Barneyisfat

I think you should read Bishop Will Willimon's recent article on General Conference.  It's a good read.  It's honest and it's something that informed people should read.

Will Willimon (as well as most of the bishop's elected in the Southeast Jurisdiction!) is an example of a bishop who took a substantial pay cut to assume the office of bishop.  This fact would surprise you if you knew how much money bishops make.  I think that the takeaway fact should simply be the fact that men and women are willing to take a pay-cut to be bishop.  It's a little thing, certainly, but perhaps if we lowered the annual salary of bishops significantly we would save substantial amounts of money and perhaps lose the interest of a few people who aren't really called to the office.  We could fund travel, living arrangements, pension, and health insurance and then simply provide a cost-of-living stipend for our bishops and we would probably attract the right people for the job.  We could even give bishops a ceiling and allow them to set their own individual salary based on the needs of their family.  

But this is not a post against our bishops.  I love most of the bishops I know personally.  I think that God calls some people to be bishops - and I support when those people actively "run for" or seek out the office of bishop.  I have much stronger support for people who actively work to get someone else elected bishop.

I think our bishops should be chosen in a variety of ways.  Elections are good and democratic, but they fail us terribly in some significant ways.  Do we really think that God is only calling beautiful, tall, likeable people to the office of bishop?  Do we really believe that the only people God wishes to lead the church are politicians who can answer questions without answering questions?

The biggest problem with our bishops is that they are all basically the same.  The are cut from the same piece of cloth.  I think that my former boss, Sharon Schwab, would make a fantastic bishop.  She gets things done, she likes people, she cares about small churches, she genuinely works to keep churches and clergy happy, she is a phenomenal preacher, and she is unelectable.  Sharon's just not going to win any popularity contest anytime soon.  She tells people the truth, she is honest and gives an honest answer, she cares about making disciples more than members.  She doesn't really give a whoop about institutions or institutional security.  These are all things that make her an incredible district superintendent and are all things that would make her an incredible bishop as well.

Perhaps if we reduced the salaries for bishops we would have the means to hire more of them - and perhaps the additional ones could be chosen in a different fashion.  Perhaps a group of laity could choose a group of candidates and we could just pull straws - the short straws becomes a bishop.

What if when electing bishops we didn't get to see them.  What if we just had the statistical reports from each church they served.  What if episcopal candidates had to spend a year preaching revival sermons every week around the jurisdiction before the election.  What if it was written into the contract that following your time as a bishop you were required to serve a small, rural congregation at part time pay?

The motion for a set-aside bishop would have certainly passed if it had been a volunteer position without a salary.

I guess what I'm getting at is that we are so focused on WHO will be bishop that we never stop to think about HOW we choose those people.  We all agree that our system is broken - but few are willing to consider out-of-the box solutions.