Michell+ is probably the best bishop which the Diocese of Tennessee never had, due to some nasty internal politics. Still, the phrase “Bishop Harding” has a nice ring to it.
Looks like all of the nominees are at least Bible Believing Christians. (This is not a given these days in TEC/ECUSA).
But again, some committee saw a need to have too many candidates. During the “first Episcopal Election” (to replace Judas) they only needed two “candidates.” There should be a committee chosen (which there seems to have been) and they should choose AT MOST two candidates (when a parish calls a rector, there is only one candidate that the vestry announces and that seems to work). If a committee is properly constituted, then they should be able to come up with A SINGLE CANDIDATE for the convention to either approve or disapprove.
But, if they want to have a “real election” then more power to them.
Phil,
Not a thing with being white and male. I am one of those myself… It is just that there are more than just white and male priests around the church, and one would think that in a suffragan election, that would be an important place to put some diversity. I think of the suffragan election in the diocese of Texas. Two Latinos and two women and a white guy or two in that election. The age thing isn’t surprising I suppose.
Remember, in the old days the only African American bishops were suffragans. That’s the reason for my sadness.
It also looks like those who made the slate were concerned with getting those who are working on the diocesan staff on the slate since two canons names appear on the slate.
RE:”I am sad to see everyone on the slate is white, male (with the exception of one), and baby boomers.”
Perhaps the differences amongst the candidates are not so obvious as the color of their skin [to some] and their gender. Perhaps there are multitudinous diversities that are only apparent to those who look beyond surface distinctions.
#6 Sarah,
Great one! 🙂
Is color, gender, or culture a qualifer? I’d like to think not! I would be quite upset if I were to be put on a candiacy list just because I was female, or of color. I would like to think that they saw my qualifications of my resume or portfolio or what ever one calls it for a position as a rector, bishop, bishop suffragon, etc… My record, beliefs, accomplishments that the Lord had blessed me with, etc…should be the only thing that gets me on a candiacy list, not myu gender or my color.
Oops! Forgot to add:
My prayers for the candiates and for the diocese of Dallas in their discernment in choosing their next Bishop Suffragan. May the Lord guide and direct them.
Paxetbonum,
The nominations came from the diocese, not from a committee. [url=http://www.dallasbishop.info/]Here[/url] are the rules to nominate someone. So, if someone on the Bishop’s staff was nominated it was because there was enough support for that person to get three clergy and three lay from two different geographical reasons to go through the trouble to fill out the form.
Electing a Bishop Suffragan is not an “important place to put some diversity.” It is a time to listen to the Holy Spirit and discern who is being called to be “one with the Apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel” and “to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of hte Church.” It is not time to look on outward appearances (like man does) but on the heart (as God does).
Phil,
You wrote “It is a time to listen to the Holy Spirit and discern who is being called to be “one with the Apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel†and “to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.†”
Amen, Amen. I agree with this 100%.
I also think it is a time to ask ourselves if there are qualified candidates who will propclaim the resurrection, interpret the Gospel, guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church who represent an under represented group in the diocese out of our desire to grow the church and support the church’s mission.
I have no idea about the Diocese of Dallas and its work with Latinos, but I would think the presence of a Latino on the slate would be a welcome addition. I am aware that Texas has a significant number of Latinos.
There are plenty of qualified, “orthodox”, interesting, thoughtful, and dynamic Latinos out there around TEC. (The two on the slate in the Diocese of Texas would be a good start.) But perhaps like the Diocese of West Texas, Dallas works primarily from within it’s diocesan geographical boundaries, rather searching more widely. I simply don’t know.
I would suggest that the outward appearance can be a part of a mission strategy. Demographically, numbers of Latinos are growing and numbers of white folks are shrinking. I would suggest that if we are serious about increasing our numbers and the mission of the church, we need to get serious about bringing the good news of God in Christ to all people.
As Phil pointed out “The nominations came from the diocese, not from a committee.”
There are specificed rules for nominating a candidate. Phil pointed you to them. He further
pointed out that it takes three clergy and three lay from two different geographical reagions of the diocese to go to the trouble to fill out the form to get a person put on the slate. Nobody is discriminating against any race, gender, or ethnic group in this process.
[b]So enough already with the discrimination chatter.[/b]
If you have something to say about any of the candidates, I’d like to hear it. I’m one of the delegates, and while I’ve met some of the candidates in meetings around the diocese, others, I have not.
I believe that there is a lot of truth in what Sarah said in post #6. That being said, in response to Marie at Rez, this bishop process and every bishop voting process is affected by discrimination, some that is not malicious and some which is very malicious ~ some which is based on theological grounds and some which is groundless. I am grateful to see that the diocese saw fit to nominate people from WITHIN her diocese. I am always saddened when a diocese refuses to nominate one of their own, opting always to go outside the borders, electing a person whose warts we don’t know as opposed to a person whose warts we do. When a diocese does that, the message it sends to its clergy is, “We don’t believe that any of you are acceptable to be our bishop” ~ a dangerous and destructive message if ever there was one.
Paxetbonum has a very valid point. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in TX and thus I also wonder why a Hispanic wasn’t on the ballot. It may be that Hispanic ministry is not a priority of this diocese at this point. In that case, the issue may not matter. But if it does, and if there are Hispanics in Dallas that are looking skeptically at this ballot, they may be thinking: “Is the diocese saying that there was no Hispanic who is qualified to be our next Suffragan bishop?”
The Latino ministry is still developing in Dallas.
We have started Instituto Teológico San Mateo to
develop more Latino leaders/deacons. Currently there are seven churches (out of 74) in the Diocese that have a Latino service/congregation, including my own, Resurrection, which just started late last year.
It takes a while for new leaders to deveop the visibility in the diocese to be nominated by the necessary number of clergy and lay people from
the three necessary regions. Right now, most Latino leaders seem to be concentrating on growing their congregations, as they should. I
am sure that we shall see Latinos nominated for
more positions as there numbers and visibility on committees etc. increase. Affirmative action or the
sake of affirmative action does not do anyone justice. (I speak as a retired female software engineer who had to fight the mis-conception of having been hired because I was a woman instead of because I was the honor graduate of my class.)
[blockquote] Affirmative action for the sake of affirmative action does not do anyone justice.[/blockquote]
Amen to that, Marie, and thank you for writing and for providing background. What you wrote from an insider’s point of view, especially as one coming from a parish that has a Latino service or congregation, is helpful. I completely agree with your statement above although I do fear that “anti-affirmative action” has become the new mantra of some who would normally be sexists or racists. That is, they use their opinion of not being in favor of affirmative action to shield their racist or sexist behavior.
Thus although I agree with Phil that a suffragan bishop is not an important place to [b]put[/b] some diversity, it certainly would behoove a diocese to be [b]open[/b] to diversity and to be able to prove that they actively considered it before offering up an all white, all male, slate (I’m not talking specifically about the Dallas election since there is a woman on the ballot ~ I’m speaking in general terms here). Too many elections (like NH, for instance, IMHO) have committees that offer one nominee that the committee wants and the rest of the candidates are “canon fodder.” To me, the sin is even more magnified when one of the canon fodder candidates is a minority ~ a sin of tokenism, if you will.
Marie at Rez, I am one of those recalcitrant traditionalist Anglicans who, like my bishop, +John-David Schofield, and +Jack Iker, maintain that women cannot serve as priests.
[i] A reminder that this is not a discussion of women’s ordination. Additional comments about WO will be edited. [/i]
Michell+ is probably the best bishop which the Diocese of Tennessee never had, due to some nasty internal politics. Still, the phrase “Bishop Harding” has a nice ring to it.
Looks like all of the nominees are at least Bible Believing Christians. (This is not a given these days in TEC/ECUSA).
But again, some committee saw a need to have too many candidates. During the “first Episcopal Election” (to replace Judas) they only needed two “candidates.” There should be a committee chosen (which there seems to have been) and they should choose AT MOST two candidates (when a parish calls a rector, there is only one candidate that the vestry announces and that seems to work). If a committee is properly constituted, then they should be able to come up with A SINGLE CANDIDATE for the convention to either approve or disapprove.
But, if they want to have a “real election” then more power to them.
I am sad to see everyone on the slate is white, male (with the exception of one), and baby boomers.
Paxetbonum (#3)
Is there something wrong with white males?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil,
Not a thing with being white and male. I am one of those myself… It is just that there are more than just white and male priests around the church, and one would think that in a suffragan election, that would be an important place to put some diversity. I think of the suffragan election in the diocese of Texas. Two Latinos and two women and a white guy or two in that election. The age thing isn’t surprising I suppose.
Remember, in the old days the only African American bishops were suffragans. That’s the reason for my sadness.
It also looks like those who made the slate were concerned with getting those who are working on the diocesan staff on the slate since two canons names appear on the slate.
RE:”I am sad to see everyone on the slate is white, male (with the exception of one), and baby boomers.”
Perhaps the differences amongst the candidates are not so obvious as the color of their skin [to some] and their gender. Perhaps there are multitudinous diversities that are only apparent to those who look beyond surface distinctions.
#6 Sarah,
Great one! 🙂
Is color, gender, or culture a qualifer? I’d like to think not! I would be quite upset if I were to be put on a candiacy list just because I was female, or of color. I would like to think that they saw my qualifications of my resume or portfolio or what ever one calls it for a position as a rector, bishop, bishop suffragon, etc… My record, beliefs, accomplishments that the Lord had blessed me with, etc…should be the only thing that gets me on a candiacy list, not myu gender or my color.
Oops! Forgot to add:
My prayers for the candiates and for the diocese of Dallas in their discernment in choosing their next Bishop Suffragan. May the Lord guide and direct them.
Paxetbonum,
The nominations came from the diocese, not from a committee. [url=http://www.dallasbishop.info/]Here[/url] are the rules to nominate someone. So, if someone on the Bishop’s staff was nominated it was because there was enough support for that person to get three clergy and three lay from two different geographical reasons to go through the trouble to fill out the form.
Electing a Bishop Suffragan is not an “important place to put some diversity.” It is a time to listen to the Holy Spirit and discern who is being called to be “one with the Apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel” and “to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of hte Church.” It is not time to look on outward appearances (like man does) but on the heart (as God does).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil,
You wrote “It is a time to listen to the Holy Spirit and discern who is being called to be “one with the Apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel†and “to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.†”
Amen, Amen. I agree with this 100%.
I also think it is a time to ask ourselves if there are qualified candidates who will propclaim the resurrection, interpret the Gospel, guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church who represent an under represented group in the diocese out of our desire to grow the church and support the church’s mission.
I have no idea about the Diocese of Dallas and its work with Latinos, but I would think the presence of a Latino on the slate would be a welcome addition. I am aware that Texas has a significant number of Latinos.
There are plenty of qualified, “orthodox”, interesting, thoughtful, and dynamic Latinos out there around TEC. (The two on the slate in the Diocese of Texas would be a good start.) But perhaps like the Diocese of West Texas, Dallas works primarily from within it’s diocesan geographical boundaries, rather searching more widely. I simply don’t know.
I would suggest that the outward appearance can be a part of a mission strategy. Demographically, numbers of Latinos are growing and numbers of white folks are shrinking. I would suggest that if we are serious about increasing our numbers and the mission of the church, we need to get serious about bringing the good news of God in Christ to all people.
Too bad they aren’t ALL male! I don’t believe that women should be ordained to the priesthood.
As Phil pointed out “The nominations came from the diocese, not from a committee.”
There are specificed rules for nominating a candidate. Phil pointed you to them. He further
pointed out that it takes three clergy and three lay from two different geographical reagions of the diocese to go to the trouble to fill out the form to get a person put on the slate. Nobody is discriminating against any race, gender, or ethnic group in this process.
[b]So enough already with the discrimination chatter.[/b]
If you have something to say about any of the candidates, I’d like to hear it. I’m one of the delegates, and while I’ve met some of the candidates in meetings around the diocese, others, I have not.
Marie at Rez
I believe that there is a lot of truth in what Sarah said in post #6. That being said, in response to Marie at Rez, this bishop process and every bishop voting process is affected by discrimination, some that is not malicious and some which is very malicious ~ some which is based on theological grounds and some which is groundless. I am grateful to see that the diocese saw fit to nominate people from WITHIN her diocese. I am always saddened when a diocese refuses to nominate one of their own, opting always to go outside the borders, electing a person whose warts we don’t know as opposed to a person whose warts we do. When a diocese does that, the message it sends to its clergy is, “We don’t believe that any of you are acceptable to be our bishop” ~ a dangerous and destructive message if ever there was one.
Paxetbonum has a very valid point. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in TX and thus I also wonder why a Hispanic wasn’t on the ballot. It may be that Hispanic ministry is not a priority of this diocese at this point. In that case, the issue may not matter. But if it does, and if there are Hispanics in Dallas that are looking skeptically at this ballot, they may be thinking: “Is the diocese saying that there was no Hispanic who is qualified to be our next Suffragan bishop?”
The Latino ministry is still developing in Dallas.
We have started Instituto Teológico San Mateo to
develop more Latino leaders/deacons. Currently there are seven churches (out of 74) in the Diocese that have a Latino service/congregation, including my own, Resurrection, which just started late last year.
It takes a while for new leaders to deveop the visibility in the diocese to be nominated by the necessary number of clergy and lay people from
the three necessary regions. Right now, most Latino leaders seem to be concentrating on growing their congregations, as they should. I
am sure that we shall see Latinos nominated for
more positions as there numbers and visibility on committees etc. increase. Affirmative action or the
sake of affirmative action does not do anyone justice. (I speak as a retired female software engineer who had to fight the mis-conception of having been hired because I was a woman instead of because I was the honor graduate of my class.)
Marie at Rez
[blockquote] Affirmative action for the sake of affirmative action does not do anyone justice.[/blockquote]
Amen to that, Marie, and thank you for writing and for providing background. What you wrote from an insider’s point of view, especially as one coming from a parish that has a Latino service or congregation, is helpful. I completely agree with your statement above although I do fear that “anti-affirmative action” has become the new mantra of some who would normally be sexists or racists. That is, they use their opinion of not being in favor of affirmative action to shield their racist or sexist behavior.
Thus although I agree with Phil that a suffragan bishop is not an important place to [b]put[/b] some diversity, it certainly would behoove a diocese to be [b]open[/b] to diversity and to be able to prove that they actively considered it before offering up an all white, all male, slate (I’m not talking specifically about the Dallas election since there is a woman on the ballot ~ I’m speaking in general terms here). Too many elections (like NH, for instance, IMHO) have committees that offer one nominee that the committee wants and the rest of the candidates are “canon fodder.” To me, the sin is even more magnified when one of the canon fodder candidates is a minority ~ a sin of tokenism, if you will.
Marie at Rez, I am one of those recalcitrant traditionalist Anglicans who, like my bishop, +John-David Schofield, and +Jack Iker, maintain that women cannot serve as priests.
[i] A reminder that this is not a discussion of women’s ordination. Additional comments about WO will be edited. [/i]