Perhaps if a Bishop were to live in a modest house, drive a modest car, and carry himself like a servant rather than a master perhaps he could lead us to places we would never go otherwise.
Perhaps.
But you do realize that ‘the bishop’, especially of a large diocese (like London), cannot ‘just’ leave that big old palatial mansion without having to do an awful lot of work about it. He himself, remember, does not ‘own’ that mansion.
Nor does he necessarily ‘own’ the car, etc.
We live not in a vacuum but as repositors, as well as depositors, of what went before us and will go on after us.
This is not to be mean, persnickety, judgmental etc. but. . .
Let us be totally honest. If–if–a given bishop (God bless them) somehow did manage to pull off the above, there would be those who would (and rightly so) feel that said bishop was not only somehow ‘more’ righteous in ‘appearance’ but in actuality. We’ll call him “Bishop Bob”. So Bishop Bob lives very simply and the people say, “Bishop Bob is just like one of us, not flashy, very ‘Christ like’.”
However, next diocese over is Bishop Bill. Bishop Bill lives in the mansion and drives the more expensive car. Bishop Bill hears people say, “Why can’t Bishop Bill be like Bob? He thinks he is 'better than us”. . .(even though Bishop Bill thinks nothing of the sort).
Thing is, suddenly there is a big famine or natural disaster in both places. The poor are hungry, cold, and homeless. Bishop Bob is also hungry, cold, and homeless.
Bishop Bill, OTOH, has his mansion, where he can now fit in quite a few homeless people (and does). There is a large pantry so Bishop Bill can feed quite a few people (and does). Bishop Bill can raise funds on the parish investments etc. because he is their trustee (and does).
Suddenly, Bishop Bill does not seem so bad. Turns out that when the chips were down, he had something concrete to offer.
It is one thing to have a genuine call to voluntary poverty. But (as has been pointed out). . .diocesean bishops are not bound to this, and given the circumstances of most Western dioceses (I again point out that the mansions are
not owned by the bishops themselves!) and their appurtenances, most bishops could not ‘scale down’ to whatever level the ‘church police’ (and I’m not pointing a finger at anybody) decide represents “appropriate” ‘Christ like behavior’.
I personally think that bishops have a tough enough time trying to be both leader and servant. Look at how many souls they are responsible for–and then look at the diametically opposite expectations most of their flock seem to hold for them! On the one hand, they are to be faithful in upholding doctrine–on the other, half the people disagree with the other half on what the doctrine is. They are supposed to be examples of Christ like living–but half the people disagree with the other half on exactly how Christ lived. . .was he ‘turn the other cheek’, let-people decide, God is love, vegetarian pacifist ’ or was he “admonish the sinner, repent and believe, prayer, fasting and alms soldier in a holy war?”
Really, you cannot please all the people all the time. I think we should give the bishop the benefit of the doubt. He may be ‘wrong’ but how can ‘we’ know–we don’t know his heart, and we don’t know what God has told him to do.
I bet many priests dream of becoming a bishop. Both do a good job (vocation) though.
!