DioMaryland: Bishop, Standing Committee Vote ‘No’ on Forrester

This is my Diocese, and I am stunned, perhaps a bit humbled.  I consider us one of the cardinal progressive dioceses in TEC, and if Fr. Forrester can’t make it here, he can’t make it anywhere.

I was equally surprised, Dick; not so much by Bishop Sutton’s vote as that of our Standing Committee. I had pretty much resigned myself to hanging my head in shame over this one. What a relief!
Thank goodness Bishop Ihloff’s gone, eh? I shudder to imagine the sort of intellectual gymnastics he would have gone through to justify a ‘yes’ vote on this thing!

KJS will be on his tail any day.

Bishop Sutton is a charismatic African-American bishop, consecrated less than a year ago.  He has a focused spirituality, but made clear he had a very inclusive agenda.  He supports ordination of gays, etc., and would not have been elected otherwise.  He is especially committed to ecological issues (wants to be known as Maryland’s first Green Bishop).

In a field of five candidates, Sutton was elected on the first ballot.  The handful of conservative delegates and clergy (of whom I am aware) voted for him—he was a candidate who made clear how much he loved Jesus.  OTOH, he came from the National Cathedral, where he worked with Canon Lloyd and Bishop Chane. 

No, Bill C. (#3), I think Bishop Sutton is one of the more attractive personalities in the TEC today, and I don’t think the PB will give him any trouble on this call.

This s great news.  This is further evidence that Forrester is in deep, deep trouble.  But not only is he likely to lose, this whole controversial “election” in Northern Michigan has become a wedge issue, dividing the liberals among themselves.  And leaving the progressive side with egg on their faces.

It’s tremendous.

David Handy+

“I think Bishop Sutton is one of the more attractive personalities in the TEC today, and I don’t think the PB will give him any trouble on this call.”

I am not surprised that Sutton did not consent - though very theologically liberal, he is more inclined in a Christian ecumenical direction than he is toward the syncretic presuppositions that participants in inter-religious dialogue have.  As such, he more or less has to respect the traditionalist viewpoint as legitimate on all the hot button issues, even though he rejects them, if for no other reason because he has to rub shoulders with such people.  I also suspect he also likes the ceremonial of the Anglo-Catholics, and no one does it better than the traddies.

And yes, he is one of the more attractive personalities of TEC, though I disagree with him on a thousand different things.  He will and does, however, take the Party Line on everything from theology to property wars…the nice-nice will only get you so far.

Note also that the Party Line does not yet require religious syncretism, though that does seem to be the inevitable direction where ECUSAville is headed.

NRA:
The previous wedge issues have divided conservatives from themselves—like evangelicals who support/oppose women’s ordination.  The far left has gotten a lot of mileage by finding issues that they could get folks to go along with (though perhaps for divergent reasons).  The gay issue will work like this—you can (in theory) believe in a coherent Nicene orthodoxy and believe that the relevant biblical passages are culturally conditioned.  I’ve known people like this.
But a Buddhist bishop strikes at the heart of Christian identity, and it makes sense for this to be far a touchier issue than “full inclusion”.  If you line up all the bishops who support repealing B033, you will find a range of perspectives.

Or, maybe this is just the Elizabethan settlement of not requiring people to believe anything in particular as long as they follow the prescribed formulae during the worship service kicking in.