Early in March, just before the Diocese of New Jersey gathered for its annual convention, the Rt. Rev. Joe Morris Doss, Bishop of New Jersey, was interviewed by TLC news editor Judi Amey.

TLC: Bishop Doss, thank you for your willingness to share your thoughts and insights with us. Having been duly elected and consecrated as bishop, you began your service as Bishop of New Jersey Jan. 1, 1995. In your opinion, at what point did the difficulties begin between the standing committee, the diocesan council, and you and your staff?

JMD: The Diocese of New Jersey needs healing, reconciliation and reform. The need for all three is deep, complex and long existing. The election of a new bishop in 1993 was sensed by a majority of the diocese as a call for profound transformation which would bring about healing, reconciliation and reform. Some of the resistance began immediately after my election on the third ballot by those who understood the nature of the election and refused to vote for me as the candidate who stood for transformation. Since then, the resistance has been joined by the several forces one might expect to resist change as well as some surprise groups and people. Transformation is not easy.

TLC: In a letter dated June 2, 1997, responding to the leak of the Wellness Committee report, you stated the divisions in the Diocese of New Jersey as not, in the main, theological, but rather caused by radical cultural shifts and the ongoing process of bringing "the Diocese of New Jersey back into the mainstream of the Episcopal Church." Do you see issues of division as the same today? Why or why not?

JMD: Fundamentally, the pre-existing divisions in New Jersey are not about those issues which divide us in the church, issues which might be charted along a spectrum between liberal and conservative positions. This happens to some extent, of course. Those who oppose my view on how we should open the ministry of the church to women and children, those who disagree with the way I read scripture, those who do not like my voting record on issues concerning gay and lesbian Christians, tend to join in the opposition to my episcopacy. However, this is not uniformly so. The issues which divide us are more specifically drawn by the history and culture of this diocese. The future of the culture which has formed the identity of the diocese historically is what is at stake.

The Wellness Committee Report allowed ample amplification of any criticism anyone had to say about me - and anonymously so at that. But it went on to identify some of the pre-existing issues which divide us, such as: clericalism, an ingrown diocesan parochialism, North Jersey-South Jersey geographical divisions, conflict avoidance, in-power groups vs. out-of-power groups, lack of a common mission, lack of a common vision, disconnectedness and isolation of parishes, defensiveness about the past, lack of community, fear about gay and lesbian realities, and congregationalism. Our divisions are profoundly a matter of Christian culture.

TLC: On Oct. 6, 1997, under cover letters from the Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning and yourself, the standing committee and diocesan council, a proposal for healing and plan of action was put forth to the diocese suggesting a number of actions be taken, some of them relating to styles of management or behaviors on your part, perceived by some to be counter-productive. On Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, 1997, respectively, the standing committee and diocesan council requested your resignation. From your perspective, what precipitated such an abrupt request, less than three weeks from the proposal?

JMD: The proposal called for healing and reconciliation. A careful reading of the report could even discern the need for reform. That is, the report called for the very transformation which the standing committee and council was determined to resist.

Consequently, when the report did not conform finally to the wishes of the standing committee and council, but in fact called for what they resisted, they demanded the elimination of the leader. They had already fired Peter Steinke, whose report called for healing, reconciliation and reform. Later, when the report by Bishop Hunt called for the same thing and especially for reconciliation with my leadership, they terminated funds for him. The actions of Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, 1997, simply conformed to a consistent pattern: the rejection of the conclusions of our studies.

TLC: On Nov. 15, 1997, at Trinity Cathedral, you reportedly told about 700 people, "I have sinned and not always told the whole truth," and asked for forgiveness. Have you worked within the structures outlined in the proposal for healing and plan of action as they pertained to you?

JMD: It is important to me that I acknowledge my mistakes and learn from them. It is absolutely crucial to my very being that I know my sinfulness, confess my sins, and strive to conform more closely to the Christ I follow. I am glad that I went to my knees in the center aisle of the diocesan cathedral and publicly confessed sins I could name at that point in my ministry. I was only saddened by the fact that many, if not most, of the people to whom I personally wanted to confess had already walked out of the cathedral in demonstration that they do not want or seek healing and reconciliation; and certainly not reform.

For my part, in addition to naming the mistakes I believe I have made and confession my particular sins in the search for reconciliation and healing, I have addressed the suggestions in the Wellness Committee Report that concern my behavior. These concerns cannot be completely satisfied in the absence of adequate funding and staffing levels. Many of the suggestions had already been acted on, such as forming a support group, but the writer of the report did not know of these actions because I had not been interviewed.

TLC: We have received information, from a source who has asked for anonymity, that there is a proposal that the standing committee, the diocesan council and you would all resign at the same time, thus allowing the diocese to start over with completely new leadership. Do you consider this a viable solution?

JMD: To my knowledge there is no request on the table for all the parties in office, and seen as central to the conflict, to resign. There surely must be such sentiment. One of the common images I hear from those who have looked at the situation or who have sensed the shared pain is, "the war lords are fighting and the peasants suffer."

I am convinced that this would be no solution and would be counter-productive in the extreme. Too much would be covered over and smoothed out, only to erupt later. We must face the deeper causes of our crisis. The history in which the diocesan structure and life reveals waxing congregationalism and waning episcopal polity must be faced. Ultimately, it is not my episcopacy which is at stake but the episcopacy. For example, canons which are being proposed for the 1999 convention would finally create a synodical form of governance, with very little sense of episcopal oversight. If they pass, the bishop will become a sacramental officer without the ability to appoint, hire and fire or perform any executive functions.

TLC: From October 1997 through May 1998, the Rt. Rev. George N. Hunt functioned as assisting bishop, worked within the diocese to observe and to help with advice and assistance. In his report to the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Hunt said, "I believe a way must be found for the bishop, standing committee, council and other diocesan officers to work together ..." Would you, personally, be willing to work with a professional mediator [TLC, March 21], along with these others, to find a solution to the issues which divide the Diocese of New Jersey?

JMD: I am open to any effort to heal, reconcile and reform. The transformation of the diocese should occur. Certainly it is the heartfelt desire of most of the diocese. However, the reality is that the effort of transformation does not always work.

The reader who is distanced from New Jersey should realize that reconciliation is not simply something which should take place between me and those who oppose me. The divisions are longstanding throughout the diocese.