20180903 đ§ ârequest to removeâ to RLC
Hoping RLC will consider posting this publicly on Friday September 7th in the morning, similar to how yâall reposted Chris Heuertzâ letter to IVCF president Tom Lin six days after a similar scandal broke (https://www.redletterchristians.org/plea-healing-open-letter-ivcf/)
*I just sent this via http://communionpartners.org/contact-communion-partners. This is a courtesy email for the purposes of documentation, no need to reply.
I am contacting you as a communicant in good standing of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States to request that Stanley Hauerwas be removed from the speakers list for the September RADVO Conference in Dallas, TX. He is currently scheduled to speak Thursday, September 20th at 6pm.
On May 22, 2016 I reached out to Hauerwas âin the spirit of Matthew 18," following multiple public statements by him which dehumanized myself and other members of the military. On June 15 and July 25 he and I met on campus at Duke University, where we were both teaching at the time, with the stated goal of reconciliation. The fruit of these two meetings was an agreement to âco-teachâ a course on the virtues of military formation. After developing the course together, on November 3, 2016, Hauerwas demanded an exchange of favors from me, which would have substantially reduced student enrollment and, consequently, the likelihood of that course being taught again. His demand was coercive, including an explicit condition which an ordinarily prudent person would have known carried substantial risk to my future employment as a whole. Another faculty member has told me I likely have been âblacklistedâ from doctoral programs for reporting the abuse, which effectively has denied me the opportunity to pursue a career in my profession of choice.
In January, 2017 I involved my priest, the Reverend Karen Barfield, who convened several members of Saint Josephâs Episcopal Church in Durham, NC to serve as a small discussion group to discern steps forward. As a result of that discernment process, I contacted Hauerwasâ priest, the Reverend Clarke French on July 29, 2017, asking for a mediated conversation in the continued hope of reconciliation. Rev. French relayed to me that Hauerwas was âunwillingâ to meet. The week of August 5, 2017, I was referred to Bishop Suffragan Anne Hodges-Copple via the pastoral response team, as she was the acting Diocesan Bishop at the time, who expressed similar concerns about Hauerwasâ behavior and indicated that others have had comparable complaints. The current Diocesan Bishop, Bishop Sam Rodman (CCed), was involved starting on February 20, 2018 and he continues to impress upon Hauerwas my request for a mediated conversation. The fruit of those efforts are unknown to me.
This is ecclesiastically significant because the requirements of the Eucharist, outlined explicitly in the Anglican Catechism, include self-examination, repentance, and living in love and charity with others, two of which Hauerwas has refused to display toward fellow Communicants. This is also significant because the exchange of favors that Hauerwas demanded is a secular crime. Because Hauerwas and I were each employed by a "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,â his actions also reflect the crime of intimidation as described by 18 USC § 245 (b)(4). Furthermore, as a disabled combat veteran, I am protected by other federal laws which this behavior violates, including, but not limited to, the following
Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment & Assistance Act of 1974
Sections 503 & 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Title I & II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Hauerwas' behavior has trivialized our tradition & doctrine time and time again, and has himself directly undermined the exclesiastical authority with which priests are divinely ordained; neither the Holy Orders of two parish priests nor two diocesan bishops have yet proven sufficient to compel him to reflect the qualities of membership in the Anglican communion by being reconciled to a person against whom he had abused his power and influence. Furthermore, this contrasts sharply with Archbishop Justin Welbyâs stated priority of reconciliation.
There are plenty of platforms and events which he is uniquely qualified to address, especially within the academic arena, but a gathering to celebrate and inspire the next generation of priests is no such venue. I must insist on a response in writing, given the short amount of time left before the event. If no reply is given to this private correspondence, or indicated by email prior to 11:59pm on Wednesday, September 5th, it will be converted to an "open letter" that I will share with journalists as well as the general public. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your considered response, or an indication that one is pending.
20180906 to Don Golden, Elaina Ramsey, and Shane Claiborne
Please let me know before tonight, ideally before midnight, if y'all can publish this as an open letter. Here is the basis for what I might put as an intro (Don, you called it something specific on the phone, but I can't remember the word you used);
For the argument to stick that itâs not a very big idea, that had the abuse been sexual in nature, then perhaps it might be noteworthy, then the conservative hubbub about homosexuality really is more important then economic abuse against the poor. But thatâs not our tradition. To be consistent with our own theological commitments as progressive Christians, we must treat abuse against the poor, economic exploitation with at least as much moral outrage as we do sexual abuses.
Something like that, but more concise and with some cursory detail information. Here is a list of the people and institutions who have received this communication and therefore know that Stanley Hauerwas has had a years-long formal ecclesiastical completing against him to which he refused to respond;
Church of the Incarnation (venue) - no response
Communion Partners (organizer) - no response
Episcopal Diocese of Dallas - still trying to get in touch, may be avoiding my call
RADVOCO FB page - no response
Office of PECUSA Presiding Bishop Curry - claimed no jurisdiction, but also have skin in the game to protect
Lambeth Palace (Archbishop Justin Welby) - responded with interest
Tom Wright (a former professor of mine) still trying to get in touch
My entire ecclesiastical chain of command (mentioned in the letter).
I've given the above until midnight tonight to respond, but I'm willing to hear from them after that point. I mentioned that because I will begin reaching out to news organizations and contacts first thing Thursday morning, two weeks before Hauerwas is supposed to speak. I may be traveling to Dallas to meet with Justin Welby and/or Michael Curry, but that is not confirmed (and maybe a stretch...).
Let me know what you want to do.
20180905 @ 1157
Logan,
We are not comfortable having RLC weigh in on this. We can discuss further over the phone but I wanted to get back to you quickly with our decision to decline.
We are hopeful that we can get your nomination to the Gathering confirmed. If so, this will give you a context relationally at RLC to engaged, educate and build some consensus with RLC leaders around your work. Doing so will enrich our movement Iâm sure.
Again, happy to discuss this in more detail.
@ 1207
OK thanks for letting me know in a timely manner.
Just imagine if my comfort level were as central a consideration. Oh well, we may never know...
@ 1325
I forgot to ask: is there a simple, plain language reason that RLC went with the IVP thing but not the quid pro quo harassment issue?
@ 1337
Shoot, sorry. While weâre on the topic of IVPâs ideological purge, was there anything that the authors who signed onto that pledge that you published, penned by Chris Heuertz, were promising to do if IVP failed to reply/recant?
Maybe I read too far into it, but I thought we were all essentially saying we didnât want to do business with a company that acted like that. It may just have been me, but I purchased all the remaining copies of my own book with IVP, and have not re-approached them to publish books that I am currently developing.
I ask because Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove was one of those signatories. I realized recently that his book on âreconstructing the gospelâ (?) was published by IVP in March 2018. That means he was in contract negotiation stage, or so, right around the time he signed that letter.
Of course, Iâm sure that there is a reasonable explanation for him to sign that letter while he is doing business with the same organization that purged their own employees. Nonetheless, by offering its platform to one cause and not another, it may look like RLC is not fully committed to its own convictions, or simply applies them arbitrarily. The problem then may be that RLC is not giving equitable exposure to scandals involving powerful people or institutions, and/or itâs own leadership is double dealing.
If this is news to you and you donât have an answer, thatâs fine. JWH doesnât seem like heâs answering my emails, otherwise Iâd ask him directly. His being in leadership at RLC does appear to create a conflict of interest.
