A simmering, months-long conflict between congregants at Kalamazoo’s St. Luke’s Episcopal Church and church officials reached a boiling point Sunday, with a police report filed against the pastor for allegedly shoving an elderly parishioner.
The Rev. Jay R. Lawlor was accused of pushing Marcia Morrison, 76, whose family owns Morrison Jewelers, during a heated discussion about recent events at the church. A witness said Morrison was not injured in the incident, which occurred immediately after Sunday morning’s service.
The Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety confirmed that a police report was filed. Neither Lawlor nor Morrison could be reached for comment Sunday.
The Rev. Jay R. Lawlor born Exeter NH 3/27/1970, BA Stonehill College 1993, MA U Conn 1995, MDiv EDS 2002, deacon 2002, priest 2003 Bishop Shaw of Mass. Asst Grace New Bedford MA 2002-03, Asst St. George’s Ardmore PA 2003-05, R St Pauls Exton PA 05-08, Asst Nativity Raleigh 2008-. Married 2002 children 1, author _Get Up Off Your Knees, Preaching the U2 Catalog_ Cowley 2003.
Thanks Tom for posting this. Doesn’t look like Fr Jay stays very long at any one parish. Given the track record, he should be leaving in no more than three years
In my view, Bishop Gepert is a kind yet sensible Friedman devotee who will deal appropriately with parish conflict.
I believe the hierarchy will hold up the mirrors as objectively as possible, but priest AND parish will have to live with that.
Prayers…
I would guess plenty of people have been shoved by a rector or warden since 2003. I have been, and I’m pretty docile; they just don’t like what I have to say about TEC. If you could file a police report for verbal abuse, the authorities would be overwhelmed. BTW, in my diocese, the former bishop wouldn’t have cared. I can’t say how the new one would react.
The February 2011 parish newsletter has the 2010 financial report, stating, “our regular giving categories of Pledge, Non-pledge and Loose Offerings have suffered this year. Respectively they are 85%, 82% and 70% of what was originally budgeted. It has been necessary to utilize $100,629.25 of our unrestricted Bequest Fund resources to cover our operating expenses. This is $56,362.32 more than the $44,266.93 originally budgeted.”
It looks like the 2010 budget for pledges was $483,119. Later on, the newsletter reports that 2011 pledges amount to $228,947.
Wow.
Slightly off topic but going with what Ralph wrote in #5: Among the problems, what are some of the consequences of living off a large unrestricted Bequest Fund?
#6
There is that much less for TEC to take when the Conservatives are run off.
From the little nuggets in that article, that sounds like a pretty dysfunctional place all the way around. The current rector behavioral fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg it sounds.
As TEC’s resources dwindle, look for more conflict to become manifested at every level, local parish, diocese and at 815. Money can be used to wallpaper over cracks in the plaster, but it doesn’t last long. If the walls are cracked, usually the foundation is giving way. Don’t address the walls until the foundation is secured.
I knew Jay for a time in seminary, and I believe that the story is probably overblown, and the situation exaggerated by people’s irritation and fear because of other issues and a desire to strike out, but feeling helpless. He is not very large, and I cannot think of him running like a “football player” through a line of people. I knew him as a gentle soul. Regardless, I hate this, and I hate the publicity for the church, and I hate that we are fighting each other and not the world, the flesh, and the devil…
Fascinating . . .
[blockquote]The troubles at the church began about two years ago, Fritz and Breisach said, when Lawlor became the new rector. Parishioners had numerous complaints about his interpersonal skills and church attendance dropped off dramatically, Fritz said. In September, the lay board turned to the bishop, who brought in people to conduct an investigation of the church’s problems. The conclusion of that investigation: St. Luke’s was “deeply dysfunctional,†both in its finances and its relationships.
Fritz said the congregation was shocked. “We did not recognize ourselves in that report,†she said.
On Thursday, Gepert notified church members in a five-page letter that his “godly judgment†was to dissolve the lay board, appoint a new six-member board, and put Lawlor on a four-month leave of absence, with Gepert assuming his duties during that time.
â€The terms of this godly judgment will continue until I am satisfied the conflict is resolved,†Gepert wrote. “Further resistance and lack of cooperation, including movement of funds unauthorized by myself,†will result in declaring St. Luke’s a mission church, putting it under indefinite direct control of the diocese.[/blockquote]
RE: “â€It’s very painful,†said Marti Fritz, who had been a member of the 12-member vestry, which is the church’s lay board. “We’re all in shock and disbelief, and we’re struggling to figure out where to go from here.â€
Oh I can tell laity where to go from here.
— continue redirecting your pledge dollars to an alternate non-profit entity that is a nice holding place
— continue attending Sunday worship and smiling happily
— continue meeting off-campus with your friends and allies for nice meals and coffee and discussion
— discuss among yourselves where your rector search process went wrong so that this won’t be repeated
— wait patiently for the bishop to declare your parish “a mission” if he pleases — the diocese will have to support it financially if he does, so good luck to the bishop
— if he doesn’t please — if he thinks you’re smiling enough and doesn’t learn about your off-campus meetings and doesn’t feel as if you’re not paying enough toll, he’ll try to slip the rector back in after the four months
— that’s the point to kick up yet another fuss
— BUT . . . if he does so, the parish won’t be able to fund the rector anyway — after all, you’re redirecting money to the nice handy non-profit
Let the bishop call the shots.
He can 1) make the parish a mission and support it financially through the diocese — and you can keep on attending worship or 2) he can keep the parish a parish and *continue* trying to force you to accept the rector — in which case you just continue on attending worship and not pledging or 3) he can sack the rector per your request and allow you folks to continue on.
It’s really his choice — but the laity can influence quite strongly by simply continuing to hold fast and do what needs to be done.
Wow, what a treat for Jesus. Such things will continue to happen in TEC churches. TEC has lost it’s theological moorings and will continue to drift and diminish.
Wow, this is really sad.
#11, I think the number one thing that the laity at this parish should do is pray. I think everything else takes a far back seat to that, in my opinion. More importantly than trying to make any of the “statements” you suggest, I would encourage them to attend to their own spiritual well-being. “Worshipping with a smile on the face” doesn’t always suffice.
Rev. Lawlor inherited a parish in decline in 2009. For 2002 through 2009, St. Luke had lost 42 percent of Members, had lost 29 percent of ASA and had lost 20 percent of Plate & Pledge (inflation adjusted). And the diocese had a tough experience during 2002 through 2009 with losses of 21 percent in Members, 18 percent in ASA, and 16 percent in Plate & Pledge (inflation adjusted). Also, the diocese had to sell the cathedral. Bishop Gepert could not have picked a worst year to take over Western Michigan than 2002. But in 2009, the diocese was still in fairly good shape with 34 of its 57 churches with ASA of 66 or less and 17 churcches with Plate & Pledge of over $150K. For the longer term, the 2002 through 2009 stats look dismal with Marriages down 40 percent and Infant Baptisms down 44 percent. Statmann
This sad situation also happened to a dear clergy friend of mine. He was asked to leave his parish, which was eventually the best thing that ever happened to him. The postlude included a PhD psychologist reviewing the situation. To sum up and/or paraphrase, she concluded that:
1) The priest should be getting his own PhD in pastoral counseling at the local, wonderful Christian university; and
2) It might have behooved everyone involved to analyze the church; which, once the diocese took a close look at its own statistics, was found to have had 17 clergymen through its doors in 20 years. Quite a feather in one’s cap, that… :-/
Laity are within their rights to engage in “off-campus, nice meals, coffee, and discussion” but a lot of smart, savvy Christians would consider that window-dressing for destructive gossip. And, the reality is that, long-term, you shoot yourselves in the foot. Such tactics are pronounced reasons why a lot of excellent clergy seek secular employment. If you have the guts to say what you say at an off-site dinner table, you should have the guts to say it to the priest’s face, to an objective consultant trying to gather data to improve the situation, to the bishop, to the Vestry, or at all-parish meetings.
RE: “And, the reality is that, long-term, you shoot yourselves in the foot.”
Not at all — *reality* is that you happily go on to actual functional clergy.
RE: “Such tactics are pronounced reasons why a lot of excellent clergy seek secular employment.”
Some of whom definitely *should* seek secular employment.
RE: “If you have the guts to say what you say at an off-site dinner table, you should have the guts to say it to the priest’s face . . . ”
Agreed about criticism — and it’s quite obvious that that’s already been accomplished to no avail. No — the purpose of off-campus meetings is to agree on unified strategy — and there’s no need to share strategy with the worthy opponent who gets to engage in private strategic sessions with *his* ally — the bishop.
But then — we don’t agree about clergy/laity/bishop activities as a whole, as our last discussion about this demonstrated. The bishop is, apparently, always right when supporting an embattled clergyman.
“The bishop is, apparently, always right when supporting an embattled clergyman”.
Do you believe that? I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. Conflict management skills are exceedingly rare, but Bishop Gepert is someone who does have them in abundance. I know him personally.
Destructive gossip-fests billed as “strategy-sessions” appears a self-serving, guilt-avoiding misnomer.
But, like everything else, it’s “informed consent”. Seems I’m not the only one with a problem with “strategy” like this:
Ephesians 4:29
Romans 1:28-32
1 Timothy 5:13
Proverbs 11:9
Proverbs 21:23
Proverbs 6:12-15 speaks of those participating in such things as eventually being “broken beyond healing”, not a condition I want for any human.
Matthew 12:36-37 basically labels all of us as accountable for our words.
I wonder about the spiritual and mental health of constantly seeing lay-clergy-episcopal relations as adversarial. It’s not a place I like to go, and luckily I have not had to “go there” very often.
“Not at all—*reality* is that you happily go on to actual functional clergy”.
Not always–some parishes remain embroiled in conflict no matter who the clergy is. And, that statement rather speaks of a Machiavellian end-game; a bad idea in my view; William Penn nailed that one:
“To do evil that good may come of it is for bunglers in politics as well as morals”.
‘Nuff said.
Yup, to continue to fund evil is for bunglers.
Bookworm, are you sure you are talking about the same Bishop Gepert? The one who is reviled by congregants and clergy throughout the Diocese for the high-handed way he exercises his authority? This congregation, and others, have tried repeatedly to have their voices heard. These efforts have been rebuffed. A misapplication of Friedman by a handful of emotionally unstable “leaders” has caused great pain to many in this Diocese.
In an effort to find some common ground, it is obvious that lay pictures are colored by bad clergy experiences, and clergy pictures are colored by bad lay experiences. I am sorry about both. But it is true that I will always disavow the gossip route, because I’ve seen it used abundantly and destructively, way more often than I’ve seen psycho clergy, in my 43 years of doing church. 🙂
A small sample, but I can think of 4 false-accusation cases just off the top of my head. In these(3 clergy, 1 lay minister), one lost a position, and two kept their positions. Two had to threaten legal action to get the rumors/troublemaking to stop. In the fourth case, a friend of mine told a story from a church of hers, where two older adolescent boys accused a priest of some form of inappropriate sexual conduct. An investigation began; the priest killed himself. ~Two years later, one of the boys came forward, saying that he “couldn’t live with the guilt anymore” and they had cooked the whole story up, allegedly because they were upset with the priest about a cancelled youth trip. I believe I’ve discussed this before, and I’d imagine the “confession” was no comfort to the priest’s widow and children. I’ve told a lot of people that I can live with the Fall and a broken humanity, but as humans we sometimes need to make effort to be a little less broken.
Bear in mind that many clergy issues have been dealt with over the years by having a stringent psychiatric evaluation as part of the ordination process. That is a good thing. I’ve met some fantastic clergy in the last 10-15 years, and most before that weren’t so bad, either.
But lay people do not have to undergo psychiatric evaluation(which, true, is not “foolproof”, if you’ll excuse the pun) prior to darkening the door of a church. And excommunication/discipline is a sticky wicket, especially if one rightfully views the church as a “hospital for sinners”. But, how much destruction is enough, on either side? Do bishops, priests, or lay people have the guts to ask the unsatisfiable or difficult to leave or find another church? In my experience, not usually. So far, I have never seen a bishop with the guts to excommunicate anyone(laity) and stick to it. But, I have seen two priests rightfully refuse Communion, and the local bishop backed them up–one was a case of flagrant adultery with no thought of the hurt inflicted on the other partners, church, or the children involved; and one was a case of two members who, for various reasons, COULD NOT get along, and the priest asked them to attend separate services. They agreed, and one showed up at the “wrong” service in defiance of the request, and just to make the other party uncomfortable. The priest refused Communion until the other person mended his ways and thus eventually took Communion at the other service. But I have found this sort of discipline, in a word, “rare”, even if it may have been called-for.
I have met a lot of fantastic clergy and laity. It helps a lot when clergy are self-aware and have a strong sense of their own gifts and talents, and churches are also clear with themselves and the clergy(in the search process) about where they “are” and where they want to go. But, when things are or end up a mismatch, I can only hope and pray that people try as hard as possible to take apart such a “marriage” in a no-fault, amicable, fair sort of way. I’ve seen it the other way, from both sides, and the destruction is no good for anybody.
And when/if parishes reach the ridiculous, heinous state of, say, 17 priests in 20 years, and bishops are taking a good look at “probation” and possible closing, then I’ll sleep even better at night. The less people have a deathgrip on dysfunction like that, the better.
And prayers for the church, clergy, and bishop in Western Michigan.
To answer #18, “emotionally-unstable” and “high-handed leadership” is not my experience of +Gepert. I’m sorry for your pain. Is there another, more objective third-party that you feel like you can appeal to if needed? If a consultant comes to your church, you also have every right to discuss diocesan/episcopal concerns with that person, regardless of who is paying him/her. I’ve seen at least two fearless consultants tell bishops what they didn’t want to hear, even when the bishops were signing their checks.
You’re probably not going to like this, but I have also heard(in essence) the labels “autocratic” and “unstable” applied to clergy actually doing their jobs by lay people not getting their way. I am not a constituent in Western Michigan, so I cannot accurately discern where the truth lies.
Prayers…
I believe that there have been repeated, rejected requests for third-party intervention in the various conflicts. But the Friedman narrative (at least as applied in this Diocese) is that the more resistance the leadership experiences, the more righteous is their path. Therefore, they press on, ultimately destoring the system, rather than making it healthier, more functional and most importantly, more loving (in an agape sense). Friedman anchors his paradigm on a “well-differentiated” leader, who has done the hard and painful work of fully understanding their role in their own birth family system. Without this, the Friedmanite leader can easily become a petty tyrant, completely disconnected from the members of the congregation. Especially those with whom they have conflicts. This is how I see what’s happened in WMich, and how a rector can be become so enraged he shoves an antagonistic elderly parishioner. It’s all very sad.
I can’t speak to the “rejection of third-party intervention”, but it would be even more difficult if this was done because of financial(ie, lack of funds) reasons. I have seen retired clergy with tons of experience consult for reduced rates or, occasionally, gratis. But, obviously both parties(or all three, if you count the diocese) have to consent to intervention, and then participate in it.
I understand the Friedman-ology, and I agree that it is sad. Prayers again…
RE: “I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly.”
Really? Coulda fooled me, because whenever a conflict arises between a congregation and a priest — you take the priest’s side *as long as you know or suspect it’s not a matter of liberal theology*.
RE: “Conflict management skills are exceedingly rare, but Bishop Gepert is someone who does have them in abundance.”
Who cares? Conflict management skills have nothing to do with whether Bishop Gepert is right or wrong in his interesting actions which apparently are supposed to demonstrate his “conflict management skills.”
Threats and bullying don’t demonstrate “conflict management skills.” But so far, you’re on record as appreciating that — *as long as it’s a bishop supporting a clergyperson against laity*.
RE: “Destructive gossip-fests billed as “strategy-sessions†appears a self-serving, guilt-avoiding misnomer.”
Well — only if the strategy sessions are actually “destructive gossip-fests.” But if you prefer to rename them that way, be my guest — not really my concern.
RE: “I wonder about the spiritual and mental health of constantly seeing lay-clergy-episcopal relations as adversarial.”
Yeh — me too. But since it’s only the actual *adversarial* relationships that are, you know, *adversarial*, I’m not sure why you’re wasting your time on that here on this thread when, you know, the “relations” actually are demonstrably “adversarial.”
[snip irrelevant to the topic of strategy sessions scripture passages thrown in as filler by Bookworm]
RE: “This congregation, and others, have tried repeatedly to have their voices heard. These efforts have been rebuffed.”
Hi Fencejumper — thanks for popping in, whoever you are. I figured somebody would. And yeh . . .we all figured that had happened with Bishop Gepert.
Keep the faith.
“Coulda fooled me, because whenever a conflict arises between a congregation and a priest—you take the priest’s side *as long as you know or suspect it’s not a matter of liberal theology*.”
My attempt at common ground in #19 obviously didn’t process. I haven’t said a word about Fr. Lawlor, and I don’t know all the facts in this case. I would imagine it does not bode well for the parish that the consultant did not give it a good review, but I also have no idea of knowing whether or not that is accurate. In #3 I stated that both priest and parish would basically have to deal with having their behaviors reviewed. Prayers again for all concerned…
In the past I have seen Bishop Gepert, in another parish, keep a good lid on the conflict there.
It is an inaccurate fool’s game to automatically assume that all bishops are bullies who make threats, and all bishops automatically take the clergy’s side–they don’t. I remember a recent case where the hierarchy appeared to take the church’s side, and it was the consultant who took the priest’s side. The consultant was ultimately found to be “right”, and the lay behaviors were by no means pristine and guileless; quite the contrary, in fact.
Scripture is never “irrelevant filler”, unless you’re looking to dismiss it.
I don’t have any problem conceding when clergy are wrong; I’ve seen that. But you have a horrible time conceding that people like Fr. Maynard can have a valid point-of-view, or even be right.
RE: “It is an inaccurate fool’s game to automatically assume that all bishops are bullies who make threats, and all bishops automatically take the clergy’s side—they don’t.”
Oh, I agree. But issuing public draconian threats makes one a bully — and Bishop Gepert has done just that.
RE: “Scripture is never “irrelevant fillerâ€, unless you’re looking to dismiss it.”
Sure it can be — when a priest has randomly inserted passages in the midst of an exchange that has nothing to do with any of the topics.
Here — let me show you:
Genesis 4:29
I Corinthians 1:28-32
Psalms 5:13
Ephesians 11:9
Deuteronomy 21:23
See how simple that was?
What one must think of a priest who misuses Scripture in that fashion can be a nice topic for private reflection.
RE: “I don’t have any problem conceding when clergy are wrong; I’ve seen that.”
That’s great — neither do I. Same with laity. Same with bishops.
RE: “But you have a horrible time conceding that people like Fr. Maynard can have a valid point-of-view, or even be right.”
Ah — you just added another great example for my thesis about you — and one that I wasn’t even thinking of.
And sir — I *knew* Father Maynard, and I know precisely why he went away from *my* parish.
We all get a good chuckle out of his little books.
Wow–sadly, there’s A LOT that’s not processing here.
Re: “public draconian threats”, the bishop’s statement was surely public, but converting a parish to mission status is not a draconian threat, it’s a fact, and can fall under the bishop’s authority(although I believe that, diocese by diocese, the canonical conditions under which the bishop/diocese make that determination vary). Whether or not the bishop/diocese wants to(possibly) bear the burden of putting this parish into mission status is up to them, not to mention deciding whether or not it is “right” to do so. Someone like me(or you, for that matter) is not privy to all the supporting(or non-supporting) data in that sort of parish conversion.
Or, are you saying that you’re someone who wants a bishop to have authority, but not exercise it? There is surely a difference between exercising authority and abuse of power, but the latter is NOT always the former. Bishops are not, and should not be, straw-man puppet “leaders” for all of us to control. I’d say the same for priests.
All the Scripture I referenced is germane, but you’d have to read it to see that, like it or not. I won’t “prose” them all, but Ephesians 4:29 is a good start:
“Ephesians 4:29 (English Standard Version)
29(A) Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give(B) grace to those who hear”.
And instruction is by no means a “misuse” of Scripture; it’s its main purpose to begin with.
If you have something you’d like to share, that I don’t know, re: Maynard+, then I’d invite you to “spill it”, rather than playing “I’ve got a secret” or repeatedly dangling a carrot. As, for you, he is an unreliable source, that’s fine–you could also read any of the following:
Clergy Killers(Rediger)
Antagonists in the Church(Haugk)
Well-Intentioned Dragons: Ministering to Problem People in the Church(Shelley)
Or are all those guys “suspect”, too?
Some of them, as well, are not real enamored of off-site “strategy sessions” that often devolve into destructive gossip-fests, unwarranted hatchet-jobs, and plot-and-scheme. But, if you’re comfortable with those, that’s your choice. My preference is to keep my opinions direct, and all my actions out in the open. Turning church life into a bad case of “Conspiracy Theory” is un-Christian and not for me. And, if I met stonewalls at every turn, then perhaps God is calling me to another church.
I’m quickly flying by the seat of my pants, but I’ve probably been close, in some shape or form, to about 10 clergy in the Church. None, luckily for me, were drunks, bullies, lechers, idiots, or any other negative noun. I remember one being asked to leave, because he unfortunately became distant to his flock and was somewhat pastorally neglectful. But, he was not mean. In my experience, the difficult hats were worn by lay people. Paranoids, histrionics, nitpickers, borderlines, narcissists, peacocks, whiners, bulldozers, you name it. And their(and God’s) churches have gone on, but sadly not as well as they could, and ONLY if there were other healthy laity in their midst willing to help the priest neutralize them, OR to neutralize them FOR the priest. I’ve met a lot who, not only should be going to church regularly(and possibly confessing their sins a little more loudly than others), they should also be going to an excellent psychiatrist and therapist, but they are not. They might make things interesting and colorful, but they usually hinder the spread of the Gospel and the work of the Church. Maybe there are clergy like that out there, too, but I have been lucky enough NOT to run across them.
I truly pray that you do not experience the brand of animus demonstrated on these blogs in your personal life. Pollyanna I’m not, but I’d much rather people were happy humans. Would that I lived closer and we could run out for coffee; I don’t have horns growing out of my head and I imagine, neither do you. 🙂
But, sorry to say, I think your “thesis” is shot to the bad place. I’m a lay person, and I’m a girl, just as you are.
May you have a reflective Lent, and a very Happy Easter…
Blessings,
BW