tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3326792094287325881.post2789183899997135948..comments2023-10-20T07:44:46.583-05:00Comments on a long way from home: The PB Election is RiggedEvan D. Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05395940526434441825noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3326792094287325881.post-88451103873294200772015-05-23T20:14:49.985-05:002015-05-23T20:14:49.985-05:00Gosh, Ann, it doesn't feel that way to me. The...Gosh, Ann, it doesn't feel that way to me. The fact that any canonical changes must be approved by majorities of both bishops and clergy/lay suggests democracy to me. All of us--bishops, priests, deacons, and laity who work or lead within the church--are bound by those canons. As I see it, who we are, what we believe, how we worship, etc. is all decided through a democratic process. I can't comment on how it seems to you. Maybe the church needs to do a better job of communicating that inherent democracy. Thanks for your comment.Evan D. Garnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05395940526434441825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3326792094287325881.post-11071650821789631152015-05-23T20:11:09.957-05:002015-05-23T20:11:09.957-05:00Thanks, Ronald, for that wonderful comment. It'...Thanks, Ronald, for that wonderful comment. It's well-put and raises some good points. Funny enough, despite you stating that you don't agree "with almost everything" I wrote, I actually agree with almost everything you wrote. I feel a bifurcation in your comment, though, that takes us in two contrary directions (though I am sympathetic as I hope you'll see by the end of this rambling reply). <br /><br />First, I agree that the PB shouldn't have to be a CEO, and I agree that historically the PB is first and foremost the "theological, liturgical and pastoral leader for the bishops." But that role has evolved radically in the last 100 years. Now, I would argue that she _is_ the spiritual leader of the laity and clergy insomuch as she speaks for the church, serves as the CEO of the DFMS, chairs Executive Council, etc.. That position has become far more than just the president of the House of Bishops, and I argue the election of the PB needs to reflect that.<br /><br />Second, the PHoD is primarily "the president of a legislative body," but, just as the PB role has evolved, so, too, has the PHoD. She now jointly appoints leaders to various administrative bodies, has a leadership role as vice-chair of Executive Council, and lots of other influence in the church. Mostly, though, her role is far more limited than that of the PB. And, as I tend to agree with you, I'd suggest that underscores our need for a revision to the PB election process.<br /><br />Lastly, with regard to the Search Committee, I believe that they have done an excellent job. Yes, comprised of laity, clergy, and bishops, voices from all orders had a say in the nominees. And, yes, of course, someone else could have been nominated from the floor. But the fact that only bishops vote amongst the nominees is an anachronistic injustice. Were the PB the same as it was 100 years ago, it would make sense. But it's not. And simply letting all orders of ministry select the nominees isn't the same thing as giving all orders of ministry a vote. I find the combination of the current role of the PB and the current election process to be contradictory with the democratic nature of our church. (Had the nominations committee only chosen one name--the only name that then both houses had to vote up and down--now that might be different, but that's another post.)<br /><br />Again, thanks for your insightful comments. I appreciate your assessment of the situation even if we disagree on the application.Evan D. Garnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05395940526434441825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3326792094287325881.post-1333891364206682662015-05-22T20:33:45.661-05:002015-05-22T20:33:45.661-05:00Mistaken idea #one - the Episcopal Church is a dem...Mistaken idea #one - the Episcopal Church is a democratic church. Not really -- it is a odd mix of hierarchy and democracy with the bishops having most of the authority but with the laity able to walk away.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287169546184325690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3326792094287325881.post-82549759116705041402015-05-21T19:32:38.839-05:002015-05-21T19:32:38.839-05:00Thank you for your observations, but I do not agre...Thank you for your observations, but I do not agree with almost everything.<br /><br />The PB is the bishop whose primary ministry is the pastoral care of the bishops of the Church. PB has no diocesan jurisdiction whatsoever. This person is the theological, liturgical and pastoral leader for the bishops -- not the laity or clergy of the Church. So suggest otherwise is to deny the ordinal of the Prayer Book and the polity of the Church.<br /><br />Does this person need to be the CEO of the Church? Not necessarily, because that is not a sacramental ministry. the PB is called to something much differently. <br /><br />There was a search committee -- that considered every eligible bishop -- and that committee was comprised of laity, bishops, priests and deacons. I would say that unfortunately it was the same group of suspects we have become accustomed to. It might have been nice to see an entirely new group of people on that committee, but that did not happen. But, this group did allegedly represent a wide spectrum of the Church.<br /><br />The President of the House of Deputies is just that -- the president of a legislative body. This person does not have theological, liturgical or representative duties or represent the Church. It doesn't work that way. This position is not a balance to the PB. It is preposterous to think so, and it certainly does not fit our polity or spirituality. Those who tend to think of this position as a "co-chair" of the Episcopal Church are sadly mistaken. The position has no authority beyond the General Convention.<br /><br />We have to understand that if we want to act like IBM, Monsanto and Halliburton then we are going to become something much different than the Church. Does the Church need to make changes for the 21st Century? Of course, but if we act like congregationalists, then we will no longer be Episcopalians/Anglicans. Our polity, order, Prayer Book and theology are good and strong. But, if we think we ought to be something else, then we will fail. We can easily work within our polity, but let's not play the game of becoming something we are not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06982913223325487577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3326792094287325881.post-29381707321176731822015-05-08T06:15:42.210-05:002015-05-08T06:15:42.210-05:00thanks Evan. very thoughtful and important. You po...thanks Evan. very thoughtful and important. You point out the obvious which so many of us overlook. Ben Alfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037734153094940299noreply@blogger.com