY Fr.Ray,..a personal friend of my Mothers.
Northern Michigan (former Bishop), ACTUALLY THE BEST BISHOP THEY EVER HAD, ..but that's just Several Hundred Local Voices,.... Nothing to be concerned about!!
On an OFF NOTE . . . I'd PAY to be Bishop in Northern Michigan,..just for the surroundings!!
He's There,....So T h e r e ! ! !
You remain in my prayers as this is a time of discernment for you. I would hate to see you leave TEC, I think it would be a great loss to us all. Go where the Holy Spirit leads you.
Siounds deeply frustrating. Hang on in there.
Now about those little shot glasses.....
Post a Comment