An intriguing idea. For most of our history, the PB was simply the senior Bishop in the House and for the most part presided at meetings of the HoB and episcopal consecrations. On the other hand, there is nothing inherently wrong with a single person - lay or ordained - being both spiritual and ecclesiastical and organizational leader - we see it now at every other level - we call them Rectors and Bishops. BTW - the PB's election must be confirmed by the House of Deputies, but the President of the HoD does not require confirmation by the Bishops.

Thanks, Robert. I am aware that the PB's election has to be confirmed by the deps, and you are probably aware that this is pro forma. The bishops do not confirm the President of the House of Deputies but the powers of the two offices in a day to day way are not commensurate.

It is true that there is nothing "inherently" wrong with one person leading in all of the capacities you mention, but, as a practical matter, the job gets harder as the scale gets larger.

This is the GC where the committee to nominate the next PB will be elected.

This PB is not involved with the day to day operations of the staff. She has a COO for that.

True, Bishop Epting, but the COO reports to the presiding bishop. If the COO reported to executive council, we'd have a different kind of governance. I don't know if it would be better, but I think it would be more accountable.

The current structure of our church seems almost designed to invite conflict between the PB and General Convention/Executive Council. And I don't think it matters who holds the relevant positions.

I have no problem with the idea of the COO reporting to Executive Council rather than the Presiding Bishop (although it might be better if that person were a qualified layperson rather than a bishop, since we already have a bishop as CEO) but I think that a church that calls itself The Episcopal Church needs to have a bishop as its head, period. Yes, bishops do initiate lots of mischief, but there is also a tremendous amount of stability and good at having a bishop in leadership. God help us if we end up with a non-ordained "convener" or "CEO" or something similarly wishy-washy...

Can I ask if there's any reason the PB couldn't be simply an election/appointment from among the 100 bishops? I admit I don't know very much about this, but couldn't he or she be bishop in his or her own diocese, and "first among equals" (like the ABC is in the Anglican Communion)? With no powers, that is, except "persuasive ones"?

I think the ABC only has powers in his own diocese, and none otherwise. Is there any reason that wouldn't work in TEC? (This way, couldn't we get rid of the NY office, and have "national church" functions spread throughout the country in regional offices?)

Just asking, that's all....

Of course I find it interesting that this never came up when we had male PBs.

Oh, I bet it did come up. Frank Griswold was PB when Gene Robinson was consecrated, and I remember reading some choice comments about this topic away back then.

(I see now that Robert Solon above was saying that in previous eras the PB was just one of the 100 bishops. Maybe that was a better way? Maybe a layperson could head the administration function of the church, alongside the PB as "spiritual leader"?)

"experience suggests that most mischief in the Church is initiated by bishops"....Really? From what I've seen mischief is hardly the exclusive purview of the mitered crowd.

Terry Pannell+

For what it's worth:
How much true pastoring can he or she do if he/she is also trying to run a big bureaucracy? I'm with Jim here and am also intrigued and persuaded by bsnyder's and Robert's remarks about the ABC and the "old-style" PBs and their roles as first among equals.

An ordained person could (and IMO should) be chief pastor but not necessarily have (or want) to administer the church's operations--or supervise the one who does. The church needs both pastor and administrator right now, full time in each role.

For the record, my view has nothing to do with the gender of the current Presiding Bishop.

First of all, if we are asking this question about the Presiding Bishop, we need to ask it as well of all Bishops and all Priests. These are the training grounds for future Presiding Bishops, and this is where they develop their management styles.

If you are looking for other models, there are many available. One that keeps coming to my mind is that of the doctor's office. It is a system which has many faults, but it focuses relentlessly on discerning the unique talents of the physician as distinguished from the skills of other professionals in the office. We invest a vast amount of money in the theological education of our ordained ministry, and they spend their time doing . . . budgets? . . . administration? Are we crazy?

I understand that, in smaller parishes and dioceses, the priest or bishop is not only chief pastor but administrator, janitor, chief cook and bottle washer. Only in larger jurisdictions do we have more options, but we need to explore them. It is a matter of making the best use of everyone's talents.

Thank you, Paul Martin. The problem is not with the PB. The problem is systemic. It begins with our understanding of the role and nature of the church and continues with the role and nature of baptism and ministry and ordination.

I am able to do "management" and being and "executive". I don't enjoy it, but I do it and I do it quite well, thank you very much. I much prefer to have an empowered member of the laity or a deacon with those gifts and talents to "manage". Let me pastor and teach and preach and evangelize.

All that being said, my concern is less about being a manager and more about the balance between "pastor" and "evangelist". How much time do we expect priests/bishops/presiding bishop to divide between "tending the home fires" vs. "lighting the fires in the world"?

It's a tough balancing act, but sometimes I wonder if dioceses in particular and our church in general might be healthier if the "driver" spent more time "at the wheel".

I don't have an answer for that. It's not a criticism. It's just a 'wonderment', is all.

I think it needs to be explored, not just at the top level, but at all levels in the church.

As a lay leader in the church, I encountered clergy who were great pastors but couldn't manage their own finances, let alone the parish's. As a priest, I have served under bishops whose administrative skills have been lacking. Some of them delegated those functions quite well, others not so well. But the structure makes delegation of authority optional.

Especially at the PB/Primate level, the person should be first a prophetic leader and pastor, and especially able to fill those roles on a national stage. To expect them also to be a top-notch manager considerably narrows the pool of candidates.

I'll second Terry's comment that mischief in the church is hardly confined to the episcopate.

I utterly agree with Elizabeth.

But why are we talking about this? The PB HAS a CEO --we call it COO, but it´s the same. And no, the PB cannot really act without GC and its extension, EC. So I don´t know what this is about. Or are we afraid that the next (conservative?) PB may have to be "balanced" in some way? Someone enlighten me....