9UPDATED: 5/6/09: 28 No, 11 Yes.)

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette contacted the 100 Episcopal dioceses in the United States and one in South America to determine current support for Bishop-elect Kevin G. Thew Forrester. The totals we were able to confirm:

26 of the roughly 100 bishops eligible to vote say they’re withholding consent, essentially voting to overturn Thew Forrester’s election by the Diocese of Northern Michigan.

10 bishops say they’ve decided to support the bishop-elect. The remaining bishops either declined comment or have yet to cast their votes.

Websites, including Stand Firm in Faith and Anglican Centrist are also keeping tallies. (Stand Firm, as of this morning, May 2, 2009, shows 33 bishops opposing Thew Forrester. Anglican Centrist estimates that 34 bishops oppose him.)

The Democrat-Gazette’s list is based on interviews with bishops and diocesan staff and priests, plus bishops’ written statements.

Bishops voting YES
1. Andrus (California)
2. Caldwell (Wyoming)
3. Ely (Vermont)
4. Gepert (Western Michigan)
5. Lamb (San Joaquin)
6. Powell (Southwestern Virginia)
7. Robertson (South Dakota)
8. Shaw (Massachusetts)
9. Sisk (New York)
10. Walker (Long Island)
11. Waggoner (Spokane)

Bishops voting NO
1. Adams (Western Kansas)
2. Bauerschmidt (Tennessee)
3. Baxter (Central Pennsylvania)
4. Beckwith (Springfield)
5. Benfield (Arkansas)
6. Breidenthal (Southern Ohio)
7. Curry (North Carolina)
8. Fitzpatrick (Hawaii)
9. Gulick (Fort Worth)*
10. Gulick (Kentucky)
11. Jenkins (Louisiana)
12. Johnson (West Tennessee)
13. Lawrence (South Carolina)
14. Lillibridge (West Texas)
15. Little (Northern Indiana)
16. Love (Albany)
17. MacPherson (Western Louisiana)
18. Marshall (Bethlehem)
19. Mathes (San Diego)
20. Rickel (Olympia)
21. Shand (Easton)
22. Smith (Southwest Florida)
23. Stanton (Dallas)
24. Sutton (Maryland)
25. Wimberly (Texas)
26. Anonymous**
27. Lee (Virginia)
28. Henderson (Upper South Carolina)
* Gulick is serving as bishop of Kentucky and as provisional bishop of Fort Worth. A spokeswoman for Bishop Gulick told me that he will be casting two ‘no’ votes — one for each diocese he oversees. Some observers have questioned whether Gulick should be entitled to two votes. This is a point of canon law that may be debated down the road.
**The 26th bishop told me he is withholding consent, but was not willing to be named at this time.

I hope to have more information about standing committee vote totals in the coming days. As you probably know, Thew Forrester will need to receive consent from a majority of the diocesan standing committees and a majority of the bishops with jurisdiction.

In recent days, some standing committees have postponed a vote so that they can do more research about Thew Forrester. One example is the Diocese of Oregon, where Thew Forrester served before moving on to the Diocese of Eastern Oregon and the Diocese of Northern Michigan.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 am and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.