Ship of Fools: Grooming Bishops?!

Thread: Grooming Bishops?! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028835

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :

Excuse the tabloid headline but have people seen this article about plans to identify potential Bishops and start training them even before ordination?!

Not sure what to make of it: seems a bit bizarre in one way. How do we really know who's going to be the best priests before they've had a go, as it were? And what's it saying about vocation and grace and God using us in spite of our weakness etc? Or am I just jealous cos I know I wouldn't be on the list?!

Equally, this is sort of happening unofficially already in that people who went to the right schools/speak proper/seem like the right sort of chap are 'encouraged' to become Bishop's chaplains after curacy so maybe better to do the same openly but with the criteria transparent. And maybe we'll get better bishops...?

[fixed link]

[ 12. December 2014, 11:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:

Not sure what to make of it: seems a bit bizarre in one way. How do we really know who's going to be the best priests before they've had a go, as it were?

In some ways this is just the importation of modern management theory into the church.

Though you are correct to point out that this sort of thing happened already - as satirised very well by a particular episode of "Yes, Prime Minister".

Both tendencies are repeatable in my view.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I think the article you linked to is behind the Church Times's paywall. At least, my browser won't open it.

The idea of a list of embryo bishops has long been gossiped among ordinands in the CofE. And while I think we're probably past the point where one of the qualifications is that you can be trusted not to use the wrong fork at dinner, it wouldn't surprise me that people well placed in the Establishment do a bit of talent-spotting from time to time. I don't think it's a good thing, because if it happens more than a little, then what you get is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. I have a hunch that the Holy Spirit feels somewhat frustrated at having to run the Church through such a system.

Personally, it's always been a matter of some little pride to me that I'm most likely on the other list. [Biased]

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :

I'm definitely on the other list! And also sort of proud to be.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The link needs tweaking - I am sure a host will be along to do that soon enough.

Will it make much of a difference? I doubt it. If you are not in favour, you will never make a senior appointment anyway (like in the non-church world). It may highlight the two tier system - clergy who are parish priests vs clergy who are managers, but the division is already there.

Deckchairs on the Titanic, if you ask me. And we really need more grooming in the church, don't we?

[ 12. December 2014, 10:53: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Oh look, more rich white men!

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Ooops - original link was already fixed.

£2 million quid budget. That's a hefty sum in some ways, but in other ways, not so much, if you are staking the future of your organisation on the merits of it.

As a Methodist, I don't think that's an idea I could see working in terms of picking a future chair of district or something. Suitable people just seem to naturally bubble up. And if you go for any sort of fast track scheme, there's always the possibility that people who would be really good at staying at ground level get hoovered up.

[ 12. December 2014, 12:17: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Oh dear Lord, I just checked out the link!

[Disappointed]

I no longer feel guilty about drawing my Church pension early ... and then never having to admit a connection to that organisation, ever again.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
Excuse the tabloid headline but have people seen this article about plans to identify potential Bishops and start training them even before ordination?!

Before appointment, to be precise. Getting them before ordination would be forward thinking in the extreme.

I'm Anglican but honestly can't say I've paid much attention to how bishops are made. There aren't that many vacancies, turnover is not high, so there will always be more supply than demand, and I can't see how the present system (whatever that is) is broken.

I'm all for bishops having real world skills, but I think a better way of getting them is to prioritise getting in clergy who have developed these skills in the real world first. Then let them apply those skills to a pastoral ministry. Then, if it turns out some of them are suited for higher office - great, go for it. Same result, and you've saved £2m too.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Okay, I'll allow that they might get this "talent-spotting" right, if they can answer the following questions correctly -

(1) Will the term "servant of the servants of God" appear high on your checklist?

(2) Will you approach this task with prayer, in fear and trembling, knowing that you are seeking a successor to the Apostles of Christ himself?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Dire, dire, dire idea. Just look who is in charge of it. Tells you all you need to know.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

And there was I thinking all along that this had something to do with the Holy Spirit. Just goes to show, eh!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

First, its not planning to identify them before ordination, but before consecration - but that happens anyway: I think what the journos meant is that potential senior clergy may be identified before being offered their first senior post - which would make sense. Think of it as being a bit like the army sending you on a staff college course before offering you a more senior role.

The second bit is acknowledging that deans, archdeacons, bishops, etc, need some training in the administrative function that makes up part of their work. Again, a good idea but I have some basic reservations, particularly in relation to the more personnel-related part of the job.

Surely the time has come for the CofE to recognise that there are parts of what could be called the HR function that we ought not to continue having carried out by people who are, effectively, amateurs?

Similarly there are parts of the task we expect of bishops and deans that would be better carried out by someone who has had a good deal of formal business and management training - an MBA in other words.

I'm also worried that the decision on whether or not the church goes with this idea - and particularly the nuts-and-bolts of how it will be handled and what any course might contain - is once more going to be taken by a board which is top-heavy with clergy and far too light on people with the relevant business or HR expertise.

And, of course, once more this has emerged from behind closed doors, the report has been written but is not published, and we're not going to be allowed to vote on it or formally express our views on it.

Same old CofE!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The link needs tweaking - I am sure a host will be along to do that soon enough.

Odd. Works for me. Maybe you get limited access for a period (or a limited number of accesses) and then nothing unless you pay?

Anyways, Hosts can't actually fix that one.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :

Another thought: for some reason, the process of discerning who is called to priestly ministry involves that person putting themselves forward saying '( In all humility) I think god might be calling me to this'' and it's then up to the church to agree or not. But this doesn't happen with Bishops? Why not? Why couldn't the process be the same? those who feel called to it go to a 'super DDO' and are then evaluated according to a set of agreed criteria. This would get round the problem of both the existing system (which I think is still a bit old boys' network) and the new one which istm would be a bit Thatcherite for want of a better word!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
First, its not planning to identify them before ordination, but before consecration - but that happens anyway

I don't know whether it still happens but St. George's house, Windsor used to run residential courses for those likely to become senior clergy.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I have read a few responses to this proposal, and one aspect that seems to be touched on, but not completed, is whether bishops are senior managers or pastors.

I do think there needs to be changes to look at how the institution is managed, but I question whether the senior clergy are the right people to do that. It seems like clergy are already expected to be all sorts of things, and this is adding "high quality manager" on top of it.

Maybe what is needed is a management structure on the church, and fit the clergy into a structure. They should be pastoral, spiritual leadership of the people-church, but there should be a proper set of managers alongside them. These managers do not need to be - and should not be - clergy. Because clergy are not naturally good at this.

Of course, then you are acknowledging that the institution is a business. I am not sure that the church is there yet.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm very concerned at any suggestion that this might be showing a need for a 'super DDO'.

I say this having known three DDOs: 1 good, 1 so-so, 1 catastrophically unsuited to any kind of personnel or HR role.

And of course one of the three made bishop and I'm sure old CofE hands can guess which that was.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

The only reason why I feel that any of this would be any use at all is that candidates for this episcopool might go through a more intense form of due diligence, and that problems in their past, either legal or financial or of whackdoodle theology, or signs of abusive behaviour, are winkled out. I would also add whackdoodle liturgical practice, but I am likely the only one who would do so.

Courses as such are not necessarily indicators of anything. I have seen MBAs (and their bureaucratic equivalent of MPAs) astonishingly ignorant and/or dismissive of the rules of their profession much as the presenters at stress reduction workshops seem sometimes to be experts in stress enhancement.

Perhaps it is best that one starts thinking about what, precisely, you want bishops for. When that is clear, then training and selecting will be equally clear. If you want executives and administrators, go and find it and/or train it, but that is what you will get.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

There's already been, for many years, a thing called the "preferment list". It was ludicrous - there were 600 plus names on it. As the Bishop of London said "I've never met anyone who wasn't on the list." So we've scrapped that, started again, and now have a proposal to give people who might be bishops, deans, leaders of large churches, heads of mission agencies some intentional training and development. It's at least a bit more coherent than a list of people who have had a sotto voce conversation with a bishop who has promised things he can't deliver.

Alongside this proposal is another one to put some serious national funding into CMD - so that we take clergy development as a whole with a lot more intentionality.

The "managers bad - pastors good" mantra has been playing out across the blogosphere. Of course, it must be both-and. Bishops have to be shepherds, pastors, prophets, teachers, pray-ers. All of that is required in the ordinal. Most of the Anglican shipmates will have discovered the downside of that - bishops who are unprofessional, anxious, unable to face conflict, be strategic, have vision, display emotional intelligence, tell the truth to their clergy, communicate effectively, self-differentiate, fire people... And most of those are what people would call managerial skills. They go with the territory, but they are areas of ministry in which bishops are untrained. So this might just be a better idea than those slagging it off think.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Does the church know how to develop managers, and will it develop the managers it needs? If it follows its recent track record, it will import a watered-down version of the latest corporate fads, and that would be terrible. Before it starts anything like this, it needs to know, and therefore deliberate and decide, exactly what it wants.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Pete173 makes an excellent point, especially in paragraph 3, and I am perhaps guilty in this. I should have detailled more my disappointment with what I have seen of the results of professional management training (over a long period of dealing with those in the private sector, NGO, academic, and public service)-- and I have been brought into participating in training exercises.

Much of it is useful, as Pete173 points out, but some of it is--- bluntly, reheated psychotwaddle-- I defy anyone to review 15-20 year old course material in management training and not to wince in embarrassment. But even with this, a good instructor can work with good students and help them greatly.

I found that the real challenge was winnowing out those students who looked upon staff training as a way of ensuring that they could abuse staff more effectively and with impunity to themselves. But perhaps this goes back to the initial selection process and how we ensure that it does not just build up a list of those who are an awful lot like the selectors.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm very concerned at any suggestion that this might be showing a need for a 'super DDO'.

I say this having known three DDOs: 1 good, 1 so-so, 1 catastrophically unsuited to any kind of personnel or HR role.

And of course one of the three made bishop and I'm sure old CofE hands can guess which that was.

I wonder if we're thinking about the same person? A former DDO of mine went on to be a Bishop and was, it seems, a success. However, he was often described as a "prince Bishop" - which is how he behaved even when he was a parish priest and DDO.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Pete173, the report ignores the root cause of the problem, the undemocratic way in which bishops are appointed in England. Why not simply save the two million and introduce episcopal elections? There's many models to choose from, including those in your neighboring churches in Scotland and Wales.

Moreover, all this management speak ignores realities of power (what checks and balances are in place to limit episcopal power and hold bishops to account?) and treats the church like a business. Why must bishops be managers? One person can't do everything. As others have said, before any change, there needs to be agreement on what a bishop's job is.

Above all, why was this report produced internally? Who are you (bishops, not you personally) to make these decisions? However right you may be, you were never elected, and have no mandate. This should be Synod-lead.

[ 14. December 2014, 00:23: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
... Why not simply save the two million and introduce episcopal elections? There's many models to choose from, including those in your neighboring churches in Scotland and Wales. ...

I've already asked on the parallel thread about timid bishops in what way is anyone doing this that would produce better results than what we have at the moment. Nobody has produced a decent answer.

They all seem a be choice by clique - which is what we currently have - but with various different ways of deciding who's in the clique + the extra additions of politicking, people standing for things, and voting by party. None of those have any bearing on finding the best bishop.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

The "managers bad - pastors good" mantra has been playing out across the blogosphere. Of course, it must be both-and.

I seem to recall a case in which bishops argued quite strongly that they are not managers and therefore can't have claims brought against them by disgruntled clergy at an employment tribunal...

[ 14. December 2014, 10:17: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Pete:

quote:

The "managers bad - pastors good" mantra has been playing out across the blogosphere. Of course, it must be both-and. Bishops have to be shepherds, pastors, prophets, teachers, pray-ers. All of that is required in the ordinal. Most of the Anglican shipmates will have discovered the downside of that - bishops who are unprofessional, anxious, unable to face conflict, be strategic, have vision, display emotional intelligence, tell the truth to their clergy, communicate effectively, self-differentiate, fire people... And most of those are what people would call managerial skills. They go with the territory, but they are areas of ministry in which bishops are untrained. So this might just be a better idea than those slagging it off think.

I think the 'slagging' response is almost like ringing a dinner bell and the reason is that so many people have experience of really poor 'management' from Bishop's who are the very same one's that trumpet management as a style of ministry and think of themselves as CEO's. The problem is that there are some (not all - I know many, many very fine Bishop's) who see themselves in this way and trumpet this role, but it acts as a veil for incredibly bad practice and a complete lack of any basic communication skills. The result, sadly, is that when people hear these sorts of terms and ideas now they immediately start salivating at the prospect of a plate that will have no substantial dinner on it.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I think elections for bishops would be a very bad idea. Bishops have to get involved in all sorts of sensitive situations, most of which cannot be divulged to the general public.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I still maintain that the real problem is a complete lack of discussion as to what the job of a bishop is. Unless it's just to stand there and hold a crozier, we need to define the role by the widest productive discussion before developing people to fill it. Otherwise, the definition happens by stealth.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
As the Bishop of London said "I've never met anyone who wasn't on the list."

I'm sure he was exaggerating, but nevertheless a comment like this suggests the kind of company he keeps. And why one Chartres in the House of Bishops might be a useful asset, why we don't want many more like that.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think +London was pulling someone's leg...

He himself wasn't on the list.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I still maintain that the real problem is a complete lack of discussion as to what the job of a bishop is. Unless it's just to stand there and hold a crozier, we need to define the role by the widest productive discussion before developing people to fill it. Otherwise, the definition happens by stealth.

That's a very good point. What do Shipmates think a bishop should be and do?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Pete173, the report ignores the root cause of the problem, the undemocratic way in which bishops are appointed in England. Why not simply save the two million and introduce episcopal elections? There's many models to choose from, including those in your neighboring churches in Scotland and Wales.

Because the Govt likes to have a say in who sits in the House of Lords.

If the Lords' reform is finally completed and if the Bishops lose their seats, then the church will be free to appoint bishops as it wishes (which may or may not be democratically) but at present the CofE does not have a free hand in the matter.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

We've been talking about 'timid bishops' in this thread

This report rather suggests they are aware of their timidity, and their need to be better leaders.

I wonder though whether they are confusing leadership with management.

I also think that where you start often determines where you finish - so you start with a banker chairing a working party and you come up with ideas from the world of commerce on management.

In the 20th century many of the Bishops had been influenced by their experiences in the war/s. This shaped them, and challenged their theology and outlook.

I wonder that the Archbishops didn't ask a General (or Admiral) to chair their working party ... What would have such a group suggested, I wonder.

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

I am neither Englosh or Anglican, but minister in an Australian denomination.
Many years ago, I asked an elderly minister, who I knew, why he had spent his whole serving life in remote, rural, poor parishes. We knew he was skilled, gifted, and truly a man of God. He could have gone on to great things.

He said he HAD gone on to great things. He knew that the best clergy go on up the ladder, as it were. Good for them. That meant that tiny places, struggling in the midst of nowhere, got the recently ordained, and inexperienced. Gifts and skills were being still developed. Ministers just didn't have life knowledge. And as soon as they did.... Well say goodbye to tne neediest people in these parishes, bring 'em back to town, and teach them ladder- climbing skills.
My minister- friend said that God told him to stay "out there" and be the best minister he ever could be, to the most remote and forgotten people in both and church and community. Then, he said, he would do great things for God.

Turned out, he was right.
I have never forgotten his words of wisdom. They have helped shape my ministry.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I would like to think that a Bishop would pray for their clergy and the people they serve, that they would serve a civic function to be visible and also be a voice of compassionate faith in a secular and often divided world, that they would work towards maintaining unity and understanding and repair fractured or broken relationships with haste and care, that they would encourage their clergy in developing their skills and in nurturing what they do and acknowledge what they already do and where needed, provide a challenge and a different perspective.

Sometimes what you see instead is someone who becomes a point of division, creating bizarre tier structures and employing a 'divide and conquer' strategy to push difficult things through. Sometimes it is someone who never says thank you to their clergy for anything, only tells them they must do more, never encourages what they do and most of the time ignores it completely in favour of their own agenda that they communicate poorly and only in small bites. Such a thing is mercifully rare, but it does happen and is difficult to watch, even from afar!

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think elections for bishops would be a very bad idea. Bishops have to get involved in all sorts of sensitive situations, most of which cannot be divulged to the general public.

And yet the whole of the rest of the Anglican communion seems to manage just fine.

Are we talking English exceptionalism here? THere's evidently a unique problem faced only by the English.

John

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Enoch, no one's pretending that elections are a panacea, but as anyone could stand, they would eliminate the problem of selection bias. A more diverse field of bishops would emerge, which is, in itself, worthwhile. Factionalism's a problem ATM, so don't see what would change on that front.

JoannaP, the British govt. hasn't had a say since 2007, when the "convention" was changed, and the prime minister agreed to appoint whoever the church nominated. I doubt they could care less how the church chooses its bishops.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Enoch, no one's pretending that elections are a panacea, but as anyone could stand, they would eliminate the problem of selection bias. A more diverse field of bishops would emerge, which is, in itself, worthwhile. Factionalism's a problem ATM, so don't see what would change on that front.

JoannaP, the British govt. hasn't had a say since 2007, when the "convention" was changed, and the prime minister agreed to appoint whoever the church nominated. I doubt they could care less how the church chooses its bishops.

I think it is very clear that the UK government is quite happy not having to occupy itself with appointing bishops. From Disraeli's line that "bishops die to vex me," it is evident that episcopal appointments eat up a premier's time and energy, with very little positive for him or her.

Do not expect elections to provide much variety-- but it would be an improvement on a method where a nominating class selects one of its own. Elections provide a certain accountability and present voters with the result of their choices--- they can blame no-one else for the results.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Enoch, no one's pretending that elections are a panacea, but as anyone could stand, they would eliminate the problem of selection bias. A more diverse field of bishops would emerge, which is, in itself, worthwhile. Factionalism's a problem ATM, so don't see what would change on that front.

Unless you have election by the whole diocese, it's no more than election by one clique in stead of selection by another, probably very similar, clique. If you have election by the whole diocese, everyone on the electoral rolls of every parish, you have a somewhat randomly self-selected franchise, which would be too large to have any idea what the candidates were like.

Also, you're not choosing someone to hold the ecclesiastical equivalent of political office. The qualities that win elections have no relevance to whether someone has the qualities to be a bishop. If anything, they are a counter-indication.

Furthermore, even a self-selecting clique like one of the various levels of synod, is far too big a body to interview anyone.

As for diversity, bishops are bound to be chosen from experienced clergy. As a field, any diversity they once had, they will have long since grown out of.

The final clincher, is this. A lot of our bishops may not impress, but some do and there's been nothing so far that has suggested to me that provinces that do this by election have any better quality of bishop than we do.

[ 15. December 2014, 10:03: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Enoch, right now England selects its bishops by a tiny clique, and its done in secret. The more people involved, and the more open it is, the more consultation and debate there'll be. Are you honestly suggesting that the problems you cite would be worse with an election?

As for the suitability of elections, bishops are there to represent their diocese. No, it's not party political, but it is an opportunity for them to give their vision, and compare it to alternatives.

I should be amazed that anyone wouldn't want to be governed by consent, but I'm not. Just find the situation sad.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Enoch, you seem to be hung up on the existence of a clique. I suppose that in some dioceses that does occur, and certainly in Sydney, the process is dominated by the Anglican Church League. But there is no clique in the sense of a very small group dominating the whole outcome. It would be unthinkable that a person would be elected Archbishop of Sydney unless he - alas, still he - were a low-churchman. In most other dioceses in NSW alone, it would be impossible for a person to be elected who was not AC in outlook. There is nothing wrong with either comment. A bishop would normally be of the outlook dominant in the diocese. Where there is a genuinely mixed diocese, such as Melbourne, churchmanship will not be much of a guide to who will be the successful candidate.

The reason that tiny and unrepresentative cliques do not emerge is the manner in which synod representatives are selected. You can, if you wish, trawl through all the diocesan ordinances to see how the electoral synod for each diocese is chosen, but basically all licensed priests are members of the house of clergy, and parishes elect their own representatives for the house of laity.

Then there are some checks and balances built in. A simple majority may not be sufficient. In Aust, the Metropolitan must approve the election although this is by now just a formality. ++ Glenn Sydney approved the election of a woman as Bishop of Grafton. The US requirement for approval by a set proportion of other bishops or dioceses (I forget the exact requirement) within a set period after the election is much more real. Again from memory there has been at least 1 election in the last half dozen or so years when there was no ratification.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
... Are you honestly suggesting that the problems you cite would be worse with an election? ....

Yes, I am.

Gee D, I perhaps ought to say that I have no belief whatsoever in the merit of indirect franchises, delegated franchises, electoral colleges, or whatever one chooses to call them. If one insists that electing is a good thing in itself, that some sort of authority derives from being elected, rather than, in the case of a bishop, having hands laid on you by other bishops, then to deliver results that anyone in their right mind will respect, everybody must have the right and ability to vote.

If one says, that is nonsense, that means there is no argument that there is any particular merit at all in electing bishops rather than choosing them in some other way.

Byron and Gee D, the acid test is whether your bishops are consistently better than ours. I suspect none of us have the objective knowledge to be able to answer that one.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think elections for bishops would be a very bad idea. Bishops have to get involved in all sorts of sensitive situations, most of which cannot be divulged to the general public.

We elect bishops in TEC and I think it works as well as any other method of choosing them, although we end up with some bad ones too. The Diocesan Convention, which is made up of lay delegates and clergy, does the electing. I might also add that electing bishops has an ancient pedigree.

I agree with the comment of some above that the church needs managers who are not necessarily clergy. This doesn't mean the church is a business, just that it is an institution that can benefit from having people with sound management skills in positions of responsibility.

And in all this I hope the Holy Spirit has a say!!!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
.

Gee D, I perhaps ought to say that I have no belief whatsoever in the merit of indirect franchises, delegated franchises, electoral colleges, or whatever one chooses to call them. If one insists that electing is a good thing in itself, that some sort of authority derives from being elected, rather than, in the case of a bishop, having hands laid on you by other bishops, then to deliver results that anyone in their right mind will respect, everybody must have the right and ability to vote.

If one says, that is nonsense, that means there is no argument that there is any particular merit at all in electing bishops rather than choosing them in some other way.

Byron and Gee D, the acid test is whether your bishops are consistently better than ours. I suspect none of us have the objective knowledge to be able to answer that one.

Starting with your last paragraph - what is better? I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that in every province of the Communion other than the C of E, there is an open electoral process.

Back to the first para: in one sense, there is a very narrow electoral college in the C of E at the moment, the canons of the cathedral. They must be a weak-minded lot, because they need to be told not only that they can now go and vote, but the person for whom they may cast their ballot.

I am not aware of any province where the ballot is of all on a parish roll. In theory, I can see no objection to that, although it would be cumbersome. There must be some reason, and all I can think of is history. Speaking only of here, there probably would have been few occasions when a different candidate was elected. ++ Peter Jensen may not have obtained a majority of the laity, but we will never know. I do see value in counting clergy and laity separately and requiring a majority of both, no matter how the lay electors are chosen.

Given the obvious importance of her own faith and her concern for the C of E, perhaps HM should have been entrusted with making her own decision of the name to be written on her congés d"élire?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

G Dee posts:

quote:
Given the obvious importance of her own faith and her concern for the C of E, perhaps HM should have been entrusted with making her own decision of the name to be written on her congés d"élire?

Exactly my feeling. There would then be a decent chance that we would break out of the managerial mold. One of my cynical friends noted that we would then have a bench of prelates with veterinary knowledge. Could be worse.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes - a bishop who likes dogs will probably be a safe appointment for one charged with the care of souls. Likewise, one who can mount a horse well (in the best sense, of course) is unlikely to come unstuck in the management of even the most fractious diocese.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I am less worried about the mechanics of selecting a bishop when there is a vacancy - be it election or whatever, than the idea of a small group of people pre selecting and 'grooming' candidates.

I'm very unsure of this for several reasons:

1. The needs of the church change, and dioceses require different people.

2. It doesnt allow for God's surprises.

3. It encourages a 'sameness' approach - lets have good managers, chaps - mentality.

4. We can all think of excellent Bishops who probably wopuldnt pass the pre selection test. Michael Ramsey, for example - who had weekly psycho therapy when an ordinand, that would probably nowadays mean he'd not go on the A list.

5. For that matter would Welsh bishops (Rowan Williams) or candidates outside the C of E be considered, hardly likely, how could they be groomed!

6. It all suggests men behind closed doors choosing men to join their select body

and so on.... [Smile]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Has anyone read this magnificent article putting the boot politely in by the Dean of Christ Church?

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/12-december/comment/opinion/are-these-the-leaders-that-we-really-want

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

I have just read it on your suggestion, venbede. It does a magnificent job of making clear precisely what the Green report is: preposterous.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

They were warned before the press launch. In particular, the powers-that-be were advised that to publish edited highlights without the full text of the report would be giving critics ammunition.

Long before that it was suggested that the make-up of the body was far from good - that too was ignored.

The report is likely to be implemented regardless of advice or opposition - because that's the way things have developed over the past 20 years and they're not going to stop now.

Makes on almost nostalgic for the old days of Patronage.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

As I keep saying, why 'almost'?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Almost because pointless nostalgia is just that - pointless.

On the other hand I'd be up for petitioning the Supreme Governor for a return to the old days when it comes to the appointments...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

There is a proper place for the efficient and considered deployment of resources human and otherwise. To be fluffy is irresponsible and uncharitable.

However the efficiency is only a means to an end.

There is a well tried management manual which advises on the responsible exercise of authority in a Christian community in the context of prayer, dedication and mutual love. It is the Rule of St Benedict.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
Another thought: for some reason, the process of discerning who is called to priestly ministry involves that person putting themselves forward saying '( In all humility) I think god might be calling me to this'' and it's then up to the church to agree or not. But this doesn't happen with Bishops? Why not?

Because there are quite enough power crazed prima donnas in positions of authority in the church without giving them the opportunity to self select.

(IMHO, the question to ordinands should not be "Is God calling you?" but "Are you prepared to undertake this responsible role to which we are calling you after you presenting yourself as prepared to do so?")

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0