May 20, 2013

March 29, 2009


Diocese of W. Louisiana: Monroe Rector & Vestry Urge ‘No’ on Forrester; +MacPherson Votes ‘No’

Via email, this letter (reprinted with permission) from the rector and vestry of Grace Episcopal Church in Monroe, Louisiana; and word that Bishop MacPherson tendered his ‘no’ vote on Forrester at the recent House of Bishops meeting:

GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
405 Glenmar Avenue
Monroe, Louisiana 71201

March 7, 2009


To the Bishop Ordinary and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Western Louisiana


Rt. Reverend Sir, ladies and gentlemen of the Standing Committee:

Following prayerful consideration we write to urge that you vote no, and that you withhold consent, to the confirmation of the Rev’d Kevin Thew Forrester as the next bishop of the Diocese of Northern Michigan. We cite two concerns: the process used in selecting candidates by the Diocese of Northern Michigan and the suitability of the candidate himself.

In regard to the process by which nominations were made, the committee charged with this task presented one candidate for election. On the surface, presenting a single candidate raises immediate issues about the transparency of this process. Why was a single candidate presented? Was no one else seen as qualified to stand for election? Should we be concerned there was a small group of people trying to control the process?

Though we are mindful that search committees for rectors do sometimes distill the result of their search process to a single preferred candidate, we are nonetheless mindful of the fact that had the Diocese of Northern Michigan asked the House of Bishops to elect a bishop for them in lieu of holding a diocesan election, which is provided for in Canon III, paragraph 11, section 1b, the House of Bishops would have been required by national canon to present a minimum of three persons to stand for election. This begs the question, “if it is appropriate for the House of Bishops, why is it not appropriate for the Diocese of Northern Michigan?”

Regarding the Rev’d. Forrester’s suitability, he is on record as being both a practicing Zen Buddhist who received lay Buddhist ordination and a Christian. Whereas these two faith traditions may not be mutually exclusive to one another in the life of a lay person, the vows required of a Bishop in Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church exclude a person from being beholden to any other faith tradition save Christianity - no matter how complementary to Christianity other traditions might seem.

In the liturgy for the ordination of a Bishop, the candidate is first required to state their belief that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain all things necessary to salvation, and that they will conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church. If one takes this question seriously, does a person holding dual religious allegiances forswear himself or herself upon making this declaration? Later in the service, the candidate is required to affirm, “Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings.” Again, is this possible if one holds to two faith traditions simultaneously? Finally, the candidate is asked if they will the guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church. Can this be done with integrity when one qualifies their response to the affirmation by claiming to also follow another religious tradition?

We hope and pray that you will keep these concerns in mind as you prayerfully consider voting on the question of granting or denying consent to the confirmation of the next bishop of Northern Michigan. We most strongly urge you to decline to give your consent.


Your Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Gregg L. Riley, Rector
C. Joseph Roberts, III, Sr. Warden
David Waller, Jr. Warden
Jodi Lyle, Treasurer
Cindy Fisher, Secretary
Max Cox, Vestry Member
Gerry Emerel, Vestry Member
Tom Mason, Vestry Member
Amanda Reeves, Vestry Member
Bryan Caldwell, Vestry Member


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

11 comments

Do we have a tally going yet?

[1] Posted by martin5 on 3-29-2009 at 09:31 PM · [top]

Again, I am hoping for a fairly divided vote but one that consents to the election. What wonderful clarity that would be.

[2] Posted by robroy on 3-29-2009 at 09:36 PM · [top]

#2. Now, robroy how would a “fairly divided vote” provide clarity even if the consents are granted? Wouldn’t it send mixed signals? For myself, it would be tough to pray that he would get the consents but I understand your thinking on this. I asked for an individual in ACI to offer a formal opinion on this but have heard nothing yet. Frankly, this is where a statement from them could make a difference. The standing committees need good information to use in making a determination. If they are willing to spend the capital, this would be the place to do it.

[3] Posted by Fr. Dale on 3-29-2009 at 09:48 PM · [top]

It sounds like there was a vote at the HOB or maybe some voted already?

[4] Posted by martin5 on 3-29-2009 at 10:24 PM · [top]

martin5,

There was not a vote, as such, at the recent HoB meeting. Forms were handed out to the bishops. My understanding is that some filled out their forms on the spot, others took them back home.

Bishop Love of Albany also voted ‘no’ on Forrester - see <a >this post</a>.

[5] Posted by Greg Griffith on 3-29-2009 at 10:40 PM · [top]

[6] Posted by Greg Griffith on 3-29-2009 at 10:41 PM · [top]

For those of us who continue to pray for the salvation of the leadership of TEC, some of us (at least) might be praying for a fairly unified vote of “no.” Even progressives have limits. I don’t think we need any more “wonderful clarity.”

[7] Posted by Ralph on 3-30-2009 at 06:46 AM · [top]

Ralph, I obviously would prefer that the entire HoB put on sackcloth and cover themselves with ashes, publicly repent, and return to orthodoxy…but if not this, then we continue to need light shone on the misdeeds of the denomination’s leadership. A buddhopalian bishop consented with 50.5% of the vote would do this.

[8] Posted by robroy on 3-30-2009 at 08:10 AM · [top]

A denial of consent by 95% of the vote would also be a statement. Not all of the HOB are progressives, and not all of the progressives are radicals. I even have some reason to think that some of them are intelligent enough to recognize ultra-blatant heresy.

The HOB have shown us that they are perfectly capable of embarrassing themselves in other ways. They need to come together on this one and deny consent.

[9] Posted by Ralph on 3-30-2009 at 08:28 AM · [top]

[10] Ralph

A denial of consent by 95% of the vote would also be a statement.

A denial of consent would most likely be a statement against process, and not doctrine.  This election would be much more revealing if Forrester had been elected by some approximation of a legitimate process, instead of a self-guided coronation.  The liberals will slither through this small gap in the wall.  I am beginning to think Forrester will not be confirmed the first time around, but instead will be sent back to participate in a real election. 

carl

[10] Posted by carl on 3-30-2009 at 08:45 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.