The standing committees of the dioceses of Georgia and Northern Califorania have voted against giving consent.

The Georgia vote is confirmed by the president of the standing committee, Joy Fisher. The Northern California vote was confirmed by diocesan spokeswoman Keri Lopez.

The Rev. William Spaid, canon to the ordinary of the diocese of Western Michigan, says bishop Robert R. Gepert supports the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester.

Consent either already has or will be given for Thew Forrester’s election, Spaid said this morning.

A spokeswoman for the Diocese of Massachusetts also confirms today (4/30/09) that Bishop Shaw and the diocesan standing committee have also given their consent.

Further down the Eastern seaboard, the Diocese of New York has voted to withhold consent, a member of the standing committee reports.

Meanwhile, a continent away in Stockton, Calif., an official in the Diocese of San Joaquin says Episcopal Bishop Jerry Lamb also supports giving consent to Thew Forrester.

In Western Michigan, diocesan officials know and like Thew Forrester. “We’ve all worked with him in the past and we feel like he’s an appropriate choice to be the Episcopal leader in the diocese of Northern Michigan,” said Spaid.

Asked for his thoughts about about the theological and liturgical objections to Thew Forrester’s election, including his rewriting of the baptismal covenant and the Easter Vigil liturgy, Spaid said “I was not aware of any of that.”

But he confident that the election process was appropriate and that Thew Forrester will be an able leader. “He’s a faithful person, a community builder, devout,” Spaid said.

As I’ve been reporting on this story, I’ve talked to several diocesan officials across the country who don’t know the details of the theological and liturgical objections to Thew Forrester.

The stories by the Episcopal News Service, thus far, have focused exclusively on objections to Thew Forrester’s Buddhist practices and the unusual election process employed by the Northern Michigan diocese. None of them that I’ve found lay out concerns about Thew Forrester’s commitment to the doctrines and liturgy of the church.

Since these concerns have been detailed, in writing, by numerous bishops across the theological spectrum, it’s somewhat puzzling that the news service is ignoring these concerns. Nonetheless, the debate isn’t being aired in all of the nation’s dioceses.

Bishop J. Jon Bruno of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles has not yet cast his vote for or against giving consent to the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, a diocesan spokeswoman said after speaking directly with the bishop.

On-line statements claiming that Bishop Bruno has already voted to give consent are incorrect, she said.

Diocese of Indianapolis Standing Committee President Frank Guthrie said the vote was 4-1 to give consent to the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan. The vote took place on April 16, he said.

Meanwhile, the Standing Committee of Arkansas voted this morning (April 29, 2009) to withhold consent, standing committee president the Rev. Pam Morgan said. We’re playing phone tag (I shouldn’t have taken that coffee break) but I’ll post more details if I get them.

Guthrie, the Indianapolis standing committee president, said he generally votes to give consent, if the bishop-elect satisfies canon law requirements.

“My basic attitude towards these things is if a diocese wants a person as their bishop … they’re entitled to have them, if it’s a fair, honest election.” Guthrie said. “I’d want our diocese to be allowed the opportunity to pick whoever we wanted.”

The Rev. Russell Johnson, president of the standing committee of the diocese of West Missouri, says the committee on April 17 voted 4-3 against giving consent to the election of the Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester as bishop of Northern Michigan.

“There was some question about the election process,” the Rev. Johnson said. “First of all, the people who said ‘no’ would prefer to have more than one candidate although we realize from the national canons it doesn’t say [there has to be more than one.] But it seems to be it would be much more of a fair election” with more than one candidate.

Secondly, concerns were expressed about how the bishop’s office would be structured in Northern Michigan if consent were given, Johnson said.

The Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester’s “theologically inadequate” baptismal covenant troubled Bishop of Tennessee John C. Bauerschmidt. “If there is a moment for liturgical and theological clarity, Holy Baptism is it,” Bauerschmidt said.
(more…)

Presbyterians reject gay clergy, but vote closer
By ERIC GORSKI
AP Religion Writer
Efforts to allow gays and lesbians to serve as clergy in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have been defeated again, sealed by votes Saturday.
But the margin of defeat — the final tally has yet to be determined — is already guaranteed to be much closer than in previous years. (more…)

The standing committee of Montana and the bishop of Montana have voted against giving consent to Kevin Thew Forrester, according to StandFirmInFaith.com

Meanwhile, a member of the Minnesota standing committee told me that she wasn’t the right person to announce whether the vote had been ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ But she said that the standing committe’s vote had been unanimous, that the arguments against KTF were “specious”, that meditation is a good thing, and that Minnesota really sympathized with N. Michigan. If you’re keeping score, that looks like: Yes* (Yes, with an asterisk…)

UPDATED at 3:59 p.m. CDT
The bishop of West Tennessee, the Rev. Don E. Johnson, has voted to withhold consent to the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, a Tennessee diocesan spokeswoman confirmed today. The diocese’s standing committee has also voted “no.”

But the standing committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin has decided to approve the election of the Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester. Among those present for the April 18 vote, the vote was unanimous, according to the standing committee’s Cindy Smith.

“We reviewed various articles and opinions by different people and we weighed those and we felt that we wanted to give our consent” after giving the issue “careful consideration,” Smith said.

Meanwhile, the bishop of Central Pennsylvania has voted no, but that diocese’s standing committee has voted yes. [h/t: StandFirmInFaith.com, which has a link to the diocese's statement.]

The Idaho Standing Committee also voted Saturday, April 18, to consent to the election of Thew Forrester as bishop of Northern Michigan, a diocesan staffer confirmed today. [April 24.]

But three other dioceses confirmed that their standing committees have voted to withhold consent.

Jerry Witherspoon of the Standing Committee of El Camino Real in California confirms that his committee voted unanimously, with one abstention, to withhold consent earlier this month.

On April 23, the standing committee of the diocese of Tennessee voted to withhold consent, according to one of its members, the Rev. Leigh Spruill, rector of St. George’s Episcopal Church in Nashville.

A statement explaining the post will be posted on the Tennessee diocesan website, probably by early next week, Spruill said.

Finally, the diocese of Maryland announced today that its bishop and standing committee had also withheld consent.

A statement on the diocese’s website reads:

April 24, 2009

After thoughtful conversation, consideration, and prayer over the course of multiple meetings, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Maryland, and the Right Reverend Eugene T. Sutton, Bishop of Maryland, have decided not to give their consent to the election of the Rev. Kevin Lee Thew Forrester as Bishop of the Diocese of Northern Michigan.

The Rev. Scott P. Bellows, President
The Standing Committee

Theologically, Protestants, Catholics and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often have different perspectives.

So I e-mailed church officials in Salt Lake to get their perspective on atonement theology. Essentially:

Was it God’s will or plan for Jesus Christ to come to earth and die on the cross? And is this teaching peripheral doctrinal area or is this a central tenet of faith?

Here’s what I was told: The church teaches that “Heavenly Father instituted the ‘plan of salvation,’ which allows individuals to live in His presence and with their families for eternity. In fact, this is His work — to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His sons and daughters.”

Mormons don’t believe that God ordered Jesus to go to earth. They believe that Jesus volunteered for the assignment, offering to go and die to redeem humanity before the first man and woman had even been placed on the planet.

God knew man would sin and that man would need a plan of salvation. That plan was crafted before the foundation of the world, Mormons believe.

Jesus’ sacrifice is not peripheral in Mormon belief. “The Atonement of the Only Begotten Son of God is the crucial foundation upon which all Christian doctrine rests and the greatest expression of divine love this world has ever been given,” according to Elder Jeffrey R. Holland.

Elder Holland’s complete article, titled, “The Atonement of Jesus Christ” is posted here.

It’s part of a broader series, entitled“Jesus Christ the Son of God.”

Another statement, “The Living Christ” is available here.

My thanks to Marc Stevens of the church’s public affairs department for helping me track down the correct answers.

A yes vote would “further weaken the Episcopal Church’s unity and mission,” warns the Bishop and unanimous standing committee of West Texas.

Thew Forrester’s writings, sermons and liturgies “omit or obscure what are, for us, non-negotiable Christian beliefs,” the bishop and standing committee declare.
(more…)

The number of bishops and standing committees opposing the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan continues to grow. And a short analysis of the votes suggests that the opposition is coming from the left and the right. (See below)

A spokeswoman for the diocese of Kentucky and provisional bishop of Fort Worth confirms that bishop Ted Gulick is casting two no votes, one on behalf of each diocese.

Earlier this week, Bishop James Adams of Western Kansas told me that he voted to withhold consent from Kevin G. Thew Forrester.

Adams said Thew Forrester’s “actions with the prayer book were beyond the pale” and are not allowed by church law.

He also expressed concerns with Thew Forrester’s Buddhist lay ordination (called a jukai). In that ceremony, Thew Forrester received a dharma name (Genpo, meaning “Way of Universal Wisdom”, wore a raku and agreed to follow a long list of Buddhist vows or precepts.

“His Buddhist vows, the precepts of Buddhism, are not in line with Christianity,” Adams said.

The bishop of Western Kansas also disputed Thew Forrester’s statement that it wasn’t God’s will or God’s plan for Jesus Christ to die on the cross.

Adams said he “absolutely” believes that the crucifixion was God’s will. “Jesus chose to give into his Father in the garden. He said ‘Not my will, but thy will be done.’ That’s pretty explicit to me. Of course you have to believe Scriptures. See, that’s the other thing. If you don’t believe what Jesus said about himself, then why are you a Christian?”

Asked if it’s heresy to teach that it wasn’t God’s will or plan for Christ to die on the cross, Adams said:

“Heresy demands a court. Heresy demands that a council of the church declare a heresy. But there have been certain heresies in the church’s history which have pretty much paralleled what this man is teaching. So I can’t say he’s a heretic, but on the other hand I’ll say that there have been heresies taught that are quite similar to what he is teaching.”

Also this week, a call to Honolulu confirmed that the Bishop of Hawaii has withheld consent.

The bishop of West Texas, the Rev. Gary R. Lillibridge is also a “no” vote, a diocesan spokeswoman confirmed today (Thursday, April 23, 2009).

The Rev. Don Wimberly, bishop of Texas and former bishop of Lexington, Ky. has also voted to not give consent, a diocesan spokeswoman told me on Wednesday. The diocesan standing committee also declined to give consent.

Meanwhile, the rector of Christ Church in Bradenton, Fla. reports that the standing committee in Southwest Florida has voted to withhold consent.

And the bishop of San Diego, James R. Mathes, has sent a letter to his clergy announcing that he, too, has decided to oppose Thew Forrester.

Writes Mathes: “At the heart of our faith and our baptismal covenant are the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have come to a disquieting conclusion that Fr. Thew Forrester’s presentation of the faith is an offering devoid of our traditional understanding of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross.”

The standing committee of Tenessee is meeting today, I am told, so a decision from Nashville could be coming shortly.

Through a staff member, the bishop of Alabama, Henry Nutt Parsley Jr., declined to say whether he’s giving consent, saying his vote is confidential.

The bishop of Fond du Lac told me he isn’t revealing which way he voted.

It may be that there are dozens of bishops lining up to support Thew Forrester, but they’ve been lying low this week. If any of them announce their votes, I’ll let you know.

Also this week, the head of the 2.9-million-member Assemblies of God said only an apostate church could consecrate Thew Forrester:

“The facts of the Christian faith are that Jesus is God’s Son, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, died for our sins, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. A Christian will agree with these facts. If a denomination or church is Christian, it will agree with these facts,” General Superintendent George Wood said. “If a so-called bishop does not agree with the central elements of the Christian faith, then he should not call himself a Christian, let alone a bishop – nor should a church ordain him. He is an apostate from the Faith; and a church that ordains such a one is also apostate.”

Meanwhile, an analysis of the vote suggests that opposition to Thew Forrester isn’t simply a matter of right vs. left.
(more…)

StandFirmInFaith.com says Mathes announced his decision in a newsletter to clergy. Details are here.

This is, perhaps, the key paragraph:

“At the heart of our faith and our baptismal covenant are the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have come to a disquieting conclusion that Fr. Thew Forrester’s presentation of the faith is an offering devoid of our traditional understanding of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross.”

Timothy George, the Dean of Beeson Divinity School and a leading Southern Baptist, sums up his feelings about bishop-elect Kevin G. Thew Forrester’s at-one-ment theology in seven words:
(more…)

Dr. George Wood is the general superintendent of the 2.9-million-member Assemblies of God, one of the ten largest denominations in the United States and one of the fastest growing Christian bodies in the world.

I interviewed him, via e-mail, about one of the most notable theological views expressed by the Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester, bishop-elect of Northern Michigan — rejection of atonement theology.

Wood said anyone who denies that God sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross is “an apostate of the faith; and a church that ordains such a one is also apostate.”

Here is the key quote in question, from my interview with Thew Forrester:

“God did not send Jesus here to be killed or be crucified by the Romans, which is a brutal murder. But Jesus has become incarnate to reveal to us who God is. He’s a God of love and forgiveness and mercy. …Jesus’ death itself was not the will of God. God did not desire Jesus to be killed.”

Q. It wasn’t the plan from before the creation of the world?
THEW FORRESTER: “No. No.”

Here are the questions I asked Wood:
Do you believe it was God’s will or plan for Jesus Christ to come to earth and die on the cross?

WOOD: Yes, according to the Scriptures. 1 Peter 1:18-21 states: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Is this a peripheral point of Christian doctrine or is it heretical
to teach that the crucifixion wasn’t part of God’s plan?

WOOD: Even a cursory reading of the New Testament shows that the cross is a central theme to Christians. The Apostle Paul said, that the cross is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” and that among the Corinthians, he “resolved to know nothing . . . except Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 1:24, 2:2). John the Baptist introduced Jesus as “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). In heaven, Jesus is worshipped as the Lamb who was slain and with his blood purchased people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Revelation 5:8-9).

Could you support the ordination of anyone who teaches that it wasn’t God’s will or plan for Jesus Christ to come to earth and die on the cross?

WOOD: A wise person once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. The facts of the Christian faith are that Jesus is God’s Son, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, died for our sins, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. A Christian will agree with these facts. If a denomination or church is Christian, it will agree with these facts. If a so-called bishop does not agree with the central elements of the Christian faith, then he should not call himself a Christian, let alone a bishop – nor should a church ordain him. He is an apostate from the Faith; and a church that ordains such a one is also apostate. The Apostle Paul dealt with persons who turned to a “different Gospel,” who “perverted the Gospel.” He warned that even if he himself or “an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:6-8).