A Nursery for Ambition?

by

This article also appears at Patheos.com

 

by Frederick Schmidt

 

In a report from the meeting at the House of Bishops for The Episcopal Church, Bishop Dan Martins notes that the bishops are considering creating a pool of prospective candidates for the episcopacy.

[Editor’s Note: The proposal is actually from the Task Force on Episcopacy, created by a 2015 General Convention resolution which was under discussion at the recently concluded House of Bishops meeting.]

As Martins describes it, this pool of would-be bishops would be a list of prospects who are vetted ahead of time, and dioceses electing a new bishop would be encouraged to use that list.  Martins also infers that dioceses choosing to look beyond the list provided them would run the risk of failing to receive approval for their bishop-elect.

 

As a priest and a theologian, I view this development with a considerable amount of dismay and I hope that – after further reflection – the House will abandon their plans to create a pool of candidates in this fashion.

 

There are several reasons for my misgivings:

 

One, in our polity, a call to the episcopacy (like a calling to the diaconate or the priesthood) requires a process of discernment with the prayerful help and wisdom of the church.  It is difficult to imagine how this might be done in a vacuum, on a church-wide basis, without a parish or a diocese to cooperate in the process.

 

Two, because – more often than not — our bishops are called to provide leadership for a single diocese, the early stages of discernment are narrowed with the creation of a list of this kind.  The life and history of a diocese should shape the process from the beginning.

 

Three, historically our denomination and our tradition have been misled in the selection process from time to time by electing bishops who were “born to the purple,” either because of familial or social connections.  While a pool of candidates might be chosen on other grounds, this proposal will inevitably re-create that dynamic, if not formalize a system that has not always served the church well.

 

Four, it is difficult to imagine a list of this kind that is not driven by ideology or ambition.  Martins article does explain how or by whom these candidates would be identified, but one can imagine a whole new series of informal behaviors designed to get one’s name on the list.

 

Five, the proposal disenfranchises the laity and most of the clergy at one level, by pre-judging who might be considered.  Historically, some of the church’s strongest and most notable bishops were not on anyone’s list and often the best of them have been elected to that office against their own instincts or has pulled them into the office from relative obscurity.  One can imagine that the appeal of the proposal being considered by the bishops is the notion that this process will eliminate political machination from the selection of bishops.  However, what it does, in fact, is simply move those machinations to another playing field or venue, where there is even less opportunity for public scrutiny.

 

Creating another smoke-filled room or a nursery for ambition in the church is a profound theological and spiritual mistake.

 

 

The Rev’d Dr. Frederick W. Schmidt is the Rueben P. Job Chair in Spiritual Formation, Director, The Rueben P. Job Institute for Spiritual Formation at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, IL

Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail
newest oldest
Notify of
John McCann
Guest
John McCann

Janis Johnson: your observations, after a long 25 year "vacation" from the church, has led me back to a strong, Anglo-Catholic and isocial justice centered faith. I had never felt the "call" but quickly saw, exactly what you are taling about. The Church is not about "spirit" and "call". It is simply a mirror of the secular corporate world, of currying favor with the "right People" making sure one is noticed by the little "insiders" clubs, and careerists. I simply see no difference, except in the external packaging with a few exceptions, of people who seem to exhude the "Holy Spirit". But so many others are just stepping stones to a "career" ladder in the church, Nothing holy about it. So a pre-selected pool of candidates, isn't even based on any criteria other than favoritism, and being the "teachers pet". I am happy to serve God in the laity, with the flexibility to speak up. Under this plan, there would be likely no Bishop Paul Moores, or no Desmond Tutu's who not only fought against apartheid, but was opposed to the State of Israel (which supported the apartheid regime), and came out in favor of women's ordination, and opposed to homophobia, xenophobia, and racism. "Candidates" in this proposed "pre elected" group, would likely be intimidated to rock the boat, to speak out, and would want to align themselves with the power structure of the cburch. Which does not seem very "Christian".

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Janis Johnson
Guest
Janis Johnson

In my seminary class of 2006, there were already those who planned to become bishops...not from call but from career. The purple shirt syndrome was and is real. Establishing such a pre-approved list simply establishes and "elite" group versus being open to the freshness of the Spirit in call. Such a group shows that it is, as has been stated, a "good old boys' and girls' club," leaving the Spirit out of it. We are about call, not career. We are about discernment, not a dossier. What a bad, bad, bad idea. No wonder we are in such decline.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Peter Faass
Guest
Peter Faass

So much for the work of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ when we seek a new bishop. Who needs her anyway? (snark!)

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
JC Fisher
Guest
JC Fisher

Am I the ONLY one here who flinched at "As Martins describes it"? [Talk about someone w/ an agenda!]

I'd like to hear *directly* from those behind the proposal.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Frederick Schmidt
Guest

JC...there is no agenda in that phrase. It is a simple acknowledgement that the analysis is based upon Martins's description. Otherwise, the point of view -- both theological and spiritual is explicit. I'd be delighted to hear from others who were at the meeting that Bishop Martins misunderstood the proposal. If not, my concerns remain as described above.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Henry Galganowicz
Guest
Henry Galganowicz

This sounds like an enshrinement of the cookie-cutter approach on the highest levels. As some have been wont to say, the disciples wouldn't make it today.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Anne Bay
Guest
Anne Bay

I grew up in the Episcopal Church and it has gone through many changes through the years. I realise that this idea may seem like a good one to some. I am not very active any more -compared to what I was- so am not on the "in" of current church goings on so to speak. When I was young, the selection of candidates for Bishop was considered a "big deal" and a special time for the candidates and the diocese that needed a new bishop. To make a list of easily approvable candidates seems to be a very general category for something that the particular diocese may want/need. Each diocese is unique, with its location, economics, population, history, and other specific interests. So how is having a pre-approved list going to meet those needs? Many candidates are nominated from the diocese in need. Would this list preclude nominating local priests, deans, and other diocesan clergy and focus more on the list or on looking to outside clergy for nomination?-- even clergy outside of the U.S.?-- I would be interested in who is making these pre-approved lists and what their backgrounds are and are they clergy or laity? Every Episcopalian I have met have their own ideas of what the church needs, so each person who is requested to have in put has their own ideas of what constitutes being qualified for bishop. This is tricky territory. I will be interested to see how this task force is able to put their proposal into effect and work with each other on this task. My concern is that the needs of the parishes that make up the diocese receive proper attention as what would work best for them. Each diocese needs to have a working rapport among the clergy as well as the laity.Thankfully the Episcopal Church in the U.S. has moved forward with regards to LGBT, women clergy, including bishops, respect and compassion for refugees, Transgender, Native American issues and care, and women's rights to their personal issues and care, and others too many to name here. So I hope the task force going forward with this idea of making up a list of possible candidates for bishop will keep these in mind -we need to go forward and keep the church moving forward. I'm not sure how this task force will be able to gather all the information in their examination of clergy and put it in a workable entity. I think more information to clarify how this would work is needed. My mother once said the Episcopal Church encourages to use your brain, and I hope that is the case with this.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Paul Woodrum
Guest

Next, a pre-approved list of laity qualified to be priests or deacons? And why not simply let the Presiding Bishop and Chair of the House of Deputies pick from the list? I have an inkling, whatever method is used, the ratio of great to mediocre to poor bishops will remain about the same.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Brian Thom
Guest
Brian Thom

Bishop Martins did infer in his blog that dioceses not using the vetted list may risk canonical approval of their choice. This is his implication; no such possibility was stated or implied by the Task Force presenters.

The Task Force, made up of six lay members, three priests or deacons, and only three bishops, is the body bringing forth the required response to D004 GC 2015. D004 was approved by both Houses of GC 2015.

Please see Tom Little's post above. Let's see what the Task Force's Blue Book report actually suggests.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
David Johnson
Guest
David Johnson

This is awful. The Church has elected some wonderful Bishops in the past, not relying on such management of the pool (An extreme example: Fabian of Rome). However, never underestimate the power of a bad idea endorsed by a group of influential individuals (another extreme example: the Wannsee Conference).

I like to think that a vibrant combination of call and discernment should be essential elements of ANY search process. Perhaps there would be a male or female Fabian who would emerge out of the fog of "process."

This idea is an example, I think, that our efforts to avoid descent into chaos may actually accelerate or exacerbate that descent.

Thank heavens I am retired.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jim Newman
Guest

An awful suggestion for all of the reasons mentioned. I can see a repository where those previously vetted and then not elected might be available for search committees. However, that's as far as I'd wade into this swamp before it was drained.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jeremy Bates
Guest
Jeremy Bates

Isn't the deeper problem the likelihood that any "pre-approved" list will become a way to control bishop nominations centrally?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Bill Moorhead
Guest
Bill Moorhead

Dr. Schmidt is absolutely right. This is an appalling idea. In the midst of Lent, when many of us are delighting in the hagiographies of Lenten Madness, we should note how many of the great episcopal saints of our tradition were selected as bishops unexpectedly and often against their wills. (The Holy Spirit, yes?) Yes, of course candidates for episcopal election need to be well vetted. But that's the electing diocese's job. A "pre-approved" list is, among its many flaws, simple laziness.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
TJ (Thomas) McMahon
Guest
TJ (Thomas) McMahon

Sounds rather like an excuse to convert the task force into a standing committee on episcopal candidate selection. Strikes me that this is a way to guarantee that, regardless of your stance on theological or social issues, you will be disappointed in the slate of candidates. And rather than a diocese determining its own "profile" and inviting nominations that fit the profile, there will be a "profile" of episcopacy, and dioceses will be expected to mold themselves to it.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jeremy Bates
Guest
Jeremy Bates

If memory serves, the Church of England is considering something similar. Pre-clearance seems to be the fashion.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Stephen Voysey
Guest
Stephen Voysey

Very bad idea, and I trust the vast majority of sitting bishops will not be persuaded to establish such a list...the "optics" do not reflect a theology of call. I'll trust in the surprising gusts of the Holy Spirit at work, thanks very much!

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Tom Little
Guest
Tom Little

Here is the pertinent Resolved clause from the 20125 General Convention Resolution (D004) that established the Task Force on the Episcopacy:

Resolved, That the Task Force will propose to the 79th General Convention a new process for discernment, nomination, formation, search, election, and transition of bishops in The Episcopal Church including, but not limited to: the roles and responsibilities of the Office of Pastoral Development; the selection of, roles and responsibilities of Transition Consultants; how adjoining dioceses may aid and inform the discernment of a diocese in transition; and any required Constitutional and Canonical changes necessary;

The Task Force has been trying to discern how dioceses would like more and better resources and assistance at each stage of the processes they go through in the discernment and election process. And since bishops are bishops for the whole Church, we have been considering a broader perspective on the issues and concerns.

The Task Force is committed to preparing a balanced but likely, in some respects, provocative report to the next General Convention, to prompt deep and careful thinking and reflection, for the good of the Church.

Tom Little, Secretary of the Task Force

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jeff Cox
Guest
Jeff Cox

You cannot have it both ways. People want more XXXXXXXX group of Bishops. They are never on the "list." You create a list of XXXXXXXX group of people. Now, people do not want a list.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Vernon Sheldon-Witter
Guest
Vernon Sheldon-Witter

I cannot see any advantage in this at all. Where is room for the moving of the Holy Spirit in Episcopal Matters. Limiting access to the Episcopacy would be a patent denial of the very working of God in the choice of a Bishop of a Diocese. Frankly it is Un-Episcopalian (if such a term can be used) to place a prospective candidates list. This is Mans interference in Godly matters.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
John Rabb
Guest
John Rabb

Once again the church shows that it can totally over learn. This is a very bad idea, but reflective of how we see an issue, in this case that no all processes work as we wish, and so we have to go to an extreme. Then we only create a worse situation. Let dioceses elect bishops - based only on what the canons state, have proper vetting and stop this crazy "fix it" mentality. Trust the Holy Spirit!

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
The Rt. Rev'd William O. Gregg, Eastern Oregon VI, resigned
Guest
The Rt. Rev'd William O. Gregg, Eastern Oregon VI, resigned

As usual, Dr. Schmidt provides a thoughtful and insightful consideration of an idea that invites us to further, serious, and thoughtful thinking and conversation. I very much agree with his points about why this idea from the Task Force on the Episcopate is extremely problematic, at best. I also note the emotionality of the reactions the idea evokes as an indicator of why this is not a good direction to take. I would also hope that the Task Force is capable of producing and will produce solid, thoughtful, substantive ideas for all of us to consider as we think and pray about the theology and practice of the episcopacy in The Episcopal Church now and going forward. We need and deserve nothing less.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Philip B. Spivey
Guest
Philip B. Spivey

Hark! "Seeking willing and guileless food-tasters for the 1st Annual Primates-in-Waiting Ball."

No experience necessary. Career advancement limited." 🙁

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Thom Forde
Guest
Thom Forde

No doubt the discernment process needs an over haul. This is not progress.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Michael Thorne
Guest
Michael Thorne

I know a wonderful cathedral dean who serves faithfully in a cold corner of the country. He's probably a capable pointy hat prospect. If there was a pre vetted list of apostolic candidates propective dioceses would have a better chance of knowing about his gifts.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Rachel Taber-Hamilton
Guest
Rachel Taber-Hamilton

List? I don't need no stinkin' list! I'd kick ass in purple.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Alan Christensen
Guest
Alan Christensen

People always compliment me when I wear my purple shirt. Makes me wonder if I missed my calling--although that would be a terrible reason to make someone a bishop.

This proposal sounds way too top-down to me. Does the Holy Spirit still have a say?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Erik Larsen
Guest

The Pastoral Epistles have some pretty good advice that the Church - as well as the present Task Force - have chosen to ignore. We might not need Title IV if we had taken the scriptures seriously, if not literally.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Steve Lane
Guest
Steve Lane

Just a note that the idea came from the Task Force on the Episcopate, not the House of Bishops. The report was made by members of the Task Force. And I think it is not yet a proposal.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
David Allen
Guest
David Allen

Isn't that what the 2nd paragraph states?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
David Allen
Guest
David Allen

:snark:
If this were to be implemented, there should be multiple lists;
1) These pre-candidates should only be called at this time as bishops sufragan (could use a bit more experience leading large organizations)

2) These pre-candidates are cleared to serve as bishops co-adjutor (need a few rough edges buffed off)

3) These pre-candidates are qualified for immediate consecration as bishops ordinary (the cream of the crop, ready to hit the ground running)

And then we can recognize their pre-vetting in their new titles so that we will all be aware that they are on "the list";
The Revd Pre-candidate Suffrangan Jon White.
The Revd Canon Pre-candidate Co-adjutor Andrew Garns
The Revd Pre-candidate Ordinary Rosalind Hughes
:/snark:

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Pat handloss
Guest
Pat handloss

Not a good idea on many levels.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jim Jordan
Guest
Jim Jordan

Seems to me that the Committee would serve the Church better by considering the qualities Dioceses should seek in nominees. I imagine that for any given Diocese, there are two sets of qualifications: (1) the qualifications that apply to every Bishop in the Episcopal Church (maybe segregated as to Ordinary vs Suffragan) and (2) qualifications that make a Bishop likely to succeed in the given Diocese (considering, for example the prevailing cultures).

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
John McCann
Guest
John McCann

This entire process seems very problematic. It is entirely subjective, there seem to be no real measureble standards. It could be implemented very capriciously: based on no quantifiable criteria. A bishop could say "no" to a man with a beard, if he didnt like beards. Given the expense of a Seminary education, the increasing lack of jobs and opportunities, I am thankful that I am too old, and happy to be in the laity where I can freely express my views and opinions. No thanks! This sounds like a terrible idea.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
John Merchant
Guest
John Merchant

This proposal would appear to be another gesture to treat the calling of a bishop like the "head hunting" process for a corporation. Frankly, I find it inappropriate for dioceses to permit priests to "apply for the position," as some have done. The Holy Spirit, given her freedom, will "direct and rule the hearts" of members of nominating committees and the electors gathered in council when the sacred process is performed prayerfully, carefully, and mindfully with only as much attention to the "business" matters as is needed for budgetary and legal satisfaction. God's people, laity and clergy together, of each diocese rightfully choose their new bishops and have done so remarkably well for centuries without being required to "fish only in the waters of the House of Bishops."

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jay Croft
Guest
Jay Croft

Betcha from now on, the ordination to the priesthood rite will include an automatic sign-up for this list.

Maybe it will have an opt-out box, which will be available but seldom used.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Vicki Smith
Guest
Vicki Smith

This is a really bad idea, smacking of the old boys club even if it isn't all boys.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Kevin Montgomery
Guest

Some questions:
- Who decides on who's in? Who has a say?
- What are the criteria?
- Can someone later on be voted off the island, so to speak?
- Would the list be public or private? Okay, trick question since nothing stays private for long these days. What does that do to a priest who finds out he/she is on the list? How does that affect his/her relationship with the rest of the church?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Ann Fontaine
Member
Ann Fontaine

What a terrible idea. More control from the "controllers"

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Michael Hopkins
Guest
Michael Hopkins

How utterly horrible. A nursery for ambition indeed.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Brent Norris
Guest
Brent Norris

"An approved pool?" I am thinking that a lot of dioceses might like to have a bishop who isn't exactly of the same cloth as those who are already in that House.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Patricia Templeton
Guest
Patricia Templeton

I'm with you, Brent!

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
John McCann
Guest
John McCann

Seems like sort of an "insiders club" more political than spiritual, sounds too secular, like climbing the corporate ladder, running for office, rather than "answering a call". Feel so blessed in the Diocese of New York to have such outstanding Bishops! Andrew, Allen, and Mary are the "real deal".

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jay Croft
Guest
Jay Croft

I wonder what percentage of ordained persons are going to try to get on that list "just in case God calls me."

Like (0)
Dislike (0)