The Rt. Rev. John C. Bauerschmidt: Statement on the Consent Process in the Episcopal Election in the Diocese of Northern Michigan
The process of consent to an episcopal election does not always generate a great deal of interest in the Episcopal Church, but it has done so in the case of the Rev’d Kevin Thew Forrester, bishop-elect in the Diocese of Northern Michigan. The process for election of a bishop in this case requires consents from a majority of bishops and Standing Committees in the various dioceses of the Episcopal Church before a bishop is consecrated. This is one of the many ways in which we are reminded that our obligations to each other go beyond the local Church.
I voted against consent to his election. Hesitations have been expressed in many quarters on a number of grounds. Decisive for me has been the fact that the Rev’d Thew Forrester has used liturgies not authorized for use in the Episcopal Church, on a regular and ongoing basis. The permission of one’s bishop is beside the point. No bishop of the Episcopal Church is able to authorize liturgies for use in our Church, as alternatives to the regularly appointed services, that have not been approved by the General Convention as supplements to our Prayer Book liturgies. Certainly no individual priest or vestry is able to do so. The clergy of the Episcopal Church are not free to use in church other Anglican liturgical formularies, including those authorized in other provinces of the Communion, or liturgical resources from other traditions, except within the limits set forth in our own Prayer Book. These limits have not been observed by Thew Forrester.
This discipline of the Church may be thought too narrow or unsuitable to our own age. Yet it is the order we have. The theologically inadequate baptismal rite used at St Paul’s Church, Marquette, under the aegis of Thew Forrester, is a reminder of why individuals are not allowed to write their own liturgies. Liturgies which are formulated around idiosyncratic statements of what we are renouncing and exactly what we are embracing beg the question of what community we are being initiated into, and whose disciples we have become. If there is a moment for liturgical and theological clarity, Holy Baptism is it.
Priests are called to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church, and bishops in particular promise to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church. Liturgy is a crucial articulation of this nexus of Christian faith and Christian community. I do not withhold consent to this election lightly or without knowledge of the difficulties that may be caused by failure to confirm the candidate. But those who are supposed to hold others accountable must have a creditable history of being accountable themselves.
10 comments:
I think this is a very important addition to other concerns I have voiced about theology. Let's get back to being a church of common prayer, or common liturgy, and of good order.
Once again, it's refreshing and hopeful to see a bishop going back to the basic issues of authority (especially the authority of General Convention and the liturgies of the Prayer Book) and accountability to ordination vows as reasons to withhold consent in this case.
Nice.
I agree that it is refreshing to finally have a logic and reason behind another's decision-making, especially in light of how profound the appointment of a bishop actually is. I think it a double standard, however, for us to defend the words of the liturgy, but not speak out against the application (or mis-application)/use of it in other circles within TEC (if one is so inclined, that is).
For the past several years, we seem to have wanted our cake and it eat, too. Why isn't the same logic equally as laudable and valiant when used by those who criticize the Bp Robinson situation or other hot topics lately?
Again, not that I agree with such criticisms, but we need to be open enough to realize that this logic knife cuts both ways.
I would hazard a response to Chad by saying that the difference between New Hampshire and Northern Michigan (unless you meant the "other" Bp Robinson of Honest to God!) is the difference between dogmatic theology and pastoral theology. KTF is clearly (and I think openly and willingly) challenging some basic doctrines of the faith, elements of the eternal gospel not subject to change -- such as the very meaning of salvation. The situation with Bishop Robinson concerns a moral question -- the answer to which may not need to be the same in all times and places forever, as it is in a category in which the church has shown a surprising range of opinion over the centuries.
and, if I can also note, as I did at my blog, that KTF is dissonant with three out of four parts of the Lambeth Quadrilateral, in my view: a selective use of Scripture, a dismissive attitude towards the Creeds, and an "inventive" approach to Baptism.
One might add that the reconfiguring of the episcopate that seems to be implicit in the Northern Michigan plan calls into question the fourth part of the quadrilateral as well.
Actually, I found the experiments in the organization of the diocese to be quite interesting, almost monastic (like an abbot and chapter). Were he sound otherwise, I'd certainly not balk at this aspect of the work, particularly given the setting.
Thanks Tobias.
The Bishop of TN is an articulate voice within the Church.
Post a Comment