Interest in some form of delegated episcopal oversight, or DEPO, has been raised anew by the action of some parishes in the Diocese of Albany that have requested, or are considering a request for DEPO status. Comments that I have read on blog postings or have heard expressed by parishioners indicate that DEPO is not widely understood for what it is. Therefore I want to try to explain the limited objectives of DEPO, what it is and what it is not. My explanation has been greatly helped by a web article published by the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance.
It is true that the precipitating issue for DEPO remains a basic conflict over the understanding of human sexuality, but the remedy is designed to address other root causes of dissatisfaction between parishes and their diocesan authority. While another bishop may be invited to provide pastoral care to aggrieved parishes, the intervention of another bishop does not relieve the diocesan bishop of his or her constitutional and canonical responsibilities. And while a parish receives the benefits of alternative pastoral oversight, it does not absolve the parish from its responsibilities to the home diocese. In other words, seeking and obtaining DEPO does not mean that a church is seceding from its diocese.
In March 2004, bishops of the Episcopal Church attended a two-day retreat at Camp Allen, TX, for a period of intensive conversation and prayer. There they developed a statement titled "Caring For All the Churches: A Response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to an expressed need of the Church." The need that the statement referred to came from individual parishes in liberal dioceses who "find themselves in distress because of the actions of the 74th General Convention.” The distress was over the action of consecrating the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
The remedy offered by the House of Bishops was “Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight", or DEPO. As as originally outlined in the statement by the House of Bishops, DEPO would allow parishes in a liberal diocese to receive pastoral oversight from another bishop, "who neither supported the election [of Bishop Robinson] nor supports the ordination of homosexuals to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church." The DEPO procedure would start with a meeting between a conservative congregation and their more liberal bishop, “with a consultant, if needed, to find ways to work together." If reconciliation could not be be obtained, then the congregation "may seek from their diocesan bishop...a conference regarding the appropriateness and conditions for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight." Then, “the bishop may appoint another bishop to provide pastoral oversight" for the congregation. If conflict continues, "there may then be an appeal to the bishop who is president or vice-president of the ECUSA province in which the congregation is geographically located, for help in seeking a resolution." Progress toward reconciliation would be assessed regularly, and reported to the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops.
Conversations with clergy from within and outside the Diocese of Albany suggest that the history of DEPO has not always followed the pattern outlined. There were conservative parishes in the dioceses of Washington, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and San Diego that asked for DEPO not too long after the program was announced. In each case, the churches were turned down by their liberal diocesan bishops. In the handful of cases where DEPO was tried, it allowed conservative parishes to distance themselves from what they considered a “heretical” diocese and bishop without actually leaving The Episcopal Church. As a priest friend from a neighboring, liberal diocese puts it, “I'm not aware of any case where DEPO was a means of reconciliation.”
Why, then, would Bishop Love consider allowing parishes in this diocese to seek DEPO status? It may be that, at this remove from its inception, DEPO is seen to be less than the threat initially imagined by liberal bishops. It could be that Bishop Love feels pressure not only from his own congregations, but from his fellow bishops to provide some “leeway” to liberal parishes. In this regard, you may want to read a recent article in the Albany Times Union on the subject of DEPO. In any case, Bishop Love’s willingness to consider the remedy is a small, but positive opening coming from our diocese.
As Dr. William Hammond, a member of Albany Via Media, pointed out to the board of that organization, there is an asymmetry to the way the path to DEPO is working out in the Diocese of Albany. Elsewhere, the program has been used to distance a congregation from the perceived heresies of a liberal bishop and diocese. Here the plan is seen as a way to open a window to a fresh perspective, including a welcome dialog with our own diocesan bishop, William Love. The need for such a real dialog and mutual respect between conservatives and liberals within this diocese has been the subject of comment on this blog. If the search for DEPO in our diocese accomplishes anything, it will be to open lines of communication which have been blocked for too long. This is the goal. But dialog will not work unless it begins at the top, and that means it must first involve our bishop and diocese.
Recent Comments