Bishop D. G. K. Ming, Bishop of the First Episcopal District, AME Church (Northeast U. S.) sent his letter of resignation as Chairperson of the Committee on Finance and Statistics to the AME Church's General Board meeting in Los Angeles, CA this week. This was a noble gesture because if Bishop Ming could not perform, why should he continue to hold on to the position? However, his gesture would have been a bit nobler and honest had he also sent his letter of resignation as Bishop of the First Episcopal District to the Council of Bishops meeting at the same time. No Episcopal District should have a Bishop preside over it who cannot function and carry out the administrative and spiritual duties of such a high and lofty position. Often when such a vacuum is created, power seekers throughout the length and breadth of the District (and even the Connection) attempt to wield and usurp power and the Episcopal District is thrown into pandemonium.

Bishop Ming in his feeble state should have taken "high ground" and requested supernumerary status as an active Bishop until his mandatory retirement at the 2004 General Conference. But he has loved the power and money that goes along with the office for so long as an active, Presiding Bishop, why should we have expected him to do otherwise?

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Answers

Thanks for your insight; and I agree, the man never should have been elected a Bishop in the first place. And although we don't always get what we pay for, we certainly "pay for what we get."

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001