I have just been informed that the Vicar of St. John’s Mission Church in Clearwater has announced that he and most of the communicants of St. John’s have left The Episcopal Church. This comes as a complete surprise to me. Although Fr. Hartley has shared his frustrations with me, he never indicated to me that he was on the verge of taking such a step, and I am extraordinarily disappointed not only in their decision, but that he went public with this announcement without informing me first. It is also a shock to me that he would lead this congregation away from the Church without providing me with the time and opportunity to be in conversation with them as part of their decision-making process–after all, as Bishop I am–or was–their chief priest and pastor. I not only ordained Fr. Hartley to the priesthood, but I am the one who appointed him Vicar of St. John’s, providing him with an Altar and a pulpit.
Any division in the Church weakens the Church’s mission. And when people leave they not only deprive those with different views of their voice, but they also deprive themselves of prayerful viewpoints which they need to consider. The Episcopal Church–indeed, traditional Anglicanism–respects highly the individual intellect and conscience, and I respect the decisions of Fr. Hartley and others at St. John’s as a decision of conscience. Nevertheless, it breaks my heart.
If Bishop Henderson has a broken heart, he should be well able to empathize with those whose hearts were torn asunder by the actions of TEC over recent history.
Crocodile tears on the good Bishops part?
“I am extraordinarily disappointed not only in their decision, but that he went public with this announcement without informing me first”.
Helllloooooooooooo!
Where is your mind, man? You gave up your right to be a pastor to that flock and now you want consideration?
Please.
If Bishop Henderson were truly their chief priest and pastor, he would have followed up on Fr. Hartley’s frustrations and discussions with him. Instead he remained blind to the discussion going on in the congregation. After all, the congregation can’t have been conducting their ‘conversation’ in secrecy. Why weren’t those who were against the split communicating with the bishop? Sounds as though he was not available.
As for TEC representing ‘traditional Anglicanism, well …….. !
To me, the comments are too hard on Bishop Henderson [although that’s your right, of course.]
Here is my take on it, in commenting to another commenter at another blog:
[blockquote][Name],
Although of course Bishop Henderson has not “done everything I wanted him to doâ€â€”not many people do—I think the issue on communication TEC-wide is simpler and more worrisome than “I knew the bishop and where he stands and that he’s done what he can to minimize the seriousness of the crisis the EC is facing therefore we’re not talking.â€
I think that there is less—far less—communication between good clergy and good bishops [of whatever stripe, and they do exist] because of the sheer horror that so many bad bishops have wreaked on clergy and parishioners around TEC over the past five years.
People—both clergy and parishioners—have learned their lessons, and learned them well. If you talk with a bishop, you may well arrive one Sunday morning locked out of your church, with church secretaries crying in the parking lot, and sherrifs standing guard, while diocesan lackeys hack your computers.
Matt Kennedy’s interaction with his bishop stands as a sterling example. Throughout the past five years, up until 9-12 months ago, Matt trusted his bishop. He continually defended his bishop to me, while I continually believed that the bishop was thoroughly untrustworthy. I can guarantee you that Matt has learned lessons from the startling and horrific betrayals and turn abouts and deceit that his bishop enacted. And the wheel turns.
The pendulum now seems to have swung the other way—no communication.
I’m not accusing Rob of this—as I said I think he had sent a communication—but what is now offered TEC-wide is the bare bones of communication, the most minimum possible. Obviously, in an organization, it’s probably not a good idea for laypeople and clergy to fear the people above them in a hierarchy. As I have learned to great effect in my earlier life, “fear and loathing†will not bring an organization together. It just won’t. You can get a lot of things done with fear and loathing—you can really crack the whip and make people obey for a while—but eventually the organization becomes unhealthy and dysfunctional.
Please note again that in my comment above I do not equate “fear and loathing†and “no communication†with Rob or Bishop Henderson. I am merely commenting on the general ethos of TEC as it stands now.[/blockquote]
I wonder why they joined CANA?
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
Perhaps they found a Christian home in CANA.
Sarah’s comments are spot on. When viewed through the lens of organizational behavior, TEC has created a fear-based culture where honesty and openness is punished. Example: Fr. Matt Kennedy.
While I consider Bishop Henderson an honorable man and priest, he bears some responsibility for this culture of mistrust – not because he executes his critics, but because he fails to indict others in the HOB who behave dishonestly and uncanonically. One can also make the case that his part in the excommunications of +Duncan and +Schofield hurt his reputation among the clergy in his diocese.
I’m sure Fr. Hartley would prefer to address Bishop Henderson directly and openly about his flock’s leaving. But given the possible ramifications to him and his flock, perhaps he felt this was his best move as a faithful shepherd.
Again, good comments, Sarah.
-Jim+
Communcation as used by TEC is a one way street and does not involve hearing what the other is saying. Dialogue is used in the same way. If you tell your bishop that you are very unhappy with the leadership of TEC, you have failed to do either in the present useage of these words.
I’m confused.
As I understand it, the priest, vestry, and entire congregation have simply left the building and property behind, and plan to worship in an office complex starting this Sunday.
If that is so, what could the priest have to lose by asking his bishop’s permission to leave gracefully and in order? After all, he made certain vows at his ordination. Even if the bishop had had a temper tantrum and had blown to bits, it would still take some time to issue an inhibition and deposition. By then, an irregular, emergency transfer to CANA could have been arranged. Is this bishop a malevolent person? Does this specific circumstance justify a decision to bolt secretly? (I don’t know the answer to that.)
I can see how a covert departure would be prudent when a departing parish intends to try to keep its property, or if the bishop in question is genuinely malevolent.
While I respect this parish’s decision to move to the emerging Province, I also find myself in sympathy with the depth of emotion expressed by Bp. Henderson in his letter.
There is always more than one side of a story. Here, we have only Bishop Henderson’s heartbreak. While this may be true, it may also be true that the priest did try to communicate with him, but the Bishop didn’t want to hear it. From my viewpoint in THE Diocese of South Carolina, Bp Henderson is an appeaser who just wants everyone to get along, but is solidly in the pocket of TEC. I wish the congregation of St. John’s well, and wish others would follow their example. It is no good being tied to a corpse.
The bishop is “heartbroken” because St. John’s silence means that they dont trust him. When dealing with honorable men, one deals openly. When dealing with dishonorable men, one works secretly, gets one’s ducks in order, and makes one’s move unequivocally at a time that is “safe”. Superiors who can be trusted don’t usually have subordinates doing things behind their backs, unless those subordinates are very untrustworthy indeed.
I do not know if Bp. Henderson deserves the mistrust of his parish and priests. Clearly they do mistrust him, so it is understandable that he is saddened by this discovery. However it should not be a surprise, given the actions of so many bishops in TEC that bishops in general no longer have the trust of their priests and laity. Too many TEC bishops are dishonorable, and the remainder stand by and do nothing.