Just amazing.
You know, when our parish sent out Stewardship letters, we made every effort to make sure that the addresses being used were correct. In a couple of cases, we had parishioners whose spouses had just died, and their names were not yet removed from the address label. As well, we noted some incorrect addresses. Incorrect addresses are one thing — but the insensitivity of sending a Stewardship letter (especially) to a newly widowed member, asking for their continued involvement financially in the life of the parish, without the apparent consideration of THEIR life…. well, it’s not good. It is insensitive. It is negatively pastoral. It is impersonal, and even dehumanizing in the sense of not being “known.”
We made those changes. Because we know them and love them and choose not to be rude and insensitive, especially the exacerbation of their grief by our lack of administrative attention.
Now comes this email letter from the President of the House of Deputies which was clearly intended to refer to the Diocese of San Joaquin in a “third person” sort of manner — being talked about, not in conversation with. And, lo and behold, it was sent to those who have been or are Deputies to General Convention from San Joaquin.
So what’s the beef?
This part of the letter:
“There are a number of ways General Convention deputies can provide much needed support to our sisters and brothers in Christ in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. You can pray regularly for Episcopalians in San Joaquin, and urge the people in your diocese to do the same. Part of the charge to all deputies is to help keep the members of their dioceses informed. You can urge people to read the information listed above so that they understand what is happening in San Joaquin.
If you or your diocese want to support Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin, Remain Episcopal has identified specific assistance that is needed. The need includes liturgical items, clergy assistance, and monetary support.”
Funny, I thought that being a deputy WAS doing all those things. Well, geez, Bonnie, if there is anything they can do to help out…. (and the letter goes on to spell out what they might be able to do to help themselves in the Diocese of San Joaquin, which is very helpful…).
But quite seriously, this is offensive. Bonnie Anderson’s work crew could have pulled the few names that represented San Joaquin deputies if they had just had any pastoral sensitivity at all, considering the letter sounds like it was never intended to be sent to those people in that diocese.
And, quite seriously, this does not help Bonnie Anderson prove that she cares about the people here in San Joaquin. Because she does not obviously know them.
This whole “Remain Episcopal”/paid for and sponsored by visible and public leaders of General Convention thing is ill-begotten.
And it is ill-timed. Which would be my second point
Brought to my attention today was an Episcopal News Service release that says there will be an online audience venue for the January 26 Remain Episcopal rally in Hanford, CA, and that part of the online agenda is the ability of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church to speak to that rally.
Big insensitivity issue. Big inclusivity issue. Big diversionary issue for this Church. Howso? At the same time that Fr. Mark Lawrence will be consecrated the bishop of South Carolina in Charleston — where truly this Church’s attention should be focused — the two elected leaders of General Convention will be on display, in what could now be considered the uninvited intrusion of a bishop in another diocese, the business of Authority being unsettled. It may be the Prerogative of the Presiding Bishop to make visits to all the dioceses within her term of office, but not without the permission of the diocesan. I don’t know that she asked, and I don’t know if she got it, but I kinda doubt it.
So here is the most contemporary living symbol of the Episcopal Church being able to include within its life and leadership as a truly inclusive Church — I’m talking about South Carolina’s election, and the consent to the election by a majority of the House of Bishops and Standing Committees, and the scheduled consecration of Mark Lawrence to that office and ministry — being allowed to be oppositely and constrastingly scheduled against by these two other most visible leaders of the Episcopal Church. People in control of the calendars had to know what they were doing. South Carolina was on the schedule first. For months. Then came Remain Episcopal and Bonnie Anderson. Then today the Presiding Bishop. Bad form. Insensitive. Really rude. Other words.
I know from what I read earlier last year that the Presiding Bishop had worked out an arrangement with Bp Ed Salmon (or vice versa) for her not to be the Primary Consecrator. And it sounded like she wasn’t really happy about that. Okay, Bonnie has been in the diocese of San Joaquin already, and there is already somebody some people are saying is some sort of “official pastoral resource”, being Canon Moore. Precedent.
But doesn’t this sound and look vindictive? No?
Well, it just looks bad.
I’m sorry I won’t be able to go to the Hanford meeting. I’d like to hear the presentations.
But I’ll be in South Carolina in support of a colleague and friend, and to celebrate with my brothers and sisters in that Episcopal diocese, finally, the consequence of their election decision.
I would humbly suggest, for the sake of peace, justice, dignity, and the heritage of sensibilities we all claim, that President Anderson stay home, and Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori send a tape of her congratulations to (then) Bp Mark Lawrence.
