From Bible Belt Blogger, Frank Lockwood:
Facing criticism for withholding information from its 2.3 million members, the Episcopal Church has quietly removed from its new IAmEpiscopalian.org website assurances that the church is committed to openness and transparency in government.
For months, the site had proclaimed on its home page: “Our controversies and conversations have been public. Our governance is tranparent. You are free to see our imperfections…” (See a copy of the original message here.)
But sometime this week, after the church was repeatedly criticized for concealing key governance decisions from the people in the pews, the “transparency” and “openness” message disappeared.
Go to Frank Lockwood's site for the links. This is not good news, but if the powers in the church have decided that transparency and openness no longer apply, then it's best that they not say that they do. This is very sad news, and I pray the members of the Episcopal Church do not take this policy lightly or complacently.
Thanks to Ann for sending the link.
UPDATE: On the other hand, Mark Harris takes a different view:
What I think we have here is not a plot to remove a pledge of transparency. What we have here is a fallback from the creative edge. It’s not a plot, it’s a program. Plots are at least exciting, and sometimes creative, programs get dull unless poked.
Where's the PB in the midst of all of this? I don't like to think that she's become all institutionalized, defender of the status quo.
ReplyDeleteKJ, I'm afraid the buck stops with the PB. I can't believe that the committee went forward without her, at the very least, tacit approval.
ReplyDeleteIt smells of manipulation and Anglican Communion politics...hardly a welcoming odor as we open our Episcopal Church red doors.
ReplyDelete"I pray the members of the Episcopal Church do take this policy lightly or complacently."
ReplyDeleteMimi, shouldn't there be a "not" somewhere in that sentence, like between 'do' and 'take?'
I read Mark's first, and tend to agree with him.
Susan, thanks. I included the missing word.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mark is right. What this conclusion may show is that certain members of TEC are twitchy and suspicious, which is quite understandable after the disclosure of the sub-committee with a secret membership. The powers could take a step to regain our trust simply by releasing the names of the members.
Mimi -- this whole secret thing really sucks (<-- theological term). I do, however, question whether "the buck stops" with the PB. TEC keeps trying to explain to the WWAC (whatever that means anymore) that the PB is not a primate in the sense that ++Akinola is. I don't think she controls the HOB -- we keep telling everyone else that is not so. But perhaps I'm not clear on this. I feel sure someone will clarify this for me (-;
ReplyDeleteSusanKay, the PB doesn't control the HOB, but she certainly has influence. I know that the bishops are loathe to reveal the inner workings and disagreements of the HOB, but I'm not ready to let her entirely off the hook on this one. It's a bad decision by the folks on the committee, but it reflects on the PB, too. She may be working behind the scenes to change the policy, but it doesn't hurt to keep the pressure on. She has disappointed me a few times, and I'd like to know if she's on board with the policy.
ReplyDeleteKJ, it seems to me that the PB became the defender of the status quo 3 years ago by pushing B033.
ReplyDeleteMike, you're right. The PB's effort in pushing through B033 was a great disappointment.
ReplyDelete