Why were two of our Bishops located?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : A.M.E. Today Discussion : One Thread

Dear everyone:

I know this question is probably the last thing on everyone's mind, but why were two of our Bishop's located? I know the AME Discipline states that a minister/Bishop/Elder can either choose to be located or they can be "located" against their will. Who are the two located Bishops and why were they located. Due to family illness, I was unable to attend the 2000 General Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio, so I would like to get the facts from this board as opposed to "opinions". Also, I was wondering is the church responsible for the "located" Bishops full salary during location or "retirement" salary. Thanks in advance for the facts.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001


The located bishops (hmmm, I still don't understand the origin of that term) are Bishop Vernon Byre, who requested this status due to health.

The other is Bishop Brookins. During the GenCon, there seemed to have been some discussion/controversy over whether he was being retired or located as both terms were tossed around. From what I heard, he was not happy about being located [still receives full salary, but has no district). That still leaves us with potentially 7 new bishops to elect in 2004, assuming there are no additional vacancies due to location or death. Seems like a good time to re-visit the re-appropriation of districts for downsizing the overall administration of the AME Church

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Thanks Bro. Clark. If anyone else has insights please feel free to add them.! Thanks.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

The term "located" refers I belive to an itinerant elder (including Bishops) giving up traveling orders becoming a member of a local church (AMEC Disipline 2000 ed. p136-7).

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ