My experience with Episcopal elections has been this: One election for a suffragan as a lay delegate. One election for a Sufragan and two elections for a Coajuter as a cleric.

The first three were done with no "walk-abouts" and little or no information given to the lay delegates except sketchy "bios," rumors, and whatever info Rectors or Priests-in-Charge wished to provide to their Lay Delegates.

For the election of our previous Diocesan, the clergy had get-togethers at the Archdeaconry level discuss the candidates. Believing this to be important, I took a day off from my full-time secular job to attend.

It was a good meeting and at the end I spoke up to say how good it had been and that it would be good if the people in our parishes had the same opportunity. At this point on of the Rectors present pooh-poohed the idea and actually said "I can tell my parishioners what to think."

Basically, those first three elections were controlled by the presbyters. The opinions of the laity and the few deacons in the diocese were discounted or ignored.

The election of our current Diocesan was very different. With the "walk-abouts" and all the information that was made available to all (and not just a select few) I felt that for the first time I was actually making an informed decision. So far it seems to be working out very well.

I’m increasingly puzzled by two apparent but connected assumptions articulated here:

1) That the Holy Spirit is only active when “magical” or otherwise random things (we like) happen; and

2) That political processes are always devoid of divine influence.

I think both assumptions can hamper, if they don’t directly undermine processes to elect effective leadership in the Church.

Charlie,

I really like what you suggest. Maybe we make our political processes in the Church "Christian" not by pretending to set aside politics, but by working to equip the baptized – where the Spirit dwells – in making an informed decision.

I write from an academic setting (where I am a student). Here, faculty search processes have an option of "failing." That is, they decide that no one on the (public) short list fits the bill.

What it would be like if bishop searches were like that? I have no knowledge of Pittsburgh or really any diocese but my own but what would happen if a convention could say, "Hmmm... none of these folks are really what we are looking for. Let's try again."

-Jesse

Jesse,
There is precedent for your idea, at least in the Canadian church. In Central Newfoundland a few years ago, the electoral synod was split, with several inconclusive ballots after the field had been narrowed to two candidates. The archbishop in consultation with the synod executive (equivalent of Standing Committee) adjourned the election, a retired bishop was appointed for a year, and a new electoral synod was convened a year later.

As to control by the clergy, the Canadian General Synod has a procedure for the election of the Primate, whereby clergy and laity, while in the same room, sit separately (this is apparently by custom, as it is not in the canons). While the orders are free to mingle in the hall or washrooms, there's no direct pressure while the ballots are being marked. (In 2003, it was the laity, led by the youth, who had a clear preference on the first ballot, which eventually prevailed).

I think that if we are forced to choose between a political process and a spirit-led process, we are making a false choice. Political doesn't mean evil or even secular, just structural. We have a way of doing these elections and we trust that the Spirit is at work in some way in them (though we may occasionally wonder what God was thinking...).

I also think that if there is a "failed process" option, it shouldn't be a total reset, but a drop back to the last larger set of candidates. I've seen the disaster of a failed process in parish search processes and wondered "why not just rewind the process rather than staring over?"

In any case, the election process is ideally both political AND Spirit-led.

I've voted in three elections in two dioceses; and with seniority have watched many others. Only a few times have I thought, "The Holy Spirit missed on this one;" or, as I became more honest, "We missed the Holy Spirit on this one." I've only come to that years after the election.

There is commonly a difference of perspective between clergy and laity because of the difference of relationship. At some point, there is an expectation that the bishop is supposed to be pastor to the cleric and his or her family. This is not to say that the bishop is not concerned with or able to be a pastor to individual lay members. It's just that it's not part of the expectations of the bishop, and "pastor to the clergy" is. Most make a concerted effort. Some are incapable (and so, I've been a casualty). But, one way or another, there's some expectation that it's a part of the "official duties." We clergy may expect much or little. We may desire much or little; but that difference of perspective is real. It's also the case that differences arise between voting delegates (both clergy and lay) based on how many dioceses the delegate has experienced. Different dioceses have different cultures that both shape and are shaped by episcopal elections. While it's not all or nothing, clergy often have experience of more dioceses, both individually and as a group. That can also shape it.

The thing is that we have to rely on the Holy Spirit. That's not to say that the process isn't political, or that we don't try to participate (not to say manipulate) as fully as possible. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit to work within the process because, really, there are too many factors that we just don't control, can't control.

Marshall Scott

"If we believe the decision is that of the Holy Spirit—something I doubt anyone really believes—then we should simply draw lots and be done with it."

I've only been involved with one episcopal election (Diocese of Massachusetts, after the suicide of the previous incumbent), but I think I would take issue with this statement. I, for one, believe the Holy Spirit is involved a lot more than we sometimes care to believe--not always successfully, perhaps, but involved nonetheless. I think Lionel underestimates the laity of his diocese (and probably the clergy as well) if he truly thinks most of them DON'T believe the Holy Spirit was involved.

I was a lay delegate--the walkabouts were well attended by people from my parish and they were not afraid to tell me what they thought! I know what my rector thought as well, but secret ballots are secret for a reason. I certainly didn't feel any undue clerical pressure, and would have simply side-stepped it had I done so.

I suppose what surprises me most about Lionel's comment is that I normally find myself in agreement with just about every observation he makes...

Michael Morris

Michael,

I didn’t mean to say that I thought the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved in episcopal elections. The Holy Spirit doesn’t cast votes, however. The Holy Spirit only works through people, who have to take responsibility for what needs to be done.