Forrester Consents Tally

I have 9 Standing Committees on my list as having voted NO

W. Texas
SW Florida
Texas
Western Tennessee
Northern Indiana
Mississippi
Rio Grande
Central FL
Dallas

I can send you links/confirmations for all of these.

Thanks Karen - send them on please.

Thanks, Greg, for starting a thread to keep a running tally going.

One quibble.  Although there are 110 dioceses in TEC, and hence normally you’d think that a 51% majority would be 56 votes, in this case there appear to be a number of bishops who aren’t eligible to vote on this particular case.  According to David Virtue, there are 11 such dioceses whose bishops can’t vote on Forrester.  That would seemingly include the American Convocation of Churches in Europe and the Diocese of Navaholand.

But David Virtue isn’t always right, and I’m no expert on this point of canon law.  Maybe someone else can clarify just how many votes it will take, either to confirm or to deny confirmation to the Buddhist bishop-elect.

If Virtue is correct, then the total number of bishop votes that can be cast for or against Forrester is 99, lowering the number needed to decide the case to just 50.

David Handy+

oh Greg…you are the bomb! Thank you!

Not surprised by the yes’!

Why am I not surprised that Smith of Connecticut, who deposed a priest on the grounds that taking a sabbatical is “abandoning the communion,” has no problem endorsing as bishop a Buddhist priest who rewrites the liturgy on a whim?

NRA - I don’t think that even the canon lawyers truly know.
TEC is making up the canon law as they go.  Just today Frank Lockwood (Bible Belt Blogger) reported that he was told by +Gulick’s spokeswoman that he gets two votes.  (Kentucky and Fort Worth rump)

But Lockwood was also told by Alaska provisional (acting?) bishop Rusty Kimsey that Kimsey does not get a vote.

One suggestion based on canon law that I’ve seen is that it matters how the provisional bishop was chosen:  if elected by act of convention they have “jurisdiction” and are eligible to vote.  If the acting/provisional bishop was appointed, then no jurisdiction and no vote.  Just try figuring this all out!  Never a boring moment…

NRA,

I’m putting 56 up there as the threshold because that’s the worst-case-scenario. Once we get some kind of reliable decision on the exact number I’ll revise it.

Just a reminder that we may be seeing most or all of the “no” votes, but perhaps only a fraction of the “yes” votes.  Those who are announcing their votes have made decisions based on principal, or in the case of a couple “yes” votes, perhaps personal friendship.  The people who vote one way or the other for political reasons are less likely to say anything.  Plus, if you follow the earlier thread, 815 may be asking bishops not to reveal their votes.  Most bishops who are voting “no” are not to concerned with what 815 thinks.  But many of the “no comments” may be just the sort who do care what 815 thinks, are voting “yes” and keeping their mouths shut.
So, please continue to write your bishops and standing committees, and please continue to pray.
It isn’t over til it’s over.

What, you mean Shaw, who we all know is really quite conservative, couldn’t even muster up the ounce of Christianity that Mathes did?  I’m shocked!

Greg,
Imagine a US election where the US government could not supply the number of electoral votes for states on election day.  It’s kinda like that.  It makes it a lot easier to get the election result you want if you can add or negate a few votes when things come down to the wire.

Come on, Yes votes!  There MUST be more of them out there in the Episcopal House of Buddhists (HOB) that we just have not heard from yet.  If Forrester fails to get enough consents it will be a real disappointment to those of us who gleefully anticipate his consecration!

Time to write my bishop and standing commmittee - I should have done it before, but frankly I thought this would be a done deal. Thank God, it’s not, not yet.

If nothing else, between this election and the ACI statement, we are getting a good picture of what the new “Right Wing Fundamentalists Who Must Be Purged” list looks like, now that the ACNA crowd has gotten out.  20 years from now, Mathes or those like him will represent the fundamentalist reactionary side of TEC.

As always, I hope I’m wrong.

Re # 3
Fr Handy-It’s quite simple. 
How many votes will it take for K[B]F to get confirmed?  However many he happens to get; that’s how many…....

Perhaps this is too soon to ask, but are there any ideas on what the Diocese of Northern Michigan will do if and when they are not given enough consents by either diocesan bishops or standing committees to proceed with the consecration of Fr. Thew Forrester?

Rudy+

AngliCanDo (#15), LOL!  But I hope you’re wrong.

Greg (#8), keeping 56 as the threshold is perfectly sensible and the pragmatic thing to do.  And let me thank you for how beautifully you’ve formatted the tally, so that everything’s clear at a glance.  A vast improvement over the look of David Virtue’s chart.

Thanks also to Karen B. (#7) for adding the examples of +Gulick (voting for KY and rump Ft. Worth too??) and +Kimsey (provisional, Alaska) that illustrate how complicated this confusing matter can be when examined in detail.  But hopefully, there will be such a landslide against Forrester’s confirmation that the point becomes moot.

David Handy+

Well, this makes it easier to distinguish the bishops from “those who are called bishops.”

#16 Rudy,

You mean other than celebrating?

Well, given that the discernment team were apparently told by the “powers that be” that they could not go back to the drawing board when the original candidate unexpectedly rescinded - essentially forcing them into their lovely second choice, out of control Buddhist without a bishop - it’s anyone’s guess.

First of all they will be forced to solve this mess at convention - my hope is that the PB will appoint an interim bishop to oversee the transition.

Given the tiny tiny tiny size of what’s left of this diocese, the logical solution would be to dissolve and merge.  Those incredibly small ASA numbers?  I don’t believe them - I think it’s even smaller.

I chuckle every time I read in one of the no explanations about how hard this will be to the unfortunate diocese - many many people will be very relieved if KTF is not allowed to “ascend the throne” and spread his liturgical changes.

Fond du Lac Standing Committee voted NO

For once, I don’t think TEC is going to do the whole “make up the canons as they go” route on this one.  The allegations that TEC is not Christian have stung, and with good reason.  They need the whole “Christian Church” thing for the legitimacy they crave.

So, I predicted Forrester is about to get thrown under the bus.  Not a very Zen way to go out.

Sucks to be Thew.

I’ve just been forwarding the stuff on Stand Firm to folks, and letting them decide for themselves (like I have a choice), but very effective. I encourage folks “Go and do likewise.” Though to be honest I would NOT be surprized if the Arkansas Standing Committee did not disgrace themselves. The Bishop did well.

Let’s keep this in proportion, Nasty, Brutish & Short (21).  Not being made a bishop isn’t ‘being thrown under a bus’.  In fact it’s something that happens to most priests every year of their priestly life.

I previously said I thought the consent would be given (although if, impossibly, I had a vote, it would be ‘no’).  I’m less sure now, but it’s not over till it’s over.

frianm,

Can you paste a link via with the Fond du Lac information?

It is too being “thrown under the bus.”  If he doesn’t make it, it will only be because like-minded theologs decide a Buddhist Bishop is more harm that good.  So they’ll sacrifice him.  Mark my words.

“In our case, the worse the better.”
Lenin

Since the vote itself will likely be confidential, announcements at this point, are only as good the integrity of the one announcing the choice. I for one will not be surprised either way. TEC may decide that he is the wave of their future, and throw their weight behind him as a show of complete defiance to the “orthos”. Or they may decide that he is in fact expendable. In which case I would be looking around carefully to see what TEC is doing with their “other hand” (old magician’s trick). Susan Russell has been very open about it - albeit couched in the usual rhetoric equating sexuality with “race”. They won’t stop until they have what they want - plain and simple. And if any “cretins” “plot” to do anything that could be remotely interpreted as impeding that process it will be “outed” and skewered, dashed with paranoia sauce, a liberal sprinkle of progressive “love” (hate) speech and roasted on the spit of collective vituperation until well done.

I predict: Genpo Forrester will either withdraw or enough consents will not be garnered. TEC will as a result feel able to assert its orthodoxy and then go into GC2009 immunized (so they will think) against allegations of heresy when they at last go forward with all sorts of fun innovations.

Go, Genpo, go. I am rooting for ya!

For those with short (really very short!) memories. Recall that 3 short weeks ago, Ann Redding the Episcopal Muslim priestess was made the Episcopal Muslim **LAYMAN**.  You may have thought this was a triumph, it was only a matter of getting her off page one.  She is still a communicant in the Anglican Communion, and a Muslim.  First it shows how very little it means to be an Anglican communicant. But more importantly it shows how little laymen matter.  Flaky laymen make flaky clergy, hasn’t anyone noticed that connection?  In turn those make flaky bishops.  The same people crowing that this guy may not be a bishop will acquiesce in his continued priesthood.  If that were removed, he would be an Episcopalian Buddhist and that would bother no one. 
And that is a far bigger problem than a Buddhist bishop! 

While we’re being so clericalized though, will the bishops in their supposed “Standing firm” mode continue and try Spong for heresy?  Insist the Bishop of Utah be **BAPTIZED** ???  Didn’t think so.  Episcopalian spine has a half life measured in milliseconds.

Episcopalians need to be catechized.  To be laymen.  Far before they wonder about who can and can’t be a bishop.  It’s a church of ill instructed primitives where the Christian faith is concerned.  They inherited old buildings and have no idea what to do in them, and the result is seen every day.

So much for Shaw saying he’s orthodox except for the gay issue. 

DUH

AndrewA, Dallas, et al, Shaw is such a tool.

Greg I am unwilling to, as the information came privately from that diocese - I was given the freedom to share the information but do not want to give the name.  Sorry about that - The source is impeccable though, but that is just my say so.  I think the Bishop has not made a personal statement as he would want to let the final results be announced by 815.  Knowing him personally that all fits BUT I am convinced that he will vote no as well - he was an original objector in 2003 at the consecration of VGR.  Very solid but not confrontational.
Blessings from Peru

Robertson of South Dakota in the “yes” column.  Grand!  Thumbing his nose on his exit!  What a jackass.

frianm,

Fair enough - I’ll put both the FdL Bishop & SC in the NO column. Thanks!

Isn’t it about time an offer of a faculty position arrives from EDS or another Episcopal seminary?  Maybe a staff position at 815?  Canon for interfaith affairs or something similar?

[8] Greg, remember the threshold is that a majority of the whole number give their consent.  Therefore, you should use the 50 as a threshold rather than the 56 if you are going to give the benefit of the doubt to consent.  Votes that are not cast for consent are counted as no.  So if the threshold is 50 and 48 vote to withold consent and 49 vote to consent, there is no consent.  If the threshold is 56 and 55 vote to consent, there is no consent.  It is not the “no"s that really count, though it is nice to know what the bishops were thinking when they withheld consent, what counts is the number of positive consents.

Nice work, Greg. There are some surprises in the “No” column, including Neil Alexander.

I live in fear that as I am being vetted for ordination to the episcopacy some day, Stand Firm will find out that I am not only an Episcopalian, but that I also walk the path of the Jedi. In fact, I’m working on the PB revisions now.

Officiant: The Force be with you.
People: And with thy spirit.
Officiant: Let us meditate.

Greg…thanks for posting the running tally. Useful.  Mark

#18-A Senior Priest,
“Well, this makes it easier to distinguish the bishops from “those who are called bishops.” “
Actually, sir, those who are bishops left long ago.
Nelson Koscheski

There’s a relevant new article in the American Spectator.

Forrester’s confirmation by most Episcopal bishops may be less than automatic. Even several non-conservative bishops have publicly opposed him. Bishop of Southern Ohio Thomas Breidenthal says he’s concerned not so much about the Zen Buddhism as about Forrester’s seeming denial of the Christian understanding of salvation.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/24/the-zen-episcopalian

a majority of the whole number give their consent

Is it a majority of the whole number qualified to vote?  Sounds familiar.  What could possibly go wrong?

[42] It is a majority of the whole number of bishops exercising jurisdiction.  The significance of the “whole” in this case is to say that every bishop with jurisdiction is counted either as consenting or not consenting.  Not voting is not consenting. 

I recognize a bit of humor in your post, but want to make certain that the rules are clear to everyone.  The relevant canon is III.11.4.

[43] If you are correct (and I believe you are), a majority of the 99 bishops exercising jurisdiction would need to cast a ‘yes’ vote, assuming 11 empty seats out of 110.  So Forrester would need 50 Yes votes and all non-responses count as No.

Changed number to 50.

This just in: both Bishop Eugene Sutton and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Maryland have gone on record as voting NO.

Daniel,

Link or email?

Is 50 “no” votes the number necessary to prevent the election? I think that should be at the top of the tally, because we are more likely to hear about the no votes than the yes votes.

Greg #47 - I just got a phone call from one of our clergy stating that they had all been sent an e-mail to this effect.  I’ll pass along a copy as soon as I can. - DWM

On second thought, it’s up on the Maryland Diocesan website: http://ang-md.org/press/2009-04-24-bishop-of-n-michigan.php
- DWM

Thanks Daniel - posted it and updated tally.

It will be interesting to see where Howard and the Diocese of Florida come out on this. They have been among the most litigious churches, but Howard likes to position himself as a conservative.

*most litigious dioceses

[48] Chazzy, there is not a set requirement for “no” votes.  It would be 50 “yes” votes that would be required.  A non vote is counted as a “no” in this case. 

The best illustration is the first round with Mark Lawrence.  The election was not considered null and void because too many Standing Committees voted “no”, but because there were not enough Standing Committee votes “yes” that came in the “valid” format in the prescribed period of time.  There was not a majority of “no"s.  It was simply a lack of “yes"s. 

I hope I this doesn’t spark a debate on the Lawrence thing all over again.  I am not saying that it was the correct call on the first election.  It’s just an illustration of how the consent process works.  There must be a 50% +1 affirmative responses to consent.

I wonder what Bishop Lee of Virginia will do.  He’s going to work for Mark Andrus at the San Francisco Grace Cathedral later this year. 

bb

bb,

Don’t mean to scold, but I’d rather we didn’t use this thread for speculating on how bishops or standing committees are going to vote, but for readers to report actual votes, and discuss numbers and canons.

“Chazzy, there is not a set requirement for “no” votes.”

I don’t see how that is a logical possibility. If only a certain number of bishops are eligible to vote, then a certain number of “no” votes will indeed stop the election, regardless of how the canon is worded. Is that number also 50? That is my question.

What’s interesting to me are the bishops who have been considered reappraising, who have voted “no” so far, like Curry of NC, Alexander of Atlanta, Fitzpatrick HI, Gulick KY, Marshall, Bethlehem, Rickel, Olympia, Mathes, SD, and I would assume Shand in Easton and Sutton in MD would be considered reappraising.  This may not bode well for approval.

Chazzy, the possibility goes like this.  49 bishops vote “yes”.  49 bishops vote “no”.  One bishop decides not to vote, or votes late, or the vote is lost in the mail, the consent fails. 
If there are fifty “no” votes, then we would know that the consent fails.  However, I do not expect that we will get to fifty before the results are known.  I could be wrong.

[58] Billy:

I would assume Shand in Easton and Sutton in MD would be considered reappraising.

I’m not so sure about Bishop Sutton, Billy. He’s not an easy one to pigeonhole. I was pretty sure that he wouldn’t consent to Forrester, and I’m glad to see I was right. (And relieved, because I voted for Bishop Sutton at our convention.)

I’m astonished, though, that our Standing Committee also voted to withhold consent. If even DioMD’s Standing Committee can’t bring themselves to vote for Genpo - and I didn’t think there was any heresy those folks wouldn’t embrace in pursuit of inclusiveness - you may as well stick a fork in him.

“He who has daughters is always a shepherd.”

Ralph:  Perhaps .......

KJS:        Remember the Force.
Candidate:  I will follow the Force all the days of my life.
KJS:          I am your father.
Candidate:  You are my father. (Thinks: “Really”?)
KJS:          I didn’t always look like this.
Candidate:  (thinks ‘squid thoughts) Nevertheless, I will wear thy Oven Mitts as a
              symbol as Bishop of the Diocese of the Death Star.
KJS:        Take then, the symbol of thine authority. (Places a light saber in his hand)

Here’s some quick number-food for thought:

Taking bishops only (not standing committees), and if there are in fact only 99 bishops who can vote, then so far the no’s are running 2.5:1 against Forrester.

To gain consent, Forrester would have to get 40 the remaining 64 votes. That means that of the remaining votes, he has to run 2:1 for.

That would be one thing if the ‘no’ votes were concentrated among conservatives, but if you divide the ‘no’ votes so far into left-center-right, you get what I figure is a 10-8-7 distribution, with minor quibbling about who belongs in the “left” and who belongs in the “center.”

Conversely, it would be one thing if the left and hard left had yet to vote, but Andrus, Bruno, Chane, Ely, Irish, Smith and Shaw - a sizable chunk of the hard left - are all accounted for.

If you figure that, with 35 out of 99 bishops and the theological/political spread we’re seeing, you have a representative sample, then if my math is correct, that predicts a 71-28 defeat among bishops.

Dear Greg: please don’t jinx it…

I’m not certain where the reduction of votes comes in. The article respecting Bishops in foreign lands is about what happens before a diocese (ordinary or missionary) of “this Church” (i.e. PECUSA aka TEC aka TEO) is established. Therefore, Under Article III of the Constitution, General Convention could authorize a Bishop to have jurisdiction in Argentina, but such Bishop would not be a member of the HoB or be eligible for election to a US Diocese or perform episcopal acts in an established diocese without permission.

There are 110 dioceses (ordinary and missionary) which puts the required tally for the Standing Committees at 56. While of questionable legality, the Presiding Bishop recognizes the interim Standing Committees in the seceded dioceses and has appointed Bishops with jurisdiction over those territories.

Of the Bishops with jurisdiction, there is obviously one vacancy, which drops the total possible votes to 109. It appears that both the Presiding Bishop and the Chaplain-General to the Armed Forces lack jurisdiction, based on my reading of the canons. Are there other jurisdictions where the position of Bishop with jurisdiction is vacant or other jurisdictions within the US that are not dioceses but have been authorized by GC?

Thanks, Greg. That’s just the sort of analysis I wanted to see. I would prefer victory, but I can live with an uphill battle for the liberals.

Bill,
I also have it “on good authority” that the provisional bishops of (TEC) San Joaquin, (TEC) Pittsburgh, and (TEC) Quincy have a vote.  Someone in +Gulick’s office told the press that he got 2, one for Kentucky and one for (TEC) Ft. Worth, but not sure this is accurate.  If he votes no twice, it is ok with me.
The bishops in Central America and other non-US TEC diocese do get a vote- actually, without them, +Lawrence’s election might also have failed the second time around.
There are, if memory serves, 5 or 6 open sees- and while some of those might have appointed provisional bishops (such as +Tom Ray in N. Michigan) my understanding is that only “elected” provisional bishops (which under TEC current interpretation includes those over the 4 remnant dioceses) get to vote.
While I think that means that there are about 106 bishops eligible under KJS interpretation, I am a bit worried that it will only require 50 yes’s to elect, but will require 56 no’s to deny.  The fact that TEC has not seemed to manage to publish a number is troubling, and given the current vogue for “interpretation” of these things, it is difficult to pin down an exact number.
For that matter, it may be that the real “number” is the 68 or 69 votes it would take in the HoB to overrule the chair and do a count of the physical votes.

It would make no sense canonically for +Gulick to get two votes, and if he does, hell should be raised. The canon specifically says “Bishops with jurisdiction” have a vote. He is <u>one</u> bishop with multiple jurisdictions. He is <u>not</u> multiple bishops. I seriously doubt he gets two votes in the HoB.

Just a tiny correction: Briedenthal in the chart at the top should be Breidenthal.

tj, there you go limiting your view of reality to numbers as though they really counted!  Interpretation is everything as the Prophetess Bishopess has tried to establish.  Away with your silly constitutions and canons, Sir!  Off with their heads.  Hast thou not heard of “new age mathematics” or non-Euclidean geometers or the infinity of possible universes?  Pi?  the Ever-blessed Imaginary numbers?

You, Sir, are a conservative tradtionalist mathematician who needs to enter into dialogue with the pluriform field of numbers.

+SD does not surprise me one little bit!  Unfortunately.

So what is the relationship between standing committee votes and bishop votes?  Does he need the majority of each?

Andrew A (71)

Yes, a majority of each.

By the way, I do not see Albany on the Standing Committee No list even though there is a psot affirming that.

King - fixed. Thanks.

Andrew.
Yes, the consent process, to be favorable, needs majorities of consents given by both bishops of jurisdiction and by Standing Committees.
You didn’t ask, but it should be clear that there are, presumably, Standing Committees in each of the TECUSA dioceses.  It is a canonical requirement.  It is not a canonical requirement (although it is a canonical expectation) that there be a bishop of jurisdiction in each diocese.
We can see by the number of vacancies of bishops that there are not the same # of bishops currently as there might otherwise be.  That is to say, there is a higher number of Standing Committee “yes” consents needed to provide a majority there, than there are necessary “yes” consents from bishops.

AndrewA,

Also, there’s a high correlation between SC votes and bishops’ votes. We’ll likely see very few cases where one votes yes and the other votes no.

I should have added that my unsolicited addendum to Andrew is also my little addition to the ACI/CP bishops statement.

The odds look pretty dim for KGTF.

On some level, I feel sorry for him.  With a church that has produced the likes of Pike, Spong, Robinson, Chane, Andrus, Otis Charles, et al and has produced some of the goofiest theology in modern mainline christian history, he must be wondering: why did they draw the line at him?

I think it is a legitimate question.  Is being Zen Buddhist as bad as Robinson supporting the “good work” of Planned Parenthood?  Not in my book.  And he obliterated the baptismal liturgy, but I am sure he is not the first “experimental” priest out there - and I am sure a good chunk of TEC wouldn’t care or would like his “house of serenity” nonsense.  They eat that stuff up.

The whole process of him getting “elected” seemed pretty rotten, but don’t tell me he is the first person to play political games with a search committee.

All in all he seems like an intelligent, new-age dude, not much different than a lot of priests in TEC.  Of course, my statement is taking for granted that TEC is a apostate mess, and I would never again step a foot into one of their churches.  But still, why draw the line at Genpo?

DoW

DoW,

My humble suggestion would be to ask yourself this: What does Forrester HAVE, that Pike, Spong, Robinson, Chane, Andrus, and Otis Charles DIDN’T?

Hmmm….  maybe a NAME assigned to him from a completely different religious traditions?????

and maybe a poor sense of timing?  as in, he published his heresy before becoming a bishop, not after?

Hey to be clear that Standing Committee in San Joaquin is the Rump one not the real one! Just to be clear…....As I am not surprised since the zoo has collected all the strays with every view that a broad mind and openness/inclusiveness/we’re all one on this earth and equal thinking kind of individual could fathom in one small spot of a large state! Very scary…...

Surely Chane must be annoyed that his proteges (Baxter and Sutton) are on the “wrong” side of this issue?

D. Virtue is reporting that Wolf officially isn’t telling, but there is some unofficial indication that she has said no. Given her part in the Redding debacle it’s hard to imagine that she consented.

WWGD?

(What Will Gene Do?)

Greg,

What does Forrester HAVE, that Pike, Spong, Robinson, Chane, Andrus, and Otis Charles DIDN’T?

As near as I can tell, what sets Genpo off from the likes of Pike is that he possesses certifications which most people would agree make him “not a Christian, but something else.” 

So, maybe that’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back in TEC.  At least (by the looks at votes for consent), for the time-being. 

So, if (e.g.,) Tom Cruise entered the priesthood of TEC, and three months later ran for bishop, he’d be voted down on account of his affiliation with Scientology.  But (by the same logic), if Rich Dawkins did the same, he’d be a shoe-in for bishop (Spong after all, writes books too). 

‘pathetic.

If Forrester is not confirmed, then what will have done him in is his paper trail.  The beliefs themselves are not necessarily bad (to many in TEC’s way of thinking).  What is wrong is that Forrester left a trail that left many bishops no alternative but to say “no” or deal with the fact that many bishops and priests in TEC no longer know and can articulate the Faith from a creedal standpoint. 

I believe that the biggest problem is that we have substituted an “Ordination Process” where many Commissions on Ministry or Standing Committees are simply looking to be sure that all the right boxes are checked rather than doing the tough task of discernment and verification of formation as a priest or deacon.  In other words, we don’t check to see if a person understands and can articulate the Faith prior to going to seminary (or academic formation) and we don’t check that they can do it after academic formation either.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

<blockquote>In other words, we don’t check to see if a person understands and can articulate the Faith prior to going to seminary….Phil Snyder<?blockquote>

If they could do that Phil, why send them to seminary?  The COM and SC job is to see if they have the capability to do that, not that they can do it prior to entering.  Besides, there are only two seminaries that teach the Christian faith anyway, Nashotah House in an Anglo-Catholic tradition and Trinity in an Evangelical tradition.

I believe that the Presiding Bishop has a vote, her jurisidiction being based on her authority over the Convocation of American Churches in Europe. Assuming that I am correct, has anyone asked how she will vote?

Phil Snyder (#85) and Dallas Priest (#86), let me interject a word from the perspective of a seminary dean:  While a seminary should be in the business of helping people articulate the Christian faith more intelligently and clearly, it is NOT our business to help them learn to articulate it in the first place.  We are here to turn those who are already Christians into Christian LEADERS, not to help people discover the Christian faith. 

Helping people learn to articulate their Christian faith should be the role of the PARISHES (what a concept!)  And Bishops, COMs, and SCs should make sure aspirants for ordination can do this BEFORE they send them to be trained as leaders. 

Robert S. Munday+
Nashotah House

Helping people learn to articulate their Christian faith should be the role of the PARISHES (what a concept!) And Bishops, COMs, and SCs should make sure aspirants for ordination can do this BEFORE they send them to be trained as leaders.

One of the things that have disappointed me about some of the parishes I’ve visited locally, whethere TEC, CANA, or the Anglican Catholic Church, is the complete lack of any form of sunday school, adult education, small group doctrine and discipleship training, or bible study for adults on Sunday mornings.  They might have something during the week (when many people can’t make it) or once a month on Saturday mornings, but nothing is offered before services or after services on Sunday morning, when the majority of people are there. 

There seems to be the assumption that a 15-25 minute homily on the Gospel reading of the week, aimed a general audience, is sufficient to to the trick.  I’m not convinced, however, that this is a valid substitute for a 30-45 minute, class room style, small group studies target toward different groups based on where people are in their lives or their knowledge of doctrine. 

Not only do such classes provide the opprotunity for more in depth and interactive study than a way that a generic and pithy homily (however well done) can’t, but I think they also build of fellowship and cohesion.

Dallas Priest,
Father, let me second what Dean Munday has said.  I believe that the ultimate source of all the problems in TEC is that the clergy (including me) have done a poor job of catechesis in the past.  We don’t do enough to ensure that the laity have a good grounding in the Faith.  While it may not be feasible for all the laity to have a good grounding, surely it is feasible that the 1-2% we send to seminary should have a good grounding before they go to seminary. 
Of course, they would not be able to articulate the faith in the technical or precise terms that a seminary education provides.  I would not expect an aspirant to know the difference between Arianism and Modalism or Adoptionism and Docetism.  However, I would expect the aspirant to be able to say that we worship one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that Jesus is fully human and fully divine.  I would expect the Aspirant to be able to tell what Jesus has done in his life and how Jesus is Lord and Savior is shown in his life.

The technical percision should come with academic formation along with knowledge of the different heresies and why they are still wrong today and what the pastoral implications of holding and teaching the heresies are.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

AndrewA,
As an Adult Sunday School teacher in my parish, let me show the problem from a different perspective.  We offer 2-3 adult Classes all year long - even in the summer and the classes are offered between the 8:00 and 10:00 services.  My parish has an ASA of around 200.  We have less than 20 people active in Adult Sunday School.  Almost no one from the 8:00 service stays and too many from the 10:00 service will drop off their kids and then go get coffee.  Even when we have Sunday School in the parish hall, there are several adults who will drink their coffee rather than attend classes.

Some clergy may have grown tired of spending hours preparing classes to have only 5-6 people attend them.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I agree with a lot of what my Dallas brothers and Dean Munday have said. 

I believe that much of this problem goes way back to, basically(and I realize it will sound cranky) worshipping and learning liturgy and cocktail parties instead of our Lord and the Scriptures.  Not to say that liturgy is not important, because it is; but, it’s not the only thing and it’s also not the thing that’s the actual FOUNDATION of our Faith. 

People(not you men, per se) can make all their sneering elitist jokes about Fundamentalists and Fundamentalism; but, at least I would submit that Fundamentalists know the/their Scripture; more than I can say about most Episcopalians. 

I’ve always said that one(or more) should understand the Bible before one actually starts reading Biblical criticism—exalting Marcus Borg long before there’s much grasp of what the Scriptures actually say is what got us into this mess, but I’m sure that was the revisionist strategy all the long, just like sharks smelling blood in the water. 

The adversary taught too many of us to deconstruct what wasn’t even understood in the first place—a masterful strategy that the mob bought into a long time ago. 

We all know I could take this down lots of theological roads—so many want Jesus as Saviour/Healer but not Jesus as Lord/Redeemer; e.g., everyone wants to feel good and loved but not examine their sin and/or atone—I love hearing the comments about the Rite I service or the Decalogue/1928 Prayer Book Service just being “too penitential”—God help us, if everyone wants to wear love beads and validate each other’s brokenness then why not just rent a large house on Big Sur and live in a secular commune? 

The Christ and His Foundation are healing BUT redemptive, not counterculture, situational ethics, and relativist. 

Oh, but I forgot—I’m just another one of those traditional cretins who is not intellectually-developed enough to solely want to validate myself and all my bad behaviors. 

Better sign off before I get any worse—

Dallas Neanderthalette

At the end of the voting, what we will have is a ripe list of those who CAN in “good conscience” vote for Forrester, or who CANNOT oppose the PB’s agenda.

That, in itself, will be useful as both the inside and outside strategies continue to turn the tide against heresy and a wordly governance of a Christian organization.

This ridiculous election of a bishop might someday be known in church history as the wake-up call to sleepy pew-sitters, aka the moderates not in leadership (those in leadership appear to be paralyzed.) I can at least hope!

Allowing the progessive trajectory to take it’s natural and bizarre course, unfettered by a conserative counter-balance, is continuing to provide the clarity and light we have prayed for.

You, go Katie! Nevermind the tiny minority….

carrie

I don’t know about the others, but Europe does get a bishop’s vote.  It is cast by the presiding bishop.  There is a long and somewhat convoluted logic to that, but it is the case that +Whalen does not have that vote but ++Katherine does. 

That is long ago settled canon.

FWIW
jimB

As an Adult Sunday School teacher in my parish, let me show the problem from a different perspective.  We offer 2-3 adult Classes all year long - even in the summer and the classes are offered between the 8:00 and 10:00 services.  My parish has an ASA of around 200.  We have less than 20 people active in Adult Sunday School.

Maybe it is, as cityonahill observes, a cultural thing.  In denomination that I grew up in, “Average Sunday Attendence” was calculated by taking attendence in sunday school, making note of members on a class roll and adding any visitors to the count.  No one kept count of how many people were in services.

BTW, I’m aware of at least one local CANA parish (Truro) that seems to offer the type of program I’m supporting, so no one should take my critiques as apply ALL Anglican/Episcopal parishes rather than SOME.  I have no way of guessing as to wether or not it applies to the majority.  Looking at Matt’s parish schedule, I think he would also get passing grades.

8:00am Worship (Holy Commuion and a sermon)
9:15am Christian Education for all Ages
10:30am Worship (Communion, Music, Sermon)

Some other parishes, however, that I’ve seen, seem to think that Sunday morning christian education is kids’ stuff.

It could be that there’s some strong arming going on, and “yes” holdouts, hoping to force the more timid among them to vote yes under pressure, with the holdouts jumping in at the last minute. I hope the members of congregations who want a no vote of their bishops let them know how they feel, to counter any pressure from the farce above.

To offer an answer to my question posed upstream:

I believe what Forrester has that the others didn’t, is an activated community connected by technology that allows it to disseminate large amounts of information, very quickly, very accurately, and to exactly the right people.

Within just a couple of weeks of his election - and months before the consent process was to end - bishops and standing committees all over the country received stacks of information about Forrester - some of it opinion, to be sure, but most of it, I’m guessing, was just copies of his Trinity Sunday sermon, copies of his 2008 Easter service, copies of the service in which he replaced the New testament reading with a reading from the Qur’an, copies of the diocesan newsletters and such in which he outlined his shaky vision of Christianity, probably a photo here and there standing in his Buddhist garb next to his teacher. Forrester, in his mountains of written testimony, wrote his own indictment.

Spong also had piles of evidence that he was a raving heretic - every bit as heretical as Forrester - but in the 70’s there wasn’t the means to collect it and distribute it accurately and quickly to the right people. The ability to do that changes the rules of the game that bishops have to play in granting or withholding consent: In the 70’s, almost all the pressure placed on bishops to consent to Spong’s election was placed on them by a few energized and engaged liberals in close proximity to them at home, and the rest of the House of Bishops. To withhold consent to someone like Spong meant that you’d catch hell from those few people, while not getting any support from the masses back home, because the masses back home didn’t know who Spong was and what he believed. To grant consent to someone like Spong meant that the masses back home would be still be silent, but you’d get pats on the back from a few energized and engaged liberals at home, as well as your colleagues in the House of Bishops.

I’m not attributing the failure of the HoB to reject Spong, and what looks like its success in rejecting Forrester, entirely to technology, but I do think it has decisively tipped the balance.

Today, granting consent to someone like Forrester means that a whole lot more people back home are going to be asking a lot of difficult questions of you. For some, those questions will be accompanied by implied or overt statements about your suitability for office, and about their willingness to continue contributing their money. Now, all of sudden the pats on the backs of a few liberals in your clergy order and tiny activist groups isn’t so attractive compared to the consternation of more “rank and file” types.

This is certainly not to say that everyone who needs to be engaged is engaged; far from it. We have a long way to go. But what has happened here with Kevin Forrester did not happen with, for example, Gene Robinson. Robinson was a complete unknown to all but the most deeply engaged Episcopalians during his consents period; Forrester and what he believes, on the other hand, I think it can be safely said is known to a significantly larger number of people, most of whom were not engaged in this debate in 2003. What’s more, those people came to know about him through the same medium that we’ve used to transmit information to the people who make the decisions about whether or not he will be seated in the HoB. They came to this medium because Robinson’s election awakened them, energized them, and prompted them to seek out whatever information they could get, as quickly as they could get it, and this medium was where they found it.

What I find interesting is that if you think of the blogs as node one, the folks in the pews as node two, and bishops and standing committees as node three, we’ve spent the past several years establishing communications between nodes one and two - where there’s plenty of fellowship and commiserating - to establishing communications between nodes two and three, where a completely different set of things happen. Nodes one and two can ping-pong information back and forth all we want - and that’s what we did, with Oakwyse, with Ann Holmes Redding, now with Kevin Forrester - but until information can flow between nodes two and three, little gets done in the way of effecting change in the church’s official bodies and actions.

I think it’s accurate to say that, had Kevin Forrester been elected in the 70’s, he would have easily sailed through and been seated in the House of Bishops. What would the parishioner in Tennessee or Texas or South Carolina have known about Forrester then? Probably nothing more than “There’s a fellow who’s seeking consent to his election, and he’s somehow involved in Buddhism.” And what would that parishioner have been told by his bishop or rector? Probably “Oh, he just uses a few meditation techniques to enhance his Christian prayer.” Or maybe there would have been relayed some of the “explanation” Forrester attempted a couple of weeks ago. The parishioner would have been hard-pressed to counter that explanation, and to continue exerting any pressure on his bishop or standing committee without any more detailed information.

But look what happened today: Instead of rumor and vague, unsubstantiated reports, there in the parishioner’s hands - and as a result, in the bishops’ and standing committees’ hands - was a stack of documents, displaying Forrester’s naked syncretism in all its incoherent weirdness. I don’t mean to take away from any bishop’s independent analysis and decision to withhold consent, but I think the community that has grown up around the Anglican blogs, the amount of information it can collect, the speed with which it can collect it, and the way it can disseminate it in a highly-targeted way, made the difference.

Now - just imagine what we could do if we really got organized.

Greg#98 is well said. “I don’t want to blow wind up your skirt,” but if it had not appeared on Stand Firm I would not have known about this man’s beliefs and practices. At first I thought, just one more, but SF kept it out there, and I finally got it. We get so beaten down with this stuff that we tend to become immune to shock. Well, thank you for waking me up, and thank god that we truly have a site to wake us all up, and from time to time prod us into action…My bishop (+Benfield) found out because of material I sent from this site, I am not saying SF swayed him, but it helped to open his eyes.

Obviously, “god”, should be “God.”

Greg-
Very good analysis.
The key is organization, information, and mutual support. Especially the latter.  Perhaps what Greg omits in his analysis is the wealth of sustaining prayer for the people of this diocese, and especially for those of us opposing the election, coming from all over the world.  Until you experience it, I do not know how to describe what it feels like to see a blog entry or get an email in which someone you’ve never met- across the country or in England or Africa- is praying for you, personally.  In an email I sent a while back I said to a friend that I thought I had held my “little stone bridge” until it had crumbled into dust.  Little did I know that the Lord would send masons to help rebuild it, and many people to help hold on to it.
  But I really must caution against optimism here.  This is by no means a battle won.  Even assuming that Rev. Forrester is denied consents, what happens then?  Remember that part of the process here was to redefine the office of bishop into a committee of 12 people.  Rev. Forrester is not really a “bishop-elect” so much as he is the chair of a committee.  So all that happens is that they now elect a new chair, and we go through this all over again- just this time with a candidate who, while completely on-board with Rev. Forrester and his doctrinal heresies, is unknown, and has had 6 months to hide any trace of him- or herself- and does not have the wealth of published sermons and articles that brought down Rev. Forrester.  So, in another 9 months, there is a confirmed candidate who is another signatory to the “affirmations” and Forrester is pulling the strings.  In many ways, the real test of the HoB is not Rev. Forrester, who is at best an embarrassment even to his most progressive supporters, but whether the bishops will indeed “draw a line in the sand” and resist future efforts to put miters on those who preach heresy.

tjmcmahon, we all pray for you, and the diocese.

In a democratic church polity people get the bishops they deserve.

#103, Not all people, just the majority at times…

Think of this: the election of Forrester is a symptom and not a cause of the situation in TEC.  In working to prevent him from joining the ranks of your bishops, you are treating a symptom.  It may make you feel better for a while, but you still have cancer of the spirit.

Do not put a band aid on a cancer.

Dear one, Think of this: Perhaps this is not the beginning, or middle, of a terrible disease, but the beginning signs of healing…As to band-aids, folks often wear them after removing skin cancer.

Good luck with that.

anglicancatholicpriest,

There are worthwhile battles to be fought inside and outside TEC. This is one of those worthwhile battles inside TEC. I understand if you don’t agree, but in this thread we’re going to talk about what went right and how we can improve in the future.

It is interesting to note the opportunity the internet provides to the few to domineer the many through organized support of arcane projects which if examined closely might not be tolerated. Louis Crew may have been one of the first to exploit this opportunity through his presumptuous “Anglican Pages”.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/rel.html

Thank you Greg, and Stand Firm for providing the balance we need.

The “Standing Cmte” of the TEC “Diocese of Pittsburgh” was scheduled to meet on April 20th.  I wonder how they voted on KTF.  For the so-called conservatives on that “Standing Committee” either way “they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t”.  My guess is their vote will remain secret.

“Do not put a band aid on a cancer.”

Anglicancatholicpriest,
I like to think of our work as chemotherapy, ridding the Body of Christ of the “cells” which are prolific and attacking the body itself.  The treatment is radical and the body is weakened, but eventually the healthy cells have a chance to rebuild and restore.
I also love the parallel between our current health ills as a result of messing with our food’s natural growth and the effect of false teaching on the Body of Christ (like a spiritual toxin.)  Our greenie bishops and TEC leaders seem to have completely missed the spiritual dimensions and lessons from the very “save the planet” agenda they push.

Carrie

A while back on his blog Jim Simons clearly indicated that he would be voting against consent.  If I had to guess, the majority of the Standing Committee agreed with him…

Greg,
Excellent post above (#98). Spot on. It’s why the number of people using this site grows steadily, and why so many of us regularly check in.

Reminder to fellow commenters ~  If you thought about donating something monthly to SFIF (last month’s appeal), and never got around to it with the busi-ness of daily life, the Forrester election is a reminder of why it’s important to SUPPORT SFIF.

Carrie

South Dakota Standing Cmte. will not say - a couple of folks have inquired and been told, “That will be part of our Diocesan Convention report in September.”

I know that there are some folks on the SC who will be oppossed to Forrester’s liturgical innovating and questionable theology, but the the SC also has folks who basically do what the Bp. tells them.  So there could be a split vote and I have no guess as to how it might go.

This group has never responded to letters from me, my vestry, groups of interested people, whatever.  Any surprise that the bishop search profile here calls for “communication” as a key quality in the new bishop?  Lots of really bad systemic stuff to fix here.

While I agree with Greg’s #98 and have great appreciation for the fervent prayers offered by many, without any inside knowledge on my part it seems that KTF also ‘blew the audition’ at the HoB meeting at Kanuga. 

Peace,
-miserable sinner

Does the Standing Committee of N. Michigan get a vote?  If so, I think you can put them in the “yes” column.

Two general comments.  First, I think Greg’s long #98 does raise a very important point, with which I fully agree.  The Internet and independent blogs like this one are indeed a new technological advance and form of communication that’s crucial to the success of the New Reformation.  In the same way, the invention of the printing press was absolutely crucial to the success of the original 16th century Reformation.  Both represent effective ways of quickly communicating with large numbers of people that the corrupt religious establishment just can’t control or stop. 

So Bravo, Greg!  Keep up the good work.  It’s essential to our cause.

Second point.  While it’s true that this whole crisis has expos4ed the underlying problem of the gross failure of catechesis or Christian education and formation that’s so widespread in TEC and the ACoC, I’d like to take that same line of thought a little farther.  This colossal systemic failure to train church members as authentic disciples of Jesus Christ in turn reflects a deeper underlying problem.  I’d put it this way.  This massive failure to train believers to obey all that Christ has commanded us, to use the language of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), is symptomatic of the old Christendom mindset that is simply part of the foundation of Anglicanism as a state church form of Christianity.  That is, that whole Christendom mindset is intrinsic to the whole way Anglicanism has been organized and practiced since the Reformation, and indeed for many centuries before the Reformation in England.  And that whole way of doing church is now obsolete, as this prolonged and bitter crisis so clearly and sadly demonstrates.

For in the Christendom way of operating, where membership in the Church and in the national society were assumed and designed to be coterminous, the goal (especially from the standpoint of the State, which was always dominant in the relationship between Church and State) was merely universal membership as a means of binding the nation together, not the fostering of radical discipleship, which would inevitably be highly divisive are unwilling to pay the cost of seriously following Christ.

One of the key aspects of this New Reformation is raising the bar of expectations in church life FAR higher than it has ever been before in Anglicanism.  In short, we must move from seeking to make new members, or even new converts, to the making of real disciples.  Shifting the goal “from membership to discipleship.”  That is a non-negotiable element in what I keep saying is the call to create not only, as +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted so eloquently said on the eve of GAFCON last summer, a new “Global, Post-Colonial” Settlement to replace the old Elizabethan, Reformation, Christendom one, but to go a step further and see this New Reforamtion as being about the creation of a whole new POST-CHRISTENDOM style Anglicanism.  And yes, that means a completely new sort of ecclesiology that explicitly embraces a “gathered church” or “believer’s church” way of thinking and acting, as opposed to the old, obsolete “folk kirche” model of church life.

David Handy+

At this point, for the candidate’s election to be confirmed, he would need affirmative votes from about 2/3 of the episcopal ballots that have not yet been cast/whose substance is not yet known. In other words, the tide of the election would have to turn almost exactly 180 degrees, since the votes cast so far in the junior house have been about 2/3 AGAINST confirming the election.

I just don’t see it, esp. with him already losing the votes of some of the liberal bishops whose votes he would need to gain confirmation.

For the good of the Diocese, the Church, the House of Bishops, and of his own person and house, he needs to pull the plug and let DioNMich get to the next step in its progress (which may or may not be another episcopal election).

#113 Nevin
I believe Jim Simons qualified his statement with something like, “Based on what we know right now it looks like I’d vote no”.  In my view nothing has improved for KTF, so I would expect Jim to vote against consent yet not make public the Standing Cmte results. It wouldn’t look very good in relation to their new love affair with all things 815.

Why am I not surprised the Mormon bishop voted for the Buddhist.

David,
This may be a little off-topic, but are there elements of the ecclesiology of current Anglicanism that you think would be retained in a new Anglican reformation?  Bishops, dioceses, rectors, sacraments, liturgies?  Actually this would be good as a new thread.
Rudy+

Rudy+ (#122, responding to my earlier #118),

Yes, of course, my friend, there are LOTS of things that I hope and expect will be retained in the New and Improved Anglicanism that will result from this New Reformation.  As you know, and most regular SF readers do as well, I claim to be a “3-D Christian,” who strives to maintain a healthy balance between the three dimensions of biblical Christianity: the evangelical, catholic, and charismatic dimensions.  And part of that catholic dimension is the classic, patristic ordering of the ministry of the Church in terms of bishops, priests, and deacons (and by the latter I do mean TRUE deacons, the lifelong kind). 

Actually, part of what I hope comes out of this drastic reshaping of Anglicanism in our time is a recovery of the permanent diaconate as being just as essential to the proper ordering of the Church as the so-called “historic episcopate.”  That is, I would (and do) forthrighly hold that the three-fold order is of the esse, not merely the bene esse, of the Church.  It is the patristic period, and NOT the Reformation period or the Scriptures alone, that is definitive and normative in this area.  But that means that the fourth and most controversial of the four sides of the Lambeth Quadrilateral shoul be reformulated to insist, contrary to the Sydney low-church gang, that it is essential to Anglicanism that we uphold not only the apostolic succession of bishps but also the “historic diaconate” as well.

That is a good illustration of the fact that for me, this New Reformation is not a wholesale repudiation of our great heritage, but a “return to the sources” and an attempt to recover some vital elements of that heritage that have been lost or obscured over the centures.  And above all, that means recovering things like the ancient catechumenate that made the pre-Constantinain church so strong and healthy, and able to conquer the mighty Roman Empire.

But in no way do I support or advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in the usual one-sidedly Protestant or Puritan fashion.  I firmly believe the pre-Christendom Church was thoroughly 3-D, and by definition, it wasn’t Erastian at all (i.e., not an established state church or folk kirche).  Rather, that early patristic church knew itself to be “in the world, but not of the world,” and called out of the world and summoned to stand against the world and its idols, not out of contempt but out of love for the people of the world and the desire to see them be saved.

And it’s precisely that same sense of being clearly and emphatically separate from the world and forming al alternative society that is the salt of the earth and the light of the world that is central to becoming not only a Global, Post-Colonial Church, but a Post-Christendom one as well.

Thanks for asking, Rudy.  And yes, I agree that such a topic deserves a thread of its own.  And if the editors of SF doesn’t see fit to start such a thread, well, I guess the NRAFC will have to do it on our own (wink).

David Handy+

I’ve got a feeling that Greg or Sarah are about to snarl at people for getting WAY of topic, but my two cents is that keeping bishops, rectors, sacraments and liturgies is non-negotiatable for Anglicanism, and indeed without any of these features I’d be completly uninterested in Anglicanism but would content myself with being Baptist.  However, in my limited and personal experience, the one big change I would suggest, that Baptists tend to do better at (even if you think, as I do, that they interpet several key doctrins wrongly) is a renewed emphasis on the exposition of the Word through thorough and progressive (as in offering successive levels of training, not as in liberal heresy) grounding in doctrine and discipleship for ALL AGES.  You can’t assume that the liturgy in and of itself is going to teach all things necessary to the faith, and as important as the sacraments are they only provide spiritual nurishment and not a correct understanding of Scripture and Tradition.  Some parishes already, I think, do a good job at this.  Others, however, seem to think that worshiping together and being part of community is the only thing important, and that a common and correct teaching and understanding of the Faith is somehow secondary or even unnecessary. 

As for the “Christendom” concept, it is worth nothing that the 1662 BCP, as great as it is, was written in a time when it was assumed that pretty much everyone would be baptized and would have a proper Christian values taught and/or reinforced by the family, the government, the schools, the universities, and the local community.  Nowdays, the opposite is all too often the case.

Thanks for asking, Rudy.  And yes, I agree that such a topic deserves a thread of its own.  And if the editors of SF doesn’t see fit to start such a thread, well, I guess the NRAFC will have to do it on our own (wink).

Nothing stopping you from setting up your own blog.

AndrewA (#125),

Yes, you’re quite right, of course.  Nothing is stopping me from starting my own blog, that is, but the time and computer savvy it takes.  It’s not so much the time and effort it takes to set up the blog (after all, thousands of people do that every day), but what it takes to keep it going in the way that I’d want to do, by refereeing the discussion and responding to the comments made.

FWIW, for better or worse, I actually do plan to start my own blog later this year, maybe this summer.  And if I do, then of course, I’ll have less time to post here at SF.

David Handy+

My friend Fr. Handy,

I am again puzzled by your comments and where you are trying to lead us.  It appears that your New Reformation sees itself as some sort of “Post Christendom” instrument or entity or force.

The concept of post Christendom seems to me to accept as a fait accompli that Christianity is no longer a central force in our culture and that the United States, and indeed Western civilization, no longer identifies itself Christian and that Christians and Christian Churches must reorganize and restructure around the reality.  The role of Christianity has diminished, it has not ended.  We are in a cycle; Christianity has survived many and emerged stronger.  We must reverse the trend, not accept it!

My very un-theological and un-PhD response to your Post Christendom deal is quite simply BALONEY.  The greatest days of Christianity and Christendom are yet to come, Fr. Handy, they are not in the past.  Relationships between church and state evolve without diminishing the centrality of the role of Christianity in our lives and in the role of the state in democracies, because in a democracy, the state is us.

We are not in or approaching Post Christendom.  The world has not achieved a state, or condition, of Christendom yet, so how could we be approaching Post something we have not yet achieved?

The best days of Christendom are yet to come!

And this is not off topic.  Dealing with the encroachment of anti-Christ religions, such as Islam and Buddhism, into Christian churches is exactly what is at stake with Fr. Forrester’s candidacy for the episcopate.

If the New Reformation represents Post Christendom, include me out.

Ol’ Bob (#127),

I appreciate the cordial tone of your sharply critical response to my #118 and 123.  You aren’t alone in rejecting the idea that we Christians are facing a radically new “post-Christendom” social context in western civilization.  You’re quite right, of course, that this is an idea that’s wandering fairly far off-topic for this thread.  So I won’t try to argue the point here.

But then, again, I think you weren’t inclined to follow my lead theologically anyway, were you?  That is, given our past squabbles over biblical interpretation where I’ve openly repudiated the notions of biblical inerrancy and the Protestant doctreine of sola Scriptura, I don’t think you were tempted to join the kind of New Reformation I’m such a fervent advocate of, even apart from the notion of “post-Christendom” style Anglicanism.

But that’s OK.  You have plenty of good company there.  I don’t think any of the five editors of SF are inclined to endorse the wild-eyed dreams I have for the Anglicanism of the Third Millenium.  However, I do appreciate your respectful tone, even while you express such vigorous opposition to my views.

After all, there really wasn’t just one Reformation in the 16th century.  The Lutheran Reformation was quite different from the more radical Swiss Reformation, which was very different from the Radical Reformation (or so-called Anabaptist) movements (such as the Mennonites).  Then of course there was the independent English Reformation, where political factors were at least as strong and decisive as the theological ones.  And last, but not least by any means, there was the Catholic Reformation, which wasn’t merely a reaction against Protestantism but a genuine renewal movment from within as well.

My point is this.  If the original Reformations of the 16th century weren’t really unified, except in a very broad sense, then it’s hardly surprising that their 21st century equivalents will probably likewise take rather different paths toward the common objective of renewing, purifying, strengthening, and reforming the Church for a new era.  And I’m OK with that.

I guess that here, as elsewhere, Ol’ Bob, we’ll just have to agree to disagree, as agreeably as we can.

David Handy+

AndrewA is right - I am about to snarl at this thread being taken off topic. David, I appreciate your compliments, but I’d prefer if you found an appropriate thread for your discussion, or took it offline. This is too important a moment in the larger debate to veer off topic.

Sorry, Greg.  I’m happy to oblige.

David Handy+

Does the Standing Committee of N. Michigan get a vote?  If so, I think you can put them in the “yes” column.

Don’t be so sure.  If the Episcopalians in NortMich are all Buddhists like their bishop-to-be, then their understanding of the true nature of phenomena may enable them to escape the cycle of suffering and rebirth signified by voting.  Greg Griffith has asked that we not speculate how folks will vote, so I will not speculate that the NortMich Standing Committee will vote neither “yes” nor “no” but will instead vote “orange”.

It seems to me that due to Gutenberg’s invention of movable type, which enabled many people to read the Bible, the leaders of the “original Reformations of the 16th century” were more unified than you portray them to be, they were unified by Scripture. Reformers wherever they were, in Germany, Switzerland, England, (and even Roman Catholic Reformers) based their beliefs on faith in the Bible, the Word of God, and proclaimed the Gospel.
What does your New Reformation base it’s faith on?

My last post should have been addressed to New Reformation Advocate #128.

I think there is one thing we all need to be clear on: Not consenting to a Christian Bishop who embraces another faith is the absolute least you can do. 

I am somewhat alarmed by these kudos for folks from the left who have decided not to consent.  We need to be clear: Expecting that Bishops be Christian is setting the bar as low as it can go. 

If you deny consent for Thew Forrester, thanks for nothing.  What else have you done for Christianity lately?

Betty (#132-133),

Thanks for your interest, but since Greg has already warned me about hijacking this thread, let me decline to answer your perfectly valid question at this time.  Feel free to contact me off-line, if you wish.

David Handy+

#134, the problem we have is that in TEC, the bar hasn’t been set even that high before (see Spong).

Veering back to Greg’s #98 - General Convention is fast approaching. Is there anything we can do to try to direct its outcomes?

For the record,
According to a memo from the diocese included in this morning’s parish bulletin, the forms requesting consent were sent March 21, and they have 120 days from that date.  The forms for bishops went out a few days later, so there may be a few days beyond the date for standing committees.  One assumes that if it is at all close, KJS will stretch the time as long as she can.

oscewicee,

Dan Martins has made an effort in the form of a resolution to have GenCon make a provisional commitment to the Covenant (http://tinyurl.com/co2fxm). This is one example of the kind of thing that needs to be done. We can dismiss the likelihood of his resolution even getting out of committee, and we can even dismiss the idea that the Covenant has any chance of solving the communion’s crisis (or even what we define as “solving”); but a resolution like Dan’s will (I believe) have to at least be addressed in committee. If it dies there, well, that’s an action by GenCon that will signal to the wider communion its willingness to consider the Covenant. If it makes it to the floor but fails, again that’s a signal to the wider communion. I suspect Dan knows all this, but I suspect he also knows that this is part of the game we have to play, the fight we have to fight. Dan is doing his part to make sure that GenCon will not be able to say, over the next three years, “Oh goodness, of course we’re committed to Anglican unity - we just didn’t have the opportunity to consider the Covenant in Anaheim… perhaps when General Convention meets next…”

My advice to anyone who has watched this Forrester consent process play out, and wants to know how we can parlay the effect we’ve had on it into gains elsewhere, is first to remember that General Convention, despite the droning insistence by revisionists, is not the last word. In theory what it says goes, but in fact, what has been happening for decades - perhaps not starting with women’s ordination but certainly taking on a different tone and character with it - is that bishops and dioceses have been battling with GenCon over the matter of where authority lies. The recent CP statement asks the question in exactly those terms, but it has been asked in more oblique terms the whole time - for example, in whether a bishop may ordain women, or whether he must ordain women. The battle has been played out in much the same terms over the question of gay ordination and same-sex blessings.

It’s probably a safe bet that out of GenCon this year will come the most outrageous advances yet on the issue of homosexuality’s place in the church. I’ve predicted almost since I started this site over five years ago, that the patience of the gay activist crowd is much, much shorter than that of the women’s movement crowd, and that it will manifest itself mainly in two ways: The speed with which the agenda advances, and the draconian response to dioceses that choose not to implement those innovations.

The actions of GenCon this summer, I believe, will sharpen the intensity of the debate within TEC, and widen the divide between traditionalists and revisionists. We’ve already seen the kind of venom directed by gay activists at the Communion Partners statement; wait until many of those same bishops and dioceses start really pushing back from the all-gay-all-the-time mandates that will come out of Anaheim.

The job of Stand Firm - the blog operation and its staff writers - DURING GenCon will be to catalog, cover, discuss, analyze, and host conversations about these changes.

The job of Stand Firm - its 5,000+ members in every diocese in the country - AFTER GenCon will be to carry the news of these changes to all the dioceses and parishes and vestries and parishioners, keep the topics hot, keep them in front of the right people as long as possible. Questions need to be asked of bishops and standing committees and executive committees and vestries: What do these changes mean about the theology of the Episcopal Church? What does it mean for this diocese, or this parish, if we comply? What does it mean for us if we don’t comply? How is the “albatross” effect of being yoked to such an apostate body going to affect our growth and our witness?

The reason it will be important - indeed, why it will even be possible - to raise these questions after GenCon, is that if GenCon’s word were law, then we wouldn’t have entire dioceses picking up and leaving. 815 can say all it wants abut who and what may and may not leave the Episcopal Church, but in practical terms, dioceses and parishes are leaving. 815 is scoring some victories here and there, but it’s also taking some huge hits - Virginia being just the most obvious and most painful. This is part of the battle over authority I refer to, and it will continue to be fought with increasing intensity as GenCon’s actions get wilder and wilder, as people and funds continue streaming out of the church. As TEC drifts further and further from the Christian faith, it will find that fewer and fewer of those people standing with it now will be willing to stand with it in the future. Dioceses in obvious financial strain now, will soon begin to simply collapse - we’re all aware that Kevin Forrester, for example, has predicted that Northern Michigan will be bankrupt in five to seven years, but who’s noticed that the Diocese of Michigan is in the red to the tune of $1,000,000? They’re not the only ones, obviously, and what we’re talking about in the next several years are entire dioceses declaring bankruptcy, and/or merging with other nearby diocese, some failing themselves, some perhaps in better financial shape, but rarely in ideal circumstances. As this collapse continues, diocesan assessments will necessarily fall; 815’s operating budget will continue to shrink; its ability to litigate will suffer, and thus the threat it is able to dangle above the heads of dissident dioceses and parishes will diminish. I for one don’t believe that it will be able to continue this litigious terrorism much longer.

Left to implode with no action or preparation on the part of the orthodox, this will result in a huge mess that will make the current mess positively neat and tidy by comparison. I am under no illusions that TEC is reformable in the sense that what we now know as “The Episcopal Church” can be salvaged. My prediction is that between ACNA, CP, and other bodies both existing and yet-to-exist, as well as the unorganized orthodox remnant of TEC, there will perhaps coalesce a unified Anglican church in the West. Whether it will be organized along the current Canadian/American/Southern Cone model or not is impossible to predict at this point, and perhaps it won’t happen at all - perhaps Anglicanism as a coherent witness in the West is dead and we just don’t see it yet. But if it’s going to happen, it will happen because foundations are laid early enough and soundly enough to deal with the coming collapse of TEC.

For this to happen, there must be a sufficient number of Christians who are capable of forming, nurturing, and administering such a body or bodies. Whether ACNA and CP have enough Christians in them is a settled question; whether there are enough of them to constitute a critical mass is anything but settled. Personally, my opinion is that ACNA is not right now large enough to make a go of it; I think most of ACNA’s leaders would agree, if not publicly then certainly privately. I think what the emerging province will need is to steadily acquire more members at the right pace (not a huge influx all of a sudden, but not a tiny trickle either), and I think that if it can overcome the many challenges it faces now and will face in the near term, it stands a good chance of being able to accept that stream and manage that growth; the question is whether there will be enough people left in what we now call TEC, and sufficiently organized and unified, to provide that stream.

This is why I asked anglicancatholicpriest upstream not to dump on the Forrester effort: Because in it is a model - not the be-all-and-end-all, but a model that will help some orthodox in some situations - do the things that amount to laying a foundation on which some unity and coherence might be built, which might result in enough faithful Christians still being here when the balance of power shifts such that departing the GC church will not be a matter of retaining lawyers and draining its treasuries to finance litigation, but merely printing new letterhead.

I used this story a few years ago when asked why I stay, and it’s fitting to repeat it now.

In 1982, Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into the ice-covered Potomac shortly after takeoff from Washington National Airport. This is our church. A rescue helicopter came to lower a line and lift some survivors to safety, and people on the riverbank assisted in various ways. These are the people who either declined to get on the plane in the first place, or were fortunate enough not to have found themselves on that particular plane. These are the people of the dioceses and parishes that now make up the ACNA, the CP, and various other Anglican (and even non-Anglican) churches. For a time, as the plane was sinking into the Potomac, there were six passengers clinging to the tail section. The rescue helicopter made five trips to and from the riverbank, carrying survivors on a line that was lowered to them. Each time, a passenger named Arland Williams - the “sixth passenger” - caught the line and handed it to another survivor. When all the survivors but Williams were safely on shore and the helicopter returned for him, he and the tail section were both underwater. Williams drowned.

We have to be Arland Williams, with one obvious exception: We have to be willing to hang in there as long as possible, passing the line time after time to those who need help more than we do, but we have to be there when the helicopter comes back and we’re the last one left. A sinking tail section in an icy river is not what we have in mind when we talk about “a solid foundation,” but that’s part of my point: We have to adjust our notions of “stability” and “permanence” if we’re going to survive the crackup of TEC, which has started in earnest and will only accelerate as time goes by. Courage, patience, and timing are crucial.

GG, you might post all or some of your #139 as a thread, even if you don’t take comments on it.  It needs to be visible for people surfing the blogs.  It needs a wide reading.

Greg, I agree - your 139 should be stickied somewhere for convenient reading for passersby and for focus for the rest of us still in TEC.

Ditto - Greg’s posts (#98 and #139) are both excellent and should be separate threads.  There’s much in each to chew on.

Carrie

Forrester+ now needs to get 68% of the remaining votes, which involves his support going up about 268% from here on out, given the 26% affirmative votes he has gotten so far. Although a vote in favor of confirmation of the election is mathematically possible, is it a realistic possibility that the remaining pool of episcopal votes would vary so much from those already cast?

Somebody needs to put an end to this danse macrabre, for the good of the candidate and his diocese.  Is there any real prospect for a call from +Clay Matthews, or somebody higher up from him (hmmm, wonder who that could be?) to attempt to persuade all parties to put an end to this?  It is becoming painful to watch. Forrester+ has some important decisions to make concerning his ordained ministry, DioNMich has important decisions to make concerning the nature of its ministry, and of episcopal ministry in its borders, and TEC may have some important decisions to make concerning the nature of ministry in the UP of Michigan. No progress is being made toward any of these decisions while we go through the slow process of deep-sixing this candidate’s election.

Timothy and all -

I’ll find some time Monday morning to rework or maybe combine those comments and put them into their own post. Thanks for the compliments.

Back to the tally…. Is the SF crew making a comment for changes to the tally at the top? I hope you are. I’m needing to get to other matters and to cut back on internet, but I am keeping this thread open for changes. A new name being entered gets lost in the alphabet and the new names are becoming increasingly more interesting.

Once again, as I see it questioned above, the presiding bishop does have a vote.  That is because the PB is the bishop ordinary of Europe.  Bp. Whalon is a suffragan not the bishop with jurisdiction. 

It is my understanding that this set up was created precisely so the PB could have a vote but I have never looked up the legislative history so that may not be the case.  I would expect the PB to keep her vote to herself until the tally is announced.  And I would be stunned if she voted no simply because as far as I can tell no PB has ever voted no on any election.  On-the-other-hand my track record at guessing what she will do is abysmal so I would not put any money on my guess.

FWIW
jimB

Gator,

Each name and/or s.c. that’s added is noted in a separate post, so you can just read down “The Week” and see who’s been added in what order. You can also go to Search and look for all the posts in the Northern Michigan category.

I would agree as well about Greg’s comments. Greg, your stubbornness is amazing, and wherever you end church-wise (say ten ot twenty years from now) that strength will serve you and others well. FWIW, regarding comments you made earlier about StandFirm’s work, it did help me a lot to see where I needed to be—which was not Anglicanism. I am thankful to SF for helping me through what was quickly becoming a real internal crisis that needed to be resolved.

FYI - I’ve expanded on comment 98 and put it here:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22183/

Thanks, Greg.  Well done.  Now I trust you’ll do the same thing with your important #139. 

But let me suggest, if I may, that you give more prominence to the running tally on Forrester in order to make it easier for people to find quickly.  Perhaps you could make it a Feature item on the right of the screen, or make it a “sticky” item that stays near the top until the consent process is definitely settled.  Just a thought.

David Handy+

Wow, that was fast.  Thanks!

David Handy+

Jerry Lamb of Sock Puppet San Joaquin is to vote as soon as he receives his instructions from BeerKat. I think you could safely place that in the Yes column with a minimum of risk as BeerKat funded his entire budget for the year.
Intercessor

Not that his opinion counts for anything.

Greg, thanks particularly for your #139 which sets out very clearly your perspective (as a stayer in TEC) and the reasons for it.

Some of us are old enough to remember the famous line of Bishop Clarence Hayden who said in the 1970s, “I’m not threatening to leave: I’m threatening to stay.”

With every good wish,
Rudy+

I’ve been doing some research comparing votes on Forrester with previous key “roll call” votes where we know how each bishop/diocese voted.

So far, I calculate Forrester has lost 8 votes that we would have predicted would be in his favor based on votes on B001 and VGR.  There are also 5 or 6 votes we would have presumed would be YES votes that he won’t get because the diocese is Vacant (no bishop with jurisdiction to vote).  By contrast, there may be one swing from NO to YES, and there are 3 votes that would have been NO lost to diocesan vacancies.

Even assuming all remaining votes follow the pattern based on resolution B001 votes and VGR votes in 2003, I can only see Forrester garnering 49 yes votes.  More likely I think he will only get 30 - 35 or so YES votes.

Of course, this is all very “iffy” analysis since nearly 52 of 111 dioceses have had a bishop change since GC2003 (or are currently vacant). In TEC these days it seems anything can happen, so I’m not going to “count my chickens” (or my bishops) too soon.  But it would be very surprising at this point if Forrester got consents.

I have just received confirmation that Bp. Dorsey Henderson of Upper SC voted “no”!!!!

I should note that, at least among the bishops’ votes we know, that the no’s are widening their lead. In my post #62 - just four days ago - the no’s were outpacing the yesses by 2.5:1. Now they’re outpacing them by 3:1.

Of course, it could be the case that not as many of the yes votes are getting reported as the no votes, but something tells me, looking at the crew who’s supporting Forrester so far, that they’d be encouraging anyone else voting ‘yes’ to make their votes very public, for obvious p.r. and morale reasons.

I have yet to see my bishop’s vote.  He could go either way.  The SC is likely to give consent.  WMass was once the most conservative diocese in New England.  Actually, it probably still is, but has moved so far to the left in the last dozen years or so that being the “most conservative” is not worth much overall.

If I recall (I’m too lazy to look it up) consent requires a majority of bishops with jursidiction AND a majority of standing committees. So no matter how you construe the numbers of bishops, it will still take 56 standing committees to consent—and it looks to me as though he’s doing even less well with standing committees than with bishops. Slightly more than half of the reported bishops have voted to consent; only a third of the standing committees have voted to consent.

why can/does the PB have a right to vote for Europe

Ken,
You are correct.  See my comment in #74.

The canonical reason: because she has ultimate responsibility for TEC’s ministry in Western Europe, analogous to the responsibility of a biahop ordinary over a domestic diocese (although the Convocation of Churches in Europe has some of the characteristics of a diocese, but differs from a diocese in other ways).  The Bishop of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe is a suffragan under the authority of the PB, in the same way as are numerous Bishops Suffragan on staff at 815, and the Bishop for institutional ministries.
The political reason: because it would be anomalous for the Presiding Bishop not to have a vote in episcopal elections, and since the PB ceased being a diocesan in the early 20s, the PB’s role re ministry in Europe is a plausible canonical “hook” to make sure that the PB has at least the same prerogatives re episcopal elections as any other active bishop in the Church.

I will only add to Mr. Babb, esq., the view of the organizational chart for the Convocation which can be <a >seen here.</a>

BTW, Kevin, perhaps you could answer the very recent comment I left on the “28 dioceses” thread re: AAC board membership and TECUSANs?

This site, and those readers still in TEC, deserve a lot of credit for letting the light shine on this nomination, and setting the stage for what appears to be a defeat for his nomination.  The key was the defection of some institutional/moderate Bishops and Standing Committees.  If the Mississippi no vote is duplicated in similar states, you can stick a fork in this one. Good work.

Kevin thank you for an informative and direct reply to my question oftentimes question s go quite ignored

Going Home,
Personally, I don’t see this as defection of any grouping within the Church, although there might be one or two of those who tend to “go with the flow”, and perhaps several votes “for legal purposes.”  Otherwise, this is an amazing calling out of true colors.  I’ve laid it out a bit more at my post <a >A Declination in the Making”</a>.

Hummm. Bother… the post mentioned in 166 is at http://apostolicsuccession.wordpress.com

ewart-t,
I see now that my href link also did not work for the organizational chart I thought you might like to see.  Hmmmm, bother, again.
Let’s see if this shows up as a hyperlink.  Otherwise, copy the entire thing and paste into your URL box.
http://www.tec-europe.org/Documents/Forms/handbook/I_CACE_Org_Chart_Oct08.pdf

Rob link worked thanks a lot…having liven in Europe and having attended both the cathedral in Paris and the church on Geneva it is of great interest to me

Forrester should go caddy for the Dalai Lama, if Carl Spackler (Bill Murray in Caddyshack)is to be believed:

So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I’m a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald… striking. So, I’m on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga… gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he’s gonna stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.” And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice.

LfL,

Possibly my all-time favorite scene from Caddyshack.

BTW, Kevin, perhaps you could answer the very recent comment I left on the “28 dioceses” thread re: AAC board membership and TECUSANs?

Father: I don’t have any knowledge of actions taken or discussions on that subject.

I understand that in order to receive consent, KTF needs 50% +1 vote.  However there would be a point when it would no longer be possible for KTF to receive consent because of the number of “no” votes.  I mean if the “no” votes keep coning in eventually it might be impossible to get enough “yes” votes.  Does anyone know what that number is?  49? 50? Some other number?

Dear Little M,
If you read through a few of the comments on this thread you will see some discussion about totals and necessary majorities.  For bishops, in any case, you count up the current actual number of bishops in charge with ecclesiastical authority (that is a bishop of jurisdiction) and figure from there.  My personal count three weeks ago was 106, and so 54 needed to say yes.  Greg G started abov at 56, and then revrj convinced him to go to 50 as the threshold.  I have my own prediction of what it will end up being.  As it gets closer to the deadline and the threshold has not been achieved, you can count on a flurry of phone calls and emails and letters to those who have said No.  So if you have something to say to somebody, especially if you are TECUSAn, do it now.

Personally, I think the remaining “No” votes should hang back and wait.  What would be good would be to see where the supposed “middle” stands.  A quick majority “No” leaves a lot of people off the hook.

Remember, even if the tally gets to the point where confirmation of the election is mathematically impossible based on the CURRENT count—voting is open for ninety days.  No vote is immutable until that date, which is sometime in mid-June, as I recall.

Genpo will most likely withdraw, with, I think, some deep background encouragement from 815. Then TEC will be able to declare “orthodoxy” in preparation for GC2009’s innovative decision-making.

#176, I think (but do not know for sure) that response forms were sent out, and that once sent in are what they are.  I do not know that reversing a vote is possible - just as you cannot go vote on election day at 9:00 AM and then return at 3:00 PM and say, “I have changed my mind.”  Then again, this is ECUSA, where what is written is subject to incredibly broad interpretation….

Senior Priest,
Listen to what Kevin is saying in 176, and what I said in 174.  This is not over, the votes are not immutable until the final bell sounds, and there will be an attempt to salvage the vote.  Therefore, all interested parties must continue to be vigilant, and to continue to press the flesh.
  It is not on this thread, but one commenter inquired if “thank you’s” had been sent regarding how a bishop or S.C. voted.  That would be one excellent way to keep their vote in front of them and attempt to balance out the pressure from those who will try to convince the No’s to become Yes’.  Just like I am attempting to do the same the other way around.
  If anything, Kevin is probably being encouraged to NOT withdraw, not only by most of the Standing Committee, but by others who want to see this election succeed.
  Think about how the political landscape changed in TECUSA: not by bugling surrender at the first failure, nor the second, nor the third.  Just by bugling retreat, until the next battle, where more ground was captured before bugling retreat again.
  That same strategy will be voiced in a variety of ways to Kevin in order to keep him in it.  And after when the consents do fail.  I do hope for his sake he is cognizant, and does not wake up one morning suddenly aware of his being used.

Here’s a thought. The consent forms went out March 21. 120 days goes just through General Convention. While they avoided GC debating and voting on them (their gamble), they will have last minute opportunities to lobby last minute swing voters or soft no votes among bishops.

Folks,
Please listen to what Fr. Rob and Gator are saying.  It isn’t over til its over.  And according to the standing committee of N Mich, they have 120 days starting March 21 (or 23 in case of the bishops, I think. Also, assume that it will require 56 “no” votes regardless of what count you come up with by reading the canons.  This is over when, and if, there is an announcement from 815 that it is over.  Not sure if a bishop can demand a recount.
Votes can be changed.  This is a consent process, not a vote per se.  In past elections, no one cast a “no” vote- they would not send in a vote at all if they wished to deny consent. They just counted up the number of consent forms received. I rather suspect that the “yes-no” ballot was a mistake on KJS’s part- assuming that bishops would not want to go on record as opposed.  Turns out that very few want to go on record as in favor.
But after some of the other things that have happened in TEC, I would not be surprised if KJS had 40 votes in her pocket, maybe more.  I’m not saying that is the case, just throwing out the possibility.
So please continue to pray, and write letters and emails to your bishop and standing committee if they have not gone public.  And send a thank you card if they have issued a statement denying consent.

178: Indeed, votes CAN be changed all the way up to the deadline. Until “the last bell sounds”, what we are thinking of as “votes” are really only indications.

Rather than thinking of these votes in terms of going to one’s local polling station, where, once one casts the vote and walks out, “then that choice goes by forever” (to borrow an old phrase), I think it is more accurate to think of this voting process as being like that used in the US Congress, and many other legislatures, where the voting is open for a time certain, and the members are free to change their votes as many times within that time period as they wish, subject to the mechanical constrains of the voting system—but when the bell rings, it’s over.

When I describe the current declared curretly declared votes as “indications”, I don’t mean to diminish the degree of conviction with which those votes were announced, nor do I suggest that any vote in particular is likely to be changed (For example, I would be shocked if my Bishop, +Beckwith of Springfield, were to change his vote). I only mean to say that any vote CAN be changed within the voting period.

This whole thing is so ridiculous, I can’t take it seriously.  I mean, come on.  A Zen Bhuddist.  I like the clarity of the yes votes.  We need to shake up the pew potatoes.  TEC is a farce.  This is a joke. A Zen Bhuddist for crying out loud.  I hope he gets a bunch of yes’s.  Here’s another one from Caddyshack for Genpo to dwell upon.

Ty Webb (Chevy Chase): “Don’t be obsessed with your desires Danny. The Zen philosopher Basha once wrote, ‘A flute with no holes, is not a flute. A donut with no hole, is a Danish.’ He was a funny guy.”

I understand from Frank Lockwood’s Blog, the Bible Blogger, that Arkansas’ Standing Committee voted “no.” He is a very reliable person, Lockwood that is…

Oh, I verified it myself with the diocesan office…

That is Bible Belt Blogger….He also said Indianapolis voted yes (the Standing Committee)...

Have any “yes” votes included an apologia?

I wonder if Thew Forrester would have been confirmed by the HoB if the publicity (re:TEC) had not been so negative lately. Are Bishops afraid that he is too liberal, or are they saying that he is not a true Christian? For me,  it’s merely that he is the only candidate and he was part of the selection process. How does that happen? The demise of TEC will be slow but painful to many of us who’ve spent a lifetime watching the liberalization and rotting of the Gospel message.
  How can the new Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School say that abortion providers are doing God’s work? This is just further evidence of a rotting core that will see the end of TEC.

Olderseminarian asks,

How can the new Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School say that abortion providers are doing God’s work?

I aske, “Did he specify which god?” That seems to be an open question in the Episcopal Church seminaries these days.

Ken (#190)

There also may have been a simple error in transcription. Perhaps she used the plural possessive?

Frank Lockwood is now reporting that the report of +Bruno’s YES vote is incorrect and that he has not voted yet. 

As to apologia for Yes votes, a few bishops (Andrus, Ely, Caldwell) have given one line quotes to media.  I also understood that +Powell of SW Virginia had writte a letter to his clergy, but otherwise they all seem to be in hiding.  How convenient if the pressure gets too great, they can change their votes without a nasty paper trail to worry about.

Karen - thanks for noting that. I’ve removed Bruno from the ‘yes’ column and adjusted the tally.

192 and 193-
Interesting that it took the diocese about 2 weeks to make that “correction.”  Of course, this might be a case of a man who, in his younger days, fought tooth and nail for the institution of the present “Baptismal Covenant” and now finds it under assault by a bishop elect who is even farther “left” than the now bishop Bruno.

Greg:

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast met last Friday, April 24th and voted to withhold consent for Rev. Forrester. Bp. Philip Duncan also withheld his consent. I hope this gets added to your tally.

troublemaker

troublemaker,

Thanks - do you have a link to an announcement?

Dumb question—they need 50 votes to give consent, so how many do they need to withhold consent?  Am I correct in assuming that an abstention is as good as a “no”?

Wolverine

Wolverine, the simplest answer is they need 56 standing committees and 50 bishops to give consent. Obviously bishops and standing committees that “withhold consent” do not count toward the number who consent.

If the period for receiving consents ended today, the election would not be agreed to, having failed to get a sufficient number of standing committees and bishops giving consent.

And, as far as I can tell those having already “voted” to consent or not to consent are free to change their minds between now and whenever it is that the 120 day period ends.

(I’m not going to get into the business of figuring out the math for bishops—obviously 815 would opt for the lowest possible number, which appears to be 50.)

Canon Kendall Harmon has posted on T19 that the DioSC Standing Committee has voted not to consent.  <a >See here</a>

Link didn’t work.  http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/22268/

197, 198-
It would be much safer to assume it will take 52 or 53 bishop votes one way or the other to confirm or deny.  The safest number would be 56. While there are a number of vacant sees, note that Jerry Lamb has voted- and we can assume the other “provisionals” will vote as well- canons or no canons.  Not sure about the assisting bishops who are covering open sees- presumably they do not vote, but it is not necessarily a good thing to presume anything in TEC.  If the outcome of this election is close at all, KJS might pull some strings for her old classmate.
  And if your bishop or SC has not yet voted, please make a point of sending a letter to them that references the KGTF baptismal liturgy and include a weblink,
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/20080323-Easter.pdf
or download the pdf and send that if your bishop is of the sort who would never, ever, sully him- or her- self by linking to SF.  That liturgy is not so well dispersed as it ought to be, and ENS is staying as far away from that part of the story as they can.  Not all bishops read the Living Church anymore.  And from what I’ve seen, the CoE News is doing more complete reporting on N Michigan than ENS.

Number 201, if you will read the Constitution and Canons, you will realize that this isn’t an election; that has already occured, the votes were counted and Forrester is the bishop-elect. What the Constitution and Canons require is that a majority of the standing committees and a majority of bishops with jursidiction must consent to the consecration. (Actually the Constitution and Canons don’t even mention such a thing as a “No”; there must be the required number of consents from standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction by the end of the 120 day period following the election.) For the same reason, any “No” above can easily become a “Consent” at any time before the 120 days are up, simply by mailing the required consent form. I’m not quite sure that there is a canonical provision for withdrawing a consent form once it has been submitted.

The “safe thing” (as you call it) would be to assume that if by July whenever, 50 bishops and 56 standing committees have given their consent, order will be given for the consecration and installation to proceed. If the bishop-elect fails to obtain the necessary 50 bishops or the necessary 56 standing committees, then order will not be given for the consecration.

To the best of my knowledge, there are 110 dioceses, and hence 110 standing committees, so that means 56 standing committees must consent to the consecration. There are apparently not 110 bishops with jursidiction for various reason, so the number is closer to 99—hence 50 bishops must consent. I think it is reasonable to assume that 815 will in this case prefer the lowest possible number of consents.

The way the consents are coming in at this time leads me to suspect that the matter will be settled at General Convention.

I am honestly curious, why do so many here posit support for this election on the part of the national headquarters staff and the PB?  To my knowledge there has been no statement of support from anyone.  The PB has observed (dare I use the word) tradition by not commenting. I do not know of any relationships between national staff or the PB and the bishop elect?

If this is not the appropriate thread I apologize to management. 

FWIW
jimB

JimB, a few weeks ago, someone posted a very thorough piece on the net of relationships between NMi, CDSP, and EDS. (It may have been a link to another blog; “The Anglican Curmudgeon” comes to mind, although I cannot recall precisely.)  Bp Schori and Fr Forrester were classmates at CDSP.  So there is good reason to posit support of Forrester by Bp Schori and many of her staff at 815, whether she has said anything or not.

AnglicanXn,

Thanks.  I missed the piece.

FWIW
jimB

jimB,

A few weeks ago, someone from the diocese of Northern Michigan mentioned that when they expressed concerns to a member of the nominating committee about the fact that they produced only one nominee, they were told that “The Presiding Bishop is helping supervise the process, so there’s no need to worry,” or something to that affect. Something tells me we’ll be looking into that a bit more in the coming weeks.

Are the consent forms sent to the national office or to the diocese?  Can anyone cite the canon?

Greg:
Response to 196. Unless Bp. Duncan makes the results of the vote on consent to Forrester public via the Diocese of Central Gulf Coast website or another outlet, he has of late sent out e-mail messages to those who have signed up to receive, there is no link to confirm the vote of Standing Committee and Bp. Duncan. I am not a member of the Standing Committee, however, my source for this information is accurate.
troublemaker

Has Jerry Lamb issued any justification of his vote in favor of Genpo? Considering own his irregular position it would be interesting to read.

tj,
The consent forms from Standing Committees are sent to the Standing Committee of the diocese in question; the bishops’ consent forms are sent directly to the Presiding Bishop’s office.  Once the Standing Committee has received the forms they are asked to send them on to the Presiding Bishop’s office, as well.

Greg,
Do we agree that the fact that ‘someone’ in the electing diocese said the PB was ‘helping supervise’ does not an endorsement make?  Even if it is true that she or some one on her staff was asked and responded that the canons had been satisfied that would not be an endorsement of the bishop elect I think.

FWIW
jimB

jimB,

The impression conveyed to me was that she was more than a little involved, and was perfectly happy with the choice of Forrester as nominee.

Given the fact that Forrester and Schori were seminarians together in a very small place, and given the fact that Ms. Schori has repeatedly demonstrated her preference for bishops with similar syncretistic theology, along with contempt for those who do not share her theology, I’d say the odds are extremely small that Ms. Schori wasn’t fully behind not just the process itself, but the candidate it produced. She may have changed her mind by now, I’m not sure.

#209—-Jerry Lamb’s paycheck comes directly from Mrs. Schori. So his reasoning is irrelevant outside of “I am just following orders…”
Intercessor

tj, 207,
I forgot to add the canon reference.  I went ahead and posted the two appropriate sections, Art II and Canon 11, along with comments that I’d like you to look at, at my <a >AESOP</a> blog.  It was just way too long to post here.

jimB-
As to the presiding bishop and her office (this is just for starters, I welcome you to go to http://www.upepiscopal.org and read through the last 20 issues of the “Church in Hiawathaland -the diocesan newsletter- and otherwise do your own homework should you wish to continue this conversation):

The Rt. Rev. Clay Matthews, the PB’s suffragan for Pastoral Development, on her office’s support for the process (note it is written on the stationary of “The Office of the Presiding Bishop”).  Bishop Matthews reports directly to the PB.
http://www.upepiscopal.org/Stmt_on_Election_Process_in_Northern_Michigan.pdf

From an ENS article dated Jan. 23, 2009:

Linda Piper made it clear that the actions of the Diocese of Northern Michigan are in full compliance with both the canons of the diocese and the national Episcopal Church.

“The new bishop of Northern Michigan will be duly elected,” said Piper.

She also said that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and Bishop Clay Matthews of the Office of Pastoral Development “have been very supportive” in the Diocese of Northern Michigan’s unusual search and discernment process.

Jefferts Schori will preside at the consecration of Northern Michigan’s new bishop and the commissioning of the Episcopal Ministry Support Team on October 17, 2009.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81803_104346_ENG_HTM.htm

Linda Piper is (if I remember correctly) the wife of one of the ministry developers (Charlie Piper) and coincidentally chair of the standing committee.  In any case, one could hardly imagine that the PB would be coming to personally perform the consecration if she thought the process was non-canonical.

From Living Church, Aug. 22, 2008:

“It’s a bit tricky trying to do that in the bigger world of the whole church,” Ms. Cisluycis said.
She said the search committee has been consulting regularly with the Rt. Rev. Clay Matthews, Bishop for the Presiding Bishops’ Office of Pastoral Development,
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/8/22/in-northern-michigan-team-approach-to-bishop-search

Ms. Cisluycis is the Diocesan Operations Coordinator, and one of the 12 people on the “Episcopal Ministry Support Team” which will between them be the bishop of N. Michigan.

Thank you Fr. Rob. (re: 210 and 214)

Fr. Rob Eaton’s excellent analysis can be seen here:
http://apostolicsuccession.wordpress.com/
I would again caution, however, on placing too much confidence in the 99 bishops.  Fr. Rob clearly demonstrates 101, and I think if you throw in TEC-Quincy, and TEC-Pittsburgh, then we might come up to at least 103- 99 sitting diocesans, 3 “provisionals” (assuming only one vote for +Gulick as +Kentucky and no vote for TEC-FW), plus the PB for Europe.  This would mean it would require 52 (at least) no votes to assure defeat of the consent. I will feel better if and when we get to 60, because at that point, there will be enough to resist any strong arming or last minute deal making.

Thanks, TJ.  I agree with you.  Obviously, the more NO votes the better.  As others have noted above, we can’t take anything for granted here.  It’s not over until it’s over.

David Handy+

Any word on +Parlsley, and no I don’t mean the herb.

A couple quick thoughts:

1) I merely asked.  “I invite you to do your homework,,,” Ah the love flows at SFiF

2) For those who actually replied: thanks!

3)  It seems to me that one could approve of the process without approving of the result.  So, yes I am sure that the references are correct and that especially giving the novelty of the process chosen, the search folks were in touch with staff at 815.  And it is clear that someone there, which may include the PB, did indeed say it was OK.  That is not the same as an endorsement of its resulting candidate.

4) I did not say youall should not question the bishop elect’s theology or praxis.  Have at it! 

5) It is the PB’s job to do the consecrations.  And she is required to visit each diocese. So, her plan to consecrate whomever the diocese puts forward is appropriate.  While she can delegate the task, my understanding is she usually shows up if she is welcome.  In cases like +Lawrence she sent a replacement.

Finally a thought from blessed Martin Luther.

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
What does this mean?
We should fear and love God so that we do not tell lies about our neighbor, betray him, slander him, or hurt his reputation, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest possible way.

From the LC Missouri Synod’s version—not some liberal source.  Emphasis added.

FWIW
jimB

jimB,

I read back up through comment 146, and I don’t see where anyone has responded to you unkindly, although I admit I may have missed something (no coffee yet).

Yes, we are operating on the assumption that the PB supports both the process and the nominee, as well as his theology. Yes, we could end up being mistaken, but the only evidence we have to go on argues for her support, not against it.

Now, on the other hand, with the ‘no’ votes piling up, I would assume that if she DID support him, the Diocese of Northern Michigan by now would have asked her to voice that support. If it’s the case that she does indeed support Forrester but hasn’t said so publicly, I admit that’s a little odd.

There’s a new vote tally and a new story, “Believing Outside the Box,” posted at http://www.biblebeltblogger.com

Greg,

In my view the quote was from a gratuitus cheap shot.  Other than that we agree that I was not attacked.  One dolt does not, we can agree, a blog make.  (Someone should send that word to Fr. Frazier in London.) 

I was quoting Blessed Luther above in terms of the assumptions.  It may be she is actually being as fair as I at least think the PB should be.  The PB does have a vote so our constitution expects her to both have and express an opinion but to dayte all we have is some approbation of the process.  Which I submit referring to Dr. Luther again, we can and should construe carefully.

FWIW
jimB

Isn’t it rich?
Isn’t it queer,
Losing my timing this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year.
  —Judy Collins, “Send in the Clowns”

I realize I may get banned for life after that last post.

post #224 just made me laugh so much.  I needed a good laugh today and I hope you aren’t banned from this site.  Sometimes we just have to lighten things up, especially on a MONDAY!  have a great week.

Auntie, I have a feeling that Sarah has not seen or read my post.  If she had, my posting future here would start to look dim.  I think she’s more interested in the deep disappointment that Dio. of N.M. has expressed towards evil, mean bloggers, such as herself.  She has that mean reputation, you know.

Baby Blue is saying +Lee (VA) has voted no.

can someone tell me when is the due date for votes to come in?

Mtn gospel,
The 120 days begins as soon as the Presiding Bishop’s office certifies the election.  This usually happens within 2 to 4 weeks after an election takes place.  Then, as we learned from +Mark Lawrence’s consent process for South Carolina, the postmark date carries official status. 
So, when were the Standing Committee consent forms mailed out by the Northern Michigan Standing Committee?  And the consent forms to the bishops should have been mailed out the same date, synchronized with the Presiding Bishop’s office, or some official notice that the 120 days had officially begun.
Well, unfortunately, it is a little fuzzy.  And thus the official end date for the consent process is also a little fuzzy.  That doesn’t mean that the Standing Committee and the Presiding Bishop’s office are fuzzy about it—it’s just not clear to the rest of us.
But let’s put some parameters to it.
First, just to clear this deck, it is obvious that the election, being held in February, is certainly not within the 90 day window prior to General Convention, and thus there is nothing official that General Convention will do or can do about the consent process.  But the consent time frame of 120 days does take us into the time General Convention is meeting.  So, if this gets real close in consents vs withholding consents, we shouldn’t be surprised to hear Thew Forrester’s name as a buzz in Anaheim while various folks lobby for consents.

Now that that’s been addressed, according to a statement by the Standing Committee of Northern Michigan, as reported in Thew Forrester’s parish newsletter (see http://www.stpmqt.org/Messenger2009/MayJune09.pdf ), mailouts to Standing Committees took place on March 21st.  Is that the start date, then?  Not sure, maybe not.  But could be.  Not unless the PB jumped the gun.
Here’s what was stated:
The requests for consents were sent to Standing Committees on March 21, 2009. The formal request for consents from the bishops was sent on March 27, 2009, to those who had not received them at a House of Bishops meeting held earlier in the month.”

According to Bishop Love in his letter to the diocese of Albany, he was returning from the House of Bishops meeting March 19.  Prior to his return, stated in Bp Love’s epistle, consent forms were handed out to the bishops in attendance, and they were given the opportunity to respond before departing Kanuga, Bp Love noting that he did indeed “vote” before he left for Albany. 
So you could count 120 days -  for the bishops - from the day the consent forms were handed out to those in attendance.  However, Standing Committees would probably be given grace to count their 120 days from the postmarked day of March 21. 
One more tidbit, though.  For the bishops who were not in attendance, consent forms were sent (presumably from the Presiding Bishop’s office since the canons so specify) on March 27, giving more grace in counting days to those bishops who didn’t attend the House of Bishops meeting.  March 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, ....27?
This may sound very picky.  But the reality of it is that those who are expecting the consent process to be completed on or around July 16 (and thus during the last days of General Convention), need to be prepared to have to wait at least one more week, to July 25 or around, before an official announcement is made, in order to allow for 120 days from the post date of the consents sent to those bishops who were not in attendance at the H.O.B. meeting.

In case you folks in the Presiding Bishop’s office are reading this, it would be really nice if you would let the Standing Committee in Northern Michigan know exactly when the ball will be called.  But while you’re at it, just publish a press release and let us all know.

Thank you for running this consents tally.  Having been recently visited with carpal tunnel I am limiting my time online.  What are the chances that confirmation might actually be denied Thew Forrester?

Question about how many votes actually count.
How many Bishops in the ‘yes/no’ lists are exercising jurisdiction?  The canon seems to limit the votes to 1 per standing committee and 1 per Diocesan ( or substitute) and as such the two no votes from Dallas should be counted as one vote no. Is this correct?

also should either class fail the entire process fails?

TPECUSA Canon Title III 16.6 refers to “Bishops exercising jurisdiction”

III Sec. 6. In case a majority of all the Standing Committees of the Dioceses do not consent to the ordination of the Bishop-elect within 120 days from
the date of the notification of the election by the Standing Committee of the Diocese electing, or in case a majority of all the Bishops exercising jurisdiction do not consent within 120 days from the date of notification to them by the Presiding Bishop of the election, the Presiding Bishop shall declare the election null and void and shall give notice to the Standing Committee of the Diocese electing and to the Bishop-elect. The Convention of the Diocese may then proceed to a new election.

nevermind (sheepish grin) you already fixed it.

Why is Lee, Virginia, not refelcted in the tally above? Is that info not solid? I’m VERY grateful for the sticky post w tally.

Frank Lockwood writes that +Wagonner of Spokane has voted Yes - and on the record, no less, with lots of quotes.

[comment deleted—proclamations to Leave Now are in violation of our commenting protocol—commenter is warned]

Mtn Gospel,

This is not really the forum for this.  Having said that, I will comment on your post [236] and say that your assumptions are so very tired.  Either you are new to StandFirm, or have not really been paying attention to the many long debates about inside-outside, staying-leaving, etc.  Not all of those who stay lack faith in God’s providence.  In fact, for some, it takes more faith to stay than it would to leave.  Not all who leave are showing great faith.  Some are showing great ambition (a subset of the deadly sin of pride). 

God may have called you to leave.  He may have called someone else to stay.  The point is that you cannot judge the motives of those who have stayed and continue a faithful Christian witness.  It may be that they are staying for the sake of one child who will be taught by them in Sunday school who would otherwise never be exposed to the pure Gospel of Christ.  Who knows? 

BTW I do hope that your post ended with a typo, and that meant to include the Father in the name of the Trinity.  Your punctuation leaves your trintarian formulation throughout your post a bit fuzzy.

So much for our constitutional rights! but I was not trying to start a fight as much as some of us actually see that this is not about consent as much as it is about secular agenda. I am sure this also will not be posted so will the elf who whacked me because he/she does not agree with my assesment please respond personally as to why you would silence me as there is no one out there that wants to see TEC reconciled moree than myself.

Mtn Gospel,

So much for our constitutional rights!

They.. haven’t been violated, Mtn Gospel.  You are free to state those opinions on many parts of the WWW.  You are free to state all of them, any time you desire, if you do the work of putting together your own blog. 

I was not trying to start a fight as much as some of us actually see that this is not about consent as much as it is about secular agenda.

“TEC is dominated by secular agendas.”  ..Gee, that’s a profound thought.  How long did it take you to figure that out? 

I am sure this also will not be posted so will the elf who whacked me because he/she does not agree with my assesment

StandFirm isn’t run by “elves.”  It is run by people with jobs and families, who have decided (as is their prerogative) to optimize the use of their time by establishing certain commenting policies.  Whatever the original intents, this commenter believes that the effect is to make SF more interesting;  probably a lot more civil. 

please respond personally as to why you would silence me

She did respond in the form of a warning, but probably figured that others telling you the reason would be sufficient.  I would advise against asking again for the reason in any public forum.  If the answer isn’t acceptable, then I advise googleing “StandFirm” and “Commenting Policy.” 

there is no one out there that wants to see TEC reconciled moree than myself.

Hmph.  That would require a cataclysm and several decades. 

Look- You broke the commenting policy, had one of your posts deleted, and were warned.  You could get upset about it, or you could recognize the grace active in the situation.  The gracious part is that your posting privileges (and they are privileges, not constitutional rights) yet remain. 

..Take it from someone who has been a recipient of that grace.  ; )

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1825/

As most around here know, we don’t tolerate “elves.” We don’t have the time or the desire to edit individual comments. The commenatrix and I use much more ERRRRRR—decisive methods.

Therefore, I’d like to see no more:

1. Charges that anyone who leaves the Episcopal Church is a quitter, a coward, etc.

2. Charges that anyone who stays in the Episcopal Church is wasting their time, a heretic by association, etc.

3. Demands that we all fold up our tents and become Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/LCMS/Presbyterian or whatever; and charges that those of us who prefer not to are idiots.

Our unofficial policy on staying or leaving is this: Go where God calls you, and go with our blessings, but don’t belittle someone who has received different orders.

Blogs are owned parts of cyberspace and that while as I am on my blog, the owners are liable to State and Federal(if they are Americans) laws regarding libel, child exploitation, slander and copy rights they are not government. 

The Constitution prohibits governments censoring publications. The owners here can refuse any any comment they wish to exclude. 

The Constitution is a lot like the Bible in one way.  A lot of people know a lot about stuff that is in it—except that stuff isn’t.

FWIW
jimB

nuff said

50 YES votes are required for consent, but what does that mean in terms of NO votes?  How many NOs is the high water mark for Bishop-elect Forrester?

I’ve skimmed the long thread and I don’t see any answer to this question.

Frank Lockwood has listed Bishop Henderson of Upper SC as a No. Lockwood writes elsewhere that his tally is from conversations with bishops or with authorized representatives. I think you can safely take your footnote off Henderson.

Steve, to answer your #243, a non-vote counts as a NO.  Anything not a Yes is NO.  So, what are really counted are the YES votes.  Unless he receives 50 - 56 Yes votes from BOTH bishops and Standing Committees (the actual number is in dispute for bishops as there are a number of vacant sees, and “provisional” bishops) his election will not be approved.  He needs a majority of bishops and a majority of Standing Committees to vote yes.

There are 110 TEC dioceses counting the 4 “rump” dioceses. 

So, if Forrester receives 56 NO votes by either bishops or Standing Committees, (and those bishops and Standing Committees do not change their minds by the July deadline) he cannot achieve the necessary majority and Forrester’s election will be denied.

Does that help?

In replying to Steve’s question, I’ve now come up with a question of my own… Hah! 

Can anyone give an answer to the issue of the timeframe for consents?  I know it is 120 days.  But, my impression is that the consent process ends immediately if/when the adequate number of Yes votes from both Bishops and Standing committees are received.  i.e. if say on June 1 Forrester had the majority of consents needed from both sides, the consent process would end, even though the 120 day “clock” doesn’t end until sometime around July 21.  Is that true? 

Is it correct that the 120-day deadline is merely the maximum amount of time a bishop-elect has to amass consents, but that consents can be declared well before the 120 days is over? 

I seem to recall consecrations of bishops that were scheduled before the 120 deadline had even ended because they were so sure of consents…

It’s interesting to me: this gives a bias towards YES votes.  If I am correct 56 Yes votes by both bishops and Standing committees instantly grants consent, but 56 NO votes would not instantly deny consent, the diocese could work (as did South Carolina, and as N. Michigan seems to be doing) until the end of the 120 day period to try and get NO votes reversed, or so it seems.

Thank you, Karen B. #245, that does help.  And I think your assumption, re: the 120 day consent period, is correct: if there are not enough YESs, it does continue until the 120th day, and they can try to get SCs or Bishops to reverse their vote.

So, in essence, we are very close to the tipping point.  As of right now, the unofficial tally up top registers 55 NOs.  Once that 56th NO comes in, then the race is on to get enough NOs to reverse their votes.  It also explains the DioNMI’s/Forrester+‘s own full court press to explain themselves. 

In that light, the most intense days of this contentious process are likely ahead of us, not behind us.

Karen, you are correct, at least traditionally, only yes votes count.  To the best of my knowledge, this is the first election in which a “yes-no” ballot has been distributed to bishops. In the past, bishops and standing committees were provided a consent form (remember the brou-ha-ha a couple years ago over the precise wording of these, and whether the elections that used ones not canonically worded were valid).  The consent form was either sent in, properly filled in and attested, by the deadline specified in canon, or not.  Someone at 815 counted the incoming consents, and would announce when they had received the required number of bishop consents.  Standing committee consents were mailed to the standing committee of the diocese holding the election, who likewise counted them up.
  This time around, there are “yes-no” ballots.  What we actually don’t know, is whether a “yes” or “no” can be altered- which is to say, can the bishop or standing committee change their mind?  In the old days, if you withheld consent, and had a change of heart, you just mailed in your consent form.  Now, there seems to be some question.  I hardly see anyone who has withheld consent wanting to grant it based on this latest paper, but I could see it working the other way around.  Vagueness in these things is the hallmark of manipulation.  But at present, I am not sure that the PB is not seeing consent in this election as a political liability.  I also suspect that putting off the distribution of ballots until late March was done specifically to allow 815 to not have to announce the outcome of the election until AFTER GC, hence the call for everyone to keep silent on their votes.  If he were to be confirmed before GC, the uproar from the moderates would drown out the liberals, and KJS would have a hard time pushing through her agenda- people who would normally be docile followers would be voting against things in order to offset the division in their parishes and dioceses caused by the election.  Likewise, she does not want the orthodox and moderates to go into GC with a victory under their belts should consent be denied- and an obvious alliance on some theological issues demonstrated by a list of standing committees and bishops who voted “no”.

Oh, not that it is rocket science, but I have it on good authority that N. Michigan’s standing committee voted, and in favor of consent.

What counts are testimonials of consent.  Some of the details of timing, coordination, and time frame have changed in the Canons over the years (try comparing 1958 with 2006, for instance)but the essential “count” is the number of granted consents by the end of the period of time alloted.
I think you can make a case, at least considering the canonical language regarding how Standing Committees deal with consents, that there has always been a Yes and No nature to the process.  Not with bishops, mind you, just with Standing Committees.  And that is because Standing Committees, in order to send in a testimonial of consent, have to have a recorded vote of its members, although perhaps not a hands up, or aye vs nay kind of vote.  All members agreeing to the consent (and this is part of the testimonial) must sign their name to the official text of the testimonial as laid out in the canons.  So if a vote is taken, or enough signatures were not garnered without a formal vote, and the vote to consent does not pass, then the Standing Committee has effectively voted not to consent, or a “no” vote.

There is one peculiar part of the current Canon 11 which puts bishops of jurisdiction and Standing Committees into a difference of canonical compliance, giving leeway to the bishops.  The language of the Canon 11 says that the Standing Committees SHALL respond with either consent OR withholding of consent within the 120 day window.  The bishops are REQUESTED by the PB’s office to inform the PB’s office of their decision.
The ramifications are also unclear.  There is no language in Canon 11 or in the Constitution that deals in disciplinary ways with dioceses with non-responsive Standing Committees.  Now, I know that all Standing Committees have not always turned in their consents.  What would their punishment be?  And on the larger scale, if not all Standing Committees comply with the canons regarding an election, what does that imply about the completion of the election process for the diocese in question.
And why are bishops let off the hook both ways?
Is this a sign of hierarchical or non-hierarchical behaviour and predisposition?

Bible Belt Blogger has Klusmeyer, bishop of West Virginia, as NO; also Standing Comm.
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/wva-dio-wva-withhold-consent-to-bishop-elect-of-n-michigan

BibleBeltBlogger.com also has Standing Committee of Northwestern Pennsylvania voting “no”, according to letter posted on websites of St. Paul’s Marquette and Diocese of Northern Michigan…

Western Louisiana’s Standing Committee voted “No” unanimously on May 6th.

Steve Lake, above notes correctly that there are more than 56 ‘no’ votes in the unofficial tally.  However, the vote is by orders.  That is, the bishops majority one way or the other is calculated and the standing committee’s votes are calculated.  To be affirmed, a bishop elect needs a properly certified majority of both. 

It is also relevant to remember that the numbers are not quite the same.  A diocese without a bishop still has a standing committee.  My reading and I will bet on it is that the vacant episcopal offices are not counted.  If I am reading this the way the officials do, that means that the number of SC votes required is a constant, but the number of episcopal votes is one half of the eligible incumbents and therefor variable. 

FWIW
jimB

We now have a list of 12 bishops whose theology, as reflected in sermons and other writings, warrants careful and objective investigation. Toss in the PB to make an even 13.

Yes, I am calling for a witch hunt.

Hi, I am new posting here. Infact, this is my first post. I am just extremely curious due to all the comments on how many of you know Kevin Forrester or the Marquette, Mi community, or even the Northern Michigan Community? Or, how many of you have attended St. Paul’s where Kevin presides?

Thanks,
Kelly Mathews
Roman Catholic
Marquette, MI

We know the heretics of the Patristic era mainly from what their detractors said in their own writings.

In the matter of KTF, we have his writings. The more he writes, the more he sounds like someone who needs to go do something other than ordained ministry in the Name of God.

No, I’ve never been to Marquette or Northern Michigan. KTF may well be the nicest guy there ever was. He may well be a genuine 24/7 pastor to the people of his parish, tirelessly ministering to them. He may well have a vibrant, thriving parish. But, there are different kinds of shepherds.

You’re Roman Catholic. Ask your priest what would happen to him if he were to rewrite the Sunday liturgy, to rewrite the baptismal vows, to substitute a reading from the Koran for a Holy Scripture lesson in a Eucharistic service. Show him the sermons.

ZOT!

So form is better than content. I understand.

[258] Kelly Mathews

So form is better than content. I understand. 

Evidently, ‘content’ must refer to ‘nice guy’ & ‘thriving parish’ & ‘tireless ministering’ while form refers to ... what’s that word ... Truth?.  But what is a little heresy (OK, a lot of heresy) compared to a thriving, vibrant parish?  I guess it doesn’t matter what you teach, so long as you teach it tirelessly & vibrantly in a thriving parish.  If so, we might should consider that ‘Moloch’ guy.  Talk about vibrant liturgies.  Those would sure pack in the unchurched in our modern times.

carl

No, your comments are not mine. I simply know the community and I think you insult many people when you try to attack Kevin. I am trying to understand what the issues are.  Therefore, I placed it in a simple sentence: form and content.
I think that the people who live here have rather a learned perspective on Kevin. I am simply trying to understand where the issues are. I am trying to understand the thread.
I did attend the service where a passage of the Koran was mentioned. I am trying to understand if you are speaking or orthodoxy, specific members of the vestry, or the local community and being unable to discern leadership. I am trying to understand the “form and content” of the conflict.
Thank you for responding.
Kelly

[260] Kelly Mathews

I am trying to understand the “form and content” of the conflict.

The content if the conflict is this.  The Christian Faith has essential content.  KTF rejects that essential content.  A man is not a Christian because he says so.  A man is not a Christian because he is a minister in a building with a cross on the north wall.  A man is a Christian if he has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and regeneration is always accompanied by certain attributes - among them a love of God’s truth.  KTF rejects that truth as has been amply demonstrated on SF.  He is therefore not a Christian. It doesn’t matter if he is a nice guy.  It doesn’t matter if he is sincere, or authentic.  If we grant him the respect necessary to believe the things he has written and spoken, then we must conclude he is not a Christian.

carl

kelly & others from the Northern Michigan Community,
  I am happy also tha Mr Forrester is a kind & generous person. Surprisingly or not, not all people who are good examples in our communities are Christian. I applaud his commitment to his people.

However coming from a seminarian town & seeing students make through the 3 years of tribulation they endure I have seen a disturbing trend. It seems that a person who is well educated, organized, compassionate towards others or causes , great social skills& is a gifted speaker seems to be the norm for seminarians in which some , not all & this is being judgemental, forgive me, , are not called into ministry to serve as a minister of God but agenda minded, just one example. It is sad that , once again being judgemental, that not all who are trained are committed to Christ.

The only admiration I have for the muslim faith is that they are adament about their reilgion. Christianity in its truest form should be that adament & untolerant of other beliefs as He said on many occasions “thou shalt have no others gods before Me.”

To combine the Anglican faith with muslim, hindu , buhddist, witchcraft are any other beliefs other than Christ is heretic to say the least. Mr Forrester should have been relieved of his duties many moons ago.

So Kevin Forrester, as stated, is not a Christian, per say you. I guess there is nothing more than I can say. I wish you all the best and hope that Christian Unity can one day happen. Bless you all!

So do I but at some point it needs to be an uncomprimised unity , whatever that is.

#263 - If you are still here or if you come back, I would be interested to know what you think are the basic things required to be a Christian.

Can you agree with the following:
1) We are all sinners, including me and you
2) God’s penalty for sin is death
3) Jesus died on the cross instead of us/me
4) Jesus is the only means of salvation for all of us regardless of quibbles about the mechanics of how this works
5) Jesus is truly God and truly Man from the beginning and for ever

It is not clear from his speakings and writings that Kevin Forrester believes those things. Works, no matter how Christ-like, are dead without faith, just as much as faith without works is dead.

I think that the community who knows their leader well, and understand first hand Kevin’s “works” and commitment in faith know him best. I, speaking only on what I see and know of Kevin would never, ever call Kevin Forrester a non-Christian. It pains me to have to read such comments. Again, what you say is up to you. But for me, I am very glad that Kevin preaches and shares his gifts in this community. Even as someone who is not an Epicopalian, this pains me that a non-Christian conclusion can be drawn about Kevin.
I think the letter from his vesrty board clearly has said alot. To remark that Kevin is non-Christian is to state that ‘they’ (the community leaders), too, are not Christians, or not Christ centered in their deeds and works. Can you see how the comment begins to grow and be applied to a vast amount of people who respect and know Kevin, as a Christian?
Again, I am taken back a bit. I thought that there are points related to his teachings or his theology? I thought that he replied back concerning these things?
Thank you,
Kelly
Roman Catholic
(I keep writing Roman Catholic because this type of Episcopal forum community is new to me.)

#266 Too right - except you don’t go far enough.  Truthfully we should restrict those who should express views to members of his immediate family because obviously they know him best of all.

Kelly—from one RC to another (I was in the Episcopal Church until Easter this year), do you find anything questionable about KTF’s theology, especially given you are Catholic? Also, you should know that there’s at least one person who’s been commenting here who lives in the UP, and is Episcopalian. I shall leave him nameless for now, but wanted to let you know.

Kelly, If you read the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, Rite 1, and Rite 2, which most Episcopalians use every Sunday, you will be able to see where Forrester’s teachings diverge from the teachings of the Episcopal Church.

Kelly,

I would still be interested in your answer to my #265. Perhaps we are not working from the same definition?

Thanks,

monika

Kelly, there are two things required to be a Christian.  The first is an assent to the core teachings of the Christian faith.  For the sake of convenience, I will identify that with the Nicene Creed, as the authors of the Creed meant it.  The second thing is a life which reveals growth in obedience and delight in the living, Triune God.  The second thing could also be called character and deeds.

Anyone can give lip service to the Creed.  And there are many nice atheists.  It is very hard to discern who truly is a Christian and who is not.  In fact, it is really impossible, for we all have errors in our theology, and we all have defects in our character and deeds.  No one, not even the best and holiest person, will be perfect this side of Heaven.

The thing about Kevin Forrester that leads us to say that he is not a Christian is his denial of the Creed.  He has to deny the teachings of the entire New Testament to say what he says about Jesus.  To Forrester, Jesus is a great man and a wonderful religious teacher - but he is not the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, in human flesh, fully divine and fully human.  I do not care how nice he is, how inspiring, how given to good works in his community - no one can be a Christian unless he or she assents to the Creed with his or her whole heart.  Forrester’s sermons seem to be devoted to explaining classic Christian teachings away, not to explicating them and showing how through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ we are reconciled to the Father and receive new and eternal life.

To say that Kevin Forrester is not a Christian is not saying that he is not a good and pleasant man.  It is to say that he does not believe what a person must believe in order to be a Christian.  If a member of the Republican Party were to advocate for the state ownership of the means of production, you could rightly question that person’s loyalty to the goals of the Republican Party.  What Kevin Forrester teaches is not Christianity - thus, we do not believe Forrester to be a Christian.

Kelly Mathews

Check with some of the 1900 who have left the Diocese to learn just what the word “disinchantment” means. Check with those who no longer attend St. Paul’s for some local insights about KGTF and Mutual Ministry. Ask people, not those who know him best as you state, for their opinions about the hanky-pank the power structure, i.e. Discernment Cmte, Standing Cmte, Diocesan Council, et al, perpertrated in bring about the election of KGTF and his advisors.

I am a Yooper just as you are. I like to think my background gives me a good understanding of what it takes or means to be one. One of those attributes is honesty, something that has been sadly lacking in how the above groups have manipulated, managed or mismanaged information they chose to release about the election process or soft peddled his Buddhist convictions.

Hopefully the day will come when a Bishop, appointed or otherwise, will come aboard and clean house. That will require massive support from those who have left of their own accord or those forced out because they disagree with the current power structure. Only then will the Diocese again be viable and open to all viewpoints. I hope that day is not too far off as I long to return to the church that gave me so much guidance and comfort for some 50 years.

Monika,
Please stop. Thank you.
Kelly

I am just trying to understand. So how is it that he has been in the situation in so far? Was it becuase of Bishop Kelsey’s void in the area? What has been manipulated? I know the creed is much in line with the Catholic Creed and the Triune God is the same, sparing me the theological title. How it is that what is happening is still happening?

Kelly,

I didn’t mean to seem rude or agressive. I genuinely was trying to foster mutual understanding about why some commenters and others question Kevin Forrester’s commitment to orthodox Christianity.  I even tried to put it in a way that wouldn’t seem threatening. Obviously I failed. Mea culpa.

monika

Thank you. I accept. It is hard enough discussing liturgical changes and orthodoxy. I am trying get a grasp on what happened. Thank you all for your comments.

Kelly Matthews,

You seem to be confusing the term “Christian” with how one acts, and what one believes. They are two very different and altogether independent things. Until you can come to terms with the fact that “Christian” is a summary of one’s faith, not a description of one’s behavior, I’m afraid you won’t understand what we’re talking about here, and you won’t understand that we’re not insulting Forrester by saying he’s not a Christian; we’re simply stating a fact that is hard to dispute given what it means to be a Christian, and what Forrester has said about what he believes.

I think you insult many people when you try to attack Kevin.

KM, your words come across to me as suggesting that you’re a liberal progressive, a rationalist. That may not be the case. My words, and those of others, may come across to you as intransigence. For me, at least, that might be accurate.

They are not meant to be personal insults or personal attacks. Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition inform us to be wise in choosing bishops and others for ordained ministry. The Church has not always been wise in doing so, and the Episcopal Church has made some particularly unfortunate choices over the years.

In the past, it was difficult for those charged with affirming those choices to know the person chosen. The Internet has changed that. We read this evening that The Very Rev. John Tarrant was elected on May 9 to
serve as bishop coadjutor (bishop with right of succession) of the Diocese of South Dakota. Fr. Tarrant (whom I do not know) will come under unprecedented scrutiny because he needs to. If he cannot stand that kind of heat, he should not have stood for election.

Christianity made certain decisions about fundamental concepts many centuries ago. KTF’s words and actions come across to me as attacking those concepts. While it may seem that others are attacking him, and while in some cases that might be so, the simple fact is that the whole of traditional Christianity would find his writings shocking. In fact, his beliefs are so amazing that not a few progressives have joined in the attack on those beliefs.

I find it difficult to believe that he underwent spiritual formation and theological training in the community of a seminary.

You’ve asked certain questions, and you are hearing certain answers. These are not the answers that you wish you were hearing. Again, chat with your priest about what is wrong here. And, the next time you see him, give KTF a hug. I’m sure he needs it.

Greg, no I am not a liberal pregressive (Roman Catholic)by any means. But, thanks. I have never bee assusmed to be such! I am just trying to piece together the (late) Bishop Kelsey’s influence in the community and the work done by Kevin. You all certainly have your own views and I hardly, and I don’t think that I have, tired to bend your view one way or another.
Just so you know, there is a very strong and open interfaith community that stretches far and wide in the U.P of Michigan, and before you jump on eveything stated, I hope that you apply context as well, respectfully…interfaith work is difficult ‘mutual’ work with we all come from different belief cultures and traditions. I really do wish your election process (again, Roman Catholic leadership works top down, not bottom up—-so the process is interesting to watch) well and meaningfull. To any fellow Yoopers, I hope the process in the Diocese will keep a strong interfaith connection working among all our faith leaders; imperfect and very blemished as they [we] all tend to be. Thank you for an interesting site and your (many threads)responses.
Kelly
Roman Catholic
Marquette, MI

Kelly, (trying again)

There is nothing wrong (in fact much can be right) with open and strong interfaith relationships as long as the boundaries between what the faiths believe do not become blurred. I have visited the lovely UP (in the summer when there was no snow). I have been to Marquette (although not to St. Pauls) and Calumet and the Porcupine Wilderness, and I understand that people can be few and far between up there (like that long stretch of road between Marquette and Houghton). Working together and sharing resources and raising up lay leadership would clearly be essential in your neck of the woods.

Perhaps the disconnect for you is that there is much more tolerance for dissent and local innovation in the Episcopal Church than in the RC church and so it seems like suddenly Kevin Forrester is being unfairly attacked for what he has been doing and saying all along. The problem is that by being elected Bishop, he has become a lightning rod for those of us who feel that the Episcopal Church has drifted away from or tossed aside the authentic Christian beliefs about who Jesus is and the work he did on the cross. We do not believe that all religions are equally true or that there are ways other than Jesus to get to God. From his public writings and speakings it seems as if Kevin Forrester does believe those things.

Hopefully, I have not made things worse this time…

monika

Kelly,
You may find this surprising, but one reason I am replying to you is that a Catholic priest, who is a good friend, brought your post to my attention.  I am on vacation for a few days, and not checking the blog carefully (just enough to get caught up on the ACC, unfortunately). 
Sometimes, after 30 years of revisionist attacks on Christianity, our traditions, liturgy, and Sacraments, it is difficult for us to “sound” charitable in 2 or 3 lines in a blog posting.  You would find that most people who post here spend time praying for Rev. Forrester and the others like him who make up the misguided leadership of this and so many dioceses of TEC.
For the most part, people are not personally attacking Rev. Forrester, but instead responding to his attacks on Christianity. I am sorry, but to claim that he and everyone else is an “only begotten child of God” or an “incarnation of God” or “incarnation of the Trinity” puts him outside of any reasonable understanding of either Scripture or Church tradition- Catholic or Protestant. The quotes come from Rev. Forrester’s statements on Dar es Salaam Primates meeting of 2007 and his response to the Anglican Covenant. You might be surprised to discover how similar the theology of most Anglicans is with the theology of the Catholic Church.  His statements are outright heresy, as is his Trinity Sunday sermon of 2008 (see the St Paul’s website, or look it up on Standfirm, where you can also see Matt Kennedy’s commentary).  His rewriting of the liturgy is often heretical, his rewrite of the Baptismal liturgy is an outright, unquestionable violation of the Canons, in addition to having serious theological errors.  All of those errors are MAJOR errors in the Catholic Church as well- show any of those documents to your own bishop and see what he says.  Ask your bishop if he would permit the Epistle to be replaced with a reading from the Koran during the Mass- as Forrester has done.
Rev. Forrester has gone so far beyond what is acceptable in even the Episcopal Church that many of those opposing him (see the list above) are LIBERALS.
As to the charge that others are guilty by association, in truth, they are.  The Standing Committee has also signed the “affirmations” he wrote, and they were adopted by his vestry (although in their favor, the vestry has been credited with forcing him to reintroduce the Nicene Creed 6 months after he removed it from the mass).  He was personally involved in the selection process for a number of the people who were on the discernment team, and developed the selection process by which they were to choose a leader.  He was instrumental in redefining the office of bishop into a committee of 12 people.  Under the system he developed, even if he does not gain consent, he can remain as chairman of the “Episcopal Ministry Team.” Another member will be nominated for consecration, to perform sacramental duties, and Rev. Forrester will remain in charge.
  He may be a nice guy (at least to his friends)- he no doubt is a good pastor- in the sense of offering comfort if not orthodox Christian teaching- to many of his 80 remaining Sunday attendees in his main parish.  He has not been a good pastor to the 40 former regular attenders.  I am in one of the churches to which he is supposedly the Ministry Developer.  He comes here once a year, often just preaches a sermon (usually completely outside mainstream Christian tradition), stays for 15 minutes of coffee hour, and leaves.  For which service, the church here pays a substantial amount to support his annual salary, and still gets billed for mileage when their own missioner deigns to show up.
  His friends don’t like reading this.  But these are facts, not opinions.  The damage done to Rev. Forrester’s chances of becoming a bishop has not come from personal attacks, but from quotations of his own words.  Read what the bishops who are voting against him have to say. They make no inferences to his person, they cite errors in the selection process, violations of the canons, and major theological errors. If what they are saying does not make sense to you, then you should consult your own catechism, or your own priest or bishop.

Kelly Matthews,
Maybe you can tell us how Kevin Forrester represents the Episcopal Church to the interfaith community.
I hope he does not portray the Episcopal Church as a congregation of people who are too sophisticated to be bound by belief in the Bible or universal Christian truths because if he portrays us in that way he misrepresents us. Please keep in mind that most Episcopalians who go to church on Sunday participate in the “Book of Common Prayer” Rite 1 or Rite 2, we kneel in prayer, we stand when the Gospel is read by the Priest, recite the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed, acknowledge Jesus Christ’s death for our sins and pray for God’s forgiveness before we partake in the Holy Eucharist. We understand what it means to be Christians, just as Roman Catholics, Baptists and Methodists do and we want our Bishops to defend the Christian faith as they promise to do.
We simply are tired of being misrepresented by some of those who have found their way to political power in the Episcopal church.

I think, Mad Potter, that Rev. Forrester’s writing indicate that he is a Universalist, and not a Christian, and I think that is Greg’s point.  Now, granted, by training and inclination, Rev. Forrester reflects more Christian tradition than Buddhist or Islamic, and if you care to define him that way, I am not going to argue with you about it.  I would agree with you that it would be appropriate for him to move to the Unitarians or to some New Age denomination, or to start his own church- where he can do whatever he wants.  But he should not be elevated to the Apostolic succession.

Monika,
You came through just fine!
Kelly
tjmcmahon
I have re-read your post several times now. Thank you for your clarifications. And, to be brief: no, nooooo, not ever would the Koran be read during a Roman Catholic Mass. But, I do say I ATTENDED that service and the readings and speaker did a great job. Mind you, that is where I will leave in at out of chartity towards the muslim who was invited, let it be. The service was on forgiveness; a hard top and much to be learned no matter who we are.
Again, thank you for your explanations.

And no, Betty See, I have no interest in explaining what “my” perspectives are on interfaith work which many are not apart of. “We” live far north, and sometimes—- distance—-is a good thing!!!
I do hope your process brings forth “good fruit”, as many with a Miter like to say. Discernment is good. Best wishes to you all—-really. Thanks for not ripping my throat out, which is so easy to do while blogging.
Kelly

Biblebeltblogger.com: Standing committees of Milwaukee and Spokane vote “yes”; standing committeee of Florida votes “no.”

Greg,
I spoke with a member of our Standing Committee in the Diocese of Louisiana and they voted no.  Please add them to your list.

MP,

No, if anything, Fr. Forrester is not a Christian, but is a very good Episcopalian… but I digress.

Look - we’ve been over this time and time again: Forrester’s beliefs, theology in general, and Christology in particular simply do not fall within the bounds of the Christian faith, period. I’ve said it before: He may not be a Buddhist, but neither is he a Christian. You cannot reject the uniqueness of Christ and still be a Christian. You cannot reject the atonement and still be a Christian. Forrester does both.

I’d gladly write 1,500 words on why Forrester is not fit to be a bishop, but so far 34 bishops - the large majority of whom are not fans of mine - agree with me. I would gladly write another 1,500 words on why he’s not fit to be a priest, much less a bishop, but Bryan Owen - hardly a knuckle-dragging conservative - has saved me from that task: http://tinyurl.com/pqky8g

So let me be very clear once again: I agree wholeheartedly with what was said upstream: Saying you’re a Christian doesn’t make you one. This assertion is at the heart of the Anglican crisis. Our church is run by people who insist they’re Christians, but are not. Some of them aren’t quite sharp enough to know this (Elizabeth Kaeton for example, bless her heart); some of them know quite well they are not Christians but deliberately perpetuate the lie (Katharine Schori, for example) with the goal of changing the definition of Christianity and what it means to be a Christian. Whether Forrester falls into the former camp or the latter I’m not quite sure, but I *am* sure that what he defines as being a Christian, could hardly be more wrong.

Blessings Kelly. Thanks for sticking with us.

monika

Fr. Waddill,

Thanks - tally updated.

I disagree with the notion that works or orthodoxy makes (or unmakes) one a Christian. But that’s my catholic, sacramental theology coming in to play. One is made a Christian by action of God’s grace in the sacrament of Baptism.

That being said, it must also be said that there are such people as apostate Christians and heretical Christians. One can in any number of ways, fail to bear the fruit of the sacramental grace of baptism and does so to the peril of one’s eternal soul.

It should be further stated that while catholic sacramental theology does hold that the character of the priest does not invalidate the sacraments, it does not follow that the Church should allow apostate or heretical Christians to be ordained. It really doesn’t make sense to ordain TEACHERS who teach doctrine which is contrary to Christian doctrine. To use a secular example, would a modern secular university give a biology teaching position to someone who insisted on teaching creationism instead of evolution? Why should the Church put someone in a teaching position who insists on teaching something that is contrary to the Scriptures and the Creeds? Or why should the Church appoint someone to officiate at its liturgies who refuses to use the prescribed liturgies of the Church and substitutes his own?

The Roman Church would not put up with it. Neither would the Orthodox Churches. Why should an Anglican Church? Yes, we have deacons, priests and bishops who flaunt their vows to conform to the Church’s doctrine, discipline and worship. But that is no excuse for adding yet another to their numbers.

At some point, the Episcopal Church will either have to decide on whether to be a holy, catholic and apostolic Church or a Unitarian Church with an exotic liturgy.

Mr. Peck—the fact is that the Episcopal Church reached this point quite a few years ago, and decided to be a Unitarian Church.  This is the reason why the Diocese of Ft. Worth, The Contnuing Anglicans, the REC, and others have left and will not be back.

GB, this is hardly fact; and indeed, that Forrester is meeting with such resistance shows that it isn’t so. And if he fails to gain enough consents, are you going to back down from your hyperbole?

While I’m at it: as far as lumping Ft. Worth and the REC in the same heap, your statement is in patent contradiction to the history of these separations. If the REC were to remain true to its purpose in separating from PECUSA, then there would be not the slightest possibility of it participating in a body which also encompassed Ft. Worth.

Wingate,
You should know that Ft. Worth embraces a very diverse churchmanship. While the diocese is solidly catholic, it also is home to protestant parishes like the cardinal St. Andrew’s parish. REC bishops have preached at St. Andrews with Bishop Iker’s blessing. It is also safe to assume that the REC has developed catholic sympathies.

#293—times change, and people change.  The REC and Ft. Worth are, in fact, joining together in a new Anglican province.  As for my hyperbole, I have wondered how long it would be before someone drew the conclusion you have drawn.  The answer is—NO, it doesn’t prove a thing except that some who wanted to vote “yes” did not do so due to the wind blowing in the opposite direction.  If TEC were a basically Christian denomination, those who believe like Mr. Forrester would never be able to get into the clergy, and would never get any votes AT ALL for consent to be a bishop—reference Greg Griffith’s comments above.

GB, this is hardly fact; and indeed, that Forrester is meeting with such resistance shows that it isn’t so. And if he fails to gain enough consents, are you going to back down from your hyperbole?

I wouldn’t, really.  The fact that Forrester has gotten any consents is a black eye for TEC, and given that the heretical, unitarian-minded are in firm control of the levers at 815, I’d expect those disposed to consenting to heretics like Forrester will be on the increase in coming years.  Forrester is just ahead of his time in TEC, really.

I’m reminded of a story of the Stoics I read once:

A wealthy man came to one of the Stoics and said he had been offered a great deal of money to do some degrading thing in public, and asked if he should.  “Yes,” was the immediate reply.  Taken aback by the quick answer, the rich man queried as to why.  “Because you have considered it,” said the Stoic.

Any idea how Hollerith of SouthernVA will vote?

Still Nothing From Alabama? Those guys are being tight lipped. I would love any information on what +Parsley and the SC did, I am sure it will be interesting…

Talked to +Wolfe of Kansas yesterday and he has not yet given consent but has not made his final decision.  Same for the Board of Trustees (aka the Standing Committee).

biblebeltblogger.com has data not recorded here yet—Yes—Spokane, Utah, Milwaukee. Florida, Iowa NO

Thanks, Gator - posted and updated.

Greg,
  Found out today that Diocese of Springfield Standing Committee voted no in April.

Rhode Island Standing Committee votes No (vote: 5-1).
http://episcopalri.blogspot.com/2009/05/standing-commitee-on-northern-michigans.html

Thanks Google alerts.