The Diocese of Northern Michigan has decided that it will choose from multiple nominees when it next elects a bishop.
The diocese’s 114th annual convention, meeting on Oct. 30-31 in Escanaba, Mich., approved a new election process that allows for nominees by petition and will stress regular communication with the wider Episcopal Church.
[blockquote] We never imagined that what we know to be true and right for us would cause such a reaction from the wider church. [/blockquote] I.e., since we know what we know, it’s simply a matter of letting y’all southerners know about our own truth and rightness.
But it does sound like they have even conceded that they might need a two-way communication process with the wider church. It’s too bad that their concept of wider church does not extend offshore to the majority views of the members of the Anglican Communion.
More than one candidate for bishop?! What a novel idea. That would make it a real election rather than a selection.
Evan Miller,
That was my first thought as well. How novel for them to include other candidates. I wonder if they will have a token orthodox candidate. Just for fun.
I find two of the statements in this article to be disturbing. One is:
[blockquote]We never imagined that what we know to be true and right for us would cause such a reaction from the wider church.[/blockquote]
The level of self absorption and moral relativism in this comment gives me pause to reflect.
The other comment that catches my attention immediately precedes the first:
[blockquote]We weren’t ready for trial by internet. [/blockquote]
I wonder if that means that the next slate of candidates will make sure all their sermons and writings will be deleted from the internet or erased from existence.
Candidates for Bishop of Upper Michigan:
1. The Dalai Lama
2. The Panchen Lama
3. The Genpo Lama
4. The Imam of Marquette
“We love the Episcopal Church, and we love being the Episcopal Church in the Upper Peninsula, even if we do it a little differently.â€
You can say that again:
http://politicspeaksvalleys.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/mear-dalai-lama-close-up.jpg
Nominations from the floor:
5. Rev. Sun Myung Moon
6. Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif
and, last but not least,
7. [url=http://www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/152498.shtml]Rev. Peter Morales[/url]
I wonder if that means that the next slate of candidates will make sure all their sermons and writings will be deleted from the internet or erased from existence.
Probably. Do they think it would have been better if no one had seen what the bishop nominee had written? If so, shouldn’t they be asking themselves some questions about that?
How thin is the air in Michigan? ;>)
How thick is the self-absorbtion factor of the standing committee? ;>0
Intercessor
It sounds like the diocese plans on viewing everything that happened in terms of process, all of which will be fixed by having multiple candidates. The problem had nothing to do with electing an apostate priest to the post of bishop.
I wonder, however, if they are right in a way. Suppose there HADN’T been any proceedural irregularities. Suppose it had been a very “fair” election with 3-4 candidates, etc — fair election construed in a secular fashion — and then they had chosen a Buddhist or Druid or whatever. I am guessing they are correct in believing that they would have gotten the necessary consents. Maybe not a huge majority but certainly well over 50%.
I base that not only on the theological complexion of TEC, but also on the GROUNDS for refusal offered by bishops and standing committees. Very few stated clearly that Genpo was apostate and therefore they could not approve his election — period. Many only mentioned process issues. Those that did mention theology again typically reduced it to process — KTF’s crime was using UNAPPROVED liturgies. If he had followed the proper process of allowing General Convention to approve some heretical rite, then it would have been fine. Even those that mentioned theological concerns purely, they were typically couched as one “concern” of several that affected the committe or bishop’s vote of No — a concern but not a dealbreaker in itself fullstop.
Am I right in believing that the next heretic they elect will certainly get the necessary consents?
No doubt abouit it, Jon, they’ve learned their lesson. The next heretic they elect will be one that TEC can get behind solidly.
I am disappointed in the level of discourse here, my brothers and sisters. We are talking about our fellow Christians in Northern Michigan, whether we agree with their choices or not. They have expended much time, energy, and yes, prayer in attempting to elect a bishop in whom they can repose their trust, and they are about to do it again. Their choice may not be your choice (whether approved, at length, or not), but you do not know that yet, and you lose nothing by being gentle, at a minimum.
Reid–The tone of the discousre may be a bit rough, but the point is the people in N. Michigan do not have the right to elect whomever they want. A bishop is a bishop of the whole church. He must, therefore be acceptable to the whole church. It is true that their choice might not be our choice, but there are basic fundamentals which the diocese not only ignored but flaunted. That is why we have the process we do. I daresay had Gene Robinson gone through the same approval process he would never have been approved by a majority of the SC’s. That is one of many reasons why I don’t buy into the notion of democratic revelation by the General Convention espoused by the PB et. al.
Hello Reid! Thanks for posting.
I looked over my comments again. In light of what you said I would change one thing, which is my last sentence. I’d change it to read:
“Am I right in believing that , if they elect a heretic again, the person they elect will certainly get the necessary consents?”
You’re right. Hope is good. It is very possible that they might this time (for any number of reasons) choose a priest who believes the Creeds.
Aside from that, after thinking hard, I don’t think that my language or tone was otherwise rough. Words like heretic and apostate are descriptive if you use them right — and they should be used carefully and judiciously, not just any time we have a strong disagreement with a fellow Christian. Apostate for example should mean a person who at one time went public with his firm avowal of the Nicene Creed — and who since has steadfastly repudiated subtantial parts of it. Apostates can be very kind nice people — and very sincere and principled as well. My parents, for example, are apostate — and I love them very much.