22 May 2009

More on Forrester

There was an interesting article in the 17 May edition of Marquette's The Mining Journal regarding the "Christian controversy" that the election of Kevin Thew Forrester has caused. It's worth a read as it is well balanced. You'll find the article here.

After I made this post, I went looking about the web for more information about Fr. Forrester. One one of the "usual sites," there is a post that is a great analysis of the consent situation. I use it without permission of "Karen" whose comment it is.
Theoretically, the vote totals could still be close. We’ve heard from more of the “conservative” (expected NO voting) bishops and dioceses - about 60% of each, as compared with only about 38% of the “liberal” (expected YES voting) bishops and dioceses.

So… don’t be surprised if the YES totals climb quite a bit while the NO totals stay fairly stable for awhile.

There are at least 35 liberal bishops yet to be heard from. Theoretically, if they all voted Yes (very doubtful at this point) Forrester could have a total 49 Yes votes among bishops if past voting patterns held. However, the liberal bishops would now have to ALL vote YES for that to happen. So far only about 62% of the “liberal” bishops who have voted have voted YES. Among the “conservative bishops” 97% have voted NO as expected.

It is a similar story among Standing Committees. We still have yet to hear from 60% of the “liberal” dioceses. Theoretically, if they all voted YES, Forrester could get 53 YES votes and 58 NO votes. Consent would be denied. I don’t see how Forrester can pull off consent among the Standing Committees unless some current NO votes are switched. Forrester has lost the votes of 12 “liberal” dioceses whom we would have expected to vote YES. i.e. only 54% of the liberal dioceses are voting YES, while 97% of the conservative dioceses are voting NO.

For those who are curious, the “Swing” vote on the conservative side in both the bishop and the standing committee column is San Joaquin. So, it is not even really a “swing” since all the past voting record is for the Anglican Diocese under Bishop Schofield, now part of ACNA, whereas the YES votes are by +Lamb and the new Standing Committee. There have been no other “defections” among conservative bishops or dioceses.

Of course, the usual schismatic sites are abuzz with the story. One must wonder why a group that has departed from "the apostate TEC" is so concerned about whom that church picks as a bishop.

Could the answer be that the only uniting element in the entire schismatic movement is hatred for TEC? Could it be that without TEC to bash they have no reason to exist or to blog.

I found it amusing that the discussion could not be constrained to Forrester - it quickly reverted back to bashing the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Lamb and the "illegal" diocese of San Joaquin which they consider the TEC diocese to be. They chose to ignore the troublesome fact that the US legal system has recognized both Lamb and the TEC Diocese of San Joaquin and declared the schismatic "group" null and void.

Ah, how blessed are those who can live in the Isle of Grand Delusion.