20180903-1024 📧 from Ousley
Mr Isaac,
While I appreciate your expressed concerns, Mr. Sikkema is correct that the Presiding Bishop has no jurisdiction over the matters you raise:
The appropriate channels to address concerns regarding Dr. Hauerwas’ behavior are through the office of Bishop Rodman of North Carolina;
The Radical Vocation Conference is sponsored by a small group of bishops known as the Communion Partner Bishops. They are a self-organizing group over which Bishop Curry has no authority or jurisdiction. Any concerns regarding Dr. Hauerwas’ participation in the RADVO Conference ought be addressed to Bishop George Sumner, Diocese of Dallas, and/or the actual conference organizers.
Peace,
+Todd
The Rt. Rev. Todd Ousley
Bishop for Pastoral Development
Office of the Presiding Bishop
@ 1029 to Ousley
Bishop Sam is involved, but it is not clear if that avenue has already been exhausted. It is my understanding that the presiding bishop is next in the ‘chain of command’ in enacting either asking Hauerwas to absent himself from Holy Eucharist or some resolution satisfactory to the alleging party (myself). Is that not correct?
Your response, in regards to the deadline I’ve requested, is noted and will be shared with interested parties should they ask.
@ 1037 from Ousley
Regarding matters in the Diocese, the “chain of command” does not extend to Bishop Curry. As I indicated earlier, this is a local/diocesan matter. In reference to the conference, the conference organizers are the authority.
+Todd
@ 1210 to Ousley
Thank you for your reply.
I am still unclear because you offered no explanation as to how this matter is exclusively a local matter. Hauerwas' influence has not just affected Bishop Michael or I, but extends beyond the local context given his celebrity in this country. I see no plain reason why, should Hauerwas reject the ecclesiastical authority Bishop Sam holds, Bishop Michael is not the next logical ecclesiastical jurisdiction to pursue. I see no reason why the head of our shared tradition is exempt from the responsibility to adjudicate this matter with the authority he possesses, either to compel a member of his flock to be reconciled to another or, failing that, to "grant me justice over my opponent."
Therefore, should you or Bishop Michael deny responsibility in the matter, in the the event Hauerwas continues the pattern he has established, then I will involve the presiding Bishop. The PECUSA itself can then determine, once the matter is made public, whether that responsibility was proper to his office or not. Unless you can direct me to a canon within the PECUSA or within the Anglican Communion, I will assume that the matter is not exclusive to the NC diocese, for I see no reason to believe otherwise, nor was one given.
