First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results
Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).
As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that.
1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.
2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated. These two groups do not necessarily include the same people. I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group. Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.
Like I said, the vote was no accident. The nomination vote was not an accident. Nor was the Synod's choice.
I think most elections of this type are not accidents. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Any cursory look at church history reveals that all sorts of "behind the scenes" negotiations and whatnot has been going on for centuries. Most of the time it pans out well. Sometimes it doesn't. For some reason, the OCA has fallen into the latter in recent decades.
Hmm, well Bishops Tikhon and Michael received the most votes, and that is unquestionable. As for which one received the nomination, that is up to the decision of the Synod, not us. They didn't pull the same stunt they did with Metropolitan Herman or Metropolitan Theodosius. They didn't pick the one with the most votes, but they did pick the person who got the 2nd most, not the 3rd or 4th.
Like I said, I think some people like you, Orual and others just hate Bishops and hate the authority they represent and the power that they hold. This isn't the Anglican Church and this isn't the Roman Catholic Church. No matter what has happened to anyone in the past with Bishops, they should forget it.
Even if an Orthodox Bishop has done something to you or offended you in some way, that doesn't give you any excuse to hold a grudge against every other Bishop as well. I know people in real life who are this way, and who dislike every Bishop no matter who it is because of something a Bishop did to their family long ago. People like that need to get over it and get rid of their episcophobia.
First off, you need to calm down again. I am not one of the monomakhos crowd looking for conspiracies left and right. I do not hate bishops and the authority they represent and have no idea why you characterize me, as such. I defy you to find one post to substantiate this claim. Otherwise, please take it back.
Secondly, I am merely being a realist regarding the CHOICE BEHIND THE ICONOSTASIS. Do you really not think that they talk about these things before an election and come to some sort of agreement beforehand, that they don't know who the front runners will be? People talk and blab all the time. They have for centuries. I'm not saying there's some grand conspiracy, but it's certainly not some innocent, totally secret election. There is campaigning and polling and everything that we see associated with secular politics. It just happens to be more secretive and, thankfully, not as dirty. But it still happens.
Schultz is most certainly NOT within the crowd urging rebellion. Quite the contrary.
I have been aware of church politics for all of my sensient life as a the son of a priest who was active in his jurisdiction and part of the Chancery operations for many years as a member of the Bishop's consistory. Nothing surprises me, and because of that I am perhaps cynical about these things - but really - little disappoints me as well. Clergy put on their pants one leg at a time. Extraordinary pastors and superb Bishops would have succeeded in whatever field they would have entered from education to the military to business to government. Human-run institutions all share the same qualities - both good and bad - the Church is no exception.
The late Bishop John (Martin) was a convert from the Greek Catholic world. He was a high ranking member of the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and was most likely destined to be named its Bishop before his falling out with his Bishop, +Nicholas Elko in the early 1960's. Shortly after he left that church to pursue his doctorate at Stanford, Bishop Nicholas himself was removed by Rome and sent into exile in Rome. The reason I mention this background is that Bishop John was one of the most driven, dynamic men I ever met. Raised the son of family of steelworkers in Pittsburgh he likely would have risen to the pinnacle of power in that industry or the financial services industry as he was a driven man. As Bishop he was more often feared than beloved but he had vision and drive. He envisioned the building of a youth camp in the late 1960's and by the end of the next decade Camp Nazareth in Mercer, PA was a reality. Built by the small donations of hundreds of faithful the camp has been an exemplar of how Orthodox camping facilities should be operated and the benefits which have come from three generations of young people passing through its gates are incalculable.
He died a dramatic death at a young age, passing away after giving a glowing address at a Diocesan banquet in front of hundreds.
He was followed by the late Metropolitan Nicholas - different as night from day in personality from his predecessor. He was beloved but never feared. A monk, trained at Halki and for many years a beloved parish priest in New York's lower East side he brought a different type of leadership. He continued the work of his predecessor, the Diocese grew and expanded into regions where the faithful relocated and became far less ethnic than ever - even though the late Metropolitan loved his Carpatho-Rusyn heritage, loved its music and culture and honored the traditions of the past except when those traditions were at odds with those of the Church. He would often say that we were all converts in a sense - no one was in the Church by force in modern America - we all were there by choice. For some the choice was easier to make - it came from family, comfort and tradition - but in the end it was a choice. For others, that choice came at the price of great personal sacrifice - but we all were equal in the presence of God.
Frankly those who loved one usually tolerated the other at best. But how is that any different than your workplace or school or even your family dynamic?
Both however, were acutely aware of one maxim - while the church bears similarities to secular organizations in terms of operation, personality issues and even finances in the end one thing remained true - The Orthodox Church is not a democracy.
One more thought - yes lay people DO serve the church - men and women alike. Their service is not behind the altar, but without their heartfelt service to God and His Church our clergy and Bishops would be little more than players on a stage and our parishes would resemble more the Potemkin villages of Tsarist Russia than the living house of our Lord.
