A majority of bishops and elected standing committees in the denomination’s 110 dioceses must approve, or give “consent,” to Thew Forrester’s election or it is tossed out.
But the controversy has done more than jeopardize Thew Forrester’s promotion and stoke already-high tensions in the 2.2 million-member Episcopal Church. It also heralds a new era in church politics that mirrors mainstream culture, when online research and partisan tactics can combine to make or break a career, observers say.
“Thirty years ago, if a person was elected as bishop, it would be almost impossible for the church, broadly speaking, to see his sermons,” said Bishop Edward Little of Northern Indiana. “I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, but that’s the way it is.”
Looking for the truth is bad, according to some. Cover up, image-making and subservient followers are good.
Yes, the spreading of rumors would be bad. The Bible tells us that. But examining the teachings of those selected to lead the church? The Bible calls for that.
I can’t believe that people are complaining about bloggers reading and commenting on sermons, while hiding the sermons (Thew Forrester, Ragsdale, for example) is not faulted.
There is a real spiritual problem when obfuscation is good and honesty is bad.
Interesting article. If we had the internet 30 years ago, we might not be in the situation.
There was one yes vote in the article – not surprisingly it came from California.
Was the CA bishop the thrice divorced candidate from 2006?
Marc Andrus was the only CA bishop I read by name approving, with his usual tripe in justification of calling anything that moves Christian.
If not for the conservative bloggers, he would be bishop by now.
Keep the pew potatoes in the dark and you can turn them into mushrooms – apparently the proper Episcopal way to do things has been upset by the Internet. It’s all Al Gore’s fault!!!!
[blockquote] “I think what’s happening in the Communion is making us a little more aware of the fact that when we ordain a bishop, we don’t ordain a bishop in a vacuum,” Little said. “He’s not only the bishop of a diocese, he’s a bishop of the whole church.” [/blockquote]
Were the bishops simply oblivious to this fact in 2003, or did they not care, or think the rest of the Communion wouldn’t notice?
[blockquote]”It seems to me we’ve lost the memory of the fullness of our tradition,” he said in an interview. At the same time, “we must reform our faith, our liturgy and our polity so that we are ever more congruent with the divine will and the Gospel, and that is what we have done here,” he said.[/blockquote]
Innovation pure and simple. By the way, did you notice he used the phrase “the divine will” a completely gender neutral and PC reference to…..whom it may concern.
To my knowledge, +Andrus gets the “prize” for the first on-the-record (Mainstream media) acknowledgement of his vote in support of Forrester’s consent:
[blockquote]Bishop Marc Andrus of San Francisco said he voted in favor of Thew Forrester. He’s concerned about the Michigan priest rewriting the church’s baptismal rites, but less so about his Buddhist practice.
“I accept what he says: that he’s a Christian and uses (Buddhism) to strengthen his own Christian understanding. I don’t have any reason to doubt that,” Andrus said.[/blockquote]
#9. Karen B.
[blockquote]To my knowledge, +Andrus gets the “prize†for the first on-the-record (Mainstream media) acknowledgement of his vote in support of Forrester’s consent:[/blockquote]
Karen, do you suppose there are additional “yes” votes off the record?
I believe the “no” votes will more likely be public and have more rationale behind them. The “yes” votes will probably be less public and have less rationale behind them like Bishop Andrus.