Majority of standing committees oppose bishop-elect

From the BibleBeltBlogger via Stand Firm:

By Frank Lockwood
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

LITTLE ROCK — The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Bethlehem decided today to withhold consent to the election of the Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester as bishop-elect of Northern Michigan.

The vote was confirmed this evening (June 4, 2009) by committee president Canon Robert Wilkins. The committee is preparing a statement explaining the vote and hopes to have it ready tomorrow.

Fifty-six standing committees have now decided to withhold consent, while 29 have given consent, according to a survey by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock. Roughly 16 committees, including seven based outside the United States, are still in the discernment process. Another 10 or so committees have voted, but are currently declining to reveal their vote.

Barring last-minute vote-switching by dioceses across the country, Thew Forrester will not be seated by the House of Bishops. He would be the first bishop-elect to be vetoed by a majority of the Episcopal Church’s 111 standing committees since at least the 1930s.

(The election of the bishop-elect of South Carolina, the Rev. Mark Lawrence, was declared “null-and void” in 2007 because of “canonical deficiencies” after he allegedly had received consent from a very narrow majority of the standing committees. Lawrence was elected on the second go-round.)

Thew Forrester, the rector at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Marquette, Mich., was overwhelmingly elected bishop by representatives of the Diocese of Northern Michigan on Feb. 21. Since then, he has been heavily criticized on theological and liturgical grounds. Critics said Thew Forrester altered the denomination’s baptismal covenant to make it more closely reflect his own personal theological views. He likewise rewrote the church’s Easter Vigil and reworked the Apostle’s Creed. Critics said the changes removed or obscured key Christian teachings about the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross, the problem of sin, the will of God and the identity of Jesus as the eternally divine and only-begotten Son of God.

Thew Forrester said the changes were needed to keep the church relevant in the 21st century and that they reflected popular Christian beliefs that predated the Middle Ages.

In addition to theological and liturgical objections, the election process in Northern Michigan was also criticized because Thew Forrester was the only candidate for bishop on the ballot.

Supporters said the election process, though somewhat unusual in Episcopal circles, was consistent with canon law requirements. They also argued that Thew Forrester’s beliefs were sufficiently mainstream and that his record of leadership and scholarship were exemplary.

Opposition to Thew Forrester cut across left-right theological and political divides, uniting people with differing views on gay ordination and other hot-button issues.

Most of the Bible Belt dioceses opposed Thew Forrester’s election, but so did diocesan standing committees in New York City, Los Angeles, Oregon and Hawaii.

Standing committees apparently can change their votes until the 120-day voting period ends sometime in July. Thus, it is theoretically possible that, with lobbying from Marquette or Manhattan, the outcome could be reversed. But church spokesman Neva Rae Fox said in April that the Presiding Bishop is “absolutely not” working to sway bishops or standing comitttees.

At this point, it’s unclear whether Thew Forrester supporters will concede defeat or make one last pitch in the corridors of the Anaheim Convention Center, when the Episcopal Church’s General Convention convenes there next month.