Posted on 02/26/2006 3:37:55 PM PST by sionnsar
The Diocese of Albany will elect a bishop coadjutor on March 25, and Albany Via Media's website has claimed that the process "severely limits the roles of the clergy and laity," producing "no candidates who are of a more moderate, Episcopal positioning."
For a superior way of nominating a bishop, Albany Via Media cites the work of what it calls a "real diocese": California. The Diocese of California will elect the successor to Bishop William Swing on May 6, and comments already have ensued at titusonenine.
Albany Via Media vice president Robert Dodd wrote early on that Albany's "fast track" would not allow time for electors to meet the candidates in person. (As Via Media's site now acknowledges, Albany's standing committee somehow found time to schedule [PDF] two "meet the candidates" days).
One of Dodd's more peculiar arguments is that declining to designate a nominating committee "severely limits the roles of the clergy and laity."
In November 2003 I wrote a cover story for Episcopal Life about how dioceses nominate their bishops. That story mentioned how the dioceses of Texas and West Texas have relied on processes similar to the one now being used by Albany. While the majority of dioceses prefer nominating committees, there's nothing inherently non-Episcopal or unrepresentative about the choices of Texas, West Texas, and Albany.
When it elected a coadjutor in 2003, West Texas chose from 12 "potential nominees." The electing convention for Albany will choose from 11 nominees. Members of the Diocese of California will choose from five.
Via Media also is clearly concerned that no candidates to its liking are among the 11 nominees.
In a letter posted on Via Media's website, Richard Angelo mocks the nomination of Tory Baucum, a associate professor at Asbury Theological Seminary and an associate international minister for Alpha International and Holy Trinity Brompton:
I am curious as to why we need to cross the ocean (not [that] Dr Baucum is a resident of England) to find a Bishop and in addition why we see no candidates who are of a more moderate, Episcopal positioning.
Certainly, we may possibly know the answer to these questions. The Diocese just can't seem to find someone in the "Episcopal" Church that suits [it]. Why not get Pat Robertson on the list also? (just joking but the way we are going who knows.)
Evangelicals, meanwhile, point out that they sometimes do not enjoy even a token presence on some diocesan slates. "In a conservative diocese, groups often work against a person perceived to be too liberal," Kevin Martin wrote in his critique of episcopal searches. "(In liberal dioceses, conservatives never make it out of a search committee anyway.)"
In Iowa, Kansas, Milwaukee, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Oregon, conservative evangelicals would not have found committee-nominated candidates who clearly stood with them on the most contentious issues of gay ordination or blessing same-sex unions. As with female nominees, though, committee members said they believed they kept their choices fair.
"I don't think we were looking for a liberal or a conservative candidate. We were looking for candidates who would lead us in conversation about the issues facing the church," said [Deacon Warren] Frelund of Iowa. The Rev. David P. Jones of Concord, N.H. [chairman of the nominating committee that proposed Gene Robinson], self-identifies as an evangelical, but said he believes the committee he helped lead presented a slate that represented the identity of the diocese.
"Why choose a severe evangelical for the slate? That would be clergy abuse," he said.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Albany is in fact serious about finding out what the candidates think about major theological and leadership issues. The California questions are touchy-feely gobbledegook, which will be answered with more of the same.
One wonders if Albany has used these questions before. "Typewritten"? (Yes, we still have two typewriters in the house, in storage -- and far more printers than that...)
The Royal was my mom's at college in the 1940s. It still works fine - finding ribbons however is a bit of a problem.
What I would really like is one of the tiny Olympia portables that my German teacher had . . . with a German keyboard.
Aggh! I have dealt with German computer keyboards, and found them really difficult for typing English e-mail. Maybe I just needed more practice...
Could the keyboard have been one of those awful Dvorak keyboards? I can't STAND them - don't care how efficient they're supposed to be, I learned on QWERTY and I'm at almost 100 wpm, I'm not going to start over and I'm not sure my fingers can relearn a new system . . .
It's not the "funny letters", it's the layout. Totally unlike an English keyboard; I recall hunting hard for some essential character, such as @ or /.
And the Z and Y are swapped.
I never used @ because my teacher's portable was WAY before the internet, and actually before computers - at least anything smaller or more complicated than a PDP-8 . . .
Must have been the @ character then. The key sequence was not obvious, I probably copied the character from somewhere, thè wáy Î dïd thiß. Swapped letters were less of a problem: I was never a touch-typist, more of an advanced hunt-n-pecker, but moving the keys around did slow me down a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.