From Steve Hutchinson
As Vice chair of the Canons Committee, I chaired a subcommittee this week, to try to address changes in the proposed new canons on discipline. You may recall that I have served on a task force for the last five years which produced the original proposal.
This proposal has drawn a lot of attention. As drafted, it would change the canonical provisions from a punishment model to a model founded in reconciliation, and would also make lay persons accountable for certain serious acts of misconduct harmful to the church.
Given the high level of anxiety at this Convention, and the very complex nature of the proposed canonical changes, the Canons Committee will seek to refer the new canonical proposal to an interim task force to work on and bring back to Convention in 2009. This is disappointing, but I feel it essential to keep working on the changes instead of taking them to the floor where the proposal could be defeated.
Stay tuned...
A note from Toni: As Steve notes, he has worked hard with a group of really dedicated people over the last five years to craft a whole new vision of discipline in our Church. Over the past 18 months, he and the task force have travelled all over, showing drafts to various groups that might be interested and seeking comment. I attended one of the committee meetings here to see how it was going, and Steve has the patience of Job. Imagine a group of 25 people, mostly lawyers (a lot of them chancellors in their dioceses), some grammarians, some who think they remember how to parse a sentence (if you're old enough to remember what that is), and the rest just enamored with their own voices. I am disturbed that this group of people that are physically adult would have acted so childishly by waiting until literally the last minute to bring up very basic questions, that could have been resolved or at least explained to the satisfaction of everyone, if raised earlier in the process. And everyone had plenty of time and opportunity to raise them before!!
I am also very disappointed that this group (again remember mostly lawyers) cannot seem to get out of the criminal justice model. They are concerned about due process and protection of the rights of the accused, while the canons of the church in this new vision focus on truth telling and reconciliation. It reminds me of the recent efforts I've seen by medical groups trying to get some protection from liability just to allow them to apologize to patients and families that are injured during a medical procedure.
I do agree that due process and the rights of an accused are important. But, we have to remember that this is not a criminal model (if criminal charges are appropriate, they are referred to the local prosecutor). We need not be so concerned about the accused's constitutional rights. In fact, there is no constitutional right to be a clergy person, or even a lay person in leadership in the church!
What Steve and his task force have tried to do is move away from a model that precludes any real discussion and therefore any possibility of rehabilitation and reconciliation. The new canons would allow an appropriate pastoral response to everyone: the victims, the clergy or lay person, the families of both, and anyone else affected by the misconduct. If reconciliation is not possible, or if the behavior is not susceptible to mere apologies (I'm thinking of sexual exploitation, physical abuse, criminal behavior), the process moves to a more standard investigation, but still with the idea of reconciliation. The church believes that reconciliation of all of us to each other and therefore to God is our primary duty.
In short, I am disgusted with the behavior of some of the people I have seen working on this particular committee. Those of you that know me, know that I am quite idealistic. Even at the ripe old age of almost 49, I still believe we can behave as mature, Christian, adults.
This proposal has drawn a lot of attention. As drafted, it would change the canonical provisions from a punishment model to a model founded in reconciliation, and would also make lay persons accountable for certain serious acts of misconduct harmful to the church.
Given the high level of anxiety at this Convention, and the very complex nature of the proposed canonical changes, the Canons Committee will seek to refer the new canonical proposal to an interim task force to work on and bring back to Convention in 2009. This is disappointing, but I feel it essential to keep working on the changes instead of taking them to the floor where the proposal could be defeated.
Stay tuned...
A note from Toni: As Steve notes, he has worked hard with a group of really dedicated people over the last five years to craft a whole new vision of discipline in our Church. Over the past 18 months, he and the task force have travelled all over, showing drafts to various groups that might be interested and seeking comment. I attended one of the committee meetings here to see how it was going, and Steve has the patience of Job. Imagine a group of 25 people, mostly lawyers (a lot of them chancellors in their dioceses), some grammarians, some who think they remember how to parse a sentence (if you're old enough to remember what that is), and the rest just enamored with their own voices. I am disturbed that this group of people that are physically adult would have acted so childishly by waiting until literally the last minute to bring up very basic questions, that could have been resolved or at least explained to the satisfaction of everyone, if raised earlier in the process. And everyone had plenty of time and opportunity to raise them before!!
I am also very disappointed that this group (again remember mostly lawyers) cannot seem to get out of the criminal justice model. They are concerned about due process and protection of the rights of the accused, while the canons of the church in this new vision focus on truth telling and reconciliation. It reminds me of the recent efforts I've seen by medical groups trying to get some protection from liability just to allow them to apologize to patients and families that are injured during a medical procedure.
I do agree that due process and the rights of an accused are important. But, we have to remember that this is not a criminal model (if criminal charges are appropriate, they are referred to the local prosecutor). We need not be so concerned about the accused's constitutional rights. In fact, there is no constitutional right to be a clergy person, or even a lay person in leadership in the church!
What Steve and his task force have tried to do is move away from a model that precludes any real discussion and therefore any possibility of rehabilitation and reconciliation. The new canons would allow an appropriate pastoral response to everyone: the victims, the clergy or lay person, the families of both, and anyone else affected by the misconduct. If reconciliation is not possible, or if the behavior is not susceptible to mere apologies (I'm thinking of sexual exploitation, physical abuse, criminal behavior), the process moves to a more standard investigation, but still with the idea of reconciliation. The church believes that reconciliation of all of us to each other and therefore to God is our primary duty.
In short, I am disgusted with the behavior of some of the people I have seen working on this particular committee. Those of you that know me, know that I am quite idealistic. Even at the ripe old age of almost 49, I still believe we can behave as mature, Christian, adults.
posted by Toni Marie | 7:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home