Here is the body of the letter of resignation that Dr. Douglas, now Bishop Douglas, sent to the Secretary of General Convention. I send it with Bishop Douglas' permission.
I regret that in my first posting on the matters raised about resignations, corrected in a second version, his resignation from Executive Council was conflated /confused with his resignation from his clerical seat from The Episcopal Church to the ACC. I corrected this (although it was later pointed out with two instances of tense correction not made) and posted a revised version. His resignation from the clerical seat on ACC remains a matter for the future.
"20 February, 2010
...
Dear Secretary Straub:
I am writing to formally resign my position as a presbyter elected by the 2006 General Convention to serve on the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church. This resignation is to take effect during the meeting of the Executive Council in Omaha, Nebraska, February 18-22, 2010.
The reason for my resignation is my “translation” to a new order as a result of being elected to the episcopate in the Diocese of Connecticut. I thus can no longer serve as a presbyter elected by the General Convention to the Executive Council.
It has been a joy and honor to serve on the Executive Council for the last four years. While I am excited about the new ministry in Connecticut, I will miss the work of the Executive Council. The friends and colleagues I have made on Council, as we have worked together to serve and extend God’s mission, has been a gift that I will always cherish.
Please extend my appreciation to the Presiding Officers, the members of Executive Council and the hard-working staff of the General Convention Office for their friendship, collegiality, and support through the years. I will miss you.
Faithfully,
The Rev. Ian T. Douglas, Ph.D.
....
5/20/2010
12 comments:
OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good. He is prepared to see the logic of there being different roles/tasks to be undertaken if one is a presbyter or if one is a bishop. The same logic operates at the ACC. Revd Borsch and Revd Kimsey stepped down from the ACC when they became Rt Revds. What difference does precise tense actually make -- no wonder your corrected version was still struggling to get this right. Douglas is not able to remain as a presbyter member rep of the ACC. I'm not sure he even has to write a letter and formally resign. So why is this in doubt? Apparently because behind the scenes he is trying to hold on to his seat, by what means we can only guess, because to have this clouded in any way means that the Standing Committee representation is also clouded. Well, let's do the true Liberal thing and major in fairness and transparency. This entire back-and-forth is testimony to what happens when people prefer to work behind the scenes to massage the system. That does not encourage trust.
ReplyDeleteTOH
Douglas is not able to remain as a presbyter member rep of the ACC. I'm not sure he even has to write a letter and formally resign. So why is this in doubt? Apparently because behind the scenes he is trying to hold on to his seat, by what means we can only guess, because to have this clouded in any way means that the Standing Committee representation is also clouded.
ReplyDeleteCan you link the proof of this claim, please?
The answer is so obvious that one wonders why it must be stated. Because if ID has resigned from EC because he is no longer a presybter, he should also indicate publicly that, by the same logic, he is standing down from the ACC. +Tengatenga should have his letter, as a courtesy, in the very same way TEC and Canada operated with +Stephen Andrew and +Borsch and +Kimsey. And so inferred, properly, Mark Harris, in his lengthy first post, semi-corrected after some apparent conversations that indicate worry that Harris jumped the gun. He didn't jump the gun so much as expose the obvious next steps that anyone familiar with the protocols would know. Someone did not like that. But even Harris's semi-corrections got it right: ID as Bishop Douglas will relinguish his seat. Why he does not do so publicly right now is what keeps the story up and running.
ReplyDeleteTOH
So in fact you do not have a link to back the claim, it is pure conjecture and idle gossip for your part.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: you may be interested to know that no one had "conversations." I realized in reading over what I had written that I had folded into one the resignation from EC and the necessity at some point of giving up the clergy "seat" from TEC on ACC. The error was mine, I acknowledged it, and Bishop Douglas was kind enough to share with me the letter of resignation to Executive Council.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear: no one spoke to me about this matter. I caught it myself.
David, your enthusiasm is noted yet again. The point is obvious.
ReplyDelete1. previously when presbyters became bishops, they stepped down.
2. ID stepped down from the EC for this reason. 3. he is not stepping down, apparently, from the ACC. 4. even Harris regards his time as drawing to a close, but simply does not want to say he has formally resigned yet 5. why does ID not resign formally so that the matter can be dealt with transparently? one possibility is that he simply wants to take over the vacant seat without any public airing of the matter...and why? he worries about the implications of this for the Standing Committee. Please think carefully about the distinction between gossip and logical deduction. Otherwise, blogs are in their entirety, including your own enthusiasms, gossip. The point is: let ID deal with this matter up front, as did previous Bishops upon their movement from being presbyter reps.
TOH
Sorry Anon, everything about the ACC does not have to unfold as Orthodites say that it must unfold. And because it does not unfold as Orthodites wish, does not mean that there is any logic to your assumptions of conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteAll right, TOH, take a deep breath. There is gossip-speculation, speculation with some logic to it, and fact. The bishop-elect has his position on the ACC as a representative of the Episcopal Church, and not independent. He has resigned that position.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the web page of the Anglican Consultative Council, "A member remains a member until immediately prior to the meeting at which his or her successor takes his or her place (ACC 4, Resolution 28). The current members of the ACC are those who participated in the most recent meeting of the ACC (Nottingham 2005 )." So, there is no requirement for the bishop elect to resign before the next meeting is convened. Although it isn't explicit in the ACC Constitution (I looked), by extension there is no requirement to resign from the Standing Committee before it next meets.
Now, Mark has speculated in an earlier post that the Executive Council might appoint him the Bishop representative from the Episcopal Church. They might not, of course; but there is some logic to Mark's speculation. However, it isn't fact unless and until it happens.
You speculate that the bishop elect is delaying in hope that, first, he will be appointed the Bishop representative, and, second, that since he's still a representative from the Episcopal Church, the ACC will continue to find it appropriate for him to serve on the Standing Committee. You speculate about a rationale for that if he were not on the Standing Committee, matters would be different, and arguably less comfortable, for the Episcopal Church.
However logical, none of these are facts; and we won't know the facts for a while yet. Yes, they make some sense, and I might even agree with you to some extent. However, the facts being what they are, while the bishop elect hasn't done what you would prefer, he has done what the the rules require at this point.
In the meantime, there's no need to attribute secrecy. He has appropriately announced his resignation to the body that appointed him, the Executive Council on behalf of the Episcopal Church. He may need to take some action toward the ACC and the Standing Committee; but by the ACC's own rules, he doesn't need to take action yet. That's the fact. All the rest, even the logical, is speculation.
"A member remains a member until immediately prior to the meeting at which his or her successor takes his or her place (ACC 4, Resolution 28). The current members of the ACC are those who participated in the most recent meeting of the ACC (Nottingham 2005 )."
ReplyDeleteMarshall--please have a look at any of the ACI or Fulcrum articles on this. Yours is a gross simplification. There IS a Bishop rep -- Roskam. Are you saying TEC can have two Bishop reps for the meanwhile?
I thought progressives were supposed to be transparent and above-board and follow the rules. Do you not see how little trust 85%of the Anglican Communion has in the soi-disant 'Standing Committee'? Do you not see the way in which 85% of the AC simply concludes that Americans get what they want by throwing money at the ACO? Let ID resign as has his predecessors. Let there be fresh appts to the two seats vacated (if Roskam wants to relinguish hers). Even then it is unclear that ID CAN be elected to the Bishop seat, given the rules. They call for the appointment of someone previously having served only after a period of 6 years.
You seem to agree that there is some reason for concern. Let's get the matter sorted out properly so something like a modicum of trust can remain with TEC and its role in Communion affairs.
TOH
Do you not see how little trust 85%of the Anglican Communion has in the soi-disant 'Standing Committee'? Do you not see the way in which 85% of the AC simply concludes that Americans get what they want by throwing money at the ACO?
ReplyDeleteThat 85% of the AC for whom you nominate yourself to speak has no idea of what you speak Anon. It is their Prince-Bishops, put in office by an old boys club, who object. When we go into the provinces and ask the people directly, they have no interest in such topics. They are concerned with the day-to-day rat race of just staying alive.
The people have not the money to do more than scrape by while their Prince-Bishops have conservative money thrown their way by the bucket load to jet them first class to shindigs at island resorts and untold numbers of conferences where they vomit unimportant dictates and dire warnings.
And their 'day to day rat race' entails convictions about sexual relating you and others in TEC are seeking to dismantle, thus importing, yet again, your wealthy american values and power and so making their 'day to day rat race' even more burdensome. Spoken by someone who has no real knowledge of day to day life in Sudan or Congo, moreover.
ReplyDeleteTOH
TOH, not everyone who disagrees with you is a Statesonian or a Canadian. Look closely at my little photo, I am a 5'3", brown skinned Mexican. We have not been a part of TEC, but an independent, autocephalic, national Anglican church, since 1995.
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea what I know of day to day life in Sudan or Congo, or any other sub-First World nation!