It has long been my position that a bishop MUST, above all else, be a missionary....a man of God....a Chief Pastor to his flock....and NOT an administrator.  That’s what Diocesan Councils are for.  Unfortunately in all too many cases, bishops have assumed the role of Administrator and Chief Executive Officer, and this development has come back to haunt the Church.

#1 - Cennydd - unfortunately, this confused vision of what a Bishop should be had been created by the Anglican ambivalence regarding the Episcopal Office.  In the RC Church Bishops fulfill the Apostolic Role, as per St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Ephesians 4:10-12
He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

In the CofE, Bishops are Officers of the Crown.  The Calvinists did not want any Bishops (or the prayer book or a fixed order of service).  Elizabeth retained Bishops as Order Keepers as part of the Elizabethian Settlement.  This position was strengthened under James I VI.

In the Episcopal Church, Bishops came along quite a while after the church was planted.  Their role is severely restricted By Diocesan Canon.  CofE bishops do not have Diocesan Councils who can sue them.  TEC Bishops do.  Big difference.

So you have a watered-down office, as per a long ago TEC decision.

Hoping that a TEC bishop will act decisively, like a RC Bishop, will get you heart ache - - -

Some DO act decisively, and mine....+John-David Schofield....is one of them.  The difference is that he is no longer in TEC....and neither am I.

Hi Sarah - good luck to you. 

I will tell you it is my opinion that Staton is expecting DoD to be “rescued” somehow rather than taking the stance I know is in his heart.  I know he believes what TEC is doing is an apostacy, but is unwilling to leave the TEC.  I think he believes he can ignore the TEC and continue to “do his orthodox thing”, but I believe time is running out on this course.

Each age has a bishop in a different mold.  In the middle ages, the bishop was a “Prince of the Church” and wore purple to show his princely status.  In the 18th and 19th centuries, the bishop was a “doctor” and a learned man.  In the middle to late 20th century, the bishop morphed to the CEO model from business. 

We need to recapture the Bishop as Apostle - one sent - in the 21st Century.  The Bishop should be the chief evangelist and missionary.  The Bishop should be “One with the Apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection” (BCP 517).  Proclaimation of the Gospel and a life shown to be loyal to Jesus as Lord and King and Savior is the first requirement for Bishop in Christ’s church.

We need bishops who are evangelists and not princes.  We need bishops who are leaders because the first follow Jesus Christ. 

I remember when Bishop Stanton was ordained 15 years ago.  The bishop preaching (I believe it was Bishop Allin) said (and this is close to a direct quote, but not exact) “...We hear a lot about the need for leadership in the Episcopal Church.  We need to leave leadership to the Holy Spirit.  What we need to be concerned with is Discipleship!”

We need bishops who are disciples first, Evangelists and missionaries because they are disciples, and who can teach us to be “fishers of men.”

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I’m pressed for time at the moment, but I look forward to looking up the stats of the Diocese of SJ and learn how successful Schofield’s missionary efforts have been during the tenure of his Episcopal episcopacy.

5)
I think leadership is extremely important.  The shepherd is not called to wander with the flock but to LEAD, proactively, where the master has told him to take the flock.  Take initiative.  Don’t let them sit and molder in the pews.  Protect them from the wolves and show them the ONLY way home.  FIGHT for them.  Teach them what a wolf looks like and what to expect from it.  This is not a safe world and TEC is not a safe church.  LEAD, FIGHT, TEACH and PRAY.  Lord, hear the prayers of your people and have mercy, lest we die.

Smuggs, in answer to your question about +John-David’s efforts:  No more or no less than any other bishop’s efforts.  Next question?

Canon Mitchell’s questions show how wrong well-intentioned people can be.

Bishops should *not* be primarily missionaries.  Bishops will spend most of their Sundays visiting parishes and preaching to people who are (presumably) Christians. They will spend most of their time administering. They must be teachers of the faith, yes, filled with zeal for the Gospel, yes; but people gifted most with the missionary spirit should be—missionaries, or evangelists.

Also bad is Canon Mitchell’s emphasis on past performance over future plans. Many people who would be God-chosen bishops would not pass Canon Mitchell’s tests—because they have not done things that would equip them to be bishops in Mitchell’s mind, becuz they were under authority. A good rector will do things that bishops never have to; and a good bishops will have to do things that rectors have never had to.

Some of Canon Mitchell’s questions show the way in which capitalist corporate-think has seeped into the Church.  Orthodox people can fall for it easily, but it is all an indication of a spirit of lawlessness.

Toral1

"Confused vision?” I thought I was pretty clear.

Toral1 - the Apostles were, first and foremost, evangelists and missionaries.  Paul travelled around planting churches and making converts.  Peter and John went before the Sanhedrin to defend Christianity.  In this post-christendom society, we need bishops who will lead us in being evangelists and missionaries.  I agree that the bishops should visit their congregations, but there are a lot of people in our congregations who are not committed to a Christian life and are not committed to Jesus Christ.  Bishops should be missionaries and missionaries “by proxy.” They should lead their priests and deacons to places where the Church needs to be and give them the tasks to do.  It is the deacons’ job to report to the bishop where the Church needs to be, but there is more work than workers.  It is up to the bishop to decide how to spread the resources of the diocese to spread the Kingdom of God.  This is where leadership comes in, but it is not the world’s leadership.  It is the same leadership that our Lord showed in the upper room and on the cross.  It is leadership under the authority of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church.  Bishops are not to be Prophets (that’s the deacons’ job).  Bishops are to be Apostles and Evangelists. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil—thank you for your reply.  I know about St. Paul. Reading your post, I’m not sure I disagree that much. I can’t get cut-and-paste to work today (new format?) or I would be more specific. Your examples talk of leadership—and that is what bishopry is about. Of course bishops should have a ‘missionary spirit’—so should all of us.

Toral1

Sarah,

If it is at all possible, would you consider doing some light reformatting upon the main post? At first blush, it reads as though you are up for the job of suffragan bishop. Reading it that way comes across as a bit of a shock. There is no good reason why you shouldn’t be one, but of late the church has been selecting its bishops from amongst the ranks of clergy, not laity.

I have a blog thingy

Toarl1,

What web browser, browser version, and operating system are you using?

Dear Toral1,

I still contend that bishops must be first and foremost evangelists and missionaries. They are the successor to the apostles.  That is their number one job.  It is a job description that bishops inherited from the first century.  Besides, remember that we live in a Postmodern and PostChristendom world where the mission field is at our front door. 

The Episcopal Church has a goodly number of bishops who have been fairly good administrators of congregations but not necessarily effective bishops. We must recapture the missionary impulse of the church at the diocesan level to reach our communities that so need the Gospel and are so busy distracting themselves from that need.

I will grant you that I don’t always know the mind of God on many matters.  I appreciate the testimony of the apostles at the first ecumenical council when they sent out their pastoral letter: “it seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit.” They were not presumptuous of knowing the mind of the Lord and neither should we.  My model for bishop, comes from my reading of the ordinal in the Prayer Book. That was my aim, anyway.
I don’t think that my idea of a bishop fits into the corporate model of a CEO of a diocese.  But, gracious and thoughtful people can differ.

However, not to be aware of a person’s track record can set people up for electing the most articulate, or the “hale fellow well met” as bishop. 

Finally, I suspect that no one is really prepared to be a bishop.  Training as a rector will not ensure that a given person will be a capable bishop.  And some very capable rectors went on to become very ineffective bishops.  Nevertheless, we can look for patterns of whether this person has a history of exercising good judgment, is emotionally mature, spiritually mature, able to deal with conflict in a healthy way, and so on.

I’ll give you an example.  When I work with search committees that are searching for a rector, they often will want someone who is a “good preacher.” Most Episcopal clergy think we are good preachers, when in truth, we are often fairly average.  How do you know if someone is a good preacher?  Ask whether people ask the preacher for copies of his or her sermons.  That is a past performance that is a good indicator of future performance.

Same here, selecting text is whacked on IE6, WinXP.  Seen this problem on dozens of blogs…

Toral1, are you suggesting dioceses cast lots to call bishops?

The trend in the non-profit sector is generally to adopt more and more from the corporate world when stating visions and goals and for how to accomplish those goals. Many of the corporate strategy and organizational design methods can be adopted to help organizations reach goals other than profit maximization. See Micheal Porter’s recent work and the proliferation of non-profit management and social enterprise offerings in top MBA programs as evidence.

There’s a very real danger in adopting the GOALs of corporatism. Attempting to maximize funding or membership by watering down the Gospel is a serious mistake. The phenomenon of “church growth consultants” (charging pretty attractive day rates...) does speak to your concern.

I’m not sure adopting some of the PROCESS is in the same category. Using organizational management techniques to accomplish goals is not so different than what the Apostles did when they organized the seven to look after widows and orphans. I think churches and dioceses should be intentional and structured in how they approach decisions - always under the guidance of the Spirit.

GG 14: IE6.0, Windows ME.
While I have your attention, can you please change the default setting on notification of follow-up comments?  No more default checking of the yes box?  I don’t like to be spammed, even by fellow Christians.
Toral

I’ll give you an example.  When I work with search committees that are searching for a rector, they often will want someone who is a “good preacher.” Most Episcopal clergy think we are good preachers, when in truth, we are often fairly average.  How do you know if someone is a good preacher?  Ask whether people ask the preacher for copies of his or her sermons.  That is a past performance that is a good indicator of future performance”.

I’ve never ceased to be amazed at the frequency of this being a top priority for congregations in search.  True, no one wants a regular dose of Mumbles in the pulpit, but it can be unwise to set this as numero uno so often--be careful what you ask for; you may get it.  I’ve met plenty of decent or good preachers who were dolts in many other aspects of ministry.  One of them, an acquaintance of my spouse, would never hesitate to state that, when it came to visiting people in hospitals for either pastoral care or last rites, such just wasn’t his “thing” and he “didn’t do it”.  Said clergy is now a TEC diocesan bishop...go figure. 

In search, whether for rectors or bishops, it pays to try hard not to suffer from what I would call a “Lack of Big Picture Accident"…

I personally have never heard a really good sermon by an Anglican minister in my life, and I have been in the Anglican church over 30 years. ("Why?", one might ask, and I don’t have an answer.)

(And this includes a sermon by John Stott visiting Canada; he must have been having a bad day.)

So if there are any search committees that have succeeded in finding a ‘good preacher’—let me know where they are.  Perhaps the sermons are, or will be, made net-available.

I hate to have to say this, but I also think a bishop should be, first, a disciple of our Lord Jesus.  I serve on the Commission on Ministry and one of the questions we commonly ask is “Who is your Spiritual Director?” It is assumed that a nominee (aspirant) will have one.  This is something we should also ask our bishops.  We have too many clergy (bishops included) that are leaders first, good preachers first, good pastoral presences first, and disciples (if at all) last.  Frankly, I don’t care if you are the best leader or preacher or pastor if you are not a follower and student and subject of Jesus Christ.  One of the Bishop’s primary roles is to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.  These are in order of importance.  Without a common faith, unity suffers and without faith and unity, discipline is impossible.  You can see that by the recent HOB depositions.  If you are to guard the faith, you need to first understand it (in as much as a person is capapble of understanding the Faith).  You need to be able to articulate it.  To guard the unity of the Church, you need to understand that the Church is One and departing from the Faith (or allowing others to depart from the faith) will lead to breaking of unity.  To guard the discipline of the Church, you need to be disciplined yourself - you need to be discipled - you need to be a disciple. 

Please pray for the Diocese of Dallas this Saturday as we (canonically) elect a Bishop Suffragan for our Diocese and for the Church.  Please pray that all ears and hearts and minds will be open to the Holy Spirit and that we all be given a double dose of the gift of discernment for that day.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I will be praying for you and the diocese of Dallas.

I will point out, however, that if you asked an evangelical, “Who is your Spiritual Director?” the likely response would be “I have no ‘Spiritual Director’ except Jesus.”

I actually believe that the practice of having a Spiritual Director is a good one.

There are long ties between Canadian and Texas Orthodox.  During the ‘70s controversies over WO and prayer book reform, I recall that at a Council For the Faith meeting I attended the main speaker (and it was a stemwinder) was a retiring bishop from Dallas (or Fort Worth, I don’t remember.)

Folks will be praying for y’all.

Philip Snyder,

I whole-heartedly agree with you, Deacon Phil.  Bishops are called above all to be successors of the apostles in the apostolic ministry of evangelizing and seeing that new churches are planted etc.  Nigeria has had great success with choosing truly apostolic men of that sort, including the wonderful Archbishop of Jos, Ben Kwashi.

And we have had such apostolic bishops too in the past.  Virginia had its two great early evangelical bishops, Richard Chase and William Meade.  New York had its catholic hero, John Henry Hobart, who likewise started innumerable new churches.  +Jackson Kemper became the first “Missionary Bishop” sent out to evangelize the western frontier (when that meant Ohio in 1835).  And there have been some others, including the great pioneer who planted the Episcopal Church in my home state of South Dakota, +William Hobart Hare.  He worked tirelessly to spread the gospel among Anglos and the Sioux/Lakota tribes alike.

And such men aren’t just confined to the distant past or to Anglicanism overseas.  My mentor, +Dan Herzog, did a fantastic job re-energizing the Diocese of Albany and turning it from maintenance to mission mode.  He came up with the new diocesan motto: “Disciples Making Disciples,” and made it more than just an empty motto.

But conerning Canon Neill Mitchell, I think he’s been criticized unfairly above.  I think very highly of his writings.  He no more thinks merely in institutional terms than Kevin Martin does.  I think Canon Mitchell would make an excellent Suffragan under your admirable leader, +Jim Stanton.

David Handy+

In his sermon on Holy Tuesday Bishop Stanton spoke, at great length about “The Good Shepherd”.  It seems to me that we are lacking good shepherds in the TEC HoB.  We have plenty of administrators.  I would also say that there are certainly enough reappraising evangelists and missionaries.  They have converted, nearly an entire denomination to their message. 

We are in desperate need of bishops who will care for, defend and assure safe pasture for their flock.  Too many are playing nice with the wolves.  As the role of the bishop has become more and more of a diocesan executive the need for faithfulness and a pastor’s heart has been overlooked.  The reason there are so few good preachers is because we really don’t expect them to exist and the vast majority don’t believe in a gospel worthy of preaching. 

I am doubtful whether any new bishop elected in TEC will be any different than the current group.  The executive officer lives for the institution and that type of bishop is well received by TEC.  Schofield, Cox, McBurney, Duncan, Iker have made efforts to place the flock ahead of the institution and have been, or soon will be, rejected by their own house. 

I pray that as we elect a suffragan that will indeed be a pastor first.  I am skeptical, but in this season we do expect life out of death.

Down here in DioTX we’d be more than glad to make Neal+ our next Bishop.

Mousestalker, sorry about the lack of a blockquote—I thought I had done so but somehow it “went away” or I failed at doing it.

I am an evangelical—and I have had spiritual direction for the past 13 years.

It is a great blessing.

Smuggs, in answer to your question about +John-David’s efforts:  No more or no less than any other bishop’s efforts.

Well, Cennyd, I’ll hand this to you.  I did start flipping around various dioceses and saw that your diocese grew/didn’t grow very much like other diocese have grown/didn’t grown which tells me three things:

1) The church does need more missionary bishops (but it needs more missionary priests, more);

2) That you are correct in saying that JDS was/is as much a missionary as his sister and brother bishops (which isn’t saying much at all apparently); and

3) That if you compare the number of New Hampshire and SJ, even though SJ is tiny in size, their growth and lack thereof over the span of ten years looks to be about the same.  Ergo, you are correct again.  JDS is as effective a missionary bishop as Gene Robinson.  Who would have thought it? 

Toral1 wrote:

Bishops will spend most of their Sundays visiting parishes and preaching to people who are (presumably) Christians. They will spend most of their time administering. They must be teachers of the faith, yes, filled with zeal for the Gospel, yes; but people gifted most with the missionary spirit should be—missionaries, or evangelists.

Unfortunately, it is no longer accurate (if it ever was) to presume that most of the people in an Episcopal Church on Sunday are Christians. I am a cradle Episcopalian and went to church and to Sunday school almost every week of my life from birth onwards, but I never “got” the Gospel message until a few students from Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship came around my dorm my freshman year in college. My guess is that there are a lot of people in Episcopal pews who are simply unreached, and have never really “heard” the Gospel, because it has never been spelled out them. If that could happen to me over thirty years ago, how much more possible is it nowadays when revisionism and post-modern worldviews are so much more widespread than they were then, both inside and outside of the Church?

Perhaps a bishop ought instead, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to presume that he is dealing with the “unchurched”, even in church, and explain the Gospel to them. Maybe lots of people would turn to Christ on the spot, or maybe they wouldn’t, but at least everyone would go away knowing how to be saved, which may well be more than they know now.  I have an uncomfortable feeling though, that there are those among the bishops of TEC who would be unable to explain the Gospel message to a congregation, because they don’t know it themselves.