Surprise: +Gulick Votes ‘No’ on Forrester

This is a surprise to me too.  I still think the election will eventually go through but not nearly as much as I did a month ago

Either way E(X)CUSA “wins”. If he is confirmed, they have expanded the boundaries of the included ones: if not, then it will be, “See, we are not nearly as heretical as they said!”

Just saved me from sending out more e-mails.

Don’t kid yourself. Gulick’s vote was political. He isn’t going to do anything to alarm the Fort Worth moderates. His vote was not a tie breaker.

I think that there will be a lot of “surprise” no votes out there.  Sexuality is a secondary doctrine.  (Don’t all pounce at once, that does not mean it’s unimportant.)  Forester has denied the essentials of the faith.  Others have done this in the past.  They have just not done it in a way that got any attention until after they were made bishops. 
CJ [#1] I do not think this thing will go through.  I doubt it will make it to the standing committees.  I think we are having another one of those B033 moments where some people who have previously gone along to get along are saying, “ENOUGH.”  Certainly there is a political motivation on the part of some.  For others, this will be a moment when they step back and begin to ask where the church has gone.

#5. MP,

I disagree with you guys on everything else….but he can’t alter the BCP. And I am not happy about it.

Well, MP you and Fr. Dan M. are on the same page with this one. Thanks for the agreement, even if it is for different reasons, it’s still a “No” vote. Blessings

First the Bishop of Atlanta, then Albany, now Kentucky.  All heavy hitters in the “I really am a moderate” crowd.  I’ll call it right now.  Forrester won’t get the necessary votes. 

And Hookemhooker, will it be bad thing if he is denied consent? Can’t we say, “well done” for getting it right to bishops of TEC?

[5] Mad Potter wrote:

  If I had a vote, I would have to vote no. He can’t re write the BCP….I disagree with you guys on everything else….but he can’t alter the BCP. And I am not happy about it.

MP, you amaze me.  You strain over the jot and tittle of form even as you deny the substance.  Why do the words matter at all if the words don’t have discernible meaning?  Who is more honest - the man who recites the BCP with faithful attention to detail, but who inverts the meaning found therein?  Or the man who rewrites the BCP so that it says what he really believes?  Unity is not found in common liturgy but in a common understanding of the doctrine behind that liturgy.

carl

Well said Carl.

My question is how many votes does +Gulick get.  Could he vote “no” as the bishop of FW and “yes” as the bishop of Kentucky?

#8
Yes, one could say “Well done.” However, it would be like giving the Captain of the USS West Virginia a commendation for getting his ship to sink on an even keel (rather than capsize) at Pearl Harbor. This is exactly the kind of ‘no risk’ issue on which these clowns capitalize in their claim to ‘ecclesiastical statesmanship.’

Does anyone know yet how +Little voted?  He seemed to think “all questions about Thew Forrester had been answered satisfactorily” at the HoB meeting. (see a previous article here at SF for the reference - it was a blog entry at Episcopal Cafe)

Certainly other likely Yes voters are +Ely (one of those who helped design the process) and +KJS.

I’ll predict however that Forrester will be DENIED consent by the bishops. They have the cover of the whole process issue.  They don’t actually have to criticize his theology.  The question would be if the issue is declared to be a problem of process if Thew were validly reelected.  Then what would they do?  But that of course is a totally speculative scenario.  I wish that the process questions weren’t there and that the bishops and standing committees were forced to face the question of consent purely on doctrinal and theological terms.

It might be interesting to tally known “NO” votes with known efforts in which parishoners wrote to their bishop to urge a no vote.  Gulick received such a petition:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/21344

Ok here’s the link I was thinking of re: +Ed Little who seemed to support Forrester.  It was +Ely & +Caldwell who spoke out on Forrester’s behalf at the recent HoB meeting.

I wonder if any bishops will publicly announce a “Yes” vote.  It seems more likely that bishops would announce a No vote - especially if they’ve been receiving mail / pressure from folks in their dioceses to deny consent. 

If I get some time, I will start a compilation of links with bishops’/ standing committees statements & comments on Forrester’s consent.

Hmmm.  I either forgot the link in my earlier comment or it went missing.  Trying again:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/21154/#346160

Sorry!

Karen - I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about +Little.

True Greg.  I didn’t mean to sound certain he would vote Yes.  What I actually wrote in my previous comment on the old thread was this:

Of course, I suppose the questions could have been “fully answered” and Little might disagees with the answers.  But given the context, it doesn’t sound like he has a problem with Forrester’s election.

And I still agree with what I wrote then.  Perhaps +Little will vote no and he was only talking about the fact that the issue was thoroughly discussed.  But what Little is reported to have said is this, and the fact that he cites +Ely and +Caldwell who are supporters of Forrester raises concern about how +Little has voted or will vote:

Bp Ed LIttle, of Northern Indiana reflected on the retreat aspect of the meeting and the tenor of the meeting as one of respectful listening. Bishop Little said that there was a discussion of the issues surrounding the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan. He felt that all questions were thoroughly raised and answered. He especially noted the answers given by those bishops who had been advisers to the Northern Michigan process, Bp. Bruce Caldwell of Wyoming and Bp Tom Ely of Vermont.

Emphasis mine.

Getting back to the realm of fact and not speculation (and apologies for my speculation on +Little - which was PURE speculation on my part, and probably not something we should continue, as someone with an ear to the ground in N. Indiana reminded me privately by e-mail)....

I’ve started compiling a spreadsheet with links to concrete news and commentary about the bishops and standing committees in various dioceses and what they are saying or how they are voting. 

1) So far I have four “on the record” “NO” votes by bishops:  (in order of date, most recent first)

Gulick - Kentucky / Rump FW - 31-Mar  
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/21475/

MacPherson  -  W. Louisiana - 30-Mar   http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/21412

Love  -  Albany - 30-Mar   http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/21432/

Rickel- Olympia - 25-Mar   http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/21305/

——————

2) We also have the following “NO” votes / resolution by diocesan leadership as follows - but these are not OFFICIAL No votes by the Standing Committee or Bishop if I understand correctly.  I think we can pretty safely assume NO votes by both bishops and SC, however!

South Carolina,  Convention Resolution,  13-Mar   http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/21029/

Dallas,  Exec Council Resolution, 10-Mar   http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/21007/

—————————

3) Finally, we have some commentary and feedback by individual members of several standing committees as follows - all suggesting concern over Forrester’s consent:  (But these are NOT votes)

Upper SC, Standing Committee feedback,  13-Mar   http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/21041/#344768

South Dakota, Standing Committee member,  6-Mar  
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/20893

——————
So far, all on the record votes I know of by bishops or dioceses are “NO” votes, and what public record there is of standing committee member commentary seems pretty negative so far too…

Please let me know if I’ve missed any links to votes or news of Std. Committee meetings that are on the record and official.

Thanks!
Karen B.
(Feel free to PM me with links or news)

I still can’t help but think that BeerKat et. al have to kill Forrester’s elevation to validate their continued attacks on the orthodox.

If they elevate a blatantly heretical person to a Bishopric (is that a word?) it validates everything we’ve said about them for years, i.e. they are not Christian and the homosexual Bishop thing was a symptom, not the real problem.

Then again, as I’ve said before, they might elevate him just to show us they can.  To confirm that the orthodox are really under their heel.

KTF!...mrb

Mad Potter
What about the BCP’s definition of Marriage?  Can that be altered?

Karen—Atlanta was mentioned above in the comments. I also heard that he would vote No.

Who is “BeerKat”? I understand the latter probably refers to the PB-Katherine-but what’s the “Beer” part of it? Sorry I have to ask these questions, but not being an Episcopalian I don’t understand some of the inside terminology.

Sorry, when I think the executive counsel, Presiding Bishop, and her attorney are acting as if they had one single brain (happens way too often) I just shorten the whole assemblage to BEERKAT et. Al. 

I may also drop a BEERKAT and the PHIPS on you once in a while.  This is my way of communicating the PB, Exec Counsel, Attorneys, and the large majority of the House of Bishops who are hopelessly space-cadet liberal.  With the PHIPS part being “Potato Heads in Purple Shirts”.
See, like if they elevate Forester (I call him Dharma) he would automatically qualify as a PHIP.

Tres disrespectful, I agree.  But on the day they do something to earn my respect (like grow up, or become Christians) I will happily drop all the derogatory monikers.

KTF!..mrb

Oh, the BEER part is David Booth Beers.  Forgot to mention that.

TEC may just throw Forrester under the bus to show they are inclusive of listening to the orthodox voice.

Interesting question re +Gulick’s ‘no’ vote: As the interim bishop for the Fort Worth rump, does his ‘no’ vote technically count as 2 against Forrester?

#25-
Perhaps you’re right.  I can just imagine the telegram now.
“It’s nothing personal, Kevin…It’s just….just….well it’s just the cost of discipleship.  BTW, have you read Claiming the Blessing?”

Your Friends at 815

Correct #4.  A consummate politician has made a smooth move that is going to be much easier for him than explaining a “yes” on this one.  Now he can pull this out of his ruffled sleeve as proof of whatever claim he needs in leaning toward “moderate” when he needs it (placating a large conservative parish in his Kentucky diocese or the folks in Forth Worth who would surely question this one.)  I also agree with many of you above that this may indicate more will do the same.  Forrester is pretty extreme to try to justify, even for this heterodox crowd.

+Tom Briedenthal of Southern Ohio is also withholding consent:
http://vicarsblog.blogspot.com/

Karen - I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about +Little.

I think when +Little said what he said, he was in his “official TEC spokesperson” hat.  It is unfortunate that bishops allow themselves to wear such hats, but there you are.  We will know how he voted soon enough, I suppose.
I rather suspect that a lot of bishops will sit on the fence as long as possible.  If Forrester has enough votes to get consent, then a large number can vote “no” to placate the conservatives.  If he is rejected by a large margin, then they don’t have to take a public stand at all (the usual preferred position for a TEC bishop)- or may vote “yes” to placate their liberals.  One suspects that most of the CP bishops already have their ballots in the ballot box.  So perhaps the election comes down to whether KJS is willing to strong arm people into voting in favor.  And with GC coming up, she may have more important things to spend her political capital on.

[97] <a > Posted </a> by Bo on 04-01-2009 at 09:48 AM

Unity in Liturgy, tends toward a unity of understanding, as long as the Liturgy is considered normative. MP appears to consider it ‘normative’ (Would that the whole of Scripture he so resepcted).
If the reader doesn’t value the BCP as a ‘rule of practice’ then it doesn’t matter what it says, and like KTF it is a triffling thing for them to rewrite it.
But as long as it does matter, then a common liturgy will at least limit the divergence of understanding and theology.
For example our own differences in theology are limited because we both understand the Scriptures to be the ‘final authority’. We may have deep differences on the meaning of certain passages, but neither of us can deny the plainly stated positions of scipture.
MP’s position, at least limits ‘diversity’ to that which can be ‘accomodated’ within the parameters established by the BCP.

A liturgy can only be normative if the words that compose it have fixed meaning.  Like the Creeds, the normative value of a liturgy collapses if words like “resurrection” can acquire any meaning the speaker desires.  Since MP said he “disagree[s] with [us] on everything else” he is obviously not limiting the divergence in matters of understanding and theology.  The principle objection to Forrester is that by his own affirmation he is not a Christian.  That assertion is part of the “everything else” that MP disagrees with.  If MP can maintain the integrity of the BCP even as he affirms a non-Christian bishop, then he has affirmed form over substance.  A norm that reconciles a non-christian religion with the Christian faith is no part a norm.

It should also be said that doctrine ultimately informs the liturgy through which it is presented.  I can attend a Roman Catholic mass, and follow the service from memory.  In fact, I have done so.  The liturgy presented is identical to the liturgy I grew up with in the Lutheran church.  And yet I have no unity with Rome.  I reject that church, and all her works and all her ways.  Identical words cannot cover up profound and fatal errors in doctrine.  The normative power of a liturgy is therefore derivative of the doctrinal standard which underlies it, and can never be severed from it.

carl

Hi, Carl-

I don’t think Forrester would affirm he is not a Christian. In fact, his PR efforts seem to indicate that’s what he considers himself. It’s his sermons and liturgy which indicate to Orthodox folks that he is not a Christian. The idea for the non Orthoxdox folks stems from their ibelief that he is “sufficiently” Christian.

Gulick’s vote is smoke and mirrors, as #4 had it early on in this string. And he is faking it for his Texas folks, not KY. The so-called large conservative parish in KY doesn’t have a clue about what is going on in the Church, even in their own parish. Classic examples of ignorance in the pews, such ignorance maintained big time by their clergy. But if he does this interim job in Texas with few ripples Gulick can shuffle off into retirement standing as the perfect interim—which ECUSA will need fairly often.

You know, it is curious that we often are so quick to assume that these radicals (and that includes Gulick)have come back into reality. They need only do one rational thing and we jump to conclude that they are with us again. Shame on us to be so easy.

Greg in 26, It is a serious question.  Does he get two votes?  The question itself underscores how crazy things are in TEC.  How can a sitting diocesan bishop also be a provisional diocesan bishop of another diocese?  When the TEC loyalites in FW elect Chris Jambor the next bishop will he be the 4th bishop of FW or the 5th?  So many things to sort out when you make up rules on the fly.

he should have never been elected ...then there would not have been the possibility of throwing him under the conservative bus

Greg, Sarah, Matt, Jackie, et al. Please take Karen’s 18 and make it a sticky thread. You’ve already done the heavy lifting; now let us watch the results.

I think the guy is in trouble. And congratulations! You have done a service to the Church catholic.

Gator, glad what I posted is helpful.  With a bunch of emails today, I’m now up to a count of 10 no votes and 1 yes vote.

I’m not going to post more names now since with the exception of Breidenthal’s publicly documented no vote, most of the votes I added were based on private communications, not public documents.  It’s interesting to me that there is more of a rush to publicize “NO” votes - even among bishops I would consider moderates or liberals.  But I imagine there will be some more “Yes” votes showing up soon.  (That list of yes votes will really be a “hall of shame”).

Thanks to all who have sent me links and emails today.  It’s good to have gotten the consent tracking process launched and to organize the info now in the early days of reported votes rather than trying to scramble to find all the articles, etc. in a few weeks.

Gator,

My $.02 is that’s too early to keep a sticky tally. Still way too many votes to be counted, and you never know if this will be a case where standing committees start splitting from their bishops.

[32] FenelonSpoke

I don’t think Forrester would affirm he is not a Christian.

You are correct in this assertion.  I was making a different point, however.  The Christian Faith has discernible objective content.  One must believe certain things and reject other things to be properly be called a Christian.  Forrester manifestly fails this test.  The incontrovertible evidence comes directly from the words he has written and spoken.  So whatever he may call himself, he is revealed as a false brother by his own record - a record that testifies against him.

carl

Current info in Ky. indicates that the vote, complete with very public exchange of letters, etc. is designed to set the stage for a planned outcome for Ky’s election of Gulick’s replacement, a process now underway. Have we seen wolves in sheeps’ clothing before this? This publication of letters is bizarre in a diocese and a parish which habitually have gone to extremes to maintain ignorance in the pews.