Comments: where to find election results

Having delayed elections of bishops all around, in many different locations, a number of dioceses are now in the process of choosing new bishops, including of course the most media-magneted California.

For all electors, in California, Northern California, Tennessee, and Eastern Michigan, and for others also in discernment of new bishops, let us pray:

O God, whose Son Jesus is the good shepherd of your people; Grant that when we hear his voice we may know him who calls us each by name, and follow where he leads; who, with you and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Posted by drdanfee at Saturday, 6 May 2006 at 4:05pm BST

Wow, Mark Andrus. I hadn't heard his name at all in the run-up to the election. Is there a reader from the diocese who can share stories of how he came to take the lead?

Posted by Anna at Saturday, 6 May 2006 at 9:54pm BST

Apparently the Diocese of California has NOT chosen a "gay bishop". The Rt. Rev. Mark Andrus, suffragan of Alabama, has been elected by a landslide.

Has the Anglican Armageddon been postponed until the Convention, then?

Posted by Pen Brynisa at Saturday, 6 May 2006 at 10:52pm BST

I think California elected a person, not an issue. I don't think New Hampshire elected +Robinson as an issue either but it's sure turned into one. Hopefully California can continue to welcome diversity as it has done in the past. Bishop Andrus has some very big shoes to fill following Bishop Swing.

Posted by mumcat at Saturday, 6 May 2006 at 11:55pm BST

Here's a reader from the Diocese... I probably won't speak to the people who were at the convention until tomorrow, but I knew that Andrus had a following. I would have ranked him my personal favorite at the beginning, but as the process went on I warmed to Canon Sutton. All the candidates were quite impressive, however.

The only "knock" I heard against Andrus from the laity was that he tends to use a lot of "seminary words" that can make his writing impenetrable for some. Obviously, the clergy didn't mind his high-tone, and responded to his stature and experience.

I strongly suspect that the laity decided to give the clergy their guy. Andrus had a lot of support within the lay voters from the start, and was widely liked. But the clergy have to work with the Bishop most closely, and they cleary responded to Andrus.

Mumcat is entirely correct that California elected a person. I heard multiple electors comment on how much easier this decision became once they had a chance to meet these candidates and get to know them. Much easier to respond to people rather than abstractions.

Perhaps the experience in California is a good model for averting the "Anglican Armageddon." The election here, and up the road in No. Cal, I hear, was very much about our local needs. Folks out here decided, with some relief, to forget about the opinions of the world and just focus on doing the best we can for our local parishes and the people in them. Mark Andrus spoke, with some specificity, about working with the clergy and lay leaders in the Diocese to build healthy (and holy) parish communities, and clearly it resonated.

Posted by GA Dean at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 12:41am BST

Bravo California and Thanks Be To God for selecting, then electing, another emotionally healthy and spiritually sound heterosexual for California!

Heterosexuals most often are wonderful and loving people, they just take a little getting used to.

Felicidades todos!

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 1:44am BST

Oy vey: the Reuters headline is just plain silly (while the Tell-a-Lie gives us a smear). Is it too much to ask for the press to . . . just, well, GROW UP already???

Anna, I'm not in this diocese . . . but I had heard that +Andrus was very impressive in the "walk-abouts": I'm not at all surprised he was elected.

[And speaking of growing up: can we please not have any more sensationalistic "moral equivalence" commentaries, suggesting "the Episcopal Left will bolt if a heterosexual is elected"? Good googly-moogly! :-0]

God bless all the new bishops-elect...

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 3:10am BST

David Anderson puts on his tinfoil biretta and sees a vast left-wing conspiracy behind the California election:

Could they pack one more bit of tired neocon jargon and coded phrasing into a single press release?

Posted by Cassandra at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 4:07am BST

There were other elections besides California -- Eastern Michigan elected Todd Ousley, Northern California elected Barry Beisner & Tennessee accepted the fact that they were deadlocked & are starting over with a new Search Committee, & all the rest.

Posted by Prior Aelred at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 4:30am BST

Actually, Elizabeth Day gets it spectacularly wrong in many ways in that article. The name of the church is not "The Episcopalian Church in America". I don't think one can state categorically that the election of a gay or lesbian bishop "would be in direct contravention to Church doctrine, which states that the ordination of actively gay clergy is incompatible with scripture". Isn't part of the problem that no universal "Church doctrine" states this that clearly?

And the prissy tone! "Miss Perry." "Her girlfriend." The only discussion of her ministry mentions of pets, champagne and body piercings.


In other news, I've started hearing very good things about Andrus. A poster over at the Livejournal Episcopal community said Andrus wasn't anywhere near the top of his list before the walkabout [the poster was an elector], but that in person, he was just astonishing-- to the poster and to everyone else.

Posted by Anna at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 4:35am BST

"Heterosexual elected Episcopal Bishop of Calif..."

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 5:03am BST

I voted in today's election in California as a lay delegate. The fact that no one outside our diocese saw this coming is testimony to the blindness the media had about this election. If any reporter had spoken to the people doing the voting in our diocese in the last two weeks, they would have known that Mark Andrus, Jane Gould, and Eugene Sutton were the front-runners. Andrus impressed for three reasons: he is already a suffragan bishop and has shown real gifts in his office; he has shown a commitment to the concerns of this diocese in matters of theology and mission; and he showed a remarkable pastoral sensitivity and spiritual groundedness in person. We had a week-long series of "walkabouts" about two weeks ago in which over a six day period the candidates held public question and answer forums with anyone from the diocese who was interested. If Elizabeth Day had spoken to any one who attended these sessions, she would not have written an article so fundamentally mis-reading the lay of the land. Andrus came across very well in them and opened a lot of people's eyes. I was one of them. Our election gives the lie to the various claims in the media that this election process was issue driven. It was not. The election was driven by the genuine needs and desires of the our local church spoken with a common voice. To me, that is Anglicanism at its best.

Posted by Dan at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 5:55am BST

As lay professional in the diocese for 12 years, I was a non-votor present at one of the walkabouts and at the election, in which I rejoice. It's true: Andrus didn't draw attention a la James Watt: he was neither gay, nor non-white, nor a woman. I knew the two local candidates well, and one of the others tangentially. Of the locals, I was very excited about one, and completely dismissive of the other; by the end of the walkabout evening, I had almost completely reversed my position on those two. I wanted very much to be drawn to Sutton or Gould; even Bonnie Perry, who I first found quite over-intense and offputting, really won me over in her more extended session.
That said, for me I was sold on Andrus in his consideration of Scripture. I'm not a bible person, especially, but in this diocese we want to run straight to our gut on social issues and ignore the inconveniences that confront us in the Bible. Asked about his own view of Scripture and how he would relate to others who didn't share his view, Mark displayed what I would describe as a truly-Anglican understanding of scripture vis-a-vis ongoing revelation, from Jesus reframing the Law in conjunction with healing on the Sabbath, all the way up through our own day.
I was proud to have a small part of praying and applauding the results, and am optimistic about our grand experiment in American Anglicanism as we move ahead.

Posted by Christopher Putnam at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 7:14am BST

I hope that +Andrus will be able to find ways to fully "include" New Testament faith and moral teachings...

Posted by Dave at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 8:42am BST

Mark Andrus is an excellent man. He was a student of mine on the Oxford University Summer Course some years back. Dead right: they elected the person not the issue. And an impressive person too.

Posted by Giles Fraser at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 10:39am BST

Simon, a little correction IIRC the Tennessee election went to 36 ballots today rather than 25.


Yes, my mistake. Fixed on the blog. Thanks, Jon.

Posted by Jon at Sunday, 7 May 2006 at 1:57pm BST

IN THE MEANTIME... It turns out that the man elected Bishop for northern California has been married and divorced twice and is onto his third wife...

Even though the exegesis of divorce is open to [a small amount of] debate, I presume this will cause more loss of communion. Yet I doubt that means anything to the folk in ECUSA - unless the Communion starts setting more standards for those who it will recognise as Bishops --- Hhmmm !

Posted by Dave at Wednesday, 17 May 2006 at 8:25pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.