Is the Diocese of Texas next in line for 'leaving' TEC?
I am sad to report that some of the prominent drivers of the latest effort to divide and conquer the Episcopal Church from within, namely the Communion Partners, are based here in the Diocese of Texas. I am also sad to report, but also hopeful in the long run, that the Diocese of Texas seems primed to address a motion to 'dissociate' from the Episcopal Church. Our retiring bishop (thanks be to God for mandatory retirement rules!) has signed his name to yet another divisive and utterly foolish bit of un-Anglican word-smithing.
Our new bishop, currently bishop coadjutor, is said by the "Rector of the Communion Partners rectors" to be another Communion Partners bishop. Certainly, he has openly identified himself as sympathetic to the Gafcon bishops' communiqué issued alternatively to the Report of the last Lambeth Conference. He has clearly allied himself to the self-proclaimed 'conservatives' declaring that he will never allow clergy in this diocese to bless same-sex unions or gay persons who are either partnered or dating to function in the diocese as clergy.
One wonders what will happen when, inevitably, the Church, meeting General Convention, decides finally to canonize a full and active non-discrimination policy extending from consideration for Holy Orders all the way to ordination itself and deployment as clergy. It is almost certain that the Church has learned from its well-intentioned mistake of the past, when it allowed for a 'conscience clause' to accommodate dioceses and bishops who resented the Church's' decision to recognize God's call to people who were (gasp!) women. That conscience clause resulted in exactly the opposite of what it was intended to accomplish. It validated discrimination that the Church had decided to reject. In retrospect, it would have been better, in my humble opinion, if the Church had not passed 'women's ordination' at all if it couldn't pass it without appeasing the bigots.
Given the likelihood that the Church will not try appeasement again, I suggest people inside and outside the Diocese of Texas keep an eye on us down here. The environment here is ripe for the dissidents' next attempt at a 'departure' in the name of 'orthodoxy.' A major part of the environment of which I speak is a deeply embedded culture here that has had diocesan bishops deferring for decades to the influence of two wealthy congregations in Houston, both of them long known here as centers for discontent toward the Episcopal Church, one now headed by the self-titled "Rector for Communion Partners rectors." One or both of these will, I predict, be the home for the motion for this diocese to 'leave the Episcopal Church.' A second, more broadly recognizable characteristic is the diocesan culture is great deference to the whim and will of the diocesan bishop.
People have been telling me for years, ‘Jim, this is the Diocese of Texas: what the bishop wants, the bishop gets.’ I think I finally understand what they've been trying to communicate. My observations of diocesan councils over the last twelve years have brought me to understand that while Council may give the appearance of a deliberative body, nevertheless with only the most rare exception, some unwritten rules apply.
First, if a diocesan committee reports a proposal with a positive recommendation, this usually means that the bishop favors its adoption. If the bishop disapproves of a certain proposal, the committee will likely learn of this well in advance of submitting its formal report for publication, and then not recommend said proposal. Second, if the bishop expresses any disapproval of a particular resolution or amendment, Council will very, very likely not pass the proposal.
If we in the Diocese of Texas can recognize these two basic rules, I think we will find valuable direction for future Councils here. We need not continue to waste valuable time with the pretense of deliberation, which is actually not possible in the current format where caucuses are not allowed, real discussion cannot take place, not genuine debate. We can instead further abbreviate Council by simply asking ourselves before each vote, ‘Is the bishop against this proposal?’ Unless the bishop gives some overt and explicit sign of disfavor towards it, we should vote in favor. And the pep rally portion of Council, already supplanting the legislative meeting, can be well-represented via the diocesan center web site, links to You-Tube videos, and in our diocesan newspaper.
Looking back on my participation in Councils of recent years, I confess my regret. I truly regret any part that I played in preventing the proposed change to the accession clause of our diocesan constitution that describes our accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Our retiring bishop clearly was at the time in favor of altering our accession, and has now signed onto the absurd claim that the diocese is not now and never has been bound by our Church's constitution to abide by our diocesan constitution's own accession clause. He couldn't get it by vote, so he pursues it by fiat, not a surprise. And it won't be surprise when someone at a Diocesan Council in coming years proposes that the diocese act upon this truly stupid notion to secede. I knew a couple years ago that a move to alter the diocesan accession clause was just a prelude to secession. But I now regret having helped defeat the measure. I now wish that the proposal had passed. Should it come again before Council, I will urge its passage; unless, of course, our diocesan bishop expresses his disapproval of it.
Should our bishop continue to refer the Report of the 1998 Lambeth Meeting as though it is somehow an official “teaching of the Church,” and ask that the diocese act upon this interpretation legislatively, I will urge the passage of whatever resolution or amendment is proposed; unless our bishop expresses his explicit disapproval of it. If our bishop wishes to continue regarding the Windsor Report as though it is determinative of the polity of this and other Churches of the Anglican Communion, instead of a set of recommendations offered as part of a process yet to be concluded; and should our bishop then ask for our support of resolutions or amendments that reflect this interpretation, I will urge the passage of said proposals; unless our bishop explicitly expresses disfavor toward them. If our bishop wishes to respond to the Archbishop of Canterbury as though he is some kind of Anglican Pope, and supports Council legislation in accord with this view, I will urge its passage; unless our bishop expresses disapproval of it.
And although I must confess that whatever logic there is in being part of a smaller group in order to be a part of the larger group of which we are already a part escapes me, nevertheless, should our bishop continue to regard “Communion Partners” as a bridge-building group that connects Episcopalians with Episcopalians and Anglicans with Anglicans, rather than as the latest expression by self-proclaimed “conservatives” of their loathing toward our Presiding Bishop, toward our Church, toward gay and lesbian Christians who refuse to apologize for being gay or lesbian, and, very quietly, toward women who dare to seek ordination; and should our bishop tacitly support resolutions or amendments that reflect this view, I will urge the passage of such legislation; unless the bishop expresses overtly his disapproval of them.
I will do so because I believe that this is the best way forward for the Episcopal Diocese of Texas. I will urge my fellow and future delegates to suppress any urge they may feel to rise up in negative response to a proposal, and instead to remain seated. They need to ask themselves what harm might come to their ‘career’ if they dare to raise their head. If they feel the urge to speak out on a particular proposal, especially in opposition to something that the bishop favors, I will urge them to remain silent. They need to remind themselves they are merely lay persons, deacons, or priests. Who are they to speak up against something wanted by that the exalted bishop of the Diocese of Texas? They will need to ask themselves what good it would do, anyway? They need to stay seated, to keep silent. They need to remember, it’s the Diocese of Texas.
I expect that it may at first be difficult for us down here to let go our collective illusion that Council is a deliberative body that effects the direction of the Church in this diocese. But I also believe that in short order we will recognize the advantages of Councils that are shorter in duration than they are now, that require less thought and engagement, and that are less rancorous. Eventually we may wish even to move to online participation in Council where we can simply click on a single icon that delivers all our votes to the determination of the bishop. Why pretend anymore? In fact, I expect that there will be serious support for such a format, especially from two churches in Houston and from the office of the bishop. After all, it’s the Diocese of Texas.
What the bishop wants, the bishop gets. The sooner we accept this and embrace it, the sooner we will be able to tend exclusively to our own parochial and local matters. These are all that most of us care about, anyway; and these all that the diocesan officialdom would prefer most of us to care about. If it does not matter directly to our own respective spheres of influence and ministry that, for instance, our diocese is homophobic, or misogynist, or elitist, or disdainful of our National Church, then we will be free from having to expose ourselves to these bothersome matters annually at Council. Besides, we all know that some of our congregations do in fact allow gay people to worship with them. Some of our folks do actually allow the indigent poor to come inside. And we all know that ‘we’ have more than one congregation of people who are brown or black and whose first language isn't English. Didn't we just have a whole entire mission congregation gain parish status after little more than fifty years? Why, some of our best friends are….
In the meantime, it’s the Diocese of Texas, which means that our business is business and our concern is looking like we’re "One Church". We know that if God really wants someone to address some of those bothersome “issues,” (read 'bothersome people') then “He” will send someone. Maybe God will send the Methodists as with abolition, or United Church of Christ as with women's ordination, or Metropolitan Community Churches as with unapologetically gay and lesbian people, or some other diocese of the Episcopal Church as with honoring their full asking to support the ministries of the National Church. But down here, we know that God is not sending us. After all, this is the Diocese of Texas.
So, in terms of Diocesan Council and legislative motions, I may now be our bishop's new best friend. I invite all my fellow members of the Diocese of Texas to join me in urging a positive vote for everything that our bishop does not oppose. I hope that together we can ensure that our bishop will get absolutely everything he wants. I believe with all my heart that this is the best way forward for the liberation of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas.
Some day, I believe, the consequence of this approach is that we will no longer be the ‘Windsor Diocese’ of Texas,nor the ‘Lambeth ’98’ Diocese of Texas, nor the 'Communion Partners' Diocese of Texas. Someday we will no longer function collectively as a bishop's "lay-vicar," doing “whatever the bishop tells him to do.” Someday we’ll be nothing more, and at last we’ll be nothing less, than simply and proudly the Episcopal Diocese of Texas.
It is probable that some people down here are, like me, of the opinion that this will be a wonderful day. But you, like me, they likely know that our opinions do not really matter. No yet, anyway. After all, as I was told again at this year’s Council, it’s the Diocese of Texas; what the bishop wants, the bishop gets.’ I think that by deliberately living into this reality, we can finally
live our way out of it.
Jim Stockton +
No comments:
Post a Comment