For background and context for the following
post, see the Episcopal News Service’s article here and
ongoing commentary on the subject at Episcopal Café here.
Bishop Stacy Sauls, the newly appointed Chief Operating Officer of The
Episcopal Church, made a PowerPoint presentation on structuring/restructuring the
church as well as provided a model resolution for diocesan conventions to
consider, and they may be found here [opens a PowerPoint document]. The
following post is my response to the fact that Bishop Sauls made his
presentation to the House of Bishops first without any prior notice to the
Executive Council, which is The Episcopal Church’s governing body in the
trienniums between General Conventions when both the House of Deputies and the
House of Bishops meet to consider legislation to govern the church.
I
find it ironic that in a church where our Catechism defines the mission of the
Church is “to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ”
that Bishop Sauls, presumably in his capacity as the Chief Operating Officer,
has made a presentation on structure/restructure to the House of Bishops prior
to meeting the interim governing body of the church, the Executive Council, in
person for the first time. That first in-person meeting will not take place
until Council meets in Salt Lake City October 21-24.
We
are a church that believes in the importance of relationship in the Body of
Christ, and yet, we continue to impair our necessary working relationships by
placing ideas, proposals and time pressures over and above respecting
relationships with timely and collegial communications. Actions trump thoughts
and words in exemplifying our beliefs.
Perhaps
approaching the House of Bishops first might be blamed on the fact that Bishop
Sauls has, in fact, not yet met Council, but has a long-term collegial
relationship with other bishops in the House of Bishops and seized an
opportunity to share some ideas with his sister and brother bishops due to the
timing of the bishops’ meeting.
I
have observed and heard from colleagues in other dioceses that there is a
similar pattern in diocesan life, that is, that some bishops communicate things
to the clergy cadre often in advance of communicating with their Standing
Committees who share diocesan governance with them, leaving the Standing
Committee members to learn these things from secondary and tertiary sources.
So, from my point of view, this practice does not stand in isolation, and it
smacks of disrespect for both the persons and the positions, however
unintended.
Bishop
Sauls’ presentation to the bishops first may also be a reflection of the
reality that diocesan bishops respond more readily to recommendations from
among themselves to commit their dioceses to study a specific subject than they
do to recommendations that come from either General Convention or Executive
Council.
I
am experienced enough in organizational life to wonder if there was something
intentionally strategic about
presentation to the bishops first. Could this be an example of apologize later
rather than notify first? It is also true in organizational life that she/he
who speaks first and frames an issue often then has set the direction for the
ensuing discussion.
How
people feel about the circumstances
surrounding the work that they have to do significantly impacts how they think about the substance of that work.
Having said all of the above, my hope and prayer is that we will be able to
move forward together in an attitude
of unity as sisters and brothers in The Episcopal Church who want to engage our
missional work with charity, clarity and truly shared decision-making across
all the ministers of the church – laity, priests, bishops and deacons.
