Mark Handley Andrus elected (straight) Episcopal bishop of California

[TechBear_Seattle]

San Francisco, California) The Episcopal Diocese of California averted another churchwide showdown over the role of gays in their denomination when delegates rejected three openly gay candidates for bishop Saturday.

The diocese chose the Rt. Rev. Mark Handley Andrus of Birmingham, Ala., on the third ballot to replace the retiring Rev. William Swing. None of the gay candidates received more than a handful of votes.

The packed Grace Cathedral erupted with cheering and applause when the announcement was made.

The vote was closely watched by Episcopalians across the nation and their fellow Anglicans worldwide, who have been struggling to remain unified despite deep differences over gay clergy.

The article can be read at http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/050606episc.htm

[Bill McBlueState]

1. I guess we're still waiting

Eventually, the churches will catch up to the rest of us and stop using sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination.

[Kutjara]

2. Don't worry though...

...when they do, they'll quickly find some other reason to exclude people. Religions are great like that.

[ulysses]

3. I'm sorry to see this.

[davidinalameda]

4. don't be sorry

I attended one of the candidates' forums and in all honestly, the two gay candidates were down on my list.

I was very impressed with Rev. Bonnie Perry, the openly lesbian minister, and I think that she'll make a great bishop in the near future.

[JerseygirlCT]

5. That's just it. I'd need much more information before I jump to any

conclusions.

Why assume this man wasn't the best candidate? Honestly.

I was absolutely thrilled with Gene Robinson's election. Everything I'd heard about him said he'd make an excellent bishop. My own bishop speaks very highly of him, as a pastor and as a person.

I don't want to assume this man isn't equally impressive. That's not fair at all.

[ulysses]

7. fair enough.

Thanks.

[Fenris]

6. I am not altogether certain of what you are sorry to see.

I do not feel it is necessary to rush to judgment here and assume that the Diocese of California did not pick the most qualified candidate for the position. Despite its name, the Diocese of California encompasses only the San Francisco Bay area, which is hardly a hotbed of homophobia. I am not terribly familiar with the other two gay candidates, but I attend services with Dean Taylor, and, while he is a wonderful clergyman who will doubtlessly rise to a higher position in the church, he himself admitted he didn't feel like he was the most qualified for the job. Furthermore, Rt. Rev. Andrus was already a suffragan, a good position to be in if you are being considered for a bishopric. While it doesn't necessarily mean he was a shoo-in, it certainly helped him.

Let us assume, then, a worst case scenario in which the sexual orientation of the candidates did play a major role in the decision. From a purely pragmatic point of view, the Diocese would be attempting to avert a catastrophe. The ECUSA has been dangerously close to being kicked out of the communion since the Robinson installation. It's easy for any one of us to just say goodbye to all of that and write of the Anglican Communion, but I don't think that's what the episcopacy wants. A split in the church would be a nightmare for the ECUSA, and not only for the obvious reason. It would also be a legal nightmare, with the ECUSA having to go through lists of its extensive property holdings and kick the rebel churches off their land. A split with the Communion and subsequently within the church itself would not be the best course of action. I think if sexual orientation was a factor in the decision, it was done for the sake of pragmatism and to not make relations with the Communion any more strained than they already are.

[ulysses]

8. well, I'm not Episcopalian

so my interest is social and, I'm sure, not of much interest to church members. Still, as someone sympathetic to mainline liberal Christianity, I feel free to hope that churches will follow good paths.

If it was simply about qualifications, great. I wonder about the applause, though.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. While the election of another gay candidate

would have been reassuring to many of us, that can't or shouldn't be the primary qualification to be a bishop. The process is thorough and they vet these folks extensively.

I wasn't privy to the qualifications so I won't second guess it. I'm sure the man they chose was chosen because he stood out. I wish him luck in a faltering denomination.

[kwassa]

10. I'm familiar with Sutton, who came in second in the voting

and he is a great guy and would make an excellent choice as well. I am a little disappointed he didn't get the job.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. And I know Donald Schell, one of the other (straight) candidates

He's a wonderful, compassionate and knowledgeable person.

I think they had a wealth of candidates to choose from. In choosing a bishop, you have to balance a lot of factors. The bishop has to be a good administrator, a good public speaker, and a good counselor, since (s)he--yes, there are a couple of women bishops now-- is the immediate supervisor of all the parish priests and has a private meeting with each of them each year.

I've met Gene Robinson, and he's just a fine person all around. No wonder the people of New Hampshire voted him in. When you have someone that good, sexual orientation falls under the category of "Details! Details!" (Which is as it should be.)

It's like the time my parish in Portland had a gay transitional (on his way to ordination as a priest) deacon for a year. When the time came to sponsor him for ordination, we did so enthusiastically, because we knew he'd be a wonderful priest. We didn't even know he was gay till halfway through the year. We were delighted to host his ordination, which was covered in the local paper and attracted one solitary protestor.

Having recently been through the election of a bishop in Oregon, I know that the candidates have to appear at a series of forums to which everyone is invited.

Something funny happened during that election. Oregon has a huge cultural divide between the urban and rural areas, with southern Oregon outside of Ashland being particularly conservative.

The man eventually chosen as bishop is of Asian Indian descent, and after the candidates' forum in Portland, people were saying, "He's terrific, but are the rural areas ready for a person of color?"

We heard from "sources" that after the rural forums, people were saying about the same man, "He's terrific, but I bet he's not wacko enough for those liberals in Portland."

So in spite of themselves, both sides were happy with the outcome. :-)