These are difficult days in Episcopal Land. People come and go and only the bravest dares opine as to what it all means.
The Bishop of Western Kansas, James Adams, has decided being bishop is not what he is called at this point to be. He has every right to take charge of his own spiritual health and to say enough is enough. He is going to the Diocese of Central Florida to be a vicar of a new congregation there. The Diocese of Central Florida is a lively and interesting place and we can all hope that he has a wonderful ministry there.
The announcement of his leaving, posted by The Lead and by The Living Church. Both stories announce that the bishop will become a vicar of a parish beginning his duties in March 2010. Neither mentions the fact that according to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church Bishop Adams must get the consent of the House of Bishops before he can resign his jurisdiction. (Art II, Sec. 6. A Bishop may not resign jurisdiction without the consent of the House of Bishops.)
The House of Bishops next meets in late March 2010, after Bishop Adams will have taken up his new post.
There is no reason, as far as I know, why the House of Bishops would not consent to his resignation of jurisdiction.
The Living Church article makes inference to an interesting possibility in Kansas:
"... Bishop Adams saw himself as a possible obstacle to the small and geographically scattered diocese transforming itself into something more viable. He would be senior bishop if Western Kansas were to merge with any contiguous diocese, but he doubts that he would receive approval to function as bishop of such an expanded territory. Bishop Adams believes his departure gives the diocese a chance to work through its own future, and an alternative arrangement such as sharing a bishop with another diocese."
The suggestion that there is some strategic reason for his leaving can be understood as giving further justification for his receiving consents to resign. If his leaving were a matter of assessing his spiritual strengths and seeing the need to return to parish ministry, that would be one thing. If his leaving is a matter of opening the way for conversations about merging with another diocese, that is another.
I hope is leaving brings him new joys and Western Kansas new possibilities.
10/27/2009
1 comment:
OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
+Jim is a good guy with whom I strongly disagree. He was a priest in Dio Kansas (eastern third of state, where I hail from) for years and was well respected. No one expected his episcopal election would lead him to align himself with GAFCON types... At the same time, discussions have quietly taken place for decades about merging Dio Kansas and Dio Western Kansas. W. Kansas really can't afford the episcopacy - but the distances are vast for the bishop of Ks, housed in Topeka, in the east... +Wolf, of Kansas, is young and aggressive - my gut is he would welcome a merger, make it a centerpiece of his episcopal crown, and promptly leave for a bigger diocese... thus, the merger thing may well be why +Jim is leaving... that, and the fact that his clergy strongly opposed his conservative rantings...
ReplyDelete