Election update here
The various persons nominated for the position of Bishop of Edmonton have their cv's and responses to the questions for the candidates available. You can download a pdf by clicking on the link after each name. The diocesan page with all this info and more is here.
The Rev. Wendy Ainsworth here
The Very Rev. Dr. Jane Alexander here
The Rt. Rev. David Ashdown here
The Ven. Edward King here
The Rev. Darcey Lazerte here
The Rev. Dr. Mervyn Mercer here
The Very Rev. Peter Wall here
While these pieces of information are helpful, they are by no means exhaustive. There are no doubt things which delegates might wish to know which have not been asked of the candidates, for a variety of reasons.
The final step in the Search Committee nomination process is the determination of the nature and form of the information which should be made available to Synod Members concerning each nominee.
This aspect of the election process usually causes Members of Synod significant frustration. Members of Synod called upon to elect a bishop frequently complain that the information which they are given about the candidates is insufficient.
GUIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF A BISHOP; pdf here 9.e page 15
Originally prepared in May 1999 by
Brian Burrows, Provincial Chancellor
Revised in August 2007 by
David Jones, Provincial Chancellor
"Search for a Bishop", subtitled a "Resource Paper Published by the Diocese of Edmonton Executive Council" tells us that
The election of the next Bishop of Edmonton has much to do with you. He or she will be your spiritual overseer. The more informed you are:
- the closer your mind and spirit will be to the mind and spirit of God as revealed in scripture, and given witness in the tradition of the Church,
- the more discerning you will be in the crucial choice.
So what does all this mean? Well, let's be Anglican Christians. We pray, individually and corporately. We discern what the role of a bishop is, from Scripture and tradition. We use our minds and our brains to digest the information and inform our potential decisions. While we are encouraged to refrain from "politicking", we still have a responsibility to use our powers of discernment, submitted to the guidance of the Spirit, and informed by our reading and reflection.
Let's jump straight to the nitty gritty. Many (but not all) delegates will be keenly interested in the candidates' understanding of the same sex issues, and their opinions about the decisions made (or not made) at the last General Synod. Will that be a deciding factor for some delegates? Quite possibly. But let me state this: I believe it would be a grave mistake for either side of the issue to vote in a candidate based simply on their take on that one issue. I do not mean that it is not a very important issue. It is. But to vote for a candidate based only on one criterion, would not, I believe, serve the Church. Whether or not the candidates have made their take on this issue clear in their statements I do not know. I have not read through the information yet. (I figured that would be something I would do this week when I have a chunk of time for uninterrupted reading. This generally takes place between 2 am and 5 am, except when the baby needs changing...) Personally, I feel completely free to email a candidate and respectfully ask a question if I am unclear about something and I believe I need more information to make a faithful and informed decision.
Be that as it may, I had another thought about how to approach this election. What if I tried to discern not what kind of a bishop would be most helpful to me, but what kind of a bishop would be most helpful to you? And what if I considered not what kind of a bishop would best support my style of ministry, but what kind of bishop would best uphold yours? And what if I considered not what kind of bishop would be most beneficial to the growth of my parish, but what kind of bishop would be most beneficial to the growth of your parish? Just a thought...
Lastly, while there are going to be strongly held opinions on the virtues and qualifications of each candidate, each one is to be treated as a brother/sister in Christ. I will suggest that if anyone wishes to comment on this, that they refrain from publicly comparing what they see as the various merits of the candidates. At a certain point in time I will offer my own take on some of the questions posed to the candidates, particularly regarding the resolutions from General Synod. All of the candidates would desire our prayers. And if we are faithful in our prayer and discernment, then we can trust God's guidance over us.
Click here for the 2008 Episcopal Election post series
the kind of bishop would be the best for me, as someone who is curious about the anglican church, but ambigious, would be someone who is willing to discuss publically, the tradition, history and culture of the orginazation, to be a public voice for the ambiguity and difficulty the church is going thru.
sometimes leadership is saying i dont know where i am going, but i will make sure you are fed, and clothed, and loved while we wander together...
Posted by: Anthony | February 09, 2008 at 11:10 PM
'Not all who wander are lost"... Which is to say, there is what some have liked to call a "voyage of discovery", in which one sets out hoping to strike gold at some point. And then there is the intentional pilgrimage, in which one knows at the outset where one is intended to end up, if even by a roundabout route.
Interesting take on leadership. I would add that the guidelines for episcopacy, as enumerated in Scripture and echoed in our diocesan search documents, tell us that while a bishop is not expected to "have every answer", there are some things about which a bishop cannot be ambiguous. I would posit the creeds as a start.
Posted by: joseph | February 10, 2008 at 08:09 PM
but the creeds, like the scripture are documents that are alive, and subject to revelation?
you are forgetting the importance of hats.
Posted by: Anthony | February 10, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I would rather posit that the bishop is subject to revelation...
Posted by: joseph | February 10, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Here's how I select who to vote for: I have the computer assign a random number between -13 and 13 to each letter of the alphabet, work out a numeric value for each candidates name, and normalize it by the number of characters in the name. Then I flip a coin to choose if I vote for the most positive or most negative candidate.
It's as good an approach as any I've heard of...
Posted by: Matt | February 11, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Personally, I prefer that all important decisions be settled by a google fight
Posted by: joseph | February 11, 2008 at 09:59 PM