What I actually said
So I ended up speaking on the floor convention and looking back at that previous initial post, I realized I changed a lot of that. So here is the text of the statmenet I read at convention, what I actually said:
It is vital to the future of the Diocese and the integrity of the BCMS work that we call a Bishop Coadjutor. To do anything else would limit the effectiveness of how we continue to discover how we will be the Church together. God is working among us, and I believe that this process is an opportunity to deepen our commitment and participation with God in the mission God is calling us all to.
With the work of the BCMS at the center of all we do in the search for a new visionary leader we can be confident that we elect someone who can work collaboratively and in full partnership with all of us to continue to create a pioneering vision for the future of the Church.
I imagine the demands upon the time of a bishop are great, only Bishop Jelinek can tell us what that demand is like. In the case of direct succession there would be administrative, liturgical, national and global issues to bear moving into this position of leadership. To add to that list the work of the BCMS, which it must be, would limit our ability to fully implement the goals of the BCMS without the undivided support of the new bishop.
What a gift we can offer the ninth bishop of Minnesota, time to fully dwell in the work of the BCMS, opportunities to meet with congregations, laity, clergy and the new BCMS team, time to dream and imagine, collaboratively and in full participation with the people and the institutions of the Diocese so the Coadjutor can have a comprehensive experience of how we as a Diocese have been working on the question of how we are the Church together.
The BCMS has spoken about the culture of mistrust that exists in the Diocese. The best piece of unsolicited advice I have received is this: If you want to change the way someone behaves, you must change your own behavior first. May we remove the cynicism that hardens our hearts replacing it with a spirit of hope for our next 150 years. We must look past our personal feelings towards the Bishop and his perceived mistakes and instead dwell in the vision that has begun to be revealed by God through the work of the BCMS and the hope that it gives for the future of the Church.
Be well,
A+
It is vital to the future of the Diocese and the integrity of the BCMS work that we call a Bishop Coadjutor. To do anything else would limit the effectiveness of how we continue to discover how we will be the Church together. God is working among us, and I believe that this process is an opportunity to deepen our commitment and participation with God in the mission God is calling us all to.
With the work of the BCMS at the center of all we do in the search for a new visionary leader we can be confident that we elect someone who can work collaboratively and in full partnership with all of us to continue to create a pioneering vision for the future of the Church.
I imagine the demands upon the time of a bishop are great, only Bishop Jelinek can tell us what that demand is like. In the case of direct succession there would be administrative, liturgical, national and global issues to bear moving into this position of leadership. To add to that list the work of the BCMS, which it must be, would limit our ability to fully implement the goals of the BCMS without the undivided support of the new bishop.
What a gift we can offer the ninth bishop of Minnesota, time to fully dwell in the work of the BCMS, opportunities to meet with congregations, laity, clergy and the new BCMS team, time to dream and imagine, collaboratively and in full participation with the people and the institutions of the Diocese so the Coadjutor can have a comprehensive experience of how we as a Diocese have been working on the question of how we are the Church together.
The BCMS has spoken about the culture of mistrust that exists in the Diocese. The best piece of unsolicited advice I have received is this: If you want to change the way someone behaves, you must change your own behavior first. May we remove the cynicism that hardens our hearts replacing it with a spirit of hope for our next 150 years. We must look past our personal feelings towards the Bishop and his perceived mistakes and instead dwell in the vision that has begun to be revealed by God through the work of the BCMS and the hope that it gives for the future of the Church.
Be well,
A+
Comments
Click here for BCMS information
"Coadjutor" Bishops are elected with the expectation that they will automatically succeed the current bishop when he/she retires (unlike Suffragan Bishops, who are "assistant bishops" only, although they can be and sometimes are considered for the "top job" later on).
>> We must look past our personal feelings towards the Bishop and his perceived mistakes.... >>
I haven't been paying attention! Does this refer to the sale of the office building near the Cathedral of Saint Mark in Minneapolis? Or, the Bishop's willingness to financially support small parishes such as El Santo Nino Jesus, Gethsemane, and Holy Apostles (all in the Twin Cities metro area)? Both?
dawn224, read what betty wrote. Then let's get that kid of your baptized!
Betty, the main reasons for voting down the Coadjutor were money, it cost too much, and process. Both arguments are difficult to me. It seems to me that if we were to immerse our coadjutor into the BCMS and found out that we could be people of mission, money would follow.
The process question is tough too, cause it's hope is that everyone will have input and everyone will be happy with the results, at least happy with participating in the process to call a new Bishop. My gut response: unrealistic. Look at what we have after 2 long years collaboration and effort put forth in the process of the BCMS. A unshaped, toothless document that we have adopted as something to help lead us into the future. It has goals, and some points in it, but no way of implementing them.
I love the potential of the BCMS, I am trying not to be too negative about it, but it really is unshaped, a bishop call process couldn't be that collaborative by its very nature, urgency, mainly, being the concern.
My reference to the personal stuff was from my many discussions with clergy, most of whom were more reactionary to the Bishop and wanted to respond to how they perceived they were treated by him before looking at what the future of the Diocese could look like.
I know most of what we do as priests is based in relationships, but this time seemed more important as a time to get past our own petty personal reactions and look far beyond the next year.
Thanks
A+
very interesting thoughts, reactions, responses and questions regarding BCMS, Coadjutor, and Convention...
dawn224 do get the kid baptized. That is/why/how ALL this church stuff really works. Local transformation through catachesis - helping each other walk with God with intention and purpose.