Blog powered by Typepad

« On Colbert | Main | David Callahan on Cheating »

May 06, 2006



I was at the walkabouts. I was a registrar at today's convention. The idea that somehow the delegates were chastened by threats and tantrums emanating from the trad faction is simply wishful thinking. Mark Andrus was a stunner the minute he opened his mouth at the first walkabout. He is the right person for us, and not because anyone was shaking a finger in our collective faces.

David Loving

I think they just picked the man they thought best for their diocese. I am really tired of the framing of events in terms of the hot issue of the minute.

John D

+Alexander would be a great choice for PB, just as +Andrus will be a great leader in San Francisco--both are progressive, articulate, and pastoral. I just pray that GC2006 will be as powerful a witness to the world about our Episcopal Church as this gathering for the Diocese of California was. And ignore the idiots in the popular media; just looking for mischief, winners and losers, and paying no heed to the integrity of all of the people considered for the terribly difficult job of "Bishop".

Heidi Alvey

Mark Andrus is a stunner - no way around that. You merely have to meet the man once and you will see and feel his humility and grace; his genuine concern and love for his church. I admit to feeling teary when I heard the news for I will miss him greatly We in Alabama will always remember the gifts that he gave us. I envy you, California!


Completely agree with Karen. Andrus aced the walk-abouts, though the other candidates were also very impressive.

What neither the media nor the conservatives get is that the Diocese of California didn't want a symbol, we wanted a bishop. We picked the one that the majority could best see in that role and the rest of it was irrelevant here.


I've heard talk from those on the liberal side that +Jenkins may be a supriser come voting time. +Alexander is not as liberal as he is often portrayed or thought of but in these things perception and reality don't always have equal value. +Jenkins could be a good compromise candidate.


I agree. +Andrus is a good choice. I think, however, that the hoopla not just by the media but by Episcopalians (let's not just blame the media here, we've seen the blogosphere go around for months on this) shows up that while this diocese chose a bishop and did so with a great deal of spiritual discernment, this is not always the case in other places where various attributes of the candidates do play into whether they are chosen irrespective of their gifts to lead.

John Wilkins

I might prefer Jenkins to Alexander, actually. For me, the issue has little to do with theological perspective but with the charism.


I too am sorry to see Bishop Andress leave Alabama. He is much more liberal and far more low church than I, but it is his personal qualities that make him a great bishop, not his politics and churchmanship. You all will find out that he is very funny and a great preacher.

Fr. John

Peole here in California fell in love with +Andrus. End of story. He already is a great bishop and has hit the ground running addressing white privilege in the Sunday SF Chronicle and stating support for consent to partnered gay and lesbian bishops-elect in the Living Church. As one wag here put it, "Andrus is a wolf in Swing's clothing."

Art Deco

But makes no difference to the holy spirit.

Sexual misconduct makes no difference to the Holy Spirit?

John Wilkins


Art Deco

Yes, misconduct.

Since when does sodomy come under the heading of permissible sexual activity?

And why ought one to dispense with canons of modesty and make a public point of one's sexual afflictions and form subcultural associations with the like-afflicted?

And is there an answer to these foregoing questions palatable to you that would have as its primary reference Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Church?

And how many Anglican vicars would have offered your initial response in 1958?

And why are you a more reliable authority at this time than were they at that time?

John Wilkins

You are new to this blog, Art. "permissible" requires a bit more exploration, and I'm not exactly sure where I would begin discussing it with you. There are other places where I discuss my perspective, which is a bit different than other modernists.

Yes, there are places I would begin in sacred scripture. I consider Romans 12:1-2 the central part for understanding an ethical hermeneutic; and that Jesus' remark about "where your treasure is..." is reliable in both secular and religious worlds. I admit, I do not prioritize the ancients, nor do I have a bias toward the current. But one should offer good reasons for trusting the past. Sometimes its reliable, but often we read into the past our own current political needs. When we read Luther on Augustine, our reading has to acknowledge that Luther has his on contemporary interest. It may or may not illuminate our own world or understanding. I am of the school that we know more about the first century now than they did in the 16th, or even in the 4th.

I know Anglican vicars, who were ordained in 1958, and have changed their mind.

Sexuality, for me, includes the realities of revelation, grace, peace, and self-control. My own view is that the church should be agnostic about sexual activity within partnerships.

John Wilkins

I would add that I also find public affections of any sort distasteful. But we are in a world where sex is public. And that's just part of our economic system.

J. C. Fisher

Yes, misconduct.

Since when does sodomy come under the heading of permissible sexual activity?

The "Sin of Sodom" is inhospitality, Art.

If I were to present my queer self at any institution at which you were in charge, I strongly suspect you might sodomize me. :-(

Svend la Rose

JanInSanFran, how do you figure that 161 members constitute a majority of the 27,000 Episcopalians in the diocese?

Let's put the GLBT issue aside for a moment. Andrus told us more in his essays about the Taizé cult than he did about Christianity. He dropped out of urban planning just two short years after he got his master's degree in public planning. His scholarly work is limited to three articles and two "reflections" for The Witness Magazine. He cites no serious output anywhere on his CV.

Andrus was selected at the end of a circus masquerading as a transparent process. The end result is that all but a few hundred members of this Diocese haven't even been shown that Andrus is qualified to be pastor of two members of a congregation. I am not one of the privileged few hundred.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends and Family