Recently the disbanded AJC met in South Africa and came up with resolutions.Chief among the issues discussed was the election of Bishops.

It is proposed that four persons be elected WHO LIVE AND WORK IN AFRICA, that they be elected during the election of bishops at the site of the General Conference, and that they be regarded as General Superintendents.

I wish to seek clarification from our Episcopal father Bishop Richardson if the above statement is correctly worded!Those who attended have said that The AJC agreed unanimously to make a recomendation to the upcoming General Conference for the election of four AFRICANS born in Africa who live either in Africa or in the Oversees districts and that this has been left out in the report.

If it is then we are heading for a big big problem. For instance, the 17th Episcopal District has three endorsed candidates all of whom were born/raised on the African continent.However, one of the aspiring candidates namely DOES NOT LIVE AND WORK IN AFRICA but He LIVES AND WORKS IN THE US.

Did the AJC leave out brehtren who have been serving overseas from contesting to serve in their mother land districts of Africa? If the AJC OMITTED that, then the General Conference 2004 will have no variety of African born aspiring candidates to choose from and i personally find the AJC resolution DISCRIMINATORY and the playing field is not firm and even.

I strongly feel that the church has invested alot in our brothers that LIVE AND WORK IN THE US and this is an opportunity for the continent of African to benefit form their experience.What do you think?

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

Answers

I agree wholeheartedly with you Rev. Mwandu. If we have clergy who are currently in the US but wish to serve in Africa by all means we should allow them to serve.

Please explain how the office of General Superintendents relates to the office of Bishop.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

So the AJC has decided that we have two (2) classes of bishops. As a people, we who have been discriminated against are now engaging in the practice of marginalizine thase of our motherland. How sad. Jesus must be weeping for the AME Church.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

Looks like the AJC will be following in the footsteps of other infamous compromises, e.g., The Connecticut Compromise, Three-Fifths Compromise, Hayes-Tilden Compromise. I'm very concerned about the duties and responsibilites for General Superintendent. QED

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

Sad to say Prof.Bill I believe you are absolutely right.This is not a good sign

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

The General Superintendent title is just a means of not paying the African Bishops the same as the American Bishops. The Bishops from Africa ought to have all the rights and privileges as the American Bishops including assignments in the US. It is a shame for us to engage in discrimination on the basis of national orgin. Those who are elected "Superintendents" will eventually sue the AME Church for discrimnation.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

Actually, I thought it was a little different. To wit, "General Superintendency" implied that an African elected bishop would have the privilege of serving the church anywhere. General Superintendency is what the current bisops experience. The concern was that if we elected African bishops, they would only get to serve Africa (ala Bishop Senatle), and that was descriminatory.

Nevertheless, I agree with Rev. Paris on the compesnation issue. It has been suggested that each bishop should be paid in the currency of the land that they serve, which would be a major disparity.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

Good suggestion Jerryl. We will use Republic of Texas dollars for Bishop Young!

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2004

I THINK THE TITTLE GENERAL SUPRENTADENT SHOULD BE OUTLINED WELL, SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHETHER ARE THEY THE SAME AS BISHOP OR NOT I THINK IT MUST BE ONCE CALLED THE BISHOP.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2004