Is +Stacy Sauls On His Way Out At DioLex?

A report issued by a Special Commission to the Diocese of Lexington in October 2007 was not, by any reasonable interpretation, a rousing endorsement of the tenure of +Stacy Sauls as Bishop of the Diocese of Lexington (KY).  The report, which should be read between the lines as much as in the words and sentences themselves, declares “the Diocese of Lexington is systemically unwell.”  While certainly not laying this situation entirely at +Sauls’ feet, by meting out blame to certain dissenting factions who have disagreed with mission decisions of the Diocese, it appears to also raise many questions about +Sauls’ ongoing tenure that may be answered in the coming months.   If Bishop Sauls was looking for a ringing endorsement or a hearty vote of confidence when he appointed this Commission, it does not appear that he has received either of those results.

The full report is available for reading by clicking on the link at the end of this post.

+Stacy Sauls, 53, a former attorney and 1985 graduate of General Theological Seminary, became the Sixth Bishop of Lexington on September 30, 2000, succeeding +Don Wimberley.  Membership, attendance, and pledge/plate giving all seemed on a general upward trend through 1999, but have been in decline since then.  To be fair, the largest declines have occurred since the fateful decision of the General Convention 2003 to approve consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and the ensuing, growing schism between liberals and orthodox in the Episcopal Church.  It must nevertheless also be stated that +Sauls voted in favor of that decision and many members of the Diocese would characterize his attitude toward those who were dismayed by Robinson’s consecration as “Get Over It.”  There have also been other incidents within and without DioLex that may have contributed to this downward trend.

One of the earliest controversies in +Sauls’ tenure came with the charges of embezzlement he lodged against his Canon to the Ordinary and Rector of St. Augustine’s Chapel, Christopher Platt.  Chris was accused of theft from his discretionary accounts, when many of those who know him and were privy to the “evidence” would state to the contrary that probably all that occurred was bad or non-existent bookkeeping.  Platt, when confronted with the charges, denied them but dutifully offered to submit to the Bishop’s discipline.  Instead of dealing with the situation quietly, however, Platt was subjected to a show trial that resulted in his being defrocked.  Many observers close to the Diocese believe that the real reason for the trial was for intimidation of the remaining Diocesan clergy, i.e., a warning to not cross Bishop Sauls.  There have also been rumors that Platt "knew something" on the Bishop, but those have never been substantiated, not even by Platt himself.  The accusations and being put through the wringer by +Sauls crushed Platt; he is living quietly in Kentucky on disability to this day.  Many would say a great voice in the pulpit and a truly pastoral man has been silenced and sacrificed to the Church.  And, I cannot help but observe that the swift hammering of orthodox Bishops by the national church in the last few days finds strategic echoes, if not +Sauls' fingerprints, in the deposition of Chris Platt.

Bishop Sauls was next confronted with a parish that, in his view, defied his ecclesiastical authority.  St. John’s Parish in Versailles, KY, was in the process of searching for a new Rector. Documents produced in a later court proceeding between the old and new parish over the proceeds of a trust revealed that +Sauls had "spies" in St. John's who were reporting to him and may have followed his guidance on intra-parish strategies. St. John's eventually found Fr. David Brannen and, in +Sauls’ view, proceeded with a call without properly involving +Sauls in the process. 

When asked by +Sauls whether he would vow to not take St. John’s Parish out of the Episcopal Church, Fr. Brannen honestly stated that he could make no such promises.  +Sauls therefore refused to approve the call of Fr. Brannen.  St. John’s Vestry proceeded with the call anyway.  +Sauls immediately “fired” the Vestry and took over control of the accounts and assets of St. John’s, albeit without apparent Canonical authority to do so (perhaps one of the reasons for the proposed new Canon on discipline of the laity?).  A significant number of the members of the parish left and formed St. Andrew’s Parish, affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda.  The new Anglican church is still meeting in schools, but is soon to break ground on a new building.

One of the interesting upshots of this whole process was a meeting conducted by +Sauls with the membership of St. John’s parish shortly before its final defiance of him.  +Sauls was asked several questions about his faith and personal theology; these have been widely circulated on the Internet, but this author has heard of this meeting from several who were present including the questioner, and the reports of +Sauls’ statements are generally accurate.  He was asked, among other questions:

PARISHIONER: Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?

SAULS: I believe the Bible is a book of poetry with a lot of history in it. I believe the Prayer Book has all that one needs for salvation

PARISHIONER: Do you believe there is a Satan?

SAULS: Not metaphorically speaking, no.

PARISHIONER: Do you believe in heaven and hell?

SAULS: I believe that an all-loving God would never send anyone to hell for eternity. I believe he works it out in the end for everyone.

I have been told by several current members of St. Andrew’s that these answers were significant in their decision to leave TEC and affiliate with the Anglican Church of Uganda.

Not long after the Versailles events, +Sauls discovered that the Vestry of a small parish in Maysville, KY, Nativity, had set up separate trusts and corporations to own the parish property, and had transferred some property, in anticipation that the Parish may in the future decide to leave TEC.  No doubt still stung by the departure of a large portion of St. John’s, +Sauls acted swiftly to depose the Vestry members who had taken this action, and to place Nativity under Diocesan control.

Throughout this time, complaints started to circulate about the manner in which Bishop Sauls conducted his interpersonal relationships within the Diocese.  Clergy were seen to be intimidated and cowed.  Diocesan officials were pitted one against the other.  It became known that anyone took great risks to disagree with +Sauls openly in meetings, as he had displayed a prodigious temper in responding to dissension.  One person commented to me in recent months that “the next pastoral act by Stacy Sauls will be his first.”  While this is perhaps extreme, it is indicative of the view held by many in DioLex of their Bishop, based upon their personal experiences, that he is much more an administrator and indeed still an attorney, and less so a pastor.

Bishop Sauls has had accomplishments during his tenure.  The successful and quite beautiful renovation of Mission House (right) as a Diocesan Headquarters has been completed, although there have been complaints that +Sauls has declined too many opportunities to truly use the facility as an outreach or “mission” place.  The funding for the renovation was a source of controversy as purportedly money which had been in a restricted endowment for the now-closed Lexington Theological Seminary was withdrawn and spent on the renovation, thus to some degree tarnishing the accomplishment.

+Sauls initiated a Reading Camp program that provides a summer camp for underprivileged children who do not read to grade-level, with fairly intensive instruction and training in basic reading and comprehension skills.  In Kentucky, with its myriad problems with education, this is a worthy effort. Unlike some of his brethren in the House of Bishops, +Sauls has held to a regular schedule of Parish visits and thus makes his presence at least nominally known to the TEC flock in DioLex. And he has started two new congregations, St. Martha's and Apostles, to replace other departing Anglican parishes, although property questions in the form of some belief that part of the property should have been sold have plagued both of these parishes.

And, as a personal note, +Sauls was very supportive of my former parish through a difficult process of relieving a Rector of her duties and slogging through interims, supply priests, and a search process, including three to four (or more) personal meetings by +Sauls with the Vestry to discuss ongoing processes and options.  Both in my service as parish Chancellor and then Senior Warden, +Sauls was available and supportive in one of the more difficult processes I ever hope to endure.

Many of +Sauls’ accomplishments have taken place outside the scope of DioLex.  He was nominated for Presiding Bishop in the election that saw the elevation of Katherine Jefferts-Schori to that post.  He chairs the HOB Committee on the property litigation and has made several presentations to various HOB meetings regarding litigation.  There is little doubt he is involved in overall litigation strategy with Schori and David Booth-Beers, as well as the more recent efforts to propose new disciplinary Canons, and is a “player” among his brethren in the HOB.  He has been invited to give speeches to many groups related to the Episcopal/Anglican world such as the December 2007 Chicago Consultation, where his topic was “Our Constitutional Heritage: Why Polity and Canon Law Matter.”  Bishop Sauls is also in the process of obtaining an L.L.M. in Canon Law from the University of Wales, for which he is taking periodic “mini-sabbaticals” to complete the classroom work for this degree.

The events that brought about the appointment of the Special Commission took place primarily within Diocesan offices, the Executive Council, and to some extent the Standing Committee.  As should be expected, there are diametrically different views of what transpired.  It is clear, however, that the appointment of the Special Commission had a great deal to do with the financial management of the Diocese, the Bishop’s role in same, and disputes between Diocesan officers arising from these issues.  The Special Commission was appointed in January 2007 in a very emotional letter sent by +Sauls to the Executive Council.  In this letter, +Sauls evidenced being highly upset that the extent and nature of his financial oversight and decision-making had been questioned and, apparently, that accusations of improprieties  had either been made outright or strongly implied.  He asserted his authority as Bishop, but asked this Commission to study the situation and pronounce its judgment on whether these matters had been properly handled.  Many who saw this letter at the time thought the Commission would end up being a rubber-stamp of approval for the Bishop; to their credit, they have not but seem to have generally taken an objective view.

Apparently at least part of the dispute arose when the former Diocesan Administrator and Financial Officer, a cradle Episcopalian and a CPA, questioned +Sauls’ use of restricted Diocesan funds for non-restricted purposes after discretionary funds had been exhausted.  There were also issues being raised in the course of an annual Diocesan audit over the financial health, or lack thereof, of DioLex.  Some, including the Special Commission report, have characterized these questions as improper interference in the mission of the Diocese by certain Diocesan officials once decisions had been made in Executive Council and/or by the Bishop.  Others view this as the officials conscientiously doing their jobs and raising questions where they should have been raised.  The truth is still not all that clear, and the Special Commission has recommended that at least some of the issues be treated as water over the dam and dropped. 

In addition to the former Administrator named in the report, several other Diocesan officers have resigned in recent months, including the long-time Chancellor and more than one Treasurer.  These conflicts and no doubt others are among those that caused the Special Commission to state:  “At present, the Diocese of Lexington is not functioning as it should.  The lines of authority set out in scripture, tradition and canon have been repeatedly and purposely crossed.”

The Special Commission has made many sound recommendations, including formation of a Diocesan Audit Committee and a change in the firm that will perform audits in the future; that no Diocesan bodies or committees meet without notice to all potentially interested parties, including the Bishop; that the Executive Council post its Agenda at least seven days before meetings, and its minutes be posted electronically within 30 days of each meeting; that Executive Council include in its minutes “action items” and the person(s) charged with those items so that heightened accountability can be fostered; that a professional Diocesan Administrator and Treasurer be hired immediately; and that in general, all who are involved in Diocesan operations, including elected officials and Diocesan staff, work to end an atmosphere of distrust, accusation, innuendo, and finger-pointing which has affected them all, and instead work to instill an atmosphere of civility in Diocesan dealings.

The recommendations to Bishop Sauls, however, are those that raise the question with which I have titled this post.  As I stated above, if one reads between the lines with these recommendations, they are anything but a ringing endorsement of +Sauls’ Bishopric.  For example, the Commission has recommended that the Vice Chancellor serve also as “Almoner” to be a confidential adviser to the Bishop regarding use of the Bishop’s discretionary account.  With regard to the Diocesan budget, the Commission recommends “that the Bishop have little hand in developing the budget, but submit funding requests as do other agencies of the Diocese.”  The Commission further recommends that hearings at the Diocesan Convention on the budget “be presented by the Budget Committee rather than the Bishop.”  (If this latter recommendation is intended to spare the Bishop taking the heat spawned by any new budget, I feel fairly sure he should not object to this move.)

Near the end of the report, the Special Commission makes several specific recommendations to Bishop Sauls, which I will quote in their entirety:

1.    To the degree it is practicable, avoid involvement in Diocesan finance

a.  Your input is critical to the budget process if the mission of the Diocese is to move forward, but that should be the extent of your involvement beyond turning in receipts.

b.     When possible, avoid even signing checks.

c.     Learn to trust the Treasurer and Finance Committee.

d.     Be our Leader, not our manager.

i.               Articulate a vision and hold us to it.  Each year the Convention is invigorated by your words and the words of our invited guests. Follow up on the vision you present. The Stewardship presentation by Greg Rickel would be an excellent place to begin.

ii.             Lead with confidence, not caution.

2.    Do your best to resist overreaction

a.  It is difficult for someone to disagree with you openly and honestly if they fear what your reaction might be.

3.   Explain your rationale. Inspire us. Sell us on your program.

a.    Many decisions are yours alone to make. The leadership of the Diocese will be more inclined to trust you if they understand your reasoning,

4.   Feed the flock of Christ committed to your charge.

a.      We are proud to have you represent us to the wider Church,

b.      But we need you as servant and pastor, not just as overseer.

c.      Understanding the importance of your work in the National Church,

d.      We ask you to understand the importance of your presence here with us.

e.      As you stated you would in your first address to us, we ask you to "walk among us."

5.   Decide whether, despite the hurts you and your family have endured, remaining as our Bishop is worth the work of reconciliation that will be required.

            

The Special Commission should be commended on its efforts, by its usage of this gentle language, to try to not worsen the situation in a Diocese that they have already described in their report as “systemically unwell” and “dysfunctional.”  But, trying to distill these points down to their essence, are they not saying to Bishop Sauls:

1. Stay out of the financial affairs of the Diocese (with the implication that he has caused some problems by past actions);
2. You have a bad temper and need to work on it;
3. You have to trust us if you want to be trusted;
4. We would prefer that you do your job here in DioLex instead of running around with the national church and its issues so much, i.e., we think your personal priorities as Bishop of DioLex are out of order; and
5. If you can’t handle this job and what we ask of you, maybe you should be looking elsewhere?

I have heard nothing of how Bishop Sauls reacted to this report, so anything I would say would be rank speculation.  With that large grain of salt in mind, I cannot imagine that this report was very well-received in +Sauls’ corner office at Mission House.  The Commission did slap quite a number of other hands in the Diocesan hierarchy and did scold everyone within its reach for helping to foster the poisonous atmosphere that has apparently filled Diocesan offices and meetings for quite some time.  There is little question, however, that Bishop Sauls did not avoid the Commission’s approbation and criticism.  There is likewise little question that, as Bishop with the ultimate power and authority, as the Commission recited in the preamble to its report, any and all Diocesan “dysfunction” is ultimately +Sauls’ responsibility, particularly in light of the fact that he could not himself, in his pastoral capacity, work to resolve these differences but instead had to enlist the aid of a “Special Commission.”

So, again, the question is whether this report is the harbinger of the end of +Sauls’ Bishopric in the Diocese of Lexington?  Given his national-level work and his efforts to gain the advanced degree in Canon Law, is a position at 815 with the national church in his future?  Could he be lining up as the successor to David Booth Beers?  What does it mean that he apparently plans to take at least half of calendar 2008 on sabbatical/vacation and will be out of DioLex? Or, does he have his eye on any one of several Bishoprics in more significant locations than DioLex, financially and otherwise?  Or, will he instead decide to gut it out and stay at DioLex and “live into” these recommendations?  Only time will tell, and my crystal ball is very cloudy on this question.  Nevertheless, stay tuned, dear readers, because things they are a-happenin’ with +Stacy Sauls, one of the “players” in the HOB.

Download specialcommissionreport.pdf

Comments

[Alice C. Linsley]

It would be great for the Episcopalians of the Diocese of Lexington if he moved on. Even those who admire him for his advocacy of gay rights in the Church distain his harsh tactics and marginalization of those who oppose him on anything. How he handled the situation in my former African American parish is characteristic of how he handles any situation that he feels he can't control. He threatened me "secret" sins and I forwarded the email to the clergy of the Diocese so that they could see what kind of man we were dealing with. That had the effect of encouraging them to buckle under and made it apparent to me that I was out on a limb by myself. At the end of the day, I have Sauls to thank for my new life as a writer, speaker, counselor and teacher with an audience far beyond what I would ever have imagined as the Rector of a small parish in his diocese.

[Louis Browning]

I have only just scanned this topic, and intend to go back and read it carefully. As one of the vestry of the Church of the Nativity, Maysville, at the time of the uproar there, however, I can tell that the posted material contains several serious errors of fact.

Our vestry never discussed having Nativity leave TEC, nor did the possibility of such a concept have anything to do with the legal steps we went through to protect our property from Sauls. Sauls told a parish meeting that he would reverse the incorporation of the parish, but later the succeeding vestry was told that incorporation was, in fact, a good thing to have done.

Sauls absolutely did not depose any Nativity vestry members. All but one vestryman resigned following the parish meeting referred to above.

Any one who would like more inforation on the Nativity situation is welcome to ask me for it at [email protected]
Louis Browning, St. Luke's Anglican Church, Maysville

[Trimble]

Thank you, Mr. Browning, for correcting the factual errors about Nativity. The second-hand information I had received about that situation was obviously inaccurate and reflects what I believe is a common misunderstanding about what happened in Maysville. The important point of this story, however, is the deterioration in the overall situation in DioLex to the point that this report was issued. The correction of the Maysville part of the story does not change that conclusion by the Special Commission.

[Louis Browning]

No, it doesn't, of course.

On the other hand, the report reads like a gossip column, and it is plain that little or no research has gone into ascertaining the truth, or backing up anecdotal material such as that referencing Nativity or the Versailles situation.

This is unfortunate, as when there is less substance than unsubstantiated gossip, it weakens the entire presentation.

Do not misinterpret my remarks. I was on the Executive Council when Sauls was elected, and ready to work with him in the best spirit of cooperation, even though neither I, nor any of our delegates who voted to choose Don Wimberly's (please note correct spelling of Bishop Wimberly's name) successor, voted for Sauls.

At his first EC meeting, he made it plain he never wanted to hear another word about "SEX" in his diocese again, and that's as close as I can come to a direct quote.

Over time, I, and others at Nativity learned that we could not trust Sauls nor his Canon Johnny Ross in any of our efforts to resolve a bad hire situation with our former rector, nor with regard to our looking for a new rector.

He and Ross sent us many resumes, but would not allow us to obtain any on our own. One of the resumes he approved for our search was that of a woman priest who had been retired from all church activities for over two years due to a brain tumor. She was completely astonished when I telephoned her to discuss our position. Obviously, neither Sauls nor Ross had made any effort to research this "candidate" they were suggesting we look at.

I have no care or concerns any longer about DioLex, except to hope that the misguided Episcopalians there will come to realize how seriously they are in error in supporting TEC, and Sauls. I do not, however, expect this to happen. When Sauls goes, his replacement will be thoroughly indoctrinated in current TEC thinking, without question.

[Trimble]

Again, Mr. Browning, thank you for your comment, but your assumptions about "little or no research" are quite wrong. I also am sorry you do not like my writing style, but I do try to be both factual and engaging with what I write. It is often difficult to do the level of research one would like to have if, say, I was a paid journalist or was trying to prove a court case. Alas, I am but a simple blogger with limited resources, trying to get out some information. I have talked to numerous people around this Diocese, and specifically to several who were involved in the other situations I have mentioned. I will admit I got Maysville wrong, according to you, but again the point is not to nit-pick the background story but to analyze the Special Commission report and its implications. Your own statements and experiences seem to truly support that there have been problems in DioLex, and I appreciate your sharing them.

[Trimble]

I would also note that Mr. Browning raises a significant point that those who wish +Sauls gone should consider, which is there is no guarantee that another TEC Bishop would do any better. It's the old "be careful what you wish for" thing.

[Louis Browning]

Sir - It is not that "...[you] got Maysville wrong, according to [me]...", it is that you didn't check out your sources. I can provide you with the names of all the vestry members who were serving at that the time of which you wrote. You have made no mention of the most significant issues, of which there were several (coping with a poor hire of a rector, Sauls' mishandling of our interim, his demands for his tax on Nativity vs. vastly decreased parish giving, and the way in which he mishandled our Search Committee's efforts) between Sauls and Nativity's vestry; this leads only to the conclusion that you wrote casually and incompletely about a situation of which you were, and are, ignorant, and that you made no effort to inform yourself of the truth. That is poor research, and, simply put, relying on unsubstantiated gossip at best.

This is regretful as it demeans many people in Maysville; such demeaning should not be passed off casually as you have done.
If you want to write about something, get all the facts, and report them all. If you can't substantiate it, don't print it.

[Trimble]

Mr. Browning, I am trying to be as respectful of you as I can, but the entire point of my post was to present the story of the Special Commission report, not do a story on the Maysville situation. I am sorry you feel so offended or demeaned, but the fact remains that I wrote of the past incidents merely to offer some background on the controversial and contentious tenure of +Sauls. If anyone has been demeaned in Maysville, I would submit it has not been my doing but took place some time ago. Had I set out to do a complete story on the Maysville situation I would certainly have done what you suggest. As it was, I had incorrect information about Maysville, for which I have now apologized to you three times now. It is clear that your perspective, having lived through the situation, is quite different than mine in terms of the significance of the Maysville situation to what I was focusing on. Perhaps we should leave it at that rather than to continue to escalate this argument in a quest to obtain the last word?

[Trimble]

Mr. Browning, out of a sense of fairness and in respect of your interest in telling the correct, complete story of what transpired at Maysville, if you would be willing to write that sotry for me, which you so obviously can do from your experience far better than I could have done even with interviews ans research, I would be delighted to post it on this blog. So, instead of continuing to criticize me for one weak paragraph in the story about the Special Commission report, why not use that energy to the positive end of getting the Nativity story out to the readers of this blog? If you are willing to do so, send it to me at [email protected] and I will post it here.

[Louis Browning]

No, I can't do that, but I do appreciate your offering the opportunity.

I understood your purpose from the beginning. Perhaps, though, if you put yourself in the postion of being on our vestry when this all occurred and think about what you would be reading about yourself, you might view your copy differently than you do as a reporter.

I've corrected the record sufficiently to this point, and, apart from what I've already posted, see nothing further to be gained from going further.

I would have to interview all of the people involved (and would have to get them to agree to be quoted) some of whom are no longer easily reachable. That is the only way I could possibly write up the story: it would have to present all viewpoints with attributable material.

Many of them are still TEC, while our group has started a new Anglican church here in Maysville, and we are hiring our first rector right now. He will graduate from Trinity Seminary in May, and join us immediately. He was ordained to the Diaconate in January by ++ Atwood of the Anglican Church of Kenya, and Bishop Atwood will ordain him to the priesthood here in July.

We are very positive in our outlook after our past experiences.

[Anglicat]

With regard to the Presiding Bishop's election in 2006, the national church's gain was your diocese's loss. Many in Alabama, also, had been hoping to rid themsleves of their tyrant.

It seems that the Special Commission did quite a fine job in this report.

[Alice C. Linsley]

As I recall the "bad hire" at Maysville was also a man who did advance political work to get Sauls into the Diocese of Lexington. The only way Nativity could get rid of him, according to Bishop Sauls, was to buy out his contract.

[Kyle]

Yeah, it didn't seem like the Maysville issue was a very important element of the story at all, But then, sometimes folks see what they want to.

Nice bit of work, David.

[Louis Browning]

Hi, Alice! You know, I don't ever recall hearing that he was, but it could be. It was a very sad and sorry situation.

For the rest of you, Alice ministered to us right after we left Nativity, with our first home communion, and inspired all of us to forge ahead to build a new Christly future.

I'm keeping up with your posts, dear! Stay well.

Kyle, since you were not part of Maysville, of course it wouldn't seem important to you, anymore than if something unpleasant involving you, but not me, for over 70 years wouldn't seem important to me. It always depends on whose ox is being gored.

But, when your bishop, a man with whom you have attempted to serve honestly and graciously in every way, lies to you and others, over and over again, among all the other sins he was committing and the hurt he was laying on so many, arising from his apostate and weird agenda, it kinda hits you in the teeth. I hope you never experience it. Those of us formerly of Nativity Maysville just happened to see the truth about Sauls long before most of DioLex decided to face the facts.

All of these situations involve people, not just ideas, and there is always pain. It's far too easy for us to dismiss what doesn't affect us.

[Trimble]

Mr. Browning, again, thank you for correcting the record on Maysville and for adding immensely to the understanding of ths issues and what has transpired in DioLex to bring everything to the point of the Special Commission report. It is important that people who perhaps have not been so affected by TEC and its Bishops understnad the pain and injury they can cause not only with the present pseudo-theology, but with their power tactics and intent to crush any opposition. it is so tragically sad when what holds itself out as a "Christian" denomination acts like anything but. Again, thank you.

[Jacksonian]

Mr.Browning,your vitriolic attack"correcting" the author's brief reference to the "Maysville situation"bears no proportion to the offense which you so clearly have taken so personally.To conclude that the author's inaccuracy involving two sentences renders this entire,excellent piece"...unsubstaniated gossip [with]little or no research" is quite irrational based on any objective reading of the entire article.Given the toxic nature of your indignation,I am very disappointed that you have declined Mr. Trimble's offer to set us all free and provide the whole truth.Peace.

[Kay Kephart]

I was a longtime member of St. Bartholomew's Church in Atlanta, Ga. where Stacy Sauls was a rector before he became Bishop. My husband was co-chair of the search committee that picked him. I entertained him and the search committee when we issued him an invitation to be our rector.

The honeymoon did not last long. He attacked several older members verbally. One friend recieved a letter from him that left her suicidal. He told a gay couple that they must go for questioning before the vestry before their letter of transfer could be accepted. When I complained to him about pastoral care--as well as other things--he asked to meet me in a restaurant and lied to me. When I said I disagreed with almost all his policy he said, and I quote because it is burned into my mind, "We should meet each month to talk. And we should start with something we like about each other. I find you physically attractive. Do you feel the same way about me?" It is the only time I've ever wanted to slap a man. Then he left several messages on my phone asking when could we meet again.

While I was on the vestry, there was an aligation of sexual abuse between a church worker and a teenage boy. Stacy downplayed the event and told us that it had been taken care of. I later learned that there is a process in the Church for such matters which was NOT implimented. I have many more stories of abuse, of manipulation, and of severe disfunction from Stacy Sauls which includes his wife, Ginger, who attached me verbally three times. My friends thought she would have a heart attack. She was out of control. Witnesses say that Stacy was the one who sent her to tell me to get off church property, not having the courage to face me himself. After the attack, he would run--lierally-when he saw me.
He ordered the vestry of St. Bart's to send me a letter telling me not to come back there to church. It was the one time the vestry stood up to him and refused his order.

Unfortunately, the people of St. Barth's were so eager to be rid of him that they refused to speak up when he was nominated for Bishop. I put in a complaint to the diocess, but my husband pled with me not to follow through. He was afraid Stacy would try to sue. Because he is a lawyer, I found out later, this fear of lawsuits and his use of intimidation was just another one of his methods of manipulation.

Even Starcy's resume was a manipulation and lie by implication. He said that at St. Bart's he completed a multi-million dollar addition to the building. In fact, that building was fully funded and BUILT before he got there--except for the paint drying on the wall and the consecration service.

Because of Stacy, I left the church and went into a depression. I felt powerless against him, feeling as if I had lost my community, my friends, my church, my God. He spread rumors about me.

Most of the stories about him, did not come into the open till he had left. That is when I found out the extent of his damage. A rector has incredible power over emotions as he represents God, our father figure, that which is good--and has access to all the places of our broken humanity, physicall illness, and weakness.

Stacy, is the most Godless man I have ever known. He must be in great pain. My psychiatrist friend who knew him said that he is an extreme narcissist which is a personality type that is capable of vastly dark deeds.I forgive him and Ginger. But, what I fear is more damage to good people. But because of him, I have found my own strength. I have found that my faith is more than a Sunday social thing and that it extends beyond a rector, a building, a text, or a denomination. I have found the strength of forgiveness. I am back at St. Bart's. I pray that Stacy and Ginger get help for the sake of themselves, their sons, and the community.

[FCZ+]

A minor detail, but... +Sauls started at General Theological Seminary in 1985, and graduated (with honors, as I remember) in 1988.

[FCZ+]

A minor detail, but... +Sauls started at General Theological Seminary in 1985, and graduated (with honors, as I remember) in 1988.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Dear Kay,

My heart breaks to read what you have written. But I rejoice that our Savior Christ has comforted and guided you. I too have seen this dark side of a man who has betrayed the office of bishop. And as with you, I have seen God use it in my life to HIS advantage. God bless you, dear sister.

[Lou in Kentucky]

Mr.Browning,your vitriolic [I refuse to accept "vitriolic" as an appropriate adjective describing my writing of what occurred here in Maysville.] attack" correcting" the author's brief reference to the "Maysville situation" bears no proportion to the offense which you so clearly have taken so personally.
[You do not accept that a member of Nativity's vestry at the time should take the situation personally? Since you, Sir, were not part of the situation, you are scarcely in a position to know or understand what did take place or how we were affected by it.]
To conclude that the author's inaccuracy involving two sentences renders this entire, excellent piece "...unsubstaniated gossip [with]little or no research" is quite irrational based on any objective reading of the entire article. [It was not my intention to imply or state that the entire article was based on gossip, but, very specifically, that the portion applying to Nativity Maysville was. I think that is made very plain in what I wrote.]
Given the toxic nature of your indignation,I am very disappointed that you have declined Mr. Trimble's offer to set us all free and provide the whole truth.Peace.
[I explained quite clearly why it is not possible for me to do that. On the other hand, why would you be any more willing to believe what I might write in a second post than what I've written previously?]

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Sir:

I appreciate your article, but I believe your take on Chris Platt to be a little misleading (though I know not on purpose). I went to the ETSKy during the 80's and Platt was a teacher of mine. He was a very sick man who was out to destroy traditionalists and conservatives (which he and Wimberly both told me). He was Wimberly's attack dog. His behavior before, during, and after his trial was atrocious. I might add, during his tenure, Bishop Wimberly ordained an openly gay man to the priesthood, placed him in Mt. Sterling, all with the support of then Canon Platt. Saul's may be bad, but Wimberly started the decline in the diocese, which had grown under the saintly leadership of +Moody and then +Hosea.

[Quotereader.wordpress.com]

I am a bit late to this discussion. Perhaps none of it matters anymore. I recognize the name (Kay Kephart) from my years working at St. Bart's. I had no idea I wasn't the only one having difficulty. Difficulty may be an understatement. And not simply with Sauls but the person who, at the time, worked most closely with him.

By the time I left the staff I felt broken and bruised. I never sought another position inside the Episcopal Church or entered the doors of any Anglican Parish as a member.

"Dark deeds"? In my opinion, yes. Lack of ethics? Definitely. Cruel and dispassionate? I believe so, based on my personal experiences.

I had concerns for the Diocese of Lexington when I heard he was running. But I had already had enough and there was no way I was speaking out against a man with the propensity and potential for such anger, retribution and need to demean others. Even now I am hesitant.

I saw, from the inside, the capabilities so I can't say I'm surprised in the least at the stories I've read. And yet I am because I often wondered if it was just me. He (they) had me wondering for a long time what was wrong with ME. In fact I was told so. My personal life was critiqued. Even my parenting skill and the psychological stability of my children were written about. It took years to come to terms with the fact that wasn't me. It was him (them) and that I'd been wrongly treated. I was left feeling broken and confused and powerless and alone.

I'd tried to put those years behind me. Hadn't thought about him (them) much until recently when these last few years of Diocesan drama experienced by the Diocese of Lexington were brought to my attention.

I've searched a good many blogs and news articles.

Funny he should laugh and mock scripture and the existence of evil. Evil exists most assuredly.

Never has he or his once assistant ever acknowledged any wrong done. I doubt either one even sees their own actions for what they are, or were.

Healing took a long time.

I might use the word 'abuse' but there's a certain fear still of retribution. A very formidable foe, is he. Very strong and difficult to stand against.

The things I saw and knew.... I wish I could say. And yet there is no proof and I'm sure my own stories are fairly minimal compared to some.

A sad story, but it was an important one for me, as I learned just how dark and how callous and cold and hurtful this world can be. Churches are no exceptions, in my opinion.

I have concern, to a degree, for Kentucky and the Diocese of Lexington. But there's nothing I can do and perhaps it's not my problem anyway, as I am no longer affiliated in any way with the Anglican/Episcopal Church.

If it means anything to anyone reading (if anyone reads this at all), I wish your troubles could have been prevented. I really do. More so, I wish there were some means by which justice could be sought. But I rest in the hope that the Just God that I believe exists, will set all things right, in the end.

(disclaimer: these are only my personal opinions regarding my personal experiences. nothing more. nothing less. each must decide for themselves i suppose.)