During a recent visitation at Trinity, Houston, the Rt. Rev. Andy Doyle confronted the vestry for continued attempts by some to undermine the rector’s authority. The congregation worked with a mediator during the spring and summer to address dissention between the rector, staff and parishioners.
The bishop assured the rector, the Rev. Hannah Atkins, of his support noting her commitment to follow recommendations of the mediator, along with numerous lay leaders who were “setting about the corrective measures called for.” Bishop Doyle said however, he was “saddened” by the continued destructive behavior of some and promised to remove current or future vestry members unwilling to work with the rector in good faith.
Read it all and please note there are two accompanying documents that also should be considered.
God bless Bishop Doyle. He’s tracking right along with the healthy full-disclosure noted in this
http://www.amazon.com/When-Sheep-Attack-Dennis-Maynard/dp/1451513917/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291891520&sr=8-1
All the backstabbing, troublesome behaviors in this congregation(I don’t go there, so I can’t comment on anything else other than what I read) are outlined in the diocesan newsletter, which also links Bishop Doyle’s supportive letter to the rector, and his recent sermon to the congregation.
It will be interesting to see if absolutely “outing” everything causes the dysfunction to dial down. I applaud Bishop Doyle for his healthy openness, and prayers for all concerned.
I too applaud Bishop Doyle. In similar circumstances, far too many other bishops have surrendered to the troublemakers with devastating results to the rector/vicar and the congregation.
Dan, that’s exactly what Rev. Maynard’s book says, too.
I have a new hero-God Bless bishop Doyle!!
#3–Unless you know the actual facts about the Rev. Maynard, you may want to avoid references to him. I suspect there may be two sides to Trinity Houston’s story. As hard as it may be to believe there are actually priests who are wrong and lay people who are right. When the bishop gets caught in the middle he usually just circles the wagons. I know nothing about the Houston situation–just making an observation.
Sorry, but I don’t agree with the above comments at all.
I’d have to first know the facts behind some of the vestry’s issues with the rector. And we all know, of course, that Doyle is a revisionist theologically. He could be acting properly and he could not be acting properly but to know we’d have to hear [i]both[/i] sides of the story, not the rather pompous and self-righteous letter from Bishop Doyle that succeeds cleverly in drawing in generations of a church into the current battle between the rector and the congregation.
And it is *richly* — and I do mean *RICHLY* ironic that Bookworm quotes a book by Maynard. Let’s just say that Maynard is the very very last priest I would apply to in regards to taking advice about how clergy should behave. And let’s just also say that it’s pretty understandable why he should write a book about Horrid Willful Sheep and have such a rich treasure trove of anecdotes about them too [heh].
Moving on to the details of Bishop Doyle’s letter, I note that he denounces “non-vestry sanctioned meetings between vestry members.” Another “heh” moment. We live in America and members of a parish — and yes, even of a vestry — are perfectly free to have supper together and chat about any issue they please. There is *NO* rule against persons who are on a vestry gathering in “non-vestry sanctioned” meetings and I am immediately suspicious when a rector or bishop decides that people aren’t allowed to gather. That’s highly controlling — and frankly, fruitless too, as I can guarantee that now there will be more meetings about the contents of the Bishop’s letter. So not only has the bishop/rector revealed how [i]threatened[/i] they are by people meeting, not only have they decided that such meetings are actually [i]accomplishing things they don’t like[/i] [otherwise they wouldn’t care about them], but they have now spawned more such meetings.
Further, Bishop Doyle denounces the fact that there are “some vestry members” [and let’s be honest here — some members of the [i]congregation[/i] too] who are supporting others to run for vestry who wish to remove the rector.
That, folks, is one of the points of congregational [i]elections[/i]. They’re called [i]elections[/i] — and elections occur to support parishioners who support one’s views and foundational worldview. Elections do not occur to rubberstamp the decisions of the Ruling Hierarchy as with the old Soviet Union elections. All over this country, there are revisionists meeting to support other members of parishes who are . . . [drum roll] revisionists. And that is within their right to do so. Same with conservatives.
Bishop Doyle then goes on to pontificate that supporting people for vestry who [i]don’t agree with Bishop Doyle[/i] are not acting “within the best interests of the church.” Of course — that completely begs the question of “what is in the best interests of the church”? Answer — none of us on the outside know, for we don’t know the other side of this story. It may well be within the best interests of the church for the rector to be ridden out of town on a rail.
But we know one thing. We know that the bishop and the rector are [i]angry and afraid and threatened[/i] by the actions of some members of the vestry. And further, that they are [i]angry and afraid and threatened[/i] by the actions of some members of the congregation — for otherwise they wouldn’t fear that in fact some people who do not support the rector and do think it is within the best interests of the church for that rector to depart will be elected by that congregation — which would mean that many many many in that congregation also believe the same thing.
I note with amusement the wheeling out of the old “poison parish” meme that bishops and rectors always diagnose [i]when they’re supporting a priest over against a congregation[/i]. Such parishes certainly exist — but in my experience, the more common problem of parishes is that dysfunction exists in the calling of mentally ill and highly dysfunctional rectors. That dsyfunction — the consistent attraction of a congregation towards the unhealthy/criminal/crazy-person rector — also is one that needs to be examined, repented of, and healed.
Were I a member of such a congregation and were I to believe that the relationship between rector and congregation were irrevocably broken by the actions of this rector, and the rector was damaging the parish I would 1) continue, of course, meeting steadily away with my friends and 2) continue, of course, promoting solid people to the vestry and 3) laugh when the bishop declares the congregation a mission. The bishop may — if a congregation is determined — declare a congregation a “mission” all he pleases and appoint whatever stooges that he likes to a “mission committee” — none of those people can 1) make a member pledge 2) make a member volunteer, 3) or keep a member from quietly slipping to the background and waiting patiently until the rector leaves, while the mission committee flogs the flock.
And leave she would if enough people in a congregation are determined and committed — no matter the threatening bluster of a bishop or rector.
As a layperson I have rooted for clergy in tough parish situations. And I’ve rooted for laypeople in tough parish situations, depending on the actual facts of the case. I have watched clergy be mistreated by a small angry clique within a congregation. And I have watched clergy drive their parishes happily into the ground, misappropriating money, spouting crazy revisionist blather from the pulpits, showing up *drunk* at vestry meetings, highhandedly abusing lay leaders and staff, and generally demonstrating just how [i]completely[/i] unfit they are for any leadership position whatsoever until they receive the years of counseling and electric shock treatment that their illnesses clearly need.
Bishop Doyle’s letter says that the problems between rector and vestry extend back more than half a century.
Can anyone from Houston explain why Trinity Church has behaved the way that it has? What’s in its institutional DNA that leads to this?
Unfortunately, there is no information presented other than the completely one-sided account published by the diocese. The bishop acknowledges the problems in the parish go back quite a number of years, and through several rectors, indicating long term discontent. He is not addressing the reasons for the discontent, but rather removing those who are discontented. I have been on the receiving end of “diocesan mediation”- so I would like to hear “the other side of the story” before praising the action of the bishop too much.
In any case, let us pray for everyone in this parish, and pray that our Lord is merciful in His judgment of us all.
Sarah–I think our comments crossed in the (e) mail. I presume you would also agree with my comment about Maynard?
Thanks Sarah (in #6)- I was hoping to see your comments on this. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of “diocesan mediation” are somewhat suspicious. It would be quite helpful to know the genesis of the disagreement.
On a differnt thread of this post, am I the only one who thinks putting a link to this letter on the parish website is odd? Clearly to do so is inwardly focused; who would visit a parish that had such a letter on its home page? Not very missional. “Come to our church, we are fighting amongst each other; but we’re very creative.” Tells me there’s some other leadership problem than the communication between the Vestry and Rector.
“There is *NO* rule against persons who are on a vestry gathering in “non-vestry sanctioned†meetings…”
Truly there is not, but you could always try meeting with your rector DIRECTLY about your problems. If you have a problem with the way the rector does or does not listen, you can appeal to your bishop.
Also, Bishop Doyle states, “Trinity Episcopal Church has had conflicted relationships with every one of its rectors since the time of Bishop Quin”.
A quick scan at Wikipedia–sorry, haven’t had time to check this with the diocese–states the following:
“Kinsolving’s coadjutor, the Rt. Rev. Clinton Simon Quin, succeeded him 35 years later in *1928*(Emphasis mine).
I would doubt that every rector at Trinity in the last 82 years is/was a psycho, too.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
“Unless you know the actual facts about the Rev. Maynard, you may want to avoid references to him”.
#5, you are invited to outline your “facts”, as long as Dr. Harmon doesn’t have a problem with that on his blog. If the latter does, I guess the elves will take care of that.
Do you want to know how many times I have heard negative, nasty comments about Edwin Friedman? But there are many, many more who revere his books and way of doing things.
The Maynard book is certainly making the rounds these days. Maybe Sarah would want to start a SF thread to discuss it, maybe not. Someone loaned me a copy – it’s a quick read, and seemed straightforward to me. I was not aware that there’s some sort of undercurrent or backstory involving the author.
As for the topic of this thread, I guess it’s really hard to tell exactly what’s going on in situations like this – so, one must pray for all concerned.
So I guess it’s ok to refer to bishops of the church as writing “pompous, pontificating, and self-righteous” letters, none of which may be true, considering that the bishop states he is dealing with an 82-year-old problem.
While I may not know Dennis Maynard, either by reputation or personally, I applaud him for outlining the uacceptability of abuse of the clergy by the laity; not to mention, many times, the clergy spouse or the couple’s children, none of whom have anything to do with the rector’s/priest’s behavior.
Amen Bookworm!!
Read what others are saying, including in the comments; I found this a balanced post:
http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/2010/11/when-sheep-attack.html
Every church should have a written conflict resolution procedure and access to trained, impartial mediators who are not part of the church/denomination experiencing the conflict, but are nonetheless experienced in dealing with the special circumstances of church conflict; i.e., Christians acting in a non-Christian manner.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
Bishops and clergy and congregations know first hand that certain parishes have a reputation for being “clergy killers”. Sarah may want to believe that it’s really about terrible clergy abusing their flocks – that view unfortunately doesn’t hold up in circumstances where the shepherds have been faithful and dedicated. All it takes is a very small number of dedicated “difficult” people to cause untold trouble and pain for everyone involved.
By no means does Rev. Maynard’s book give misbehaving clergy a free pass, but it is true that the focus of “When Sheep Attack” is more the laity. If for any reason people consider this book a dubious source(I’ve seen most reviewers speak of it favorably–see Ralph above, Amazon, and Elizabeth Kaeton+, with whom I don’t agree theologically but that has nothing to do with conflict management), then there are, of course, “Clergy Killers” and “Antagonists in the Church”, both of which are referenced in the Maynard book.
Larry+, prayers–in some ways, I can relate.
17, You raise an interesting question in my mind… At what point should a “clergy killer” parish disclose their reputation, and who does the disclosing? Presumably, someone from within the diocese is going to know something of the reputation, but if you’re outside of the diocese, it’s probably not going to register.
RE: “Sarah—I think our comments crossed in the (e) mail. I presume you would also agree with my comment about Maynard?”
Hi David — oui oui, I hadn’t seen your comment when I posted mine. It appears that we have some astoundingly similar experiences! ; > )
RE: “you could always try meeting with your rector DIRECTLY about your problems. If you have a problem with the way the rector does or does not listen, you can appeal to your bishop.”
Well it appears that *that* didn’t work, did it? I mean, *if* the rector *ought* to be swiftly exited from the parish [and remember, I don’t know the facts from the other side, so I cannot say] than obviously the bishop has not behaved in a way to inspire further trust in his decisions. Looks as if — rightly or wrongly — those parishioners are “on their own” and will need to gather round and institute a united strategy, come what may regarding what the bishop does. I expect that, if the issues between rector and parish are sufficiently deep and broad . . . it will all resolve itself despite the behavior of the bishop either way.
RE: “I would doubt that every rector at Trinity in the last 82 years is/was a psycho, too.”
And I would strongly doubt that every congregation in that parish in the last 82 years is/was a “clergy killer” too.
But it’s *possible* for either to happen, right? I mean, it’s conceivable that 1) the parish for 82 years has fielded a dysfunctional clergy killing congregation or 2) that the parish has foolishly called crazies over the past 82 years, due to the parish’s dysfunction and the crazies’ general attraction towards “willing victims.”
Again — we simply don’t know, since we only have the bishop’s side of the story.
RE: “Sarah may want to believe that it’s really about terrible clergy abusing their flocks . . . ”
Actually, so far on this thread, there’s only [i]one[/i] group of people “wanting to believe” anything — and those are the ones announcing without benefit of both sides of the story that the bishop is unequivocably correct and the members of the congregation who are in conflict with the priest are unequivocably wrong. The rest of the commenters are busy pointing out that both sides of the story need to be told before one can decide. So far, the prejudice and bias has been on one side.
I’ve merely pointed out — several times — that you could be right. Or you could be wrong. It’s perfectly conceivable that the bishop is not acting as a “pastor” to his priest but merely an “old boy enabler.”
RE: “I applaud Bishop Doyle for taking a firm stand. I only wish my bishop had had the same spine of conviction and concern . . . ”
Yes indeed — just as Bishop Smith and Bishop Bruno and Bishop Gulick and Bishop Parsley and Bishop Skip Adams and Bishop Sauls and Bishop Shaw and Bishop Mathes and Bishop Chane have taken “a firm stand” and had “the same spine of conviction and concern.”
There is nothing like members of the club taking care of their own. Or in being confidently and bullyingly wrong. At least they have taken “a firm stand” — or a desperate and angry and fearful one. Depends on the actual facts, which again we have not heard yet.
RE: “At what point should a “clergy killer†parish disclose their reputation, and who does the disclosing?”
Isaac, I always advise clergy and laypeople to gather “a circle of intel” about parishes/clergy/rectors. I would hope that no search committee would solely rely on a priest’s references to learn more about a priest whom they are considering — there are always people out there who can connect members of a search committee with good contacts in a diocese who can provide solid and more unbiased perspectives. And the same for a priest considering a parish — they definitely need to talk to others outside of the parish and outside of the [biased/or desperate] bishop to get a circle of perspectives from a variety of people, both lay and clergy, about a parish.
I think the problem in parishes often arises when people forget what their authorities are.
Rector-In Charge of all SPIRITUAL affairs of the Parish
Senior Warden/Rector’s Warden-Represents the Rector’s “side” to the parish (protects the Rector’s interests from attacks by the people).
Junior Warden/People’s Warden-Represents the People’s “side” to the Rector (protects the people’s interests from attacks from the Rector)
Vestry-Responsible for all TEMPORAL affairs of the parish.
When the vestry tries to interfere in worship, Christian Education, counseling, music etc, they are encroaching on the Rector’s “turf.”
On the other hand, when the Rector (or any of the clergy) tries to interfere with the finances of the parish, the physical plant or ESPECIALLY tries to influence vestry (and diocesan delegate) elections, then he is encroaching on the Vestry’s “turf.”
I have seen what happens in both instances and it often is not pretty. If a rector gives in and lets the vestry run worship or education, that is a very bad situation. If the vestry blindly follows the Rector’s lead on finances (i.e. never says NO! to whatever) then that is an equally bad situation.
A GOOD Bishop usually takes the “side” of whoever’s “turf” was invaded by the other side. (I have seen situations where Vestry members were removed by the Bishop and I have seen situations where the rector was handed his hat by the bishop.) If the Bishop is a Godly man, and not just a CEO or the diocese protecting his “colleague” the priest, then he will do the right thing.
Note: The previous was a general commentary. I don’t have enough information to take “sides” in the specific case mentioned in the article.
The Title IV Task Force II drafted a provision for discipline of the laity by the Ecclesiastical Authority but withdrew it on account of widespread objection prior to the 2009 General Convention. Diocese of Texas canon 9.9 provides “By two-thirds vote of the whole membership, approved by the Rector, the Vestry may remove any member of the Vestry whose conduct may tend to bring reproach on the Church.†Under article 6 of the diocesan constitution and diocesan canons 8.5 and 8.6 a parish may be dissolved or remitted to mission status under specified circumstances. It would be instructive to know the specific basis which Bishop Doyle would plan to use for removing individual vestry members, dissolving the entire vestry or unilaterally reducing the parish to mission status as his letter indicates he may do.
#21 raises a number of good points. We do need to remember though, that the specific duties of the clergy and vestry vary, sometimes radically, from one diocese to another. Here in N Michigan, for example, vestries may “nominate” members of the parish for ordination- almost all the clergy here are volunteer “mutual ministers”- there are no rectors as such in most parishes.
In my experience, watching my Dad go through the process as a priest, and later on a vestry myself, and in several congregations in 4 dioceses, the key element in many conflicts stems from the interview process and the parish’s expectations. Granted, the following example is something of an exaggeration, to make a point, but I have seen examples of this on several occasions. If the parish wants someone who is generally traditional, and sets up their interview questions accordingly, they are likely to take the candidate who comes in saying “I just love the way you have kept up this beautiful old church, and your use of the Rite I liturgy reflects your value of the traditions of the Church. It will be a privilege to serve in a parish like this….” If that priest, after being appointed rector, then wants to use Rite II, Eucharistic prayer C, and says “under the canons, liturgical decisions are the rector’s to make” there WILL be conflict. Note that in the example, the priest did not say, “I will only use Rite I” and therefore did not lie, as such. However, the priest does build a false expectation that he or she will maintain tradition as the parish understands it. Often, no doubt, these conflicts arise because a candidate is, of course, trying to make a positive impression, because they want the job, and the parishioners are sometimes “hearing what they want to hear”.
Thanks to Mike Waton as well for contributing a bit on the canons. The bishop’s letter therefore reveals just how divided the parish is. If the vestry can remove those whose “conduct may tend to bring reproach…”, and the bishop is threatening to remove vestry by fiat, this indicates that those who are “troublemakers” are more than 1/3 of the vestry, or at least, not enough of the vestry is so appalled by their conduct as to vote for their removal. The bishop is essentially threatening the vestry “in the middle”- the ones most likely seeking peace and compromise- to vote to remove the people the bishop thinks are troublemakers, or he will remove the whole vestry, and demote the parish to mission status.
Mike Watson — thanks for your instructive and helpful knowledge of the canons for the Diocese of Texas. And TJ, thanks for that analysis.
I do hope that the members of the parish are aware of these — along with the *specific* parish bylaws for their congregation — hopefully they have a good canon lawyer who’s advising them. The bishop appears to be “threatening” to violate the canons or, you know . . . to “come up with something” that would fall “under specified circumstances.” ; > )
How . . . interesting.
Looks as if there are only two options. 1) The bishop will actually dissolve a 300 ASA vestry congregation/delete random members without a 2/3 vestry vote and randomly demote a parish to “mission” or 2) [i]he’s merely engaging in bluster[/i] hoping that nobody’s looking at the canons.
Either way, were I one of the people who believed that the rector is damaging the parish I would recognize by the bishop’s actions the sort of person who is “leading” the diocese and become even more strategic and careful.
Again, there’s not a whole lot of good outcomes to this now.
Obviously, if the *majority* of the parish believes that the rector is deeply harmful to the parish, then they’ll vote and meet and plan as they see fit, while recognizing that there’s another presence who is determined to either 1) threaten and bluster or 2) fulfill what he has threatened. Either way, they’ll need to plan carefully and remain unified.
If the *majority* of the parish does not believe that the rector is deeply harmful to the parish, and if it’s merely a small clique, then it’s doubtful they’ll be able to coordinate the pledge and volunteer withdrawals, should the bishop decide that he wants to, um . . . come up with something that will allow him to demote the parish to a “mission.” So he could appoint the “mission committee” and expect that majority of the congregation to fall into line behind the “mission committee” and the embattled rector
But if the majority of the parish do believe the rector is harmful to the parish — and it’s certainly interesting that the bishop/rector are nervous over the vestry elections enough to announce that people who don’t agree with the bishop shouldn’t run for vestry — then there is *no way* that the parish will support a mission committee appointed by the bishop.
This is certainly going to be interesting.
I still predict that cooler heads will prevail. If the rift is deep and broad enough — various things will happen that will take care of it. And if the rift is merely a little clique of the dissatisfied then the majority of the parish will squash them eventually and the vestry elections that the bishop and rector are so nervous about will all turn out nicely.
I agree with Sarah’s point about the relevance of individual parish bylaws or other organizational documents. Regarding my reference to “under specified circumstancesâ€: I have not had occasion to study these matters in detail and may be overlooking something, but I am not aware of any provision for the dissolution of the vestry, by which Bishop Doyle appears to mean that he could simply remove the entire vestry. Article 6 of the diocesan constitution provides for the dissolution of a parish (not the vestry), which would ordinarily lead to the winding up of the parish. Such a dissolution of the parish would appear to require a vote at Diocesan Council, either a two-thirds vote by orders or, if the Bishop declares the parish “essentially defunctâ€, an ordinary majority.
Under canons 8.5 and 8.6, the occasions for reducing a parish to mission status appear to be (a) when the parish requests it, (b) when the parish is without a rector and the vestry fails without just cause to elect one for six months, (c) when the parish fails for five consecutive years to elect a vestry, to pay its assessments, to make canonically required reports or to provide for services of a minister at least quarterly, or (d) when the parish “fail[s] for one year to comply with the terms of its organization.†Bishop Doyle speaks in one sentence of the possibility of taking immediate action “that the congregation be put under his supervision as a mission†and in the next sentence of requesting the Standing Committee and the Council to reduce the parish to mission status. So perhaps by use of the passive voice in “that the congregation be put†and referring to a request to the Standing Committee and Council, he is saying in effect that he can’t or won’t take the action to remit to mission status action by himself. Still, it seems unclear what the basis for remission to mission status would be. There could also be a question of the consistency of some of the canonical provisions for remitting to mission status with the constitutional provision that seems to authorize remitting only for “dormant Parishes.â€
One reason it would seem Bishop Doyle would want to be careful and precise about what he says as to these matters is that, although Trinity Church is the immediate object, other parishes will also take note.
“And I would strongly doubt that every congregation in that parish in the last 82 years is/was a “clergy killer†too”.
There you would really need to understand the concept that a lot of smart people call “spiritual DNA”–luckily it’s rare, but it happens. One parish I’ve encountered has fought amongst itself and with its clergy ever since its founding in the late 19th century. I believe the current bishop is considering closing it(which would be a relief to that whole diocese).
“But it’s *possible* for either to happen, right?”
Yes–I for one have never disputed that.
I think people(including me) are trying to convey here that it is good to see a bishop actually trying to do something about this in a “full-disclosure” sort of way. I have seen and read of many people(both lay and clergy) who have an experience more like Larry’s in #17(Larry, I’m sorry and prayers for that) where, instead of engaging in conflict management, which is part of their job, bishops hide in their offices, hang out on the golf course, and/or refuse to spearhead or lead the problem-solving.
I realize that Sarah is speaking of a group of revisionist bishops who have “problem-solved” good traditional rectors right out of their liberal dioceses–been there, done that, seen that, too; BUT it is perhaps not fair to lump Bishop Doyle into that category as well, without evidence of that or “both sides of the story”.
I pray for people to be fair in these processes but we all know sometimes that people and life are not fair–BUT(again), theological stands have nothing to do with problem-solving and conflict management, and it is an unfair characterization to imply that Bishop Doyle couldn’t do conflict management because he, allegedly “is a revisionist”. One does not necessarily, and should not, have anything to do with the other.
“There is nothing like members of the club taking care of their own. Or in being confidently and bullyingly wrong…”
Ah, yes.
I’d agree with Chip #21 that a lot of this can stem from unawareness of the division of labor and responsibility, not to mention miscommunication or misrepresentation in the search process. “References” can also be tough, as some people live to say bad, untrue stuff about some people/clergy and some dysfunctional clergy can always find people to say good stuff about them. It’s good to cast a wide net and attempt to get a big picture. Yet false witness can still be absolutely rampant, which is a shame. Also in my experience, many(members, bishops, former priests, whoever) are reluctant to discuss “clergy killer” status–the diocese possibly because it’s trying to get a peg in its hole, and/or the fact that tons of people just can’t self-assess or discuss things they find “ugly”. But, “cover-up” and a lack of facing things eventually only makes it all worse.
And clergy are sometimes penalized(even in small ways) for the dysfunctional messes they inherit from preceding clergy. One rector I knew sat at his new church to chair his first vestry meeting–some of the vestry members freaked out, basically calling him a dictator and autocrat. The rector asked why this was, with the answer being that the previous rector(lazy as all get-out) allowed the senior warden to chair all the vestry meetings. So, rather than the new rector assuming power that was not his, he was just doing his job, which the previous rector was not doing. But, this was rather a wig-out until it got discussed. The person who truly created the problem was the previous rector, and of course, he was no longer there.
I would also agree that bishops certainly need to understand their own canons before acting. Prayers for all concerned in this parish in Texas. And, if it is true that it is an 82-year-old problem, then, yes, that’s an absolute mess and it may not change soon, if ever–like two other parishes I’ve seen who have never been able to shake their founding cultures. Sad…
subscribe
Recchip, I was a senior warden when this same mess occurred. The rector decided the vestry was not doing what he wanted it to do, so he decided that the canons allowed him to override the vestry in matters properly theirs. Senior warden or not, I fought this vigorously because a victory on his part meant that the vestry would be completely castrated. This internecine got out into the general congregation.People took sides. I got excommunicated out of hand, literally excommunicated (I didn’t even know that was possible). The congregation split into bitter warring parties. The bishop came, spoke to the whole congregation, and “circled the wagons”, saying that the canons were simply guidelines; that he himself could circumvent the canons if he found sufficient cause. And so it was for a pastor. You can imagine the result. I have never seen such concentrated venom.
I have no doubt there re two sides here, and i would like to hear the other one.
Posting as member of the parish.
Basically, in the three years of Rev. Atkins, attendance has fallen 20% and our finances have gone from $1,000,000 in pledges to just over $300,000. She is preaching social justice from the pulpit, has had over 100% staff turnover, has alienated virtually every lay ministry head, and all but refused to cooperate in the mediation process until forced to by *someone* above her. This is the 2nd oldest parish in the 4th largest city in the US. The building is on the state historical register.
Sounds like a congregation problem? If you want to read about our last rector, look up William Miller, now in the Diocese of Hawaii. Does it sound like he was the victim of a “clergy killer” parish?
Houston Trinitarian,
You have my sympathy. How would you describe the ecclesiastical DNA of the parish? Has there been a pattern of clergy theologically out of step with the body of parishioners?
And, if so, did the most recent search process raise no red flags?
Jeremy,
We are a commuter parish. The parish is located in a now-commercial, non-residential section of Houston. The parish’s members travel as far as 3 hours each way to worship there. For the most part, this “fight” hasn’t been about the spiritual side of the parish. It is a fight about who really “owns” a parish, the parishoners or the priest.
Most of the parish feels like they were sold a “bill of goods” by the search committee (which are her few supporters, strangely enough). We were told she was a gifted orator, spiritual leader, liturgical expert, and family-focused wife and mother. Without making a personal attack, I can only address the first three. Her sermons are available on the parish’s website. Judge for yourself. The mediator used a term similar to “spiritually comatose” to describe the current state of the parish under Rev. Atkins’ leadership. Services are a complete liturgical disaster, and the parish is what I would call a “mid-to-high” church in the liturgical needs. Parishioners still wear suit and tie to church, do all the Episcopal “calisthenics”, and participate in all ways that a highly traditional parish would expect.
One of the major problems that we, as a parish, have identified is that the search process was fundamentally flawed. We did not have a good representative sampling of the parish membership in an idealogical, liturgical, and philosophical sense. The search committee was mostly made up of those “willing to serve” and not those who “should” serve. We plan on correcting these issues the next time around.
She, as rector, has gone against the last requests of the deceased when it comes to their funeral wishes and forced herself into weddings (including my own) where she had little or no relationship with the bride or groom, both on more than one occasion. She claims these were all OK because “she is the rector and it is her privilege.”
Thanks for the enlightenment and, as I said, I don’t envy you. It sounds as though Bishop Doyle hasn’t grasped – or chooses not to grasp – what is really at issue. If he “resolves” it as he proposes – leaving aside the canonical dynamics – it doesn’t sound as if that would be a resolution.
On the wedding/funeral issue, although one feels that incumbents do have certain privileges – since they are ultimately responsible for the sacraments – but one would hope they would also know when to intervene and when not.
[quotemostly made up of those “willing to serve†and not those who “should†serve. We plan on correcting these issues the next time around.[/quote]
Bingo. Not gonna do family therapy on a blog, but if this indicative of the way the parish generally approaches things, then I can see where something like this (and its attendant symptoms: falling income, high turnover in staff, etc.) is inevitable. Actually, it’s inevitable, outside of grace and good luck, even if it isn’t how the parish normally operates. And if the DNA of the parish is to handle conflict in secret meetings, back biting, etc., then I think Bp. Doyle is entirely right. He doesn’t say, ‘stop all this conflictin’ going on…’ He says, ‘Stop doing it in an unhealthy way that breeds more conflict rather than finding a way forward.’ It sounds to me that there is a very clear conflict resolution procedure in place, and that some are choosing not to follow it. That’s the problem Bp. Doyle is wanting stopped, and it’s what ought to stop, frankly. It’s not like it’s working.
The rest is all mcguffin.
“She, as rector, has gone against the last requests of the deceased when it comes to their funeral wishes and forced herself into weddings (including my own) where she had little or no relationship with the bride or groom, both on more than one occasion”.
At least the latter, though, is what you set yourself up for when you have your wedding in the church where she is rector. There is nothing wrong, however, with politely requesting guest or adjunct/additional clergy. It is true that granting that request(or not) IS up to the rector. If you are unhappy with that outcome, then an alternative could be to have your wedding at another church or “neutral location” such as a garden or someone’s home, with the clergy of your choice.
Big prayers and I’m sorry, because I know it’s a hornet’s nest.
[blockquote] It sounds to me that there is a very clear conflict resolution procedure in place, and that some are choosing not to follow it. [/blockquote]
The conflict resolution policy came after the initial blowup. There wasn’t one in place because, honestly, the parish had no need until now. And the “conflict resolution committee” had been made up, through appointments by the rector, with her supporters. Who would feel comfortable coming to them with an issue?
33,
It’s a tough situation, and I don’t envy you or anyone else in the parish (prayers for all, btw!). If you don’t trust the rector/conflict resolution committee, then I’m going to go ahead and guess that they aren’t going to be very trusting of others in the parish, right? At some point, someone’s going to have to be the one to say, “Ok, well, in the interests of the parish, we’re going to make a good faith effort to resolve this via the process.” After all, your current strategy isn’t working very well, is it? She’s still the rector, the parish is declining and coming across very badly to the diocese and larger church, and the Bishop is threatening all sorts of things. You don’t have anything to lose, I suppose, is my point. If you do go via the conflict resolution route and it fails, then then onus is on the rector and her coterie, rather than on you.
34,
The major reason for the massive decline in the parish is that the people who have been hurt by the rector and those sympathetic to those who were hurt have quit going. Also, it just so happens that all of those same people are the big givers. That explains the drop in attendance and the drop in pledges. It also doesn’t help that, if you are a member of that “club”, you are personally attacked by her coterie [b]during[/b] the worship service. Who would want to try?
What do you have to lose? Serious question. Moreover, if you’re not willing to even attempt to resolve it, then there seems little to complain about, and, if you’ll excuse my candor, might be part of the on going pathology of the situation. In what other context would you expect to achieve something without making an effort?
Would it get to the bishop level if there hadn’t been attempts to resolve the problems? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. How much personal pain must you put yourself through before enough is enough? The people who have been hurt have each had mediation sessions with the rector and, mostly, left with no resolutions. Then, they are insulted by her minions during church services. When is enough enough?
Isaac,
I will assume that you are a well meaning person, perhaps in the parish, but perhaps not, but not directly involved in the sense of being one of the “mediators” or otherwise having taken sides in this dispute. Mediation is not mediation if the mediator is chosen by one side. One of the things the bishop’s letter and statements have done is to put the bishop on one side of this argument- and therefore the diocesan mediators (or those appointed by the rector) are not mediators, but negotiators working for the bishop’s (rector’s) side. They are clearly not coming at this from a neutral position. This does not mean these are not well meaning people. One of the most painful “mediations” I was part of (in another diocese, not to be confused with Texas) was “mediated” by a member of the bishop’s staff who I think of as a friend- and whatever disagreements we had, I think she was earnestly praying to find a mutually acceptable solution- but that meeting resulted in the resignations of both wardens- who were also friends of mine. There was no mutually acceptable solution.
It is clear that people of Trinity, Houston are first closing their pocketbooks, and then leaving altogether. The bishop is right when he thinks conflict is a bad thing in a parish. But what is not being recognized is that parish members must be taken as serious adults, and their concerns addressed, not by fiat, but by pastoral outreach. And pastoral outreach is not dropping into the church once a year to give a sermon telling them they need to get with the times and back the rector. The bishop’s job is the defense of the Faith, not its alteration. And I do not see much defense of the Faith in any of the documents presented by the bishop for the ENS article.
Prayers indeed for all involved, including the rector and the bishop.
As a member of Trinity, I am disappointed at the tone of the Bishop’s letter, as well as the comments supporting the Bishop’s letter without knowing the accuracy of his “facts.” I would like to point out that the Bishop did not “work with the leadership of Trinity” – the vestry has been polled and confirmed that he met with 2-3 vestry members, all who support the rector. I am also offended by his statement that our beloved church “has had conflicted relationships with every one of its rectors.” All churches have issues from time to time, and Trinity is no different, but this statement is simply not true. Finally, if Bishop Doyle is so concerned about Trinity, maybe he shouldn’t have allowed his offensive and inaccurate letter to go viral, and “air our dirty laundry.” If I were a new or potential member of Trinity, I would think twice about returning. Personally, I don’t have that luxury at this time as I love and am invested in this wonderful church. Time will tell. As membership dwindles, pledges decrease, and there are fewer and fewer friendly faces, it will no longer be the Trinity Church that I love. And in some small or large part, I will blame Bishop Doyle. He has abandoned us when we need him the most.
Supplementing my comments above, I note that TEC canon III.9.13(e) speaks of the ability of a bishop to recommend to the diocesan convention that a parish be placed under the bishop’s supervision as a mission. Based on legal issues and some less-than-clear language, there could be a disagreement about how this canon operates in relation to the diocese’s own canons for remitting to mission status. Nonetheless, it seems possible to observe the following:
• The procedure for rendering a judgment such as described in Bishop Doyle’s letter (sometimes called a godly judgment) is presumably intended to be the one contemplated by canon III.9.13. Under this canon, the procedure is set in motion by either the rector or the vestry (by majority vote) giving the bishop notice of a desire to dissolve the pastoral relation. The bishop’s letter contains a description of the background but it does not say whether this key step has ever occurred.
• If the differences are not resolved and the bishop is going to render a judgment, under the canon the judgment is supposed to be rendered only after the bishop confers with and receives the recommendation of the standing committee. And prior to that, the parties are entitled, if they wish, to present their positions fully in a conference with the standing committee. Have these things happened, or is the bishop simply announcing in advance a predetermined judgment he will render without receiving the information the canon provides and observing the due process it requires?
• Further, assuming that remitting the parish to mission status is an “available sanction†if the vestry were to refuse to comply with the term of the judgment (which assumption may be disputed), this becomes an issue only if the bishop issues a canonically supportable judgment and the vestry fails to comply with it. Why such an outcome should be threatened and public accusations of bad behavior and backbiting are thought warranted at this point is questionable. In any case, the bishop would need the approval of the assembled diocesan council to carry out any plan to reduce the parish to mission status.
• No basis is stated or apparent for the bishop’s claims the he may unilaterally remove vestry members or even the entire vestry. Making such claims unfortunately may be regarded as reminiscent of canonical abuses by the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops majority in connection with action taken against other bishops. Loose talk about firing elected vestries risks not only exacerbating the situation at Trinity, but also heightening already existing concerns elsewhere about stability looking forward.
Rules are good if people voluntarily follow them or if there is a good way to enforce them. Otherwise they are worthless.
Mike Watson – talk about “exacerbating the situation at Trinity”!! Bishop Doyle’s comments have done just that, although I assume he was anticipating the opposite would occur. Members who had no idea what has been going on are now questioning our chuch and are shocked at the Bishop’s tone in his letter and his sermon last Sunday. Coffee hour was definitely interesting on Sunday. I talked to a wonderful, relatively new member who had been asked to consider running for the vestry – after the Bishop’s sermon and letter, he said in no way would he put himself in that situation.
“Every church should have a written conflict resolution procedure and access to trained, impartial mediators who are not part of the church/denomination experiencing the conflict, but are nonetheless experienced in dealing with the special circumstances of church conflict; i.e., Christians acting in a non-Christian manner”.
Yes, be they lay or clergy or anyone with an unhinged, overblown need to be “right”, even to the point of deconstructively editing germane comments in order to spin the arguments in one’s favor.
Good consultants are invaluable, if dioceses have the guts to use them.