Stand Firm

OPEN THREAD: What does the Diocese of Upper South Carolina Need In Its Next Bishop?

If this was a company I would suggest promoting from within will just bring more of the same. Does the Bishop have to come from within the Episcopal Church?

In DSC we have a good rector and a good bishop. TEC seems irrelevent or at least at a great distance. Active, growing churches seems better able to survive the denominational problem. It is like a healthy immune system.

Upper South Carolina is in my prayers as they seek a new bishop. Does anyone have any thoughts about the candidates for bishop of the Diocese of Louisiana?

Sarah, your analysis of U.S.C. diocese is heartwarming, and descriptive of the old Episcopal Church some of us are able to remember, just good folks who want to worship and serve their Lord using a traditional Anglican piety. Those days are gone. While we have been led by an activist bishop here in Long Island, there are still plenty of lay people like you describe in U.S.C. Their used to be an Anglo Catholic feel to some of the parishes. But this being New York, the traditionalist parishes and parishoners are an almost dead breed. It remains to be seen what will become of us.

Thanks for sharing and describing with great clarity and accuracy about U.S.C. It is probably a statement about all of the diocese in the Episcopal Church.

Sounds like this is your biggest issue. Your next Bishop must be a church planter, and able to train priests, deacons, and the laity in the same.

Sarah - another thought. You might want to place a call to Nigerian Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola. Perhaps there is someone who will answer the call for DUSC. Those Nigerians know how to plant churches.

Really? Is that because he voted for the newest gay friendly amendments at GC09 and then signed the Anahiem statement or because he orchestrated then signed Bishop Scofield’s death warrant for Madame Schori.
Truly love is blind.
Intercessor

A small question: If a potential bishop was found that posessed all, or nearly all, of the stellar qualities that Sarah points to and that are desperately needed, why would he (or she?) want to take the job?

First, you need a bishop who knows, understands, can articulate, and can teach the Gospel. First you need a disciple.

Second, you need a bishop who is a gifted leader with a proven track record of growing congregations and dioceses. You need a disciple who can lead.

Third, you need a bishop who understands the need for evangelism and will work with the clergy and people of USC to turn them into evangelists. You need a disciple that makes disciples who, in turn, make other disciples.

Plus, you need a Bishop who knows who his Boss is and who knows the ABC, PB, HoB, priests and parishoners are NOT his bosses.

I suspect you need a happily-married, heterosexual, theologically-conservative, faithful priest - called to leadership in the Church by God, who will equip him for that very special ministry.

Should God lead such a saintly person to you, everything else ought to fall into place.

Such a person might not “want to take the job” but when God calls, it’s usually a whale of an offer.

Having just left TEC for an Anglican Church, due to the manifold problems and deficiencies of TEC, I can not imagine where you are going to find a saint to lead the U.S.C. flock. I am certain someone will be called… but Floridian made an excellent point… to whom will he give his allegiance? So many of TEC’s leadership revel in the pomp of their office… some are seldom at home… others have just given up. You and your diocese are in my prayers.

The Diocese of Upper South Carolina shares a nice long border (not to mention a state) with the Diocese of South Carolina, currently the only diocese in TEC that has, despite the three consecutive GC tsunamis, shown continued growth. One way this happened was that now-retired Bishop Salmon did something largely unheard of… he let the parishes keep most of their own money, and cut the diocesan budget to a shoestring. [He also flat-out forbade parishes from keeping funds that would otherwise go to 815… if a parish meeting or vestry decided that the National Church could no longer be financially supported, then that parish had to choose another, usually mission-oriented, fund to which to give the money… they couldn’t benefit themselves financially and thus diminish the moral stance taken.]

There are very few southern dioceses that are good at ‘diversity’, but the Diocese of South Carolina not only has at least one parish (urban)and two or three primarily-Black missions (one suburban, at least one rural), as well as the Voorhees college chaplaincy, but has just reopened a long-abandoned parish as a second urban mission church in one of now-poorest inner-city areas of Charleston, with a strong black community leader as its priest. It also has one truly TEC-style parish in Charleston, multi-racial, gay-friendly, etc., and some ‘moderate’ parishes as well: the Diocese isn’t the conservative monolith some see it as. It’s also home to one of the most Anglo-Catholic parishes in the country, theologically and liturgically (forget mere ‘smells and bells’; Holy Communion is the sort of nose-bleed high, ‘East-facing with maniples, priest/deacon/sub-deacon plus a dozen or so acolytes every Sunday version with 2 thurifers for feasts’ of Anglo-Catholic), so the idea of South Carolina as an evangelical monolith is equally false.

In addition to the longstanding Voorhees chaplaincy (Voorhees is one of the Episcopal Church’s ‘Traditionally Black Colleges’, founded when most white schools weren’t allowing black students to enroll), within Charleston there are three university chaplaincies, supported by the Diocese at the College of Charleston and the Citadel, and by the Anglo-Catholic Church of the Holy Communion at MUSC, the Medical University of South Carolina, all investing time and energy in bringing the orthodox Church to young adults, and a special emergency chaplaincy ministry to all the regional emergency services (police, fire and EMS), led by a full-time Episcopal priest and ‘bringing the Church’ to some of the people who most need it, rather than waiting for them to come in our church doors.

I don’t know “how retired” +Ed Salmon is (he’s left S.C. and living in St. Louis, and I left S.C. and am a volunteer for the Anglican Church in Portugal, the Igreja Lusitana), but I cannot imagine a better consultant to you during this search, either officially or just on an ad hoc, “Bishop, may I ask you something?” basis.

Upper South Carolina is not lower South Carolina culturally, financially, or in a lot of other ways, but in other ways the demographics aren’t all that different once you leave the city of Charleston itself. A bishop-candidate willing to look at some form of adapting the South Carolina model, which its proven success-rate, might be at least a start in the right direction.

Good luck, and if I may offer one of my favorite (extra-Biblical) quotations on the topic

If nominated, I will (limp away really fast, leaning on my stick and crying, ‘No! No!, Please, NO!!!!”)

(Although it’d be fun to a have a pointy hat, just to annoy other people at HOB meetings…)

Second (much briefer) note, regarding the first comment, by JustOneVoice: I don´t have the US Church´s Constitution and Canons in front of me, but I believe that any Anglican may be called: +Gethin Hughes, former bishop of San Diego, was Welsh, for example.

I´m reasonable certain that the bishop-elect must be Anglican, however, if only to enable the PB to charge him with ‘Abandonment of Communion’.

Sarah: The TEC Charts for 2008 clearly support your coverage of the diocese. For 2002 through 2008 the diocese lost about 4 percent of Members, 9 percent of ASA, and Plate & Pledge fell about 5 percent short of inflation. Taking a composite of these three data, the diocese ranked 13 for the 95 dioceses considered. Not bad, relatively speaking. For 2008 there were 32 (of 61) parishes with Plate & Pledge less than $150 thousand and 20 parishes with more than $300
thousand. It does appear to be a land of “rich” and “poor” with few between. A positive sign is that in 2008 there were 410 Infant Baptisms versus 261 Burials. Looks like a good opportunity for a new bishop. Statmann

Sarah,
Your description of what the DUSC needs fits one of your candidates perfectly. Of course, I only know one of the candidates…John Burwell. John has both planted churches under his own church as well as taken the resources, people and money from his church and injected a terminal parish with enough healthy DNA to literally revive it into a healthy, vibrant growing parish. In fact, he did these simultaneously while teaching parishes around the diocese of SC specifically how to grow and build good stewardship. In response to number 10, every morning Burwell enters his office, shuts the door for 20 minutes or more while he gets on his knees and gets his daily marching orders from his “boss.”
And in answer to number 8, a guy like Burwell doesn’t go looking for this kind of job, but when God calls him, he stands up and answers
Our prayers are with the DUSC as they seek God’s will for their next leader.

Sarah, God bless ya, Sister, excellent demographics, dispassionate analysis re: systemmic decline. [comment deleted—off topic]

Sarah, you need a bishop with many or most of the qualities mentioned above, particularly by my brother in Christ, Phil.
[comment deleted—off topic]

#14-
I would not be surprised if it varies some by diocesan canons, but as I understand the national canons as currently enacted (and according to the canonical authorities of both Northern and Western Michigan) all that is required to be suitable for nomination is baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I would note the precedents of the N. Michigan election (where the qualification was spelled out quite plainly- and not challenged by 815 or anybody else).

The obvious choice, I think, is +Henry Scriven. He is already deposed, which will save a lot of time and bother, but clearly recognized as a bishop by the ABC- which addresses those folks worried about staying in the Anglican Communion.

Seriously, I would call Kendall Harmon and ask him to recommend a good Communion Partner rector from a Communion Partner diocese (so that when the rector leaves, the congregation will be able to select a new priest who fits the congregation). A few of those fellows have some expertise in church plants and growing parishes.

1. Evangelism isn’t so much a skllset as it is a message, and a willingness to speak it. People are generally intimidated by the posibility they will be asked questions they cannot answer. What they need is sound teaching so they know what they believe and how to defend it.

2. Evangelism is by definition performed at the local level. Administrative structures can only have limited influence on day-to-day efforts. The success or failure of such efforts will inevitably depend upon local leadership and local laity. Do these have the knowledge and will to speak?

3. It seems to me that the Bishop’s primary rsponsibility is to put effective leadership into place at the local level so that laity can be taught and motivated to evangelize. The statement that most struck me in Sarah’s piece was the reference to the disconnect between clergy and laity. As in “Lots of liberal clergy, and lots of traditional laity.”

4. Now of course, I am a very immoderate radical, but it would seem to me you need a bishop who would commit to removing the wolves from the sheep pen. One who would evaluate clergy for doctrinal orthodoxy and run out into the street those who fail the test. So long as the diocese is infested with leaders who hate the Gospel, then I do not see how it can prosper. The local leadership will sabotage every effort of the hierarchy.

Carl, I agree with your #4.
A real Bishop must be a true shepherd who will clean the sheepfold and keep it clean, rebuild the walls to protect them from predators, and sit watch at the door of the sheepfold to prevent them from harming the sheep. He guard them with his own life. He will treat the sheep for parasites and vermin with right doctrine and Biblical teaching. He will know the value of the sheep to the Owner, that he is responsible to the Owner. He will be aware of the necessity of His job to teach the undershepherds to train the sheep (here is where the analogy fails) and helping to raise up new shepherds from among the sheep.

A Bishop must guard his diocese. For the sake of the Gospel and the souls of people, both precious in the sight of the LORD, not to mention the possibility of displeasing the LORD whose Church it is, the Church must not permit false teaching, the preaching of a false Gospel, the mis-use of the NAME of Jesus Christ.

Great feedback, in general, folks—thanks. And I appreciate the encouraging words, too.

I wonder if [ahem] all of you know that we already have six candidates for bishop—and the petition time has passed.

On another note, though, I’m simply not interested in cries from those who have left TEC as to “whether the right stuff can happen in a TEC diocese.”

If you have a mind to say that—then don’t. If you do say so after this warning, then commenting privileges will be revoked.

Helpful feedback from those who have left TEC is one thing. Cries of or questions about “why bother—they won’t allow it” can be taken elsewhere.

I am probably asking for it…..I may be banned….but I think it’s a valid point in almost any Diocese. From what I can tell from my research, church planting in TEC in general is not doing well. Because of the national media attention, people are pretty aware of what’s going on in TEC, so church planting is almost like trying to sell tickets for the Titanic…..I just don’t think people are anxious to get on board what they see as a sinking ship. I guess if I had input into Bishop selection for DUSC, my late mother’s own diocese, I would look for a
real “encourager” ....someone whose gift was strengthening what was there before focusing on planting…and bringing forth the orthodox into leadership positions. For instance, Sarah Hey (laity) and Father Bob Horowitz (clergy) from Greenville. DUSC needs a Bishop that will recognize what these people (and others) have to offer and get them involved as much as possible. Of course, we know these people don’t have any other activities that keep them busy and would have plenty of time for more work….

I think the new bishop needs to realize that the parishes are now in voluntary association and that because relationships have been made tenuous, they are to be nurtured and not stressed. This new relationship, a gift from the Supreme Court of South Carolina, is a check and balance TEC did not previously enjoy.

“This new relationship, a gift from the Supreme Court of South Carolina, is a check and balance TEC did not previously enjoy.”....but has long needed, as we have seen by the consequences of the lack thereof.

A while back, Fr. Timothy Fountain put up a series of posts on Bishop Hare of South Dakota, a true Bishop, that would be worth posting at least the links. I still have them and if you would like me to post them, let me know.

Can DUSC elect a bishop who, by virtue of being adept at church planting and leadership, will bring into the diocese clergy who are good teachers and committed to spreading the Gospel of the Lord? I think this is what we need, but will a majority of the existing clergy feel threatened and prevent such a person from being elected in the first place?

1—Neal Michell—traditional beliefs, clear on gospel; a proven diocesan professional at the criteria you are pointing to; possibly acceptable to the moderate/liberal clergy majority.

2—Stockton Williams—traditional beliefs, clear on gospel; less acceptable to the moderate/liberal clergy majority, [couldn’t pull up his church chart—TEC site not responding].

3—John Burwell—traditional beliefs, clear on gospel; incredible record of church growth/planting; very hard row-to-hoe with the moderate/liberal clergy majority.

4—David Thompson—has reputation for traditional beliefs, but voted for pro-gay ordination resolution; his faith story mentions “Christ” once in passing; his average Sunday attendance is down over the ‘98-08 period from around 250 to around 210; he is very unlikely to inspire any new advance in church growth; possibly least dangerous of the moderate/liberal candidates.

5—Andrew Waldo—Clearly offered by the Search Committee to appeal to more liberal lay and clergy voters (cites Gene Robinson as “mentor”), would certainly move diocese in a liberal direction, average Sunday attendance down over ten year period, false (or painfully unaware) claim in his resume that he led congregation “from pastoral to program size parish of approximately 550 members.” Points on this: 1) The measure of these categories is by average Sunday attendance. Program size is 225-800 ASA (see—
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/CDR_ChurchSizeandChurchGrowth.pdf )
Waldo’s church achieved 225 one year in the past 10 (2000), but it has steadily declined since then. The parish is now back down in the “Transitional” category (141-224 ASA) with attendace in 2008 of around 190. This is, at best, not an impressive record of church growth.

6—Phil Linder (Dean of our cathedral, who dropped out of consideration before the intense interviews of the final nine candidates and re-entered the contest after the five committee candidates were announced) claims traditional faith, but voted for the pro-gay-ordination resolution (which the diocese newspaper says he helped craft). Cathedral attendance has declined from a peak of around 900 in 2004 to around 810 in 2008 (this is about the same attendance as 1998). The election of Linder could be seen as a mandate to pursue his well-known liberal ideals.

I strongly agree with this as a need - IMHO, it is mandatory to minimize further loss in the body. I hope and pray you find a faithful bishop. However, this need does seem to me to reveal an underlying theological perspective.

In contrast, some reappraisers view traditional Episcopalians as theologically expendable or undesirable, at least until a diocese or parish reaches the tipping point of reappraising control. This loss to the body is never a reason for questioning or re-examining the reappraising theology, but more a reflection on those who are yet unable or unwilling to accept ‘progress’ and ‘justice.’

Frankly, one surprising need I noticed missing from this list is that the next bishop should have the will and ability to eradicate liturgical dance from the Diocesan Convention/Great Gathering (caution pdf) - for all time. This should involve special conventions to amend the canons.

I realize that your diocese (use to be mine too when we worshipped at Christ Church in Greenville) already has candidates for Bishop. I agree, John Burwell is the best candidate IMHO. I think he has many of the qualities you are looking for in a Bishop.

As always, I think prayer is what is needed. I know when this diocese (SC) went through our election process, I wondered what sort of bishop we would get. Look at how God answered those prayers !! Keep up the prayers !! THY will be done!!

Sarah, I’m curious to know your thoughts (and others who would have insight for that matter) how it is that the clergy are much more liberal than the laity in DUSC. If a parish calls a rector, wouldn’t they be calling someone who reflects their general theological bent? And if not, why not? Or is the clergy “bench” so thin that it is hard to find solidly orthodox clergy?

It seems to me that you want as a bishop someone who sees that office as carrying the patrimony of Christendom with them - thus they are called to protect that patrimony and tradition for/to the benefit of the entire church. You want someone who, despite the tsunamis, has a vision of growth for the diocese and is excited about living out his call as an orthodox Episcopalian bishop. A man who can be a spiritual father and apostle to his flock (including his clergy), and lives the “good news” example that he preaches. Being a competent church planter/revitalizer with a gift for administration would be helpful, and having people skills are always a good thing. That would be my vision for what the DUSC needs, IMHO.

One who will give a clear, workable vision on how to communicate the Gospel and witness of Jesus Christ to the diocese, how the parish is included and invited to be a part of that vision, and how individual parishioners can help their area, parish, and diocese.

Unless we have leadership centered on the primary goal and until we refocus on the Gospel and how each of us is responsible to the goal of making disciples of Jesus Christ, we are just an institution/corporation.

That means, of course, you have to seek candidates who will stand up firmly for the Gospel and believe in it without crossing their fingers behind their back. So, your search process needs to have some serious questions behind it if it already doesn’t.

Too much emphasis is placed upon “church planting” while ASA continues to fall. Until Dioceses and parishes are filled with Gospel believing rectors, who are preaching their belief, new church plants will be no better than what exists in those that are declining.

Advocate,
While I’m not from DUSC (although formerly from DSC before coming to Portugal… ‘it’s not all about U!’), I suspect that much of the laity, as with much of the South, remains relatively socially conservative. When the time comes to call a priest, however, unless they’re seeking someone who is likely to retire on them relatively soon, their choices start getting pretty slim, given that most Nashotah grads are more ‘high church’ by training than they’d be comfortable with, and that Trinity can only graduate so many seminarians per year. Given how many other “seminaries” there are in TEC, that makes the average non-Anglo-Catholic priest the graduate of a school teaching who-knows-what in terms of theology.

Since a lot of smaller parishes aren’t rich, they’re going to have trouble competing for the fewer and fewer orthodox clerics out there. [By the time I attended General in the mid-Eighties, orthodoxy was already seen as optional, although still possible (if you weren’t too loud about it), and EDS was the ‘radical left’. Twenty years of new graduates have come out of our seminaries since I graduated, and now the ‘far left’ of EDS of the 80s is the norm, and the left has shifted still further.]

Where are the folks at St. Swithin´s-in-the-Swamp going to find a priest who “reflects their general theological bent”, when so many of the seminarians have had their theologies bent?

Sarah,
It strikes me that the story of your Diocese,aside from the obvious, is one of a people who have lost the excitement of being Episcopal Christians. What you need is a Bishop who can be a cheerleader - an encourager- one who can rally the troups for Christ. Denomination does not have to count in that. If one looks at those who lead and are followed -they are almost always those who make us feel good about our faith and what we do for our beliefs. Church decline is a lot about ennui- and shame and downright discouragement. It’s about people feeling like they can’t make a difference so why bother. It is one of the reasons why people have left TEC or have just stopped coming. Often when we elect a new Bishop we are excited by the newness but when we really get to know the person they often are the same old, same old. My recommendation to you and all the people of DUSC: call everyone you know who might know ANYTHING about your candidates and ASK. It’s astounding how many people believe what they are told by their search committees and don’t do their own homework. Remember, ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ If they are proven church planters, that’s what you are getting. If they exaggerate their credentials, they’ll exaggerate anything else. If their walk doesn’t match their talk you don’t want them.
In the interests of full disclosure, I’m Archbishop Duncan’s wife and have been around the block in Episcopal elections. I’m a lifelong Episcopalian and actually when I think about it, I haven’t been deposed! I’ve seen it all in elections from the inside- the seamy underbelly as it were! Trust me-look at their walk,never mind their talk. And I don’t have a dog in this race so don’t think for a moment I have an ulterior motive - I’d just like to see TEC have one more Bishop worth deposing!
Nara Dewar Duncan

“Trust me-look at their walk, never mind their talk.”
Have seen too many priests who talk the talk, know the buzz words, but don’t walk the walk. Look beyond the words. Carefully ask questions that give the need for responses beyond buzz words.

A major way for us pew potatoes to personally help in a reformation is to be involved in the selection processes. Vestry, Rector search committees, diocesan offices. Get up off yer duffs and volunteer. Make sure your voice is being heard OFF line. Inconvenient? Yep. But so is watching good people being deposed or sliding out the pew. Take responsibility and get involved.

GrnMtnBoy said:
“Too much emphasis is placed upon “church planting” while ASA continues to fall. Until Dioceses and parishes are filled with Gospel believing rectors, who are preaching their belief, new church plants will be no better than what exists in those that are declining. “
I’d go a bit further by saying once the parishes and dioceses are filled with Gospel believing rectors AND parishioners, the church planting will naturally happen. Until then there are things to take care of at “home” starting with Christian education of the parishioners, and their children. So many rectors nowadays do not teach confirmands what they should know before they
take their confirmation vows. This
idea of instructing new comers in what the church believes, stands for, etc. rather than assume everyone is singing off the same sheet of music was one of the things that made me want to leave the Baptist church and join the Episcopal church. I had seen the divisiveness brought about by the
assumption and discovery later that
everyone did not agree on all the points, which led the minority to go off and start a different Baptist church.

What they need is someone like Tim Keller, who has a great mind, a big heart, knows the culture and how to speak to it, and loves Jesus more than anything.

The trouble is, if Upper South Carolina elects who they need, the House of Bishops will be so terrified that they will shoot him down.

All the seminaries except Trinity and Nashotah House have been captured by the culture, and indoctrinate their students into mistrusting the Bible and anything orthodox - while teaching the students how to redefine orthodox words to mean something entirely different. There are some students who are “conservative” in the expression of their faith, in that they like traditional forms and think that “we are not ready for” this or that innovation - but their minds have been put through the revisionist blender and they do not know how to resist the push to make legitimate what God has called rebellious and wrong. They only seem conservative in contrast to those who are vigorously pushing the boundaries - but they are not conservative in their beliefs, only in their style.

and then put that aside to look at skills like church planting and preserving the diocese.

I submit that it is specious to think that you can put aside the most important issue. If you consider that issue first, it seems to me that you are faced with a choice between Burwell+ and Mitchell+. That said, then it is reasonable examine those two in relation to the issues that you have raised. Which is more likely to be the good shepherd and to help the diocese get healthier and grow?

You know that I am in the AC but not in TEC any more. I still want to see the faithful thrive in TEC and take back some of the ground that has been lost. I very much want to see DioUSC survive and thrive under the care of a great bishop who will lead many thousands of people to Christ. I also believe that any such thriving will have to be done at the diocesan, parish, and mission levels.

One of the most important factors in making a choice is focus. I say focus on the only two acceptable candidates and try to see which of them would do the best for Upper South Carolina. Use the time available to delve into their backgrounds and take every opportunity to see them in action, preferably when they don’t know that you are watching. Ask their friends and their detractors what kind of bishop they would be.

What they need is a one-armed, Tibetan hemaphrodite in a committed relationship with a flock of sheep. (Did I miss any bases?)

We have a terrible problem here! Dear new Upper SC bishop, please help us be less of that! Help us “do more.” Help us “foster inclusive diversity so that we may see the face of God in each other!”

The more of those Caucasians you can chase away with TEC pro gay liberalisms, the higher percentage we will have of “the other.”

Umm ... what? Aren’t most of the “others” Caucasian as well? I think I know what you are trying to say, but it didn’t come out quite right. Perhaps a clarification would help.

I don’t mean to pick on you AnglicanXn, because I don’t think you probably meant it like it reads, but this is the thinking that got TEC to where it is today. If a bishop is chosen according to electability, the diocese will end up with a “Dorsey Henderson type” who is a bit more revisionist than Dorsey Henderson.
Put simply, Jesus Christ hung on a cross to save our souls. We must be willing to risk something in memory of that sacrifice. The HoB is not going to crucify anyone. Let them vote down 1 bishop or 100. If you think the other side is compromising, look at the election of KJS- was that a compromise? Nope. The most revisionist bishop nominated was elected PB in a time when TEC was supposedly trying to find a way forward that would unite the church. Well, in a way it has- by eliminating those who took bold stands for traditional doctrine.
I think S. Carolina should be the model for all episcopal elections from here on out. Put the person you want in that chair. Accept no substitutes.

#44-tjmcmahon, I agree with what you’re saying, USC should elect whom they want and not worry about the HoB.

Katharine Jefferts Schori, was elected PB of TEC at its 2006 General Convention at Trinity Church in Columbus, Ohio on June 18th on the fifth ballot with the exactly requisite 95 votes, and began her nine-year term as PB and primate on November 3, 2006. She just barely squeeked by on the 5th ballot, so it was something of a compromise.

TJ, I made my comment as a descriptive statement, not as a policy recommendation. The DUSC should elect the best possible (most orthodox and gifted in encouragement and evangelism) person as bishop and also pray without ceasing for the consents to come in.

However, to the progressives, someone who never met a heresy he didn’t support but who hates the orthodox is regarded as “open-minded,” while someone who graciously and firmly upholds orthodoxy and who has an open heart towards all people is regarded as narrow and rigid. The “open-minded” are affirmed, but the “rigid” are cast into outer darkness. Such is the peculiar world of the progressive…

Some people here probably think it was a compromise the way atom bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of Tokyo might have been a compromise.

If your new bishop is like mine, he’ll see the writing on the wall and try to hold back the decline by pulling in some consultants. A few months ago, we had the Alban Institute speak to some folks from our diocese. Alban prides itself on not being hard-wired to any one denomination, or for that matter, religion. It’s a perfect choice for liberals who want a magic bullet, but aren’t willing to put up with fundamentalists; but probably not good for an organization built on the Rock of Jesus Christ.

I appreciate my bishop’s acknowledgement of our grim reality, but am opting out of such schemes while respecting that some parishes will want to opt in.

If I could have anything from my bishop right now, it would be for him to gather all of us, set us down (as it were) and tell us that he really “gets” that traditionalists and revisionists are at a fundamental impasse. Along with that, I’d like him to admit that there is no way he himself can help traditionalist people in TEC… BUT that he is willing to clear the way for us to help ourselves.

1) An “invitation” from my bishop to the revisionists within mixed congregations, to go over to other parishes who have a revisionist rector. The same for traditionalists stuck in parishes with a revisionist rector - keep the hot side hot, and the cool side cool, so to speak.

2) An invitation from my bishop to traditionalists to have them step up to the plate, come up with their own ways of saving themselves, and then do it (without any more help -or interference- from the bishop). He would then try to help out the revisionist congregations, with his programs and what-not.

If your bishops are all revisionist, then they would do well to have a guy who could at least do that much for the remaining traditionalists.

As for the traditionalists, what can I say? Reach out to people who need it. Get creative. Heck, last week I was at a Focus on the Family simulcast that dealt with parenting. There were dozens of people in the (non-Episcopal) church that hosted the event, not from the host church. How’s that for drawing people into a church?

We live in an entirely new age, full of new opportunities. I’d say, it’s time to embrace ‘em.

45- Ricardo,
I think you inadvertently make my point for me. It was the fact that the revisionists stuck to their guns and REFUSED to vote for a more middle of the road candidate after the first ballot or two that led to KJS election. The folks in the middle were left to choose between the liberal and the non-quite-so-liberal candidates, and on the last ballot, enough middle of the road folks succumbed to elect her. That is not compromise, but an example of what happens when one side compromises and the other does not. Not that traditional Episcopalians had a suitable candidate- and granted, any reasonable candidate would have been unelectable.
46- Your observation on rigid vs. “open-minded” is quite correct, and a part of most diocesan <strike>Delphi</strike>education sessions.

Sarah, of course you know I am from DUSC, but here is what I think is going on. Linder is the choice of the clergy. He has already said that although he took credit for writing D025, he is against SSB’s. That was said to placate the laity. I happen to think both those statements are untrue, but that is neither here nor there at the moment. At my church only 25% of the pledging units have turned in a pledge card. I think a good portion are waiting to see what happens at the election. If Linder, Waldo or Thompson is elected a number of people, myself included, will consider it the last straw. None of those three fits the diocesan profile, as you have noted. I think the convention will probably elect Linder, but we could compromise on Williams; if the laity stand their ground it could even be deadlocked, but I think the diocesan convention delegates tend to be more liberal than the diocese in general, so I am not expecting much. In the tradition of Dorsey Henderson, I do not expect Linder to offer anything to the orthodox. He is from the same “leadership” mold.

Thanks for this thread, Sarah. I think it’s an interesting way to consider the choices in the upcoming election. Looking back over the history of the Church, I think one of the most fascinating things is the variety of men God has called to the episcopal office and the diversity of gifts that they have possessed. Some have been extraordinarily learned, others have been models of holiness and piety, and some have been skilled administrators. An orthodox and effective bishop can take many forms. That’s one of the reasons I like this question. Here are a few thoughts, for what they’re worth:

Last month, I was visiting the archives of the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus at Georgetown University, doing some research for my dissertation. I was slowly working my way through the Catholic sermon collection housed there when I came across a hand written sermon that was markedly different in tone from many of the others. I checked the index and was excited to see that it was a sermon that had been written by John Carroll, right after he became bishop in 1789. In the first half of the sermon, Carroll set out a defense of the authority of bishops in general terms. In the second half, he applied that authority to a particular case: It soon became clear that the sermon I was reading was an excommunication of a heretical priest who continued to teach the people falsely and celebrate mass after he had been suspended by Carroll. I expected to read no more of the incident, but in the next sermon, I again found Carroll addressing the matter of the heretical priest. This time, Carroll had come to a parish to rebuke men and women who had attended a mass celebrated by the priest in question. After I finished up in the archives that evening, I started the long commute back to my hotel. As I sat on the subway thinking over the sermons I’d read, it hit me, “Now that’s a bishop.” It’s easy to forget the extent to which the post-revolutionary years here in the U.S. were a challenging time for Roman Catholics. Catholicism had been illegal in many of the colonies, the Church was falling prey to heresy, and in the absence of a hierarchy, the institution continued to decline. John Carroll stepped into that situation and pulled the ship back on course. He was a reformer, an apologist, and a teacher to the faithful. He didn’t do these things to aggrandize his own position or to gain national prominence, but because he took his duty as a shepherd of souls seriously.

It occurred to me after I got back to Columbia, that we here in the diocese of USC are in a position not too dissimilar from that of those early American Catholics. We too need an apologist, a reformer, and a teacher. So, these are three things I’d like in a new bishop (all theologies being equal):

1. An apologist - someone who doesn’t just hold to the faith once received, but who defends it passionately and intelligently in his words and in his living. In this role, we need a bishop who not only speaks to the world, but who speaks to his fellow bishops (who are in some cases probably in worse shape than the unchurched). Additionally, I’d like to see someone who can improve our ecumenical relationships, particularly with the Romans and the Orthodox, which I know have been impaired on a local level here in Columbia.

2. We need a refomer - some here at Stand Firm have suggested that that means planting new churches, pushing out revisionist rectors, &c. I think those are all good ideas, but I think the key here is recruiting young men to the priesthood who are orthodox Anglicans. We’re never going to turn this diocese around until we have the personel to supply every pulpit and altar in the diocese with a solid rector or curate.

3. A teacher - our next bishop needs to be someone who takes Christian education seriously. I came to Anglicanism from a Southern Baptist background, and I have to say that the only thing I miss (aside from the cornucopia of fried goodies we had after church on Sundays) is Sunday School. I realize that to some extent this is the responsibility of the parish, but I think the diocesan can do more to promote Christian education and discipleship throughout USC, from children to young professionals to the elderly.

But the bottom line that all this speaks to is that seriousness of purpose that John Carroll exemplified: the realization that the bishop is our shepherd and uniquely responsible for our souls. May God send us a bishop who knows that salvation is at stake.

RE: “I submit that it is specious to think that you can put aside the most important issue. If you consider that issue first, it seems to me that you are faced with a choice between Burwell+ and Mitchell+. That said, then it is reasonable examine those two in relation to the issues that you have raised. Which is more likely to be the good shepherd and to help the diocese get healthier and grow?”

“The most important issue” is of course the gospel. But I write many things that put aside that “most important issue.” I don’t believe that all articles should be about the gospel.

Also please note that I stated: “What if, for instance, all six of the candidates for bishop were already traditional in their theology [they’re not—three are committed revisionists, although two of those three are, shall we say, more “subtle” about it than the other]. What if our next choice for bishop solely related to what this diocese needs in particular?”

So the question has been pursued under the assumption of a faithful-to-the-gospel, theologically orthodox bishop.

The question is . . . what is it that we need as a diocese in particular, beyond that assumption?

Based on recent elections, one major question is for lack of a better word: confirmability. That is, can whomever is elected be confirmed?

I fear that USC will face some skepticism from those who think Bp. Lawrence was at best equivocating and at worst flat lying when he was confirmed. I am not one of those, albeit I have issues but then I do not sit on a standing committee (praise God!)

So a church planter is good, but will they be Episcopal churches? Someone will surely ask.

Quite perceptive Sarah. This characteristic is unfortunately shared by a certain English bishop of Welsh extraction who fancies himself an Instrument of Unity.

Without having a clue whom you reference, I should think he has by now given up the idea.

In my view, the single most important trait of the bishop is that he will honestly say what he believes, whether it is popular or not. At this point in the life of the Church, it is not oxymoronic to distinguish between honest and dishonest clergy.

Full disclosure: I left TEC for ACNA and used to attend a parish in the Diocese of Virginia. I have family who live in USC and worship there at a TEC church when I visit them. This history is relevant because I saw how the Diocese of Virginia decayed. The DUSC may be able to avoid the path taken by the DVA.

An early indicator of the decay is that lay and ordained leadership become less forthright concerning the controversial issues, such as SSB, and where they want to lead the Church. Simple “yes” or “no” responses gradually become complex and lengthy sentences in which it is hard to tell what the speaker actually said. Bp. Griswold was good at this, and Peter Lee became better at it as time passed. Other ordained and lay leaders of the Diocese followed Bp. Lee’s lead.

Another indicator of decay is the gradual elevation of procedures used to obtain substantive results, and especially to prevent open debate of controversial matters.

The point is that the sense of trust that, ideally, ought to exist in a Christian parish and Diocese dies. People on all sides of the disputes (except, of course, the blissful unconcerned) become suspicious and cynical of the leadership and their true motivations, and of each other. The poisoned atmosphere makes doing everything else, such as church planting, helping a parish that has a local crisis, talking through reactions to the General Convention’s latest enormities, etc. much more difficult and eventually impossible. At that point a parish or diocese enters the death spiral, and people vote with their feet.

It is important to note that, once introduced, the suspicion and cynicism remain both with those who stay in TEC and in those who leave. Both those who stay and those who go will carry those scars and remain poisoned for a long time, further hobbling whatever parish and diocese they join.

So to the extent that you all in USC can, encourage your bishop candidates to be honest and open about what they really believe. If you ask a candidate a simple question and get an unintelligible answer, or if procedures prevent you from asking him that question, beware that candidate. I would rather face an honest revisionist who touts his revisionism openly than the closeted revisionist who uses circumlocution and syntax to obscure his real positions. An honest dispute with revisionists, openly debated, will help avoid the corrosive suspicion that so hobbles us who are, or used to be, in TEC.

I’ve been thinking about this for days. I think DUSC needs a new approach in keeping with it’s demographic profile/trend or challenges and to stop the hemorrhaging. So here’s what I suggest:
1. Close all small parishes and suggest people combine into a larger parish. Sell the smaller parishes.
2. Buy land and a large retail space. Convert the land to a golf club with a Cathedral Club House, and the retail space to a gym. “With church come the perks”, as my Bishop used to say. The members will want to combine parishes when they see the benefits. Plus you’ll be able to attract any number of Bishop candidates.
3. Sell memberships, hire minorities. It takes care of three issues: money, diversity, and status quo. Plus you can count Sunday tee-times and workers as ASA.

1. Making sure the bishop’s walk is praiseworthy is fundamental. A lot of the skill sets people want in a Christian leader are either just a form of godliness, or require it as a precondition. The tougher you think the job is that he has to do, the more character, and a consistent faith in Christ, and a humble sitting under the Word, will trump skills and talents. And that’s because most of the job has to do with people.

2. I’m not sure how you got to church planting from your analysis as the key thing. If few parishes are growing, and increasing numbers are tipping from static numbers to dropping numbers, then I think that needs to be prioritised as a key issue.

If most parishes are under permanent stress and have no room left for run-of-the-mill crises. Then I think that is the game at the moment. And the bishop needs to be chosen accordingly - hence Mrs Duncan’s comment.

Now, it might well be the case that church planting is a way to generate health in parishes. A church that is inward focused, or that makes its downward spiral part of its self-identity, is a church on its way out. But it does sound as though the Diocese needs to rebuild its ‘capital’ before it is going to do a lot of expansion.

3. It sounds to me as though the basic problem is leadership at the parish level. If the rectors/vicars are basically nicely behaved revisionists then there can’t be effective church planting. Nor can the parishes go out of stress mode. The primary goal has to be having a bishop who has a vision and the competency to give the diocese a new generation of leadership.

He therefore either has to be able to play hardball and win, or play nice and win. Either work with or against the current leadership while introducing more evangelical leaders - but either way do it well. Given what people have said about the prospects of bringing in people from the seminaries, that means that he probably has to recruit suitable people from within the diocese, and see them equipped - either by raising the funds to send them to a good college, or by developing them inside the diocese.

So I wonder if you need a ‘theological educator’ more than you need a ‘church planter’. Unless your diocese has a strong commitment to lay and unordained ministry, everything hangs on the quality of the clergy for renewing the Diocese. So that’s where the bishop has to start.

4. I’m in the ‘don’t focus on electability camp’. Find the guy you need and try and get him up. If you have two good choices then by all means be politically smart. But putting up a good guy and having him knocked back by the TEC approval process could, in the providence of God, radicalise the lay people - make them dig their heels in and take ownership and fight.

It also undercuts the moral authority of the current regime if they bounce a good guy spuriously, and that’s a good result as well. Very few leaderships are in place (even in democracies) because they genuinely reflect the views of the people being led. This means they are constantly vulnerable to losing support if they act tyrannically.

5. I agree with those who have said that the kind of changes you need require a diocesan strategy that puts minimal demands on parishes for funding and tries to support the initiatives on the ground. The bishop can create a climate that inspires people to be Anglican and to be gospel people, and that is supportive of ministers. But change and innovation requires capable people trying out things in a context that has enough slack in the system to enable a few chances to be taken, that doesn’t penalise success, and doesn’t punish failure.

Thanks for a thoughtful comment, Levor—and there have been quite a few of those too on this thread!

Just to make sure I’m not completely misread ... my thoughts about church planting were in a larger context, I think, regarding the crying need for “growth”. Of course I want people who believe the gospel. But I suspect that both liberals and traditionalists will agree that if DUSC does not grow, but instead continues its decline, we will die, and there will be no DUSC to fight over anyway!

So here was my statement that hopefully sets the whole of “church planting” in a larger context:

Ambivalence—We don’t need an ambivalent bishop. One uber-liberal clergy person in this diocese has opined that Dean Linder’s ambivalence must be faced. He was in; he was out; now he’s in again (having skipped the close interviews with the final nine candidates).

Then there is the ambivalence of Linder’s same-sex position. He says in his profile that he is committed to the full participation of all baptized persons and he voted that “God has called” partnered gays into all orders of ministry, but Linder says he won’t authorize same-sex blessings. The liberal questioner implies Linder is living with a contradiction he will have to resolve down the road.

Just had a rather off the wall thought: What would be the outcome if someone printed off this entire thread and sent it to all the candidates for Bishop? Would any of them dare to react before the election? Would there be any feedback at all?

It is my understanding that in Upper SC, “the call” is not allowed to go to candidates from Nashotah or Trinity.

Interesting as those are the ONLY two seminaries for people to consider from this Diocese (SC). I have never heard of a parish being restricted in their choice of a priest. Perhaps you meant that those two seminaries are NOT choices for people from Upper SC. That I can believe as friend of ours went to seminary from that Diocese (Upper SC) and had no choice but to go to General Theological in NYC. [shudders]

tjmcmahon In case you have forgotten, let me remind you that while Mark Lawrence was elected on the first ballot (a rarity and only the second time it has happened in diocesan history - remember he is bishop #14 for SC), the results after first election were invalidated with one decision from the PB. Arggh, that meant the diocese had to go thru a second election !!! I believe he just barely got enough consents to be consecrated. Because the consecration was delayed a year or more, the location had to be changed,etc.

One clergy who has seen a number of bishop consecrations told me that he had never seen all the various “technicalities” of a consecration done more carefully than when Lawrence was consecrated. It was the diocese’s way of showing that we can follow rules to the nth degree. But the best thing about his consecration was that the PB was not there !! All sorts of clergy and Bishops from all over the AC but not the PB.

jimB “Bp. Lawrence was at best equivocating and at worst flat lying when he was confirmed. “

I realize that this is not your opinion but really MarkLawrence was doing what ?? Equivocating or lying ??? HUH??? Really ?? Were you there when he was consecrated ? We were. Believe me he knew exactly what he was doing when signed on to be our Bishop. He knew the criticism his consecration would bring, he understood the possibility of his deposition has existed since the day of his consecration. Does he care? well yes. Having heard Mark Lawrence talk and preach a couple of times, his recent remarks makes it clear HIS GOALS for us. His goals are focused on how we can be the faithful people that we already are and continue that into this century. in fact, his motto might well as be “Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age”. Yes, you can buy the T-shirt!!

Thank you for asking a great question, Sarah. I write as someone who presently lives and serves outside of DUSC but who grew up there and has an abiding intrest in its well-being. DUSC is in my prayers often. There have been many thoughtful contributions, and I hope this thread will get archived as a good one to re-visit for a bishop’s election. Here are a few thoughts.
The first question, IMNSHO, is not what DUSC needs in a bishop. The first question is what does DUSC need? That is the only way out of the gridlock I see shaping up potentially at the election. While I am not sure that it is possible to keep theology out of this discussion, here are some things that I think would help DUSC really thrive:
1. Effective conflict resolution - especially focusing on healing the divide between the clergy and laity.
2. Unity around an energzing picture (vision) of what the diocese could become and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to get you there;
3. For the clergy and laity to understand truly what an amazing gift we have been given in the Anglican Communion, and to understand what part DUSC can play in the work of the larger communion;
4. The gift of a loving pastor-bishop who can balance between (please forgive the old group process language) group task and maintenance and whose own house is in order relationally.

Elaborations: What kind of gifts/experience would equip a candidate to repsond to these needs…
1. The theological divide (there, I couldn’t help but get to that) is very concerning and bubbles up as one of the items of prime importance. The diocese will not be able to go forward as long as there is such incoherence at work. It would be interesting to get a fix on how many involuntary clergy terminations there have been over the past ten or so years and how much time +Dorsey spent trying to referee disagreements (surely, one a bishop’s favorite jobs!). The other key number (which you have) is the number of involuntary laity terminations - that is, members who felt they really had NO recourse but to move on. How stable are the congregations? How many are in long-term pastorates? What is average clergy tenure? How many lay folks are doing what I call “inter-transfers” - that is transfers within the diocese?
I suspect DUSC would, first, be best served by someone who is well versed in conflict resolution (and I deliberately did not call this “conflict management”). So, it would be important to ask how have these folks handled conflicts in the past and especially with regard to minority points of view?
Although I realize the search committee has done its checking, it’s important for other concerned folks in the diocese to do their own. (Thank goodness for underground pewster)
It’s good to do this three, five or even ten deep - meaning asking the person you’ve just spoken with “Do you know someone it would be good for me to talk with about this particular thing?” and then asking the same question three to ten times of three to ten different interviewees. By the time you get that far out, you can get a pretty clear picture that is outside of the control/spin that some candidates attempt. This approach is a good antidote to candidate (dis)honesty. In truth, this often happens because people want the job so much that they really do believe what they have (mis)represented about themselves. Conducting multi-leveled interviews is the only way I know to get around that.
Back the clergy-laity divide - the only I see to move beyond this is to see if it possible to get both groups to agree on what is in the best interest of the DIOCESE rather which candidate most closely fits one’s own preferences. (Kind of like like trying to get honest about what is best for the kids) This would require I believe a more substantive diocesan-wide discussion than you have had to date-may be you have had this, I just don’t know about it. At this point, I think I’d try to get three or so members from each group and have an honest face-to-face.
2. Conflict resolution ability is not good just by itself. The candidate needs to have shown evidence of having been able to hold up a compelling vision (even crazy ideas that took root and grew). Have they been able to mobilize people and to bring the vision to fruition?
This would take someone who says their prayers faithfully enough to hear where God would lead DUSC; someone who can communicate it effectively and ardently; someone through whom the Holy Spirit can work to win agreement and convince people to work together to accomplish something really significant for the advancement of the Gospel; and someone who can hold people accountable to make it happen (“holy nagging”). Most anybody can come up with a good “vision”, it takes a real leader to get God’s vision and to make the rest happen. Is there evidence of these things in any of the candidates past and present ministries?
3. Does the candidate have a vision of what a gift the AC truly is? Some clergy and laity really do see little or no value in the AC. Has the candidate been to some of the places where miraculous things are happening in the communion? Do they understand how much and desparately we need each other? Do they understand how our church is viewed by the other members of the communion? Have they personally caught a vision of what the AC is about, have they acted on this, preached on this, struggled to make sure those they serve understand this?
4. Has the candidate been a faithful pastor in his own minitries? Clergy and laity often need pastoring by their bishop. It’s easy to fall into the trap of going for the administravtive gifts rather than the pastoral gifts. Have those served by the candidate felt cherished by their leader? At the same time, it’s important to not get someone who is SO empathetic that they get immobilized. Can the candidate speak the truth in LOVE? Does the candidate show evidence of being able to make tough calls?
It’s been said that if you want to know how the priest is doing that you need to look at their spouse (If they have one). How are the family and marriage doing? If there are adult kids, how are they doing? That is not to say that brokeness in the family is a disqualification-rather, how honest is the candidate about it (remebering Bob Trache and Atlanta)

Please forgive if this is long-winded. I love DUSC and will remain in prayer that whoever is elected will be a great blessing not only to you but to the whole Church.

Re: #62 and #63. I am not exactly in the know, but I’ve heard from one of the current priests of the diocese (who was a seminarian at the time) that +Henderson wanted to send a candidate to Nashotah House, but for whatever reasons it didn’t work out. FWIW.

#52-Sarah, Okay, it’s your thread and I will stop trying to tell you how to run it. I have been impressed by the thoughtful and serious comments from people who appear to have a lot more experience that I do with the subject.

Count me in the “don’t consider confirmability” camp. If you choose a bishop by that criterion, you will never forgive yourself. You might as well just ask ++KJS whom you should pick. (shudder)

I hope that you chose someone who will be an inspiring leader for the clergy and the laity; who will give both a sense that Christ is well represented in the diocese. I’m not fond of “tough love”, but such a leader must be able to make the hard calls and give everyone confidence that the right choices will be made, even if it hurts.

One of my recurring themes is that a top-down organization is like putting all your eggs in one basket; you really have to take good care of that basket. I pray that God will help you discern who that leader is for this time in this place.

I really don’t think VGR makes a very good bishop, but he certainly meets your criteria.

I believe your next bishop must be Gospel Centered, Mission Driven, depart from the CEO model, defend the faith, rebuild the diocese from the ground up centered in Christ with a message of hope and transformation.

But it is important to recognize the divide between the theological and biblical position of the clergy verses the laity and also realize that priests are good at making sure their deputies/delegates to the electing convention will vote with them. So, if it is valid that the clergy are theologically more liberal and less traditional than most of the laity in the Diocese this is a serious challenge to overcome.

Finally, one further characteristic, integrity. A bishop should not seek to be all things to all people. The Bishop should be clear as to what is said and meant and not equivocate. Most bishops in the EC act like politicians they do not address the divisive issues instead they re-frame them so that they can avoid answering the questions and say whatever they would like. Most candidates are more concern with being elected and presenting themselves in the best light. Elections in the EC seem to relate more to popularity rather than biblical theology or conviction. The Walk about is revealing ...ask the hard questions and see if they will answer them or avoid them….

And yes, the ambivalence of Dean Linder must be addressed. Personally, if one is this ambivalent, he should not be considered a serious candidate.

Now, regarding the clergy in DUSC, I do believe you have at least one Trinity Grad in your diocese. So, it cannot be said, that Nashotah and Trinity grads are verboten. Nonetheless, candidates must have the bishop’s approval before they may be considered. This is happening in all Dioceses of the EC and not just DUSC. Thus, the bishop ultimately decides who the clergy will be and what their theological position will be. This is a powerful tool for shaping the diocese. Bishops decide the theological tone of the diocese and the DUSC will do well to recognize this fact and reality.

Actually, SC blu cat (#64) at St. Andrew’s we prefer our clergy to be from Wycliffe, Ridley, St. Paul’s (HTB), Gordon-Conwell, RTS and Fuller in addition to Trinity and Nashotah. And, those are the seminaries to which we generally send our candidates for ordination. In 10 years we’ve sent 14 young men/women off to seminary with Gordon, Fuller and Wycliffe receiving the most.

My point was that without (1) objective honesty by the candidates for bishop of USC, and (2) confidence by the people of USC that their leaders, including the bishop candidates, are being honest, then all the other needs of the Diocese cannot be addressed. The lack of integrity in church leaders, and the gradual realization of that lack of integrity by the good parishioners of the diocese, will destroy the diocese. Ministry by anybody is impossible in such an environment.

Sarah’s invitation was for ideas regarding what characteristics the new bishop should have; I was trying to answer her question, not defend VGR. But I would rather have a revisionist candidate for bishop honestly acknowledge his revisionism, rather than conceal it through obfuscation. A candidate’s dissembling may fool eneough people to get him elected, but once he reveals his true colors people will feel betrayed, because they were. Thereafter the bishop will be discredited (just ask Bp. Lee) and the diocese will be on a death spiral.

Just to set the record straight: DUSC has several priests from Nashotah currently serving in the diocese and has ordained and had (although not currently) several priests from Trinity Seminary!

A bishop cannot - and should not try to be - all things to all people. Relationships with lay leadership are important and IMHO a bishop needs to be the leader, pastor, and mentor for the clergy who are the people with “boots on the ground.” Church planting will follow when existing churches are strengthened and grown both numerically and spiritually. (Not, of course, in that order!)

Evangelism is a struggle in most (with 1 or 2 notable exceptions) Episcopal churches and dioceses. It, too, grows out of growing the existing membership in the “knowledge and love of Christ.”

I said when he was elected, he should be consecrated because he clearly was (and I assume still is) what the diocese wants. As he sought and received consecration under TEC canon, my view is he is subject to it. For me end of issue.

Do I agree with his views? Nope. Does that matter? Nope. Not everyone has to agree with me. Unfortunately, a good many folks on both sides of various issues think everyone does have to agree with them.

Sarah, #59, you’re welcome for the comment. I thought I’d wait a day or two before responding to your follow-up comment as I think this is the kind of thread where I’d rather not say what just comes into my head.

I apologise for misreading the thrust of your hopes - I agree that you are looking for a numerical growth broader than only planting new congregations and a qualitative growth to go with it. I had a few thoughts from the following extract from your comment:

I’m not sure how clear I’m going to be, so please take things further if there’s anything you think is worth following up and is obscure. Its also long, even by my standards. Not sure what I can do about that.

1. Everyone wants growth, but few people want their church to change. Everybody loves ‘humanity’ but most people struggle to love people immediately in front of them.

I remember talking to a nice (plays well with others kind of guy) conservative evangelical minister here in the UK with a lot of years under his belt. He relayed a story of a young evangelical minister starting in the Diocese he had worked in all his life. The Bishop was a nice liberal with lots of enthusiasm for growth. This minister was trying to convince the younger colleague not too look to the Diocese for support, or even lack of opposition, to attempts to grow his parish even with the Bishop’s enthusiasm.

The younger guy apparently was quite taken back and talked about how the Bishop had already had several long talks with him about ideas that could be done, and had invited him to join a special committee to generate diocesan-wide initiatives for growth. The older minister replied, “Ah, that’ll be the seat I just vacated after twelve years of not getting a single idea implemented. Good luck with that.”

Where a church, or a Diocese, has a history of expansion and growth, then growth doesn’t change what church is for people - it reinforces it. But if the Diocese is as you’ve described - static, or declining - genuine growth will undo much of what ‘church’ means to most of your laity and clergy. It would involve a very different kind of culture, one where most people in church haven’t been there for eighteen plus years and where there are constant new faces.

I’ve been part of churches, and talked with people who have been part of churches, who have been turned around after a long period of slow decline. Even when that turn around hasn’t involved significant changes just to reach new people, just the fact of a steady influx of new people has changed things so much that dealing with very disgruntled and even angry long-term members has been a real issue.

In your situation, I think you are not so much talking about ‘growth’ (which absolutely everyone wants. No really, they do.) but ‘change’ (which almost no-one wants.) Once churches are in a pattern of static numbers or slow decline they usually continue that until they are one step away from ceasing to exist. Then they are usually willing to try something (change? death? not much to choose between them, so why not try something new?) - but often have few resources at that point.

Trying to change before that point is often very very difficult. But it’s not simply about creating growth.

So in Australia - my home, if not where I’ve been for the last couple of years - I’d argue that the Diocese of Tasmania has managed to turn things around (or at least, has, a good chance). Their current bishop has, under God, introduced the kind of measures needed to revitalise dying churches. But it only happened because the Diocese was almost dead, and all except the most principled liberals (for whom it was liberal or nothing) were prepared to have a nice evangelical who was pro-WO if that might mean a new lease of life. Even then, the kind of changes he had to make, even as a nice guy, created enough ill-will to sink his nomination to be Archbishop of Melbourne.

2. Liberals don’t want people to come to faith in Christ. The nice ones don’t mind if they do, and don’t object to it. But they don’t want it. Not the way evangelicals and (it seems from the GAFCON launch here in the UK) your American Anglo-Catholics often do.

You can’t really grow churches unless you either give people what they want (e.g. the prosperity gospel) or what they need. The latter is costly and demanding, and ministers have to be willing to go through a lot to make that central to their ministry. Liberals, by and large, can’t sustain that - they don’t believe in Hell, in any objective atonement, in an eternal judgement. They might think people are better off with faith, but they don’t see it as a matter bigger than life and death. Without that, the ‘need’ of the current congregation for stability and security (especially under the circumstances you describe where there is no slack left in the system for normal crises) will trump a general desire for ‘growth’ in the abstract.

3. Your churches seem to have two related problems. They are in constant stress, and they are not receiving a ministry that feeds and matures them. The latter is because they are being ministered to by liberals. The former is also because they are being ministered to by liberals - but only because they themselves are more traditional in theology and the difference connects up with the three-year GC tsunami cycle to create constant stress. If they were liberal as well they wouldn’t have the stress because they’d be on board with the leadership.

So at present, the best a minister can hope to do is keep conflict to a minimum and keep the church experience stable and full of good qualities that, while not the gospel, still strengthen and encourage human life. But that is precisely what you don’t need if you are looking for growth - growth is going to involve creating stress, and making the gospel fairly central.

Hence promoting a cultural change in the leadership - either nicely (by not touching the current rectors but just making more evangelicals available) or aggressively (by trying to push the current ministers out while bringing more evangelicals in) is necessary to be able to address both problems. And both problems need to be addressed for growth to take place.

5. So I agree with you that what the Diocese needs is growth. But I think you need to address the leadership issue to get there. Liberal leadership and traditional congregations can’t make the wonderful Pied Piper kind of music together that might lead the children of Adam out of the city of Man. Hence, I think the Bishop needs to have a vision for leadership change, and be sufficiently godly and competent to effect it under God.

75, agree with the above that you have gotten right to the nub of what is needful. Without the cultural change in leadership and getting the theological divide sorted, all the rest is window-dressing.

What you have said applies not only to the DUSC, but to every other Diocese and parish, including those in the ACNA. It deserves its own thread.

Any chance Burwell will be elected? He seems to be a good candidate; the only candidate that expresses orthodox views AND has an unambigous record of church growth and building.

If there is any hope, it will be John Burwell for Bishop. If any one else is chosen, the slippery slope continues.

We do, in fact, have a rector who is a Trinity graduate. This came about as a result of the parish survey which demanded such a person, not as a result of any great flash of genius from diocesan house.

Unfortunately, this rector now faces an enormous amount of heat from the lunatic left fringe who simply can’t stand a faithful, God-fearing, Bible preaching man of God.

I submitted a comment over at the “Breaking News..” post re: the walkabouts wherein I offered a response to Sarah’s question on this post: “what is needed?” So I thought I’d submit it here, too:
Discipling diocesan clergy (for unity, cohesiveness, and Gospel accountability), and fresh constructive emphasis on evangelism.

In light of Levor shared, successfully sharing and motivating people in the pews and the clergy toward constructive evangelism attempts will not change the existing culture directly, but indirectly, and then only as the evangelism is fruitful.
However, direct clergy discipling will change a diocesan culture measurably. Anecdotally, I’ve heard many bishops, and heard further stories about many other bishops, who have had a great desire to be substantially involved in the lives of their clergy, then failed to maintain the disciplined schedule necessary, and so ended the grand intention. The consequences of such failure have been predictable: the bishop relies heavily on a small group of people for input (instead of the benefit of much broader input through extended visits and conversations, at least with clergy), and relies heavily on occasional communiques to “share” with the diocese, and / or the clergy as a separate group. Bishops who email and make good use of the phone, or invite clergy couples and individuals to residence dinner parties, present an environment of accessibility, but it is still not the same as a ministry of modeling and discipling.
Walking the walk isn’t the same as talking the talk.

I hope your next bishop is believes in an inclusive ministry instead of hate and exclusion.
If Christianity is to survive, it needs to follow the path set by Jesus of love for all, extending a hand of care and justice.
So many so-called Christians would be horrified if they had to personally help a homeless person or prostitute.
If Jesus walked the earth today do you think he would single out groups for persecution like the anti gay/lesbian rhetoric?
Of course not.
Jesus would only oppose the truly evil and those who would kill and maim the innocent.
Jesus would try to change the hearts of the haters who spend much of their day trying to divide and proclaim their superiority over others.
God bless the new Bishop, whomever is chosen, and I pray that that person’s heart is touched by Jesus.

How terribly arrogant of you to presume to speak for Jesus. Instead of trying to put words in His mouth, try living into the words which He actually spoke, “Repent, and sin no more.”

You obviously fear what Jesus truly stands for.
What part of my comment misrepresents what Jesus stands for?
And, as usual, those who hate others cloud the real issue.

In my opinion you only have a part of what Jesus represents. Because Jesus loves us, he does not want us to live in sin and he does not want us to encourage others to live in sin. Letting someone deceive themselves into thinking that their sins are not sins, but wonderful, blessed things is not loving them. When you love someone you help them repent from their sins and stop sinning.

So the question is not about hating or loving. It’s about whether you believe homosexual acts are sinful. If you think homosexual acts are sinful, the only loving thing to do is to discourage it and help people move away from it. That is not hate. Can you understand that?

The question is, are homosexual acts sinful? Not if the desire is genetic, not if they people who do them are good, nice, or otherwise holy people.

How do you determine what is sinful? To me it appears the only way to come to the conclusion that homosexual acts can be holy is to ignore the Bible, tradition and reason and trust the devices and desires of your own heart. (google that phrase if you are not familiar)

I think you are encouraging people to live a life of sin and there can be no more hateful thing to do than that.

I am not sure I’d label any sexual act as “holy” - gay or heterosexual.
But that’s beside the point.
God created Gays and Lesbians - just as he created the rest of the world and its contents.
My message is to love your brother and sister - and don’t find excuses not to do so.
My message of inclusion doesn’t encourage anyone to have sex - whether it be gay or not.
I merely state I believe Jesus is about love and inclusion rather than singling out groups of people for attack.
I wish all those who attack gays would put their energies to something positive.
Imagine all the wonderful things that would happen in this world if those who use their time and energy to single out groups of people would instead focus that time to do positive things like volunteering for the homeless or trying to protect God’s environment.
I love all of you who try to condemn gays - and others - and I wish you’d find it in your heart to love instead of persecute.

By the way - you can not encourage or teach a person to be gay or heterosexual - it’s the way God made people.
Please people, stop wasting your time persecuting people and spend it doing something positive.
It amazes me the fervor in which people try to attack other groups.
I am a former S.C. resident who witnessed other acts of persecution and exclusion.
Why people hate with such vigor astounds me.
Love thy brother and sister - no matter what their race, sexual preference or position in the community.

Greg
Why you think we hate people that perform homosexaul acts astounds me. Why you think homosexual acts are not sinful astounds me.
Can you answer the following question?
Do you think any inborn desires are sinful?

God created people who are adulters, liars, cheats, murders too, what is your point?

I do love them, that is why I do not want them to harm themselves, and their souls by sinning, especially unrepeatently.

Jesus was also about “go and sin no more” and “follow my fathers commandments”

I do love them, trying to free them from their sinful acts is the most loving thing I can do.

When you say this, you are asserting that a homosexual is acting according to his created nature when he engages in homosexual behavior. How do you know this without accepting the testimony of the homosexual? Every man who engages in immoral behavior has an interest in claiming that his behavior is justified by his nature. So the mere presence of testimony is not dispositive. How then do you know a homosexual is acting according to his created nature?

We are getting off topic from the original article.
I merely wrote a comment hoping the new bishop is inclusive.
It’s obvious we will not change each other’s minds - so I think enough has been said - since we’ve both heard the other’s arguments many times before.
I choose not to judge or exclude based on one’s sexual preference, race or creed.
I pray you will use the energy you have exhibited in debating this issue - to benefit a different and more positive cause - for the good of others.

Yes, this is a very positive comment expressing hope that the new bishop is inclusive.

But then I didn’t really expect an answer to my question. Because there isn’t an answer to my question.

I decided to make one more comment because of a private message I got and because I accidentally clicked on the link that stopped me from getting messages on this topic - my fault and seemed only way to get notices of comments.

I believe we are all made in God’s image - and that gays are no more sinful than you, I or anyone else.

I save made condemnation for the truly evil like terrorists and others who kill/injure/abuse others out of a sociopath type personality.

The reason I quit responding the comments is because my goal is not spending lots of time (my schedule is crazy) trying to convert people to my way of thinking.

I also believe the Bible has been translated so many times that there may be some unintentional mistranslations - I hope unintentional.

I try - tho not perfect - to live the way I think Jesus lived with love, care and respect for others and the planet.

There are a lot of people have sex all the time - and while I do not always agree - it’s not my place to condemn especially when there are other more important things to devote my passion to.

I also don’t condemn you and any other person with whom I disagree - but hope you will find it in your heart not to judge gays any more harshly than you would any other person you meet (except the truly truly evil people of the world).

I don’t condemn those with a sincere belief in their comments but I hope that people will examine their heart - and not claim it’s a loving thing to attack others based on the way they were born.

p.s. I don’t see the point of trying to change the minds of people who don’t want to change - and all the arguments I or others have used above on both sides have been stated many many times.

I was once in your shoes. I would encourage you to read J.I. Packer on the Bible, such as his book “Truth and Power: The Approach to Biblical Application” His writings made a big impression on me, and particularly the need to read and interpret the Bible as a whole. On the issues you are discussing, there is little real dispute as to any potential errors in translation of the passages from the original hebrew or greek. In the end, most serious scholars who dispute the traditional sexual morality of the church end up arguing that certain chapters or books are simply wrong in their original text and that Scripture cannot be reliably understood to be divinely inspired.

I agree that we all sinful, and all unworthy of God’s grace and eternal life. However, I would extend this further, and say that I am no more worthy of God’s grace and eternal life than the “evil” terrorist you condemn. Why do you call the terrorist evil? What tells you that the terrorist’s acts are sinful?

In truth, I deserve enternal punishment as much as the terrorist does, and so does everyone else on this blog, whether they are gay or straight, male or female, a Bishop or a death row inmate. I wake up every day with the knowledge that there is no sin I am incapable of committing (and many I have), and I can’t cast stones at someone else just because he or she happens to be committing a sin that I just don’t happen to be tempted to commit at this moment. Its all God’s grace. However, an understanding of sin—and our sinful nature—helps lead us to where we can recognize the need for God’s mercy and grace, and can accept it through Jesus Christ. When we deny what Scripture states to be true, even if we are doing it out of a sense of human compassion, we lead someone away from that point of humility and acceptance.

I agree with the part of we are are sinners.
I trust my heart - and if I go to hell because I was compassionate and urged others to be compassionate for all people who are not hurting others - then I go with a clean conscience.
As far as the text of the Bible, I have no idea how accurate it is after translation but I take it - on the whole - as the truth.
My compassion, however, doesn’t extend to those who intentionally hurt others - and I use terrorists as an overall example.
I think you understand who is pure evil and who is not when it comes to murder vs killing in self defense or protecting others.
Tho I have always thought it was sad that all religions including Christianity - have killed in the name of God.
I could go on and on - but I mean the common sense definition of those who are truly evil and my compassion ends when it comes murder, rape, maiming of others.
Again, if my basic belief in love for God’s people - including gays - truly means I go to hell - then I do so with no problem and a clean heart.
But I don’t believe God wants me to hate gays because of their love for one another when it was something they were born with.
As for sex in general, our society as a whole has taken a sick turn where people are often forced either financially, by threat or power or force - to have sex with people they do not want to - again I go by what I call a common sense definition.
Its a human choice - and as long as both parties agree I believe it’s their business and I do not judge.
Anyway - I know I can’t change your mind and I believe you are sincere in your beliefs (even tho I disagree) - so I don’t judge you or hold any ill will.
I try to live as I perceive Jesus would want - but I am not perfect either.

Greg, I am confused by the last comment. Is anyone talking about hating gays? I know I wasnt. I don’t hate gay friends any more than I hate myself, or all of my friends, who have sexual sin in their lives.

We have common ground in that you take the Bible, as a whole, to be true. Yet that same Bible speaks clearly and consistently about sexual morality. If you can’t believe those passages, then how can you believe the extraordinary, unbelievable story of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I did not necessarily mean you personally - meant those people/groups who take time to lash out at Gay lifestyle when there are many more pressing things to worry about.
And would not want a bishop who doesn’t agree with that point of view.

The only reason I commented on this situation is because I am a former Aiken County, SC (North Augusta) resident and worked for several local TV/radio stations in SC.

I don’t know you well enough to say you hate gays - but at first impression I think you getting pretty upset by the issue and are quick to say or imply the lifestyle is a sin.

The sexual morality thing is a worry but I don’t hold Gays anymore responsible that any others in today’s society. It’s irresponsible to suggest that the average gay couple has any more sex than the average straight couple (I am not talking about sex addicts).

As a rule I believe what happens between consenting adults is their own business - and don’t think (in most truly free-will cases) - that the participants are automatically going to hell.

I also thinks its interesting that the good Lord gave men and women a huge sexual drive (obviously some more than others often based on levels of male testosterone and other hormones etc.) - but - some say - then judges them.

I am more concerned about the overall sex industry and its multi-media effect than what one couple does - BUT again it’s not something I spend much time thinking about as I have too many other things that are more important personally and globally (my devotion to the environment/civil rights projects I act as volunteer media person for).

I was also a friend of the late Bishop Jim Kelsey here in northern Michigan who was a leader in the compassion and open arms in the church when it came to gay clergy and members. I only knew Bishop Kelsey for three years but interviewed him many times including on videotape/and photos the day before his death - all my contact involved interfaith environment projects.

I did not know about his stand on gay issues until after his death - but I was not surprised it caused me to have even more respect for him.
I also witnessed the vicious attacks against the good man who was chosen to be his predecessor until some members of the church attacked him.

Anyway I have a (ice climbing) story due for local newspaper and have to get back to work.
(fyi I have attended many Episcopal church services over the years for many reasons including starting at a very young age when one of my babysisters was the wife of an Episcopal pastor and we attended services/functions at his church.)

©2009 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.