I got to hear the candidates at a forum last night. If I’d been a delegate I would’ve voted for either Canon Neal Michell or Leander Harding. Canon Lambert, I’m guessing, was probably Bishop Stanton’s first choice.
I’m glad that Canon Michell was not elected as he is a candidate for bishop of Texas the election for which is May 24 in Houston. I intend to vote for him at that election.
We were fortunate to be presented with such an awesome array of talented, Godly people from which to choose. It was like going to a banquet and being told you can only have one dish. I know those who were not selected in this election will be heard from again in future slates for Bishop openings.
I know that if Dio Texas selects Neal Michell they will be getting someone we really hate to see go, but who is very deserving of the honor, and we will be happy for him. He has a heart for missions and has laid the groundwork the next several years of mission development in DioDallas.
[i] This elf apologizes to Smuggs for deleting too quickly and not checking earlier comments. Comments on the election for the Diocese of Texas are off topic. [/i]
Apology accepted, thanks. To be fair, though, you should also delete all comments following #1. Otherwise, it looks like my comment was deleted because I was opposed to seeing Neal elected (which isn’t the case).
Elves, THIS IS ABOUT DALLAS!!!
Ok, that said. I am so happy to see that this election went as it should have. When one is chosen as Canon to the ordinary of a Diocese, it should be assumed that you are the “heir to the throne”. This allows for maximum continuity in the Diocese in question.
As I have mentioned elsewhere (I cannot remember if it was on another thread on T19 or over on VirtueOnline) I really think that there should usually be ONE candidate for Bishop (or in extreme cases, two). The diocesan convention can either say “YES” or tell the nominating committee to “go back to the drawing board.” When Judas was being replaced AS AN APOSTLE there were only two candidates!!
Well, nothing too bright in this, but it could have been much worse – we could have chosen Leander Harding. Canon Lambert seems to be basically a “good guy,” even if we mostly fall at opposite ends of the Current Unpleasantness. Our delegation, along with all the moderates, voted for David Holland throughout.
Yes we could have done a lot worse with David Holland thank you. As far as being “heir to the throne”, what a bunch of nonsense. The Canon to the Ordinary has specific tasks to accomplish and he is not a bishop in waiting. If so, than the Church falls prey to the Peter Principle like everyone else.
So Planonian, what scared you about Dr. Harding; being grounded in the Scriptures? If so, that is scary, and true!
I am fully aware of the role of a Bishop Suffragan and made no comments about that position being an “Heir to the Throne.”
As far a Harding goes, well… I’m glad we chose someone for the position who is at least nominally Episcopalian (and Lambert, while we disagree on many things, certainly meets that criteria). Canon Lambert is also able to maintain at least a somewhat respectful demeanor with all the Episcopalians in the diocese, not just with those who’s views he favors.
And no, “scared” wouldn’t be the word I’d pick to describe my feelings about Harding being elected Suffragan. I won’t go in to any, further description so as to practice what I’m preaching above 😉
I got to hear the candidates at a forum last night. If I’d been a delegate I would’ve voted for either Canon Neal Michell or Leander Harding. Canon Lambert, I’m guessing, was probably Bishop Stanton’s first choice.
I’m glad that Canon Michell was not elected as he is a candidate for bishop of Texas the election for which is May 24 in Houston. I intend to vote for him at that election.
We were fortunate to be presented with such an awesome array of talented, Godly people from which to choose. It was like going to a banquet and being told you can only have one dish. I know those who were not selected in this election will be heard from again in future slates for Bishop openings.
I know that if Dio Texas selects Neal Michell they will be getting someone we really hate to see go, but who is very deserving of the honor, and we will be happy for him. He has a heart for missions and has laid the groundwork the next several years of mission development in DioDallas.
Marie at Rez
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
.
I sincerely hope that Canon Michell will be elected as the Ordinary in Texas.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Piling on Phil’s comment, Neal is a missional powerhouse. If you are in Texas, Neal is your man.
[i] Comment about another election deleted as off topic. [/i]
[i] This elf apologizes to Smuggs for deleting too quickly and not checking earlier comments. Comments on the election for the Diocese of Texas are off topic. [/i]
Apology accepted, thanks. To be fair, though, you should also delete all comments following #1. Otherwise, it looks like my comment was deleted because I was opposed to seeing Neal elected (which isn’t the case).
[i] You’ve saved me the delete time with your explanation. Thank you. [/i]
Elves, THIS IS ABOUT DALLAS!!!
Ok, that said. I am so happy to see that this election went as it should have. When one is chosen as Canon to the ordinary of a Diocese, it should be assumed that you are the “heir to the throne”. This allows for maximum continuity in the Diocese in question.
As I have mentioned elsewhere (I cannot remember if it was on another thread on T19 or over on VirtueOnline) I really think that there should usually be ONE candidate for Bishop (or in extreme cases, two). The diocesan convention can either say “YES” or tell the nominating committee to “go back to the drawing board.” When Judas was being replaced AS AN APOSTLE there were only two candidates!!
Well, nothing too bright in this, but it could have been much worse – we could have chosen Leander Harding. Canon Lambert seems to be basically a “good guy,” even if we mostly fall at opposite ends of the Current Unpleasantness. Our delegation, along with all the moderates, voted for David Holland throughout.
So it’s status quo for Dallas…
Yes we could have done a lot worse with David Holland thank you. As far as being “heir to the throne”, what a bunch of nonsense. The Canon to the Ordinary has specific tasks to accomplish and he is not a bishop in waiting. If so, than the Church falls prey to the Peter Principle like everyone else.
So Planonian, what scared you about Dr. Harding; being grounded in the Scriptures? If so, that is scary, and true!
I am fully aware of the role of a Bishop Suffragan and made no comments about that position being an “Heir to the Throne.”
As far a Harding goes, well… I’m glad we chose someone for the position who is at least nominally Episcopalian (and Lambert, while we disagree on many things, certainly meets that criteria). Canon Lambert is also able to maintain at least a somewhat respectful demeanor with all the Episcopalians in the diocese, not just with those who’s views he favors.
And no, “scared” wouldn’t be the word I’d pick to describe my feelings about Harding being elected Suffragan. I won’t go in to any, further description so as to practice what I’m preaching above 😉