Apparently, Springfield has decided to adopt a syncretic approach to the nomination and election of its bishop. Given some of the nominees, is Springfield signaling it is ready to slide out of the orthodox TEC camp?
Anyone know how the process in Springfield works? Is this “nominating convention” the same as an electing convention, or do they further reduce the number of candidates and elect them from there?
There will be a Nominating Convention in August. At that time, all fifteen of the candidates will be on the ballot (subject to the results of background checks, which are currently ongoing), and the Diocesan Synod, voting by orders, will reduce the number of candidates to four.
Thereafter, we will have the “walkabout” process with the four nominated candidates. There will then follow an Electing Synod in September, at which time the Ordinary will be elected from the four nominated candidates.
Dan (#1) given others of the names it is hopeful that they will stay in the orthodox camp, and perhaps reclaim its full Anglo-catholic background. When Bishop Beckwith (who I do like very much and have had preach in my parish) was elected there was much sadness among traditionalist that he decided to ordain women to the priesthood. Now as he has stood still doctrinally since then, the Episcopal Church has continued to mark further to the left, making him one of the few more traditionally minded people standing in ECUSA.
Thanks for the clarification. Congratulations, Springfield has a tremendous field to choose from. I’m amazed at some of the stellar candidates like Dr. Harding of TSM, Dr. Munday of Nashotah, and Fr. Dan Martins of Covenant, and more. The fact that so many fine orthodox men were willing to stand for election in a little diocese like yours in Springfield is remarkable.
My only fear is the danger of splitting the conservative vote in September, when a moderate in conservative’s clothing like Fr. Brian Cox might come out on top. But this is truly an outstanding group of candidates. Bravo!
A lot of these names I know nothing about. I’m pretty out of the loop, anyway. But a few names I do recognize. I see some who I think would make good, godly bishops. Springfield is one of the few dioceses left where they’d even be considered for nomination.
I’m surprised that they published a list of semifinalists for their search. If for no other reason than, for some, making your candidacy public your current position, particularly if you’re not on the finalist list. Why do they do it this way?
#9, I would imagine that this was done because the synod is the body that is going to narrow the group from semifinalist to finalist and all 15 are going to be on the ballot. It’s impossible to keep that a secret – the names were going to come out anyway.
Apparently, Springfield has decided to adopt a syncretic approach to the nomination and election of its bishop. Given some of the nominees, is Springfield signaling it is ready to slide out of the orthodox TEC camp?
Rugby is a contact sport with teams of fifteen players… Is the number of candidates significant?
Anyone know how the process in Springfield works? Is this “nominating convention” the same as an electing convention, or do they further reduce the number of candidates and elect them from there?
There will be a Nominating Convention in August. At that time, all fifteen of the candidates will be on the ballot (subject to the results of background checks, which are currently ongoing), and the Diocesan Synod, voting by orders, will reduce the number of candidates to four.
Thereafter, we will have the “walkabout” process with the four nominated candidates. There will then follow an Electing Synod in September, at which time the Ordinary will be elected from the four nominated candidates.
Dan (#1) given others of the names it is hopeful that they will stay in the orthodox camp, and perhaps reclaim its full Anglo-catholic background. When Bishop Beckwith (who I do like very much and have had preach in my parish) was elected there was much sadness among traditionalist that he decided to ordain women to the priesthood. Now as he has stood still doctrinally since then, the Episcopal Church has continued to mark further to the left, making him one of the few more traditionally minded people standing in ECUSA.
Kevin (#4),
Thanks for the clarification. Congratulations, Springfield has a tremendous field to choose from. I’m amazed at some of the stellar candidates like Dr. Harding of TSM, Dr. Munday of Nashotah, and Fr. Dan Martins of Covenant, and more. The fact that so many fine orthodox men were willing to stand for election in a little diocese like yours in Springfield is remarkable.
My only fear is the danger of splitting the conservative vote in September, when a moderate in conservative’s clothing like Fr. Brian Cox might come out on top. But this is truly an outstanding group of candidates. Bravo!
David Handy+
A lot of these names I know nothing about. I’m pretty out of the loop, anyway. But a few names I do recognize. I see some who I think would make good, godly bishops. Springfield is one of the few dioceses left where they’d even be considered for nomination.
B’shalom,
Chuck Bradshaw
Hulls Cove, Maine
Father (#6):
To mis-quote Daniel Webster’s statement in his argument to the US Supreme Court in the Dartmouth College Case (1819):
It is a small diocese, true, Sir–but there are those who love it.
Kevin Babb
I’m surprised that they published a list of semifinalists for their search. If for no other reason than, for some, making your candidacy public your current position, particularly if you’re not on the finalist list. Why do they do it this way?
#9, I would imagine that this was done because the synod is the body that is going to narrow the group from semifinalist to finalist and all 15 are going to be on the ballot. It’s impossible to keep that a secret – the names were going to come out anyway.