At the End of Thirty Four Months

Bishop Charles Bennison returned to his office as Diocesan Bishop of Pennsylvania on August 16, 2010. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold in 2006 had given information to a Title IV Review Committee which then returned a Presentment (charges) to Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori who in October, 2007 inhibited Bishop Bennison from all Episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts. In July 28, 2010 after an ecclesiastical trial and many appeals, and after two years and ten months, the final Court of Review reversed the trial court's verdict of guilty to the charge of "subsequent suppression of pertinent information" about the bishop's brother's sexual misconduct. The Court of Review found that the statute of limitations had run out on the first charge of "contemporaneous failure to respond appropriately."

I am a pastor and not a lawyer. I had not intended to set out my thoughts on this nearly three years of litigation. Letters from my colleagues to the bishop asking him to retire or resign for the good of the church and concern from members of my own congregation have made setting down my thoughts unavoidable. I will first describe my observations about what has happened and some thoughts about power. Secondly, as members of the diocese we will need to take as our point of new beginning the world as it is and not the world as we might wish it to be. The final two points of discussion have to do with purpose and process. Purpose asks the question "why?" Why are we a diocese? What do we want to achieve together as a diocese by the grace of God? Process asks the question "how?" Here I will share some observations about codependence and need for the spiritual practice of detachment. It is interesting that as I began to organize my thoughts the psalm appointed for the morning (September 2, 2010) was Noli oemulari (Do not fret yourself), Psalm 37, Part I. It is a psalm of equanimity. Clearly, this psalm is informing much of what I want to say.


I. What Has Happened?

I think the clearest view of what took place is given by the Court of Review in their judgment of July 28, 2010. This Court critiques the Trial Court and presumably the Presiding Bishops for allowing the sexual abuse exception (from the statute of limitations) to be used without proof of actual sexual abuse. "This is especially true," the judgment continues, "under circumstances where the exception is invoked not so much to deal with sexual abuse but, rather, as an effort to use events in the distant past when the Bishop was a priest to remove a bishop during current times of strife within the diocese." To a church that has done its best to confront the problem of clergy sexual abuse in a transparent and deliberate manner, the Review Court offers a rather stinging rebuke. "To allow Title IV and the sexual abuse exception to the statute of limitations to be used in this manner diminishes the monumental efforts of the Church to address, punish and remove incidents of actual clergy sexual abuse." The last impression this church wants to convey at this time is a diminishment of efforts to combat clergy sexual abuse.

No less than six times the Court of Review found the Trial Court "erroneous" in its presentation of fact and in its conclusions. It appears the case was somewhat forced and one wonders what other motivation there might have been than a straightforward prosecution. It seems clear from the beginning that it was an attempt to remove the bishop, which brings us to the subject of power.

Power is at the heart of life. We talk about the power or energy of the Holy Spirit. Power is a life force. Leaders often stop at an "imperial" stage of power when a further stage of "interactive" power yields greater morale and accountability. Saul Alinsky (for those of my generation :-)) conveys the distinction this way: the leader "wants power himself. The organizer finds his goal in creation of power for others to use." There is nothing wrong with imperial power. The church tends to elect bishops with this particular character-set expressing charisma, vision, command and control. The church does not seem to encourage further growth to interactive or relational power. Imperial power is power over others. It is natural to hierarchy. Interactive power is power with others. It values mutuality. Forty years ago successful leaders in business exhibited imperial power. Today, because of the diversity and mobility of the workforce this leadership style no longer works. Instead, a more interactive style is called for. The church hierarchy and electing conventions for the most part (in my opinion) are back where business was in the 1970s. The presiding bishops, according to the Court of Review, exercised their imperial power to attempt to remove a diocesan bishop who was enmeshed within his diocese in conflict that seemed and may still seem intractable. Beyond the removal of the bishop there was no plan. Bishop Jefferts Schori when asked about this in a meeting of diocesan clergy replied that each constituent community should go back and work on its own health and thereby the diocese would be made strong. I remember thinking, I can do that, though I might have hoped for more. More interactive leadership would have been thinking of organizational goals and how parishes might work together to achieve them. There would have been a greater sense of purpose beyond the removal of a bishop. There might have been a guide proposed who could have encouraged more collaboration and accountability. Without this the Standing Committee fell into many of the same patterns for which the bishop had been criticized before.

II. Our Starting Point: the World as it Is

Dr. Richard O'Reilly, Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center, talked of the "kids who will face things down, they know exactly what is going on. They are able to face it, and somehow get above it." We are called to face what is going on, see the world as it is, and be activated by hope to somehow get above it. Our bishop has a blind spot to his own conduct as unbecoming a member of the clergy. The Court of Review noted, "The tragedy of this conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy is exacerbated by the fact that, during the trial of the case, the Bishop testified that, upon reflection on his failure to act... that his actions were 'just about right.' They were not just about right. They were totally wrong. The Bishop's testimony on this subject revealed impaired judgment with regard to the conduct that is the subject of the First Offense (Contemporaneous Failure to Respond Appropriately) and that is clearly and unequivocally conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy." We have to start there, and, in a way that is truer and more caring than the Bishop and stronger than the Presiding Bishops, be absolutely clear that in our diocese clergy sexual abuse will be treated with the utmost seriousness, care and safety.

We need to face into where we are in leadership on many levels that has been imperial, manipulative and controlling. We need to assert that in our diocese we will foster growth toward interactive, mutual and accountable leadership. The Standing Committee has made a good start in stressing "transparency, openness, and shared responsibilities."

Facing in to where we are has some very bright terrain. The diocese has not been static these last 34 months. The Standing Committee has noted some of these positive landmarks: strong pastoral support from the bishops; consultation teams working with distressed parishes; mission strategy planning; the diaconate; youth ministry; a review of canons and financial controls; and an active Cathedral Chapter and Council of Deans.

III. Purpose: What is it that We Want?

If we are to do better than (the Court of Review's judgment of) the presiding bishops, there needs to be a higher purpose than simply the removal of a diocesan bishop. In the last month my colleagues have written numerous letters requesting the bishop to step down. This is certainly not a new request. At the celebration of my new ministry as rector of Saint Paul's Church on February 4, 2006, the preacher was my good friend Bill Wood. The celebrant was Bishop Bennison. That week Bill in his role as President of the Standing Committee had asked the Bishop to resign. Needless to say it was an interesting way to begin a new ministry. The sense that the parish made of it was that Saint Paul's is a safe place for people who disagree to stand together before God. What we want is a turning - each to the other - in Christ.

My colleagues' letters express the desires of our diocese eloquently though perhaps in reverse as in "this will not happen with the reinstatement of Bishop Bennison." Maybe, maybe not, but I will come back to that. The purposed desire of the diocese as stated by my colleagues, in order, is for unity, reinvigoration, pastoral care, trust and safety (Safford); trust, mutual accountability and servant leadership (Allen); trust (Standing Committee); proclamation of good news, modeling a pattern of life in accord with Christ's teachings, defending the weak and vulnerable, a rhythm of penitence and thanksgiving (Cederberg); dynamic leadership (Zabriskie).

To all of the above I say "Amen." It is what I want for the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Living into such a purpose is not something that is given and may be received passively. It probably wouldn't be worth much if it was. Instead, members of the diocese are to be active in pursuit of their own common desires. We need to be a learning organization. To the extent that a leader enables the purposes for which we strive, they are to be celebrated. To the extent not, we shake off the dust and move forward.

IV. Process: What are the Steps Ahead?

The first step is to recognize and move beyond a diocesan system that has seemed to me, in the five years I have been here, codependent. Codependence is allowing one person's behavior to affect another who is in turn obsessed with trying to control that first person's behavior and round it goes. This is a destructive dance, and has extended to the national church itself. Everyone has gotten onto this dance floor. The Standing Committee and Bishop have been locked in codependence. The presiding bishops have been pulled in. We have the opportunity now to recognize what has been happening and get off this dance floor!

The way we sit out the dance of codependence is through the spiritual practice of detachment. This does not mean indifference. Teresa of Avila likens it to a silkworm building a cocoon that is God's grandeur. In order to do this, she says, we need to let go of attachments to earthly things and perform deeds of penance. Todd Cederberg and the Church of the Good Samaritan are taking a step in this direction with their penitential prayer service to be held on September 8. Through penitence it is possible to mourn and detach in love from the problem or person with which we are entangled. Gerald May observes that detachment often happens only when we have been brought to our knees: "We human beings naturally try to achieve satisfaction in all things through our own autonomous effort and control. This is just as true in our search for spiritual fulfillment as it is in the rest of life. We may yearn to 'let go and let God,' but it usually doesn't happen until we have exhausted our own efforts. There is a relentless willfulness in us that seldom ceases until we have been brought to our knees by incapacity and failure." Can we use the present moment as an opportunity to begin breaking the entanglement of codependence? I should say that everyone has been brought to their knees.

Detachment recognizes that we are responsible for ourselves to live into the purpose described above. We are responsible for building our own cocoon that is living actively into Christ, but not by relentless willfulness, or imperial power. Those who are attached to self-will are moving in the opposite direction from our purpose. We may have to let them go and "blow right past them" in our work for mutuality and accountability. We are responsible for the desires Christ has placed in our hearts. To act on this and enable others to take up their role imparts dignity.

Finally, detachment means living in the present. We do not need to solve everything all at once, or imagine that we can. We can take a crisis and break it up into specific issues. Then it is possible to do something about them. Today, we will work on this particular problem, for instance. We convert the "plight" into a "problem" and get to work.