The Northern Michigan Standing Committee Comments on the Consent Process

When the Episcopal Ministry Support Team was affirmed and Kevin Thew Forrester was elected bishop of our diocese at the Special Convention in February, it seemed to many to be the end of the process, the culmination of many months of hard work by the Episcopal Ministry Discernment Team, and the joyful beginning of the next phase of life in our diocese. In reality it was only the beginning of a process in the Episcopal Church that surrounds the election of a bishop. Following the election, when all the documentation certifying the election was sent to the national church, along with the reports from the required physical and psychological examinations of the bishop-elect, the “consent” process began. Before the ordination of a bishop-elect can occur, a majority of the bishops with jurisdiction over dioceses and a majority of the Standing Committees of the dioceses of the Episcopal Church must give their consent to the ordination. In past years this was a relatively easy process whose positive outcome was assumed, but not so in recent years. Once the proper documents have been received in the Presiding Bishop’s office the requests for consents are sent out. For the bishops these consents are requested by the Presiding Bishop, and her office receives the responses. For the Standing Committees these requests are sent out by the Standing Committee of the electing diocese, and responses are returned there. Each group, the bishops and the Standing Committees, has 120 days to return the forms, indicating that they give consent to the ordination or that they refuse to give consent.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Northern Michigan

7 comments on “The Northern Michigan Standing Committee Comments on the Consent Process

  1. frdarin says:

    Interesting that extensive quotations of Mr. Forrester’s own material becomes named “misinformation” and “untruth”.

    And the comments from the Standing Committee are SO symptomatic of TEC – ‘we know who is right for us’. Philip Turner was right in noting some years ago, in an article published widely, that TEC has become just one of several American Protestant “denominations” in an era of post-denominationalism. The notion of TEC as a part of a Catholic Church is long gone – at least for the majority.

    Fr. Darin Lovelace+
    St. David’s Anglican Church
    Durant, Iowa

  2. Karen B. says:

    This is my favorite section:

    [i]The Standing Committee knew that we would have to prepare materials to accompany our request for consents which would explain our discernment process and assure the wider church that we had followed the canonical process in the election of our bishop. What we were not prepared for was the questioning of the bishop-elect that began with Kevin’s use of meditation as a spiritual tool to deepen his own Christian life and progressed to questions about his use of liturgy and even his theology. Fueled by bloggers with misinformation and untruths, some of the “church” press began to publish material questioning all aspects of the election and our choice of bishop. This began before we had permission from the Presiding Bishop’s office to send out the requests for consents, and at the time the House of Bishops was meeting.[/i]

    Good heavens. How unfair. Bloggers dared to question a bishop-elect’s [i][b]theology[/b][/i]. Imagine that…HORRORS!!!!! How unfair. 😉

    And yes, Fr. Darin, I noted exactly what you noted as well. Most of the materials posted have been Kevin Thew Forrester’s own sermons and liturgies. So how are these materials “untruths”?

  3. Paul Nelson, Fort Worth says:

    From the UP website [url=]”Post Election Updates”[/url] has some writings by Forrester.
    He doesn’t need to explain his reasons for changing the baptismal liturgy, but why he believes that he may change it.
    This should be the sticking point for consent. There is rarely a good reason for doing the wrong thing.

  4. moheb says:

    More interesting than the Standing Committee’s statement is the article by Forrester on Romans (page 2 of the newsletter). I do not read Romans the way Forrester reads it.

    One example is his statement that: “The weakness to which Paul refers here is not that of individual fault or failing. It is the weakness imposed by a society and culture which devalue a group of human beings simply because of who they are – Jew, African, Woman, Serbian, Homosexual, etc. These people are not weak in terms of personal character. They are weak because the social system seeks to rob them of their place, and the dominant culture tries to take away their Godgiven value.”

    This understanding is inconsistent with chapter 1 of Romans. Forrester is absolving the individual of any fault or failing – hence, redemption is not needed.

  5. mannainthewilderness says:

    Darin & Karen:

    It’s the Charles Barkley defense, who, if you are a sports fan, stated that he was misquoted in his autobiography — lol

  6. wrb0503 says:

    Interesting that six [ perhaps all seven ] members of the Standing Committee are female-diversity ? inclusion ?

  7. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Ah, Genpo really didn’t do all those documented thingies. The evil right wing conspiracy made ’em up. One marvels at the level of incoherence. Well, not really.