The Very Reverend John B. Burwell
Rector, Church of the Holy Cross
Sullivan’s Island, Daniel Island
The Reverend Canon Dr. Neal O. Michell
Canon to the Ordinary,
Episcopal Diocese of Dallas
The Reverend David F. O. Thompson
Rector, St. Bartholomew’s Church
North Augusta, South Carolina
The Reverend W. Andrew Waldo
Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church
Excelsior, Minnesota
The Reverend Jerre Stockton Williams, Jr.
St. Peter’s Episcopal Church
Kerrville, Texas
Looks like some good people on there.
This is a very decent list. But if I were I betting man (which I am not), I would bet that neither of the two men who really, really, really should be bishops in TEC – John Burwell and Neal Michell – will get it. Those two candidates are just too good; they’re not mediocre enough. How many times have I seen Neal Michell on a slate for bishop? Every time I thought, wow, this guy really should be a bishop. And every time some one else got it.
The committee must have worked very hard. The Lord be with them and the diocese.
Good for the Diocese of Upper South Carolina for allowing question 3 to be posed without any filters. Three of the candidates clearly believe that sexuality is not something one votes on at General Convention, but coheres with much larger Communion and Catholic teaching. This means of course that the way the votes go will say everything about what the present Diocese of Upper SC believes on this matter. Burwell, Michell, and Williams answer the question in the context of the wider Communion and the BCP. The other two speak of letting the decisions of General Convention be the guide.
#4, And they know what GC will decide.
In re: My comments on this morning’s posting on the advertisement in the Charleston paper. If John Burwell is elected, DSC won’t need to plant a church up here; they’ll be planting a whole new diocese! My first blush take is that Calvin is right, however, because our clergy is MUCH more liberal than the laity. But three of the five choices would be very good for us. There will probably be at least one petition candidate, I suspect, but I don’t think that will be much of a factor. Pray for DUSC. This has been a good day.
Prayers ascend for the people of Upper South Carolina as they choose a new chief pastor for their diocese. But really, five (presumably straight) white men? Pity they couldn’t come up with a more diverse slate.
Well, done. Knowing one, personally, I’d have to say he shines on this list: JBB – known locally, affectionately, as John Burwell.
Prayers are with you John, Sylvia – and Holy Cross.
Steve Wood
Unlike Susan Russell, I hope the committee based their slate of nominees on the candidates’ orthodoxy, not their contribution to diversity. Then again, diversity *is* the orthodoxy of much of TEC these days…
Although Neal certainly has his fans, that this is his umteenth time to run for a bishop’s position may work against him. I just got off the phone with a cleric friend and shared with him the names (one of the nominees is a common friend of ours). When I mentioned Neal’s name, he said, “Again?”
Over the 220 plus years of episcopal elections in TECUSA, some very good bishops were in several elections prior; some very bad bishops were elected straight-away in the first ballot.
I don’t mind making this judgment, that the overall value of your comment to this thread stands right down there with Susan’s (who conveniently forgets the scenario prior to the nomination and election of her straight white bishop).
[Comment deleted by Elf]
#7 Ditto for Jesus’ selection of the 12 apostles…12 straight Jewish men..no diversity…what was he thinking?
Funny, I seem to remember that our Nominating Committee would not accept J.B as a candidate.. Presumably because he was so valuable at Sullivans Island, with the other churches in the plans.. It was said they didn’t want to lose him… Well, well, well, we might just lose him after all…
Goodness.
Grandmother in SC
Vintner, that’s absurd. Obviously, in a church of nothing like ECUSA, good men like Neal Michell are going to find fewer and fewer dioceses that would want him to be a bishop. After all, when it comes right down to it, he can’t point to a track record of questioning core Christian doctrine and he doesn’t place sexual libertinism at the center of his religious experience. Contrary to your remark, the commentary this all makes is on the institution, not Michell.
An interesting unexceptionable [if we were in a normal healthy and fair church] slate. It is nice to see that a diocese can actually come up with a broad range . . . nice not to see the usual “five raving revisionists” and hear claims that that is the best that can be done. Some revisionists, some traditionalists, all seem like nice people. I can’t help but recall a range of recent bishop nominee slates . . . NW Texas springs to mind, and various others.
But boy . . . to see all the trolls come out makes me realize that there must be much much more to see in this slate than I had first thought. When was the last time we got a driveby troll on a bishop nominee slate? And look — got a jealous troll or too with one of the candidates . . . who would have thought it?
This is going to be a little more interesting to watch than I had thought.
I agree, Phil, that such a mindset reflects the institution more than the person so I don’t know why you say it’s absurd. At the “Meet and Greet” that our diocese had several years back, one of our candidates had been in several elections. She was questioned about that by one of the people in the room and bristled at the thought that someone would even CONSIDER that she was not discerning a call to the episcopacy. The point is that it doesn’t matter if she was or wasn’t. The point is that her prior candidacies was a factor which some voting delegates were going to take into consideration and some will take it negatively. That’s all I’m saying here. I’m NOT saying that Neal isn’t discerning a call. I AM saying that his prior nominations will be taken into consideration by some of the voting delegates and clergy and not necessarily in a positive way.
Does anyone here think Michell or Burwell could get the necessary consents? Considering how much difficulty +Lawrence had, I just can’t see it happening.
Andrew Waldo is fairly middle of the road, though his liturgical taste runs from bad to horrid, IMHO.
Chris,
You might as well add Williams to your list for the same reason you imply.
And, yes, I for one happen to think any one of them (any of the five for that matter) would receive enough consent letters, and perhaps the very reason being the observation made by Sarah at the beginning of her comment #16. But then I thought Mark Lawrence would eventually get enough consents, too. I don’t think they’d get 75, but at least they’d get enough.
And despite Sarah’s comment (which I’m not suggesting was pejorative at all), in today’s TEC environment I believe both Neal M and John B would make exceptional bishops. Beyond that, I think Burwell would be just the right person for UpperSC and should be elected (and then hire Neal).
In my view Rob is right. The anti-consent logic turned on intimations that one intended to leave. A new logic would have to emerge (not that it couldn’t). A candidate like John Burwell is going nowhere, as his focus is mission and witness. If this kind of candidate (including Williams and Michell) is turned down because they are in line with the church’s wider view on sex, then we would be in a state of open warfare, with moderates likely outraged by the treatment. It would expose liberalism as fascism. So the real issue here is whether the three could get elected in the first place. God bless USC in this important process.
In our fallen human nature, we make declarations, i.e. this or that person is to much a conservative/traditional to receive consent. I am guilty of this also…but let us be clear…to see this from only our fallen human perspective is to deny God is in control.
Time to step back and pray for God’s will to be done…and trust.
While we may not see a way forward, God’s vision is infinite and ours is finite….
Lord bless the Diocese of Upper SC with the person you have already chosen to be their Bishop for the challenges that are to come.
Amen.
Refreshing, we can actually talk more about their theology/plans than the other thing.
RE: “And despite Sarah’s comment (which I’m not suggesting was pejorative at all) . . . ”
Thanks. I wasn’t trying to be pejorative — it looks like a nice, general, broad-based slate with most folks represented — I used the word “unexceptionable” not “unexceptional” [just in case anyone misread] to mean “not very objectionable” [except of course by the usual suspects which actually is a compliment].
But again, judging by the yips and outraged squeals and hisses above, I need to look a little closer to see if there is more to it than “that’s nice, dear.”
I have been thinking about Susan R’s comment since last night. Here’s the deal, and it is very sad. I think the committee was unable to find a woman between 45 and 55 who fit the diocesan assessment. The responses from our assessment show our laity are not very different from DSC–conservative/orthodox. If I am correct, this is a very sad commenatry on who we are sending to seminary. And Rob–Boy do I hope you are right!
Sarah,
I’m interested to know, other than Susan Russell’s comment, what “yips and outraged squeals and hisses” are you referring to? I suppose Vinter said something rough, but I didn’t get to read it because it was deleated. It appears that every comment (again, aside from Susan’s and Vinter’s) is basically the same: it’s a good, broad slate, and two or three of the candidates have gotten strong endorsements. I myself lamented that good candidates often aren’t elected and there were some echoes.
This has been a pretty uneventful thread. Can you share where the “yips,” etc are? Based on these “yips” you infer in both yout posts that this will be an election to watch. I agree it’s one to watch, but not because of an unprecedented amount of “hisses” in the blogosphere.
Calvin . . . I hadn’t realized that one of the squeals had been deleted.
; > )
But again . . . not many bishop slates gain many squeals and hisses from the rabid. I’m just interested that this one did, however few . . .
I think I’ll just leave it at that.
This appears to be a fairly well-balanced slate. There are candidates in the center, to the right of center and a couple of screaming revisionists thrown in for comic relief.
God help the DUSC.
Liberalism is fascism, of course, when it has the power. This diocese of my confirmation can only go up from profound waffling immediately heretofore. Even a straightforward revisionist would be a blessed relief. One could then ascertain a direction against which one could march or with which one could march. Galling to sit the fence as hard as it has been sat – especially when it’s barbed wire.