The Executive Council just expanded the budget for the search for the Presiding Bishop. The original budget was for $126,000 now expanded by $100,000 to $226,000.
Crusty Old Dean reports, "Crusty's eyes popped at a number from the recently concluded Executive
Council meeting. $100,000 was added to the budget of the Presiding
Bishop's Nominating Committee, to bring total budget expenditure to
$226,000. And that's just nominating the Presiding Bishop! Executive
Council also began the process of creating a transition team to assist
in the move towards the new PB who will be elected in 2015 -- adding in
transition and installation of the new PB, then the amount for
nominating, electing, transitioning, and installing a Presiding Bishop
comes to over $500,000."
OK Boys and Girls, time to get with the program. Something like half a million dollars will be spent, if it all goes as planned, in "nominating, electing, transitioning, and installing" a new PB.
Now sitting down here is hot and sticky Lilavois, on the edge of Port-au-Prince, $500,000 seems like a lot of money. Actually, back in good ol Lewes Delaware it seems like a lot, but perhaps not so much. But it is no small change, particularly, as the esteemed Crusty Ol Dean points out, we seem to be able to cut back on support of seminarians and such.
There are of course solutions:
Del Glover, no slouch in these matters, suggests a set of possibilities for an alternative search and election (used with his permission)
I see that Council agreed to increase the amount of the funding for Nominating Committee for the next Presiding Bishop to $226,000. One wonders what would happen if we were to consider another approach . . . what If we were to assume that every "eligible" bishop . . . that is :
* Any bishop... young enough to serve the full nine year tenure before the mandatory retirement age of 72 . . IS a candidate until and unless that bishop confirms she/he does NOT feel called to this office.
Operating with this premise, the slate number of potential candidates will have been honed and the true process of discernment could begin with the work of the Nominating Committee focused."
In the last round on all this (I was on the Committee) the Committee outlined what it though we were looking for and sent that to all potential candidates asking if they were interested in further exploration. Some 28 (I think) responded affirmatively. From there we were able to screen further with some ease.
Now one of the problems is that the committee to Nominate is really big. Changing that requires a change in canon, so its too late to do much about that. But the Committee could work differently, meet as a group less often, and so forth. And with the Glover initiative, the Committee could simply turn over to the house of bishops the list of possible candidates, the hoped for characteristics sought and let them go at it. Given that the candidates also met with the HoB at their spring meeting that year, we could even suggest that all interested candidates be available for questions and for comment at that meeting with the full House.
Crusty Ol Dean is no slouch and has other ideas for the future of the office of Presiding Bishop.
The one that is of interest here is this:
Crusty proposes the following to the Joint Nominating Committee and TREC:
1. Nominate candidates to be a caretaker PB, an experienced or even
retired bishop who may be willing to serve for a triennium. We cannot
elect a 9-year incumbent and possibly think we can make any changes to
the office, so, in reality, we are locking in many aspects of our
current structure through 2024 by electing a 9-year incumbent in 2015.
2. So essentially elect an interim PB in 2015 while the church
considers proposals to restructure and rethink the church. Get a
commitment from candidates, and have the PB-elect publicly announce, the
intention to resign at the end of the 2018 General Convention. Instead
of spending over $500,000 to transition to an office which might be
restructured, why not actually think about changing the office?
Currently we are coming up with a transition plan for the people in the
office, not the office itself. "
I don't know if his crusty self has ever met the esteemed Del Glover, but they are on to something from two different directions. If we combine them we get --
What if the recommendation from the Nominating Committee was to open up the field (which the HoB can do anyway) to include everyone willing to serve from 2016 to convention 2018, in an interim capacity and not to stand for election in 2018.
Meanwhile the TREC (committee on restructure) and the General Convention could consider again just what we want from a Presiding Bishop in a new structure.
Ho ho ho... one more meeting of the Nominating Committee would do it. They could send a sense of what was looked for in a candidate along with a list of those who have expressed a willingness to be considered within the parameters outlined.
The House of Bishops could spend some time thinking about just who among them might serve with verve and grace for three years, and then the HoB elects at Convention. I think we might save some big bucks ( no interviews with potential candidates, etc) we get the interim, we get the time to rethink the office. Everybody wins.
What stands in the way? Well the proposition in canon is that we elect for nine years. But nothing prevents the House of Bishops from electing with a promise from anyone standing for office that they will only serve, in this one instance, for three years.
If there is some change left from all this we might think of helping to fund a new deacon's training program in Haiti... an idea that carries major possibilities for expansion of ministry in the Episcopal Church of Haiti, which has roughly 100,000 people in it and is poised for expansion and growth.
Or maybe something else.
But I think $126,000 is enough, and $500,000 is obscene. Just so you know.
6/17/2013
Why those people in England who read The Church of England newspaper might think The Episcopal Church a whack job.
If we wonder why CofE people might think The Episcopal Church is a whack job, we need go no further than the mighty pen of George Conger, who posts on his blog "Conger: an article, "TEC loyalty oaths denounced."
I have no idea if this is the caption in the CofE Newspaper. But the title HE uses is magnified drivel. In the first place there was no such loyalty oath being presented by anybody, period. And more importantly the criticism of the list of suggested questions diocesan standing committees might ask a bishop elect or the diocese in which he or she is elected came from the left and the right. But to read the article, only the regular standard comic right wing crowd was found to wring their hands and cry in dismay that the evil empire TEC was about to come crashing down on them.
When I think of the several reasons for giving up on writing a blog on Anglican and Episcopal futures, this ranks high on the list. Why bother? With the drivel that this article represents either readers are hopelessly lost or, better yet, no one is taking it seriously. But just to be clear: There are not any loyalty oaths being proposed by TEC. The list might be misguided, stupid and unnecessary, but it ain't no loyalty oath.
And I ought to know. Along with a whole gob of people I have taken such oaths at ordination and they were and are real. At the best these questions are in support of the oath that will be taken, at worse they are managerial gook and unworthy of much sweat or comment.
I have no idea if this is the caption in the CofE Newspaper. But the title HE uses is magnified drivel. In the first place there was no such loyalty oath being presented by anybody, period. And more importantly the criticism of the list of suggested questions diocesan standing committees might ask a bishop elect or the diocese in which he or she is elected came from the left and the right. But to read the article, only the regular standard comic right wing crowd was found to wring their hands and cry in dismay that the evil empire TEC was about to come crashing down on them.
When I think of the several reasons for giving up on writing a blog on Anglican and Episcopal futures, this ranks high on the list. Why bother? With the drivel that this article represents either readers are hopelessly lost or, better yet, no one is taking it seriously. But just to be clear: There are not any loyalty oaths being proposed by TEC. The list might be misguided, stupid and unnecessary, but it ain't no loyalty oath.
And I ought to know. Along with a whole gob of people I have taken such oaths at ordination and they were and are real. At the best these questions are in support of the oath that will be taken, at worse they are managerial gook and unworthy of much sweat or comment.
6/04/2013
It's hard not to think this stuff is invented...but
So browsing about in Anglican Land's Internet world I came upon the following"
Bishop Nazir-Ali, formerly bishop of Rochester, now working in South Carolina with the free floating Mark Lawrence, late bishop of South Carolina, is reported to have had this to say about the gay marriage debate in England. Pink News, a UK gay news service, headlines "Senior Anglican warns equal marriage could force the Queen to break ‘the laws of God’" They report that,
"He later told the Mail: “ Christians are told in the Bible to obey their rulers, unless the ruler tells us to do something God forbids.
“Happily in this country we have a monarchy that has taken an oath of upholding God’s laws, and the present Queen has for years been faithful to that. We are praying that she continues to be faithful.”
“That puts the onus on the prime minister not to put the Queen into a position where she may have to go against the sovereign promises she has made. We hope that she is not put in that position.”
Ho ho ho.... Really? Thank you Dr. Nazir Ali. Glad you are ready to come to the aid of the Queen. But "The idea of a constitutional monarchy comes from the Bible." Really? And that the Queen is (or ought to be) a theocratic ruler?
Come on, Bishop. You can do better than that. Really.
And then there is a sermon in The Living Church by G. Willcox Brown, titled, "Jesus Defeats Dionysus. I don't know what possessed TLC's editors to publish this sermon, but they pulled the following quote from the sermon to use as the come-on line, "Christ dies once for all, to bring about our flourishing by delivering us from slavery to our lusts."
The sermon is just plain awful, being more of the same sort of piety that gave rise to the line lifted from it. It is hard to imagine just how the three phrases get linked as he links them:
Christ dies once for all
to bring about our flourishing
by delivering us from slavery to our lusts.
What? Really?
Well, Brown ends the sermon with this observation:
"As a culture, if we choose Dionysus, we must be prepared for more and more Sandy Hooks and Auroras and Columbines and Virginia Techs. Or we can choose the Crucified; we can submit our lives to him and find in his government a life transformed by the power of the only true God, who not only is alive but who is life itself. In him alone, as St. Paul bears witness in Acts, in Christ alone, crucified and risen, are we delivered from threats and murder; in Christ alone will we find illumination, strength, and life abundant."
Really? Brown says, "we are delivered from threats and murder" in Christ alone. And if everyone is not Christian? Well, you know, "more Sandy Hooks and Auroras and Columbines and Virginia Techs." I don't know how well this sells in some parts of this country, but down here, even in lower Delaware it sounds like a hustle for a theocratic state, in which submission to the "only true God" is the ticket to the end of violence.
Some days I can't help but wonder if some of the guys in the Anglican bus have been smoking a bit of trashy dope, the sort that makes them think that God has a preference for Christian order and government.
God wants, as I recall, that we do justice and love mercy. Different I think from the visions of Bishop Nazir Ali and Fr.Brown.
Bishop Nazir-Ali, formerly bishop of Rochester, now working in South Carolina with the free floating Mark Lawrence, late bishop of South Carolina, is reported to have had this to say about the gay marriage debate in England. Pink News, a UK gay news service, headlines "Senior Anglican warns equal marriage could force the Queen to break ‘the laws of God’" They report that,
"He later told the Mail: “ Christians are told in the Bible to obey their rulers, unless the ruler tells us to do something God forbids.
“Happily in this country we have a monarchy that has taken an oath of upholding God’s laws, and the present Queen has for years been faithful to that. We are praying that she continues to be faithful.”
“That puts the onus on the prime minister not to put the Queen into a position where she may have to go against the sovereign promises she has made. We hope that she is not put in that position.”
Ho ho ho.... Really? Thank you Dr. Nazir Ali. Glad you are ready to come to the aid of the Queen. But "The idea of a constitutional monarchy comes from the Bible." Really? And that the Queen is (or ought to be) a theocratic ruler?
Come on, Bishop. You can do better than that. Really.
And then there is a sermon in The Living Church by G. Willcox Brown, titled, "Jesus Defeats Dionysus. I don't know what possessed TLC's editors to publish this sermon, but they pulled the following quote from the sermon to use as the come-on line, "Christ dies once for all, to bring about our flourishing by delivering us from slavery to our lusts."
The sermon is just plain awful, being more of the same sort of piety that gave rise to the line lifted from it. It is hard to imagine just how the three phrases get linked as he links them:
Christ dies once for all
to bring about our flourishing
by delivering us from slavery to our lusts.
What? Really?
Well, Brown ends the sermon with this observation:
"As a culture, if we choose Dionysus, we must be prepared for more and more Sandy Hooks and Auroras and Columbines and Virginia Techs. Or we can choose the Crucified; we can submit our lives to him and find in his government a life transformed by the power of the only true God, who not only is alive but who is life itself. In him alone, as St. Paul bears witness in Acts, in Christ alone, crucified and risen, are we delivered from threats and murder; in Christ alone will we find illumination, strength, and life abundant."
Really? Brown says, "we are delivered from threats and murder" in Christ alone. And if everyone is not Christian? Well, you know, "more Sandy Hooks and Auroras and Columbines and Virginia Techs." I don't know how well this sells in some parts of this country, but down here, even in lower Delaware it sounds like a hustle for a theocratic state, in which submission to the "only true God" is the ticket to the end of violence.
Some days I can't help but wonder if some of the guys in the Anglican bus have been smoking a bit of trashy dope, the sort that makes them think that God has a preference for Christian order and government.
God wants, as I recall, that we do justice and love mercy. Different I think from the visions of Bishop Nazir Ali and Fr.Brown.
6/01/2013
Why I've been too busy to write about Anglican Land much these past two weeks
Well for starters the issues heating up in Anglican Land are complex and my heart is not into parsing out the implications of budget processes at a time of restructure, mission in the twenty-first century using nineteenth century conceptual schemes, and so forth. It is after all blessed summer; that and having to preach on Trinity Sunday, and doing a funeral yesterday for a twenty year old I baptized 19 years ago.
And then again I've been of in Twitter land trying out the possibility of writing poems that are exactly (spaces and punctuation included) 140 spaces long (the largest tweet allowed). And in the midst of that working on some art - wood block prints mostly.
So, for those of you still interested in Preludium's other worlds, here are some samples from the past two weeks.
Seven days' Creation is not enough.
Mona Lisa got her smile,
the bathers innocence
By art taking up unfinished Tasks
& doing God's Work.
Spring birds, with spirit song,
hover by the feeder,
rising as one when
ground shadows move,
danger in the air.
They will be back for seed.
God in three persons:
but what of God the great unknowable
and me unknown?
in our mansion for nobodies
the doors & jambs have been removed.
Hot. Damn everything but the clorofil
-riffic air: smells of cut grass toasted,
of Kathryn's blooms,
of spread mulch,
& new wine & bread.
Incoming tide Meets outgoing flow.
Marriage is not static
Between river & bay,
Or one & one:
Surface ripples dance,
Deeper currents contend.
Each day brings stories,
each hour news:
only the moment brings life.
Without it time passes unnoticed
no apocalypse,
no applause,
nothing.
And then again I've been of in Twitter land trying out the possibility of writing poems that are exactly (spaces and punctuation included) 140 spaces long (the largest tweet allowed). And in the midst of that working on some art - wood block prints mostly.
So, for those of you still interested in Preludium's other worlds, here are some samples from the past two weeks.
Seven days' Creation is not enough.
Mona Lisa got her smile,
the bathers innocence
By art taking up unfinished Tasks
& doing God's Work.
 |
| Woman on Fire. First proof, wood block |
Spring birds, with spirit song,
hover by the feeder,
rising as one when
ground shadows move,
danger in the air.
They will be back for seed.
 |
| Dancing with one leg Monoprint |
God in three persons:
but what of God the great unknowable
and me unknown?
in our mansion for nobodies
the doors & jambs have been removed.
Hot. Damn everything but the clorofil
-riffic air: smells of cut grass toasted,
of Kathryn's blooms,
of spread mulch,
& new wine & bread.
 |
| Self, woodblock |
Incoming tide Meets outgoing flow.
Marriage is not static
Between river & bay,
Or one & one:
Surface ripples dance,
Deeper currents contend.
Each day brings stories,
each hour news:
only the moment brings life.
Without it time passes unnoticed
no apocalypse,
no applause,
nothing.
dogs sound the alarm
"up, up
attention to the day,
play, play,
stroke my muzzle
send me into the yard
to chase squirrels!"
I am raised up.
Finally Spring
has found
its sweet air & light,
the days longer,
not yet heavy
its nights light blanket cool,
all balanced,
wonderfully now.
Anglican Ink at times Smears the Page - regarding political test for new bishops
Over on Anglican Ink George Conger writes with a heavy hand about a proposed "political test for new bishops." He calls them "new confessional guidelines." Oooooh! The great terrible monster Episcopal Church is out to get all those candidates for bishop. It's the fear of every conservative- that there will be a litmus test, failure of which will lead to the exclusion of all right thinking bishops elect from actual election.
Well nuts.
First, let's remember the track record under current rules of the game, shall we?
Schofield, right of the Pope, got elected in San Joaquin and received the needed majority of consents. While some may later have regretted having given consent, he got them and then later blew off the church that gave him license and made him bishop. He was deposed.
Lawrence, elected in South Carolina was turned down by bishops and standing committees who asked too many questions about precisely his conformance to the doctrine and discipline of The Episcopal Church. He got elected again and on the second round was accepted. He pretty much immediately moved to remove South Carolina from union with the General Convention. He was found to have renounced the ministry of The Episcopal Church, notably his office as Bishop.
Up there in Northern Michigan Keven Forrester found that consents were impossible, litmus test or no. And he was no conservative.
And good friend Bishop Dan Martins got consents in spite of considerable efforts to bind him even without this set of questions.
So the first question is this: why the fear of "political tests?" Have they been so onerous in the past few years that the fear of them could lead to suspicions of the questions that we might collectively decide to ask of elected bishops as they go through the consent process?
I think not. Conservatives know how to play on liberal guilt just fine.
But then there are the questions that Anglican Ink considers beyond the pale. They are as follows:
"8. Will the Bishop elect uphold the Oath of Conformity as found in the Book of Common Prayer on page 513 (page 415 in the Spanish Book of Common Prayer)?
9. Will the Bishop elect recognize and respect the office of the Presiding Bishop and the authority of General Convention?
10. Is the Bishop elect willing to participate fully in the councils of the Church and to adhere to the norms of behavior as adopted by the House of Bishops?"
Number 8 is a no starter. If the bishop elect answers "no" then honest as he or she might be, its "no" to that person. If they say "yes" and later try to find a way out, then they are not doing as they said they would. Strike out.
This is different from saying, "yes, and then asking are we agreed on what it means to "uphold the Oath of Conformity as found in the Book of Common Prayer." At least then the conversation takes place before consent.
Number 9, to "recognize and respect the office of the Presiding Bishop and the authority of General Convention" involves the perhaps touchy subject of whether or not "recognize and respect" as it pertains to the PB includes agreeing with her or him. It does not.
But it does involve both acknowledging that the Presiding Bishop is by canon the chief pastor and Primate of The Episcopal Church and that office has certain assigned roles, one of which is to be chief consecrator of bishops. Recognizing and respecting the office means accepting that the PB by right can take on the role as chief consecrator. Period. Respect of the office goes at least that far. If the PB declines for one reason or another that is different. But "recognize and respect" at least goes that far.
It goes further, of course. The PB chairs meetings of the House of Bishops. No matter if the bishop candidate can't bear the possibility of a particular person being in the chair, the respect of the office must include putting up with particular incumbent. Get real.
To "recognize and respect the authority of General Convention" means at least the promise to obey the canons that General Convention puts forward for the whole church. If you don't like governance in the manner carried out by The Episcopal Church stay in it and change it or go elsewhere. But while it is as it is, recognition and respect of the authority of General Convention is a must.
All of this has nothing to do with "political" tests, but with tests of transparency. Either you do or you don't really mean what is said in the oath of conformity. Either you do or you don't "solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church."
Number 10 asks, "Is the Bishop elect willing to participate fully in the councils of the Church and to adhere to the norms of behavior as adopted by the House of Bishops?"
Well, on pg 518 that question gets asked more politely. But here it means will you actually come to meetings, attend them and not pout? I presume this question is asked because in the past some bishops have come and attended only parts of the meetings, or have walked out when things go badly for them, or have as a caucus removed themselves from the House of Bishop to another venue for Eucharist and meetings more to their liking. The question is, will you stick it out and stick to the house rules of behavior while in the house? A "yes" answer does not mean you can't work to change them, or you can't challenge the house. But it does mean you have to be committed to taking an active part in the councils of the church, including the House of Bishops.
So... what's the gripe? These sure as hell are not the makings of a "Political" test. My sense is the Anglican Ink writer is writing up for the somewhat paranoid readership who are ready to believe TEC is about to, or already has, sold them down the river.
Anglican Ink got it exactly backwards. The last questions are not the dubious ones. The first seven are. Here they are (with short commentary included) :
1. Was the election conducted in a fair and impartial manner according to best practice guidelines of The Episcopal Church in consultation with the Presiding Bishop’s Office?
(This is none of our business. The Constitution specifies that "In every Diocese the Bishop or the Bishop Coadjutor shall be chosen agreeably to rules prescribed by the Convention of that Diocese." (Article II.) There is no mention of any guidelines, consultation or whatever.)
2. Were nominations received and considered from a variety of sources both inside and outside the Diocese?
(none of our business either.)
3. Was equal consideration given to women and minority candidates for this office?
(well, sorry to say this isn't either. If we want to make this part of the process then we need to put into place a canon or whatever to make it necessary to do so.)
4. Was a process in place allowing candidates to be placed into consideration by petition?
(see above)
5. Did all the nominees from the Committee, and by petition, receive equal access and support through the entire process?
(see above)
6. Are adequate stipendiary resources and benefits budgeted from Diocesan funds to support the Bishop elect in the office into which he or she is called?
(good question... but not for consent process. That might be a good line of investigation in looking at forms of episcopal ministry and how they might be supported, and maybe the source of some canonical stuff later.)
7. Is there a process in place to complete a letter of agreement between the Bishop Elect and the Standing Committee, to be completed and filed in the Presiding Bishop’s office at least thirty days prior to the Ordination?
(What? Is this a requirement now? If so, where described in canon? )
So the problem with the first seven questions is that the first five run counter to Article II which speaks of being agreeable to the Diocesan Canons. On the assumption that Diocesan Canons are reviewed by the whole church (which they are not always) and revised to meet TEC canons, that is the place to take most of the questions. I am unaware of canons covering questions six and seven. Any takers?
The problem with this list of questions is that the first five are about the process of election, and the only real question is "was this person elected agreeable to the canons of the Diocese?" If we want to insist that there be consistent election canons that is a different issue and has a different place to land.
The next two are about financial matters. Hopefully the bishop elect has good financial and legal advice. But the consent process is about election, not about diocesan personnel practices.
The last three are the only ones that seem reasonable. It could be argued that they are already part of the ordination service, but it is clear that some have taken considerable liberty in interpretation of conformity, respect and engagement with the community of bishops. They are not political questions, they are insurance questions. They insure that the bishop elect understands the expectations.
It is the first seven that are political. They attempt to question an election on criteria not required of the election process, unless such criteria are already part of diocesan canons.
Perhaps I misread the canons. Where is there any reference to a required set of guidelines regarding elections of Bishops, requirements of equal access to consideration by virtue of location, gender or race or ethnicity? Perhaps they are there as General Convention mandates, but if they regard the election process they need to be part of the canons.
I don't believe they are there. So the first seven questions are really the lead in to a political position regarding elections. It is they that are the political prodding. And I don't mean necessarily in a bad way. They are asking questions we might well want to ask. But until there are canons requiring more of elections than what Article II of the Constitution demands these questions are out of order.
Well nuts.
First, let's remember the track record under current rules of the game, shall we?
Schofield, right of the Pope, got elected in San Joaquin and received the needed majority of consents. While some may later have regretted having given consent, he got them and then later blew off the church that gave him license and made him bishop. He was deposed.
Lawrence, elected in South Carolina was turned down by bishops and standing committees who asked too many questions about precisely his conformance to the doctrine and discipline of The Episcopal Church. He got elected again and on the second round was accepted. He pretty much immediately moved to remove South Carolina from union with the General Convention. He was found to have renounced the ministry of The Episcopal Church, notably his office as Bishop.
Up there in Northern Michigan Keven Forrester found that consents were impossible, litmus test or no. And he was no conservative.
And good friend Bishop Dan Martins got consents in spite of considerable efforts to bind him even without this set of questions.
So the first question is this: why the fear of "political tests?" Have they been so onerous in the past few years that the fear of them could lead to suspicions of the questions that we might collectively decide to ask of elected bishops as they go through the consent process?
I think not. Conservatives know how to play on liberal guilt just fine.
But then there are the questions that Anglican Ink considers beyond the pale. They are as follows:
"8. Will the Bishop elect uphold the Oath of Conformity as found in the Book of Common Prayer on page 513 (page 415 in the Spanish Book of Common Prayer)?
9. Will the Bishop elect recognize and respect the office of the Presiding Bishop and the authority of General Convention?
10. Is the Bishop elect willing to participate fully in the councils of the Church and to adhere to the norms of behavior as adopted by the House of Bishops?"
Number 8 is a no starter. If the bishop elect answers "no" then honest as he or she might be, its "no" to that person. If they say "yes" and later try to find a way out, then they are not doing as they said they would. Strike out.
This is different from saying, "yes, and then asking are we agreed on what it means to "uphold the Oath of Conformity as found in the Book of Common Prayer." At least then the conversation takes place before consent.
Number 9, to "recognize and respect the office of the Presiding Bishop and the authority of General Convention" involves the perhaps touchy subject of whether or not "recognize and respect" as it pertains to the PB includes agreeing with her or him. It does not.
But it does involve both acknowledging that the Presiding Bishop is by canon the chief pastor and Primate of The Episcopal Church and that office has certain assigned roles, one of which is to be chief consecrator of bishops. Recognizing and respecting the office means accepting that the PB by right can take on the role as chief consecrator. Period. Respect of the office goes at least that far. If the PB declines for one reason or another that is different. But "recognize and respect" at least goes that far.
It goes further, of course. The PB chairs meetings of the House of Bishops. No matter if the bishop candidate can't bear the possibility of a particular person being in the chair, the respect of the office must include putting up with particular incumbent. Get real.
To "recognize and respect the authority of General Convention" means at least the promise to obey the canons that General Convention puts forward for the whole church. If you don't like governance in the manner carried out by The Episcopal Church stay in it and change it or go elsewhere. But while it is as it is, recognition and respect of the authority of General Convention is a must.
All of this has nothing to do with "political" tests, but with tests of transparency. Either you do or you don't really mean what is said in the oath of conformity. Either you do or you don't "solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church."
Number 10 asks, "Is the Bishop elect willing to participate fully in the councils of the Church and to adhere to the norms of behavior as adopted by the House of Bishops?"
Well, on pg 518 that question gets asked more politely. But here it means will you actually come to meetings, attend them and not pout? I presume this question is asked because in the past some bishops have come and attended only parts of the meetings, or have walked out when things go badly for them, or have as a caucus removed themselves from the House of Bishop to another venue for Eucharist and meetings more to their liking. The question is, will you stick it out and stick to the house rules of behavior while in the house? A "yes" answer does not mean you can't work to change them, or you can't challenge the house. But it does mean you have to be committed to taking an active part in the councils of the church, including the House of Bishops.
So... what's the gripe? These sure as hell are not the makings of a "Political" test. My sense is the Anglican Ink writer is writing up for the somewhat paranoid readership who are ready to believe TEC is about to, or already has, sold them down the river.
Anglican Ink got it exactly backwards. The last questions are not the dubious ones. The first seven are. Here they are (with short commentary included) :
1. Was the election conducted in a fair and impartial manner according to best practice guidelines of The Episcopal Church in consultation with the Presiding Bishop’s Office?
(This is none of our business. The Constitution specifies that "In every Diocese the Bishop or the Bishop Coadjutor shall be chosen agreeably to rules prescribed by the Convention of that Diocese." (Article II.) There is no mention of any guidelines, consultation or whatever.)
2. Were nominations received and considered from a variety of sources both inside and outside the Diocese?
(none of our business either.)
3. Was equal consideration given to women and minority candidates for this office?
(well, sorry to say this isn't either. If we want to make this part of the process then we need to put into place a canon or whatever to make it necessary to do so.)
4. Was a process in place allowing candidates to be placed into consideration by petition?
(see above)
5. Did all the nominees from the Committee, and by petition, receive equal access and support through the entire process?
(see above)
6. Are adequate stipendiary resources and benefits budgeted from Diocesan funds to support the Bishop elect in the office into which he or she is called?
(good question... but not for consent process. That might be a good line of investigation in looking at forms of episcopal ministry and how they might be supported, and maybe the source of some canonical stuff later.)
7. Is there a process in place to complete a letter of agreement between the Bishop Elect and the Standing Committee, to be completed and filed in the Presiding Bishop’s office at least thirty days prior to the Ordination?
(What? Is this a requirement now? If so, where described in canon? )
So the problem with the first seven questions is that the first five run counter to Article II which speaks of being agreeable to the Diocesan Canons. On the assumption that Diocesan Canons are reviewed by the whole church (which they are not always) and revised to meet TEC canons, that is the place to take most of the questions. I am unaware of canons covering questions six and seven. Any takers?
The problem with this list of questions is that the first five are about the process of election, and the only real question is "was this person elected agreeable to the canons of the Diocese?" If we want to insist that there be consistent election canons that is a different issue and has a different place to land.
The next two are about financial matters. Hopefully the bishop elect has good financial and legal advice. But the consent process is about election, not about diocesan personnel practices.
The last three are the only ones that seem reasonable. It could be argued that they are already part of the ordination service, but it is clear that some have taken considerable liberty in interpretation of conformity, respect and engagement with the community of bishops. They are not political questions, they are insurance questions. They insure that the bishop elect understands the expectations.
It is the first seven that are political. They attempt to question an election on criteria not required of the election process, unless such criteria are already part of diocesan canons.
Perhaps I misread the canons. Where is there any reference to a required set of guidelines regarding elections of Bishops, requirements of equal access to consideration by virtue of location, gender or race or ethnicity? Perhaps they are there as General Convention mandates, but if they regard the election process they need to be part of the canons.
I don't believe they are there. So the first seven questions are really the lead in to a political position regarding elections. It is they that are the political prodding. And I don't mean necessarily in a bad way. They are asking questions we might well want to ask. But until there are canons requiring more of elections than what Article II of the Constitution demands these questions are out of order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)