Yesterday I wrote that a number of people whom I respect had publicly voiced their support for the Rev. Dan Martins, bishop elect of the Diocese of Springfield. I said that were I a member of Standing I could imagine voting to confirm his election except for one thing.
The Rev. Martins has said he has no firm opinion on whether bishops have the authority to lead their dioceses out of the Church. The idea that he thinks that this issue is somehow open to debate—that the authority of the General Convention is open to question—alarms me. It seems to me a notion invented out of whole cloth by poorly qualified tailors to suit the political needs of a dissatisfied minority. Simply put, I am not sure how the church can consent to the election of a bishop who won’t say what powers he believes he is entitled to wield.
However, I noted that it was entirely possible that voting in the Rev. Martins’ favor could be good for the Church, and said that I would "happily surrender" my objection "if someone could explain to me why a person who is never going to embrace the notion of diocesan autonomy (i. e., me) should support a bishop who has not made up his mind about this issue."
So far, no takers. I understand that people are busy, but I'd really appreciate some correspondence on this, especially from people who are unimpressed by the notion of diocesan autonomy but have publicly supported the Rev. Martins.