Editor's Note:  The March 2003 "Letters to the Editor" in the Mission Bell referred to the following letter from Dr. Gordon Gritter, President of the Standing Committee. 

February 17, 2003


To the people of the Diocese of El Camino Real

Dear friends,

The Standing Committee has asked me, as President, to bring you all up to date about the recent Diocesan Convention and events since then.

We are acutely aware that failure of communication is at the root of many of the difficulties which El Camino Real is experiencing, and we are firmly committed to a policy that all of the people of El Camino Real are entitled to the most complete information which can be given.

Perhaps it is well to begin with a very brief summary of our history as a Diocese since it's beginning in 1980.

There was, at the time, a strong reaction in this portion of the Diocese of California against centralization of diocesan structure, function, and authority in San Francisco. Consequently, this new Diocese of El Camino Real was formed loosely, and it has never developed a well-defined organizational or geographical center of authority and function.

Difficulties arose during the tenure of Bishop Mallory, and they continued unresolved at the time of Bishop Shimpfky's arrival in 1990.

Soon after his arrival, conflict and mistrust arose between Bishop Shimpfky and the clergy of the Diocese. Those issues have persisted and have become increasingly severe.

Bishop Shimpfky has described himself as having "never been able to trust the Standing Committee," but he has never provided an understanding of that mistrust. Although the clergy and laity who have been elected to the Standing Committee during these years have been capable and faithful people, the relationship with the Bishop has continued to be problematic, and it has
deteriorated severely during recent years.

Similar difficulties have arisen between the Bishop and the Diocesan Council.

The administration of the Diocese has been troubled, and was seriously disrupted in 1994 when the diocesan office staff brought a lawsuit because of the way they had been treated. Subsequent changes have not produced strong administration.

In 1998, hoping to mount a funding drive, the Diocese obtained evaluation by an objective agency. The Kay Sprinkle Grace Report noted the presence of serious conflicts and lack of support within the Diocese, and advised against the proposed funding drive.

The Diocesan Convention mandated that the Standing Committee obtain further objective evaluation of the structure and function of the Diocese. In 2001, a professional evaluation by Speed Leas of the Alban Institute indicated some
areas of strength, but noted the persistence of serious internal conflicts.

A Strategic Planning Commission was instituted, and it presented an outline by which the Diocese could proceed, beginning with conferences to identify and resolve the issues of trust between the Bishop and the clergy. This Plan was accepted by Convention, and conferences were begun. The first, in June,
2001, was overly cautious and therefore unproductive. At the 2002 Diocesan Convention, Strategic Planning reported no progress. The "Pentecost" Clergy Conference, in May, 2002, facilitated by The Rev. Al Bamsey of the Alban
Institute, brought out many forthright statements by the clergy, but it became clear to many that the Bishop could not, or would not, respond.

There were then urgent communications to the Standing Committee asking it to address an appeal to the Presiding Bishop for help. In June, 2002, the Standing Committee did so.

The Rt. Rev. Clayton Matthews, Director of the House of Bishops Office of Pastoral Development, was designated by the Presiding Bishop as his representative. Bishop Shimpfky met with Bishop Matthews and Presiding Bishop Griswold. Upon their recommendation he underwent psychiatric/psychological evaluation at a nationally recognized diagnostic center, where he was found to be clinically depressed and in need of treatment, which he agreed to obtain.

Bishop Matthews met with the Standing Committee, and has given wise counsel and advice, which the Standing Committee has followed carefully.

In October the Standing Committee conferred with clergy and lay representatives of all the major components of the Diocese. There was clear consensus that Bishop Shimpfky was unable to carry out his duties, and that further action was necessary. This was conveyed to Bishop Matthews.

In December, in conference with Bishop Matthews and the Standing Committee, Bishop Shimpfky agreed to take an immediate ninety-day leave of absence from the Diocese, and agreed that upon his return he would call for the election of his successor as Bishop. That agreement was publicized by letters to the Diocese from both the Bishop and the Standing Committee.

The Standing Committee then submitted its report to the Diocesan Convention in January, 2003, and arranged an "Open Window" discussion which included all clergy and delegates.

The Standing Committee called appropriate attention to the very appreciable leadership which Bishop S has brought to this Diocese:
"During his twelve years as diocesan, Bishop Shimpfky has been respected for his enthusiastic support for the ordination of women, and their placement as rectors and vicars of parishes; his vision and work for ethnic ministries; his welcome and open support for lay people and clergy from the gay community; his encouragement for the establishment of The El Camino Real
Foundation to enhance planned giving in support of parishes; his pastoral support for clergy families in times of distress; his work nationally on behalf of Stewardship; co-chairing the Committee on National and International Affairs at General Convention; and his service as president of Province 8, which covers the western dioceses to Hawaii and Taiwan. Bishop Shimpfky has taken stands of crucial issues and allowed things to happen in this diocese that are wonderful, and we are proud of his contributions."

Some of you may have noted that during these past years very little of the history of difficulties in the Diocese has been reported in The Mission Bell.
That is due to the Publisher's policy that The Mission Bell should report only 'good' news. The Mission Bell Board, which protested that policy, was fired. The policy continues, as shown in the most recent issue: The Mission Bell reported extensively and very informatively about many of the events of Convention, and related events in the Diocese, but it made only a few brief comments about the most crucial happenings at this Convention, which were the Standing Committee Report and the "Open Windows" discussion. We see this as an aspect of the major communication problems within the Diocese.

Perhaps it will be useful to all of you if I quote from my post-Convention letter to Bishop Matthews:
"We are pleased to inform you that our Annual Convention went very well.
"Bishop Hunt was a great blessing. He renewed acquaintance with many of us. He presided with amiable poise and clarity, a firm and impartial hand on procedure, and a resonant spirituality from which we all benefited.
"The Standing Committee Report was set at the beginning of the agenda . . . and it was followed by a very open discussion which included all clergy and delegates. There were some requests for additional information and clarification, to which we responded as openly as possible. We emphasized that the actions of the Standing Committee had been taken as a result of long-standing issues within the Diocese, not as a result of the Bishop's clinical depression, and that those issues will remain even if the Bishop recovers, as we all hope and pray for him. We made it clear that we were all in a situation which required us to be both resolute and compassionate.
"Although discussion brought out candid statements of displeasure from a few delegates, what emerged was a strong consensus that the Convention accepted the Report, the leave of absence of Bishop Shimpfky, and the agreement that upon his return in March he will request a process for selection of a new bishop.
"We came away from Convention with a shared feeling that a difficult and painful task had been done, and that we had good reason to hope that there would be no splitting of the Diocese.
"Events during the two weeks since Convention have given us continuing basis for hope. Criticism have been expressed by a few clergy and a few laity, but . . . the people of El Camino Real have accepted that Bishop Shimpfky's ministry here is essentially concluded, and they are ready to move on.
"Canon Thomas, tending to the usual business of the Diocese, is functioning exceedingly well under the direction of an ad hoc executive committee consisting of the President and Vice-president of the Standing Committee, the President of the Diocesan Council, and the Secretary of Convention.
"We continue to hope and pray that Bishop Shimpfky will honor his agreement and that this Diocese will be clear to proceed with the restructure and renewal which has already begun.
"There is widespread agreement that El Camino Real needs to take plenty of time for that process to mature, and that it should not be in a hurry to choose a new bishop. At the appropriate time, we expect to call upon your office for advice and recommendations . . . "

Bishop Matthews responded to that letter appreciatively, expressing his continuing interest and engagement in El Camino Real.

It is our expectation that he will be helpful to us in charting the course to be taken following the ninety-day leave of absence. At this time, Bishop Shimpfky's intentions are unknown. They will, no doubt, be influenced by his health needs and by options which may be available to him. When his departure plans become definite, we may be wise to obtain the services of an Interim Bishop to help us address the systemic problems of the Diocese before proceeding to choose a new bishop.

We have received no direct information about how Bishop Shimpfky is responding to his treatment. Many of you have sent him your appropriate expressions of sympathy, concern, and hope for his recovery, and we hope that you will continue to do so, as our prayers also continue.

The Clergy Conference Planning Team is continuing with workshops to address issues of trust and healing.

The Chair of Strategic Planning is scheduling an overnight meeting for March 14-15 in which Rev. Al Bamsey will facilitate communication amongst the elected representatives, clergy and lay, from Standing Committee, Corporation, Commission on Ministry, and Diocesan Council. The focus will be to plan ahead: clergy issues, rebuilding and reorganization, and congregational healing.

Later in March, Rev. Bamsey will meet with lay leaders, clergy, and the Bishop.

Please receive this information, support us all as best you can, and send us your questions and concerns. We are keenly aware that we were all elected by you, and your delegates, to serve in this portion of Christ's Church on your behalf. We will continue to do our utmost to carry out those responsibilities.

Faithfully,

Gordon W. Gritter
President, Standing Committee