 |
| Heather Cook drove away from her accident and had to be chased down to return. The ELCA bishop also had to be chased down by onlookers. Hiding is part of alcoholism. |
Emily C. Heath, author:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/bishop-heather-cook-sobri_b_6404226.html
A few people have asked me, as a clergy person openly in longterm recovery, what my thoughts are on whether Bishop Heather Cook, the Episcopal bishop in Maryland who struck and killed a motorist and who had a history of driving under the influence, should have been serving as a bishop. Here are my thoughts.
First of all, the person we should first be remembering, and whose family we should be lifting up in prayer, is Thomas Palermo, the man who was struck and killed by Bishop Cook, and then left to die in the roadway. Mr. Palermo and his family, including his children, should be our first concern as the church.
But to turn to Bishop Cook, and the discussion of clergy and alcoholism, this is what I can say. In the aftermath of Bishop Cook's actions, I have seen a number of posts on social media debating whether or not a person with substance abuse issues should have been elevated to bishop. In my mind, most have lacked nuance. Several things need to be taken into account.
First, there are many clergy persons in recovery from addictions. Second, there are many more who should be in recovery. Third, I don't know to which group Bishop Cook belonged.
That said, her 2010 DUI charges were particularly disturbing. Many of us in recovery never drove drunk, but the facts of her prior case seem to indicate that substance abuse was indeed a problem. My hope is that when she was charged she saw the need to get sober. My other hope is that the Episcopal Church supported her in that endeavor.
But as far as her consecration as bishop, a very short period of time had elapsed between her DUI incident and her elevation. If she was sober, she was still in "early sobriety" and taking on a position like this, with higher stress and demands on time, would have likely been discouraged. And, if she relapsed, as now seems likely, it was on her to step back and say "I need to focus on getting healthy." But Bishop Cook alone is not at fault. Church communities are often too quick to push those who have had major falls back into the spotlight. They are not doing the one who is recovering any favors by pushing a false rhetoric of "forgiveness" or "grace". Sometimes grace means saying "you need to work on yourself for a while".
With Bishop Cook too many questions are unanswered, and too little time had elapsed since her "rock bottom" of a few years ago. Something went wrong, and she found an even lower "rock bottom", and this time a man is dead, not because she was in recovery but because of her own bad decisions. Add to that the fact that this was a hit and run, and Bishop Cook took no responsibility for her actions until she was chased down, and it is clear that her behavior is exactly the opposite of what we are taught in recovery, regardless of whether or not she was drinking when she hit Mr. Palermo.
The question for me is not "should a person in sustained, active recovery be elevated to a position of leadership" but instead "should Heather Cook been elevated"? Because what we don't need in the discussion of Heather Cook's actions is a knee-jerk response that people in recovery shouldn't be in leadership positions anyway. That will only add more reasons for people to hide when they are struggling. And I know plenty of clergy who are struggling, and who fear the reaction of the church and their parishioners should they seek help. In the end, if they do not get sober, they will cause far greater harm than if they continue to carry on as functional alcoholics.
In the recovery community we have a saying: "you're as sick as your secrets". I believe that's true. And I believe that the church is sick when it makes people who need treatment hide out of fear for their professional lives. This is what happens when we don't encourage honest discussions around alcohol and addiction within clergy circles. We need to be able to talk about it, and to encourage recovery.
In the end this will not just benefit clergy, but the entire church as well. As I have written elsewhere, our inability to talk about our imperfections as clergy has only been a detriment to the church. We have somehow communicated the idea that Christians must be people of perfection, and not people of grace.
That's too bad, because when the day is done, I think that people with long-term sustained sobriety actually are assets to the ministry. Staying sober requires a sort of spiritual journey and honesty that can only help clergy. I would not hesitate to elevate a person with sustained recovery to a position of leadership.
And in the end, a story of recovery is a story of grace, and a story of the healing power of God's love for us all. This is the story the church should be telling, because it is a Gospel story. I long for the days when our clergy's stories of recovery are celebrated, and our stories of tragedy and destruction are avoided. This is possible. But it's going to take a huge cultural change in the way we talk about recovery and addiction in the church.
The good news is that, like Jesus said, the truth can set us free.
Follow Rev. Emily C. Heath on Twitter: www.twitter.com/emilycheath
***
GJ - WELS has a big problem with drunken clergy and professors. They think they are manly men because they drink too much, a habit started in their synodical schools. That is a very young age to start a chemical addiction, because it also forms emotional habits difficult to break. Got a problem? - get drunk and make it go away.
I also see it as a major cause for WELS clergy acting like teenagers and sticking together to hide one another's crimes. Alcoholism is a strong bond, so one clergy drunk is going to protect other clergy drunks.
The WELS Society of Drunks is the worst place for an alcoholic, because his worst habits will be winked at and excused, and any attempts to break up the booze at every gathering rule will be frowned upon.
Roman Catholic priests are known for their excessive drinking. I attended a big theology conference at Notre Dame where a featured speaker was drunk. I thought he was odd - the priests told me - "No, he was staggering drunk." That meeting began with a cash bar - just like James P. Tiefel's worship conference, where he served drinks.
If a man shows up at work drunk, whether it is to preach or lead a choir or give a lecture, it is no service to him when others look away and ignore the obvious. But WELS rewards and protects its clergy for drinking on the job, which is odd - unless the leaders are also alcoholics.
I served a small congregation in Michigan where two young people were killed by drunken drivers. One was recovering from his own addiction to drugs. The other was a young woman with a promising athletic career. The fatalities shattered both families. Both drunks survived the accident with little or no injuries.
