The headline on the linked webpage reads:

  Three women and two men are on slate

I don’t recognize any of the names.  Are there any Christians on the slate?

William, while this elf will be among the first to voice concerns over this slate of candidates (or at least 3 of them that I know something about), your comment above is not helpful. 

Please let’s focus here on sharing facts about the candidates and hard evidence about their beliefs and theology without getting into name-calling or really heavy sarcasm.

Imagine that!  Elected on November 10 and consecrated on February 2.  Let’s see,  that is not even 90 days.  Hmmmmm…...

If one were to scrutinize the (P)ECUSA bishops of Chicago over the years, examining their actions and opinions, one could construct a nice “morality tale” about “facilis descensus Averni” (the easy descent to Hell) by showing how “moderate” Anglo-Catholicism morphed into “Liberal Catholicism” into empty ritualism and then into complete modernism.  The first bishop, Philander Chase (1835-1852) was a moderately high-church Evangelical.  His successor, Henry Whitehouse (1852-1874) was a devotee of the Oxford Movement and Tractarianism, who so harassed Evangelicals in his diocese that a large number of them seceded to the Reformed Episcopal Church towards the end of his episcopate and that of his successor, William McLaren (1875-1905), who was more Anglo-Catholic still—as were Charles Anderson (1905-1930), Sheldon Griswold (1930), George Stewart (1930-1940) and Wallace Conkling (1941-1953).  Conkling’s successor, Gerald Burrill (1954-1971), who died only recently aged almost 100, was rather “liberalish” in his views, both as regards theology and matters such as divorce and remarriage.  A friend of mine, now a retired Catholic priest, but between 1954 and 1978 a Lutheran minister, went to see Bishop Burrill around 1955 about becoming an Episcopalian, but Burrill rapidly lost patience with my friend’s theological questions, replying to one of them with the words “we don’t think about the Creed, we just say it.”  James Montgomery (1971-1987) was a homosexual (as he himself admitted in retirement) who just couldn’t bring himself to ordain women, even though he didn’t oppose WO, but had one of his suffragan bishops “do it” and during his episcopate Chicago became a haven for antinomian (let the reader understand!) clergy of all sorts and all genders.  Frank Griswold (1987-1998), a modernist with a slightly “Catholic aroma” came next, and then William Persell (1998-present), a modernist also, but as far as I can see a colorless one without any “theological aroma.” It is a sad story, but so far as I can see either Tracy Lind or Margaret Rose seem to be the logical, and perhaps inevitable, next step on the downward staircase.  I hope that Cardinal George and his Orthodox counterparts will have discriminatingly “open arms” and be all things to all men that by all means they may save some.

POSTSCRIPT

There used to be a REC diocese seated in Chicago, a diocese that had a certain reputation for “high-church-ism” because it alone retained the use of surplices for its clergy and the “episcopal habit” for its bishop, when these had been given up everywhere else for the black “Geneva gown,” until it, too, was forced to give them up in the 1920s— but a glance at the entry for the REC in the 2000 *Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches* seems to indicate that that diocese no longer exists.  Perhaps it is due for a revival.

“I don’t recognize any of the names.  Are there any Christians on the slate?”

Tracy Lind (Dean of Cleveland) is a partnered lesbian; Margaret Rose was, as I recall, the disseminator of weird and pagan-inspired rituals around 2004 from the ECUSA “women’s office;” and I have a vague recollection of having read “gay-friendly” theological eructations from the two male candidates.  Who has the lowdown on Jane Gould?

Folks at Stand Firm are quite busy researching several of these candidates.  Here are some of the links they’ve pulled up.

For Tracey Lind:

Witness article by Lind+ “What Will We Have”

Lind’s Bio from Trinity Cathedral site

Interview with local Cleveland media

Church growth charts for Trinity Cathedral and her prior parish in Paterson, NJ:
http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_8282007125501PM.pdf
http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_828200710151PM.pdf

Her 2007 Annual Report on the State of the Cathedral

Will post links for other candidates separately

The only one of the candidates I know personally—albeit slightly—is the Rev. Jeffrey Lee.  I interviewed with him for an internship a year or so back (I ended up elsewhere) and he was one of the candidates in our recent diocesan search here in the Diocese of Olympia.

From what I know of him, I like him and I think he’d be a pretty good bishop; but I dare say he’s too far out on the “reappraiser” side for most of you.

For Margaret Rose:
1.several links re: her involvement in the Melnyks pagan liturgy scandal

Christianity Today article that started the whole flap

Old TitusOneNine links (see especially the second which is explicitly focused on Margaret Rose’s view of the whole situation)
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=3151
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=3154

2. Her involvement in Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice pro-choice march:
http://episcopalwomenscaucus.net/ruach/Summer2004_vol25_1/02March.html

Wow, and pro-abortion, too.  ECUSA: including all God’s people - except for the babies.

links for Timothy Safford

So far links to two of his sermons have been posted at SF:

On Radical Inclusivity

A sermon on Mark 2 (Jesus’ healing of the paralytic let down through the roof) which includes this line:

But Jesus is not forgiving sins the paralytic has committed, is he? No he is forgiving him the sins that those who blocked the door have put upon him, the sins of how he has been excluded because he is different for nothing he himself could control. In forgiving his sin, Jesus is taking away the sin of being different, strange, spare, and marvelously but uniquely different—for being simply the other that makes the dominant like me uncomfortable.

That’s it for the links posted over in the comment thread at SF as of this writing. 

What all can our readers here add to the discussion about the candidates and their beliefs?

Here’s the “sermons” page from St. Thomas, Medina (the Rev. Jeffrey D. Lee’s parish):

http://stthomasmedina.org/Sermons/Sermons.htm

Lee’s Opening the Prayer Book (The Church’s New Teaching Series, I believe) was a deeply disappointing book.

William Tighe wrote:
“There used to be a REC diocese seated in Chicago, a diocese that had a certain reputation for “high-church-ism” because it alone retained the use of surplices for its clergy and the “episcopal habit” for its bishop, when these had been given up everywhere else for the black “Geneva gown,” until it, too, was forced to give them up in the 1920s— but a glance at the entry for the REC in the 2000 *Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches* seems to indicate that that diocese no longer exists.  Perhaps it is due for a revival. “

The synod of Chicago of the Reformed Episcopal Chuch, which was the oldest jurisisdiction of the REC is now a part of the Diocese of Mid-America.  (From the REC Diocesan Website: “In 1996, the Special Jurisdiction merged with the oldest Diocese in the Reformed Episcopal Church (Synod of Chicago) and formed the Diocese of Mid-America. Since its beginnings, the Diocese has grown from two parishes to over forty.”  This jurisdiction did maintain more “high church” styles and that style is now moving back throughout the REC.  The “Geneva Gown” is decreasing and even Albs and Chausables are showing up.  The REC is no longer the “Presbyterians with a Prayerbook” it used to be.  We have been reclaiming our Anglican Heritage over the last 20 years or so and are actually in full communion with the Anglican Province of America which is quite “high church” in style but very “evangelical” in actions.

What a great list of candidates, although sadly, there is no person of color on it. Still, Chicago has sent a strong “heads up” to the HOB and the ABC at this very important time: TEC is not going to turn back the clock, not going to sanction bigotry, hatred and discrimination, and not going to cave in to the schismatics who justify exclusion with their…..in my opinion, very unchristian…..very flawed interpretation of the Bible. Congrats to all the candidates…….but truly, it’s time for our second gay bishop. Tracey Lind will make a great one!!!!!!!!

#14, There you are, as predictable as the sunrise…

Your comments are so clown-ish, so nonsensical, so absurd that it is almost impossible to believe you are a real person.  This has to be satire…

From what I see it’s not terribly fond of sanctioning Christianity, either.  I’m with Fred, way to go for not staying insdie the “very small box” of Christ!

#15, I’m starting to think Fred might be a “bot.”  Pre-programmed with lefty, universalist drivel.  I’m only half kidding, when I was in undergrad I knew several folks who could make one, and it’d only take one bored orthodox college kid to make one as a joke.  My old room mate made one to be a girl posting on a programing list serv in order to tease his buddies who asked for her number.

I was really quite surprised that Bonnie Perry of All Saints in Chicago was not on the list of bishops. I was in Chicago that last three years in seminary, so I became familiar with the Diocese. I know Perry has been in at least one other bishop election (San Francisco, I think). I know a lot of the liberal folk in Chicago were banking on her. Wonder what happened? I know she applied.

I just glanced through Lee’s sermon entitled the the Scapegoat. I imagined fom the title that it would be a popularization of the house theologian of the Aff. Cath’s, Rene Girard. It was.

Rolling Eyes, Fred is not only real but he has his own blog:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4882/#90202

[Note: Fred denies it later on in the comments, but . . . ]

Andrew 717, funny!  ; > )

Archer of the Forest, I think the radical revisionists—a la Fred, etc—learned that it isn’t a good idea to nominate multiple non-celibate homosexuals for one slate.  At that point you’ve divided the vote of radicals-who-wish-to-elect-another-non-celibate-homoesexual, and allowed the institutional progressives to hone in on their one “let’s drop anchor here and hope they’ll all fall asleep” institutional candidate.

No, they’ll need to combine their vote for the one candidate.

#17 - FYI - I’m not a “bot”. I’m a cradle Episcopalian, from a long line of Episcopalians and have many clergy in my family tree. I have a long-standing stake in this church. I cannot sit quietly by on the sidelines and watch it become something it has never been. I attend a very liberal parish and espouse a very post modern Christianity….one that has no tolerance for biblically sanctioned homophobia. I find it repugnant! I have tried to understand your point of view but the comments here are often mean spirited and ridiculous….like one earlier questioning whether the Chicago candidates are even Christian.  You may not like me and think my comments are drivel….but I am real. And there are many more like me out here who just don’t have the stomach for this kind of discourse. But, enough about me….....let’s talk about why Tracey Lind should be made a bishop.

#22
No Fred, it’s you and your ilk who have turned the Episcopal Church, which I loved dearly, into “something it has never been.”  It sure isn’t “The Republican Party at prayer,” any more, is it?

OK, Fred, why should Tracey Lind be made bishop?  You understand, I hope, that a bishop is supposed to be both a focus of unity with the Church as a whole and the chief guardian and teacher of the apostolic Faith (at least in Christian thought; maybe it’s different in Episcopalianism, or what you call “very post modern Christianity”).

Given that, why is it a good choice to elect somebody that will further fracture the church’s unity and who works hard to deconstruct the Faith most other (non-Episcopalian) bishops strive to pass on?

I really do appreciate the appeal to be generous spirited but it rather loses its power when the folks you disagree with are accused in the same breath of being bigoted homophobes.

What bothers me isn’t the homosexuality, Fred, but the post-modern “pluriform Truth” “Christ is A way, A truth”  type of “Christianity.”  The sort that calls pagan rites masquerading as Christian liturgy merely “embracing the Other” and something to be encouraged.  If Lind+ will stand against that foul wretchedness I could very well support her.

Fred,
I’m a cradle Episcopalian too!  My past is sprinkled with clergy also.  Strange though, the church I grew up in was part of the whole Church with beliefs founded in Scripture.  Like in the Catechism at the back of the prayerbook - even the 1979 one.  I’m assuming you’ll be posting your thoughts about Tracey on your blog.  Can’t wait to read them.

Fred attends a very liberal parish and claims that he is concerned that pecusa not become “something is has never been.”  I’m sure he doesn’t see the disconnect in his presentation.

Of the candidates, I only know of a few of them. Lind preached a sermon at Seabury about three years ago for Women’s Ordination remembrance day (or some such event). I remember she hacked off just about everybody including the feminists, which was a feat considering Seabury is not exactly, shall we say, a seat of conservative theology.

Though I never met him, I have read Opening the Prayer Book, which I had high hopes for but found too esoteric to be of much use to people interested in Anglican liturgy but not that familiar with it. Of course, the entire New Church Teaching Series is not all that helpful in actually teaching.

The others I don’t know. Although I must admit that the opening quote from Gould’s statement on the website about “(St.) Michael subdues the dragon allowing its evil to transform…” gave me pause. And Safford appears to have worked at All Saints-Pasadena, which I found to be a scary place. And Rose went to Harvard Divinity School, which makes EDS look moderate in comparison.

I am not really surprised at this slate. The Diocese of Chicago is a little on the nutty side these days. This was the opinion of most of my seminarian classmates as well. Good luck to them, I wish them all well. I can’t say I am thrilled by this slate, but knowing the Diocese of Chicago as I do (I went to a Diocesan convention a few years ago for kicks) this slate could have been a lot worse.

For Sarah (and “Rolling Eyes”)—OK ... I confess. I have finally been “led into temptation” and have succumbed to the lure of blogdom ... my humble offerings posted at “Jekyll & F.J. Hyde”

LOL—and a mere 14 days after you stated that you’d be talking about the David Anderson stuff on your blog, you start your own blog! 

Nice try at a recovery, though.  ; > )

First of all “Fred”, when reading this blog, you have to understand that if you do not agree with the majority opinion expressed here, if you do not see the world in terms of “Reappraisers” and “Reasserters”, if you do not believe that a person might disagree with you and still be a member of the Body of Christ, you are not a Christian.  It also helps, in fact, it may even mean that you are required to view everything in all of creation in terms of sexual orientation.  (This may be the one thing the Intergrity Crowd has in common with most of the commenters here.)  Take, for instance, Professor Tighe’s reductionistic assessment of the Diocese of Chicago based on his thumbnail sketch of its bishops.  What was important about Bp Burrill, for instance, was a commnet he made about the Creed.  Anyone who knew +GFB knew that he was a Madhatter, bouncing around like a terrier on speed, often saying things that were nonsensical and oxymoronic.  Don’t mention,though, that he served the diocese in an incredibly tumultuous time; that he and Bp Montgomery hosted a secret meeting between Mayor Richard J. Daley and Martin Luther King in the attempt to keep Chicago, described by the Kerner Commission as the most segregated major city in America, from exploding completely; or that he served during the period in which revision of the BCP was approved and canons about divorce and remarriage were passed by GC.  Instead, characterize his entire episcopate on that comment about the Creed.  And as for Bp Montgomery, do not mention that his stand and policy on Women’s Ordination reflected the virtual 50-50 split over the issue.  (I was raised in; went to seminary from; was ordained in and served in the Diocese of Chicago and I remember well how heated the elections for the Standing Committee were each year as the pro-WO and anti-WO forces tried to capture the crucial vote).  Let’s forget about his work to attempt to bring and hold together the various forces, factions,and parties of that diocese which comprises everything from the Illinois-Wisconsin border south practically to Peoria and from Lake Michigan out to the Mississippi River.  Instead, let’s focus on the fact that he has supposedly admitted that he is a homosexual (if that is true, it was well after his retirement and certainly not done as some grandstand attempt to get attention.  He was and is too much of gentleman for that!)  Yeah Fred, you’d better get with it.  Personally, I think the field is disappointing.  Jeff Lee is the one person I’d vote for if I was still canonically resident in Chicago.  The most curious element to me is that there is no one from Chicago in the field.  Is Chicago still hoping for a deliverer from without, or is this just a sign that despite all the efforts by previous bishops to bring some sense of solidarity among the clergy and parishes, folks are still so passive-aggressive that you have to be careful that the hand extended to pass the peace is not deflecting your attention from the knife being thrust in your back?

Well, Bill W, I don’t think that the frequent posturing here is really helped by a overcompensation in the opposite direction. That said, the nomination of Margaret Rose doesn’t strike me as a positive sign.  Maybe she’s just a sop thrown in to appease a faction, but I consider the theological nonsense that comes out of OWM to be a more serious threat that the current sexuality row.

Sarah—not sure what your point is and (at the risk of getting one of the elves to point out this is not pertinent to the posted article but commenting on comments!) I’ve had the blog since January but never got it “loaded” ... until I was, as I confessed “led into temptation”—in large part by the “why don’t you get your own” prods from titusoneniners. So thanks for getting me started. (And I may have something to say about David Anderson eventually—stay tuned!) Now I’m wondering what you REALLY think about Tracey Lind’s ACTUAL qualifications for Bishop of Chicago ... or is that too “off topic” for all the knee-jerk homophobia and feminist bashing of the day?

Well Fred, I’ll ask again.  As you seem to know about Lind+, what is her position on things other than homosexuality?  What is her stance on the uniqueness of Jesus, for example, or the Ressurection?  Can you point me to anything along those lines?  I ask in all good faith, I know nothing about her other than her sexual preference.

“I am a way, and a truth, and a life.  No man cometh to the Father except through someone.”

Will B, would you want your kid in a Scout troop whose Scoutmaster says that the Oath and the Law are just something we say?

Or on a ship whose captain says that his commissioning oath was just something he said?

Sorry to be such a newbie, but could someone point me to definitions of “reasserter” and “reappraiser” in the context in which they appear on this blog?  Appreciate it, thanks.

Will B, when you state:
“First of all “Fred”, when reading this blog, you have to understand that if you do not agree with the majority opinion expressed here, if you do not see the world in terms of “Reappraisers” and “Reasserters”, if you do not believe that a person might disagree with you and still be a member of the Body of Christ, you are not a Christian, ”  this is such tripe that it automatically invalidates anything else you had to say.

deleted per Kendall’s request

While taking the adult membership class at All Saints, Pasadena, where Tim Safford served as priest, he commented to the class that he had to cross his fingers each time he said the Creed on Sundays because he could not accept the Virgin Birth or physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If memory serves, Safford was baptized by George Regas….makes perfect sense.

#40 FrMojito writes:

...and makes this something of a girly blog on which only metro-sexuals carrying their little laptops in their man-purses are posting.

I disagree.

Alli B—That’s been my experience here. Tripe to you?  So be it.  Just try reading some of the judgmental attacks levelled here despite the best efforts of the Elves.
Ed the Roman—My point was that Gerald Francis Burrill was not known for his intellect.  After all, here’s a man who, in retirement, suffered a fractured vertebrae when he fell off his roof cleaning out his rain gutters in a hurricane!  He would often say things trying to sound “episcopal” which were meaningless..  He was the master of saying things that sounded innocuous at the time but later made you scratch your head as you pondered how anyone could be that stupid.  Listening to him preach was like undergoing a root canal done with hand tools but one could glean enough to tell that he did believe the Creed, that it wasn’t just something he said.  Burrill was like a drill sargeant who did not want you to stop and read the directions for your rifle but just to fire it, or like a coach who wanted you to run the play, not to stop and analyze where the line should go and where the running back should go. My guess is that what he probably meant is that when something becomes truly part of you, you do not have to stop and analyze it.  I hardly think he meant that it does not matter whether you believe the Creed.    But let’s not give Bp Burrill any benefit of the doubt and let’s ignore the years of his episcopate and ministry.  Instead, focus on that one comment and use that as the image that characterizes his ministry in order to prove a point of how the Diocese is going to hell in hand basket.  It is a disappointing list of candidates—the openly gay, the heterodox and heretical, and the just plain old wishy-washy.  The handwriting’s been on the wall with the various statements claiming solidarity with “gay brothers and sisters” over the coherence of the Anglican Communion.  One can only hope and pray that a nomination by petition might indicate a cleric who is firmly committed to the Christian faith and who would be able to lead that diocese in the world without becoming totally of the world.
Oh, and C. Wingate—as I think my entry comes the closest ot whomever you were addressing, it’s Will B, not Bill W.  That’s a whole different issue…

Fr. Mojito, civility is good for boys and girls.

Those readers who came to the StandFirm Atlanta get-together can say just how masculine I may be, but I was raised to behave. That a gentleman has manners. I lapse from time to time and behave boorishly, but that does not make it right.

Furthermore, this is not my blog. It is probably not your blog. It is owned and run by and on behalf of Kendall Harmon. Which means he and his appointees set the rules.

Back on topic, no one seems to have any information on Jane Gould. I visited her church’s website and her church seems to be receiving some diocesan money. Is it a mission or is it considered to be self-supporting?

I think it’s a strong list of candidates myself - and acknowledge I’m in the minority on this blog for sure.
It’s interesting to hear so many upset with Tracey Lind.  Those who have known the diocese of Chicago in its past are well aware that it has had two homosexual bishops (both remained unmarried and were progressive in their time, although somewhat high church too).  The problem, of course, is that they weren’t “out” but rather closeted.  But, this was no secret to the clergy (and many of the laity) of the diocese.  And, these bishops are still well regarded by even among the orthodox.  The problem apparently is that Tracey Lind is honest.  I “think” there’s some line in the Bible about bearing false witness - but of course, I’m a “reappraiser” so I shouldn’t be considered a Biblical expert.

Please DO stick to the topic.  Kendall has expressed frustration with the direction a number of comment threads have been taking in recent days.  This article is not about Fred or his blog, nor is it about the elves and our work on T19.  Thanks in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

#46: “I “think” there’s some line in the Bible about bearing false witness”

There’s also a line or two about homosexuality in the Bible.

Look, my comment at number 1 was admittedly flip, but that was the first thing that occurred to me when I read the headline.  I don’t care if a candidate for Bishop is male or female; Hebrew, English or African; Democrat, Republican or Independent; slave or free.  I just want to know that they are Christians.  Unfortunately, in the Episcopal Church of late, that’s not guaranteed.  We’ve got Bishops who deny the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, that Jesus was without sin, that he is the only way to Heaven, and so on.  We have priests who claim to be faithful Druids and Muslims. 

Like it or not, the Episcopal Brand no longer is an indicator of Christianity.  I know when I would go to interfaith functions I had to explain, yes, I’m an Episcopalian, but I’m also a Believer in Christ. 

In short, my aim wasn’t to give offense or question anyone’s faith—I just wanted to know if this slate confesses that Jesus is Lord and submits to His Lordship.

—-
Amen.  Thanks William.  Agree wholeheartedly.  And I actually understood what you meant in comment #1, and confess I didn’t like leaving the warning.  But when the very first comment in a thread is so flip, it can set a bad tone for all that follows, so it seemed necessary.  Thanks for this much more substantive comment.  Appreciate it. —elfgirl

#49 - Remember that there are some Christians who believe that even the most faithful, orthodox Episcopalians/Anglicans/Presbyterians/Methodists/Lutherans/etc. aren’t members of the true church.  It’s relative?
Side note - like the quote of Augustine of Hippo - today’s his day!

So… can anyone give a quick rundown on each of the four nominees?  This thread seems to have wondered all over.  Thanks…

Finally got a chance to start pulling up some old T19 articles to look for stuff on Jane Gould, who was also a candidate for the bishop search in the diocese of California (San Francisco) in Spring 2006

Here’s a profile her hometown newspaper wrote about her.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=12793

Here are materials from the archive of the Dio Cal Bishop Search website:

The Rev. Jane Gould is Rector of St. Stephens Church, Lynn, Massachusetts, a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-racial urban church. Ordained in Massachusetts in 1986, she has served urban and suburban parishes of the Diocese. In addition, she served 6 years as MITs Episcopal Chaplain and Coordinator of the Technology Forum. Local commitments include Diocesan Council, youth ministry, mission strategy work, several urban ministry committees, and numerous community boards. Nationally, she serves as deputy to General Convention and board member of Episcopal Urban Caucus. Thanks to Kellogg Foundation and Lilly Endowment grants, she has extensive international experience and leadership training.

With a Californian father and eastern mother, Jane is decidedly bi-coastal growing up in Washington D.C. and receiving BA and MA degrees from Stanford. Her curriculum vitae is here, and her personal statement is here. Her Essays can be found here in pdf and browser readable formats. [archived links below]

http://web.archive.org/web/20060406131228/bishopsearch.org/nominees.html

Her church’s website
http://ststephenslynn.org/home.html

Her CV from the Dio California search
http://web.archive.org/web/20060321160026/bishopsearch.org/Nominees/Gould_CV.pdf

Her statement from the California search
http://web.archive.org/web/20060321160027/bishopsearch.org/Nominees/Gould_f.html

Her essays from the Calif. search
http://web.archive.org/web/20060627214450/www.bishopsearch.org/Nominees/Gould_Essays.pdf

Ross, here’s the picture to which you should have linked:

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~teneyck/personal/hairstyling.html

It takes a man very secure in his masculinity to allow a pack of ten-year-old girls loose on his hair…

#51—Elizabeth Kaeton has a nice “rundown” over at “Telling Secrets”

A CORRECTION

I wish to correct the statement that I made in my comment #4 above, in regard to the ex-Lutheran-pastor-now-Catholic-priest friend of mine who visited Bishop Burrill of Chicago in 1955 with a view to becoming an Episcopalian.  As the friend in question e-mailed me this morning:

“He didn’t say anything about the Creed.  He said ‘We don’t have any doctrine’.”

“Listening to him preach was like undergoing a root canal done with hand tools but one could glean enough to tell that he did believe the Creed, that it wasn’t just something he said. “

“He didn’t say anything about the Creed.  He said ‘We don’t have any doctrine’.”

So Bishop Burrill himself believed the Creed, but held that in the Episcopal Church it didn’t matter whether anybody else did.  Got it.