The Committee on Theology in the House of Bishops formed a sub-committee to study same-sex relationships. The membership of the sub-committee is secret. Read the article at the Lead at the Episcopal Café for further details.
Where's the transparency? Why are the names of the members secret? This should not be. I believe that our leaders in the Episcopal Church made a grave miscalculation in their decision not to release the names of the members of the sub-committee. I understand and agree that the deliberations may be confidential until the report is delivered, but not the names of the members.
Those of you who are members of the Episcopal Church and who agree that the veil of secrecy should be lifted may want to send your own communication to our church leaders, along with a copy to your bishop.
Dennis, whom many of you know from our blog world, sent the letter below. His is a fine model, but, of course, use your own wording in your letter.
Bishops Subject: HoB "secret" theology committee and our lives
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:19:31 -0700
The news that the House of Bishops has a select committee to examine the inclusion of gays and lesbians into the life of our church is really shocking. So now there is a secret committee to, once again, talk about what to do about us. How sad.
Instead of moving toward inclusion we are seeing the issue delayed, once again, by another study, this time by a committee whose members' names haven't been released.
For the House of Bishops to pass on a discussion about our lives (after countless studies and listening) to a committee without releasing the names the names of the members looks like a delay tactic and is below what I expect from bishops.
When bishops start acting like machine politicians from Tammany Hall it smells suspicious and looks like the fix is going to be put in place, once again, to close the door to acceptance. This is the Episcopal Church, not one of the churches where bishops do as they please and answer to no one.
I am sure that we are to be treated to the kind of explanation best saved for political spin, that a secret committee would allow for "prayerful" deliberations or some other tale. Whatever the answer it will surely desecrate the idea being used to cover the secrecy.
I have great hopes that this year we will be rid of B033 and start allowing the church to bless our unions. It would be so nice if my partner and I, after eight years together, could look to the church to welcome us as a couple. Wouldn't that be nice?
But with secret committees discussing our place in the church, who knows?
I get so tired of being disappointed in my church. I really do.
Dennis
Send your emails to:
Katharine Jefferst-Schori, Presiding Bishop - pboffice@episcopalchurch.org
Bishop Henry Parsley, Chair, Committee on Theology - hparsley@dioala.org
Neva Rae Fox, Public Affairs Officer - nrfox@episcopalchurch.org
Dr. Charles Robertson, Canon to the Presiding Bishop - crobertson@episcopalchurch.org
Sharon Jones - Executive Assistant to the Presiding Bishop - sjones@episcopalchurch.org
Dr. Bonnie Anderson, President, House of Deputies - banderson@episcopalchurch.org
Kim Tucker, Assistant to President of House of Deputies - ktucker@episcopalchurch.org
UPDATE: Louie Crew lists the addresses of the diocesan bishops.
UPDATE 2: From Ann in the comments:
Here are the names and email addresses of the members of the Theology Committee (not the secret committee):
The Rt. Rev. Henry Nutt Parsley, Chair, hparsley@dioala.org
The Rt. Rev. David A. Alvarez, obispoalvarez@spiderlink.net
The Rt. Rev. John C. Bauerschmidt, jcbbishop@episcopaldiocese-tn.org
The Rt. Rev. Joe G. Burnett, jburnett@episcopal-ne.org
Dr. Ellen T. Charry, ellen.charry@ptsem.edu
The Rev. Dr. Sathianathan Clarke, sclarke@wesleyseminary.edu
Dr. Stephen E. Fowl, sfowl@loyola.edu
The Rev. Dr. A. Katherine Grieb, kgrieb@vts.edu
The Rt. Rev Robert W. Ihloff, rihloff@verizon.net
Dr. Charles T. Mathewes, ctm9d@Virginia.EDU
Dr. Joy A. McDougall, jamcdou@emory.edu
The Rt. Rev. Steven A. Miller, bishop11@diomil.org
Dr. Kathryn Tanner, ketanner@midway.uchicago.edu
UPDATE 3: The Lead posted the latest word from Bishop Henry Parsley, chair of the Committee on Theology.
This is soooo 1950ies that it's ridikullus!
ReplyDeleteBut then, the 1950ies obviously is the wet dream of the anti moderns...
;=)
Right on Grandmere Mimi. Transparency has been a hallmark of TEC for as long as i can remember and something to be proud of. This is an assault on the very character of TEC.
ReplyDeleteLinked back and the call raised on my little blog!
ReplyDeleteHere are the members of the Theology Committee (not the secret committee)
ReplyDeleteThe Rt. Rev. Henry Nutt Parsley, Chair, hparsley@dioala.org
The Rt. Rev. David A. Alvarez, obispoalvarez@spiderlink.net
The Rt. Rev. John C. Bauerschmidt, jcbbishop@episcopaldiocese-tn.org
The Rt. Rev. Joe G. Burnett, jburnett@episcopal-ne.org
Dr. Ellen T. Charry, ellen.charry@ptsem.edu
The Rev. Dr. Sathianathan Clarke, sclarke@wesleyseminary.edu
Dr. Stephen E. Fowl, sfowl@loyola.edu
The Rev. Dr. A. Katherine Grieb, kgrieb@vts.edu
The Rt. Rev Robert W. Ihloff, rihloff@verizon.net
Dr. Charles T. Mathewes, ctm9d@Virginia.EDU
Dr. Joy A. McDougall, jamcdou@emory.edu
The Rt. Rev. Steven A. Miller, bishop11@diomil.org
Dr. Kathryn Tanner, ketanner@midway.uchicago.edu
I sent Dennis' letter with some added comments of my own.
ReplyDeleteThere are times when the Episcopal Church acts like the Democratic Party in the worst possible way; desperately seeking LGBT votes and money while wishing our whole issue would just go away.
You got that right, counterlight.
ReplyDeleteWe are so very, very inconvenient.
Mark, thanks.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight and IT, I hear it, too. "Why don't you people just go away?"
I fear that before the end of my long years on God's good earth, my church and the Democratic Party will drive me completely over the edge. I'm hanging by my fingernails now.
Of course, it was much more convenient for many when "you people" stayed in the closet, hidden away, out of sight, out of mind.
Let's hear it for a Holy Inconvenience!
ReplyDeletePaul the BB
This reminds me of a high school clique having secret meetings to see who to invite and who to shun.
ReplyDeleteShame on them.
Let's hear it for a Holy Inconvenience!
ReplyDeleteAmen!
Mike, it is, indeed, a shameful thing that they do. Let's call it what it is. Shameful!
Let's hear it for a Holy Inconvenience!
ReplyDeleteAmen!
Mike, it is, indeed, a shameful thing that they do. Let's call it what it is. Shameful!
Blogger fixed the problem folks! See my two comments? The BRBR in brackets is no longer required for the paragraph break. Yay!
ReplyDeleteSorry to go off topic. Carry on as usual now.
Who needs more theology anyway, especially since Betty Bowers has put it all together for us.
ReplyDeleteMike, I saw that video. Another reader sent it to me. It is hilarious. I understand it all perfectly now.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to throw spanners into this nice conversation, but does anyone have the slightest shred of evidence that this is about keeping gay voices out?
ReplyDeleteErika, no we don't. It's the secrecy that is the abomination. We are apt to think, what are they hiding? What are they afraid of? We want transparency. Are folks in same-sex relationships represented in the sub-committee? We don't know. That is the point.
ReplyDeleteSince they're calling it a subcommittee, isn't it implied that the membership of the secret subcommittee is a subset of the committee?
ReplyDeleteThere are no out GLBT people on that committee that I know of.
Mike, good point. Many questions.
ReplyDeleteFrom The Lead
ReplyDeleteThe work of this secret panel has already been cited by some bishops as a reason to delay further legislative action on the issue of same-sex relationships until the panel finishes its work in 2011.
I suspect this is a very accurate assessment.
Mike, I suspect that statement is true. My response is, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
ReplyDeleteI generally place TEC people into 3 categories.
ReplyDelete1. Openly pro-inclusion.
2. Closted bigots.
3. Openly bigoted.
Categories 1 and 3 have no interest in delaying. They either want us in or out now.
Category 2 is the curious one. These are the people who do not want to appear associated with category 3.
Delay is their friend.
So there are never any valid reasons for temporary confidentiality?
ReplyDeleteSorry ... that should be "closeted bigots"
ReplyDeleteErika, I must quote MadPriest, "Read the post." Confidentiality in deliberations, but no secrecy about the membership of the sub-committee.
ReplyDeleteWhat if there had been more confidentiality about the bishops going to Lambeth, and instead of risking a huge public storm and sabotage of the Imbada sessions, Gene Robinson could quietly have been there too?
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I mean, Erika. (If you're referring to my comment). I'm not referring to the secret meeting. Just to the kind of people who wish to appear "loving" but are ready to stab you in the back when they think you're not looking.
ReplyDeleteAll in reference to the comment about "delay" because these people find refuge in delay because it doesn't make them appear openly bigoted.
I'm with you on that one, Mike!
ReplyDeleteThere's no way Gene Robinson could have been there quietly. There would have been walkouts and lots of publicity about them.
ReplyDeleteIt's the principle I'm after. Maybe Gene couldn't have been there, although I'm not so sure. There were after all a number of outspoken African bishops you said privately they'd have liked the chance to have spoken to him but were not able to acknowledge that in public.
ReplyDeleteBut if we insist on dramatising everything in a public media circus - and experience in the Anglican arena in recent years has shown very well that it's a gladiator sport - then trying a different tack may be justified.
I'm not saying IS justified, but may be. I'd still like to hear why they did it before I make any kind of judgement.
I supposed I'm just too cynical about the bishops in the TEC based on my own experiences with some of them. I've had to learn the hard way that the ones I know aren't trustworthy.
ReplyDeleteOn Thinking Anglicans someone was suggesting that the confidentiality would be justified if lgbt people were given the chance to speak openly about their experience. Clearly, that's not safe to do in public at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, I see the need for transparency in the process. On the other, I can only imagine the onslaught of e-mails, phone calls, and correspondence the members of the subcommittee would get if their names are released. Of course, with the names of the larger committee available, I suspect both "sides" will already be issuing a deluge of said e-mails, phone calls, etc. to those folks anyway, so what's the harm.
ReplyDeleteI can see why they might want to try and have a discussion in relative peace, without the opportunity for one side or the other to sway the subcommittee with its rhetoric (and both sides do have rhetoric, I'm afraid).
It seems clear to many of you that keeping the subcommittee members secret is a bad thing. Can you elucidate more on why you think so? What is good about it? What is bad about it? Do you think it's really helpful for these subcommittee members to be overwhelmed with communications from both pro- and anti-GLBT inclusion folks?
Erika, the deliberations may remain confidential until the final report is published. The make-up of the committee is important. Why can't we know who is on the committee? Why can't we know whether the members of the committee are talking TO folks in same-sex relationships or simply, once again, talking ABOUT them?
ReplyDeleteAgain, THE BUSINESS OF THE COMMITTEE MAY REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC CIRCUS.
Mimi
ReplyDeleteLet's assume they announce that one of their members is lgbt, or the conclusions of the report show that there was an lgbt voice, but the list of members shows no-one currently known as lgbt.
Can you imagine the witch-hunt that would follow immediately?
I would not want to be that person brave enough to speak out if my anonymity could not be guaranteed.
Suzer, there is always the automated, "No comment until the report is issued," response. All the members of the Theology Committee will get emails about secrecy now. That comes with the territory.
ReplyDeleteErika, I'm not calling for an outing. You're getting off track. Who is on the sub-committee? That's all I want to know. If the members are talking to LGTB folks, those people don't need to be named.
ReplyDeleteBut one of the members may be closeted lgbt. We don't know if the sub-committee is made up only from among people on the main committee, or if they have invited others. This could be done to protect one of those on the sub-committee, not the people the sub-committee is talking TO.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of out Episcopalians who would not be afraid to speak with or be on that subcommittee. I don't think that fear of the consequences of honesty serves as a good excuse for the existence of this secret subcommittee.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think the threatened 2011 report from this committee is already redundant before they ever start working on it. There simply is no need for a 5th or 6th reinvention of the wheel.
More and more, this seems to me like another alibi for delaying justice.
Nothing is beneath what I expect from the bishops.
ReplyDeleteMike
ReplyDeleteAnd how about one of the questions were to discover what it's like for people to be in the closet?
It really isn't difficult to come up with a number of potential reasons for confidentiality. You may in the end think they were misguided, but they are not automatically despicable.
Erika, what you are arguing for here is so not who we are as Episcopalians.
ReplyDeleteI know that the Church of England thrives on secrecy. Let's be honest here: it does.
We don't do that in the Episcopal Church. We have a General Convention to rule this Church. Our "primate" answers to the elected delegates. Our lay people stand side by side with clergy and bishops in oversight. A lack of understanding of this primary point is at the heart of the Church of England's misunderstanding of the Episcopal Church.
Deference to those who might or might not know better than the rest of us, without our input, is not Episcopalian.
Because of this, secret committees are wrong because they change the nature of who we are. If we start having secret committees we have become a different church. One that most of us will want little to do with.
This sort of thing wouldn't cause any problems in the Church of England. Having lived in the UK twice and worked in the House of Commons I was able to see up close that the English are ok with private committees and quiet decision making.
But remember that we are Americans. We speak (mostly) the same language but we are a very different people. Asking us to do accept secret committees is asking us to change the very nature of our church. We just don't do things that way. Most of us see this as very wrong.
It is a matter of bedrock principle. It is non-negotiable.
But it is interesting to look at the crisis in UK politics right now. Look at the real result of closed door decision making in a country that has traditionally accepted such. Your parliament is in meltdown and public confidence in the very institutions of government of the UK is non-existent. I suspect that now,having gotten a taste for open records and public information, the Brits are going to start being a lot more America about this sort of thing.
Secrets in decision making leads automatically and unavoidably to bigger problems. Openness, even to the point of being pestered by those whom the decisions will affect, is always and unavoidably the only right choice.
Before you argue for the government of the church to have secret committees please give a long hard consideration to how terrible an idea it really is. And think about how incompatible it is with the foundation and structure of our church, The Episcopal Church.
Remember that we aren't just a branch of the Church of England in the colonies. We got rid of princes and prince bishops a long, long time ago, and as Americans we have a profound bedrock belief in openness and public knowledge.
Dennis
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing that deference is good, or that that has anything to do with it.
To be honest, if this had happened in the Church of England, I would be deeply suspicious.
But precisely because it isn't an Episcopalian or an American thing, I find it hard to believe that there should not be a very very good reason for it.
Until I know that reason and can decide whether I accept it or not, I will not judge.
Erika I am sorry to hear that.
ReplyDeleteBecause the very secret nature of this, because it is an Episcopalian thing affecting the Episcopal Church at its very foundation and core, means that to not judge is to take a side in favor of secrecy and hidden committees. Which is a profound shame.
Erika - it also against NYstate law (where we are incorporated) to have secret committees.
ReplyDeleteDennis
ReplyDeleteAnd I thought not judging until one had heard the evidence was also a major principle of American justice.
Oh I hadn't even thought that this could be covered under the papers of incorporation.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we shouldn't bother emailing bishops and such and just send our letters directly to the Attorney General of the State of New York.
I think that Suzer's observation "I can only imagine the onslaught of e-mails, phone calls, and correspondence the members of the subcommittee would get if their names are released" may well be the principal reason for this action. It is even possible, given current animosities, that individuals may have made secrecy a condition of their serving on the committee. I gather that the overall membership of the Theological Committee makes it unlikely that deliberate skulduggery is going on - on her blog Elizabeth Kaeton writes "I know many of them [members of the Theological Committee] and they are good, reasonable people". I do not, however, think that secrecy is now a viable option. The names of the committee members should be revealed asap.
ReplyDeleteBut Erika the evidence is in. We have heard the evidence. They are keeping the list secret. That is the issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteNo reason can justify that. Nothing. Period.
We don't make excuses or cut them slack for having a secret committee. It doesn't matter if the end result of the secret committee will be to end world hunger, cure cancer and solve the financial crisis, even. No matter how benevolent their reasons by their very nature they are wrong. No reason can justify rule by secret committee. No matter how benevolent the intent.
The evidence is in. We know that there is a sub-committee whose members names are not being released. End of search for evidence. No matter what excuses reasons or purposes they have, this is, by the very nature of the fact, unacceptable.
It is not negotiable. It doesn't matter what reasons they could offer. The best reasons in the world are meaningless.
I don't think that you get this: The reasons don't matter. They don't. That this exists is in and of itself wrong.
We don't need to listen to the reasons. They are inconsequential. The very existence of a secret committee is unacceptable.
AND it sounds like it is illegal. The Episcopal Church is a corporation in America. I had forgotten that little fact. Secret committees are forbidden for corporations and charities.
That about ends the discussion, doesn't it?
But surely we should be nice and listen to their possibly wonderful reasons?
No.
That is the part you aren't getting.
Erika, in the event that the members of the secret subcommittee are too thickheaded to understand what Gene Robinson has already told them about living in the closet, the uncloseted are perfectly able to do so themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis is no longer a "listening process." It never really was a listening process because it has never really involved GLBT people to any significant extent. Now it has evolved into into something like a gigantic hamster wheel that burns a lot of time and energy and accomplishes nothing at all ... except to create a delay for the sake of the closet bigots.
As far as deluges of phone calls, etc, nobody is forcing them to answer the calls or read the e-mails.
Mike, It really wouldn't matter if this is a great way to do listening, though. It is not how we do business in the Episcopal Church.
ReplyDeleteExactly so, Dennis.
ReplyDeleteI think I've read somewhere else that Louie Crew has found something in the official TEC papers forbidding such a secret subcommitte. I believe he said he intended to contact the PB about it.
Let's hope he's right and that if he is right, the PB listens.
Well, Dennis, it clearly ends the conversation with you.
ReplyDeleteWell it sounds like it also ends the conversation with the Department of State, Division of Corporations, of the State of New York.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, if it is illegal, you're absolutely right and it should end the conversation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI took my grandchildren to the movies, and I see things be happenin' while I was gone.
ReplyDeleteWhat I thought to add is that the polity of the Episcopal Church is greatly influenced by the US Constitution. The members of the US Congress work for us, the people. We pay their salaries with our taxes. The Congress could not set up a secret sub-committee, whose members were not known.
In the same manner, the leaders of TEC work for us, the people. We pay their salaries with our contributions. We have the right to the greatest transparency possible as the leadership conducts their affairs.
Mimi, check your email please. thanks!
ReplyDeleteWhat Mimi and Dennis have said.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the nonsense of cloak and dagger committees, the very premise of the committee is nonsense as I've attempted to communicate to our bishops here in the Diocese of Olympia. The time is past when those blessed with more insight, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, can sit in committee and pretend that their conversation is relevant in the least.
If such discussion is needed, let us tell our stories -- full stop. Those who feel they are harmed by inclusion can tell their stories of perceived "harm." Let the chips fall where they may.
This has been studied to death -- the time for study is over - secret, open, whoever is on the committee -- it is over! Delaying to 2011 to make the report is so clearly yet another delaying tactic. The time to pass equal access to all the rights and rites of the church is NOW
ReplyDeletePreach it, Sister Ann! You're right. The time for studies and committees is over, way over.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDahveed, the ideals upon which our country were founded are right and true. We have not lived up to the ideals from the very beginning, but that does not make them wrong, and, at least some of us will not give up the fight to make them a reality in our country. Give those of us who have considered you a friend credit for that, please.
ReplyDeleteIn the future, please make your point in a more civil manner.
It is the honest truth Mimi, but if it cannot be heard here, then it shall not be heard.
ReplyDeleteAdios.
Episcopal Café has published Bishop Parsley's response to the controversy surrounding the Secret Committee. Not often you meet with an "Eff You!" letter this politely and beautifully worded. One of the skills that greases the skids on one's track to the episcopate, I guess.
ReplyDeleteLapin, I have a note to that effect in "UPDATE 3", but it's somewhat lost in the long post.
ReplyDeleteThe outrage over the secret sub-committee will not go away. Certainly the letter from Bp. Parsley will do nothing to quiet things down.
He was almost the PB - -only lost by a few votes.
ReplyDeleteAnn, I remember that.
ReplyDeleteMark Harris makes an important point is his post. The link here is for those who are following this thread.
Who knew you were so popular?!?
ReplyDeleteI bet you bask in the energy of it all!!
It's almost Vampiric, ..and True Blood is based in Louisiana.
I can see fangs on Mimi, ... but I'm an artist and can visualize many abstract concepts!!