The conservative Albany Episcopal Diocese is poised to change the way it elects its bishop in a move that is opposed by liberals.
How the bishop is chosen has become a debate about democracy locally in a mainline denomination known for making its decisions democratically.
A proposed rule change would eliminate a special Profile and Search Committee that seeks candidates in the diocese and from the national church and conducts a vetting process. Instead, the diocese’s Standing Committee, which advises the bishop, would administer the process relying on nominations from within the diocese.
The resolution passed the Convention on Saturday morning. This now means that in any episcopal election in the Diocese every nomination made by a Lay Deputy or Canonically Resident Cleric will be presented to the Convention and not just those of whom a “Profile and Search Committee” approves.
This is the method by which twelve of our thirteen Bishops Diocesan, Bishops Coadjutor, and Bishops Suffragan have been elected over the past 145 years.
Disclaimer: I am the Chair of the Diocesan Committee on the Constitution and Canons.
Interesting description at the end of the article of TEc opposing secrecy. Perhaps that’s why they ignored the confidence of the Accord with the 9 bishops.
Democracy? I thought TEC was governed hierarchically?
Can anyone give a brief description of where the “Profile and Search” method came from?
“Instead, the diocese’s Standing Committee, which advises the bishop, would administer the process relying on nominations from within the diocese.”
And another news flash: There’s gambling in casinos.
IMHO, it’s well-known, even amongst traditionals, that this diocese has a national reputation for being insular.
A clergy friend once called to inquire about churches in search and was told, “we’d rather fill those positions from within”. I hope the churches are happy with clergy there, because I doubt they get much say in who’s hired/called–seems their “employment pool” is heavily controlled and limited.
How would Albany have a national reputation if it’s so insular? At the last couple of clergy retreats one would observe that almost half the new clergy are from outside the diocese.
Wonder what seminaries they’re from–last I heard from a reliable source, that Diocese has a select list from which it will only consider candidates for parochial employment–the merits of candidates themselves completely irrelevant.
This original news article is bizarre–why would a bishop be so paranoid about securing his successor from within if he’s not planning to go anywhere anytime soon? Way too insecure control-freak an action for my taste, but not surprising.
Given that Albany is part of a beleaguered minority in TEC, it seems perfectly reasonable to ignore “helpful” input from 815. Given that most seminaries in TEC have completely bought into “reappraising” theology, it might make sense to normally reject priest candidates educated in such institutions. I strongly doubt that the merits of the candidates who come from institutions which tolerate or support “reasserting” theology are ignored.
Surely, Bookworm (#7), you are aware of the many dioceses who refuse to employ anyone from Trinity or Nashotah, unless they have have shown “repentance and amendment of life” by giving the pinch of incense to the LGBTQI agenda.
“I strongly doubt that the merits of the candidates who come from institutions which tolerate or support “reasserting†theology are ignored.”
It is FOOLISH to judge a priest’s reasserting or reappraising views based on the seminary he attended. E.g., +Stanton attended CDSP and if you believe anyone like him has ever wavered in his reasserting theology, you are wrong. (I guess you might also assume he knows nothing about liturgy, too, because he did not attend Nashotah House. :-/) And there are plenty of priests out there who attended the seminary their bishop directed them to attend; they had NO say. My friend, for example, would have been happy to attend Trinity or Nashotah but would not have been supported in doing so by his reappraising bishop. So he attended a more local seminary that at the time was a fence-sitter but has now fallen over into the reappraising pasture. But he has NEVER wavered in his reasserting stance, and it has nothing to do with the seminary he attended.
I’m reminded of another friend, who is a priest in an independent monastic community, yet it is closest, IMHO, to traditional Anglican theology, rather than RC. There are nuns, monks, and priests in it but it also houses traditional families living in community, too. The priest of whom I speak attended Harvard Divinity School because he was smart enough to get in there, also worked a job, and the school was local for him; but he’s as traditional as the day is long.
Years ago, too, a friend of my spouse, who is clergy, was offered a full scholarship to a reappraising seminary because the dean wanted some traditional guys with families to, as he(dean) said, to encourage diversity at his school and “balance out some of the rest”. The friend really could not afford to go there despite the scholarship, as he and his family could not financially handle the local economy. But, another traditional who has stayed that way, and would have, regardless of the seminary he attended.
You might want to ask your bishop if he considers reasserters from seminaries OTHER than Nashotah or Trinity, because there are reasserters who attend other seminaries, and not always BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. While we’re “doubting” here, I doubt you’ll get a truthful answer unless perhaps you ask your assisting bishop. Good luck.
Without knowing your source, Bookworm, it’s difficult to determine that it is a “reliable source”. What is rather clear is that you seem to have a dislike of the leadership of the Diocese of Albany for some reason and seem eager to ascribe base motives to their actions despite any logic that could dissuade you from such a rash determination. So be it. Based on their previous actions the diocese will likely continue to recruit from a variety of sources for the best candidates in the best interest of the people and mission of the diocese and the wider church.
She is a reliable source, and she only confirmed what I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears. “Logic” is immaterial, as are pretty, articulate, “rash” insults.
My bishop is not a perfect guy, and I doubt he would claim perfection. But I have never seen him tell a candidate “I prefer to fill those positions from within” and then ~ 2-3 weeks later, the candidate sees ads in The Living Church for the positions. IMHO, those are not the actions of a leader, those are the actions of a liar–unless there is a serious disconnect between parishes and bishop; yet another red flag.
Again re: my bishop, I also haven’t seen his wife serving on the Vestry of his former rectorship/incumbency(boundaries, anyone?!) and I also haven’t seen him treat constituents like bosom buddies, allowing a longtime member and senior warden of his former rectorship to become rector of the same–again, issues of boundaries and control?
A point to ponder–I wonder if a little role confusion helps a dying parish survive? Or another point–paranoia and extreme control can sometimes be hallmarks of deep insecurity. Visiting those things on the masses can be a detriment–and there is help in the world for such, if one chooses to take advantage of it.
And it all relates to the article above, which describes lay participation as diminished or removed from the next episcopal process–and I wonder how 815, just down the road and in the same state, will feel about that–it might result in nothing or no or little response; but then again, it could be poking a rattler.
I’m reminded of two great lines from Star Wars: “Who’s a bigger fool–the fool, or the fool who follows him?” Or Princess Leia’s contribution–“The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers…”
I sure am happy to live many miles from Albany and have the bishop I have. Cheers.
I am rather late to this thread and most likely nobody will see the comment.
But there have been other dioceses who have gone this route — who have essentially just said “come one come all” and decided against leaving the promotion of candidates to the “final slate” in the hands of a select committee. I’m not familiar with the *politics* of Albany, but this is a reasonable decision and can be very fair. Too often, the bishop search committee is selected largely by some combination of 1) the bishop and 2) the Standing Committee, and 3) various other bodies, with some hand waving at “parish input” or some such. And once the bishop search committee is *set* then the limited number of nominees are also guided by the makeup of that committee.
I don’t see much harm in simply saying “look, if you’ve gotten elected as a delegate to the diocesan convention, or if you are clergy, then feel free to nominate and we’ll put them all into a giant pot and vote on them, subject to a few standards like background checks.”
How would this process somehow ensure that only a bishop from within the diocese is elected? Or am I misunderstanding the new nomination process?
RE: “Wonder what seminaries they’re from—last I heard from a reliable source, that Diocese has a select list from which it will only consider candidates for parochial employment—the merits of candidates themselves completely irrelevant.”
Bookworm, the problem is that when a parish or bishop gets 100 CDO profiles spit out of the TEC database for a parish opening, it’s easier to weed through them based on seminary and simply toss the offending seminaries out.
That process certainly misses some good candidates. Just today I heard about a conservative priest who had come through the process in 1) from a revisionist diocese, 2) sponsored by another revisionist diocese, and 3) attended a revisionist seminary — and he’s conservative! God has a sense of humor.
But the only way I *know* that is because of intel from the Underground Railroad. And in my experience I’ve found that the vast vast vast vast majority of congregational leaders, and many many conservative clergy, are in no way connected to such a railroad. They haven’t amassed a huge store of contacts who can give them intel, nor do they generally work to gain such a network.
So they’re left with rather crude “tells” like “look, he was allowed through the process by that horrible bishop, and then he went into a revisionist seminary — must be awful.” And they move on to the next one.
Honestly, I think that’s a mistake. But it’s an understandable one. Nowadays, a whole lot of conservatives simply move past anybody who hasn’t graduated from Nashotah or Trinity.
“Bookworm, the problem is that when a parish or bishop gets 100 CDO profiles spit out of the TEC database for a parish opening, it’s easier to weed through them based on seminary and simply toss the offending seminaries out.”
Easier, maybe; but I think we’d agree on “utterly imprudent”, because, as you say, it causes the Search Process to miss a lot of good candidates.
Your post is wise, yet bear in mind that some conservatives/traditionals can’t even “form the network” because the same doors are shut in their faces because sometimes it all goes back to the seminary they attended–and many priests/seminarians had NO choice in the seminary they attended–it had NOTHING to do with whether or not they were reasserters or revisionists; instead it had to do with the beliefs or whims of their supervising bishops–both of which, re: sense/ethics or theology, can be highly suspect.
And if reasserting bishops are allowing candidates hired into their dioceses based on their attendance at Nashotah or Trinity, I’ve got news for them–REVISIONISTS have also attended Nashotah and Trinity. But I guess said bishops will just have to deal with those Bouncing Bettys when they step on them in their dioceses, after they’ve been hired into the churches and are working hard to “sway the mobs”.
Not to mention, I for one have run across some reasserters that are so corrupt and/or psychologically challenged(the examples coming to mind are, FYI, exclusively male), that it is easy for one to think that one might fare better when dealing with ethical revisionists, if one can find any, who are willing to tolerate the traditional remnant.
Humans are broken and complex–it can be a sad mess no matter how one looks at it.
But, re: this original article–I don’t totally understand all the politics of Albany either, but the article implies that, to the laity there, the process is overcontrolled with the next episcopal election looking rather “fixed” with the candidates hand-picked and the “lay-say” being more limited, which probably won’t go over well in some spheres. I’m simply an observer and do not live there, but my experience in the past with that neck of the woods was also overcontrol when there was no need–but hence my comment on the psychological challenges of some.
Thank you very much for your input.