OPEN THREAD: What Bylaws Would You Include For A TEC Parish Needing Strengthening?

Glad you brought this up again. I had forgotten where it was posted.

For clarity, DOK- as in The Order of the Daughters of the King®- is NOT part of the Episcopal Church. [BTW should mention that the name is a registered trademark.] The order (aka DOK) is a separate entity, always has been since the beginning in the 1880s. There is HOWEVER, a new Episcopal ONLY group called The Episcopal Community that was started in 2010. Also there is an Anglican order also started by former DOK in 2009.  The Order continues to be inclusive of Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics as is stated in our bylaws.

Apologies for the mini rant ...... but I have been asked by members of my own parish and had to explain so thought I would explain here as well.

Signing off ....... this time as a member of The Order of the Daughters of the King®.

“...entire communicants of the parish.”  Make certain the verbiage makes that clear, so that nobody can claim it only means of those at the meeting.  What you said sounds clear enough, but then you know TEC.  Also, you might include something to prevent end runs such as “trial,” “alternate,” or “provisional.”

I would drop the stipendiary.  There are a surprising number of non-stipendiary clergy around a large church, including fully retired who do some things like visitations.

Actually looking at parish by-laws from time to time is a good thing. One recent senior warden started looking thru a parishes bylaws.  Much to the surprise of the senior warden,  the parish by laws stated only men serve on vestry. Women had been serving on the parish vestry for decades. Simple enough. The by laws were changed at the next annual parish meeting by vote of the parish membership.

As for actual ideas to suggest, I don’t have any except that the person who is charged with updating parish bylaws be careful to make sure present practice matches parish bylaws.

Ah, Sarah… I see you and the Curmudgeon have been in correspondence. There are many things you can put in Bylaws. One might be (if the parish owns their own property) that inasmuch as the congregation bought, built, maintains, and operates the site, according to democratic principles they are the ones to decide if the deeds can be changed without full payment of current market value. Meeting must have 2/3 of communicants voting in a 3/4 majority.

I would be very careful about By Law changes and resolutions until you have seen in writing exactly what your Bishop’s position is on certain matters like SS blessings and LGBT discernments for ministry.  You don’t want to put your conservative or moderate rector or priest in a position in which he/she is in opposition to the Bishop, or put your church in a position in which the Bishop takes it over, removes your rector, and installs someone who destroys your church.  A By Law change that is against canon law is a sure way to put your church in the spotlight.

For example:  If your bishop says it’s up to the parish if it will have SSBs, and your rector says it won’t happen, then it won’t make a difference if you pass a By Law like the one recommended above… fine to do it, in case a different bishop or rector comes along, but not necessarily necessary at the time.  But if the bishop says all churches WILL allow SSBs, then your passing a By Law just means the bishop is going to come down hard on you and perhaps destroy your church, when better discretion could have involved passive resistance and been more effective and less damaging. 

I guess it depends on what your goal is - keeping a differentiating church alive for the millenium or going down in valorous flames.

RE: “For example:  If your bishop says it’s up to the parish if it will have SSBs, and your rector says it won’t happen, then it won’t make a difference if you pass a By Law like the one recommended above… fine to do it, in case a different bishop or rector comes along, but not necessarily necessary at the time.”

Right—that’s why I say that *now* is the perfect time to go ahead and make those bylaw changes.  There’s not a bishop out there right now that’s saying “every parish will offer same-sex blessings.”  Now is the time to go ahead and make the changes, for the future.

Keep in mind, for instance, this little meanness about such a bylaw change. It means that the next time you get a radical priest and he manages to stock the 1/2 the vestry with revisionists, he *still* has to call a meeting of the entire parish and conduct a vote.  Which necessarily means that the *entire parish* has to be informed about that which they are voting.  Which means . . . utter destruction and an inability to sneak something in. In order to comply with the bylaws, the parish leadership *must* inform the parish as a whole.

Billy (#5) - not to downplay the risk of aggressive bishops, but remember that the very resolution which authorizes the bishops to offer SSBs to their parishes also says that no clergy member or lay person may be penalized for refusing to take up the offer. Given that clause in the Resolution, there is no way, in my canonical opinion, that a bishop could require all parishes in his diocese to offer SSBs, or else.

Plus, I have not heard yet of a single bishop who is even trying to impose SSBs throughout his/her diocese.  If you hear to the contrary, please let us know, and we will give it the highest publicity, which should nip such ignorant asininity in the bud, if anyone dares it. 

Alex, I know what you say is legally true.  But I was raised in a rectory and have been around bishops and clergy all my life, and I’ve been involved with the new canons over the last few years, as I know you have.  There is the literal content of a resolution from GC, and there is what happens inside a diocese, behind the scenes, as I’m sure you know.  There was never supposed to be a mandatory requirement for women’s ordination (not that I oppose it WO), but that quietly fell by the wayside behind the scenes, until it was reality on the ground, before it became reality in the law.  As you know from years of watching, TEC does not pass regulations for everyone to follow as an initial step.  TEC does things and then passes regulations to match what is already a fait accompli.  Thus, any wished for respect by TEC bishops for the part of this resolution, forbiding penalization of one for refusing an SSB,  is not showing respect for the bad history of this organization.

Nevertheless, I’m not saying don’t change your by laws.  I’m just saying, before you make any move as a parish to differentiate yourself in this particular way, try to find out exactly how your bishop feels about this matter, and use discretion where it is needed to protect yourself.  The idea of this thread is to be around at the end of old TEC and the dawn of new TEC.  With some agressive bishops (who are also sneaky out of the public eye), it may be necessary to differentiate in ways that don’t poke the bishop in the eye.  A by law change to a rabid bishop is one of the most publicly defiant acts he can imagine, and such a bishop will find a way to make that church and priest sorry, even out of the public light.  Remember, bishops believe (and canon law makes it true) that the churches (not just physcial plant, but all of it) belong to them - not to the rectors or laity (except possibly in SC).

By all means everyone should review their parish bylaws, but I have seen bylaws changed in spite of rules like a 2/3s vote of whichever body.  I saw this done when our parish could not come up with a quorum for an annual meeting. Presto, change-o, the non-quorum of those assembled changed the rules so that they could pass the budget, etc.

Add a provision that all staff positions must have a civil contract, and all staff must annually sign an employment agreement. Thoroughly outline your rector’s responsibilities, including a performance clause (i.e. responsibility to uphold Orthodox faith and traditions). You protect your clergy and give them freedom of conscience:
1. Include a dismissal clause for any reasons other then breech of contract that allows for severance. I suggest making it six months.
2. Sets grounds for establishing “fault and collusion” by TEC for wrongful termination (i.e. refusal to implement non-orthodox teaching or practice). It is entirely possible Kate herself could be compelled to testify as well as unnamed groups and people filing some baseless charge.