Bishop Hollis expressed concern about the article in the Canadian Churchman regarding the election of a Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Toronto. He said that the Churchman should be an educational tool and should teach that election is people coming together to seek God's will and not "seek election".
Bishop Read said that the article was discussed at the recent meeting of the Churchman Board. He said that the Board recognized that the nomination of a women was newsworthy, and that this had received wide publicity in the secular press.
That the House request the Primate to have an informal conversation with the Editor of the Churchman to share the feelings of the House. CARRIED #3-11-86
It was agreed that the Primate should raise the concern of the House with the National Executive Council at the time of the Churchman report to the National Executive Council.
Earlier in the meeting a handout produced by the House of Bishops' Homosexuality Task Force and the Rev. Eric Beresford, Coordinator for Ethics and Interfaith Relations at the national office, was distributed to the members. (The task force had been requested at the last meeting of the House of Bishops to rewrite the 1979 Guidelines and then to bring it to the fall 1997 meeting for discussion.) The Primate began the session by reminding the members that the document (marked `confidential') was for discussion purposes only and not for general distribution.
Archbishop O'Driscoll thanked the other members of the task force (Archbishop Crawley and Bishop Morgan) and Mr. Beresford for their help in writing the paper. He reminded the House that the document had been produced at its request and then reported on the task force meeting in Saskatoon. He said that the task force had tried to fulfil its mandate, and that the intention was that the document would reflect the mind of the House. He suggested that the House should discuss the document and that if it found the revised guidelines to be fundamentally flawed, the House should say so by way of a motion. He added that the task force had requested written submissions from the members and prior to their meeting they had received two.
Discussion about support for possible amendments to the document followed before it was agreed to accept the revised guidelines as they were presented to the House.
That the House adopt and approve the statement by the House of Bishops and make it available to the rest of the Church. CARRIED
Bishop Matthews spoke on behalf of the House of Bishops' Continuing Education Committee. The committee had met earlier and had discussed possible guest speakers to the House over the triennium. They proposed the following people as key-note speakers for future meetings.
1. The Very Rev. Thomas Wright, biblical scholar and Dean of the Diocese of Lichfield, England to speak about the bible.
2. The Rt. Rev. Rowan Williams, as Bishop of Monmouth, Wales and theologian.
3. The Most Rev. Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA and Mrs. Phoebe Griswold, to speak at the House & Spouse meeting which precedes General Synod 2001.
That House approve invitations for those 3 sessions. CARRIED #05-11-98
Bishop Hannen reported that the Diocese of Caledonia is facing a financial crisis. This situation is due partly to uplanned major renovations of the cathedral which have proven to be costly. He said that it has put the diocese in some serious financial risk.
Bishop Hannen said that the diocese has met to discuss how to deal with its debt. One of the proposed solutions currently under consideration is to hold a one day national fundraising campaign for the diocese. He asked whether his colleagues would consider giving permission for the parishes in their dioceses to participate in a campaign for the Diocese of Caledonia for one Sunday only. He was requested to write to the bishops so that they could take something to their national executive councils for approval. They also asked for some promotional material for their dioceses.
Moved by: Bishop Ingham
Seconded by: Bishop Baycroft
"That this House endorse in principle the request of the Diocese of Caledonia for a one time collection and asks the Diocese to write to the Bishops with adequate supporting materials and a suggested date."
The motion was amended.
"That the House ask the Diocese of Caledonia to write to the bishops with adequate supporting material and a suggested date for a one-time collection." CARRIED
The Primate said that although attendance at the meeting of metropolitans was down, there had still been a quorum. Archbishop Curtis and Archbishop O'Driscoll had sent their regrets.
Archbishop Peers advised that no major issues had been before the metropolitans, but that sharing of provincial news had been helpful.
Bishop Woolsey asked for clarification regarding responsibility for the training of new bishops. Discussion followed. It was agreed that previously it had been the metropolitans who were to take initial responsibility. That might include "assigning" a mentor. Bishop Lawrence enquired whether there was funding available for newly elected bishops to take advantage of the program offered by the ECUSA Theological Seminary's College for Bishops in New York City ? The Primate responded that the responsibility for funding lies with the diocese.
Other points raised:
- the national church should have a policy regarding training for new bishops (an identifiable, articulated policy)
- a process in Edmonton for orientation of a new bishop was noted
- involve Archbishop Douglas Hambidge as a resource person in the training process
- a long-term program (over a 6-9 year period) should be set up
The Primate proposed formation of a small taskforce to meet that evening and report back on Friday about how to move forward on this topic. Archbishop Crawley and Bishop Ferris volunteered. A third member (from the CEP Unit) would be added later.
Later in the meeting Archbishop Crawley reported that he, Bishop Ferris and Archbishop Peers had met to discuss New Bishops Training. They made nine recommendations for the orientation of a new bishop. In his report he said that orientation to the position of bishop before (a bishop's) consecration was the responsibility of the metropolitan. While a metropolitan could appoint someone else as the mentor, the metropolitan needed to build in time with the bishop-elect before the consecration. Some discussion followed.
That the report presented by Archbishop Crawley concerning new bishop's training be commended for circulation through the minutes of the House of Bishops and be commended to the metropolitans for consideration and report to the next meeting of the House. CARRIED
(See appendix xii)
Some Features for the Orientation of New Bishops (shared with the House of Bishops - October, 1996)
Features : Responsibility and $ Estimate
1. Time before consecration for preparation; stress the obligation re: day set aside by the archbishop for the consecration
2. Time with the Metropolitan (1 day ?) : Province $500
3. Time with a Bishop consultant (2 days), time with the electee's family - Doug Hambidge, Jim Allen, Jo Fricker, Mark Genge. (spouse with Bishop, spouse) : Diocese $700
4. A visit to a nearby Synod Office (2 days) : Diocese $500
5. A basic Reading Kit - Bishop's Handbook and other, such as `Transition' by Ron Ferris : Province $100
6. Costs to the College of Bishops or Alban Institute (continuing education fund request) : Diocese $2000
7. Optional mentoring with a provincial bishop of choice using new methods of communication : Diocese $500
8. The Metropolitan to ask the diocese to budget accordingly and to seek grant funding if diocesan resources are insufficient
9. The Metropolitan to take responsibility for implementation