In the middle of campaign season, about 250 Episcopalians gathered for some electioneering of their own yesterday morning as they came out to meet, greet and grill the six men and women who hope to be the diocese’s next bishop.
The process of picking the new leader of the Diocese of Maryland – which encompasses the central and western regions of the state – is an unusually democratic one, with clergy and delegates from each of the diocese’s 117 churches coming together to make their choice at a convention later this month.
B. Hopkins, a lay delegate from Holy Trinity Church in Churchville, called the open selection process “a virtue of our church.”
Rumor has it that a particularly valuable, indeed exciting, treatment of the Maryland diocese and its fascinating history may be found in Noble Powell and the Episcopal Establishment in the Twentieth Century, recently reissued in paperback:
http://wipfandstock.com/store/Noble_Powell_and_the_Episcopal_Establishment_in_the_Twentieth_Century
I attended the walkabout yesterday.
What struck me is that, at the very least, some of the candidates do seem to have a strong sense that the job of Bishop means “guarding the faith,” even when one disagrees with specific canons or teachings. This is progress. Some stated they would work to change the church’s view on specific doctrines but would abide by the whole church in the meantime.
Walkabouts are short and one has to be careful about what they draw from a single 20 minute meeting. There is a follow up discussion next week, and I hope some serious discernement will take place there.
For me, this report brings back some bad memories. Back in the mid 1990s, I was one of three finalists interviewed for a church planting position in the Diocese of Maryland (in a booming suburban area not far from Frederick, MD). There were three on the interview team, two women and the Canon to the Ordinary; although my memory is a bit hazy of what he looked like, I think it was the same Mark Gatza+ pictured as one of the nominees.
What I’ll never forget is how the interview went. The Canon was clearly the leader of the interview team, and about halfway into what was a three-hour interview, he popped a question on where I stood with regard to the ordination of practicing homosexuals. I didn’t mince words and bluntly replied that I was totally and firmly against it. Now I knew full well that Bp. Ihloff was strongly pro-gay; he had previously been the Chair of the Commission on Ministry in the Diocese of Newark under Spong+ (an appointed position). So I hastened to add that I would be so easy planting the new church that I didn’t expect to have the time to be active in diocesan politics.
It was clearly the turning point of the interview; things got very, very cold and tense immediately thereafter. We all knew it was over. I had given the “wrong” answer.
Now even though I was eager to be a church planter, and the demographics in this case were excellent, I have no regrets. I have no doubts whatsoever that Robert Ihloff+ and I would have been totally incompatible, and I wouldn’t have wanted him to be my boss. But if the current Canon, Gatza+, is the same guy who interviewed me, all I can say is that I sure don’t trust him.
David Handy+