NOTES,  10 MAY 2021

Welcome, blog reader, on Monday, May 10, 2021. I suppose everyone has settled down after the bishop's election and is now in anticipation of the bishop-elect's assents from the bishops and Standing Committees and her consecration and ordination as XV of the Diocese of South Carolina, on Oct. 2, 2021. 

It is time to check in on the crises we have been following for over a year now. We will start with the pandemic.

PANDEMIC. The trends here are mixed. COVID-19 continues to spread in the world, but to decline in the United States. According to our usual source, Worldometers, in the last month, the world added 20m new cases, for a total of 159,029,697. Also in the past month, the world reported 400,000 deaths, for a total of 3,308,277 deaths in the whole of the pandemic, so far. The epicenter of the pandemic seems to be shifting from the U.S. to countries as India and Brazil.

Figures have been declining in the United States for the past few weeks. The numbers of new cases have dropped steadily every week for the past month, now at a total of 33,476,781. The numbers of deaths per week have also fallen steadily, for a total of 595,812. Last week, the U.S. reported its lowest weekly death toll since last year, at 4,750. 

Our local states are following the national trends. In South Carolina, new cases have declined every week for a month, for a total of 584,517 cases. Last week (May 3-10), SC reported 4,244 new cases, the lowest weekly number since last year. Likewise, numbers of deaths have declined. Last week, SC reported 72 deaths, for a total of 9,592. Alabama has also shown a steadily declining trajectory. Last week, AL reported 2,421 new cases, for a total of 530,988. This was a fifty percent drop in a month. Charleston County is also reporting constant declines in reported numbers. Last week, it listed 270 new cases, for a total of 43,111. A month ago, the county reported 533 new cases in one week.

Vaccinations are accelerating. As of today, 114,258,244 Americans are fully vaccinated. This is a bit more than a third of the country. In just the last three weeks, 30m Americans have been fully inoculated. However, experts say the country needs to reach 70% to have "herd immunity." We are only half way there. 

SCHISM. Nothing new on the litigation front. No word from the South Carolina Supreme Court. 

The last time the Church diocese appealed to the SCSC, the court acted promptly. On February 3, 2015, Judge Diane Goodstein handed down her sweeping judgment favoring the breakaway diocese. The next month (Mar. 24), the Church diocese appealed the decision to the SCSC. Less than a month later (Apr. 15), the SCSC agreed to accept the appeal and set a hearing date of Sept. 23, 2015. 

This time the SCSC is not so prompt. Judge Edgar Dickson issued his version of Goodstein's order on June 19, 2020. The next month (July 27), the Church diocese filed an appeal with the SCSC. The month after that (August 8), the SCSC agreed to take the appeal. The two sides filed their briefs from then to March 4, 2021. Now, more than two months after all the papers have been filed, there is still no word from the SCSC. The SCSC does not have to hold a hearing. The justices can rule directly on whether to affirm or reject Dickson's Order. The lapse of time since the SCSC agreed to accept the appeal leads me to suspect they may not hold a hearing but go to a written decision. If they do, there is no way to predict how long that may take. One may recall, somewhat wearily, that the last time the justices were in this situation, they took 22 months to issue a written decision. We have no choice but to wait on the slow wheels of justice to turn. After eight and a half years of waiting, we should all be used to waiting, and waiting...

Meanwhile, we have a diversion with the bishops' elections in both parts of the schism. The old diocese has made its selection. The new diocese is just starting the process. 

The new diocese, the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, has set up a Search Committee of 17 members, 12 men and 5 women (women have never been the majority on any committee of the breakaway diocese). The diocesan establishment controls this committee. It consists of 8 clergy plus Alan Runyan, the chancellor. This means 9 as opposed to the 8 lay people on the committee. One name not on the Search Committee is the Rev. Jeff Miller. He was on both the Search Committee and the Standing Committee when Mark Lawrence was chosen in 2006-07. Find the ADSC Search Committee here . 

According to the timeline , the list of nominees for bishop coadjutor will be published on August 1, 2021. The Walkabouts will be on or about 11 September. The election will be on 16 October. The ordination/consecration of the new bishop coadjutor is set for March 12, 2022. Upon Bishop Lawrence's retirement, the coadjutor will become the diocesan bishop.

It will be interesting to see the slate on nominees from ADSC. The Episcopal diocese had a diverse collection of five including two women, one African American man, and one openly gay man. We certainly will not be seeing diversity when the ADSC list comes out in August. We can safely expect all middle aged straight, white guys. Here is a picture of the ACNA bishops a couple of years ago. 

Of the 41 men here (women are not allowed to be bishops in ACNA), I count 3 "of color."

As all of ACNA, the selection of new bishops is authoritarian. The whole raison d'être of ACNA is to preserve (white) male power. Once a bishop-elect is chosen, he is not sent for approval of the majority of the bishops and Standing Committees as is the case in the Episcopal Church. No, in ACNA, only the College of Bishops acts, They must vote by two-thirds to approve the bishop-elect. The laity of the church and the Standing Committees have no role in approving a new bishop. This means that one-third plus one of the ACNA bishops can veto any bishop-elect. This rigid authoritarian system is meant to preserve the white patriarchy. The Anglican Church in North America was set up in 2010 to keep non-celibate gays and women from having equality and inclusion in the church. This was part of the social counter-revolution against the democratic revolution that swept America, and the Episcopal Church, in the late Twentieth and early Twenty-First Centuries.

Since the new diocese has a limited pool from which to choose, I expect the slate of nominees to be largely from the diocese itself. In fact, I think the new bishop will be someone prominent for years among this group, as the Rev. Jeff Miller, who was promoted from St. Helena's to St. Philip's, of Charleston, the plum rectorship of the diocese.

So, there is quite a contrast in the selection process of the Episcopal and the Anglican dioceses. While the old diocese moves boldly into the new democratic future and awaits its first female bishop, the new diocese will cling desperately to the old system of authoritarian patriarchy. This, in spite of the fact that the recent diocesan survey showed that the laity of the Anglican diocese are open to equality and inclusion for both gays and women. There is a gap in social views between the reactionary clergy and the ordinary people-in-the-pews of ADSC, even by their own evidence. One can only wonder where this gap will lead, but for now the authoritarians are in power and they will control the selection of the new bishop of this experiment in reaction. Nothing demonstrates the differences between the Episcopal and the Anglican dioceses of South Carolina better than the way they are going about choosing their new leadership. There is a stark contrast.

As always, we should remind ourselves we are here for the living of this hour, whatever it may bring. Peace.

A NEW DAY

FOR THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Yesterday was a perfect spring day at my house, blue sky, sunny, warm. As I strolled about my garden, I was enveloped in the new life of spring all around me, fresh green growth bursting forth, colorful flowers warmed by the loving sun, scents sent from heaven, and a singing choir of little feathery angels. It was a new day too for the Diocese of South Carolina. It chose a new bishop. This was the first bishop's election there in fourteen years. It was the first election in the history of the diocese to go to a woman. The diocese chose as its XV shepherd Ruth Woodliff-Stanley. A new day has dawned for the battle weary and long-suffering band of Episcopalian foot soldiers in the eastern half of South Carolina. A new commanding general is on the way. 

The Diocese of South Carolina is still in the worst crisis of its long and eventful history, at least since the Civil War, and arguably ever. When the majority of clergy and laity bolted the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina in 2012, they purported to take the diocese and most of the local properties with them. They claimed the entity of the old diocese, all but a handful of parishes, and the diocesan camp, St. Christopher. They immediately sued in court claiming ownership of these. They declared legal war against the Episcopal Church on Jan. 4, 2013 and have been fighting fiercely since. That is more than eight years of combat. It is no wonder the Episcopalians of South Carolina are exhausted and longing for a return to "normality." Everyone has battle fatigue.

The two large legal issues are still unresolved, even after all this time. One is the ownership of the entity of the diocese. The federal district court in Charleston ruled in 2019 entirely in favor of the Episcopal Church and issued an injunction forbidding the schismatics from claiming to be in any way the pre-schism diocese. The breakaways then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals. At present, there is a stay. The appeals court will take up the matter after the South Carolina Supreme Court issues its decision.

The second large legal issue is the ownership of 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher. In 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court awarded these to the Episcopal Church diocese. However, the circuit court, which was directed to implement this decision, reversed it and declared that the Episcopal Church did not own the parishes and the camp. The Church diocese appealed to the state supreme court. At present, we are awaiting word from the court on whether they will hold a hearing, or just issue a written decision. They could uphold the 2017 SC Supreme Court decision; or, they could leave in place the circuit court order. If they leave in place the circuit court order they will be establishing the precedent that a lower court can overturn a decision of the state supreme court, something that at the very least defies common sense.

Unless the courts act before then, this is the state of matters that Bishop Woodliff-Stanley will walk into in October when she is consecrated the XV bishop (she has to be affirmed by a majority of bishops and Standing Committees first, surely a formality). She will have her hands full. By all the indications she gave in the bishop's search, she will hit the ground running with fresh vigor. I am envisioning Joan of Arc (or perhaps Ruth of Mississippi). The beleaguered forces still fighting in the trenches should take heart. New leadership and a new day are just ahead. It is springtime in the Diocese of South Carolina.

ANDREW PEARSON RESIGNS AS DEAN OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF THE ADVENT, BIRMINGHAM AL

The wardens of the Cathedral Church of the Advent, in Birmingham, Alabama, John Hargrove and Jay Ezelle, have sent a letter to the parish announcing the resignation of the Very Rev. Andrew Pearson as the Dean. His last Sunday of service will be May 16, 2021.  (Click on the image for enlargement.)

The letter is undated. I received it on 28 April. The theme of the letter is "tension." "Andrew has discerned that the ongoing tension he feels serving in the Episcopal Church makes him no longer able to serve as the spiritual leader of the Advent." 

The letter goes on: "Although the Advent has its own tension with the Episcopal Church, we are hopeful that the new leadership of Bishop Glenda Curry has provided an opportunity to build a foundation for a continued and generational peace between the Advent and the Diocese. Accordingly, the Vestry of the Advent appointed a team to talk with Bishop Curry to find a better, amicable path forward while protecting the essential attributes of the Advent." 

Thus, the letter identifies two kinds of tension: Pearson and Episcopal Church, and Advent and the Diocese of Alabama. Obviously there was tension between Pearson and the Vestry but this the letter does not identify. 

In a sense, the Cathedral Church of the Advent has been an extension of the pre-schism Diocese of South Carolina, and not necessarily in a good way, for the past twenty-five years. The last three deans of the Advent came directly from the Lowcountry and its predominantly evangelical milieu critical of social changes in the Episcopal Church. When the Advent became the diocesan cathedral, in 1982, the parish was known as a "mainstream" or non-controversial parish. This changed in the 1990's. 

In 1995, the first of the three South Carolina evangelical deans arrived. Paul Zahl was dean of the Advent from 1995 to 2004. He had been rector of St. James Church, James Island, Charleston. Zahl was quite a powerful intellectual and charismatic presence and moved the parish rightward while greatly building up the congregation, from 2,400 to 3,400 members. It was he who famously (or infamously) put out the black flag on the front of the cathedral when the General Convention affirmed openly gay Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003. Zahl left the Advent in 2004 to become dean and president of Trinity School for Ministry in PA. By this time, the Advent was squarely at odds with the reformist agenda of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Alabama which remained firmly in the mainstream.  

This brought in the second link in the chain, Frank Limehouse, who had been rector of St. Helena's, Beaufort SC, from 1995 to 2005 (Jeff Miller replaced him; Miller is now rector of St. Philip's, Charleston). St. Helena's was one of the leading parishes in SC espousing the vertical religion and opposing the reforms of the Episcopal Church (it went on to play an important part in the schism in SC). 

The third link in the chain was Andrew Pearson. He was an associate rector of St. Helena's, under Jeff Miller, from 2007 to 2011. In 2011, Pearson was hired at the Advent for Parish Life and Evangelism, serving until 2014. Upon Limehouse's departure from the Advent, Pearson became dean of the Advent in January 2014, at the age of 33. By that time, the parish had experienced two decades of evangelical and socially conservative leadership. 

For more on Pearson's background and his time at the Advent see my blog piece of Jan. 26, 2016: "Memo to Dean Pearson: No Schism in Alabama." Find it here  .

So, when the wardens talked in the letter about "tension" between the Advent and the diocese, they were talking about the anti-Episcopal Church attitude that has been brewing at the Advent for over 25 years. While the Advent was heavily influenced by the evangelical clergy from the Lowcountry, the rest of the Diocese of Alabama was not. It remained steadily in the mainstream of the Episcopal Church under great bishops as Miller, Parsley, Sloan, and Curry.

So, back to Pearson's resignation. The first question everyone asks is Why? Why did he resign? That we would have to get from Pearson or the vestry. Obviously they agreed for him to step down.

It seems the Advent may be having an identity problem. If so, the "tension" did not form overnight. It has been developing for a long time, for instance in the forms of corporate worship. In 2018, the Advent adopted "Our Liturgy" which can be found on their website. It is based on the TEC Prayer Book, but does not adhere to it strictly. The identity problem was how far the parish should move from the mainstream of the Episcopal Church into the evangelical realm, or, how much vertical and how much horizontal? My guess is that this was the problem that eventually progressed into intolerable "tension" between the vestry and the dean and between the parish and the bishop. So, now the parish needs to move toward resolving its discomfort with the contending strains of the vertical (evangelical) and horizontal (Episcopal). The  most hopeful sign in the letter was the part about a team the vestry had formed to talk with the bishop about better relations between the parish and the diocese. 

So, it seems to me the Advent may be at an inflection point. It may well be that the lay leadership wants to inch its way back toward the Episcopal mainstream without abandoning its self-aware vertical theological posture. We shall see as events unfold there. There is an interim dean, and presumably a search for a new dean. Meanwhile, let's hope for everyone's sake the "tensions" ease at the Advent.

THE BISHOP'S ELECTION,

THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

MAY 1, 2021

8:00 a.m. EDT.    

Welcome happy morning! And, greetings to you, blog reader, on this most glorious day. In all probability, within the day, the good people of the Diocese of South Carolina will have a bishop-elect. We have to call him or her "bishop-elect," because technically he or she cannot be a bishop until approval by a majority of bishops and Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church.

There are five nominees for bishop-elect. As everyone knows, they are all fine people and any one would make a good bishop. However, only one of them can be chosen. This is the task of the day, to decide which one of the five best fits the needs of the people of the diocese. And, this is a decision the people have to make. I think we all have to trust their good judgment. They have certainly shown good judgment so far. They stood and fought for human rights when the crowd was against them. From day one, I have been lost in admiration for the heroic people of the Diocese of South Carolina. I still am.

I got up before dawn this morning so I could enjoy one of my favorite things, to watch the sun rise over my garden. I can see part of my garden from my bedroom window. In the peaceful quiet and stillness of the hour, I watch in awe as the sun's rays illuminate the tops of the trees then gradually everything all the way down to the ground. In the end, the earth dazzles in the radiance of the new light, and right now, in the full glory of the springtime. There is nothing more beautiful and wonderful in the world than to watch the glorious new day emerge. 

A glorious new day will be emerging in South Carolina too. I will return to make a running commentary on the election, before the hour of 9:00 a.m. Right now I am off to my garden for a morning devotional. 

8:45 a.m.     I am back after enjoying the beauty of my garden in the early morning of a perfect spring day. I am refreshed and ready to go.

If you are watching and not participating in the election convention, you should be tuned into YouTube and the Diocese of South Carolina. The "Electing Convention" page is posted.

8:58 a.m.     Second cup of coffee at hand. Saying a last minute prayer for the delegates and people of the Diocese of South Carolina. Ready for the convention to begin in a few seconds.

9:08 a.m.     Audio and video begins on YouTube. Proceedings to begin momentarily.

9:11-9:37 a.m.     Morning Prayer. Bishop Parsley gave the homily.

9:38 a.m.     Rev. Caleb Lee called the convention to order. Thomas Tisdale named as parliamentarian of the meeting. Resolutions adopted to name secretary and provide for virtual convention.

9:54 a.m. A practice ballot. 5 minutes allotted.

10:04 a.m.     Chair called 10 minute break. 

10:23 a.m.     Meeting resumed. Chair placed the five names into nomination. Called for discussion. No discussion.

10:27 a.m.     FIRST BALLOT begins. Balloting allotted for 10 minutes to be followed by break. Chair announced plan to resume meeting at 10:55 a.m. Moved to 11:05 a.m.

11:11     Results of First Ballot announced:

Woodliff-Stanley  Lay-8 (41%),  Clergy-19 (56%)

Walpole  Lay-3.5,  Clergy-7

Lee  Lay-5,  Clergy-6

Hoare  Lay-2,  Clergy-1

Johnson  Lay-1,  Clergy-1

Woodliff-Stanley carried the majority in the Clergy Order but not in the Lay Order. Walpole came in second in the Clergy Order and third in the Lay Order. It is clear the diocese wants the new bishop to be a woman. 

On the Second Ballot, W-S needs to pick up two votes in the Lay Order to secure the majority. Ruth Woodliff-Stanley was clearly the first choice in both orders.

11:26     Call for Second Ballot. Coverage scheduled to resume at 12:00 p.m.

Ruth Woodliff-Stanley has already secured the majority in the Clergy Order. She must win at least 2 more votes to carry the Laity Order. That would give her a concurrent majority in the two orders and the election.

Meeting to resume at 12:15 p.m. 

E L E C T I O N !

The Rev. Ruth Woodliff-Stanley wins as bishop-elect of the Diocese of South Carolina.

Second Ballot:

W-S  Lay-13 (67%),  Clergy-26 (77%)

Walpole  Lay-3,  Clergy-6

Lee  Lay-3,  Clergy-2

Hoare  Lay-.5,  Clergy-0

Johnson  Lay-0,  Clergy-0

12:33 p.m. Meeting adjourned.

Now, the majority of bishops and of the Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church must give consent to the election of Woodliff-Stanley within the next 120 days. If so, she will be ordained and consecrated the XV bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina on:

October 2, 2021

______________________

Comments:

Historic Day! Historic in many ways. First, the Diocese of South Carolina is back. After eight and a half years without a diocesan bishop, the diocese is about to have a new one. First, too in having a bishop who is a woman.

This is a great step in the healing and rebuilding of a great diocese that was decimated by people who thought they knew better than the combined wisdom of the church. The courts still have to rule finally on who owns the entity of the pre-schism diocese and who owns the bulk of the parish properties. Regardless of what the courts finally decide, the diocese can now move on with new life. 

For the good and long-suffering people of the Diocese of South Carolina, and for all of us, this is a moment of great rejoicing for many reasons. Te Deum laudamus. 

THE MOMENT OF DECISION DRAWS NIGH

It is only a matter of hours before the Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina choose their next bishop-elect. After nearly a year and a half of preparation, the time of decision is finally at hand. Two hundred and thirty six years of history are looking down on the people of the diocese (341 if one wants to go back to the first Anglican church in SC). Will they choose the first woman bishop, the first African American, the first openly gay, or none of the above? This election will be a first in many ways: the first in a schism, first in a pandemic, first by entirely electronic means, first without an assembly. All of this is a lot to process.   

The election convention is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. EDT, on Saturday, May 1, 2021. For the participants, it will be on Zoom. For everyone else, it will be live streamed on YouTube.  

I will open a commentary page on this blog before the convention commences and provide a running account as the election unfolds while I watch the YouTube feed. I expect to start my remarks on this blog within the hour before the convention begins.

Here are some final thoughts, as we count down the last hours:

---I am sure everyone would agree that the diocese has been blessed with five outstanding nominees. Any one of them would make a good bishop. The people of the diocese should be profoundly grateful that these fine people offered to captain their ship through the perilous seas ahead. I for one do not think this stellar slate is a random accident of history.

---My sense at this point (admittedly with little empirical data) is that no one has a lock on the election. However, there has been a great deal of interest in the two women nominees.

---The search process itself has helped the people of the diocese sort out their own thoughts about where the diocese has been, where it is now, and where it will go moving forward. The diocese itself is better off having gone through the process of a search. The search was not just for a bishop, it was for the soul of the diocese.

---The logistics of a "virtual" election are problematical. The Laity Order will vote by local church. A parish has four delegates while a mission has two. Each delegation will have to stay in close and continuous contact with each other as the voting proceeds because they have to vote by consensus within the delegation. If a delegation splits 50/50, they nullify their church's vote.

 

---For election, there must be a majority in the Clergy Order and the Laity Order at the same time. If there is no concurrent majority, the voting continues to the next ballot. In every bishop's election I have studied, the final winner led the vote in at least one of the orders on the First Ballot. 

Therefore, when the vote on the First Ballot is announced, note the top vote-getter in each of the two orders. If there is not a concurrent majority for one nominee, the voting will proceed to a Second Ballot.  In all probability, one of the nominees who led the voting in one (or the one who led in both orders) on the First Ballot will wind up winning the election. I do not know of a bishop's election in which a dark horse candidate came from behind to overtake one or both of the top vote-getters of the First Ballot.

---If the orders split on the top vote-getter (Clergy give A the most votes while Laity give B the most votes), coming to a consensus may be difficult. Only one can win. A split would mean one of two things would have to happen. Either one order would have to bow to the other to arrive at a consensus majority, or a third candidate would have to arise and overtake the top vote-getter in each order to secure a concurrent majority (again, I do not know of any case in which a third candidate won). The danger here is lingering hard feelings. This is why it is best not to go into the voting too set on one nominee to the exclusion of all others.

---Also, on the First Ballot, note the relative positions of the two women candidates in relation to the three men. If the two women come in first and second places on one or both orders and there is space between them and the three men, this will indicate a consensus among the voters, or at least a strong leaning, to elect a woman as bishop. It would be a clear signal that one of the women, most likely the one who is the top vote-getter, will have a strong chance of winning the election, perhaps on the next ballot.  

   

---Also, one should note the lowest two vote-getters on the First Ballot in each order. Sometimes, seeing that they will not win, the bottom one or two candidates will withdraw from the race as the balloting proceeds. Regardless, votes will shift from the bottom two to the top two. The delegates who leave the bottom contestants will have to decide where to shift their votes.

---It is impossible at this point to know what effect the low numbers of possible votes will mean to the outcome. If all of the certified clergy participate, there will be only 34 votes in the Clergy Order. This means a candidate must get at least 18 votes to win in that order. If all of the eligible local churches participate, there will be only 19.5 lay votes. This means 10 or more votes will be necessary to carry the Laity Order. With so few possible votes, even a slight shift will be more significant than if the election involved greater numbers.

Finally, one cannot overemphasize the importance of this election. In all probability it will set the direction of the Diocese of South Carolina for many years to come. Now, the choice of the new bishop is in the hands of the good people of the diocese. These people are my heroes. Knowing the difference between right and wrong, they took the hard road only because it was the right thing to do. They gave up of themselves so that others might be given full life in the church. Now, at this historic moment of decision, we should all rest confident in the good judgment of the people of the Diocese of South Carolina.

St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, St. Stephen SC, 1760's.

(A personal footnote. My goal on this blog in the run-up to the election was to provide information and raise issues which the people of the diocese could use to reach their own conclusions. As I told my students for decades, I am not here to tell you what to think; I am here to tell you how to think. The decision on the bishop of SC is not mine to make. It belongs to the people of the Diocese of South Carolina. I have tried very hard to remain neutral on this blog and to avoid personal commentary on the individual candidates. My fondest wish is that on election day, everyone makes his or her most informed and thoughtful choice.)

THE UNIQUE ELECTION

The Diocese of South Carolina has gone through fourteen bishop's elections in its 236-year history. It is about to hold its fifteenth. This one will be unique. Nothing like it has ever happened in the long and eventful history of the diocese. What makes it the one-of-a-kind? Two factors:  1-it is the only election to be held in the midst of a schism; 2-it is the only election to be held in the midst of a pandemic. This means the election will be held under highly unusual circumstances with highly unusual challenges. There has never been a "virtual," i.e. all electronic, election convention in the diocese. 

In my view, there are three major factors that should be borne in mind as the diocese proceeds to and through the impending bishop's election:

1-The diocese must maintain unity. 

There are five nominees at hand. All appear to be well-qualified and attractive. Surely, any one of them would make an effective bishop. My guess is that each one has a set of followers right now, people who are sure the one they have selected is the best. This is perfectly understandable. No doubt the partisans are in great hope their favorite will win. In reality, four of the five will not win. This means in all probability there will be numerous disappointed people in the diocese once the dust settles. The last thing the Diocese of South Carolina needs now is dissension, division, and recrimination. The life of the diocese is tenuous and precarious. This election must not add to the danger of the hour.

Before the election convention adjourns, both the diocesan leadership and the bishop-elect should do what they can to assuage hurt feelings and bring the diocese together in amity and harmony. In face of all of its dire challenges, it is absolutely imperative the diocese remain well-united going into the future.

2. The diocese must adhere strictly to the established rules of procedure.

The best way to keep unity is to guarantee that each nominee is treated with equal respect and opportunity. The diocesan authorities must not be in a position of being accused of favoritism to any one nominee. When the election is underway, the same must apply. Each nominee and his or her voters must be treated with the utmost of honor. Then, when all is said and done, there will be no chance of criticism of the process. One should bear in mind that if there is a suspicion of election irregularity, ten percent of the delegates can file an official complaint with the national church that will require an official investigation of the election. No one should want that in any circumstance, least of all in the present state of the diocese. What an embarrassment that would be.

Given the milieu of the schism, there must be not be even a whiff of illegitimacy around the new bishop. In the first place, this would raise issues of hypocrisy. One should not accuse others of breaking rules then turn around and break rules oneself. Moreover, when the federal court finally awards the pre-schism diocese to the Church side (highly likely) and the state court awards the 29 parishes and the Camp to the Church diocese (likely), there must not be a question about the validity of the bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina who will assume authority over the entities in question.

3. An unprecedented "virtual" election convention will require some adaptation of traditional procedures. These should be done with unity and adherence to the rules in mind. 

If there is no decision on the First Ballot, the convention managers should allow abundant time for local churches to arrive at whatever changes they wish to make in their voting on the Second Ballot. The same between all subsequent ballots. Perhaps an hour between ballots should be allotted. At the end of the hour, the managers could call for a vote unless one or more delegations request more time on which the managers could allot an additional thirty minutes. This election is much too important to be rushed. 

Given the constraints of a "virtual" election convention, communication could be a problem among the voting sets. Steve Skardon has discussed this issue well in his latest blog piece. Find it here  . 

Voting in the Clergy Order will not necessarily be a problem. The vote there is one person/one vote. However, voting in the Laity Order could present some awkward and challenging circumstances. Voting there is by local church. A parish gets one vote and may have as many as four delegates while a mission gets one-half vote and may have as many as two delegates. Each local delegation will have a chairperson who will convey the local delegation's vote to the election convention officials. Each delegation must make a majority choice among themselves in order to have their vote counted. If a delegation is split 50/50, its vote will be not counted. Since a local church's vote represents the whole local church, the members of the congregation should have some way to communicate with their delegates if there is more than one ballot. Even more importantly, the local church delegates must communicate with each other as the ballots unfold. Ideally, the whole congregation, including delegates, should congregate for the duration of the election. If not in person, the parishioners need some way to talk with their delegates, perhaps by Zoom or conference call. Likewise, if the local delegates cannot meet in person, they must be able to talk with each other readily as the voting proceeds. The typical voting pattern on multiple ballots is for votes to move from the lower candidates to the leading ones. Local churches must be able to decide how their votes might shift from one nominee to another. This is why there should be a lengthy pause, as an hour, between ballots. The local delegations must be afforded plenty of time to arrive at their decisions. 

As the Diocese of South Carolina moves toward choosing its XV bishop, it has a great and rich heritage from which to draw. As the fateful hour of decision approaches, it is helpful to go back and recall some of that great foundation. The models for this convention are the two greatest bishops of South Carolina in the Twentieth Century. William Guerry (bp. 1908-1928) gave his life in an attempt to right some of the wrongs of racial injustice in the diocese. He set the model for diocesan work in human rights from then on. His witness still speaks to the diocese loudly and clearly all these years later.

Gray Temple (bp. 1961-1982) set the standard of excellence for the diocese to follow indefinitely into the future. In a tumultuous era, he fought for unity, faithfulness to the Episcopal Church, and equality for and inclusion of African Americans and women in the diocese while guiding the diocese in unprecedented growth and development. His astonishing list of accomplishments is too long to give here. Whatever healthy life the diocese has today is in large measure the legacy of this moral giant. He remains the larger than life shepherd still beckoning to his sheep today.  He should be the patron saint of the election convention next Saturday and his icon should hang in a place of honor. His spirit will certainly be there as it is indelibly embedded in the diocese he loved so well. And so, I will close this blog piece with his most memorable words of wisdom. He told the diocesan convention on September 16, 1977:

I say to you that this new movement [against women's ordination] is wrong because it is schismatic and divides the Body. Anyone who joins this movement is leaving The Church and starting a new one, whatever language is used to define the action. I cannot believe this is the will of God, who wills unity not division; love not separation; obedience and not self-gratification.

The Rt. Rev. Gray Temple.

May the Diocese of South Carolina move forward faithfully and confidently in the train of Guerry, Temple, and the countless other saints who served God while comprising the Episcopal Church in eastern South Carolina lo these many years. Given the daunting crises of the hour, the new bishop will have an exceedingly hard task and can only succeed with the enveloping love and support of all the people of the diocese. Whomever the people decide to choose next Saturday ultimately must be the choice of everyone. 

FOCUSING ON THE ELECTION

One week from tomorrow, on Saturday, May 1, 2021, the Diocese of South Carolina will select its candidate to be the XV bishop of the diocese. We have to say "candidate" or "bishop-elect" because he or she will have to be approved by a majority of the bishops and the standing committees in the Episcopal Church before he or she can be ordained and consecrated as XV. The consents have to be given within 120 days of the election. Although there have been provisional bishops, there has not been a diocesan bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina since Bishop Mark Lawrence left the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina on October 15, 2012. He and his followers formed a new religious organization now known as the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, although it is not in the Anglican Communion. The Diocese of South Carolina has gone eight and a half years without a "regular" bishop. Thus, the election on the 1st will be a monumental milestone on the road to recovery after the schism of 2012. With this in mind, it is time for all eyes in the diocese to turn to the process of choosing the new bishop. It is time for a lot of thought and prayer as the hour of decision draws near.

All the information one needs to know about the election convention is available on the diocesan website. Find it here  . There is an excellent list of Questions and Answers that should give one what one needs to know about the process. 

The election is up to the clergy and laypeople of the diocese. The voting will be in two orders, Clergy Order and Laity Order. There must be a concurrent majority of votes in both orders to secure an election. The Q and A mentioned above provides the official list (made on Apr. 22) of the certified clergy and lay delegates to the election convention. Find the list here . There are 34 clergy in the Clergy Order and 12 parishes and 15 missions in the Laity Order (the worshiping group in Cheraw is on the list, but it is not a mission). This would mean possibly as many as 34 votes in Clergy and 19.5 votes in Laity. 

Since gender is a factor in the election for the first time in the long history of the diocese, it is interesting to note the numbers of men and women in the two orders. Among the Clergy, I count 8 women and 26 men. In the Laity Order, I count 45 women and 36 men delegates. Men outnumber women in the clergy; and women outnumber men in the laity. Make out of that what you wish in terms of voting.

Speaking of gender, there is a great deal of interest in the two women candidates in the race, Calhoun Walpole, Archdeacon of the Diocese of South Carolina, and Ruth Woodliff-Stanley. I have been tracking the "Views" of the separate Interviews with the five nominees conducted by Elsa McDowell, and posted on Youtube on April 7. While I think we should not make too much of these numbers, they still show us relative public interest in the nominees. As of this morning here are the numbers of Views and percentages (Apr. 7-23):

Calhoun Walpole   454 (22.3%)

Ruth Woodliff-Stanley   440 (21.6%)

Terence Lee   403 (19.8%)

Geoffrey Hoare   384 (18.8%)

Kevin Johnson   352 (17.3%)

What to make of these figures? The two women nominees are clearly of most interest. Together they have drawn nearly half of all of the 2,033 Views. There is quite a gap between them and the three male contestants. Walpole has led consistently in the numbers race since the Interviews were posted on the 7th. This is true even though she started out as the best-known nominee having served for years as Archdeacon of the diocese and sub-dean at Grace Church Cathedral.

Besides McDowell's Interviews, there are also on Youtube the Candidate Conversations of April 12, 13, 14. These run about two hours each and involve all of the nominees. This is another way to get to know them. However, these Conversations have turned out to be far less popular than the Interviews, and I am sure we all know why: long, repetitious, not very revelatory. If you have six hours to kill, you could watch the Conversations, but, as for myself, once was enough. With that kind of time on your hands, I would recommend Wagner's opera cycle "Der Ring des Nibelungen," at 15 hours. It is far more exciting. As of this morning, Conversation Number 1 listed 474 Views, Conversation Number 2 had 297 Views, and Conversation Number 3 cited 253 Views. Do you see a pattern here? My point is that the Interviews tell us more about public interest in the individual nominees than the Conversations do.

(The Ride of the Valkyries, from Der Ring...)

The election may be decided on the first go around of voting. The last two bishop's elections in the Diocese were settled on the First Ballot. Bishops Salmon and Lawrence pulled majorities in both Orders right away. What if no one gets a majority in both orders on the First Ballot? In all of the bishop's elections with which I am familiar, the person who led in the voting on the First Ballot went on to win the election even if it required more than one following ballot. I am not familiar with any case in which a dark horse candidate came from behind to win.

Let us take the example of the Presiding Bishop's election in the General Convention of 2006. There were seven candidates:  Katharine Jefferts-Schori, Henry Parsley, J. Neil Alexander, Edwin F. Gulick, Francisco Duque-Gomez, Stacy F. Sauls, and Charles E. Jenkins. The First Ballot in the House of Bishops:

Jefferts-Schori        44

Parsley                     36

Alexander                26

Jenkins                     29

Sauls                         20

Duque-Gomez         18

Gulick                      15

Jefferts-Schori came in first place and Parsley came in second place. Then there was a gap between them and the rest of the field that ran in a fairly narrow range (26-15 votes). 

The Second Ballot:

Jefferts-Schori       49

Parsley                    49

Alexander               26

Jenkins                    30

Sauls                       17

Duque-Gomez        10

Gulick                      7

Thus, on the Second Ballot there was great movement away from the bottom two candidates toward the top two. Parsley gained 13 new votes to tie Jefferts-Schori who gained 5 new votes. At this point it was entirely clear the race was between Jeffeets-Schori (identified as a "liberal") and Parsley (identified as a "moderate"). After the Second Ballot there was a stampede away from the bottom five candidates toward the top two. The question was: Which of the top two to choose? The top two were tied.

On the Third Ballot, Jefferts-Schori scored 68 wile Parsley got 63. All of the lower five lost votes. It was clear from this there was a stronger movement from the bottom candidates toward J-S than toward Parsley. On the Fourth Ballot, J-S jumped far up to 88 votes while Parsley rose to 79. Finally, on the Fifth Ballot, J-S won 95 votes to Parsley's 82. This gave her the majority in the House of Bishops. In sum, Jefferts-Schori was the top vote-getter on the First Ballot. She wound up winning although it took four more rounds to finish it. After the House of Bishops' vote, the election went to the House of Deputies which overwhelmingly approved the Bishops' decision.

The election on the 1st will be up to two groups, the clergy and the laity of the Diocese of South Carolina. I suggest both of these do their homework. This is a monumental decision which is going to be highly consequential in church life for years to come. Study the résumés of the nominees, review McDowell's Interviews, talk to one's peers about what is important to your church life. Lay people should find out who their delegates are and share their views with them. The parish and mission delegates will be voting for the entire local church (lay voting is by church, not individual).

The Election Convention on the 1st will be on Zoom and live-streamed on Youtube starting at 9 a.m. According to the certified list, there are 34 clergy eligible to vote. This would mean 18 will be required for a majority in that Order. There are 12 parishes and 15 missions listed. This would total 19.5 votes, of which 10 votes would be necessary for a majority. Of course, majorities would depend on the numbers of clergy and churches participating in the election.

The people of the Diocese of South Carolina are now focusing on a great decision before them. These are people for whom I have no bound of admiration. They are heroes who took the hard way because it was the right way. They stood for the equal rights of all of God's children even at great cost to themselves. They refused to be vanquished by the Pharisees. I would trust my life to these good people and the church should do the same. They have shown right judgment so far. I am certain they will again when the fateful hour arrives in eight days.

NOTES,  20 APRIL 2021

Greetings, blog reader, on Tuesday, April 20, 2021. It is time to check in on the crises we have been following for over a year. This time, we will look at the pandemic and the state of the schism. I think we can set aside the political issues for now.

PANDEMIC. COVID-19 continues to spread apace in the world, according to our usual source, Worldometers. Already this month, there have been 15,000,000 new cases in the world. Deaths are around 200,000. As of April 19, over 3,000,000 (3,034,587) people have died in the plague. The death rate has climbed in the month of April, from 70,000 in the first week of April to 83,300 last week (Apr. 12-19). There is a new surge of cases and deaths in the world now in the spring.

There are signs that a surge may be happening in the United States too. So far this month, the U.S. has added 1.5m new cases. About 20,000 Americans have died of the coronavirus this month. The U.S. death total now stands at 581,061. 

The plague continues to spread in South Carolina. The state added app. 20,000 new cases this month, to a total of 569,279. Meanwhile, the death rate has declined. Last week (Apr. 12-19), SC reported 60 deaths from covid, for a total of 9,336. Charleston County added 533 new cases last week, for a total of 42,004. The rate of spread held steady at about 1% a week. 

Alabama, on the other hand, showed worsening numbers. New cases there jumped from 2,090 (Apr. 5-12) to 3,502 (Apr. 12-19). AL is now reporting a total of 522,401 cases. The death rate is also rising in the state. Last week, 78 people died of covid, up from the 75 of the previous week, and the 74 of the week before that. AL is now reporting a total of 10,790 deaths from COVID-19.

The anti-covid vaccines are now available to everyone over the age of 16. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of hesitancy in our southeastern states. In all of the U.S., app. 25% of the people have been fully vaccinated. In SC, the number is 23%, in AL 19%. 

SCHISM. Nothing new to report on the litigation. We are awaiting word from the South Carolina Supreme Court. The justices will either set a time for a hearing on the case or issue a written decision. The last brief was submitted to the court on 4 March; and there has been no word from the court since then. 

Right now, all eyes in the Diocese of South Carolina are focused on the upcoming bishop's election, on Saturday, 1 May (11 days from now).

As I said in my last blog post, I am following the "Views" of the five interviews by Elsa McDowell, that were posted on Youtube on April 7. The numbers of views of each interview suggest relative interest among the public in the various ones of the five nominees. Here is the standing as of this morning (9 a.m., 20 Apr.):

Callie Walpole   445

Ruth Woodliff-Stanley   425

Terence Lee  391

Geoffrey Hoare   370

Kevin Johnson   337

This suggests the most public interest is with the two women candidates. The other three have clearly less interest.

It is also enlightening to look at the numbers since the start of the Walkabouts/Conversations on the morning of Monday, April 12. Here are the numbers of Views since a.m. Apr. 12:

Lee   169

Woodliff-Stanley   169

Walpole   144

Hoare   124

Johnson   111

This shows a surging interest in Lee, the only African-American contestant, and Woodliff-Stanley, one of the two female nominees. Hoare and Johnson seem to be drawing significantly less interest. 

As I said earlier, we should not make too much of the View numbers since it represents only the number of times viewers have clicked onto the interview. This does not necessarily translate into votes. All the numbers suggest is relative interest among the five nominees. With that said, I do think the numbers show there is a popular feeling to elect a woman as bishop.

It is also important to note the small numbers of votes in the election. There are roughly around 40 clergy. As for the Order of the Laity, there are 12 parishes, 1 vote each, and 18 missions, 1/2 vote each. This is a total of 21 votes in the lay order. Since there are so few votes in each order, each clergyperson and each local church will have far more power than in years past when the numbers were much greater.

Looking at the recent bishop's elections of which I am familiar, there are two patterns. In one, there is a highly popular nominee who wins on the first ballot. This happened with bishops Salmon and Lawrence. There was no contest. In the other, the nominees are closer together and no one wins a majority in either house on the first ballot. This happened in 1980 when Fitz Allison lead in both orders but lacked a majority in either. Nothing changed much in six ballots. More laity were for Allison than clergy. Finally, enough clergy agreed to follow the lead of the laity and changed their votes to give Allison a bare majority in the Clergy Order while he got a more comfortable majority in the Laity Order. In that case, the clergy followed (reluctantly) the lead of the laity.

The same sort of thing happened in the recent election in Alabama. There, the two women candidates were in the lead on the first ballot but without a majority in either house. The shift on the second ballot was mostly among the clergy who moved more than half of their votes from the two men to the leading woman candidate, Glenda Curry. The laity also gave her a majority, but with less movement. As with Allison, what made that difference was that the clergy followed the lead of the laity and threw their support behind the leading vote-getter.

It seems to me, in the limited information I have, that no one of the five at hand has a lock on this election. If this is true, it would indicate no one is likely to win on the first ballot. If the voting follows the "Views" of the interviews, the two women nominees will lead on the voting on the first ballot. In that case, the movement from the bottom candidates is likely to go to whomever is the top vote-getter on the first ballot. This is what happened with Allison in 1980 and Curry in 2020.

Meanwhile, I am enjoying a beautiful springtime and I hope you are too. Did we ever need it more? After a year and plus of covid and all its ugly and awful effects, we are all yearning for a return to normality. The changing seasons remind us that there is a regular order to the universe that will not be disrupted by a microbe so small it is barely discernible, however vicious it might be.

So, I invite you to take a brief break and sit with me in my garden and take in the beauty all around us. I have wonderful and abundant birds in my garden. You will hear mockingbirds singing.

________________________

Even though I am a democratic republican and student of the French Revolution, I do think we should all extend our warmest wishes to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, on her 95th birthday tomorrow, 21 April. After all, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the mother of our own Episcopal Church. In South Carolina, the Church of England was the established church from 1706 to 1785 when the remaining churches banded together to form the SC state association of Episcopal churches.

 

VIEWS OF THE "VIEWS"

In political races, we are always inundated with tracking polls that follow every slight move in the candidates' relative popularity in the expectation that this will indicate which ones will win their contests. Of course, opinion polls are often unreliable, most famously in 2016 when almost all of them predicted Clinton would win.

There are no public opinion polls in the run-up to the May 1st bishop's election in the Diocese of South Carolina. However, there is a sort of poll one may track that does throw some light on the relative strength of the five nominees as we approach the election. Elsa McDowell conducted interviews with each of the five and posted them on Youtube on April 7. They run between 19 and 30 minutes each. In them, the nominees were asked the same questions in the hopes their answers would help the people of the diocese get better acquainted with the five. Three of the five had no background with the diocese. Of the two who had connections, one had lived outside of the diocese for many years and so was not well known. On each interview, the current number of "Views" is given on the Youtube page. A View is registered each time a person clicks onto the particular interview. These View numbers indicate the relative public interest in the candidates and show how this interest is changing as time goes by. This is the best metric we have to give some indication of the relative strength of the five nominees in the horse race heading toward the finish line on the First of May.

 

Numbers of "Views":

Walpole. Apr. 8-113; Apr. 12-301; Apr. 14-374; Apr. 17-413.

Woodliff-Stanley. Apr. 8-83; Apr. 12-256; Apr. 14-344; Apr. 17-378.

Lee. Apr. 8-76; Apr. 12-222; Apr. 14-303; Apr. 17-353.

Hoare. Apr. 8-61; Apr. 12-246; Apr. 14-311; Apr. 17-340.

Johnson. Apr. 8-61; Apr. 12-226; Apr. 14-276; Apr. 17-308.

The first point is that the relative positions of the five have remained nearly the same. On April 8, one day after the interviews aired, the ranking of the Views was:

1-Walpole (113)

2-Woodliff-Stanley (83)

3-Lee (76)

4-5-Hoare (61)

4-5-Johnson (61)

On the most recent check (noon Apr. 17), the ranking was:

1-Walpole (413)

2-Woodliff-Stanley (378)

3-Lee (353)

4-Hoare (340)

5-Johnson (308)

Conclusions for the numbers above:

---There has been the most interest in Walpole all along. She has remained consistently in first place in the "Views." From Apr. 8 to 17, she collected the most Views, 300.

---Woodliff-Stanley has remained in second place. From Apr. 8 to 17, W-S collected the second-most Views, 295.

---Behind the two women, there has been the most interest in Terrence Lee, an African American. He has consistently held third place, not far behind W-S. From Apr. 8 to 17, his interview had 277 views.

---Less interest has been seen in Hoare and the least in Johnson. However, Hoard saw a significant surge in interest overall. From Apr. 8 to 17, he climbed from 61 to 340 Views, but this still left him in fourth place. Johnson had the least interest, moving from 61 to 308 and leaving him in fifth place.

What effect might the Walkabouts/Conversations of April 12-14 have had on sparking interest in the various nominees?

We can trace the Views from the early morning of April 12, before the Walkabouts, to noon today, the 17th.

The biggest surge in Views from the start of the Walkabouts on the 12th to today is with Lee who went from 222 to 353, a rise of 131, or 59%. Since the 12th, there has been more interest in the interview of Lee than any other nominee. The second highest surge was with Woodliff-Stanley, who moved from 256 to 378 Views, a rise of 122, or 48%. The third was Walpole, at 112 new Views, followed by Hoare at 94 and Johnson at 82. This suggests that Terrence Lee may have been the biggest winner of the Walkabouts/Conversations marathon. At least he has won the race in the Views of McDowell's five interviews since then.

As interesting as these numbers are, we must emphasize a big word of caution here. These figures tell us only the number of people clicking on each of the interviews. All this shows indisputably is interest. This is not necessarily an indication of how the viewers will vote. What it does show is the relative interest the viewers have in the five nominees; and I think that is worthwhile to consider.

Here is my take-away from the data of the Views of the McDowell interviews first posted on Apr. 7:

---Callie Walpole is consistently the subject of most public interest. This is true even though she is by far the best-known nominee among the people of the diocese having been Archdeacon for years.

---The two women candidates, Walpole and Woodliff-Stanley, are consistently in first and second place in Views. This suggests significant public interest in electing a bishop who is a woman.

---Terrence Lee, the African American nominee among the five, has shown the biggest surge in interest since the start of the Walkabouts on the 12th. This suggests that Lee was the major beneficiary of the Walkabouts. We will have to keep track of this to see if this momentum can move him into competition with the women candidates. So far, Lee has remained consistently in third place.

---Hoare and Johnson have shown the least movement in interest since the start of the Walkabouts.

If you read my previous post, "Thoughts..." you know the recent bishop's election in Alabama had two nominees who were women, in a field of four. In that case, the First Ballot showed the two women ahead, and collectively with a majority. This showed that the will of the people was to have a bishop who was a female. With that, many voters moved from the bottom two candidates, seeing that their first choices had no real chance of winning, to the top two and most of those opted to go with the candidate leading in the votes. This gave Glenda Curry a majority victory in both Orders on the Second Ballot. It is possible the same sort of scenario could play out in South Carolina. If the two women come in first and second places on the First Ballot, but without a majority, there could very well be movement from the bottom two candidates to the top two. If the moving votes opt to go with the highest vote-getter, as they did in AL, this could mean the woman leading on the First Ballot would wind up the winner. As it looks now, no one is likely to win a majority on the First Ballot on 1 May. The question, then, will be where will the votes from the bottom candidates go?    

Make whatever you wish of these numbers. This is not a scientific study and may tell us nothing in the end; and I doubt we should make too much of the figures. On the other hand, these numbers do indicate the comparative interests of the people of the diocese of South Carolina in the nominees and may well give us a hint of how the horse race is progressing. After all, the bishop-designate will be chosen in an election. Quasi-democratic that it will be, it will still reflect the minds and hearts of the people of the Diocese of South Carolina, as it should. The Views of the five interviews may do the same.

THOUGHTS ON THE APPROACHING ELECTION

Now that the Walkabouts/Conversations have passed, it is time to focus on the impending vote, on Saturday, 1 May. The people of the Diocese of South Carolina are facing a tough choice, not that this is anything new. However, this tough choice is a happy one because it will, in all likelihood, bring in the XV bishop of the diocese and the restoration of sorely needed episcopal leadership in a part of the Body of Christ that remains deeply wounded by years of schism and legal warfare. Everyone would agree it is time to get on with the Lord's work in the rebuilding of their beloved church in eastern South Carolina. It is time to enthrone a bishop.

Steve Skardon has said on his blog there is no clear front runner now, that is, no one has wrapped up the election; and I would agree with that from the limited amount that I know. It seems to me the choice of the new bishop is wide open. At least this is the sense I have after three days and many hours of interviews. It appeared to me as if no nominee struck out but that none hit the ball out of the park either.

Two groups of people will decide this election, the diocesan clergy and the laity. They will vote in separate sections with the clergy voting one person/one vote. The laity will vote by local church, not by person. There are 12 parishes and 18 missions. Each parish gets 1 vote and each mission gets 1/2 vote. This means a total of 21 votes in the Lay Order. A candidate will have to get at least 11 votes in the Lay order to win. Of course, he or she will have to get a concurrent majority in the Clergy Order. We do not know yet the exact number of clergy qualified to vote but it will amount to several dozen. The majority vote will be figured on the number of participants in the election convention.

Since the local church gets a solitary vote, it will be very important for the congregation to come to a consensus before the election. A 50/50 split in a parish or mission delegation would negate the church's vote in the election.

In a sense, all searches for bishops are the same. Each wants to find the candidate who is the best "fit" for the diocese. This means there are two separate categories to consider, the state of the diocese and the qualifications of the nominees. As for the state of the Diocese of South Carolina, everyone is painfully well aware of it. There is no need to belabor the point. The diocese is in a unique and uniquely difficult situation. It begs for uniquely qualified leadership. 

At the same time, there are many other layers of pressing needs at hand. Does the diocese think it essential to choose a woman? If so, there are two nominees from which to select. Or, do the people think it is most urgent to place an African American on the bishop's throne? If so, there is an excellent choice before them. Or, do the church people think it is most important to elect an openly gay person as bishop? If so, one of the five nominees fits the bill. Or, do the people want to have a bishop steeped in the history of the local diocese? If so, there is a nominee who has plenty of pluff mud between her toes. Or, on the other hand, do people want to go for the stellar education and experience of the "traditional candidate" older straight, white guy. No one could match Eton, Magdalene College of Cambridge, and Yale, plus years of big parish leadership. One point to consider about Geoffrey Hoare is age. He is 63 years old (b. Jan. 18, 1958). All bishops have to retire at age 72.

My point is that electing a bishop for the Diocese of South Carolina is a multi-faceted problem; and the voting will depend on how the people interpret their needs and how they see the various gifts the nominees would bring to fill those needs.

The Diocese of Alabama (the upper two-thirds of the state) recently elected a new bishop. Perhaps it would be instructive to review how the process went on there to get some idea of what might happen in South Carolina. First off, one must recognize a vast difference between the two dioceses. Alabama is a more "normal," or typical diocese with a great history of unity and growth. It has had relatively little in terms of dissension and division. This is in great part because the good people of Alabama had the wisdom to choose outstanding leaders, e.g. the great Henry Parsley.

In AL, the diocesan, "Kee" Sloan, called for election of a Bishop Coadjutor. The new bishop would become the diocesan upon Sloan's planned retirement at the end of the year 2020. The Search Committee wound up with four candidates, all with strong ties to Alabama. Two were presently rectors in the diocese. For the first time, two women were among the final slate of nominees. One was Glenda Curry, who had an impressive résumé, but at age 66 would be able to serve only a few years before the diocese would have to go through the long and arduous process of finding another bishop. The other was Allison Liles, a woman in her early 40's who was serving a "survivor" congregation in the diocese of Ft. Worth. She too had an impressive record, particularly in progressive causes. The two men were also attractive candidates. One was Aaron Raulerson, the rector of a mid-size parish in a mid-size town (Guntersville) in northern Alabama. He was well-regarded, popular, and obviously an effective pastor. The other man was Evan Garner, who had early ties to Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham but had moved on to Arkansas. He was a favorite among the "evangelicals" of the diocese. 

As in SC, the Walkabout was essentially a beauty contest with the nominees parading about in their best appearances. The questions, too, were all soft-ball lobs which anyone could answer in pleasing generalities. One interesting point was that when one nominee was answering a canned question, the other three were in a soundproof room. They were brought out one at a time to answer. This made the answers more interesting and avoided the "Groundhog Day" effect of repetition that was so tiresome this week. Too, following the prepared questions, the audience got to write questions on pieces of paper that were put in a bowl. Questions were drawn out and presented to a candidate who had to answer on the spot. Also more interesting. However, in the end, I doubt that the beauty pageant had any effect on the outcome of the voting. People had already made their rankings of choices.

The election convention was on January 18, 2020, at Advent in Birmingham (pre-covid, in person). As in SC, the voting was divided into Clergy Order and Laity Order. The two groups separated for the voting. However, in the lay order,  the vote was by individual delegate, not by local church. There were 140 clerical delegates present and 236 lay delegates. 

First Ballot:

Glenda Curry:  60 clergy;  109 laity

Allison Liles:     39 clergy;  67 laity

Evan Garner:    23 clergy;  28 laity

Aaron Raulerson:  19 clergy;  47 laity

No one won a majority in either order on the First Ballot.  However, the two women together won a large majority in both orders and Curry was well ahead. This signaled loudly that the convention wanted a woman bishop. With this, many delegates who had voted for the two men began to move toward the women nominees. The question was which woman to choose, the older one with the longer record, or the younger one with the shorter record. At age 66, Curry could serve only six years.

Second Ballot:

Glenda Curry:  77 clergy;  127 laity

Allison Liles:     42 clergy;   63  laity

Evan Garner:    14 clergy;   17  laity

Aaron Raulerson:  8 clergy;  43 laity

Curry won a majority in both orders on the second ballot. She jumped from 60 clergy to 77 and from 109 laity to 127. Most of the people who abandoned the two men moved to Curry. 

Clearly, the people of the Diocese of Alabama decided it was most important to have the first female bishop in the history of the diocese and to choose this one even though she could have only a few years in office.

Looking around the various dioceses, even in the more traditional south, one can see this is the age of the woman bishop. If they can be elected in places like Alabama and West Tennessee, they can be elected anywhere. If this is the feeling now in South Carolina, there are two women nominees from which to choose.

However, as I have said, the situation in South Carolina is complicated by the many factors at hand. What the voters must sort out is the relative importance of these factors and then which nominee best fits the needs of the hour.

I suggest that in the next two weeks the people of the diocese of SC go back and study the résumés of the nominees, talk often with their fellow church people, and engage in a lot of thought and prayer.