Forrester Consents Tally, Part 2

Susan Russell—I see you are logged in. Any news from LA?

A comment close to the end of Part 1 reported that Springfield Standing Comm. voted NO in April. Maybe someone can confirm that.

I am unofficially aware that Western Michigan’s Standing Committee has also voted No (in contrast to their bishop), and that the bishops of Michigan and Eastern Michigan have votes Yes.

Thanks Dan - I’ve updated the tally.

I have said this privately…but will now put it out there for discussion.  I do not see how Bishop Lamb or San Joaquin can have a vote one way or the other as they are not a diocese properly formed or recognized by GC….they have been reformed illegally by the PB….

Greg,
    Tuesday night I reported on the Springfield SC “No!” vote, but it isn’t in the tally.

4   Creighton+, you’re right, but you can be sure that Schori and Company will find a way around the requirement that they be properly recognized by their General Convention, and therefore, their vote will stand.  Count on it!

#2- I heard a rumor of a rumor of that myself.  If someone from W. Michigan is reading this- whether you are on the standing committee or wrote a letter or talked to your rector, you have thanks and prayers from many of us in N. Michigan. 
TJ

Loose Canon,

Sorry - did you have a link, or does it fall in the “unannounced but believed to be accurate” category?

Greg,
  It would qualify as an “impeccable” source…

LC,

Good enough - tally updated.

Any news from Parsley or AL Standing Committee? I apologize if this was addressed earlier but the thread got pretty long and I may have missed it.

Creighton+ and Cennydd:
Yes, Lamb and his so-called diocese are not legit.  But looking at the tally so far, even it their votes stand, it won’t make much difference.  I’m curious to see how Bishop Beisner (N. Calif) votes as the dean of his cathedral has buddist leanings.

Greg,

The Forrester Consents Tally (original) seems to have disappeared completely.  The link above just gives part of the comment posting text.  I also did a search could not find the article.

Dear Creighton,

Whether one agrees or disagrees that the (Southern Cone) Diocese of San Joaquin had the right to separate from TEC, it is fairly clear that TEC does have the right to organize a diocese in an unrepresented area of the country where it currently has no presence.  Are you arguing that, because the (Southern Cone) Diocese of SJ is in existence, that therefore, TEC has no right to be presentin that same geographical area?

It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways.  If the Southern Cone Diocese has the right to leave, TEC has the right to organize a diocese in its place.  If the Souther Cone Dio of SJ had no right to leave, then it is still the legitimate presence of TEC, and thus TEC should not be organizing a diocese where there is already one in place.  But that would argue that the Southern Cone Diocese of San Joaquin is not a legitimate and constituent member of the Province of the Southern Cone.  Interesting.

biblebeltblogger.com may have standing committee updates that SF doesn’t have. Just posted, plus useful dates about upcoming Standing Comm.meetings.
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/18-more-standing-committees-vote

Neal:
TEC did NOT follow its own constitution and canons in setting up another San Joaquin Diocese.  Until they do, they have no official presence.

#16-
Regardless of canon law or ecclesiology, +Lamb was given a ballot and has voted, as has his faux standing committee.  We don’t have to like it, but until such time as 68 bishops are willing to overturn a “ruling by the chair” that these bishops are bishops with jurisdiction and their faux standing committees have ecclesial authority within their dioceses, the ruling of the chair will stand.

I note that the standing committees have overtaken the bishops on the “no” vote side.  I extend an apology to the standing committees out there for my frequent prediction that this would come down to a vote one way or the other among the HoB.  Bless you all for giving this serious consideration and extending the time and study necessary.
TJ

Southern Ohio’s Standing Committee said yes, after the Bishop quite clearly said no.  Interesting.

Mad Potter states

I think another perspective on the issue of Bishop Lamb and the Diocese of San Joaquin is that the people that did not follow the majority to the Southern Cone had no need to form a new diocese or even reform the old one. What they needed to do was just what they did, elect new leadership to fill the positions of the people that had left TEC.

But as I recall, most of the members of the Standing Committee did not leave TEC, and did not resign. 

Thus, on the assumption that dioceses cannot leave TEC—that is, on the assumption that the association acknowledging Bp. Schofield wasn’t the true continuation of the Diocese of San Joaquin as it had been— they (the remaining Standing Commitee members) constituted the were the legal authority in the TEC diocese.  However, TEC (Schori), without any Canonical authority, simply declared them not a Standing Committee, and held an election (a purported election) of her own, over their protests, which she had no right to do, as they, not she,  were, by Canon Law, and operating on her assumptions, the authority in the diocese until they (not she) help a new election for Bishop. 

Also, can anyone tell me:  did Lamb, had he been properly selected and chosen, ever receive the necessary consents?

Schori had no right to do as she did, and she clearly violated her own Church’s canons!  She did NOT get approval from her General Convention, which by the way, has the sole right of judgment in such matters, according to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.  She acted as a metropolitan, which she ISN’T, and which she has no right to claim to be.

Scruff:  No, he didn’t.

Scruff,
He was not elected (that is not a statement re: validity). Nor was +Gulick, or any bishop who is given provisional authority.  It simply means that - until an election of an ordinary does take place - the Standing Committee was willing to place their ecclesiastical authority into the hands of a recognized TECUSA bishop (retired or not), thus giving him or her “provisional” authority to be “the bishop of” their diocese (not the status of an “assisting bishop”).  That desire of the Standing Committee by canon law must be ratified by Convention.  It is properly presented and acted upon by a motion.  Therefore, no election (even though it may feel and look like one), no consent process.  But, status as a bishop of jurisdiction, and therefore an opportunity to participate in others’ consent processes.
Re: what Creighton asked, and tj and others responded, the story leading up to that moment is another matter.

I went poking around the Diocese of Lexington site, having been resident there back in the mid-late 70s, and saw that there will be a Standing Committee meeting May 21, so we may hear from them after that.  We can guess where Bp. Sauls may come down on this, although the wind may be blowing the other way or perhaps even he can see the difference between a Christian and a Buddhist.

Neal, if I read the Constitution and Canons correctly, 815 does not have the “right” to organize a diocese any where for any reason. Yes, individuals could organize a convention, develop a constitution and canons, elect officers and then petition to be admitted to the convention as a diocese. Or alternatively, the General Convention could organize a missionary district and elect a bishop for it. But certainly what was done by 815 with regard to San Joaquin has no basis in the Constitution and Canons of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

I can hardly believe it, but…
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-oregon-votes-no-on-bishop-elect-ktf
Standing Committee of Oregon votes “no”.

BillB,

Sorry about that - I meant to close comments but closed the entire post instead. It’s back up at the link above.

Folks, y’all know I’m not about harshing anybody’s mellow, and I agree the whole DioSJ matter is worth discussing, but not here. Back to Genpo’s consents, please. Somebody PM me tomorrow and I may open a thread to talk about DioSJ.

Just a little update on the math…

By my calculations, Forrester needs 72% of all remaining bishops’ votes, and 73% of all remaining standing committee votes, in order to gain the necessary consents (and that would only be by a single vote in each order).

Roughly half of all votes have been cast, and so far he’s only picked up 27% of them.

Greg,

I figure he needs a total of 34 more votes…does that jive with your numbers?

Greg, sorry I got sucked into that DSJ tangent.  Blame it on Creighton (although somewhat on topic) and Cennydd lit the match.  Even got Neal sucked in on that one.

TJ,(27)
You have to remember that Kevin was in Oregon prior to his crisis of faith (or perhaps he might call it a crisis of faith potential) in the Eastern Oregon high desert.  My conversations with old friends from S.Michael’s tell me that, although he loosely fit into a reappraiser/liberal/progressive mold out of seminary, his sermons as a curate were not un-orthodox, he followed the BCP (well, he was a curate, after all) and he really shone in pastoral care.  The challenge of information suggesting otherwise now, 15 years later, I think caught people by surprise and forced them to look into it deeper, even though initially it didn’t seem to be a problem for them.  The struggle for them was having to honestly deal with the liturgical replacements he has been doing, despite some sympathy with his Zen-colored Christian doctrine.  In fact, I think it was such a dash of cold water to see one of their own having gone so far publicly in liturgical renovation that it literally woke them up.  And with great sadness they faced the reality that bishops are not called to be those who deny rubrics and ignore authorized ritual.
I thank the Standing Committee president, the Rev Shannon Leach for his holding the Standing Committee to their proper function and role, and my old friend Judy “Chasuble-maker” Cato for holding steady, as well.

Fr. Rob,
Thank you for the admonition. I am, indeed, a little too close to the frontline in this to have a truly accurate perspective sometimes, and am not properly charitable.  Forrester’s supporters here seem to break down into three groups- those who would support anybody they consider “a local” vs. someone they see as an “outsider”; those who are really behind his liturgical and ecclesial revisions- or to borrow your word, replacements; and those who really have been touched by his pastoral sensitivity.  It is clear that he has helped a lot of people up here deal with family and personal crises, and been an advocate for victims of child abuse or domestic violence. It is interesting, however, that the majority who have spoken or written to me about this, or who I have read on blogs, do not describe themselves as “Episcopalians” but self-identify as another denomination, or even another religion or none. (Although this may say more about Episcopalians having a general reluctance to witness.  One of the more amusing observations I recall from a bishop was “You know you are in an Episcopal Church when there is no one sitting in the front 2 pews.”)
  Unfortunately, I think his own ego has gotten in the way of accepting guidance on liturgical and ecclesial issues.  Pastoral care does not require that one re-write Scripture and liturgy to provide that care.  Indeed, Scripture and liturgy should form the backbone of that care. Pastoral care is an outward extension of what we believe.

#28, Greg,

Thanks!  I hadn’t finished reading on that thread.

#11 Birminghamer,
Word is that at their recent clergy retreat, Bishop Parsley of Alabama said that he had voted no, based on the irregularities of Forrester’s nomination and his changing up of the liturgy.  The Buddhism didn’t seem to be a deal-breaker for him.  As for Alabama’s Standing Committee, as you probably know, they will vote however Bishop Parsley asks them to vote.

On Integrity’s blog, I looked at the first 14 stories, or posts or whatever you call them.  There is exactly 1 comment for all 14 stories.  Amazing to me how much influence the GLBT lobby has in the church.  It is just amazing.  The truth is they have done an amazing job influencing the agenda, with a small, small group.  I always say how small we are, but they are smaller than us!!!

I think I read somewhere that a non-domestic bishop had announced a No vote? I don’t see him listed.

I wonder how much hate mail (e-mail, phone calls) busy diocesan bishops, members of standing committees, and their staff are getting over this sensitive matter.

I suspect that if I were a diocesan bishop I might not vote at all (since that’s the same as a “no” vote), and simply ignore any and all communications from anyone, including the PB’s office.

I wonder when KTF is going to have the decency to withdraw, so that his diocese can formally reopen the process. I wonder whether he will undertake a period of reflection on his vocation in Holy Orders.

re 33: What I find interesting in your three-way division is that the “schism is worse than heresy” crowd doesn’t enter in as a fourth supporting party. And indeed, looking at the voting, that group seems mostly to be withholding consent.

#26 Ken,

No argument from me that what TEC actually did was contrary to its own canons.  I’m sure the PB and her chancellor would argue that drastic times demanded drastic measures.  However, by their actions they indicated that they did not want to work with the (conservative) leaders who by their own admission wanted to stay with TEC.  I suspect they now have gotten what they really wanted, namely, a Standing Committee and Bishop that would give consent to the election of Kevin Thew FOrrester.  How’s THAT for a disconnect from the former Diocese of San Joaquin?

Sorry, Greg.  I know you didn’t want to discuss this on this thread, but I felt I owed Ken a response, and I don’t know his email address.

NW PA Standing Committee’s NO vote is missing from your list. Evidence of their vote is in a letter on the N. Mich. website in which a priest pleads with the Standing Committee of NW PA to reconsider their No.

http://www.upepiscopal.org/howson.pdf

Maybe you already published this letter, but it is a howler in several places.

Gator,
Puerto Rico.
And a couple of others not yet announced.

I’ve been doing some number crunching on these votes compared with past votes (i.e. consents re: VGR and Mark Lawrence and some other votes from General Convention 2003).

Theoretically, the vote totals could still be close.  We’ve heard from more of the “conservative” (expected NO voting) bishops and dioceses - about 60% of each, as compared with only about 38% of the “liberal” (expected YES voting) bishops and dioceses. 

So… don’t be surprised if the YES totals climb quite a bit while the NO totals stay fairly stable for awhile. 

There are at least 35 liberal bishops yet to be heard from.  Theoretically, if they all voted Yes (very doubtful at this point) Forrester could have a total 49 Yes votes among bishops if past voting patterns held.  However, the liberal bishops would now have to ALL vote YES for that to happen.  So far only about 62% of the “liberal” bishops who have voted have voted YES.  Among the “conservative bishops” 97% have voted NO as expected.

It is a similar story among Standing Committees.  We still have yet to hear from 60% of the “liberal” dioceses.  Theoretically, if they all voted YES, Forrester could get 53 YES votes and 58 NO votes.  Consent would be denied.  I don’t see how Forrester can pull off consent among the Standing Committees unless some current NO votes are switched.  Forrester has lost the votes of 12 “liberal” dioceses whom we would have expected to vote YES.  i.e. only 54% of the liberal dioceses are voting YES, while 97% of the conservative dioceses are voting NO. 

For those who are curious, the “Swing” vote on the conservative side in both the bishop and the standing committee column is San Joaquin.  So, it is not even really a “swing” since all the past voting record is for the Anglican Diocese under Bishop Schofield, now part of ACNA, whereas the YES votes are by +Lamb and the new Standing Committee.  There have been no other “defections” among conservative bishops or dioceses.

Hope this data is of interest, if people want more details, let me know, though I’ll likely now be offline until Sunday.

Karen—Good analysis.

Considering all the bishops and Standing Committees who are still question marks:

-He needs 37 (72.5%) of the 51 bishops who have not yet voted or announced and 42 (75%) of the 56 Standing Committees .

-Of the 51 bishops who have not voted or announced their votes, only 15 or 16 are needed to block the consecration. Of Standing Committees not counted, only 16 are needed to block.

BibleBeltBlogger has San DIego Standing Committee confirmed as a No.  Please update talley.

Among the “conservative bishops” 97% have voted NO as expected

Which one of the “yes” votes is a conservative?  It strikes me that if you vote “yes” your conservative credentials may not be renewed.
I’d be interested to in how you have defined liberal v. conservative, and the defining characteristics used to determine which bishop is placed in which camp.  To come up with 3% of conservatives not voting “no” you need 33 conservatives at a minimum, and among diocesans, I have a hard time counting over 15 or 16 at this point.

tj,
Karen refers in the next paragraph of her comment to San Joaquin as the swing vote, that is, up until Dec. 07 it would be a given part of the conservative block of dioceses.  Now the voting leadership by majority is not.  That’s what she’s referring to (as I read it) as (now) 97%.

Thanks Fr Rob and apologies to Karen B.  This is what happens when I am posting on blogs after my bedtime.  I will save myself further embarrassment and NOT try to post one of those little red-in-the-face-embarrassed little smiley thingees. (those never work for me anyway)

Now that the Diocese of El Camino Real (my old diocese) has voted “NO,” has anyone heard from +Mary Gray Reeves, their diocesan?

“I’m sure the PB and her chancellor would argue that drastic times demanded drastic measures”.

Yeah, and I bet she’s happy to justify any old action with THAT philosophy. 

“Drastic times demand(ing) drastic measures”—Neal, I can only imagine what you might think of that one as a legal defense. 

KTF…

Bishop Howard of Florida is notably missing from this list.  Anyone know how he voted?

rumor has it…no.

Good deal, seraph.  Thanks.

tjmcmahon, renzin the woods

If either of you have any contacts at Trinty or with those familiar with Dioceasan finances see what you can find out about Trinity’s Endowment or lack thereof.

To the best of my recollection, only Trinity is utilizing their endowment to cover their expenses.  They have not been relieved of the burden by the Standing Committee…yet.

#33 tj, don’t you love the irony in your comment, especially when spoken of a Buddhist?

Unfortunately, I think his own ego has gotten in the way of accepting guidance on liturgical and ecclesial issues.

Guess Genpo hasn’t quite reached Nirvana yet! ;>)

Frank Lockwood’s reporting that Barry Beisner(N. Calif) has voted no while the Minnesota standing committee voted yes.

Diocese of Western New York Standing Committee voted “yes”. How did Garrison, their bishop, vote?

Greg,
  When is the 120 days up?

Loose Canon,

There was a lot of discussion about that on the original thread:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22090/

+Howard- Florida -official no!
Blessings
seraph

Re: #57 on the Minnesota Standing Cmte. voting “Yes” - KJS just spent several days there.  She’s apparently providing some - uh - guidance to their upcoming Bishop search.  Wonder if she paid the Standing Cmte. a visit?

Oops - forgot the link - Anglicat has some news on the PB visit to the Al Franken State:
http://anglikin.blogspot.com/2009/05/p-p-p-pokerface-pb-meets-with-minnesota.html

Any word on East TN?  SC said yes but what about the bishop?

I had an awful, paranoid thought.

If a bishop had decided not to vote at all, this normally would be considered a “no” vote when things are added up. It’s a “politically correct” way of saying no in a diocese that is trying not to be controversial.

Is there any chance that 815 would count not voting as an affirmation???

#65 By law I believe that silence signifies assent.  Certainly it must be written in the canons that there must be the correct number of CONSENTS.  But who at 815 reads the canons?  They COULD change it.  ~_^

Is it possible to get the smileys back?

The canon requires that a majority of the bishops with jurisdiction and a majority of the standing committees give consent in proper form within 120 days before the consecration can proceed. In effect, the way the canon is worded a bishop or standing committee that does not submit their consent in proper form has “voted” no, regardless of whether they formally notified 815 or the standing committee of the diocese of Northern Michigan. Canonically, this isn’t an election—that already happened; it is consent for the consecration and installation of a bishop to proceed.

That being said, “Is there any chance that 815 would count not voting as an affirmation???” one can hardly say that there is “no chance” of it, given the way that the powers that be at 815 and numerous bishops have ridden roughshod over the canons—deposing bishops over which they have no jursidiction, tossing out duly elected standing committees, creating dioceses and assigning bishops to them, not to mention writing substitute liturgies for those prescribed in the BCP. Anything is possible in the new, “hierarchial” General Convention Church.

There doubtless would be a stink if 815 and Northern Michigan took “silence to signify assent.” But so far the liberal establishment of the General Convention Church haven’t been deterred by stinks. They apparently are immune from presentation and deposition. About the only avenue left for the faithful is to depart and shake off the dust from your feet as you leave.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but in the first pass on the SC election/consents, weren’t there some SCs/bishops that did not send consents? It seems to me that they created a precedent that’s going to require them to be equally hard-nosed in this instance.

This process specifically requires action—that is an action of assent.  Not sending in a vote is clearly voting no.  Sending in a flawed ballot (cf. South Carolina) is voting no. 

I have no idea how the vote will go.  Contrary to a lot of the writing here, the rules are clear. 

FWIW
jimB

This is a front page article from the Sunday issue of the local paper yesterday.
http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/527394.html?nav=5006

renz,

Thanks for the link. I’ll be posting that story and some comments on it in a little while.

So “theological views” are irrelevant to qualifications for a bishop of a Christian church.  Baal or Molech worship, anyone?  Shades of “Mike” the Episcopalian!

The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (TEC) has voted, unanimously, to withhold consent.
http://3riversepiscopal.blogspot.com/2009/05/consent-withheld-on-northern-michigan.html

Bruce Robison

BMR+,

Thanks for the link. Post made and tally updated.

Frank Lockwood has Chicago Stand.Comm. as yes. No surprise there.
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-pittsburgh-votes-no-dio-chicago-votes-yes

I had a bit of a sinking feeling recently about TEC’s off-shore/international dioceses. I bet they are being kept in the dark like mushrooms and pushed to just sign the form.

Biblebeltblogger lists N. Michigan as Yes, but they are missing from SF’s list. Do you and Mr. Lockwood correspond to cross-verify?

http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/18-more-standing-committees-vote

Confirmation on Chicago: http://tinyurl.com/unicycles

As a Chicago ex-Episcopalian, I found this unanimous “Yes” a laugh-out-loud moment.

DoW

Woops: here is the Chicago link: http://tinyurl.com/o69yck

DoW

I had a bit of a sinking feeling recently about TEC’s off-shore/international dioceses. I bet they are being kept in the dark like mushrooms and pushed to just sign the form.

Do you have email addresses?  A copy of +Tom Breidenthal’s letter, the Easter liturgy with revised Baptism, and the Qu’ran epistle ought to be sufficient to enlighten them.  Many voted in favor of +Mark Lawrence, as I recall, which I think we can only see as contrary to the will of 815.

By the way, has anyone confirmed that June 21 date (per Chicago and one or 2 other references) which would be about 120 days after the election.  Diocesan officials here are saying 120 days from the date they sent out the last ballots, which was late March (26th, I think) which would put the close of the election in late July.

I don’t have e-mail contacts for TEC’s off-shore/ international dioceses. Did SFIF have any luck earlier on these?

Frank Lockwood has a very significant catch on Bishop Beisner. The bishop really wanted to vote yes, but couldn’t extract a pledge from KGTF that he would hold back on further liturgical experimentation.
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/beisner-fears-further-unauthorized-experimentation

P.S. Lockwood also has N. Carolina Stand.Comm. voting no. That seems like a huge flag waving.

Hmmmm.  50 bishop’s votes in and 55 SC votes are in.  Not sure the pollsters are ready to call the election, but the voting on the remaining 50% would have to more than exactly reverse to turn the outcome to positive for the bishop-elect. 

To me, the wild card is the ability to change votes up until the voting closes.

And then their is a variation on this prior theme from the SC experience:
“I have been told that some diocesan Standing Committees have graciously offered to reconsider their denial of consent to my election as the ____ Bishop of _____, if they only have assurance of my intention to remain ______”.

Peace,
-ms

Bishop Beisner:

I have concluded that the [liturgical] changes Kevin made, and the manner in which he made them, however much designed and intended to be responsible and accountable, quite simply exceeded the authority of any bishop and diocese, let alone rector and parish. 

http://www.dncweb.org/403856.ihtml

What a huge debt we Anglicans / Episcopalians owe Frank Lockwood for following this story so closely and for digging up information that really sheds a lot of light on why various bishops and standing committees are voting as they are.

Hear, Hear, Karen B.!  Thanks, Frank!

Karen-
You are absolutely right, we owe Frank Lockwood our gratitude. It has been so refreshing to read Frank Lockwood’s articles on this. None of the spin we are used to.
Frank Lockwood type headline:
“1 diocese votes for consent, 2 vote no”
ENS type headline for the same event:
“3 dioceses discern way forward in consent process”
Maybe when the ACNA gets sufficiently organized (read: well heeled enough to afford) to have a full time press officer, we could get Mr. Lockwood to apply.
Although maybe we should leave him right where he is.  Who would have imagined that the first thing on the PB’s desk every morning would be the reports from a paper in Arkansas.  Is there any way we could convince him to go to Anaheim to cover GC?

Yes, I heartily agree with Karen and the comments that follow—thank you, Brother Frank!!  FYI all, this is also the gentleman who provided us 1-2 years ago with the “we come to relationship with God largely through the holiness we experience in other human beings” speech given by KJS in Arkansas.  She and Forrester are truly on some interesting theological island somewhere, and it’s not a Christian island. 

Nothing wrong with that, but at least call it what it is, and it’s not priest/bishop material.

Greg—Biblebeltblogger has N. Mich. Standing Comm. as a yes. His are verified reporter-style. Odd that you don’t have it. That one seems a pretty safe bet.

Gator - a simple oversight. Tally updated.

Also #79 above has link for Chicago St.Comm.=Yes

No problemo Greg; you are a thinker, not a bean-counter.

Also, you may not have OCD like me.

Just checked in and saw the Chicago vote.  I’d like to say that I’m shocked—but I am not.  I am a little surprised, but having been out of the Dio. for several years now, I guess I know little about the tone of things these days.

Curious that +Lee (Chicago) has not yet weighed in.

From the list (and I am no expert) the center right Bishops are all voting no; the moderates are voting no; center left institutitonal no; and even some real leftwing Bishops like N. California have voted no.  I guess I am only suprised that +Powell from SW Virginia voted yes as that cannot be popular with the folks who are from there. This vote seems to be a wipeout and I am suprised the candidate has not withdrawn.  What am I missing.

I guess he’s still trying to snatch the pebble from the Master’s hand…

Since he was the only nominee and since +Lawrence made it through on the second try, maybe he figures he will just send his name in again and the necessary votes will change.  And with 815 hiding backstage, they might.

Hmmm.  I just lost a comment, my internet connection is iffy tonight.  Rather than repeat the whole thing:

Lockwood is reporting 4 new YES votes by Standing Committees:

Delaware
Newark
Utah
Washington

None of these is a surprise.

chips—95—1)Don’t be surprised about +Powell from SW Virginia; he is deeply liberal. And the people in SWVA are mushrooms in the dark with virtually no conservative clergy to turn on the light.

2)This vote is still closer than you think. At this point, if every single one of the usual suspects who haven’t been counted vote to approve on both the bishop and standing committee sides, it could pass by one vote.

Old lady—97—That’s a scary thought. Carborundum. The equally ominous possibility for the few remaining traditional Episcopalians is that they will put forward another of the insiders with KGTF still running the show, kind of like Deng Xiaoping in China.

Per Gator’s second point in his #99- Do keep in touch with your standing committee and bishop if you do not see them listed above (and for that matter, even if you do- as “it ain’t over til its over”).  I have maintained from the outset that those who vote “no” are more likely to say so publicly.  But a number are still on the fence, so please do let your own bishop and standing committee know how you feel.
Most of the “assumed noes”- the CP bishops, ex-Windsor bishops, etc, have already been counted.  The Lord has seen fit to change the hearts of several we might have thought would vote “yes.”  We are clearly not headed for the 70-80 “yes” I would have predicted myself at the outset. But we are still a long way from refusing consent. This is kind of like election night in Cook County- the Republican precincts in the ‘burbs have all been counted, most of the Democratic precincts in Chicago have yet to be heard from.  So what looks like a big lead could vanish overnight- look at how many liberal standing committees we have heard from in the last few days.

Bishop Porter Taylor of Western NC is reported to have sent a letter last week to the active clergy to tell them that he did not consent to the election in Northern Michigan. He is said to have considered the bishop-elect’s revision baptisml liturgy.

Nebraska st.comm.=yes
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-nebraska-votes-yes-on-ktf

So much for the heartland, but then again TEC represents the elites with 0.2% (2/10ths of one percent!) of the population in an Episcopal church on an average Sunday. Out of a population of 1,783,432, ASA is around 3,400. Pitiful.
/snark

TEC-Nebraska chart
http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_521200945449PM.pdf

I saw on T19 that a letter written was written by the Rev. Geoffrey Howson to the members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northwestern PA.  In the first paragraph of the letter he asks the Standing Committee to reconsider its decision to withhold consent to the election of Bishop-elect Forrester.  This leads me to believe the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northwestern PA voted to withhold consent.  Here’s the link to T19 <a >T19 article</a>.  And here is a link to the letter on the Diocese of Nothern Michigan’s website <a >Howson’s letter</a>

Link’s didn’t work.
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/22469
http://www.upepiscopal.org/howson.pdf

You’ve left out HOLLINGSWORTH as a no.

106—What is the source? Do you have a weblink?

There are others not yet displayed that the crew will be catching up on, but they have all flown off to Jamaica (with spouses, if applicable) for the long holiday. They are getting tanned and rested for the General Convention ordeal.

By my count, at this point the absolute maximum number of YES votes Forrester could get if all remaining “liberal” or “moderately liberal” bishops and dioceses vote Yes would be 47 YES votes among bishops and 50 YES votes by Standing committees.  Both short of the majorities needed.

We’d need to see some serious vote swings take place for Forrester to get consent.  Forrester continues to steadily lose votes of the dioceses he needs:  New York, North Carolina, Colorado, El Camino Real, Ohio…  Who would have predicted them in the NO category two months ago?! 

Forrester has lost 15 votes among fairly liberal dioceses’ standing committees that one normally would have expected him to get quite easily, and 10 liberal bishops’ votes.  By contrast the only “conserative” vote he has “gained” is +Lamb and rump San Joaquin.

Quite amazing to see.

Karen, as they say, it isn’t over until the fat lady sings—or maybe in this case the skinny lady.

There are roughly two months for F and his fans to persuade liberal bishops and standing committees who have “voted” no, to change their minds and give consent.

He will swear on a stack of Sutras, Qur’ans, Vedas and Upanishads, The Witches’ Bibles, The Book of Mormons, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures and any other holy books he can lay his hands on that he will use only the Book of Common Prayer as ratified by General Convention with alterations or substitutions and will authoritize only the rites exactly as contained therein in his diocese.

Please note, as he does so the crossed fingers and recall his fidelity to the vows he made to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church and its Constitution and Canons.

But never mind, there are sufficient numbers of bishops and standing committee members who have violated their vows in the same ways and lay standing committee members who have been ill-formed by said bishops and clergy as to be clueless themselves and to guarantee that Unitarianism and Universalism and secular relativism will reign, where ‘ere the sun….

Watch go the game to begin.  Look for a new election of the same man and having it go to GC.  Remember it is GC which gave us VGR.

Scott, I don’t think that’s likely to happen. For one thing, the period for closing of consents is after General Convention. So Forrester would have to withdraw, a convention called and the reelection held before General Convention—which is about six weeks off.

The more likely senario is simply to let the consent period run out (with a lot of pressure on liberal to moderate bishops and standing committees to change their minds and consent), and if the necessary consents are not forthcoming, another election quickly held, Forrester reelected and quickly and quietly confirmed—a la Mark Lawrence—on the grounds that he’s the diocese’s choice and everyone is entitled to their choice (unless it be a young Akerman, Duncan, Iker, Schofield, Wantland, etc.),

Ken,

A flat out do-over vote, with only one candidate and the same old arguments, is unlikely, I think.

You have to ask yourself 1.) “Why did these standing committees and bishops vote no in the first place?” Once you know the answer to that question, you can proceed to question 2.) What new arguments or procedural changes could be made that would convince standing committees to switch from “no” to “yes”?

The objections at this point are (in this order) liturgy, theology and process. The answers thus far are: 1.) The liturgical innovations were authorized by our bishop; 2.) The theological teachings echo the wisdom of the desert fathers and are more faithful to primitive Christianity than today’s current theology; and 3.) It’s not a violation of canon law to have an election with only one candidate.  These arguments aren’t swaying the majority, but each diocese has its own reasons for voting no. To win a do-over vote, new arguments will have to be made or new concessions will have to be granted.

PROCESS
For some standing committees, who are concerned primarily about the process, simply having a new election with two or three candidates for bishop would be enough to win them over. Holding an election with only one candidate (as suggested by earlier poster) exacerbates this problem and would be a poke in the eye to these standing committees. If there’s a new election, and Kevin Thew Forrester is on the ballot, I would expect that there’ll be at least one other candidate in the running.

THEOLOGY
I’m not sure what Thew Forester could do to win over folks who believe his theology contradicts 2,000 years of Christian teaching.  He’s put forward a lengthy defense of his theology in recent weeks. Either his argument will sway people or it won’t. In narrowly divided standing committees, it might be enough to shift a 4-3 no vote to a 4-3 yes vote, but it won’t satisfy standing committees where the vote is 7-0 no.

LITURGY
Thew Forrester could solemnly pledge that he’ll engage in no further liturgical exploration. He could announce he “now realizes” that such innovations—even when authorized by a bishop—can strain the bonds of affection, etc. An apology and a pledge to tow the line might satisfy a few more people on the fence.

If there’s a do-over election, here’s another intriguing scenario—there are two candidates, one of them is Thew Forrester.
Rise Thew Forreser, to be precise.
If Rise Thew Forrester got elected, assuming she has no long troublesome paper trail, she might very well get consent—especially if she was chosen from a group of two or three candidates.

I’m sorry but where did this claim that his changes were authorized by a bishop come from?  He made the vast majority of these changes after Jim Kelsey was killed.  I can tell you that he did NOT bring them to the standing committee for approval.  In fact, he hid behind the Ministry Support Team in order to convince a skeptical congregation that this was not simply his doing.

He has also failed to make the promise to toe the line in the 1 to 1 conversations he’s had with the many bishops who have contacted him.  He firmly believes he is in the right liturgically and his way will “save the church.”  I can guarantee that he will be making no such promises.

I do fear that TJMcMahon is correct in that they will simply put forth another election with Charlie Piper or Manuel Padilla as the candidates and choose one of them and KTF will remain a key player on the Episcopal Ministry Support Team and continue to push his severely revisionist theology.

If they are forced to accept an “outsider” as bishop, at least one of the missioners will need to go as the diocese cannot afford a bishop on top of the current crew of missioners.

112, That would make interesting dinner conversation at the Forrester house.
Perhaps if he is elected a second time, he will promise not to rewrite the BCP. That was a major point for many of these bishops. However, it has been interesting in seeing who has voted ‘no’. The ‘yes’ votes were not surprising, as some ‘no’ votes as well.

renz

You’re so right about the “affordability” of electing a bishop from outside the Diocese. Manual Padilla told a Senior Warden who then related to me that this was a major factor in staying with the gang of four residing within the Diocese, i.e., Padilla, Ray, Piper and Forrester. One of the four would find himself unemployed if a bishop from the outside were elected. Little wonder their self-interests in continued employment were of major significance when they saw to it committees were packed with KGTF supporters.

Currently there is only one congregation with an ASA of more than thirty, St. Paul’s in Marquette. They ran a deficit the first quarter of this year. Trinity in Houghton used to have an ASA in the fifties, it’s now down to an ASA of seven. I don’t know how much is expected of Trinity for support of the Diocese but seven people will be hard pressed to even pay the light bill there. One has to assume they’ll be dipping into endowment funds to even keep the doors open. St. James in the Soo has told the Diocese to expect no more than $10,000 of the $27,000 they want. They are also using endowment funds to balance their budget since they have an ASA of about twenty.

It’s debatable just how long this Diocese can exist. Reliance on endowment funds will increase where they are available thus depleting principle of the endowments. How long this can continue is unknown but it’s sure to accelerate. Couple that with decreasing pledge and plate offerings and it is apparent missionary status may be the only solution.

HEY! (as in Yo!) New Jersey said No. That looks big to me.
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-new-jersey-says-no-to-thew-forrester

Sorry—I put this on the wrong thread. Anyhow, if you will compare Biblebeltblogger, there are several updates you could make.

I don’t think a redo would work in this case.  The Bishop Lawrence election was a lot closer, and the deciding “yea” votes were dismissed because of a technicality.  This is a pretty clear 3:1 no vote.

The New York standing committee must think itself pretty special, not following the rules of alphabetical order and all. Or are they just being polite by letting the “North” dioceses go first?

#112
portland109philadelphia107

See my #115 post. Northern Michigan doesn’t have the money to go outside the four current missioners for a bishop. True, they could put forth Rise as their choice but then one of the current missioners would have to hit the bricks and look for employment. I suspect the four would quickly narrow to three candidates for lay-off and KGTF would not be among them. Then again, Piper’s wife chairs the Standing Comm. so if I were Padilla or Ray I’d really be getting nervous.

#110—You have nailed it!

Greg—New at BBB—Hawaii, Quincy stand.comms.—both No

http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-hawaii-votes-no-on-thew-forrester

Europe, Puerto Rico and Eastern Michigan seem to be missing.Time for another update!

That makes the Standing Committees yes - 49, no 25 according to the biblebeltblogger.

Backwards martin5

I made the mistake of listing Europe as one of the Standing Committees waiting to hear from.  The Convocation is not a diocese, and thus they have no Standing Committee, but a Council of Advice.  There is a bishop of jurisdiction, the Presiding Bishop, and so Bp Jefferts Schori has the opportunity to give or withhold consent on bishops-elect.  Otherwise Bishop Whalon as Suffragan or Assisting bishop is the bishop in charge of the convocation (and is the first Convocation bishop elected by the Convocation itself).
So count Europe as a bishop vote, but don’t count Europe for a S.C. vote.

But Rob—Biblebeltblogger has it from Bp. Whalon that the Council of Advice did vote and withheld consent.

http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-europe-puerto-rico-no-e-michigan-yes

Pre-weekend speculation: Bishops don’t have to wait for anything to vote and announce. For the Bishops’ count to be a total of 51 means a bunch of the usual liberal suspects are hanging back, maybe testing the winds, and letting the Standing Committees carry the water.

I would expect some liberal flag-wavers to be out front saying this guy is within the bounds of whatever, but they are not.

Unfortunately we will be made to wait until the drop-deadline unless Forrester pulls the plug.

Gator,
My mistake.  The Convocation has been written into the Canons specifically and intentionally to whit:

Title III, Canon 5, Section 1
(b) The Council of Advice of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, and the board appointed by a Bishop having jurisdiction in an Area Mission in accordance with the provisions of Canon I.11.2(c), shall, for the purpose of this and other Canons of Title III have the same powers as the Standing Committee of a Diocese.

Title III contains all the instructions re: election of bishops.  So this canon is applicable to the consent process.
I had “Europe” up on my list of dioceses until just yesterday and then took it down because I decided since they are not a diocese the S.C. couldn’t vote.  Should have just let it alone.

Greg,

Thanks for bumping the Forrester tally to the top again, with this latest update.  With the number of standing committees voting NO now having hit the 50 mark, it appears that the end is finally in sight.  But as TJ and others have rightly noted, it’s not over til it’s over.

I especially appreciate infrequent SF commenters from within the Diocese of N. Michigan who’ve contributed their insider perspective to this long thread, such as ruauper2 (#115) and renzinthewoods (#113) [of course I also appreciate TJ’s remarks but he’s a frequent commenter].  Many of us know that N. Mich is a very small diocese, but just how teeny tiny it is still comes as something of a shock.  That there is a diocese in TEC with only four fulltime priests, and only ONE congregation with an ASA of more than 30 people is astounding.  Along with the tiny rump dioceses that now exist in places like San Joaquin or Quincy, it would appear that TEC is overdue for some redistricting, with several small dioceses that simply aren’t viable being absorbed into nearby larger ones.

After the lawsuits are settled, of course.  For that’s really the only reason for the rump dioceses to exist anyway.

David Handy+

I think the fat lady can start to sing now.

I think the fat lady can start to sing now.

HO-JO-TO-HO!
http://www.historicopera.com/jbrunnhilde_page.htm

David Virtue, who has a different tally, is calling it over. I hope he’s right on this one.

Do not tune up the orchestra yet. We need six more and there are only six predictable No votes among the unannounced. Then, expect the PB to leave the process open until the deadline to put the heat on the meanies.

Unless quite a convincing number of predictable yes votes still unannounced (there are 29 of them) switch to no and convince Thew Forrester that he really shouldn’t push this, keep the full-figured female singer in her dressing room.

Oh, and, contact one or two members of YOUR Standing Committee today. Ask them if they have voted; ask them if they have read KGTF’s last document—sent to Standing Committees—Approaching the Heart of Faith.
http://www.upepiscopal.org/Approaching_the_Heart_of_Faith_042909.pdf

Ask them if they want this guy publishing books with the subtitle: A bishop looks at the divinity of every single human being!

Would you please amend you original post to indicate how many votes from bishops and SCs will prohibit his consecration?  (May not be the same as number to elect.)

Thank you.

#134—look at the top right above the colored boxes with the tally. Presumably the same number will block as might approve: 50 & 56. Los Angeles may just have sealed his fate.

A very interesting observation David Handy (post #129) that NM is such a small diocese in terms of both clergy numbers, ASA and geographical area. It is a ludicrous situation and begs the question why on earth does ECUSA have such small dioceses compared with say, Nigeria, or Australia? Perhaps it is to stack the numbers of North American bishops at Lambeth so ECUSA fights well above its weight. How many other tiny dioceses are there in ECUSA that will eventually be merged into larger ones as endowment funds run out?

Thanks, Gator, but I don’t see your point.  How many total dioceses that can vote are there?

#137—I believe we are working with 110 dioceses and 100 bishops with jurisdiction.

Note on the L.A. thread gives Columbia, S.A.—No from bishop and standing comm.
http://www.biblebeltblogger.com/

Some of the dioceses made more sense in the 19th century, in terms of the difficulty of travel, than they do now.  An example would be Quincy and Springfield, which are separated by the Illinois River.  And that would have been even more true of Northern Michigan, since it is the Upper Peninsula of that state.

Any thoughts on why some standing committees consented when their bishops didn’t? Is that unusual?

And OT, but has anyone heard who the 10 candidates are who are being reviewed by the DioGA search committee?

What are the chances of Forrester getting put back up after getting denied?

TLDillon, I wondered that to. What if he promised to not rewrite the BCP? That seems to be a sore spot for some of these bishops.

Martin5, there are probably enough confused bishops to buy that. But one must wonder what Forrester’s promises are actually worth, considering that he promised when ordained priest to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church and to abide by its Constitution and Canons. On the other hand, it would appear that there a a number of bishops who have violated their ordination promises.

(Not to mention the first baptismal promise to follow the apostles’ teaching.)

If he promised to not rewrite the BCP he would probably lose as many votes as he gains.  Remember some have a problem with that whole Matrimony being between a man and a women thing, and that is clearly written in the BCP.

The reappraisers voting against him for changing the BCP are only objecting to the parts of the BCP that he changed, other parts are considered offense and in need of change.  Just watch the next few Conventions and see how much of the BCP is changed or overuled.

At the last meeting I attended before going on leave, he made it very clear that he could not tolerate a straightforward use of the BCP as written.  I don’t feel comfortable revealing the specifics of what he said, but I was very surprised that an ordained priest in TEC would feel that strongly against the approved liturgical texts of the denomination.  When I suggested that he share that with the congregation, especially those who were believing the empty promises that we would revert back to BCP with each coming liturgical season, he said that would be manipulative.  When I suggested that he come clean with the congregation and tell them we would never be returning to a straightforward use of the BCP, he said that you can’t really ever say never.

Then when you read some of the comments by bishops who have contacted him to question, he still has made it fairly clear that he has no intention of stopping his liturgical agenda.

I am so happy to see the significant number of folks who have said NO.  I know I’m just a sorry liberal and that some of you will read all kinds of doom and gloom into even the defeat of this candidacy, but I am hoping against hope that this diocese will find a way to head back towards the middle way.  That may not be enough for TJMcMahon - I know - but it’s a start.  I’m not sure the damage can be undone.  But I remain hopeful.  Something that didn’t seem possible a few months ago, appears about to happen.

Something that didn’t seem possible a few months ago, appears about to happen.

Not a bad sign off for the Eve of Pentecost, Renz!  May we all be surprised by the Spirit in coming days.

#146, renzinthewoods, I suspect, as has been said above, that his attitude towards the BCP may have done him in. Even Spong didn’t abandon the BCP prior to being enbishopped. The two things that are typically mentioned as binding us together as Episcopalians these days are the baptismal covenant and the BCP.

Renzinthewoods,
If (when) he is denied consent, then I will see hope in your diocese. Perhaps a light can shine in the darkness. The diocese might be better off joining with a larger one to pool resources. The diocese is facing issues that many of the smaller (and some bigger ones)dioceses are facing. I am sorry that an elected bishop was denied consent, but in this case he is the wrong person. We learned a great about the bishops and the standing committees in TEC with this exercise.
I would rather see the glass half full, then half empty.

[146] Posted by renzinthewoods

I am hoping against hope that this diocese will find a way to head back towards the middle way.

“Middle”, between what and what?

Shouldn’t you want your diocese to find it’s way back to the true way?

For anyone that wants to understand what it has meant to be an Episcopalian and part the Diocese since the 1800’s try this link: http://upepiscopal.org/history1.html

Its a long article but an interesting one. Sadly it ends in 1995 but the direction of the Diocese and who set it in motion is pretty clear. The portion about Bishop Page, Jr. is especially interesting as is how his successors set the stage for the current choas we are now facing.

JustOneVoice - The concept of the middle way, the way held in tension between opposing viewpoints is part of what has attracted me to the Epicopal Church - it is very much a part of our tradition - developing with Elizabeth trying to balance the church between the Puritans and the Anglo-Catholics.

That said, IMHO, which differs from TJMcMahon a bit here, many of you confuse Kevin’s St. Paul’s with the rest of the diocese.  The other church he was missioner to - St. John’s in Negaunee politely told him “No, thankyou” when he tried to foist his new improved liturgy booklets on them.  I butted heads with a deacon friend of mine at church camp because her little congregation is much more formal in the eucharist traditions than I was taught to be at St. Paul’s.  It was a real eye opener.

On the other big issues of the day, the body of this diocese may tilt liberal (the leadership certainly tilts that way) but we retain a rather wide perspective amongst those who sit in the pews.

So, JustOneVoice, when I say that we would return to the middle way - I was speaking more in terms of our leadership.  It’s very upsetting to think of this diocese being turned into KTF’s own personal carnival ride where he can play at cutting edge theologian to the detriment of much of the salt of the earth members of this church of here, many of them cradle episcopalians.

I was speaking more in terms of our leadership. It’s very upsetting to think of this diocese being turned into KTF’s own personal carnival ride where he can play at cutting edge theologian to the detriment of much of the salt of the earth members of this church of here, many of them cradle episcopalians.

I believe that that is what the i>“middle way”</i> creates. Eventually someone is going to push their own carnival ride onto the church and I’d say it has happened by the leadership that TEc has now. Which is moderate to left…very far left. Too much middle and not enough Right in the Truth is a disaster waiting to happen and it has!

That may not be enough for TJMcMahon - I know - but it’s a start.

That said, IMHO, which differs from TJMcMahon a bit here, many of you confuse Kevin’s St. Paul’s with the rest of the diocese.

Renz,
With all due respect, I can speak for myself. Some of what I have to say may sound harsh, but it is not meant as a criticism of you personally, nor of the average “piskie in the pews” of the diocese.  However, truth be told, I have gotten kind of tired from hearing from those who see all manner of problems in the diocese, and expect ME to do something about them (I am sure you get a lot of this too- maybe more- as you are closer to the center of what is happening).
I have never confused St. Paul’s with the rest of the diocese.  However, the rest of the diocese permits, encourages, accepts what goes on at St. Paul’s.  It is because Rev. Forrester is ministry developer here (Eastern Region) that Creeds are referred to as optional, and baptism is no longer required for Communion.  The entire diocesan leadership- ministry developers, core team and standing committee- have signed documents denying the Creeds and stating that communion of the unbaptized is the required Christian practice.  There is no way on earth that there is any “middle way” here unless they repent or are removed from office- they are in direct violation of a half dozen canons, and have defiled the sacraments of the Church.
  Of course, since Anglo Catholicism is now a presentable offense in TEC, I will soon be getting on my ship out of the Gray Havens, having fought what is probably my last fight in this church.  As will any other traditional Episcopalian in this diocese.  My opposition to Forrester was never really about restoring the Church in this diocese, it was in hopes of stopping the hemorrhaging, and perhaps allowing a few people to die in peace with their last mass said from the prayer book and not some make it up as you go along interfaith univeralism.  There is no will among the powers that be in TEC to clean up the mess they made here.  In fact, it remains evident that this is yet another part of the experiment they have been carrying on.  The only rational way to proceed that I can see would be to put the western part of the diocese under a suffragan from Minnesota (not that that would solve any theological problems, but at least makes sense administratively), and the eastern part under a suffragan from Fon du Lac.  But I suspect the latter is not in much better shape financially.  It will take real bishops and real priests to put this back together, and I just cannot see TEC expending the kind of capital it will take to make that happen.  The mutual ministry fiasco alone (what do you do when 20% of the ASA has been ordained and holy orders made meaningless?) will take a generation to straighten out.
  To restore the “middle way” would mean deposing or replacing all the diocesan leadership, refusing Communion to the non-baptised, adherence to the Windsor moratoria, and getting the clergy counts down to one or two per parish- if only so that vestries could be made up of laity.  I have yet to see anyone organizing any kind of post-Forrester clean up the diocese movement, but then, maybe I am so far out of the loop at this point that I don’t know about it.  If you really want to restore the church, time has come to get to work electing some actual Episcopalians to the vestries and diocesan convention so you don’t get an 88% affirmation vote for the next hyper-revisionist imposed by a “discernment team.”

Wow—reading through Renz’s description of KTF’s mode of pushing his agenda, I’m thinking that NH’s Simple Country Bishop may be soon realize that his own drive for change could be surpassed.

Greg,

Frank Lockwood is reporting that the Colorado Standing Committee has denied consent to Forrester’s election.  Another nail in the coffin.  So that’s 53 SCs that have voted NO.

David Handy+

#154 My apologies, TJMcMahon - thank you for speaking for yourself and demonstrating what I meant.  Your dissatisfaction with the diocese predates the whole KTF fiasco.  You have often talked about the liberal nature of the diocese, the mutual ministry model, etc.  I’m sorry I didn’t do a better job of expressing myself to that effect.

I know you are particularly disturbed by the number of “ordained” folk in the Mutual Ministry model.  However, restricting the team to 1-2 UNPAID ordained folk expected to shoulder the burden of congregational responsibilities is a bit unreasonable so more are ordained to share the burden.  Of course, if we had the money to pay clergy we wouldn’t need the mutual ministry teams in the first place.

#153 Dillon, it seems to me that if one rejects the concept of a middle way one may as well revert to Roman Catholocism where the orthodoxy is fed from the top down, no questions asked or allowed.  That is not to suggest that the huge swing to the left occurring is an appropriate model for the middle way.  The more that either side moves towards a “one true way” concept the more divisiveness occurs, the more dioceses vote to leave, the more battles over property etc.

The episcopal leadership of the church needs to significantly improve its “middle way” thinking.  Both sides seem to feel that it’s their way or the highway.  My participation at this blog is driven by a desire to hear the full scope of thought on the issues - not to huddle in some self-congratulatory corner with like minded individuals constantly scolding the other side and clucking in approval.

The only difference between the standing committee list at biblebeltblogger.com and at standfirminfaith.com is that BBB lists Northwest Pennsylvania’s standing committee as voting ‘no.’ This is based on postings at upepiscopal.org (the diocese of Northern Michigan) and at stpmqt.org—the bishop-elect’s church.

#153 Dillon, it seems to me that if one rejects the concept of a middle way one may as well revert to Roman Catholocism where the orthodoxy is fed from the top down, no questions asked or allowed.

The Anglican via media</b> between Roman Catholicism and Geneva Calvinism isn’t the same thing as a <i>via media between traditional Anglican high and low church and unitarian universalism. The Anglican via media wasn’t primarily a matter of “top down” versus “bottom up” doctrine, discipline and worship. (Not to mention that the “Elizabethan Settlement” was pretty much “top down.”)

#32
Father Rob

Is it not true that Thew Forrester was a candidate for election as Bishop of the Diocese of Oregon in the last such election?

For those who would like to understand what life has been like in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan try
http://upepiscopal.org/history1.html

Unfortunately the document only carries you to 1995 but therein you will find the beginning seeds of what has now brought this Diocese to its knees. Just remember us Yoopers have gone through this before so Genpo and friends will be long gone from the scene before us Yooperes bow to the whims of MM.

So are we only 3 SC votes away from this thing going away? There doesn’t have to be a majority of both Bishops and SCs, right?

Already Left - He has to achieve a majority of eligible votes in each category, so either group could sink the nomination.
By our estimation he is 4 SC votes away from the end. (cue the dramatic music)  HOWEVER…
I find it hard to believe that there isn’t behind the scenes arm twisting on going at this point to determine if there are Standing Committees out there where the vote can be changed.  None of these votes are locked in - they are all open to change and flip flops up until the cut off date.  If, as many suspect, the Presiding Bishop and crew, are in support of this choice, I would expect an increase in the pressure to begin as that number approaches the cut off.  I agree that many bishops are hiding in their offices, hoping to not have to vote publicly on this.  Personally I think that on the cutoff day all votes should be published and the non-voting bishops get their name listed in the “no” category, which is how they would be counted anyway.

ru,
Oregon, no.
Eastern Oregon, yes, on the slate for the second of the two episcopal elections held that year.
I’ve sent you a PM.

Our friend from the Bible Belt is reporting standing committees of Easton as a yes, and North Dakota as a no.  That would make it 26-54.

BibleBeltBlogger also reported Alaska’s Standing Committee as ‘yes’ and has listed for a while that the Northwestern Pennsylvania Standing Committee voted ‘no’.  Unless there is a change in some of the ‘no’ votes it appears that KGTF is not going to receive the consents he needs to be the next bishop of Northern Michigan.

Can this thread be made ‘sticky’ again so searching for it isn’t necessary?  Thanks!

Thanks, TJ (#164),

With ND’s standing committee denying consent, according to Lockwood’s reliable count, that’s 54 SC’s that have voted NO on Forrester. 

And as Lockwood aptly pointed out, with 81 SC’s having declared themselves, and only 29 remaining pending or their votes still unknown, the heretical bishop elect would need to get consent from ALL 29 of those SCs we haven’t heard from yet.  Obviously, that’s extremely unlikely.

And FWIW, I second Michelle’s request that the Forrester Tally be made sticky again for a while.  It’s getting hard to find.

David Handy+

I think the problem on NW Penn is that while a priest wrote to them objecting to their voting against Forrester, there is no actual statement from the SC that they did, and/or, that the priest’s letter did not get them to reverse course.

Since Rev. Forrester has not withdrawn, we can only assume one of a couple things.  A) The actual official votes in at Marquette and 815 are not reflective of what we see on the blogs or B) that almost all the unaccounted for votes are “yes” (making the consent process at least close) and that the political folks at 815 still think they can get a few bishops and SCs to change their minds.

What we can be sure of is that sufficient consents have not been received to consecrate Rev. Forrester.  If that were to happen, 815 would call the election immediately, before anyone had a change of heart.

David+,
Thanks for the kind words and support throughout this effort.  As a matter of math, I think that because Europe gets a vote, there are actually 111 Standing Committees or equivalents (I think Europe and maybe some of the Latin American dioceses use another term with with different structures).  So he could theoretically win 56-55, which would require all but 1 of the remaining votes.  On the other hand, maybe there are only 109 dioceses.  Truth be told, I’ve lost track.  If it meant Rev. Forrester would win, I would not be surprised if KJS let Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela and the ELCA have a vote, too, and maybe some UU jurisdictions.

There is nothing preventing her from un-recognizing a standing committee and replacing it with her own.  She has done it before.

#169 JustOneVoice…....And She’ll Do It Again!

First of all, thanks for the sticky comments, I thought I was losing my mind or going blind…

My guess is that they still don’t want this going to convention so they wait it out until convention is past and then have another special election where the other missioners are all nominated and voted on - one is selected and KTF continues in his role as Diocesan Ministry Developer/Missioner.  As I have said, they can’t afford a bishop without one of them losing their jobs.  The Episcopal Ministry Support Team is already meeting and moving forward as if all this is a done deal.  Just received the latest Hiawathaland with my Episcopal Life and after last month’s foot stamping “journalistic” tantrum (edited by KTF’s wife mind you), all they had to say this month (without a byline) is this:  “CONSENT PROCESS FOR BISHOP-ELECT CONTINUES  Bishops and Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church have until late July to decide whether they will give their consent to ordaining Kevin Thew Forrester as bishop of the Diocese of Northern Michigan.
  Information on the discernment process, essays by Kevin Thew Forrester on various issues that have been raised, and statements from the Standing Committee of this diocese, are available on the diocesan website, http://www.upepiscopal.org.
  The Episcopal Ministry Support Team, which was affirmed as the February election, has begun meeting, working on forming themselves as a team.”

I would also note that well over one whole page of the four page “paper” (edited by KTF’s wife) is devoted to an article entitled Common Law Saints:  Real Life in Communion.  “The author of this article is one of the founders of St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco, known for its worship that draws on early eastern traditions of Christianity…”  It is written by Donald Schell and the article is apparently available at Episcopal Cafe.  Surprise! Surprise!  It appears the gyst of the article is to discuss how important it has been for folks to revise the liturgy over the years! (among other things)

Greg,
You gotta get caught up.  BBB is now also listing NW Texas standing committee as a no.  By his count, that makes 55.  And apparently I was correct above, 110 dioceses plus convocation in Europe for a total of 111. 

Or are you just waiting for #56?  Actually, you’d think somebody would call in to you and Frank Lockwood just to get the publicity.

St. Gregory of Nyssa is hardly a “mainstream” church as I recall.  All of the trappings, none of the theology.

They will keep doing what they are doing here until somebody stops them. I don’t see that someone being KJS.

<a >http://tinyurl.com/qxyo7u</a>
If I did that right, it should take you to the text of the article put forth in this month’s Hiawathaland as a justification for breaking the rules. ::big sigh::

Guess this thread isn’t as important as Man “Bites” Dog

renzinthewoods and tjmcmahon,
Here is some information about All Saints Company started by the priests (now retired to work on All SAints Company full time) at St. Gregory of Nyssa.

http://www.allsaintscompany.org/resources/C13/

Martin-
It seems the #1 and #2 guys at the All Saints Co. and St. Gregory’s are these guys, who would fit right in with Rev. Forrester.

(from the “resources” page at the site you listed)

Baptizing Those Already Welcomed to Jesus’ Table - by Donald Schell
With no in-group, what is our theology of baptism?

First The Table, Then The Font - by Rick Fabian
“How can we tell people today about Christ, yet keep his table fellowship in a way he distinctly refused to do?”

I don’t know much, but I know THAT was not the way they did it in the ancient church.  These “theologians” (much more charitable than the word I originally chose) who can’t seem to draw the distinction between Jesus sitting down for lunch with whoever was around, and Jesus inviting a select group of his disciples to join him for the Last Supper are really starting to annoy me.

Now you understand why Bishop Andrus gave his consent to Forrester. Changing the liturgy is happening in his own diocese.

Strictly speaking, in the Eastern Orthodox service there comes a point where the catechumens (people studying to be baptized,and this would include other unbaptized people) are instructed to leave.  They are not even supposed to be present in the sanctuary when communion is given.  I am not sure how well this is enforced as I never saw anyone actually removed from the service.  (I was raised in the Russian Orthodox Church.)  But I am sure that the priest would never give communion to anyone who was not a baptized Orthodox person.  Other Christian denominations do not even cut it.

I believe that the Orthodox are closest to the early church which was closest to the time of Christ and would have a better idea of how He might want things done, so Donald and Rick referenced in #177 have to be WAY off in their knowledge of church history.  But I think that some of the blame has to go to the folks in the pews.  They do not do THEIR homework.  They should be able to say as much as TJM does:

I don’t know much, but I know THAT was not the way they did it in the ancient church.  These “theologians” (much more charitable than the word I originally chose) ... can’t seem to draw the distinction between Jesus sitting down for lunch with whoever was around, and Jesus inviting a select group of his disciples to join him for the Last Supper…

just by reading some scripture.  If the folks had been scripturally literate all these years surely Spong et al. would not have been accepted.  Even if they were not reading and studying at home, the readings in the services should provide that much information.  What are they doing during the scripture readings?  Now I have gotten myself depressed.  What are these people doing in the churches?  Waiting for coffee hour?

It will be interesting to see what will happen when we cross the threshold of enough NO votes to deny consent by standing committees as we are so close to doing.

Will there be a no-holds-barred counter attack and bid to change votes from 815 and the Dio. N. Michigan?

Will remaining dioceses (I’m thinking of SE Florida which hasn’t even scheduled a vote, to my knowledge) bother to vote or will they be “off the hook”?

Will Forrester withdraw with grace or will this play out to the bitter end?

My personal guess is that 815 sees the writing on the wall.  When you’ve got bishops like +Bruno voting against Forrester, that’s that.  I don’t think 815 will want to force this issue publicly.  There have been quite a few powerful statements by bishops outlining their reasons for voting NO but virtually NONE taking a strong stand for voting YES. 

I also predict a lot of the remaining dioceses and bishops will not bother to vote, or at least will not make their vote public.  Why bother?  Let other dioceses do the hard work without having to rile feathers one way or the other in their diocese.

Prayers for the parishioners of N. Michigan that God will strengthen them in the midst of continued turmoil and being without a shepherd for the foreseeable future as this all plays out.

Karen, thanks for your prayers, any one “not bothering” will be registered as a “no” vote…so technically you can’t avoid this one.
If he does not step aside, I believe it is because they will want to be certain that convention is behind them, giving them a free hand to “stage” another “election” in which the remaining crew of missioners will be nominated and voted on by special convention.  This will publicly put forward an episcopal candidate without the paper trail that KTF drags behind him and will allow KTF to continue sadly as Ministry Developer for the Diocese.  As they weren’t planning on paying the bishop any different than the missioners, he won’t lose out on compensation, just the glamour of episcopal travel to the meetings.  It will be more difficult than to withhold consent.  At least that is my prediction after thinking about much of what TJMcMahon has had to say.

Greg,
I think you have some catching up to do with Bible Belt Blogger.  He is currently listing 55 noes. 

Old Lady

What are these people doing in the churches?  Waiting for coffee hour?

The most frequent reason given, in my experience, for a preference for Rite II over Rite I is that Rite II is shorter.  Most people I know prefer the language of Rite I, because it “sounds more like church,” but the extra few minutes delays access to the coffee and danish. I’ve also heard progressives complain about the latest revision of the Lectionary.  Although they like the fact that many of the passages of Scripture they do not like have been omitted, the selections are often longer, between the 3 readings delaying coffee hour by as much as 5 minutes.

tjmcmahon (#182)
It’s not coffee hour that is the problem.  The problem is that we need to get to the restaurants before the Baptists or Lutherans or Roman Catholics (based on your geographical area) do!

During football season in Dallas (liturgical colors blue and silver), we need to get home before kickoff! (Grin)  If you think I am joking, we see a spike in 8:00 attendance and a corresponding drop in 10:00 attendance on Sundays with a 12:00 kickoff!

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

According to BibleBeltBlogger the Diocese of Bethlehem’s Standing Committee has withheld consent.

Episcopal Cafe is announcing the defeat of KTF with the Standind Committee vote of Bethlehem tonight as the 56th SC NO Vote.

It ain’t over till it’s over.  Any of the standing committees can change their votes until the deadline which is when?  July I think?  If another 10 or 15 withhold consent, maybe I will believe it.  Otherwise 815 still has time to “chit chat” with bishops and standing committees.

Old Lady - I wasn’t suggesting we breathe a sigh of relief.  Just think it’s interesting that Episcopal Cafe was quick on the draw following Biblebelt’s Post…that’s all.  It isn’t the fat lady, but it is a vocal blog in support of KTF.  Or is this a signal? Hmmmmmmm.  If members of Standing Committees start to disappear, we’ll know that a plot is afoot, eh? 

Well, renzinthewoods, you can never tell what 815 will do.  Perhaps we should keep an eye on the members of the standing committees…just in case.  (winky face)

A majority—56 of 111—Episcopal Church standing committees have now voted to withhold consent, biblebeltblogger.com reports.

Anyone out there know how Biship Jeff Lee of Chicago is voting?  Chicago’s Standing Committee voted yes some time ago—no surprise there. As a parishioner of an Orthodox parish in the Chicago diocese, one of the most liberal dioceses in the country, I’m interested in seeing where Lee will fall on this one…

Take a look at ELO! He’s “steeped in orthodoxy” and is a bona fide mystic. Who’d a thunk it?

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_109244_ENG_HTM.htm

Oh, wait a second. The actual quote is that he is “steeped in the orthodox tradition and deeply rooted particularly in the desert wisdom of Christianity and in the fathers and mothers of the early church as well as the medieval mystics” and is “thoroughly grounded in the tradition.”

Then we’ve got:

The Rev. Canon Charles Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop, told ENS that the consent process for a bishop-elect lasts the full 120 days as prescribed by the canons of the church, unless that person receives the required majority of consents before the period is over, at which time an announcement can be made. Until the required number of consents is received, or the 120 day period ends, bishops and standing committees are able to change their vote, he said.

It goes on and on. Pop some corn, get out a beer. Good reading.

So 187 and 188,
What do you think 815 might offer the Standing Committees? We have not heard from too many bishops either? Hmmm the plot or plan thickens…...

#191 - All in all not a bad article.  I regret that it put’s to paper two things that I believe to be false.  It repeats the assertion that these changes were done with some form of tacit approval of Bp Jim Kelsey.  The bulk of the liturgical changes and sermons etc occurred AFTER Jim Kelsey’s death.

Secondly it repeats his false assertion that these were trial liturgies and experiments.  He made it very clear to me in the final meeting I attended that he had no intention of returning to a straightforward use of the BCP, essentially indicating that if we (the liturgy planning group) pushed for a return to straightforward Rite II for say the season of Lent (this was last fall) that he would not be able to bring his family to those services.  That doesn’t sound like trial liturgies etc. to me.  And I really can’t tolerate his b.s. about “upholding the BCP.”  That’s just some of his slick New Age semantics.  What exactly does it mean to uphold it?  It sure doesn’t mean to USE it.

WELL, martin5, 815 MIGHT offer to let them continue in office if they vote rightly (or leftly if you or she prefer).  Ms. Kate has been known to depose whole standing committees and bishops before, you know.

[193] Posted by renzinthewoods

Renz

To add to the fire KTF claimed he and the standing committee had always been open in their dealings with anyone that wanted to discuss the issues.

Back when I was one of the chosen few allowed to enter the hallowed halls of UPCHAT Manual Padilla, one of the missioners and Tom Lippert, retired priest and spouse of the standing committee chair there made, without my permission, inquiries about me: where I had attended church, what my financial contributions were, when and for how long I’d been a member of the Diocese and with the help of a senior warden they got the information and then published it on UPCHAT. I took exception to their remarks and said so in very plain, unvarnished language on UPCHAT. Silence followed, no more emails from UPCHAT, my inquiries directed to UPCHAT and the Diocese as to why the silence have gone unanswered. So much for respect of thy fellow man or sharing of information.

Over the past two years KTF has shown himself to be a big control freak when it involves negative press.  I had accidentally started up a cyber friendship with an individual who, as it happens, had been involved in a major dispute with the diocese.  (you know I think this might be off topic so I’ll keep it brief)  Bottom line when word got to KTF I was ordered to stop all communication with this individual.  Also, accidentally sent to all of UPCHAT the comment that I was not happy with the way mutual ministry was playing out at St. Paul’s.
Got a big hand slap for that mistake - apparently I should have come to them (read HIM) rather than seeking out my diaconal mentor.
In it’s shrinking and diminished size there isn’t a large enough diocesan staff to make certain things function appropriately.  So we’ve gotten a leadership made up of four 1/2 missioners and an incestuous Standing Committee - 2 1/2 of the 4 1/2 are “players,” one is ready for retirement and the other is off in his own world.

It looks like we now have firm dates for the end of the consent process:

Under the canons of the Episcopal Church (III.11.4 (a)) that apply for all episcopal elections, a majority of bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan standing committees must consent to Thew Forrester’s ordination as bishop within 120 days from the day after notice of his election was sent to them. In Thew Forrester’s case, standing committees have until July 19 and bishops with jurisdiction have until July 25.

From the ENS article here:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_109244_ENG_HTM.htm

which also notes that Forrester plans to wait out the full 120 day process.

The same article also gives clarification on the required majorities:

Fifty-six diocesan standing committees and 52 bishops with jurisdiction must give their consents for Thew Forrester to be ordained. The lesser number of bishops is due to the fact that some diocesan sees are vacant or currently filled by assisting bishops who are not eligible to vote.

It is interesting that they cite 52 bishops needed. I’d thought the count was only 50 or at most 51 bishops needed. 

By my count there are 9 vacant Sees (Alaska, Eastern Oregon, Eau Clair, Navajoland, Northern Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, and Rio Grande). 

So with 9 vacant sees, to get to a total of 102 or 103 bishops with a vote, it seems to suggest that 815 is counting +Gulick as two votes, and also counting the convocation of churches in Europe (+KJS would have that vote).

On one hand, I’m happy to have a higher bar (larger needed majority) for Forrester’s consent even though it looks like he has already lost.  But I worry about how fast and loose TEC is playing with counting bishops with Jurisdiction…

815 is now explaining why it removed a statement promising “transparent governance” from the IAmEpiscopalian.org website.
It wasn’t taken down because supports of transparent governance were citing it in efforts to get information about the Forrester consent process and the secret subcommittee on the theology of same-sex relationships, a spokesman says. Instead, it was taken down so that there’d be space available on the page in the future, when the church plans to add text in French and Spanish.  When this space will be needed and when the new content will be added is unclear. But now the space is available. That explanation isn’t convincing everyone, however. A reader at the Preludium website claims that cutting the pledge hasn’t freed up space because the new text (without the French and Spanish) is as long as the old text (with the transparency pledge.)
BibleBeltBlogger.com has details….

Karen,
I haven’t done the complete research on this, but +Nedi Rivera is being identified as having completed the “bishop with provisional authority” status with Eastern Oregon now.  You would think there might be some stipulation on bishops of jurisdiction “voting” in a consent process that was ongoing prior to their achieving jurisdiction status. 
Still, the point here should be that the Presiding Bishop’s office would make some minor public statement (entirely in-house TECUSA stuff) noting +Nedi’s addition (or non-addition) to the consent process.  Or if +Nedi is not the reason for an additional bishop in the count, then what’s up. 
But the PB does certainly get a vote due to Europe.

Christianity Today has an article on Thew Forrester and Greg is quoted in the article.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/juneweb-only/123-11.0.html?start=2

Greg, is there any reason you’re not updating this tally?

If you’re busy, I understand, but given all the reports by Frank Lockwood and Christianity Today and even ENS linking your blog and this tally, it risks confusing people to have this be so different to what Lockwood is reporting.

To help out, Greg, here is a list of the changes that need to be added:

Lockwoood’s running Std Comm tally is here:
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/standing-committees-41-no-17-yes

Current count:  56 NO, 29 YES

Standing Committee:  NO  = 56
Bethlehem:
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/majority-of-standing-committees-oppose-bishop-elect#more-1270

Northwest PA
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22575/#368725

North Dakota
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-nd-votes-no-on-ktf

NW Texas:
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-nw-texas-wont-consent-to-thew-forrester

Standing Committee:  YES = 29

Alaska
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-nd-votes-no-on-ktf

Eastern Oregon:
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-eastern-oregon-votes-yes-on-bishop-elect

Easton
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-easton-votes-yes-on-ktf

Virgin Islands: 
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-virgin-islands-votes-yes

Tally is updated - thanks, Karen.

martin5 - thanks for the link to CT - I’ve posted it in a thread of its own.

Thaks Greg!

For the record, as I was updating my own spreadsheet re: Standing Committee votes, I compared David Virtue’s count with Lockwood & Stand Firm’s count too.  David has one more NO in the Standing Committees.  (His Yes tally matches). 

He has Navajoland Standing Committee as voting NO.

19 Std Committee votes are unknown (including those who have not voted), while 6 Standing Committees have voted but will not reveal their vote.

Thanks, Greg, for finally updating the tally.  And for keeping it near the top and easy to find.

And thanks, Karen (#198, 202, 203) for providing the summary and links.

David Handy+

Off topic as far as this election is concerned, however the nominees for Bishop of Georgia were just posted. Check it out at http://www.georgiabishopsearch.org

Interesting that the Standing Committee of NY has said no and broken from the Standing Committee of Newark.  What are their respective bishops doing?  I’d read that Mark Sisk (NY) had voted in favor of consent.  Does anyone know?

I have reliable information that +Sisk has quietly voted in favor of consent, something he does not plan to advertise. NY SC voted no, mainly over the baptismal rite editing, but there were also a couple voices with strong objections to KTF’s views on the atonement. Remarkable, for such a revisionist diocese.

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Bethlehem has issued a statement explaining their rationale to the Diocese for not consenting to the election of The Rev. Kevin Thew-Forrester as bishop of Northern Michigan.

http://diobeth.typepad.com/diobeth_newspin/2009/06/standing-committee-why-we-chose-not-to-consent.html

Oh my!  I never ever would have predicted this one!  Diocese of California (as in San Francisco) Standing Committee has voted NO on Forrester. 

http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-california-votes-no-on-bishop-elect#more-1317

There are folks in the diocese however who are not at all happy with that vote and are going to be lobbying them to change it.

Thanks again to Frank Lockwood for his amazing research & perseverance on this story.

Karen,
I am shocked over that one.

+Gulick gets two votes. There is a report in the Living Church that during GC2009 both his dioceses are going to be placed next to each other and that he has two votes.
So that makes 40 bishop votes. I believe this was discussed at some point.
This seems so wrong.

This is REALLY hard to find.  I had to google it to find it.  I like to keep posted on the tally.  If you could put it back near the top it would stay in the minds of people who may be wondering how to vote and also in the minds of those of us who are curious.  Thank you in advance.

With news that the Standing Committee of the Diocese of California has voted NO on Thew Forrester’s consecration, I wonder why, since El Camino Real’s Standing Committee has also voted NO, why have we not heard from their bishop, +Mary Gray Reeves?

Is the consent process over now or did KGTF withdraw?  I’ve not seen any further news on this recently.  Thank you.  Lillian

216-
The “no” votes continue to trickle in.  http://www.biblebeltblogger.com is still keeping up on the totals.  Last one I heard about was the Bishop of Ecuador, who had some choice words for the whole situation (and voted “no”).  The consent period runs about another 30 days, and to date, Rev. Forrester has not conceded.  He is a delegate to GC, so perhaps he envisions some politicking there.  The thinking is that they do not want him to concede at this time, to avoid the convention taking action on the situation.

Lillian,
What TJ said.
Both Northern Michigan Standing Committee and bishop-elect Forrester have stated their intent (it was a public statement) to see the process through to the end (which means they won’t concede).  Otherwise, the process doesn’t end just because they say so.  An official pronouncement will be made at the July date. It will be either “the election is null and void”, or “the election stands.”

Thank you both for the information!  I will look on the other blog for further updates as this forum no longer appears to have interest in that situation.  Lillian

LilFairie,

We’ve done our part. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if it weren’t for us, you’d probably be looking at Bishop Genpo by now.

The Forrester consents - this phase at least - are old news. If they want to pull some shenanigans at GenCon to try and do an end-around, that’ll qualify as fresh hell and we’ll definitely be on top it. Otherwise, Genpo is toast.

Thanks Greg.  I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful and I sincerely hope you did not take it that way.  As a former member of that diocese I like to keep up to date on how this is going to pan out.  And you are so correct about Stand Firm’s role in this election.  I agree that he would have passed through and no one outside the diocese would have a clue what he is up to.  Thank you putting this in the spotlight.

The following is from a recent newsletter published in the Diocese of Northern Michigan. This mess won’t be over until the fat lady signs

EMST UPDATE-MAY 24, 2009
Friends, Yesterday, May 23rd the EMST met in Negaunee for
a shorter than usual session due to schedule conflicts for some. The team spent time in formation in the morning, using a Lifecycles unit as the catalyst for getting to know each other.
Working through the lunch break period, we discussed the
consent process and want to let everyone know that it does NOT appear likely that the majority of Standing Committees and Bishops having jurisdiction will consent to the election of Kevin Thew Forrester as bishop of the Diocese of Northern Michigan. Discouraging though this is we still have an Episcopal Ministry Support Team which was affirmed at the Special onvention in February. The team, working in partnership with the Standing Committee, and other committees of the diocese will develop a plan to move forward and live into our diocesan
vision of Episcopal Ministry as we are able and within the National Canons and the Diocesan Canons.

EPISCOPAL MINISTRY SUPPORT TEAM UPDATE 5/28/09
The Episcopal Ministry Support Team (EMST) has been meeting to begin its work prior to being commissioned in October, 2009.

The several meetings of the team have included a focus
on team formation using Lifecycles ssions,and ‘business’ sessions to set the course by which we will work together in the future.

Some of the things we have been working on: The team has discerned one of two at-large members. We hope to complete filling out the team in the near future.

We are keeping up-to-date on the status of the consent
process for the Bishop-elect/Ministry Developer.

Has there been any change in the number of votes or are they not announcing any more until next week?

July 19 has come and gone.
What is the current status of Thew Forrester’s consent process?

Frank Lockwood of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has been tracking the vote for some time. According to him “official results of that vote have not been revealed by either Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori or the Diocese of Northern Michigan.”

Lockwood is also reporting today that Dio-W. Mass has withheld consent.

Link is here: http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/dio-w-mass-withholds-consent-on-thew-forrester

My suspicion is that 815 is occupied with working out the ramifications of the new triennial budget, and will get to KTF next week.

You can add Bishop Hollerith (So. Virginia) to the “no” column

GL+, where is your information regarding Bishop Hollerith from?  And do you know how the SC for Southern VA voted?  Thanks.

I have been looking for that information also (Bishop Hollerith, sc of s va)

According to Frank Lockwood

The updated unofficial tally:

YES to the election of Thew Forrester: 35
NO to the election of Thew Forrester: 63
UNKNOWN (International dioceses): 5
UNKNOWN (U.S. dioceses): 8

The 120-day voting period for standing committees ended on July 19. Thew Forrester needs to receive 52 YES votes in order to become bishop. The following eight U.S. standing committees are the only ones that haven’t let the people in the pews know how they voted: Connecticut, Lexington, Long Island, Michigan, Rochester, South Dakota, Southern Virginia and Western North Carolina.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm and is filed under Religion.

Marie,
TEC has been very vague since day one on what the closing date is (the diocese told everyone when they started mailing ballots, they did not tell us when they finished, and have been arguing that they have 120 days from the date of the last mailing, whenever that was).  And KJS has been very busy lately, trying to deny that D025 and C056 mean what they mean.
She may also be waiting for a report from her trusty staff as to how many of the standing committee members and bishops who voted against are heretics under the definition she applied at GC.  This might mean that since they were in a state of excommunication (per Nicea, since they are heretics) they were not eligible to vote, and therefore she can throw out the negative votes and declare Forrester the winner based on the majority of a quorum of people who voted the way she wanted them to.  Works to depose a bishop, I don’t see why it couldn’t work to elect one.

Given the fact the consent process for KTF was already heavily in the “No” column the following should be of interest as the Team moved forward.

Episcopal Ministry Support Team Update - 5/28/09

The Episcopal Ministry Support Team (EMST) has begun meeting to begin its work prior to being commissioned in October 2009. The several meetings of the team have included a focus on team formation using LifeCycles sessions, and ‘business’ sessions to set the course by which we will work together in the future. Some of the things we have been working on:
The team has discerned one of two at-large members. We hope to complete filling out the team in the near future.We are keeping up-to-date on the status of the consent process for the Bishop-elect/Ministry Developer.
We are in the process of looking at the traditional and canonical duties of a bishop, and specifically how these have been carried out in the past. This work will continue for weeks to come to determine how the EMST may best carry out episcopal oversight.
The EMST will meet with the Standing Committee and other leaders to look towards planning the EMST commissioning.
What the EMST wants you to know: We are busy working in our everyday ministries in and out of the Church. We worked on the Spring Conference and are part of the on-going functioning of the Diocese. We expect to put out future updates on a quarterly basis, or as needs may arise. We encourage you to check the diocesan website periodically for updates on the consent process at http://www.upepiscopal.org. And we ask for your continued prayers as we journey together.

This circus is far from over