Loading ...ENS reports on bishop-elect’s apparent loss
flockwoodEpiscopal News Service writes about the theological and liturgical objections to the Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester and the bishop-elect’s apparent failure to receive consent from the nation’s 111 standing committees.
I believe today (June 5) is the first day that ENS has written about these theological and liturgical objections, which have been repeatedly raised by church leaders including Bishop of Southern Ohio Thomas E. Breidenthal on March 31(click here), Bishop of Bethlehem Paul V. Marshall on or about April 7 (click here), Bishop of Indiana Bishop Ed Little on or about April 9 (click here),
Bishop of Olympia Greg Rickel on April 15(click here), and Bishop of West Texas Gary Lillibridge on April 22 (click here).
On March 13, the entire Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, at its annual convention,voted to oppose Thew Forrester’s consent, citing his unconventional teachings about the Trinity.
Until now, however, the ENS stories have framed this as a debate between supporters and opponents of Zen meditation. Or a debate concerning how many bishop candidates must be on a ballot in order for the vote to be canonical.
Today, two months after +Briedenthal and +Marshall first sounded the alarm and three months after the South Carolina annual convention’s apparently unprecedented vote, ENS readers are finally being told the real reasons that Thew Forrester’s election is imperiled.
It’s unclear why ENS officials waited so long to tell the story.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
You’ll notice, though, that they didn’t address the issue of openness and transparency, and never said why some bishops and standing committees wouldn’t announce the result of their votes. In retrospect, given that they chose today to break their silence, I think that the powers that be wanted to keep the vote tally under wraps as long as they could, so as not to have to deal with the bad publicity of Bro. Genpo’s losing the vote.
I thought it was great that they quoted you by name, Frank; perhaps you’ve done what few have ever done: Shamed the Episcopal Church into at least making some sort of statement. Now maybe you can shame them into announcing how everyone voted, though I am ashamed that my own church must be shamed into telling something after the fact that they should have been announcing all along as the votes came in. Secrecy breeds corruption and trouble in every religious organization.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
The Diocese of South Carolina spoke directly to the theological concerns as an entire diocese at our diocesan Convention on March 13th:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/21029
This should have been mentioned for mutiple reasons, not the least of which is its highly unusual nature as the action of a whole diocesan Convention. Indeed, during the floor debate on the resolution, one of the objections to the resolution was that the Standing Committee was going to vote on it and could speak to it, as could the bishop, and this was above and beyond. But it was felt necessary given what was occurring, and the resolution passed.
June 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
March 13th not April 13th.
June 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I’m not sure that twelve weeks of discernment amounts to a coverup or any sort of secrecy, personally. . . .
June 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Madge, it’s not the twelve weeks of discernment that constitute the coverup, it’s the failure to announce how each committee or bishop voted. We in the pews are entitled to know. Now, not in twelve weeks. That way, if our committee or bishop voted in a way we don’t like, we have the opportunity to lobby them to change their vote.
June 6th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Whatever. In the grand scheme, it’s hair-splitting. I don’t see the problem. The term “red herring” comes to mind. Ask the southern baptists what they are going to do about sexual misconduct, or, heck, the ordination of women, and get back to me.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Madge, I don’t much care what the Southern Baptists do, or who they ordain. We are Episcopalians, not Southern Baptists, and as much as I disagree with the Baptists, including the issues you mention, there’s not much I can do about it. In my last post, I said that we’re better than about anybody else, and I believe that. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do better.
Rather than caring about the Baptists, what I do care about is open governance in my own church. One way we can lead is by example, and we need to provide the correct example of open governance for others as well as for ourselves. To me, this is a pure issue of governance. If there is a time period within which standing committees or bishops may change their vote, I want to know how they voted in time for them to change those votes if they receive sufficient feedback from their constituencies to do so. I may even provide some of that feedback. That’s not hair splitting, it’s governance. Under the current system, a bishop or standing committee can vote, not tell anyone how they voted, and sit back and allow the time to run out without the people paying their salaries and keeping the heat turned on in their churches knowing what’s going on.
I don’t think that’s open governance, or what we’re supposed to be about as Episcopalians.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Of course. But his is hair-splitting when there are churches that dont’ do background checks on ministers hired to serve their people, who don’t ordain women anymore (but did in the 80′s and quit for political reasons).
Frankly, I do care more about these other issues than I do this so called lack of transparency (when in fact, in less than four months the standing committees and bishops of our church pretty clearly said that they wouldn’t support the consecration of a bishop with some clearly heterodox and controversial theology.
We are, after all, an Episcopal structure (ie inherently hierarchical and all that). One would think a more congregational structure would be more open, not less. The Episcopacy is more open now than it has ever been. This sort of situation stresses any system, Id reckon.
It’s interesting that this blog is so overtaken by Episcopal politics, when all the mainstream denominations are debating the same issues and there are more issues in the outlying churches.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Madge, my point is that it doesn’t matter what other churches do. We have a duty to do the best job WE can do, no matter how bad the others are. I agree that many other churches (in fact, about all of them) aren’t as open as we are. But we can still be more open. The best way to lead is by example, and our example, as good as it is, could be better.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
True enough. I was thinking more of the overall blog and it’s discussion of religion in America more generally.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
You’re right about that, Madge. In the grand scheme of things, we’re about as good as it gets, and criticism does hurt a bit, particularly when it comes from groups that are far less than transparent themselves.