To the sound of Ray Charles' voice and piano, I headed to New Orleans to attend the walkabout to meet the candidates for bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana. The format was for each candidate to give a statement about 15 or 20 minutes long, after which we broke up into separate groups, and each candidate took a turn answering questions.
Since I am not a delegate nor an alternate to the electing convention, I was only able to ask a couple of questions, because I had to wait until all the delegates and alternates who wanted to ask questions were finished to have my chance. In all but two of the sessions, time ran out before I could ask my question. When I finally had my turn, since I foresee major challenges facing the church, the falling attendance numbers and the resulting diminished income, I asked the candidate about his ideas for addressing the problems. He did not quite understand what I was talking about and apparently did not agree with me that great changes were ahead for the church, therefore he did not really answer my question. Maybe I used the wrong phrasing.
My next and last opportunity for a question came with Bishop Michael Smith, about whom I
blogged and later
attended a class that he taught in the School for ministry in New Orleans. Before I asked my question, one of the delegates asked him how he could minister to his diocese in North Dakota and still spend so much time in Louisiana helping out here. Bp. Smith said that he was not moonlighting, but I don't remember if he truly answered the question. It seems not, but I could be wrong. In any case, he did not answer to my satisfaction, or I think I would have remembered. By that time, I had lost my pen and had nothing to write with to take notes. Toward the end of the session, when it seemed that the delegates were done with their questions, I raised my hand. Whoops! A delegate raised her hand at the same time, so she got her turn first. I thought the time would run out before I had my turn, because Bp. Smith gave the other woman a long answer. Could it be that he saw my hand up and wanted to run out the clock?
Anyway, my turn came. Earlier in the session, someone asked him how he handled difficult and hostile people. He said that one thing he does is pray for them. When I stood up to ask my question, he greeted me kindly and said he remembered me. I said, "You pray for me, don't you?"
He laughed and said, "No. I don't dislike you."
In his biography, Bp. Smith wrote of
"...appropriate pastoral care for persons who experience themselves as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender...." Now Bp. Mark Lawrence used this very same phrase in his address to the Special Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina. You can find it in his address that runs to 9 pages, or you can take my word that it's there. I've seen the phrase used by others opposed to equality for GLTB folks. To me, the phrase is code for, "...persons who are not really gay, but who think they are."
I read the phrase to him and said, "This seems an odd way to phrase the statement. It implies that the persons may not really BE gay. Why not say 'persons who ARE gay, lesbian...'?"
Bp. Smith shook his head and said, "The science is not clear." Mistake.
I asked, "Well then, is it that I only experience myself as heterosexual, rather than that I AM heterosexual?" I heard laughter in the room, and I did not press for further elaboration of his answer to my question. I thought I'd made my point. In truth, I was in somewhat of a surreal state, because I was quite nervous about asking the question, and I half hoped that time would run out before I could get it in.
I could have asked him a more difficult question, like whether he attended the GAFCON conference in the Middle East, or who paid for his trip to visit the Archbishop of Canterbury, but in that milieu, I believe that I asked the right question. During the break, a few folks came to me to thank me for asking the question, and after the walkabout was over, a small group of people whom I met outside, thanked me. One of them told me that, at the time I asked the question, she said, "Who is SHE, from Thibodaux, asking THAT question?" Another said, "And you looked so innocent!"
Another of the candidates, Fr Ken Ritter, a former Roman Catholic priest, disagreed with the RCC on birth control, the hypocrisy of the annulment process, and, although he felt that he was called to be a priest, he could not live as a celibate. He left the priesthood, married, had children, and then became an Episcopal priest. He wishes to remain in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion and approves of the Windsor Report and consideration of the Covenant. Thus, he would continue the moratorium on same-sex blessings and "on the consecration of bishops whose lifestyles present a difficulty for the wider Anglican Communion".
Along with at least one other person, I sensed a bit of dissonance here. Fr Ritter could not live a celibate "lifestyle" as a priest, but he expects GLTB clergy to live a celibate "lifestyle" for now, whether or not they are called to a vocation of celibacy.
At the walkabout, I found that a couple of the candidates looked better on paper than in real life. My favorite of all and the one I would vote for if I had a vote is Fr Morris Thompson. He looked good on paper, and I liked him face to face. My second choice would be Fr Paul Johnson. Links to the biographies of the candidates may be found at the
diocesan website.
