Marti Fritz has put her heart and soul into St. Luke’s Episcopal Church for 30 years.
She sings in the choir, served twice on the lay board, raised her children in the congregation. Her husband is the church archivist. The ashes of Fritz’s mother and sister are in the church’s memorial wall.
“It’s really my home,” Fritz said of the church.
Right now, it’s a home in turmoil.
From what I am gleaning from all this, this appears to be a community that is dysfunctional all around.
The clerics in the midst of this mess OBVIOUSLY do not love the people to whom they purport to minister. Sounds like neither the new Rector nor the Bishop don’t know how to get things done without making power-plays that smack of arrogance. They both clearly lack patience and pastoral sensitivity. The body of the faithful in a place are NOT peons to be governed by outside intruders (aka new Rector and Bishop) who presume they know better than the people who live there and have run things just fine for over 170 years. If the Rector wants to get things to change he ought to do so by evolutionary means. Seduction is always better than assault in this kind of situation. As to finances… he ought to bless his lucky stars that the congregation is rich enough to pay for everything and make a profit when investment income is included.
One data point might be the length of tenure of past priests.
And I’d agree with the reasonable lady who said
“However I feel about Jay Lawlor as a priest,†she said, “think about the situation he was in — he was told to summarily dismiss part of the staff and go back and face everybody for one last Sunday, a whole church full of people who were upset and angry.
“What a horrible thing for him. Why would the bishop put him in that position?â€
It might have been wiser to put the priest on immediate paid leave, then either the bishop or the CTTO conducts worship services the following Sunday, until an interim(even a four-month one) or priest-in-charge is selected. Monday-morning quarterbacking, to be sure, but that could have served a goal of dialing down the immediate animus, and prevented the “shoving” allegation, with its consequent “they said, he said”.
Prayers all around; it’s a sticky wicket. But I’d also tangentially add that it doesn’t pay to blame the actions of the bishop on the priest.
Ah . . . and now we get the real issue between bishop and parish. How much clearer the picture is with this one sentence:
[blockquote]But St. Luke’s had an ongoing dispute with the diocese over two matters — the church’s contribution toward diocese operations and the diocese’s requirement for using a certain health insurance plan for church employees — and that appeared to color the investigation.[/blockquote]
So when “more than 140 parishioners wrote to Lawlor, the bishop or the vestry about the rector” it looks as if this turned into a fine opportunity for the bishop to get his pound of flesh, form an alliance with the priest, and force compliance on any number of matters.
What a mess.
Note in the letter how hopeful the bishop is that certain individuals will choose to leave the parish.
I’m hopeful that the bishop will not get his wish and that not one person will leave.
What is a bishop when he hopes that certain individuals leave? What has he become? I am sure it is a hard job and there are days when the rub is just too much but glad of a parishioners leaving?
160 Grace Grand Rapids parishioners signed a petition to the Prsiding Bishop asking for a third-party invention at their parish. I believe Bishop Gepert would like all those people to leave, too, and most have.
I’d agree with the “mess” assessment.
“But St. Luke’s had an ongoing dispute with the diocese over two matters — the church’s contribution toward diocese operations and the diocese’s requirement for using a certain health insurance plan for church employees — and that appeared to color the investigation.
So when “more than 140 parishioners wrote to Lawlor, the bishop or the vestry about the rector†it looks as if this turned into a fine opportunity for the bishop to get his pound of flesh, form an alliance with the priest, and force compliance on any number of matters”.
It may be unwise to infer the bishop’s motives if one has not spoken with him.
I don’t see the health insurance “thing” as unusual; we in our diocese have options as to the type of plan, but not re: who holds the plan, unless we opt out.
The assessment is between the diocese and the parish, and it is usually based on the parish’s budget and ASA. For various and sundry reasons, I’d imagine a well-endowed parish could still balk at paying its assessment; that wouldn’t put them on the diocese’s Christmas card list, but the bishop going on the warpath because of that could be imprudent. This is probably happening all over the country, especially if parishes are not happy with the diocese’s direction or theology. As robroy said on another thread, expect to see more of the same. Sad…
I do not know Fr. Lawlor or his work. I have, in the past, seen priests sound their death knells because pastoral care was not their strong suit. When some dislike doing it at all, I wonder they are even priests. One successful solution I’ve seen is making sure SOMEBODY on staff does it, e.g. a deacon, and/or having a good LPV or Stephen’s Minister program. It’s great to be academic/liturgical/theological in a lot of ways, but pastoral care is unavoidable in parish ministry. Those who find it difficult often make excellent professors, upon completing their PhDs.
Prayers for all; especially the consultants who will have to sort out both sides of this story, and deal with the fallout.