The Episcopal Diocese of Easton recently sent out a brief, anodyne announcement about the Title IV cases now active against Bishop Santosh Marray. While the move towards transparency is good, and there are other positive aspects to the announcement, it falls short in a key area.
Specifically, Marray is anything but fully cooperative.
Indeed, Anglican Watch has identified retaliatory behavior on Marray’s part, several questionable conversations that appear intended to undercut the proceedings, and other efforts to disrupt the process.
In several instances, Marray’s behavior involves micro-aggressions that, when taken individually, appear innocuous. But when seen as part of a larger pattern of behavior, the actions are profoundly inappropriate. These include conduct intended to intimidate, frighten, or control others or to make them fear retaliation.
We also note that, at the clergy retreat, Marray announced that Title IV charges were pending against him, and that those who had complained about him would be disciplined when he was fully exonerated. To that we reply: Over our dead bodies, and not bloody likely, respectively. And if he threatens retaliation again, we are prepared to file our own Title IV case against Marray. Try us.
And, of course, Marray’s announcement at the clergy conference suggests that the Standing Committee is misinformed as to his compliance with the existing pastoral directives.
We’d also point out that, in the nature of things, church members are inherently reluctant to file a Title IV case. Thus, the fact that a complaint has cleared the Title IV intake process suggests a lack of cooperation — and a guileless respondent can always propose a resolution at any time in the process. As in, “I am so very sorry. Let’s meet to see what we can do to make this right.”
In other words, a fully cooperative respondent resolves the matter quickly, often with little outside assistance.
So, we commend the Diocese for its commitment to making its churches places of safety and welcome. But it’s important not to try to accomplish this by whitewashing the very real problems with Marray as bishop diocesan.
Below is the full text of the announcement:
The following statement has been issued by the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Easton regarding Title IV matters involving Bishop Marray:
On May 30, information was posted on The Episcopal Church’s website for reporting Title IV misconduct by bishops in the Episcopal Church regarding two complaints filed against Bishop Marray under the Church’s Title IV canons.
Both the Standing Committee and Diocesan Council have been kept apprised of the proceedings, as have the complainants and Bishop Marray.
As reported on The Episcopal Church’s website identifying the current Title IV cases against bishops, both complaints against Bishop Marray have been referred by the Reference Panel to Conciliation (Title IV, Canon 10). Bishop Marray was advised of this in a Pastoral Direction from the Vice-President of the House of Bishops, The Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves.
From the beginning, Bishop Marray has been cooperating fully with the Title IV process including abiding by the Pastoral Direction to refrain from discussing these Title IV matters either publicly or privately.
We ask for the church’s continued prayers for all involved in these two complaints as we move forward seeking reconciliation, healing, and a renewed commitment to ensuring our churches are safe and welcoming places where all are treated with dignity and respect.
What is transpiring in the Diocese of Easton pertains fundamentally to matters of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access (DEIA). DEIA is an organizational concern that cuts across public, private and nonprofit sectors and there are two approaches. The first approach is performative, and focuses on “checking off the boxes” and keeping up appearances so that an organization can tout itself and say “look what good we are doing!” Many organizations try to put a nice face on poor DEIA track records. Unfortunately, it appears that both the Diocese of Easton, and The Episcopal Church are both more concerned about putting on a nice face than actually doing something to put a situation that has gone horribly wrong, to right. In contrast, the transformative approach confronts uncomfortable truths, invites diverse points of view, and does the difficult work needed to create safer, more affirming and productive spaces because stakeholders recognize the benefits of such transformation.
Mr. Marray violated the gag order on the Title IV proceedings by speaking against the complainants and asserted that he would be vindicated. He clearly revealed himself as a vindictive, malevolent leader and he continues to violate the implicit code of ethics that surrounds his position of power. He is engaging in retaliation against complainants and appears to be motivated by anti-LGBT animus.
I invite the Standing Committee to directly and explicitly address the concerns that I have summarized, above, and explain how Mr. Marray’s violations conform with their assertion that he is “more than cooperative.” In addition, I encourage the Standing Committee to look around their respective parishes. Are you, on the Standing Committee, happy with membership numbers in your parishes? Do you think that ignoring wrong doing, and simply checking off boxes to keep a good face will foster revival and an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in our Diocese? In contrast to what is occurring, I invite the Standing Committee in the Easton Diocese, and The Episcopal Church Leadership to create a format for open dialog to address what is going wrong (with Title IV protocols) and find ways to transform these challenges into opportunities for all of us to be better, more loving, more authentic, more joyful and more effective members of the Body of Christ.
Amen.
There is a small typo in the previous submission. Can you please replace “asserting” with has asserted that he will be vindicated before posting? Thanks so much for your help, and for the work that you put into Anglican Watch. Sincerely,
John B. Jacob
You are so very welcome.
It is often easy to criticize and what transpires in the Diocese of Easton shows that there is often good reason to do so. However, I would like to offer here some constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement in the Title IV process that could be pursued after the stalled Title IV complaints against Mr. Marray have been honestly and authentically addressed. I therefore respectfully and hopefully offer this addendum to my response of June 19.
Addendum to Standing Committee Response
While it is of the utmost urgency for The Episcopal Church to stop stonewalling the Title IV process concerning Mr. Marray and complainants, the underlying problems show that there are two white elephants in the room that a many, and particularly those in power, seem content to ignore and pretend are not there.
Much has already been said about Mr. Marray. However, at the crux of this stalled investigation, and failure to provide pastoral care to people who have been abused, is a Title IV process within The Episcopal Church (TEC) that does not work. It appears that that TEC needs to put its money where its mouth is (as there is a Title IV link on the TEC website) and that a consulting firm should be brought in to help us engage stakeholders in the process of establishing an legitimate agency, a set of protocols, and ways of handling Title IV complaints that implicitly and explicitly value the humanity of complainants and will treat them as Christ implores us to treat everyone.
TEC could profit considerably by engaging with, and developing evidence-based practices that have been put forth in the discipline of Customer Relations Management because the Title IV process is a service that TEC pretends to offer. When an organization offers a service, there are dimensions of service that must be established and maintained if the organization desires to create and maintain reputability. These dimensions of service include: a) reliability – ability to perform the service reliably and accurately; b) assurance – the ability of contact persons representing TEC and the Title IV process to respond knowledgably, with courtesy and to convey and foster confidence in the Title IV process with complainants; c) tangibles – the accessibility, transparency, and accuracy of all communication materials that lead complainants to, and through the Title IV process, and the provision of safe neutral spaces in which in-person protocols can be deployed; d) empathy (with a capital E) – provision of caring, individualized care to complainants; and, e) responsiveness – willingness to help complainants and provide prompt service.1 Transparent external review of the Title IV process and its EC representatives should also be a routine part of maintaining the Title IV program as well.
What we currently have (or do not have) in the way of Title IV customer service has destroyed the reputability of the Title IV process and its EC agents. It is also destroying the credibility of TEC as an organization that values social justice, diversity and Christ’s message. Let us all roll up our sleeves at get to work, by first promptly addressing and remediating the issues, which complainants in the Marray Title IV cases have raised. Once we have done everything possible to stop the abuse, pain and suffering there, we can then turn attention toward creating a better Title IV system and processes to restore credibility and authenticity.
The issue of authenticity is critical because we live in an age of instant communication and our younger generations (and some us in older cohorts as well) seek authenticity, values alignment and desire to feel valued when we engage with organizations and products. Right now, the TEC, with regard to Title IV, is only talking to and for those in power. From a marketing perspective, what is currently taking place is anathema to customer-centered practice.
I am sure that those entrenched in power structures and protocols that currently favor their interests will be quick to point out that TEC is not a business. While I can agree that The Church is not a business, I would also point out that it also should not be a dictatorship or an oligarchy and that it must be responsive to its membership, prospective members, and the times we live in order to survive. TEC finds itself grappling with issues that many other organizations confront and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. There is a lot of evidence-based practice that could profitably redirect our efforts toward results that would strengthen rather than divide and disperse the Body of Christ.
Foot Note
1. These dimensions of service come from a model of customer service developed by A. Parusuraman, and is cited in Customer Relations Management: Concepts and Technologies, 4th Edition by Buttle and
Spot on.
Too often, TEC combines the worst of the for- and non-profit worlds. For example, it acts like a for-profit when it litigates to defend its misconduct, versus owning up to its bad behavior and making amends.
On the other hand, it incorporates almost none of the ethics requirements of a publicly traded company, despite the fact that many for-profits set a remarkably low bar for their own behavior.
Similarly, TEC is hierarchical when it so suits, as in property recovery litigation, when the national church swoops in the proclaim its trust interest in real and personal property. But it jumps to the other foot, called congregational polity, when it comes to clergy discipline. As in, if your bishop sandbags you, too bad, so sad, catch you on the rebound.
In other words, the church is organizationally narcissistic.
In agreement with you at Anglican Watch, TEC currently appears to be better at gaslighting and micro-aggressions to preserve the status quo than it is in demonstrating any sincere effort to forge a diverse, inclusive and equitable organization. They have fallen desperately behind the times and their desperation is showing in their failed policies and bad behavior. I keep hoping that some will heed the wakeup call because there is a wonderful foundation on which a vibrant future could be built, if these things happen: 1) openly admit the failures of the past and present in order to create repentance and reconciliation; 2) expand and further protect the value, dignity and rights of women and LGBTQ clergy and laity; and, 2) create implement and enforce a new code of ethics demanding perfectly ethical people and transparent processes.
Everything that Anglican Watch reports shows that it is time for a 21st century reformation in the Anglican Communion and TEC. The Church (that is the entire Body of Christ across denominations) is changing and one can choose to be a part of what the Holy Spirit brings to life, or one can cling to the past, entrenched in comfort zone, one’s power, and one’s privileged statuses. If clinging to the past is the objective, then one can face the consequences that Jesus and St. Paul warned against.