jQuery Slider

You are here

The Rev. Mark Hansen’s inhibition: What is to be done?

The Rev. Mark Hansen’s inhibition: What is to be done?

by Ephraim Radner

PUEBLO, CO (7/15/2005)--The recent inhibition of the Rev. Mark Hansen (St. John’s, Bristol) in the Diocese of Connecticut by Bp. Andrew Smith, and the physical take-over of his parish’s pastoral oversight, buildings and administration raise disturbing questions. Like most outsiders to this episode, I do not know the motivating details of this event.

But its public face is clear enough: without personal contact and without clearly stated reasons, the bishop inhibited a priest who in every respect, except in his lack of concrete support of his bishop’s teaching, seems to have been a faithful pastor to his congregation.

The manner in which the inhibition took place, including an unannounced visit to change locks and take possession of computer files and other materials, was, to most observers, shocking in its brazen and clumsy assertion of power.

Why was no prior meeting held with Vestry and parishioners to explain the bishop’s concerns? Why was no meeting held with the priest? Why does the stated cause for the inhibition – “abandonment of communion” – seem to have nothing to do (and in any case to have been formulated months before the actual actions just taken) with the actual explanations given by the bishop and his staff? The bishop’s actions appear to have little interest in the real pastoral needs of the congregation and rector. As reported by eyewitnesses and newspapers, this is one of the most egregious exercises of unfounded disruption of congregational life – devoid of Christian transparency – that ECUSA has seen in some time.

What should be done? Perhaps someone so far from the scene, like myself, has no business raising the question. However, we are all well past the point in this church when we can simply assume that things will “sort themselves out”, and in a way that will have no effects upon our common life. Rather, the present scandal of our church’s public and internal disarray demands all of our interest and engagement as a Christian duty.

So, to the question, one can see in response all kinds of options: parishioners can simply leave in sorrow and disgust; people can carry on as if nothing really significant has happened; legal counsel can be secured and civil action pursued; others around the church can write letters and make noise (as I am now doing); and so on. I suggest two particular lines of response.

First, those close to and involved in this episode, should they be truly convinced of the bishop’s misuse of power in this case, must pursue the avenues of redress that are given within the church’s own structures and canons. I note, for instance, that several Connecticut priests at odds with Bp. Smith believe that he has been unfaithful to his ordination vows, and have so explained in public statements. In such a case, the canons provide a clear response: the charge of presentment. Title IV, Section 1 (h) lists “any act which involves a violation of ordination vows” by a bishop, priest or deacon as being liable to presentment. Those who may charge a bishop of such an offense (and others listed) are “ten or more Priests, Deacons, or adult communicants of this Church in good standing, of whom at least two shall be Priests – one Priest and not less than six Lay Persons shall be of the Diocese of which the Respondent [charge bishop] is canonically resident” (IV.3.23 [a]).

A charge is no more than that – it needs to be investigated and adjudicated according to a certain procedure (that passes through the Presiding Bishop and is given over to a Review Committee). But it is one of the major ways – indeed the only really formal way – in which bishops can be held accountable for the godly integrity of their ministry among their flock by that flock itself. And this is the point: the charge of presentment is not to be used for the sake of vindictiveness, or used as threat for the purposes of manipulation; it is not, furthermore, some kind of parallel to a request for “alternative episcopal oversight” which is rather a provisional means of buying time while allowing the Communion to sort out disputed episcopal standing. The goal of a presentment charge is ministerial accountability, on some firm basis, and nothing less to the flock of Christ under episcopal charge. Whether or not one has any real expectation of the process moving with either dispatch or honesty is another matter – and I know that (given past events) probably few think this process worth the effort and struggle. However, it strikes me as odd that, to this point, many public and private accusations have been made against bishops across the country, but the actual instruments given by the church for examining these accusations and maintaining episcopal integrity have not been used. It is time that they were so used.

I have written on this matter before (see my chapter “Bad Bishops” in my recent book Hope Among the Fragments, pp. 91, 95). This aspect of discipline, as I have long argued, is an essential part of being the Church of Christ that lives in communion. Bad bishops most decidedly demand a real obeisance and sufferance (even suffering); they do not demand being left unaccountable. No doubt Bp. Smith believes his clergy must be held accountable; so too do all leaders in the church. But arbitrary or non-existent accountability in all quarters represents the death of Christian communion itself. Clearly this is one aspect of ECUSA’s current woes. Were leaders in the church all to understand their own roles as ones lived out penitentially and under judgment, perhaps this entire line of thinking could be put aside.

Second, it is also time that those ECUSA bishops who are committed to being bishops of the Anglican Communion on the terms given by the Communion itself assume the mantle of their commitments just on this score. These bishops should at this point publicly take on a role as advocates for the Rev. Hanson and his congregation (assuming this is what the latter want) before the House of Bishops and the Communion itself. They should corporately seek persuasive explanations from Bp. Smith, and if they are not adequately forthcoming, pursue their own canonical process of holding him accountable. They should also carry this matter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Panel of Reference for some kind of inquiry, advice, and if necessary and possible, adjudication, particularly with respect to the longstanding request by the Rev. Hanson and his congregation for alternative episcopal oversight. Taking on such a role as this would be, for Communion-committed Bishops of ECUSA, one part of the witness to and indeed proof of their stated convictions. Such witness is also an essential part of living within the Church of Christ as it exists in communion.

If, on the other hand, bishops believe that this kind of response will simply open a Pandora’s Box of mutual attack, they must find some new way of exercising self-restraint during this difficult time or simply submit to the already strengthening current of ecclesial and jurisdictional chaos. Does our episcopal leadership not see this? For many of us – presbyters especially – watching the present spectacle feels like standing on the shore and observing helplessly as ships founder in the storm only yards away, with family, friends, and cargo simply disappearing in the waves. Or perhaps we are seeing an image of our own selves and ministries reflected back from the dark waters.

These two suggested lines of response go no further than being just this: suggestions in the face of a situation reported to me, as to everyone in America, through the public media. But even if I have misunderstood this situation (as well I may), one thing remains incontrovertible: honesty, self-control, meekness, gentleness, patience and many other fruits of the Holy Spirit are most certainly being obscured in the present case. The precedent of such spiritual obscurity does little to promote optimism about the outcome to other places of increasing conflict in our church between episcopal leadership and clergy and their congregations (e.g. Florida). Bishop, priest, and people together are called – not merely by way of suggestion – to exhibit these fruit if they are to claim authority in Christ before God and man.

–The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is rector, Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado, and the author of, most recently, Hope among the Fragments.

Subscribe
Get a bi-weekly summary of Anglican news from around the world.
comments powered by Disqus
Trinity School for Ministry
Go To Top