On Friday, November 13th , there were comments about the agenda. Particularly on how items get sent to the House of Bishops from other committees. It was observed that the end result is often that the House becomes reactive rather than proactive with respect to its agenda. There was general agreement that the House of Bishops needs to let others know what it is, and what it does. The hope being that such information would avoid the tendency to make the House of Bishops a clearing house (for items sent from other groups and committees). It was suggested by one member that House items should be those which fall under the categories of faith, order or discipline. Also of concern, was the need for program specifically oriented to new bishops. ("New bishops" were defined as those who have been bishops for one to five years.)
That this House ask the agenda committee to include a session for new bishops' training at the second half of the February 1993 House of Bishops meeting. CARRIED
"That this House of Bishops requires that on the election of a Bishop the electing Diocese, the Diocese where the Bishop elect presently holds an appointment, and the Bishop elect make provision through the Metropolitan for up to one full month between the election and consecration for a period of preparation and training according to the House of Bishops guidelines, and at the expense of the electing Diocese."
"That we vote by Provincial Houses." CARRIED
The Motion was put and CARRIED IN ALL PROVINCES.
Moved by: Bishop Bothwell
Seconded by: Bishop Hambidge
"That this Resolution be sent from the National House of Bishops to all Diocesan Executive Committees and Diocesan Chancellors, and that we espouse this policy and recommend it, and request comments by the end of 1978." 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
Bishop Asbil reported on the new bishops training event which was held in Toronto in November 1995, and led by Bishop Harold Hopkins (of the ECUSA Pastoral Development Office) and his wife Nancy.
Archdeacon Harry Hilchey reviewed the content of `The Anglican Church of Canada : A Handbook for Bishops' which was distributed to the House of Bishops and then Archdeacon Hilchey went through the handbook chapter by chapter.
It was agreed that the handbook was a document for bishops, but that it was not a "private" document. A member of the House of Bishops suggested that future editions of the handbook should name Archdeacon Hilchey as the author.
That the House gives it[s] thanks to Archdeacon Hilchey for his efforts and for the monumental piece of work he did in producing the bishops' handbook. CARRIED
It was agreed that it is the responsibility of the Metropolitan to ensure that the handbook is not taken (out of the bishop's office) by a retiring bishop. Production of future editions are the responsibility of the Primate's Office.
On behalf of the Metropolitans as well as the House of Bishops, Archbishop Peers thanked Archdeacon Hilchey for his work.
That this house, seeing the very real need of a training event for new bishops, including spouses, asks the primate's office to make arrangements for such an event during the fall of 1995, assuming that funding can be secured. (We suggest that all bishops ordained after January 1, 1992 be part of this program.) CARRIED
The Primate then focussed particular attention on Resol. 23 page 36 - Training for Bishops.
The Primate mentioned that he had received a letter from the Presiding Bishop of P.E.C.U.S.A. informing him of the Training School his Church had inaugurated and expressing his willingness to include some of the Canadian bishops in that training. The discussion on this was brought to a head with the following motion:-
"That this House of Bishops recommend to the Personnel Resources Committee that they explore the possibility of a training course for newly consecrated bishops, and for the continued training of bishops." CARRIED