Engaging in the transition between one Bishop in Charge to Another for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
If you hadn’t comprehended yet, Bishop Jerry Lamb is resigning as Bishop in Charge of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Another bishop will be his replacement. The retired bishop chosen and who has agreed, is Bishop Chet Talton, who until May of 2010 was a Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles. Unofficially, the date of March 5 has been floated for a Special meeting of the Diocese in Convention for the purpose of this transition. Here’s how this works according to the dictates of the Canons of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America (TECUSA), as revised by General Convention, 2009.
(This explanation makes full use of the constitutional article and canons noted below, as well as others.)
The Diocese of San Joaquin is currently under the ecclesiastical authority of a Bishop in Charge (a person already a bishop who is given “provisional” authority and charge of a diocese), The Rt Rev Jerry Lamb. This was proclaimed in 2008 by the members of the Diocese, gathered in Convention, who agreed to have a bishop be “in charge” of the diocese rather than 1) a Standing Committee be “in charge” (that is, be the “ecclesiastical authority”) and contract with a visiting bishop(s) to carry out sacramental ministry reserved to the episcopate, or 2) to call for and facilitate the election of a regular Bishop of the Diocese (called “the Ordinary”), who would then be vested with that ecclesiastical authority until resignation or retirement.
By his own recognition both of diocesan finances and of his desire to actually “retire”, Bishop Lamb made it clear first to the councils of the diocese, and then to the diocesan convention in October, 2010, that he would finish certain duties and visitations by the end of the year, 2010. He also implied to the convention that the desire of the councils of the diocese would be to seek for another Bishop in Charge who would also be vested ecclesiastical authority, and not to call for the election of an Ordinary.
It seems clear from the Canons that the only kind of Bishop that is “elected” is one who is made a permanent expression of the episcopacy for that diocese. That is not what the Diocese of San Joaquin asked of Bp Lamb; as Bishop in Charge, even though he is the ecclesiastical authority, he serves at the desire and will of the Convention. That is because he is not elected. The phrase from the Canons is as follows: he is “authorized to exercise all the duties and offices of the Bishop of the Diocese until a Bishop is elected and ordained for that Diocese or until the act of the Convention is revoked.”
So, an “act of Convention” places the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese into the hands of a person who has already been ordained a bishop, and now is asked to serve in a temporary capacity, in whatever way may be contractually agreeable.
Bishop Lamb has not as of yet resigned as the Bishop in Charge, and thus is still in charge as the ecclesiastical authority. That has given him the authority and the ability (see Canon 13, Section 3 below) to identify the Rt Rev Chester Talton, a retired bishop from the diocese of Los Angeles, to be a Visiting Bishop. This is clearly a move to assist with a smooth transition, since at the same time as announcing Bp Talton as a Visiting Bishop, the announcement was made that Bishop Talton is the Standing Committee’s (and Diocesan Council’s jointly, presumably) chosen appointee for a Diocesan Convention to act upon to also be Bp Lamb’s replacement, and thus be a new Bishop in Charge.
The Canons are unclear about this transition when there is already in existence a Bishop in Charge. In fact, the Canons are unclear about the role of an existing Standing Committee in selecting a bishop who would become the Bishop in Charge. Sec. 1 A Diocese without a Bishop may, by an act of its Convention, and in consultation with the Presiding Bishop…
Finally, a more reasonable interpretation is that which holds the Standing Committee, in conjunction with the Diocesan Council, to represent the Diocese as a whole in consideration of a Bishop in Charge, and, prior to coming to their decision about who that might be, is also in consultation with the Presiding Bishop’s office. Then that bishop is presented to the diocese, which, then, by an act of its Convention, authorizes such a relationship, and that this person be the bishop so vested.
That, that more reasonable interpretation, and my assumption that this is what has taken place in this case, comes from my prior experience as a Standing Committee member and understanding the role of that body defined in the Canons as “the ecclesiastical authority” when there is no bishop Ordinary, or bishop in charge.
So how does the diocese get to this new Bishop in Charge smoothly?
First, What seems obvious, is just as there cannot be two Ordinaries, then there shall not be two Bishops of Provisional Authority, that is, two Bishops in Charge of a diocese at the same time. Certainly, the spirit of the law, along with an interpretation of the Canon allowing for a seamless passing of authority between old and new Bishops in Charge is appropriate.
“A Diocese..” is an awfully large context in which to be in consultation with the Presiding Bishop! Not being a member of Standing Committee, or Diocesan Council, for example, I was never asked for my advice, nor was any delegate from St. John’s, in Tulare, nor any other member of the parish as far as I know. The Canon noted suggests by successive statements – first, a diocese by an act of its Convention, and then second, in consultation – can be interpreted to mean that it is the Convention of the diocese acting as Committee of the Whole (that means that every delegate is on the committee) which is in consultation with the Presiding Bishop on this matter. That seems a bit unwieldy. Even more unwieldy is another interpretation that does not consider successive phrases in the sentence, so that it is the entire Diocese – every member – who makes up a Committee of the Whole, and is in consultation with the Presiding Bishop! Still, the problem is that is the way the Canon is written, and further, for some reason it does not recognize a Standing Committee as the locus. Thus, as the Canon states: . A Diocese without a Bishop may, by an act of its Convention, and in consultation with the Presiding Bishop, be placed under the provisional charge and authority of a Bishop of another Diocese or of a resigned Bishop, this is easily interpreted in this situation to mean that in order for a Convention to act to place itself under the authority and provisional charge of a Bishop (without electing one) a Diocese must be “without a bishop”, and so Bishop Lamb will need to officially resign prior to any act of Convention to move forward with Bp Talton (unless the motion is written in such a way as to be “time sensitive”).
Next, it is also clear that it is not the Bishop in Charge who appoints a new Bishop in Charge.
Next, it is also clear in the Canons that the Bishop in Charge has the authority, working with the councils of the diocese, to call for a Special Convention.
Again, let this be clear: this is not an “election.” There will be no ballot. It is a specific legislative act by Convention; a “motion.” So when the Special Convention gathers, it would be the passing of a particular motion by majority vote, although it could be considered either as a single motion, or as two separate motions.
From a parliamentary perspective, it would make more clear the will of the Convention on the primary issue to have two motions. The primary issue is whether the Convention chooses to “place the Diocese under the provisional charge and authority of” another bishop. Having accomplished that will of the diocese, then the secondary issue is the question of which bishop, and in this case being the selection of the Standing Committee (and presumably Diocesan Council), Bp Talton. A case can be made for a single motion with two parts, given that the Canons place both issues in one sentence. As well, it might be argued that such a single motion with two parts is more economical for the Convention, saving the time of another vote. That sounds rather presumptive, however, of the will of the diocese. As well, given that the Special Convention will be called only for that purpose, and most of the diocesan delegates will be driving for hours to attend, it would seem the argument of “economy of time and effort” is exactly the opposite of what delegates had gathered to do. There will be no press of time. Further, there is no apparent risk whatsoever of either issue failing at the hands of the San Joaquin delegates.
The order of events, then, takes shape for an agenda to accomplish what the councils of the diocese have deemed proper:
1) The Convention is called to order by Bishop Lamb, and a quorum ascertained.
2) Prayer for the diocese is engaged (this might also be prior to the Convention being officially “called to order” in a business meeting).
3) Bishop Lamb appoints a chairperson for the Convention, most appropriately, the president of the Standing Committee.
4) Bishop Lamb tenders his resignation as the Bishop in Charge of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Appropriate signs of affection and appreciation are allowed, such as what will unlikely and immediately take place, as in a standing ovation.
5) The appointed chair, or other person, moves for the Convention to accept the resignation, and it is regretfully accepted.
As Convention is in session, it would not be necessary for any formal designation or reversion of the Standing Committee now being the ecclesiastical authority. It happens automatically as Bishop Lamb’s resignation is received.
6) The Chair of Convention explains to Convention the desire of the councils of the diocese to engage in such a relationship with a bishop again.
7) Bishop Talton is then formally introduced to the Convention, making any explanation of how his name came to be accepted by the councils of the diocese. Bishop Talton might be given an opportunity to speak as well. (This part could also be delayed until before the second of two motions, as noted above).
8 ) The chair of Convention then recognizes the committee on resolutions or the Standing Committee itself to present the motion(s) of having another Bishop in Charge, and placing that authority in the hands of Bp Talton.
9) The vote(s) are taken. Since this is not an amendment to the Constitution or Canons, it should not be introduced as a “vote by orders” (laity and clergy vote separately, with both needing majorities for the motion to pass), unless a delegate from the floor of convention requests it, and thus need only a simple majority to pass. Written ballots would not be necessary, either.
10) Unless other legislative matters are before the Special Convention, the Convention would adjourn.
11) A rite for the installation of a Bishop in Charge, which formally recognizes the relationship between such bishop and diocese, would then commence, either as part of the Daily Office, or the Holy Eucharist.
End of Business. Lunch. Carry on.
Any valid corrections to this scenario will be gladly received.
The Rev. Robert G Eaton, Rector
St. John’s, Tulare
ARTICLE IV
In every Diocese a Standing Committee shall be elected by the
Convention thereof, except that provision for filling vacancies
between meetings of the Convention may be prescribed by the
Canons of the respective Dioceses. When there is a Bishop in charge
of the Diocese, the Standing Committee shall be the Bishop’s
Council of Advice. If there be no Bishop or Bishop Coadjutor or
Suffragan Bishop canonically authorized to act, the Standing
Committee shall be the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese for
all purposes declared by the General Convention. The rights and
duties of the Standing Committee, except as provided in the
Constitution and Canons of the General Convention, may be
prescribed by the Canons of the respective Dioceses.
TITLE I (One), CANON 12: Of Standing Committees
Sec. 1
. In every Diocese the Standing Committee shall elect fromtheir own body a President and a Secretary. They may meet in
conformity with their own rules from time to time, and shall keep a
record of their proceedings; and they may be summoned to a special
meeting whenever the President may deem it necessary. They may
be summoned on the requisition of the Bishop, whenever the
Bishop shall desire their advice; and they may meet of their own
accord and agreeably to their own rules when they may be disposed
to advise the Bishop.
Sec. 2
. In all cases in which a Canon of the General Conventiondirects a duty to be performed, or a power to be exercised, by a
Standing Committee, or by the Clerical members thereof, or by any
other body consisting of several members, a majority of said
members, the whole having been duly cited to meet, shall be a
quorum; and a majority of the quorum so convened shall be
competent to act, unless the contrary is expressly required by the
Canon.
Sec. 3
. Any document required to be signed by members of theStanding Committee or by the Clerical members thereof, or by any
other body consisting of several members may be signed in
counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original.
TITLE III, CANON 13: Of Dioceses without Bishops
Sec. 1
. A Diocese without a Bishop may, by an act of itsConvention, and in consultation with the Presiding Bishop, be
placed under the provisional charge and authority of a Bishop of
another Diocese or of a resigned Bishop, who shall by that act be
authorized to exercise all the duties and offices of the Bishop of the
Diocese until a Bishop is elected and ordained for that Diocese or
until the act of the Convention is revoked.
Sec. 2
. Any Bishop may, on the invitation of the Convention or ofthe Standing Committee of any Diocese where there is no Bishop,
visit and exercise episcopal offices in that Diocese or any part of it.
This invitation may include a letter of agreement, shall be for a
stated period and may be revoked at any time.
Sec. 3
. A Diocese, while under the provisional charge of a Bishop,shall not invite any other Bishop to visit and exercise episcopal acts
or authority without the consent of the Bishop in charge.