tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post7302166597637827580..comments2024-03-07T17:08:03.583-05:00Comments on Lionel Deimel’s Web Log: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: How Not to Elect a BishopLionel Deimelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-91548471811464772442012-04-26T14:34:36.398-04:002012-04-26T14:34:36.398-04:00And just to chime in, I entirely agree with both o...And just to chime in, I entirely agree with both of you, Lionel and Phil, on this topic. <br /><br />Certainly there were plenty of "concerns" raised over the preceding month about individual nominees that might have been raised in a respectful way. Each of the nominees had some great strengths, and each of them gave some cause for at least some of us "not to want to vote for him or her." Reasons why this or that nominee *shouldn't* be our choice. <br /><br />There was at least some of this indirectly aimed at Canon Quinn's status as nominee by those who wanted to talk about "why we shouldn't have someone from the inside." Phil's comments on Friday evening in favor of Scott to some extent responded to these concerns, of course, and that exchange was the nearest thing we had to a public debate "for and against" a particular nominee. Certainly those kinds of conversations took place both before and during the Convention about all the nominees, but in smaller and more informal settings.<br /><br />I was glad that the original vision of the Convention sitting quiet in the Church in between ballots was tempered with the option of conversational space in the Dining Room.<br /><br />I am very pleased with Dorsey McConnell's election, and I don't think a more robust discussion on Friday evening or even a time for remarks "after lunch" and before the second round of balloting began would have made any difference in the final result. <br /><br />It would perhaps though have made a difference in tone for some as folks departed. <br /><br />Certainly in all the conversations and presentations we would have had confidence that folks would conduct themselves as Christian people and in respectful and appropriate ways, even while airing differences of opinion. <br /><br />So, good notes for the folder.<br /><br />Bruce RobisonBruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-41839002576595343732012-04-26T10:05:40.482-04:002012-04-26T10:05:40.482-04:00Before commenting further, I should make it clear ...Before commenting further, I should make it clear that I'm very happy with the result of the election, and believe we would have elected the same person even if the election had proceeded along the lines Lionel suggests; but mistakes were made and it's important to recognise them.<br /><br />As I've chewed over this article and the comments further, it seems to me that the worst feature of this election was the insistence from the chair that nothing 'negative' be said about any candidate. There are two bad things about this: first, it was bad policy, and second, it was bad practice, the policy not being adopted by constitutional means.<br /><br />It was bad policy, because if only good things can be said in the discussion about who would be a good bishop, it's obvious that a complete dud could be elected. The most unsuitable person that one can imagine presumably has some good points, but if no one is allowed to point out the unsuitability, the person could be elected on those good points. All factors should be investigated, thought about and discussed by those making the decision. Imagine how a business would be handicapped if it wasn't allowed to discriminate against an applicant for a job because his five previous employers gave a bad reference and would not rehire. It makes no sense not to consider a person's weaknesses as well as his strengths when considering him for a new work.<br /><br />It was bad practice, because it was not part of the rules for the election that were adopted after discussion by the convention. It was just a bright idea that someone in leadership had and kept repeating. And it sounds good, until you stop to think about the possible results, so no one wanted to point out those possible results. I believe the motives behind the suggestion were good; I think it was an attempt to prevent us offending each other rather than offending any candidate. But the results could have been far worse than offending each other.<br /><br />Fortunately, the results were good, although there will be people who wonder if they could have been better if we had followed traditional procedure.<br /><br />I urged the chair of the Nominating Committee to write up her reflections on the process and how it could have been improved (or not), and put them in the diocesan archives, to be used as a starting point next time. I think a printout of this post and its comments should be added to that.Philip Wainwrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14445407488796250993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-72166693816179881962012-04-24T23:00:27.141-04:002012-04-24T23:00:27.141-04:00I was away on Friday and Saturday so I appreciate ...I was away on Friday and Saturday so I appreciate Lionel’s reporting on the events of the Convention. The only other sources of information are the press releases and the un-objective and/or misinformed reporting of the local press. I am glad to know what was actually happening.<br /><br />Further, in fairness, Lionel expressed his concerns about the process prior to the outcome. I have a healthy respect for Bishop Price and the good work he has done here. But I, too, don’t agree with the limitations on the discussion he advocated regardless on the potential effect on the outcome. To suggest that this somehow interferes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit presumes one knows precisely how the Holy Spirit operates.<br /><br />In Pittsburgh, after 30 years of misguided leadership there is a very clear understanding of the consequences of selecting the wrong person to be Bishop so please accept that there is more than the usual amount of scrutiny of the candidates and the process in this election.<br /><br />Thanks to the work of the Nominating and Transition Committees we could have hardly gone wrong. I believe that Dorsey McConnell is both qualified and well prepared to be the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Again, thanks to the transparency of the process he, and we, know that: 1) It took six ballots to elect him, 2) He received just over the minimum number of votes required to be elected, 3) The voting history shows a significant difference between the preference of the laity and the clergy. Not much “political capital” to exploit – Mr. McConnell will have to make his mark by his own talents.<br /><br />Geoff HurdWhatUpWithThathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00269133941544048585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-43201962988307087752012-04-24T17:22:54.129-04:002012-04-24T17:22:54.129-04:00Bruce's point about debate in plenary session ...Bruce's point about debate in plenary session not likely to lead to a different result than conversation in the parish hall is probably correct, but I still don't think it justifies the failure to provide for such debate. Convention, like Congress, Parliament and the like, is a <i>body</i>, not a coalition of groups that can meet in the corner of the room, and deliberation as a single body is an essential part of its life (not just philosophically, but according to our constitution, Article V Section 2). Informal conversations are an important part of the life of the body, but it just isn't good practice for us not to do our final thinking on any subject out loud in each other's presence. <br /><br />And while it is true that other diocesan leaders and our consultant played their part in suggesting the process we used, Convention and Convention alone has the final responsibility, and Convention approved this process without a dissenting voice being raised, even if there were some <i>sotto voce</i> criticisms in one place or another.<br /><br />All of us, clergy and lay, have to be willing to challenge the diocesan leadership in public when we think they're making a mistake. It's not disloyal, or impolite, or bad form. It's taking our full part in the immense privilege we've been given, briefly, of being part of a centuries-old deliberative assembly devoted to the most serious work life has to offer.Philip Wainwrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14445407488796250993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-47844466775196877302012-04-24T14:50:10.942-04:002012-04-24T14:50:10.942-04:00My own sense is that you almost can't have a P...My own sense is that you almost can't have a Property Committee meeting anymore without someone suggesting that it take place "in the context of a Eucharist." I'm sure the desire is for us all to be reminded who the Lord of the Church is, but I agree that the structure is somewhat peculiar. To me one of the most heartbreaking parts of Conventions through the middle 2000's was the departure of those who wouldn't stay to share Communion with the rest of the gathering--I guess as a form of protest. Other friends played with the same symbolism at the daily Eucharists of General Convention. Coming for the opening and through the sermon, sometimes, but departing at the Peace, to symbolize "broken communion." Again, heartbreaking. Rough stuff in the Christian family.<br /><br />While I understand that the format may have brought up old memories, I certainly pray that the disappointment of not having a first-choice nominee win the election was not a sufficient catalyst in this hour for the same feelings of estrangement. <br /><br />BruceRBruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-22412570080485197042012-04-24T12:18:23.168-04:002012-04-24T12:18:23.168-04:00I have just added an update at the end of my post,...I have just added an update at the end of my post, largely to clarify a few points. Readers of the post as originally written may want to read what I have just written.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-27131703855342145952012-04-24T12:15:33.948-04:002012-04-24T12:15:33.948-04:00From an election standpoint, I believe that the cr...From an election standpoint, I believe that the crucial ballot was the third, when Dorsey received an extra 10 lay votes and Stan only received one. In particular, this points to the fact that Dorsey did not just receive lay votes from Scott but also (likely) from Ruth, or a few people who moved from Stan. From that point onwards, I think we moved towards a fairly inevitable outcome.<br /><br />I was very happy with the list of nominees proposed by the Nominating Committee and although Stan was my first choice, Dorsey was a very close second. I believe that we have the right bishop with which to move forward in our diocese.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416165790415554997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-5120662156930281862012-04-24T09:18:02.273-04:002012-04-24T09:18:02.273-04:00Thanks, Lionel.
I do agree with you that electo...Thanks, Lionel. <br /><br />I do agree with you that electoral processes should trend toward openness and transparency. <br /><br />I don't actually believe though that a pause for debate and further testimonial remarks at the microphone would have or even should have made any difference on Saturday--and there certainly was plenty of conversation going on in the coffee room between ballots for those who were seeking further insight. I think we had all listened to each other pretty well. And if there was a bit of a controlled environment in our public meetings, I think the conversations elsewhere moved quite freely.<br /><br />But I do understand always that especially in a process that inevitably will disappoint some there should be a clear sense of openness all along the way. <br /><br />And I certainly don't want to suggest in my comments above that our retired and bivocational clergy aren't doing yeoman's service in the life of our diocese right now. We couldn't manage without them, and I don't for a minute want to minimize the importance of their voice and vote in guiding our common life. I would be very strongly opposed to any effort to limit their participation--as I also very strongly support "demographically appropriate" lay representation from even our smallest reorganizing congregations. We've got to keep everybody at the table.<br /><br />My point isn't that our policies are out of whack. They will probably serve us well enough in the future. My point is just that we are just a pretty odd duck of a diocese right now.<br /><br />On the topic of Saturday's election, I went back out of curiosity to see what the results would have been if we weren't voting "by orders." <br /><br />We began with 128 deputies, clergy and lay, which would have required a simple majority of 65 for election. Had that rule been in place, in the "head to head" between Dorsey McConnell and Stan Runnells, Bishop-elect McConnell would have been elected with 66 on the fourth ballot. I don't know if that really means anything, except that I think a narrative that views this election principally as a "clergy v. laity" contest is too narrow. Both nominees had significant support in the whole convention and in both orders, which I think is a testimony to the solid work of the Nominations Committee in presenting nominees who could gain broad support. Moreover, the fact that on the first ballot Scott Quinn was second in the clergy order and a solid third in the lay order is testimony to the wisdom of the petition process in bringing forward a nominee with broad support. <br /><br />In the end I think we all did a pretty good job, messy as it was along the way. And I know we have a very fine Bishop-elect, a person of great integrity, breadth, and maturity. It's going to be bumpy, but we're moving forward.<br /><br />Bruce RobisonBruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-65052212436871533662012-04-24T08:17:01.180-04:002012-04-24T08:17:01.180-04:00Bruce,
Thanks for your comments, which are well-t...Bruce,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments, which are well-taken. In fact, a conversation we had at Saturday’s convention was a big influence on what I had to say in my essay.<br /><br />Permit me to make a few points, in no particular order.<br /><br />First, I think that many of my concerns are relevant to dioceses other than our own. I hope the church will talk about these. In particular, any election process that relies on one group or another simply capitulating so the process can end is suspect.<br /><br />There has been talk in Pittsburgh about disenfranchising retired clergy. Whatever the wisdom of that in general, the fact that so many “retired” clergy in Pittsburgh are actually working makes such a move problematic. (An analogous situation at General Convention is the question of whether retired bishops should vote. This issue is less urgent, since it is difficult—expensive—for retired bishops to attend.)<br /><br />Very small churches get disproportionate representation at our diocesan convention. (A parish of 25 members gets the same number of lay deputies as one of 199.) This is clearly anomalous, and it is something I am working to change on the Committee on Constitution and Canons.<br /><br />Yes, our diocese is a work in progress. We don’t get to elect bishops often, however, so, when we do, we should work especially hard to make the process as fair and effective as possible. We cannot simply repair our mistakes at the next convention.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-73587452910375738702012-04-24T07:55:42.637-04:002012-04-24T07:55:42.637-04:00Per the comment above, I would just say that it is...Per the comment above, I would just say that it isn't at all my intention to diminish the "weight" of the laity in convention in contrast to that of the clergy. I think instead that there is, we might say, simply something a little odd about <b>both</b> the clergy and lay orders. <br /><br />If on the lay side there is something disproportionate in reference to the number of deputies representing very small gatherings, especially in our "newly reorganizing" congregations, the clergy order as well is distorted by the number of retired and bivocational clergy. <br /><br />In a "typical" situation the majority of clergy would be rectors, assistants, vicars, priests-in-charge. Folks engaged full time in settled ministry in congregations, with responsibility for budgets, day-to-day ministries, and the ongoing pastoral life of the diocese. My guess, again, is that of the 43 clergy voting on Saturday, fewer than a dozen fit this general description. I love our retired clergy and hope to be one myself someday. But I do believe their perspectives and interests are shaped by different concerns than are those of their settled active-ministry colleagues.<br /><br /><br />My point would be that the whole business--the WHOLE business-should be taken with a grain of salt--and perhaps a sense of spaciousness, and generosity. Even a sense of humor.<br /><br />We have come a long way. But we're simply, still, very much a work in progress. Which is probably why the anxiety about things running off the rails led to that sense of over-control. <br /><br />(Though I would point out that the only comment that actually drew any rebuke from the chair on Friday evening was one that started to take off with some negative and I also think inappropriate language about the Seventh Bishop of Pittsburgh. There were a number of comments, in reasonable tone, about "why I'm not voting for the local, petition nominee," and these didn't draw any comment from the chair.)<br /><br /><br />In any event: we're adolescent. We want the transitional process to be behind us and to be fully launched--but the reality is that we still have quite a bit of growing to do.<br /><br />It wasn't a perfect process. But the imperfections in the end, I believe, were less problems with rules and leadership and more simply a reflection of who we are and where we are at this point in the reorganizational trajectory. <br /><br />And my guess is that by the time we're ready to do this again, probably in a decade or so, things will be--we will be--much more settled and mature. This is just a step along the way.Bruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-32727728677245421322012-04-23T20:10:21.456-04:002012-04-23T20:10:21.456-04:00While I agree with Lionel's conclusions about ...While I agree with Lionel's conclusions about how things should have been done, I think some of the analysis of the election both in the post and in comments is flawed. First, I don't think Bishop Price 'threw the laity under the bus'; I think he shares the 'fake it till you make it' approach that is so popular in so many circles today--if we keep pretending we're good, sooner or later we will be. If we only allow ourselves to speak positively, sooner or later we will actually be positive. I believe this to be incorrect, but it is the dominant view of our culture, not a particular failing of Bishop Price. <br /><br />I also think it incorrect to blame Price for 'unwillingness... to allow more open discussion'. That he took it on himself to disallow it is correct, but the convention was quite free to challenge the chair's ruling and overturn it. Bishop Price was confident that wouldn't be attempted, and his confidence was justified, and so he was able to do what he thought it right to do. The convention itself, with twice as many lay members as clergy, has to accept responsibility for the flaws in the process if there is ever to be change. <br /><br />Having said that, I can say that I wholeheartedly agree with Lionel about how the convention should have been conducted. We were all, clergy and lay alike treated as though we were likely to run amok any second--I was told to be calm and peaceful so many times I was in danger of falling asleep. Fifteen second gaps enforced between every single comment Friday night to prevent us doing anything impulsive! I felt like a juvenile delinquent, and I must admit I was tempted to behave like one just to get us all out of our somnolence. <br /><br />But we're in the minority, Lionel. The majority of our fellow deputies think that we're both either slightly dotty or slightly dangerous, and that's what we have to change if we want things done in a more rational manner.Philip Wainwrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14445407488796250993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-71654005758534274582012-04-23T19:21:27.305-04:002012-04-23T19:21:27.305-04:00I am troubled by the handling of the election, and...I am troubled by the handling of the election, and I am equally troubled by Bruce Robison's and Muthah's remarks.<br /><br />There is no excuse for the unwillingness of Bishop Price to allow more open discussion and exchange of information. The shut down of potential critical remarks smacks of a Duncan tactic. The most informed electorate is much more likely to produce the best result. When it became evident that the laity and clergy were in different camps, why wouldn't the voters be allowed to openly express their views in a discussion, and try to decide how the other voters had reached their conclusions?<br /><br />Robison joins Price to say that this is the way it is done, and that is somehow reassuring. Every time the Politburo elected a new Party Chairman, their same internal processes were always followed. In view of the history of this Diocese, is it really re-assuring to know that the election took a familiar form? What Robison really wants is for everyone to just meekly accept the clergy's candidate and move on. "Nothing to see here."<br /><br />I am really offended by Robison's remarks to the effect that the laity votes should not be given as much weight as the clergy votes. He argues that the laity votes are not fully representative and do not meet the Supreme Court's standard of "one man, one vote". If that part of the process is flawed, then Robison needed to speak up much, much sooner. Some of those "unrepresentative" deputies SAVED this diocese, while Robison himself was dithering over his desire to be all things to all people.<br /><br />Muthah's comments are even more unsettling and disappointing. Her argument is that it is desirable and understandable for the clergy to vote for the candidate who they perceive to best protect their careers and income. The clergy's ability to interact with the Bishop is treated as the determining factor in the election. Apparently then there is no point to the efforts of the laity to learn each candidate's views on a number of hot button issues.<br /><br />Lionel is absolutely correct that the laity who stayed with the Episcopal Church are more progressive than the existing clergy roster. Duncan had a long time to steer congregations to accept his right wing loyalists. Yet, aided and abetted by Bishop Price, it is those former Duncan lieutenants who stood firm and determined this election without discussion. The clergy clearly were disregarding the views of the laity. Between the prominent role grabbed by Price and the clergy and the discrediting of the views of the laity, I wonder why we don't just ask the Presiding Bishop to appoint whoever she wants. The effect would be the same.<br /><br />I hope that McConnell is as good at mediation and healing as he is perceived to be a strong supporter of the existing clergy. I hope that he is not as conservative as the clergy seem to perceive and desire. This diocese cannot survive one more election of the wrong Bishop. If the wrong choice has been made, then the progressive laity will simply slip away.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10008432818028709542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-39056419823587662252012-04-23T18:32:52.753-04:002012-04-23T18:32:52.753-04:00The first two bishops of Pittsburgh were actually ...The first two bishops of Pittsburgh were actually elected by the clergy, with the laity only ratifying that choice. <br /><br />Bishop Whitehead recognized this as an anomaly at his first diocesan convention in 1882, but because of his forty-year episcopate it was not until 1923 that the laity got to vote alongside their clerical brethren.<br /><br />I always liked Whitehead's verdict on his own election, penned a year before his death: <br /><br />"Only two men in the Diocese, I was told, had ever seen me - one a clergyman and one a layman - neither of whom voted for me - men of sense and fine discernment."Jeremy Bonnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16915767119353670952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-29571142737362721602012-04-23T13:22:19.083-04:002012-04-23T13:22:19.083-04:00Point of clarification for those who might need it...Point of clarification for those who might need it: NACC in the last post is No Anglican Covenant Coalition.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-12615194646341758142012-04-23T12:15:29.646-04:002012-04-23T12:15:29.646-04:00Lionel,
I am aware of your desire to make the dioc...Lionel,<br />I am aware of your desire to make the diocesan in P'burgh more answerable to the laity. And it is as it should be. At the same time I am also aware that it is the clergy who have the most interaction with the bishop.<br /><br />Our whole careers depend not on our personal ability or grace; it depends upon our bishop's ability to recognize our ability to recognize our calls. I personally have been attacked by bishops who were incapable of tolerating difference and it has cost me bitterly. I am not surprised at the unwillingness of the clergy to bend to the needs of the laity because it may have been that they recognized that in their choice they knew that their choice would treat them appropriately. This isn't clerical conspiracy, it is the need for someone who can understand the unique role that clerics play in the Episcopal 'Troika'. Peoples' careers and livelihoods are at stake.<br /><br />Yes, elections can be a pain in the tush, but after 2 years at NACC, I would not choose the CofE system!Muthah+https://www.blogger.com/profile/10589837671378205837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-34606478792444436002012-04-23T09:16:31.818-04:002012-04-23T09:16:31.818-04:00Bruce,
My hope is that Dorsey McConnell will be a...Bruce,<br /><br />My hope is that Dorsey McConnell will be a fine bishop for Pittsburgh.<br /><br />As for the process, I’m sure it was mostly typical for our church. That, however, doesn’t make the process a good one. When discussing our procedures with Bishop Price, the response to one proposal or another was usually “this is the way other dioceses do it.” Tradition is fine, but, every now and then, the use of a little reason might be helpful.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-18619054882241024682012-04-23T08:33:36.947-04:002012-04-23T08:33:36.947-04:00Good morning Lionel, and as always it's good t...Good morning Lionel, and as always it's good to hear your reflections. I would only say that I didn't think the format and "political" environment of our election this weekend differed much from what I've experienced in other episcopal elections. They're all a little different, but I thought it was reassuring to see that things were pretty typical and familiar. <br /><br />As you point out, the nature of our electorate is a bit peculiar. We only really have a dozen or so parish clergy in full-time, settled ministry. Likewise, our lay deputies are often representing clusters of Episcopalians more resembling a house-group than a traditional parish. As I mentioned to you on Saturday, the fact that any two of these groups, perhaps with a dozen or so members each, would have more lay deputies than parishes with ASA of 150 or so is also peculiar. We are, well, just plain peculiar.<br /><br />My belief going into this weekend was that our carefully-designed nomination and petition processes had given us five nominees who would bring to us strengths and weaknesses, blessings and regrets, were they to be elected. <br /><br />I thought it was spiritually significant that the reading for the morning office on Saturday was the story in Exodus where God's people in the wilderness were engaged in battle with the Amalekites. Moses stands on a bluff overlooking the scene. When he raises his arms, the Israelites prevail. When his arms lower, the tide turns toward the Amalekites. As the battle wears on, Moses tires and things don't look good. But then Aaron and Hur join Moses. They find him a large stone to lean on, so he can continue to stand, and they each take one of his arms and hold them up. And the Amalekites are routed. The moral of the story: it takes a village.<br /><br />Dorsey McConnell is a priest of deep spiritual maturity, emotional health, wisdom, and integrity. A great guy with a love of the Church and, as they say in Massachusetts, a wicked sense of humor. <br /><br />But how he "does" as a bishop here will mostly have to do with how "we" do as a diocese. <br /><br />It will be a lot of good work. For us to do together.<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />Bruce RobisonBruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-32165513418220392742012-04-23T00:24:03.465-04:002012-04-23T00:24:03.465-04:00Thank you for writing this. I agree that Episcopal...Thank you for writing this. I agree that Episcopal elections are stifled by a desire for it not to be an election. The delicate shudder at the thought that an election could be political in nature inhibits a level of honesty that could assist in discernment, as well as preventing the Church from exhibiting what a healthy and holy political process might look like. Just because it's nice and polite doesn't make it healthy or holy.LKThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05791517233920008067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-55579843956777424982012-04-23T00:18:52.029-04:002012-04-23T00:18:52.029-04:00Somehow the process is unfair because your guy did...Somehow the process is unfair because your guy didn't win? Really? You act is if a discussion of the candidates would have changed the results - I don't know, but with such a small voting group it would b easy enough to write or email them or even set up an open forum for discussion.<br /><br />I've been disappointed with the results of several episcopal elections, but I don't consider it my right to insist on MY candidate. My experience has been that God works with all kinds of people, including those we start off not liking much. I pray it may be so for the "liberals" (whatever you believe that term means) in Pittsburgh.<br /><br />Tom Fitzhugh<br />TexasTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15127975112522641512noreply@blogger.com