The process by which Anglicans determine who will be a bishop varies from region to region. English bishops are still, appointed by the Crown, acting on the basis of consultation among church and political leaders on the Crown Appointments Commission. U. S. bishops are elected by the clergy and lay delegates to a diocesan convention. The former method leaves open a door to cronyism and deck-stacking, but also permits the appointment of bishops on the basis of wisdom and integrity; the latter method fends off the insularity of a system of appointments, but too frequently results in ecclesiastical demagoguery and mediocracy. Don Juel and I used to commiserate about the degrading lengths to which some candidates for bishop would descend in order to win votes. (The relation of popular election to a calling to episcopal orders remains obscure to me — though I would be remiss not to note that many would be surprised at the extent to which the church’s business has been conducted on the basis of nominally representative democracy).
I raise this point because the recent death of Bishop John Burgess of Massachusetts illustrates the point that my jaundiced view of electoral politics in the church fails to give due credit to the instances in which a majority vote selects a principled, competent, intelligent, resolute, compassionate, and just soul to serve as bishop.
Margaret’s family had a long-standing relationship to Bishop Burgess, who was diocesan bishop of Massachusetts during one part of Margaret’ father’s tenure as rector in that diocese. He confirmed Margaret, who says “I can still feel his hands on my head,” and she remembers him sharing dinner with her family. He was a great man, and a great example of how the church can get things right.
I remain dubious about election as a way of getting things done (I favor casting lots), but respectfully dubious — because I’ve seen that even fractious, froward political assemblies can reach profoundly wise decisions. I give thanks for the decision of the electors in Massachusetts forty-one years ago (and then again eight years later), but above all I give thanks for the ministry of Bishop Burgess, and his example of what a bishop can be.
Posted by AKMA at August 29, 2003 11:37 AM | TrackBackQuaker humor may be oxymoronic or merely moronic. Here is a joke I heard told by a F/friend recently. I didn't get it, but then there's that question about Quaker humor:
A long time Quaker, growing old, left his meeting and converted to the Episcopal church. When asked why he converted he responded, "I found out where the bishops are."
That's it. That's the joke. I still don't get it, but maybe it's funny? I'll ask Betsy.
Posted by: fp at August 30, 2003 04:07 PMAbout the Crown Appointments Commission, which btw has recently been renamed Crown Nominations Commission.
Anyway, why do you say that *political* leaders have been consulted?
The commission consists entirely of bishops, clergy and lay people elected to it by the General Synod, or by the relevant diocesan synod. The only circumstance in which a person is nominated by the government is when Canterbury becomes vacant, in which case a lay person is appointed as chair of the commission.
Okay. Now I get the joke.
Posted by: fp at August 31, 2003 10:07 AMQuite possibly my mistake, Simon. I thought that the PM’s office had a voice in the outcome of these nominations/appointments; but it’s a long way from here to London, and the lens on my telescope isn’t perfectly adjusted for my age-affected vision, so I seem to have blurred some details.
If you’d sketch the actual process for me, I’d be very thankful. I think my broad point remains, either way: each approach increases the possibility of particular benefits and particular shortcomings. That’s what I was trying to get at.
Posted by: AKMA at August 31, 2003 12:08 PMThe most basic duality that exists with variables is how the programmer sees them in a totally different way than the computer does. When you're typing away in Project Builder, your variables are normal words smashed together, like software titles from the 80s. You deal with them on this level, moving them around and passing them back and forth.
Posted by: Jocosa at January 12, 2004 09:47 PMSince the Heap has no definite rules as to where it will create space for you, there must be some way of figuring out where your new space is. And the answer is, simply enough, addressing. When you create new space in the heap to hold your data, you get back an address that tells you where your new space is, so your bits can move in. This address is called a Pointer, and it's really just a hexadecimal number that points to a location in the heap. Since it's really just a number, it can be stored quite nicely into a variable.
Posted by: Hansse at January 12, 2004 09:47 PMThese secret identities serve a variety of purposes, and they help us to understand how variables work. In this lesson, we'll be writing a little less code than we've done in previous articles, but we'll be taking a detailed look at how variables live and work.
Posted by: Jocatta at January 12, 2004 09:47 PMWhen compared to the Stack, the Heap is a simple thing to understand. All the memory that's left over is "in the Heap" (excepting some special cases and some reserve). There is little structure, but in return for this freedom of movement you must create and destroy any boundaries you need. And it is always possible that the heap might simply not have enough space for you.
Posted by: Ingram at January 13, 2004 01:02 PMThis variable is then used in various lines of code, holding values given it by variable assignments along the way. In the course of its life, a variable can hold any number of variables and be used in any number of different ways. This flexibility is built on the precept we just learned: a variable is really just a block of bits, and those bits can hold whatever data the program needs to remember. They can hold enough data to remember an integer from as low as -2,147,483,647 up to 2,147,483,647 (one less than plus or minus 2^31). They can remember one character of writing. They can keep a decimal number with a huge amount of precision and a giant range. They can hold a time accurate to the second in a range of centuries. A few bits is not to be scoffed at.
Posted by: Roger at January 13, 2004 01:02 PMEach Stack Frame represents a function. The bottom frame is always the main function, and the frames above it are the other functions that main calls. At any given time, the stack can show you the path your code has taken to get to where it is. The top frame represents the function the code is currently executing, and the frame below it is the function that called the current function, and the frame below that represents the function that called the function that called the current function, and so on all the way down to main, which is the starting point of any C program.
Posted by: Hector at January 13, 2004 01:03 PM