As I read through various Anglican books attempting to piece together a timeline of the realignment, I came to June 24, 2001, where four men were consecrated as bishops in Denver Colorado. Three of them I knew very well by name: Thad Barnum, Sandy Greene, and T.J. Johnston. The fourth I had never heard of: Douglas Brooks Weiss. Who was he and what happened to him? You can tell a lot about events by what people don’t talk about, what they leave out, as much as by what they put in. As far as I could tell, Bishop Weiss was a ghost. No record of him online, no glowing tributes from press releases, almost nothing.
However, I did find a book called deckhand, The Humorous Redemption of an Angry Man by Weiss, and I ordered it to see if it shed any light on his history. As it turns out, it does. Weiss came up through the Episcopal Church and was part of the charismatic movement that was so massive from the 60s to about the 90s, and which still reverberates today. At some point, his local parish left the Episcopal Church and was independent, much like William Beasley’s church in Chicago. When the AMiA was created, these churches joined up to the new thing. And so Weiss was made bishop in 2001. His connection seems to have primarily been to John Rodgers, he was not a Chuck Murphy guy. In Rodgers book, he calls Weiss “a dear friend and creative leader.” Weiss discusses his selection as bishop:
This rapid growth was affirmation of the Mission’s calling. After a year and a half, Bishops Murphy and Rodgers were overwhelmed with the task before them and made a plea for the consecration of additional bishops. It was imperative that the next steps be taken with great care, and that the Mission be in the center of God’s will. The archbishops of Rwanda and Southeast Asia were prepared to consecrate four additional bishops in order to strengthen the leadership team of AMiA. A nominating committee was formed to find candidates to present to the archbishops. Joe Fletcher from Christ the King Church was on the committee. He asked me to pray about allowing my name to be placed on the list of nominees. With some hesitancy, I said yes. Because ultimately Archbishops Kolini and Yong held the responsibility for their actions, they would make the final decision on the candidates for consecration (Weiss 2006).
Weiss had a discussion of his call with his friends, pastors and prayer leaders, Peter Wilkes and John Isaacs. Wilkes told him:
Doug, the Anglican Mission exists because a group of clergy withhin the Episcopal Church caught a glimpse of how deeply dysfunctional their church has become. The danger is that what they build will be a harsher version of what they left. To be sure, it will be orthodox. My guess is that it may also become very hierarchical and controlling for a season, as over compensation…I understand that you believe this call from the Anglican Mission is of God. I don’t want to dissuade you, but I do want to caution you. God has given you perspectives to share with this new apostolic team, but you may, once again, find yourself marginalized or worse yet, forced out.”
Isaacs told him, “You’ve seen what Church life can be. You will go as a prophet. They are never warmly welcomed.”
In the book Zoom Memoirs by Bishop John Rodgers, Sandy Greene offers this background:
The plan from early on was for the two missionary bishops (Rodgers and Murphy) to sponsor two new bishops under their respective provinces to continue the work in North America. John chose me and Doug Weiss, who was located in the San Francisco Bay area, to be consecrated under the province of South East Asia. We would represent the western half of the country while Chuck’s appointees, Thad Barnum and T.J. Johnston, would represent the eastern half and would be consecrated in Rwanda…After the ceremony Doug and I learned that the provincial synod in South East Asia had declined to receive us as they had John and that we would have our licenses out of Rwanda.
After becoming a bishop, Weiss struggled with the demands placed upon him. He writes:
In addition to the physical exhaustion, I was emotionally stressed due to the nature of the work the National Leadership Council required of me. I was expected to make an assessment of congregations based onAMiA’s vision and mission statements. The results often dictated that I inform the clergy and parish leadership that they did not fit the Mission’s criteria for a viable work, an announcement that communicated rejection and compounded their wounding and marginalization. I believed that this would build a negative reputation for AMiA, so I chose to work with clergy and parishes until they either met the Mission’s criteria or came to the conclusion that AMiA was not for them. I knew that my course of action was taking me dangerously close to the familiar territory of rebellion.
He then shares something I have never heard before, namely, that Chuck Murphy placed himself in charge of the bishops when they had originally been equals:
It was clear to me that I was in trouble on two fronts – the Council of Bishops and Christ the King Church. In its second year AMiA held a Council of Bishops meeting in Pawley’s Island. After a Bible reflection and prayer, Chuck opened the meeting with an announcement: he would now have authority over the other bishops. To this point, we had acted as a council of equals with Chuck as our chairman. The new model of oversight had been sanctioned by our Archbishops at Chuck’s request. He explained that we would work for him and that he would make assignments on the basis of AMiA’s vision, the needs of the mission, and the skills of the four bishops.
I was in shock. Reality struck me. Except for John Rodgers and me, all of the other bishops had been Chuck’s long time, close personal friends. John, who had declared his intent to retire, was absent from the meeting. Suddenly, I felt very alone. While my head reeled with the news of the change, the heads of the rest nodded in agreement. From the recesses of my soul, there rose an angry silent shout, “You’re not the boss of me! I didn’t sign up for this!” Chuck’s declaration set of alarms in my soul. In my heart I knew that this new leadership direction would propel me into intense performance expectations, but even more, it triggered all my anger and authority issues.
The AMiA sent someone named Todd Justiss, who was on staff with the organization, to “assess the situation” at Weiss’ home church, where he was unable to be present like he wanted to be due to his duties as bishop. From the result, it sounds more like he was sent to remove Weiss. Justiss tells Weiss that he has no choice but to resign as rector, so he does. He is then very honest about his struggles with anger and depression, and finally his resignation as a bishop.
Peter Wilkes’ and John Isaacs’ cautions had been prophetic and accurate. The years I had spent leading an interdependent Anglican congregation in communion with the Church in the City had changed not only my perspective, but my core theology and vision for ministry and mission. John Rodgers and I had been out of the Episcopal Church long enough to be disconnected from the dysfunction of the denomination. Many of the AMiA bishops had recently been deposed as priests and were still hurting. They hadn’t had time to adjust to their new identity. Chuck Murphy’s parish in Pawley’s Island remained within ECUSA due to litigation over the ownership of the congregation’s property. As much as the AMiA bishops wanted to focus on the future, in many ways they were still bound to the Episcopal Church. I was impatient with what I judged to be their need to control the mission. They were irritated with my emphasis on “one Church in the city” and my passion for pastoral care. To all concerned it seemed best that I retire. AMiA accepted my resignation with a sigh of relief.
Leave a Reply