The AME Church's Council of Bishops announced on Thursday in Los Angeles, CA that they are setting in motion plans to elect no less than 2 Africans and no more than 5 as AME Bishops at the 2004 General Conference in Indianapolis. However, these Overseas Bishops will be under the same itinerancy as U. S. Bishops and may be assigned to U. S. Districts as well. We now have begun to see some light at the end of the tunnel and thank God for those who worked both on and behind the scene, pushing, promoting, and praying for this day to come.

This does not mean that the Africans we elect will be any more diligent, honest, nor expansion-minded as the Bishops we have, but at least the golden opportunity will have been given. What they choose to do with it will be up to them but one thing for sure, they will be subjected to the same scrutiny that we have been giving U. S. Bishops. And if they do not perform, we will advocate charges and expulsion against them as well.

Let's pray that the A. M. E. Church will continue to grow as never before with indigenous, on-the-scene, close-up supervision from Bishops who live on the African continent.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Answers

I wish the church would take advantage of this unique opportunity to reduce the bench of Bishos and the Districts by not electing any except African Bishops, perhaps 4, and assigning the US Bishops to the districts vacated by retirement thereby reducing the overall number of bishops. I would continue this until the total active bishops were less than 10. What do you all think of reducing the bench of bishops?

Blessings,

Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Can somebody out there, who has good geographical knowledge of our present arrangement, come forward and propose new re-aligned districts, that will include Africa, do away with the Ecumenical Office and reduce the Episcopal Districts to say 18? Just to ignite the discussion.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Rev. Hanse, I was thinking of an arrangement to dissolve the 16th Episcopal District by attach each Caribbean island/South American country to the 13 different U. S. Episcopal Districts, attaching London-Holland with the 1st or 2nd District (since they indicated that they do not wish to be with an African District) and having 5 Episcopal Districts in Africa with different configurations. However, I am not so sure that this will work because eventually each African country and eventually each African tribe, I believe, will want a Bishop from their seector. Therefore, I can see problems ahead.

However, I do not think that reducing the nnumber of Episcopal Districts would be the answer; I think we need closer supervision but no more than 20 Episcopal Districts throughout the AME Church worldwide.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

It is strange that a submission like if an African/overseas Bishop does not perform well in their assigned districts (when elected), some steps will be taken. I have been around some time now, and traveled in some Episcopal Districts and have observed what is going going under the administrations of the U.S. Elected Bishops - and yet nothing has been said. Don't tell me that the Episcopal Committee of the General Conference must deal with them. EVERYBODY KNOW THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS CONTROLLED BY THE BISHOPS!!

Let's give (if elected) the overseas elected Bishops a chance to prove themselves.

I further also asked, whether there are plans to also elect General Officers from the overseas candidates? I would love to hear a few opinions.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001

Good point! Either the AME Church is an equal opportnuity or it is not. Praise the Lord. Somebody ought to say something.

Blessings

Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001

An excellant observation Lindsey! When we look outside the Continental United States we have the Caribbean, England, Bermuda, Canada and the Continent of Africa. Retiring from this bench are 2 from Bermuda (neither elected from Bermuda)and 1 from the 16th District.I believe the Church ought not do Africa any lip service in this next General Conference session as our Church bears this country proudly in it's name.If strong candidates are prepared to stand. They should be scrutinized carefully and be prepared to work in the Missionary areas.It is my belief that all candidates be prepared to share and support new initiatives to strengthen our Church both spiritually and financially.

I believe the Ecumenical post of Bishop should be scrapped. It is both unproductive and unnecessary.The position of Bishop is the level of Episcopal Honor.This should be demonstrated through service.

As one of the developers of the new General Conference approved Captive Insurance Company of the AME Church I can testify to the fine work and support of the entire Council of Bishops.As my associate and I have travelled to three meetings of the Bishop's Council (including the last meeting in California I have been reminded that the support I and my associate (Rev. Dr. Leonard Santucci)have received is indeed historic. This program moved from a proposal in February 2000 to Church Law at the General Conference to an incorporated Company in January this year and (God willing)a premium receiving institution before the end of this year. I can tell you (and it is in the minutes of the incorporation of the company) that noone, not one single soul gets any fees or gratuities for serving on the Board.We need Bishops that will work with this program (designed to generate historic revenue for the Church)and increase our work in the Mission field.My associate and I are from Bermuda and the Rev. Dr. Santucci has demonstrated both skills and determination in seeing this program into reality. How should the Church reward work of this nature when the Church becomes the beneficiary of millions of Dollars for Missions? There are others like Rev.Dr. Leonard Santucci who are not afraid of working for God and Church. Let us resolve to encourage those whom we find in our own portion of the vinyard. May God Bless You All Bro. Nalton Brangman

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001