[Diocese of Texas] “Parish Unrest” at Trinity, Houston & “Bishop’s Intercession”

from Stand Firm by Sarah

A few weeks ago, Kendall Harmon posted a link to several interesting documents regarding Bishop Doyle's intervention in the parish of Trinity, Houston. I don't know the circumstances behind the "parish unrest" [as referred to in the diocesan website headline] and the Bishop's intervention, which, according to the diocesan website headline, is "warranted." Who knows what's going on there.

What interested me about the thread were the various comments -- several from clergy -- vociferously proclaiming that, no matter what the circumstances at the parish and with the rector, the bishop's actions were Just Right. I found such certainty -- in light of the actions of the past seven years -- to be breathtakingly naive.

Here's my initial sally into the thread -- and it details some of the political actions with which congregations need to be involved in order to exercise good stewardship over an organization :

Sorry, but I don’t agree with the above comments at all.

I’d have to first know the facts behind some of the vestry’s issues with the rector. And we all know, of course, that Doyle is a revisionist theologically. He could be acting properly and he could not be acting properly but to know we’d have to hear both sides of the story, not the rather pompous and self-righteous letter from Bishop Doyle that succeeds cleverly in drawing in generations of a church into the current battle between the rector and the congregation.

And it is *richly*—and I do mean *RICHLY* ironic that Bookworm quotes a book by Maynard. Let’s just say that Maynard is the very very last priest I would apply to in regards to taking advice about how clergy should behave. And let’s just also say that it’s pretty understandable why he should write a book about Horrid Willful Sheep and have such a rich treasure trove of anecdotes about them too [heh].

Moving on to the details of Bishop Doyle’s letter, I note that he denounces “non-vestry sanctioned meetings between vestry members.” Another “heh” moment. We live in America and members of a parish—and yes, even of a vestry—are perfectly free to have supper together and chat about any issue they please. There is *NO* rule against persons who are on a vestry gathering in “non-vestry sanctioned” meetings and I am immediately suspicious when a rector or bishop decides that people aren’t allowed to gather. That’s highly controlling—and frankly, fruitless too, as I can guarantee that now there will be more meetings about the contents of the Bishop’s letter. So not only has the bishop/rector revealed how threatened they are by people meeting, not only have they decided that such meetings are actually accomplishing things they don’t like [otherwise they wouldn’t care about them], but they have now spawned more such meetings.

Further, Bishop Doyle denounces the fact that there are “some vestry members” [and let’s be honest here—some members of the congregation too] who are supporting others to run for vestry who wish to remove the rector.

That, folks, is one of the points of congregational elections. They’re called elections—and elections occur to support parishioners who support one’s views and foundational worldview. Elections do not occur to rubberstamp the decisions of the Ruling Hierarchy as with the old Soviet Union elections. All over this country, there are revisionists meeting to support other members of parishes who are . . . [drum roll] revisionists. And that is within their right to do so. Same with conservatives.

Bishop Doyle then goes on to pontificate that supporting people for vestry who don’t agree with Bishop Doyle are not acting “within the best interests of the church.” Of course—that completely begs the question of “what is in the best interests of the church”? Answer—none of us on the outside know, for we don’t know the other side of this story. It may well be within the best interests of the church for the rector to be ridden out of town on a rail.

But we know one thing. We know that the bishop and the rector are angry and afraid and threatened by the actions of some members of the vestry. And further, that they are angry and afraid and threatened by the actions of some members of the congregation—for otherwise they wouldn’t fear that in fact some people who do not support the rector and do think it is within the best interests of the church for that rector to depart will be elected by that congregation—which would mean that many many many in that congregation also believe the same thing.

I note with amusement the wheeling out of the old “poison parish” meme that bishops and rectors always diagnose when they’re supporting a priest over against a congregation. Such parishes certainly exist—but in my experience, the more common problem of parishes is that dysfunction exists in the calling of mentally ill and highly dysfunctional rectors. That dsyfunction—the consistent attraction of a congregation towards the unhealthy/criminal/crazy-person rector—also is one that needs to be examined, repented of, and healed.

Were I a member of such a congregation and were I to believe that the relationship between rector and congregation were irrevocably broken by the actions of this rector, and the rector was damaging the parish I would 1) continue, of course, meeting steadily away with my friends and 2) continue, of course, promoting solid people to the vestry and 3) laugh when the bishop declares the congregation a mission. The bishop may—if a congregation is determined—declare a congregation a “mission” all he pleases and appoint whatever stooges that he likes to a “mission committee”—none of those people can 1) make a member pledge 2) make a member volunteer, 3) or keep a member from quietly slipping to the background and waiting patiently until the rector leaves, while the mission committee flogs the flock.

And leave she would if enough people in a congregation are determined and committed—no matter the threatening bluster of a bishop or rector.

As a layperson I have rooted for clergy in tough parish situations. And I’ve rooted for laypeople in tough parish situations, depending on the actual facts of the case. I have watched clergy be mistreated by a small angry clique within a congregation. And I have watched clergy drive their parishes happily into the ground, misappropriating money, spouting crazy revisionist blather from the pulpits, showing up *drunk* at vestry meetings, highhandedly abusing lay leaders and staff, and generally demonstrating just how completely unfit they are for any leadership position whatsoever until they receive the years of counseling and electric shock treatment that their illnesses clearly need.

Check out the link to Bishop Doyle's sermon to the parish, and his letter to the parish.

Thankfully, Mike Watson steps in with some instructive comments on the canons, and TJ submits some balanced comments as well -- none of the three of us know what is going on or who is right, who is wrong.

Finally, a parishioner of Trinity comments several times, as well as a second parishioner.

It will be interesting to see how this ends up developing. I certainly hope the parish's vestry elections go well.