Dear Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church,

I write on the feast of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386). It seems fitting therefore, given the subject of this letter, to begin with the collect appointed for his feast. Let us pray:

Strengthen, O Lord, the bishops of your Church in their special calling to be teachers and ministers of the Sacraments, so that they, like your servant Cyril of Jerusalem, may effectively instruct your people in Christian faith and practice; and that we, taught by them, may enter more fully into the celebration of the Paschal mystery; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

--Lesser Feasts and Fasts 2006, page 199

Many of the controversies The Episcopal Church has faced of late revolve around the special duty that Standing Committees (or General Convention) have in consenting to the election of bishops for our church. This letter will not address any past or present consent process directly, because my intent is to suggest a few questions for Standing Committees to ask of themselves and of the bishop-elect when considering whether or not to consent to an episcopal election that will be applicable regardless of the bishop-elect du jour. I write because I am troubled by the statements I have heard or read from time to time by members of Standing Committees who express publicly their discomfort at "interfering" in the internal affairs of another diocese as a justification for rubber-stamping any election that comes before them for a consent. To be frank, I think this rationale is a cop-out. For one thing, a "yes" vote is already interfering, in that it implies one has formed an opinion about the suitability of a bishop-elect to serve in that capacity, and thus, by its very nature a "yes" vote imposes one's own opinion on both the diocese and the church as a whole. If one truly lacks an opinion about the bishop-elect's suitability, or is reluctant to "interfere" (whether or not one has a private opinion), the logical option for not imposing one's judgment on the diocese and the church is to abstain. In other words, a "yes" vote has just as many ramifications, both potentially positively and negatively, as a "no" vote. One cannot evade responsibility in this manner. Further, if it is inappropriate to weigh in on the decisions of another diocese, why have the consent process at all? If it is a meaningless exercise, it is better that it should be abandoned altogether. If this is one's considered opinion, I suggest drafting a General Convention resolution to amend the canons to do away with this process, so that it is removed as a cause for controversy.

I am hopeful, however, that the rationale I have just argued against is a minority opinion, and that the overwhelming majority of members of Standing Committees takes the consent process seriously. For if one believes that the consent process is a useful part of a system of "checks and balances," whereby bishops' elections are confirmed as being not only for a local diocese but for the whole Church (of which The Episcopal Church is only a small part), then one must ask: What criteria am I to apply to the question of whether to consent or withhold consent to any particular election?



These criteria, which I will put in the form of questions, are best derived, I believe, from the liturgy for the ordination of a bishop, as well as from sound theological resources on the nature and function of the episcopate throughout the centuries, not to mention canon law. Even the collect with which this letter begins is a good resource. It raises, for instance, the questions: Will this bishop-elect be a sound teacher and minister of the Sacraments? Will this person effectively instruct people in Christian faith and practice? Will we learn from this person how to enter more fully into the Paschal mystery? These questions are answerable, furthermore, by examining the statements and writings of the bishop-elect.

Now, before I set out the questions I have in mind, I should recognize the very real discomfort that such an exercise presents to people who do not wish to make windows into people's souls (to paraphrase a famous Anglican). The questions I suggest are not intended to serve as a sort of Inquisition. They are not meant to find fault with any individual as such. Everyone has a right to believe, in good conscience, what he or she believes, but with this right comes the attendant responsibility to "be ready to make an answer for the hope that is within" him or her. But bishops are not answerable only to their own opinions, howsoever well-formed they may be. As leaders of a particular community shaped by a particular identity, bishops are entrusted with that community's traditions. Bishops have particular responsibilities to teach things in accordance with the great tradition that has been entrusted to them, not narrowly but with generosity and love. If a bishop is not fully conversant with and respectful of this great tradition, the bishop will be unable to live up to the high expectations that the Church has of this order of ministry. Of course, no one will be able to live up to all expectations. But Standing Committees are asked to give their consents based upon a process of due diligence that ascertains, insofar as this is possible, how ready any particular person is to take on and live into these expectations. Again, this does not mean that there is not considerable freedom within which a bishop may operate; but that freedom is always circumscribed by the nature of the functions entrusted to that person.



That said, here are some questions to consider, derived from the Ordination liturgy, which outlines in some detail what is entrusted to and expected from any bishop:

1. Does the person believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation? (BCP 513)
2. Has the person consistently conformed to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church? (BCP 513) If not, why not? Has any failure to conform been theologically or pastorally justifiable? Has this person accepted the consequences of such failure? Is this person willing to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church as the standard expected behavior of the clergy over which this person will exercise oversight?
3. Are there any doubts that this person has been lawfully elected? (BCP 514)
4. Have concerns been raised in any quarter as to this person's suitability? (BCP 514) If so, what are the concerns? Are they justified? Are these concerns so serious that they raise the question of whether this person will engage in inappropriate or scandalous behavior in the future or compromise the witness that The Episcopal Church is called to maintain?
5. Is this person "one with the apostles in proclaiming Christ's resurrection and interpreting the Gospel?" (BCP 517)
6. Does this person "testify to Christ's sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings?" (BCP 517)
7. Can you trust this person "to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church?" (BCP 517 & 518)
8. Can this person be relied upon "to be in all things a faithful pastor and wholesome example for the entire flock of Christ?" (BCP 517)
9. Does this person have a history of collegiality in leadership and respect for the tradition of the Church? (BCP 517)
10. Has this person evinced a palpable joy in following "him who came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many?" (BCP 517)
11. Is this person known for being "faithful in prayer and in the study of Holy Scripture?" (BCP 518)
12. Does this person proclaim and interpret the Gospel with boldness? (BCP 518)
13. Does this person have a history of equipping others for ministry? (BCP 518)
14. Is this person compassionate? Does this person have a history of defending those who have no helper? (BCP 518)
15. Will this person "exercise without reproach" the "ministry of reconciliation?" Does this person have a history of doing so? (BCP 521)
16. Has this person exercised good stewardship in the past, both personally and professionally? (BCP 521)



Obviously, these questions assume high standards for this order of ministry. And some of them are in some measure quite subjective. They are, however, in some measure answerable, given the right resources. This raises the questions: How much information is available to Standing Committees on bishops-elect? Before a meeting at which a vote on consent is to be taken, are members of the Standing Committee provided with adequate materials, or is it up to each member of the Standing Committee to do his or her own research ahead of time? If the latter, how reliable and how biased is the information one finds? What are the appropriate sources of information, and what methods of research are intrusive?

Standing Committees serve an important function in our polity, and the ministry exercised by their members is necessary to the ongoing coherence and integrity of The Episcopal Church's witness and mission. Doubtless, no member of a Standing Committee intends to be negligent in carrying out the responsibilities of this office, but in this time of heightened conflict, it is particularly important that Standing Committee members exercise thorough due diligence.

Allow me in closing to express my thanks to the Standing Committee members who will read this letter for their service to the Church. May God grant you wisdom and discernment as you seek to equip The Episcopal Church for mission and ministry through the consent process.

N.J.A. Humphrey+