Springfield narrows field to three

The Diocese of Springfield had narrowed their field of nominees to three with balloting held on Saturday, August 7. Although they allowed for four nominees, a deadlock over a fourth candidate occurred. Neither Beth Fain+ nor Shawn Denney+ could obtain the necessary votes from the other order. Laity and clergy split and the convention voted to go with three.

The balloting is here:

After the eighth ballot, a motion was made to suspend the Rules of Order for the Nominating Synod and to nominate three candidates instead of four. The motion passed by the required two-thirds majority of the Clergy and Lay delegates voting. Therefore, the final three candidates for the Election of a Bishop are: The Rev. Matthew A. Gunter (Diocese of Chicago); The Rev. Daniel H. Martins (Diocese of Northern Indiana); and The Rev. Canon E. Mark Stevenson (Diocese of Louisiana).

A previous Lead story is here

Comments (7)

I wish they had decided to take 5 instead of 3 - letting the 2 who could not get enough votes in the other order to be nominated. Maybe I think this because then there would be a woman on the slate.

Ann, could be I suppose but I hope they simply wanted to limit the ballots at the election. This has been easily one of the more divided diocese around so the fact that they got a 2/3 super majority is arguably the good news.

Jim Beyer (added by ed.)

Um, one name (of the three selected to continue) above stands out . . . problematically.

Could we be looking at another ?Mark Lawrence (South Carolina) situation, if he were elected? [I know, I know: that's what the confirmation process is for.]

Prayers for Springfield!

JC Fisher

Yes, Dr Fisher, that name jumped off the page for me as well. But he could have left long ago with his friends. I fear that should he be elected he will stick around to be a pain in the assets similar to +Dallas, + Central Florida, etc. Sabbotage from within. He does it well.

JC, like David, I don't think Fr. Martins has thoughts about leaving the Episcopal Church. Rather, he has long claimed that there was a place for loyal opposition - even opposition as profound as his - and that he was in it.

Remember, too, that the last bishop of Springfield said the he did not believe that a diocese could leave the Episcopal Church. I wonder whether there would be as much support for such "all but gone" separation in that diocese as in South Carolina.

Marshall Scott

As one who was there, I overheard one of my more conservative colleagues say to his wife, "At least we kept the woman off the ballot." Ann, as usual hit the nail on the head.

¨Yes, Dr Fisher, that name jumped off the page for me as well. But he could have left long ago with his friends. I fear that should he be elected he will stick around to be a pain in the assets similar to +Dallas, + Central Florida, etc. Sabbotage from within. He does it well.¨Däˈvēd

That´s exactly what I think...lot´s of behind-the-scene intrigue and grandstanding at The Diocese of San Joaquin and beyond/after...now you see him now you don´t!

Terribly troublesome and troubling and hardly a solid way to settle ¨previous controversies¨ with an expert in creating more ¨entangling alliances.¨

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space