Electing Bishops: Too Political?

It's a little different in each of the five U.S. jurisdictions, but no matter how they conduct the process, toward the end of this week they'll be electing new episcopal leaders to fill the slots vacated by those who are retiring.

Andrew Conard has a discussion going over at his blog, and it's clear that candidates in the Southeastern and North Central Jurisdictions have crossed a line with him by having their own Web sites. Andrew and I are both in the South Central Jurisdiction, the one that has posted candidate bios on its site. He thinks that move is OK, but the individual Web sites aren't.

I have mixed opinions on using political methods to get our spiritual leaders. Sometimes I feel we're using the best tools at humans' disposal; other times I feel we've cheapened the whole thing by our actions. Usually, I'm somewhere in between. I've heard that even when it didn't appear this political in the past, it still was; we're just more up front these days by letting the politics take place out in the open.

As we go into this "time of discernment" (or "end of feverish campaigning," depending upon how you see it), I'm praying that the Holy Spirit works through the UMC--or in spite of it. Whichever is needed.

Comments

[Wes]

I've been thinking about this question since you posted this entry. I have to say that I'm also uneasy about websites which have the sole purpose of touting a candidate for bishop. Like y'all, I see nothing wrong with providing bios for information about a candidate. But there is something different about "running" for bishop -- people chosen as bishop ought to have a measure of holy reluctance to taking the role on! ... Shouldn't they?

A couple of other thoughts here: choosing bishops ought to be a matter of discernment, not politics. Thus, when a group of people need to choose a bishop from amongst themselves, prayer and means of discernment ought to be first and foremost, not trading votes or making alliances. The Quakers know how to do this really well -- heck, they'll sit silent in a room for hours until the Spirit moves. The problem is that we Methodists just aren't like that -- it's not our ethos. We vote, because we know how to do that.

Also, I think that everybody (clergy) present in the assembly ought to be considered a legitimate candidate for bishop. Open the floor to more than just those whom a certain conference deems worthy -- trust the people!

I guess what bothers me is that the episcopacy is viewed by so many of us as the kind of top rung of the grand Methodist clergy ladder. You have made it, if you get elected bishop! And the election process sort of encourages that kind of thinking, doesn't it? Those websites lay out all of the accomplishments, the rundown of appointments and achievements for the candidates. They say, in effect, "Hey, this guy/gal deserves it, because he/she has worked his/her way up, done well, and has vision!" Whereas the role of bishop is really quite draining and difficult, requires humility and servanthood; it's a calling just as much as a local pastor. So the question in choosing these folks is to ask, "Is he/she called by God to serve in the role of general superintendent?"

I'm also wondering what it would do to the process if we had a different kind of episcopacy -- what if bishops were only temporary, i.e. served eight years, and then became elders in their home conferences again?

Anyway, just a lot of questions here, not a lot of answers. Consider that I also have spent a lot of time recently in a setting where people such as bishops were viewed with a sort of demi-god status, and who often acted as chiefs of their own little kingdoms. I've got a bit of an anti-establishment attitude these days ...