wfn.org | Bishop Doss of New Jersey deflects

[ENS.parti@ecunet.org (ENS)]

November 13, 1997
Episcopal News Service
Jim Solheim, Director
212-922-5385
ens@ecunet.org

97-1997
Bishop Doss of New Jersey deflects calls for his resignation

by James Solheim
       (ENS) Bishop Joe Morris Doss of New Jersey said in an October
31 pastoral letter to his diocese that, despite calls for his resignation from
the Standing Committee and the Diocesan Council, he was "renewing my
commitment to serve as your bishop."
       The action comes in the wake of a wellness report, released
October 6, outlining a plan of action for healing and reconciliation. In a
letter to the diocese, Doss said that he was "personally committed to
implementing the proposals for healing contained in the wellness report,
especially addressing and remedying those criticisms of my own
behavior." The letter did not stem the tide of criticism, leading to the
action by the council and standing committee.
       Pointing out that "the episcopacy is a very special office" and that
the church "has no dissolution canon for bishops," Doss said the first
step in building "a united and strong missionary diocese" is a
determination "to continue the process of healing and reconciliation and
bring it to fruition."
       "I know many of you fear that a cloud has been created over my
episcopacy which may make it impossible to go forward," Doss wrote,
but "I believe God will use this crisis to bring us forward in ways we
could not have imagined, that God in Christ will surprise us and bring
new life where now we see nothing but chaos and pain."
       
Actions are only advisory
       "The actions of the Standing Committee and Diocesan Council do
not represent the views of all people of the diocese," said the Rev. Juan
Oliver in a press statement released October 31. He pointed out that
"their prescribed role is to advise the bishop, and their actions can only
be taken as advisory." He pointed to the exclusion of Bishop George
Hunt from the Diocesan Council meeting, "thus directly blocking him
from the work on reconciliation and healing that he was sent by the
presiding bishop to do," as further evidence of a strategy "by a well-
organized few." Their purpose, Oliver said, is "to make it impossible for
the bishop to conduct his ministry of reconciliation and healing."
       Those in the diocese "who form the base of support for Bishop
Doss must now find ways to voice their support and oppose those who 
have organized to seek his resignation," Oliver concluded. Doss has
called a meeting at Trinity Cathedral in Trenton on Saturday, November
15, "so that together we may move beyond accusation through the light
of truth into the glorious ministry of reconciliation."

Too little, too late?
       The Standing Committee and Diocesan Council "are the elected
are the elected leadership of the diocese and have an obligation to speak
up when problems are present in the diocese," said the Rev. Roger
Hamilton, chair of the Standing Committee, in explaining the resolution
the committee passed October 22. In an open letter to the diocese, the
committee said that it reached the conclusion "that it is impossible to
solve these issues" while Doss continued as bishop.
       "It is difficult to unseat a bishop because the church, by its very
nature, expects a bishop to be prophetic," Hamilton said in an interview.
"But our request for the bishop's resignation is based upon character
issues and a deep lack of trust in his ability to remain our bishop." He
said that the committee reluctantly concluded that the healing process
outlined in a recent report by a diocesan wellness committee (see ENS
story #97-1975) could not work because "that healing must be based on
trust and we believe that bedrock of any relationship does not exist with
Doss." 
       Hamilton pointed to the resignation of the diocesan treasurer,
Richard Ellwood, and the interim chief financial officer, Robert Garrett
III, as further evidence of the growing polarization. In calling for the
resignation of Doss, the two said that remaining in office would put them
in "an enabling situation which abets Joe's remaining as our bishop."
       Many of the problems the diocese is facing, Hamilton added,
were present before the election of Doss in 1994, "I know of no
preexisting problem that has not been exacerbated by his presence. And
what is more, a host of new problems have been introduced by him. I am
certain that Doss's presence among us will not facilitate healing but will,
in fact, deepen and prolong the issues which we must face." Hamilton
concluded, "The bishop has become a symbol of disunity rather than the
unity the episcopacy is supposed to bring."

Support for Doss emerges
       An open letter is circulating in the diocese in which supporters of
Doss are protesting what they call an "organized effort" to force the
bishop's resignation. "To think that everything will be fine if we get rid
of the bishop is a ruinous assumption," the Rev. Christopher Sherrill of
Trinity Church in Princeton told the Trenton Times. The letter, dated
before the Standing Committee took action, contended that the conspiracy
to force Doss from office intended to make the bishop's ministry
"impossible."
       Signers of the letter of support argued that the Standing
Committee could not speak for the diocese, that it does not reflect the
broad base of support. "I don't think what the committee did was in the
spirit of reconciliation and healing--and I'm baffled as to why they did
it," said Haskell Rhett, a member of Trinity Church who served a term
on the Standing Committee. He was part of a delegation that met recently
with Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning in New York to express their
support for Doss.
       "We feel deeply that we, the people of the diocese, are perilously
close to being broken and scattered," the letter said in calling the
diocesan clergy to avoid political infighting. "We can only be recollected
and made one in Christ, not by scapegoating others."
       "No human being should be submitted to this sustained, ruthless
opposition that he has faced almost from the first day of his tenure," said
the Rev. Walt Zelley Jr. of Metuchen, senior warden of the Diocesan
Council. "The last thing I want to see is a bishop removed," he said in
an earlier interview. If the critics succeed, "the diocese would be in the
hands of some pretty sick, malicious people. And the psychic wounds
would be terrible."
       Zelley and others point to hopeful signs that the diocese is ready
to get on with its ministry. "Given a chance we could do wonderful
things for the kingdom of God. Why don't people just forgive Doss so
we can get going with our real tasks?"

--James Solheim is director of news and information for the Episcopal
Church.