Shiny Red Balls & Red Herrings in Upper South Carolina: Three Notes on Bishop Waldo’s Clergy Email
The Underground Pewster has helpfully posted Bishop Waldo’s email to his clergy in the wake of the online publication and rapid spread of the letter to parishioners at Christ Church, Greenville from its rector about same sex blessings. I am quoting a portion of Bishop Waldo’s email, but do head over to the Pewster’s blog to read the entire email and the Pewster’s comments:
1) The letter from the rector of Christ Church, Greenville was not “about the Task Force” at all. It was, rather, about the bishop’s decision—and his decision alone, as he is the ecclesial authority of this diocese—to approve of the use of the same sex blessings liturgies in this diocese. No other entity has the authority to approve of such rites. It is Bishop Waldo’s decision and his alone. His apparent desire to drag the ironically-named Bishop’s Task Force on Unity into his email to the clergy is . . . interesting.
Note, further, the repeated efforts in this short email to focus attention on the task force. Bishop Waldo talks about why he called the task force together, and how many times they have met, and how a “structure” [an interesting choice of word] is emerging for what “we present to the Diocese.”
But such a “structure” or “curriculum” is frankly irrelevant to the thing to which Christ Church’s rector was responding, and that is Bishop Waldo’s decision to approve of same sex blessings in this diocese.
One might almost see the focus on the task force as a cover, or a simple red-herring that is supposed to distract us from Bishop Waldo’s individual decision to approve same sex blessings.
2) Although he does not state it directly, Bishop Waldo implies that the rector of Christ Church has somehow violated confidentiality by directly writing his congregation about Bishop Waldo’s intentions, and the rector’s intentions to not approve same sex blessings at the parish. Bishop Waldo asserts that he gave Christ Church’s rector “a draft of my comprehensive update” for review, although we don’t know when that draft was offered, or when the rector of Christ Church drafted his own letter.
But it’s irrelevant as to when or whether Bishop Waldo gave Harrison “a draft of my comprehensive update” for review, since Bishop Waldo states later in his clergy email that he had “written and said on several occasions over the last year or more” that he would approve same sex blessings—although his somewhat more delicate phrasing of that is “include a path for congregations who seek to allow same-sex blessings.”
So why Bishop Waldo would mention in his clergy email in response to the letter from the Christ Church rector that he had submitted “a draft of my comprehensive update” for review is mysterious, other than that it implies something happened—that Harrison jumped the gun on his letter to his congregation—that is irrelevant given Bishop Waldo’s assertions about his open communication about his intentions.
3) The fact remains that Bishop Waldo seems constitutionally averse to a simple and clear and written statement of his approval of same sex blessings in the diocese. He didn’t seem to want to come back from the 2012 General Convention and state “I approve the use of same sex blessings rites in this diocese” preferring instead to state vague generalities like “I support the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church.”
But stating that latter over and over and over to vestries and commissions and public gatherings is not at all the same as saying “I approve the use of same sex blessings rites in this diocese.” And laypeople know that quite well. One may support the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church all one wants without legally, formally, publicly, officially approving the use of same sex blessing rites in a diocese, as its ecclesial authority.
Christ Church’s rector seems determined to release the news of Bishop Waldo’s approval of such rites—and to respond with his own intentions—to the parish. It is hard to fault him for desiring to do that, particularly considering Bishop Waldo’s assertions that he has been quite clear about his intentions anyway. Christ Church’s rector has merely communicated those plain intentions, and no amount of Bishop Waldo waving Shiny Red Balls about the sideshow of the Bishops Task Force on Unity or drafts of pastoral letters or curricula, will succeed in distracting from that reality.
The clergy email, I think, inadvertently reveals much about Bishop Waldo’s mind and heart, and the strategic and calculated process through which he is attempting to travel in inflicting the approval of same sex blessings on the diocese.
I write to give you an update on the Bishop’s Task Force on Unity. Although I originally planned to include this update as part of a more comprehensive letter about several initiatives taking place in our diocese (to be mailed next week), a recent letter about the Task Force from the Rev. Harrison McLeod to the Christ Church congregation prompted me to send this to you now. I had asked Harrison, as president of Diocesan Executive Council, to review a draft of my comprehensive update, which included much of the text below.
As you know, I called the Bishop’s Task Force on Unity together following General Convention 2012 to address those challenges with regard to disagreements in the church around same-sex blessings. The Task Force has met seven times since October 2012 and hopes to finish its work by late fall this year or early winter next year.
A structure for what we present to the Diocese upon the completion of our work is beginning to emerge and will include a pastoral letter from me and a curriculum created by the Task Force for congregations.The email is certainly instructive, and I’m putting down three immediate things we can all learn from that email.
1) The letter from the rector of Christ Church, Greenville was not “about the Task Force” at all. It was, rather, about the bishop’s decision—and his decision alone, as he is the ecclesial authority of this diocese—to approve of the use of the same sex blessings liturgies in this diocese. No other entity has the authority to approve of such rites. It is Bishop Waldo’s decision and his alone. His apparent desire to drag the ironically-named Bishop’s Task Force on Unity into his email to the clergy is . . . interesting.
Note, further, the repeated efforts in this short email to focus attention on the task force. Bishop Waldo talks about why he called the task force together, and how many times they have met, and how a “structure” [an interesting choice of word] is emerging for what “we present to the Diocese.”
But such a “structure” or “curriculum” is frankly irrelevant to the thing to which Christ Church’s rector was responding, and that is Bishop Waldo’s decision to approve of same sex blessings in this diocese.
One might almost see the focus on the task force as a cover, or a simple red-herring that is supposed to distract us from Bishop Waldo’s individual decision to approve same sex blessings.
2) Although he does not state it directly, Bishop Waldo implies that the rector of Christ Church has somehow violated confidentiality by directly writing his congregation about Bishop Waldo’s intentions, and the rector’s intentions to not approve same sex blessings at the parish. Bishop Waldo asserts that he gave Christ Church’s rector “a draft of my comprehensive update” for review, although we don’t know when that draft was offered, or when the rector of Christ Church drafted his own letter.
But it’s irrelevant as to when or whether Bishop Waldo gave Harrison “a draft of my comprehensive update” for review, since Bishop Waldo states later in his clergy email that he had “written and said on several occasions over the last year or more” that he would approve same sex blessings—although his somewhat more delicate phrasing of that is “include a path for congregations who seek to allow same-sex blessings.”
So why Bishop Waldo would mention in his clergy email in response to the letter from the Christ Church rector that he had submitted “a draft of my comprehensive update” for review is mysterious, other than that it implies something happened—that Harrison jumped the gun on his letter to his congregation—that is irrelevant given Bishop Waldo’s assertions about his open communication about his intentions.
3) The fact remains that Bishop Waldo seems constitutionally averse to a simple and clear and written statement of his approval of same sex blessings in the diocese. He didn’t seem to want to come back from the 2012 General Convention and state “I approve the use of same sex blessings rites in this diocese” preferring instead to state vague generalities like “I support the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church.”
But stating that latter over and over and over to vestries and commissions and public gatherings is not at all the same as saying “I approve the use of same sex blessings rites in this diocese.” And laypeople know that quite well. One may support the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church all one wants without legally, formally, publicly, officially approving the use of same sex blessing rites in a diocese, as its ecclesial authority.
Christ Church’s rector seems determined to release the news of Bishop Waldo’s approval of such rites—and to respond with his own intentions—to the parish. It is hard to fault him for desiring to do that, particularly considering Bishop Waldo’s assertions that he has been quite clear about his intentions anyway. Christ Church’s rector has merely communicated those plain intentions, and no amount of Bishop Waldo waving Shiny Red Balls about the sideshow of the Bishops Task Force on Unity or drafts of pastoral letters or curricula, will succeed in distracting from that reality.
The clergy email, I think, inadvertently reveals much about Bishop Waldo’s mind and heart, and the strategic and calculated process through which he is attempting to travel in inflicting the approval of same sex blessings on the diocese.
No comments:
Post a Comment