Bonnie Anderson Writes the House of Deputies about recent TEC Communications and Issues

Dear Deputies and First Alternates:

A confusing situation has arisen and I’d like to set the record straight:

On Thursday, the Presiding Bishop released a video directed to the House of Deputies expressing her opinion about legislative issues that will come before General Convention this summer. Yesterday, the Office of Communications sent an email to bishops that mischaracterized my response to the video’s release and asked the bishops to forward the video message to their diocese’s deputies.
On Thursday afternoon, I received word from the General Convention Office that the Presiding Bishop, via the Office of Communications, had directed that office to forward a video message from the Presiding Bishop to all deputies. I had neither seen the video nor been consulted about it and so I told the General Convention Office to hold it.

In my nearly 25 years as a deputy, I don’t ever recall the Presiding Bishop speaking directly to the House of Deputies outside of a joint session or without giving the House due notice, while at General Convention. I don’t ever recall a Presiding Bishop corresponding directly with deputies outside of the General Convention, without the knowledge of, or in collaboration with the President.

I was surprised because I thought that the Presiding Bishop, her staff, and I had worked through some important issues of internal communications last fall. I had talked with both Bishop Sauls and the Presiding Bishop and asked that we proceed in a more collegial and cooperative manner. I thought we had agreed to do so.

But while the General Convention Office was holding the video, it was released by the Office of Communications to the whole church just hours before the Presiding Bishop and I were scheduled to arrive in Baltimore where we could have resolved the situation in person.

I am glad to tell you that, while we have been in Baltimore, Bishop Katharine and I have shared a meal and talked in person. I told her that I’m disappointed about what’s happened in the last few days and asked that we proceed toward General Convention with collegiality and a cooperative spirit even””especially””when we disagree. I also told her that I am concerned about the use of churchwide resources to lobby General Convention on only one side of a legislative issue.

Despite this productive conversation, upon direction from the Presiding Bishop, the Office of Communications sent the second email, this time to bishops, that mischaracterized my request that the video be held, thus putting me in a difficult position and making it necessary to spell all of this out.

I am confident that we can get back on track and work productively and faithfully to prepare for General Convention. I will continue to urge that those of us who lead the church talk directly with one another to resolve differences. I will also continue to ask that the resources of the Church Center be deployed in ways that present the full range of opinions on legislation that will determine how the church meets the challenges before us.

Thank you for your commitment to our work. I am looking forward to being with all of you in Indianapolis and to the work that we will accomplish together.

Peace,

[Ms.] Bonnie Anderson, President, The House of Deputies

print
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), House of Deputies President, Presiding Bishop

3 comments on “Bonnie Anderson Writes the House of Deputies about recent TEC Communications and Issues

  1. Milton says:

    Bonnie Anderson is, if nothing else, politically astute, in contrast to KJS’ clueless heavy-handedness and going behind people’s backs. Anderson has taken the high road while subtly stating KJS has done the opposite. Too bad her shrewdness is not in service of the Gospel.

  2. cseitz says:

    The letter she takes issue with says that distribution of the video via HOD listserve was not permitted.
    She speaks of mischaracterization but does not explain just what that is. Did she say it would not be distributed and if so, why not?
    I don’t find this letter very clarifying, beyond saying someone did something she did not like. Fine. But the letter she responds to says that the video was not going to be permitted release. Is that so?

  3. David Keller says:

    Dr. S–It must have been because I watched it on Stand Firm. BTW, it was awful.