I serve as the canon to the ordinary in one of the smaller dioceses along the East Coast. Since I've come on board, I've noticed a significant amount of stress which occurs not only in daily work in my diocese, but in almost all diocesan offices throughout the Episcopal Church.

There is a myriad of reasons for this increase in stress: a growing number of expectations about what a diocesan office can provide, a decreasing amount of money upon which to operate, declining memberships in congregations, an increasing clergy shortage, etc.

All of the above are issues with which we are only too familiar. Based on my observations, however, I wonder if another, deeper, issue is at stake. I wonder if the office of bishop itself as it's currently configured has not become out of date and in need of being re-defined. Let me unpack what I mean.

First, it's been my experience that priests (and to a lesser extent deacons) have less need for "godly advice" as they go about the business of parochial ministry. Even newly ordained clergy seek answers to issues which confront them from priestly colleagues rather than from the office of the episcopate. Indeed, more and more time is being spent by bishops penalizing clergy for inappropriate behavior rather than counseling clergy about matters involving pastoral oversight and care. It's almost as if the role of the bishop has become that of a "sheriff" who rides herd over wayward priests and deacons.

Second, the ceremonial functions of a bishop are becoming less and less necessary. In the earliest days of Christianity, a bishop both baptized and confirmed at the same time. It became apparent as Christianity grew that priests could perform the rite of baptism and leave confirmation to those occasions when a bishop was present. Nowadays, however, the compelling reasons for having a bishop even so much as confirm people is rapidly being taken away: (a) in the Episcopal Church membership in a congregation is constituted by baptism, regular attendance and a stated financial pledge (there is no need to be confirmed); (b) confirmation is seen more and more as an adult commitment ... which gives rise to the question as to why a parish priest cannot perform essentially the same function as a bishop through the prayer book ritual known as "A Form of Commitment to Christian Service." From all of this, then, it seems fair to conclude that an important part of the ceremonial functions of a bishop are outliving their necessity in our present day.

Third, more and more the living out of the gospel seems to be occurring at the local (i.e. congregational) level rather than on the diocesan or national church level. Dioceses and the national church now deal almost exclusively with programmatic assistance, leaving members of congregations to feed the hungry, establish thrift shops, and provide shelter to the homeless. Although the perception is that the expectations placed upon diocesan offices are now too numerous, the truth may be precisely the opposite. Dioceses no longer need to have large staffs to minister to the needs of the poor. Perhaps, then, bishops need to see themselves more as ones who meet specific needs that congregations (and the clergy within those congregations) require. A bishop might be more needed in clergy deployment or as a trained consultant for congregational development than as a ceremonial "CEO." Indeed, this might result in discovering that we actually need fewer diocesan bishops rather than more.

All of this leads me to a fourth point. If many of the historic functions of the episcopate have now been superseded, are we in the Episcopal Church "setting up" bishops as targets to whom we can express our displeasure? We all know from life's experiences that respect for another is more difficult to garner when that person has no direct relationship with us. In a sense, then, are our bishops now sitting ducks waiting to be blamed for the church's problems when they frequently have nothing to do with the problems in the first place? My sense is that unless we reconstitute the functions of those in the office of bishop, the episcopate may be counterproductive to the furtherance of the ministry of all believers.

None of this is to say that I have a clear notion of where diocesan offices - and the bishops who work there -should be headed. But I do know that unless we begin to ask ourselves foundational questions such as these, we will continue to swim into a rapidly increasing whirlpool. My plea is that we commence the dialogue, rooted in prayer and with a deep and abiding sense of openness to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

The Rev. Canon John P. Boucher is the canon to the ordinary in the Diocese of Easton.