Bishops (in charge) for San Joaquin since 2008

As a priest still “canonically resident” (even though ministering elsewhere in TECUSA) I am concerned and am prayerful for my place of ministry for 24 years.   As things change and transition within the diocese I will be updating this post.

As of the Convention of 2013, and then Installed in 2014, The diocese of San Joaquin Diocesan Convention has authorized the installation of another “Bishop with Provisional Authority”, this being their third since 2008 (first, +Jerry Lamb; second, +Chet Talton).    Then by resolution approved the Standing Committee’s choice of the Right Reverend David Rice.  Bishop Rice is an American, former Methodist pastor, who went to New Zealand, converted to Anglicanism, and eventually was elected a bishop in that Province.   He has been received into TECUSA from there.

As noted elsewhere, the Church is using a shortcut method of identifying the designation of this and other bishops to “Provisional Bishop.”    It might be more helpful due to the lack of awareness of the manner and role of these positions to simply appoint (perhaps even by the same process)  these bishops as Bishop-in-charge, or “interim bishop” and then provide the contractural language to describe the authority and the objectives.

That’s a fairly small technical point.   The dioceses with bishops so identified have greater issues, such as ongoing litigation to reclaim properties and assets, than what to correctly call their bishop.  Further, these particular dioceses, such as San Joaquin, have bishops who are working hard to help their flocks highly prioritize through vision and teaching the matters of evangelism and mission, so as not to be distracted almost completely by protracted litigation.

In any case, this will be interesting reading for those so inclined to follow the doings of the bishops in the American succession.

May God bless the diocese of San Joaquin as the find their path to being a gospel force for renewal in Christ and for the sake of the World.

Advertisements

Bishops-elect: The Consents Process (just for fun reading)

ARTICLE II
Sec. 1. In every Diocese the Bishop or the Bishop Coadjutor shall be
chosen agreeably to rules prescribed by the Convention of that
Diocese
, provided that the retirement date of the Bishop Diocesan shall not be more than thirty-six months after the consecration of the Bishop Coadjutor. Bishops of Missionary Dioceses shall be chosen in accordance with the Canons of the General Convention.

Here is the rest of the Consent process as spelled out in Canon 11 (through section 8 – there is more to Canon 11). Read carefully and you will discover time frames, approvals, where consents are sent, and the role of the Presiding Bishop’s office, and the Standing Committee of the electing diocese.

CANON 11: Of the Ordination of Bishops
Sec. 1.
(a) Discernment of vocation to be a Bishop occurs through a
process of election in accordance with the rules prescribed by the
Convention of the Diocese and pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and Canons of this Church. With respect to the election
of a Bishop Suffragan, the Diocese shall establish a nominating process
either by Canon or by the adoption of rules and procedure for the
election of the Bishop Suffragan at a regular or special Diocesan
Convention with sufficient time preceding the election of the Bishop
Suffragan.
(b) In lieu of electing a Bishop, the Convention of a Diocese may
request that an election be made on its behalf by the House of Bishops of the Province of which the Diocese is a part, subject to confirmation by the Provincial Synod, or it may request that an election be made on its behalf by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.
(1) If either option in Sec. l(b) is chosen, a special Joint
Nominating Committee shall be appointed unless the
Diocesan Convention has otherwise provided for the
nominating process. The Committee shall be composed of
three persons from the Diocese, appointed by its Standing
Committee, and three members of the electoral body,
appointed by the President of that body. The Joint
Nominating Committee shall elect its own officers and
shall nominate three persons whose names it shall
communicate to the Presiding Officer of the electoral
body. The Presiding Officer shall communicate the names
of the nominees to the electoral body at least three weeks
before the election when the names shall be formally placed
in nomination. Opportunity shall be given for nominations
from the floor or by petition, in either case with provision
for adequate background checks.
(2) If either option in Sec. l(b) is chosen, the evidence of the
election shall be a certificate signed by the Presiding Officer
of the electoral body and by its Secretary, with a testimonial
signed by a constitutional majority of the body, in the form
required in Canon III.11.3, which shall be sent to the
Standing Committee of the Diocese on whose behalf the
election was held. The Standing Committee shall
thereupon proceed as set forth in Canon III.11.3 or 4.
(c) The Secretary of the body electing a Bishop Diocesan, Bishop
Coadjutor, or Bishop Suffragan, shall inform the Presiding Bishop
promptly of the name of the person elected. It shall be the duty of the
Bishop-elect to notify the Presiding Bishop of acceptance or
declination of the election, at the same time as the Bishop-elect notifies the electing Diocese.
(d) No Diocese shall elect a Bishop within thirty days before a
meeting of the General Convention.
Sec. 2. It shall be lawful, within six months prior to the effective date
of the resignation of a Diocesan Bishop, for the Bishop, with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee, to call a special meeting of the Convention of the Diocese to elect a successor; Provided, that if the Convention is to meet in regular session meanwhile, it may hold the election during the regular session. The proceedings incident to reparation for the ordination of the successor shall be as provided in this Canon; but the Presiding Bishop shall not take order for the ordination to be on any date prior to that upon which the resignation is to become effective.
Sec. 3.
(a) When a Diocese desires the ordination of a Bishop-elect, if the
date of the election occurs within one hundred twenty days before a
meeting of the General Convention, the Standing Committee of the
Diocese shall, by its President, or by some person or persons specially
appointed, forward to the Secretary of the House of Deputies evidence of the election of the Bishop-elect by the Convention of the Diocese, together with evidence that the Bishop-elect has been duly ordered Deacon and Priest, evidence of acceptance of election, and a
testimonial signed by a constitutional majority of the Convention, and
a summary of biographical information relating to the Bishop-elect; in
the following words:
We, whose names are hereunder written, fully sensible of how
important it is that the Sacred Order and Office of a Bishop
should not be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it
is our duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without
partiality, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we
know of no impediment on account of which the Reverend A.B.
ought not to be ordained to that Holy Office. We do, moreover,
jointly and severally declare that we believe the Reverend A.B.
to have been duly and lawfully elected and to be of such
sufficiency in learning, of such soundness in the Faith, and of
such godly character as to be able to exercise the Office of a
Bishop to the honor of God and the edifying of the Church, and
to be a wholesome example to the flock of Christ.
(Date) __________ (Signed) _______________

The Secretary of the Convention shall certify upon this testimonial that it has been signed by a constitutional majority of the Convention.
(b) The Standing Committee shall also forward to the Secretary of
the General Convention, with the testimonial and other documents,
certificates from a licensed medical doctor and licensed psychiatrist,
appointed by the Ecclesiastical Authority with the approval of the
Presiding Bishop, that they have thoroughly examined the Bishopelect
as to that person’s medical, psychological and psychiatric
condition and have not discovered any reason why the person would
not be fit to undertake the work for which the person has been chosen.
Forms and procedures agreed to by the Presiding Bishop and The
Church Pension Fund shall be used for this purpose.
(c) The Secretary of the House of Deputies shall present the
testimonials to the House, and if the House consents to the ordination
of the Bishop-elect, notice of its consent, certified by the President
and the Secretary of the House, together with the testimonials, shall
be sent to the House of Bishops.
(d) If a majority of the Bishops of this Church exercising jurisdiction
consent to the ordination, the Presiding Bishop shall, without delay,
notify the Standing Committee of the Diocese electing and the Bishopelect of the consent.
Sec. 4.
(a) If the date of the election of a Bishop occurs more than one
hundred and twenty days before the meeting of the General
Convention, The Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the
Bishop has been elected shall by its President, or by some person or
persons specially appointed, immediately send to the Presiding Bishop
and to the Standing Committees of the several Dioceses a certificate
of the election by the Secretary of Convention of the Diocese, bearing
a statement that evidence of the Bishop-elect’s having been duly
ordered Deacon and Priest as to the Bishop-elect’s medical,
psychological and psychiatric examination required in Sec. 3(b) of this
Canon have been received and that a testimonial signed by a
constitutional majority of the Convention must also be delivered in
the following form:
We, whose names are hereunder written, fully sensible of how
important it is that the Sacred Order and Office of a Bishop
should not be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it
is our duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without
partiality, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we
know of no impediment on account of which the Reverend A.B.
ought not to be ordained to that Holy Office. We do, moreover,
jointly and severally declare that we believe the Reverend A.B.
to have been duly and lawfully elected and to be of such
sufficiency in learning, of such soundness in the Faith, and of
such godly character as to be able to exercise the Office of a
Bishop to the honor of God and the edifying of the Church, and
to be a wholesome example to the flock of Christ.
(Date) __________ (Signed) _______________

The Presiding Bishop, without delay, shall notify every Bishop of this
Church exercising jurisdiction of the Presiding Bishop’s receipt of the
certificates mentioned in this Section and request a statement of
consent or withholding of consent. Each Standing Committee, in not
more than one hundred and twenty days after the sending by the
electing body of the certificate of the election, shall respond by sending the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop is elected either the testimonial of consent in the form set out in paragraph (b) of this Section or written notice of its refusal to give consent.
If a majority of the Standing Committees of all the Dioceses consents to the ordination of the Bishop-elect, the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop is elected shall then forward the evidence of the consent, with the other necessary documents described in Sec. 3(a) of this Canon, to the Presiding Bishop.

If the Presiding Bishop receives sufficient statements to indicate a majority of those Bishops consents to the ordination, the Presiding Bishop shall, without delay, notify the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop is elected and the Bishop-elect of the consent.
(b) Evidence of the consent of each Standing Committee shall be a
testimonial in the following words, signed by a majority of all the
members of the Committee:
We, being a majority of all the members of the Standing
Committee of ______________, and having been duly convened
at ______________, fully sensible how important it is that the
Sacred Order and Office of a Bishop should not be unworthily
conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty to bear
testimony on this solemn occasion without partiality, do, in the
presence of Almighty God, testify that we know of no
impediment on account of which the Reverend A.B. ought not
to be ordained to that Holy Order. In witness whereof, we have
hereunto set our hands this _____ day of _________in the year
of our Lord _________.
(Signed) _______________

Sec. 5. In case a majority of all the Standing Committees of the
Dioceses do not consent to the ordination of the Bishop-elect within
one hundred and twenty days from the date of the notification of the
election by the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the
Bishop was elected, or in case a majority of all the Bishops exercising
jurisdiction do not consent within one hundred and twenty days from
the date of notification to them by the Presiding Bishop of the election, the Presiding Bishop shall declare the election null and void and shall give notice to the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop was elected and to the Bishop-elect. The Convention of the Diocese may then proceed to a new election.
Sec. 6. Upon receipt of the consents and assurance of the acceptance of the election by the Bishop-elect, the Presiding Bishop shall take order for the ordination of the Bishop-elect either by the Presiding Bishop or the President of the House of Bishops of the Province of which the Diocese for which the Bishop was elected is part, and two other Bishops of this Church, or by any three Bishops to whom the Presiding Bishop may communicate the testimonials.

Sec. 7. In all particulars the service at the ordination of a Bishop shall
be under the direction of the Bishop presiding at the ordination.

Sec. 8. No person shall be ordained Bishop unless the person shall at
the time, and in the presence of the ordaining Bishops and
congregation, subscribe to and make the declaration required in Article
VIII of the Constitution.

The About Page

Welcome to the home of the Apostolic Episcopate Succession Online Project, a labor of love and respect, a teaching and research tool, a visual reminder of connections. This is about bishops in The Episcopal Church in the USA.

This is a many-years project to have a fun and open and teachable method of showing the line of succession for the bishops of (officially) The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, which is now known as The Episcopal Church.

Please be aware of other Anglican bodies around the world that also use that name, along with the name of the country in which they reside, for instance, The Episcopal Church of Sudan.

If you have corrections, or perhaps a link to a photo or other biographical data for any bishop, simply leave a message.

The slightly updated original index page has now been posted as a “Page” (see left sidebar for “Start..”), and will eventually be added as a weblog post, and kept at the top of the column for easy reference.

Making use of information found here in this form should be referenced back to this weblog, https://apostolicsuccession.wordpress.com .
Several tools are being used to post information about each bishop, including “The Church Annual.” When I have found errors in The Church Annual I have notified them for successive publications. Other sources have included The Episcopal Church national archives, the Office of the Presiding Bishop, diocesan, parish, mission and family websites on the internet.

Existing pages currently include over 600 bishops in the “American Succession.”

  • “Apostolic Episcopate” and its unbroken succession is the phrase used by many bishops in the 1800’s. It – rather than the typical shorter phrase, Apostolic Succession – more adequately expresses my own concern to allow for the difference that can exist between those elected to the office of Bishop, and those not bishops but still exhibiting the spiritual gift of apostleship within the Body of Christ. I am quite firmly convinced there are those bishops who do not have the gift and ministry of apostle, and there are apostles who have not been elected to be a bishop.  This could be seen as a difference or perhaps distinction between “bishop-ing” and “apostel-ing”.
  • A similar distinction is made between being Rector and being Pastor in a post at 2thousand50.wordpress.com

The Rev Robert G. Eaton is owner and editor.

Tally On Northern Michigan’s Forrester: A Declination of Consent in the Making

This is quite fascinating.   At least for those of us who are interested in “the making of Bishops.”

It doesn’t come along all that often, given over 200 years of existence of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, that is, the declination of consent to an election of someone to be the bishop in or of a diocese. It has happened, though.

The AESOP (the subject of this weblog) now has almost 700 bishops included. In doing research for some of the details, you could expect a few stories to surface, and the justifications for either the bishops of the Church or the Standing Committees of the Church, or both, withholding consent to go ahead with a consecration of the person elected. Such as with Wm DeKoven at the height of the Ritualist controversy after the Civil War, often over simplified to Anglo-Catholic vs Evangelical and Broad Church (50 years before in the Diocese of Massachusetts, Bp Manton Eastburn refused to make a Pastoral Visit to Church of the Advent, Boston, because the Officiant was known to face the altar rather than the people during the Prayers, thus perpetuating religious superstitions; also the preacher was known to wear a surplice while preaching instead of simply a gown; among other things – his refusal lasted most of his episcopate, but I digress).

And sometimes the consent process is mercifully cancelled, as with the priest from the east coast elected in the southern diocese back in the 1800’s, or the one elected out of Virginia, or the one elected out of Eastern Oregon (both in our life time), where the Standing Committee pulled the plug due to undisclosed information that suddenly became disclosed. Personally, that’s what I wish would happen in Northern Michigan, that either the Standing Committee would pull the election, or the newly bishop-elect would just voluntarily withdraw himself prior to the end of the consent process.

But that then is the subject here, the election or as some have called it the “appointment” of the Rev Kevin Thew Forrester as the intended bishop (this has nothing to do with the election but for clarification’s sake, in case you are looking, Kevin’s wife’s maiden name is Thew, the same kind of use of surnames as Katherine Jefferts Schori and her husband, but without a hyphen).
My sole purpose here is to share my thoughts on how this consent process is going to play out, not to explain my personal discernment.

Again, for explanation, anytime an election for a bishop takes place, it kicks into play a process of requiring all bishops of jurisdiction (all except those who are not currently in charge of something, and thus most retired bishops. Note +Jerry Lamb, for instance, retired but acting currently as bishop of provisional authority in San Joaquin will be able to vote), and all Standing Committees (that’s the committee that is in charge of a diocese in the absence of a bishop) to respond to the election with a letter of consent, or voicing their lack of consent. A majority of consent approvals must be received within a 120 day period from both bishops and Standing Committees. This is like a “vote by orders”, where if one group fails to give consent the whole thing goes down the tubes, and the process goes back to the electing diocese to try again.

I won’t rehearse here what the problem is with Thew Forrester, or with the way the election took place. Just Google Forrester, or Thew Forrester, Northern Michigan, or even Buddhist Bishop, and you will start to hear the complaints. The Diocese of Northern Michigan has had an apologetic posted. Both liberal and conservative weblogs have carried a multitude of links, as well as beginning to post notices of bishops who are registering their consents and lack of consents.
I also won’t rehearse here the makeup of the House of Bishops in terms of conservative and liberal and how that came to be within  The Episcopal Church at this time in its history. This background reading can also be researched up by a search engine, or even by reading the Wikipedia article on The Episcopal Church (I wouldn’t use it as the last word on Episcopalianism, but at least it identifies current issues).

So, here we go.  I’m using terms here not to stereotype but to help make it easier to count noses.

There will be 30 clearly “reappraiser” (see Titusonenine for definition of reappraiser and reasserter) bishops who quickly vote for consent, there will be 20 clearly “reasserter” bishops who will quickly decide not provide consent. It is the 65 to 70 inbetween on the theological spectrum  to consider. Bishop Ted Gulick (both of Kentucky and who was approved to be the bishop of provisional authority to the Episcopalians left from Fort Worth), who has recently announced his Withholding of Consent (No) vote already, represents that middle. But even the middle can be understood as spanning a spectrum. Actually, the way +Gulick defines himself in his response  pretty well defines the spectrum: a mixture of socially liberal/progressive pastoral concerns and conservative evangelical and/or anglo-catholic theology and faith.
So how does Bp Gulick discern this situation in Northern Michigan? Well, since there are no major liberal/progressive sensitivity buttons being pushed (such as if Thew Forrester were gay) then +Gulick’s sensitivities are able to focus almost completely on the serious issues raised in theology, liturgy, and bible. On that basis alone, and yet with no real sense in my mind about the layout of that spectrum of the House of Bishops (HOB)  middle – so let’s just say it’s half and half – 1/2 of the middle, the half that finds itself claiming to give more weight to more conservative theology, etc., will have already made of their mind, and will not send in their consent, that is, they will withhold their consent. With that, it is almost a break-even consent process for Thew Forrester and anyone else who presses the “buzz” button.
HOWEVER, the hypothesis that I laid out above also means that those bishops in the House of Bishops Middle who would agree with +Gulick’s self-identity, but give more weight to the social progressive side of their dual nature (if you will), will ALSO spend more time in discernment inquiry on the theology, liturgical digressions of Forrester, and will provide a majority of votes in the “No” category.
As evidence of this speculation of mine, I would suggest that +Tom Breidenthal (the new bishop of Southern Ohio, and an old acquaintance of mine  and +Ted Gulick are on either side of that invisible line down the center of the H.O.B., +Tom on the liberal progressive tendency, and +Ted on the conservative evangelical/Catholic side, and both have said “No”. +Tom just got to his vote sooner than some of the others on his side of things because he simply thinks theologically (the reality – self-admitted – not all bishops do) and worked through what he needed to work through faster.

I’m not saying that those 30 bishops that reasserters have clearly identified as reappraisers (or some label as revisionist) don’t think theologically, nor that at least some of them aren’t willing to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But the concept of “progressiveness” is a constant and immediate lens through which they view most everything, and they are more quick to defend “progress” even if they haven’t personally investigated what they should in order to provide a reasoned consent.

Moving along, doing the math as laid out above, I’m thinking that the mind of the bishops at this moment of discernment, including those who have already voted and those who haven’t, is somewhere in the 55 “no” – 65 “yes” range (based on about 120 bishops who are eligible to vote).  And will eventually – as bishops do the thinking and praying and finally send in their vote – be as high as 73 “no” -47, “yes” (based on 120 eligible bishops and all voting).

[UPDATE, 04/16/09: My new count shows 99 bishops of jurisdiction as Diocesan Ordinaries (quite a few vacancies), plus two bishops (at least) with provisional authority, which seems to have allowed them an invitation to send in a letter of consent, making 101. My further question would be if there are more bishops who have been allowed to participate in the consent process, such as +Whalen of Europe, +Packard of Armed Forces, +Kimsey assisting in Alaska, +MacDonald assisting in Navajoland, etc. But I need to revise the 70 (for a total of 120) down to 55 (for a total of 105). So I am revising my final count to the following equation: 30 yes – 20 no + 13.75 yes (55/2/2) – 41.25 no (55/2 + 55/2/2) = 43.75 yes – 61.25 no, where +1 was needed for approved consent. At least 61 no, and 43 yes, based on these numbers of diocesan bishops able to give or withhold consent.
Again, absences in voting on both sides will affect the final. So, let’s just say at least 60% will withhold consent.]

[another UPDATE: It seems clear now that +Kimsey, and thus +MacDonald, will not be involved in this process since they are bishops providing episcopal ministry, but not holding ecclesiastical authority, and thus not “bishops of jurisdiction”. Also that the Presiding Bishop would hold her jurisdiction for Europe, rather than +Whalen. That solidifies the 101 number. Based on my theory of the numbers at the end of the spectrum, the total # of bishops won’t make any difference, that is, it would be 30 yes’s plus 1/2 of 1/2 of the “moderates”, or about 40%. At this point (05/01/09), certainly no more than I originally predicted, and then slightly modified down to 43 yes consents.]

Please note that I have not bothered to include the factors of institutionalism, Church order, seminary training, nature of diocese of residence, understanding of church growth and development, and Anglican Communion covenant. A bishop’s expected vote can be fine tuned with these factors, and institutionalism, order, and Covenant could be final consideration factors for some bishops in this particular consent matter.

RGE+

Yes:
Bishops, consenting – 16 (17)
+Neff Powell, Southwest Virginia
+Marc Andrus, California
+Carolyn Irish, Utah
+Bruce Caldwell, Wyoming
+Tom Ely, Vermont
+John Chane, Washington, DC (along with rude comment to phone surveyist)
+Creighton Robertson, South Dakota
+Tom Shaw, Massachusetts
+Bob Gepert, Western Michigan
+Jerry Lamb, for San Joaquin
+James Waggoner, Spokane
+Drew Smith, Connecticut
(+Wendell Gibbs, Michigan)
+Ousley, Eastern Michigan
+Orris Walker, Long Island
+Joe Burnett, Nebraska
+Mark Sisk, New York

Standing Committees, consenting – 32 ( = means bishop voted the same, – not)
San Joaquin =
Idaho
Central Pennsylvania –
Indianapolis
Spokane =
Milwaukee
Olympia –
Southern Ohio –
Kentucky –
East Carolina
Western New York
East Tennessee
Massachusetts =
Northern Michigan N/A
Utah =
Minnesota
Newark
Delaware
Washington, DC =
Chicago
Nebraska
Atlanta –
Maine
Vermont
Eastern Michigan =
Easton –
Alaska N/A
Eastern Oregon (will Rivera have a vote, now that she is the Bishop of Provisional Authority there?)
Virgin Islands
Kansas
Wyoming
Virginia –

No:
Bishops – 41 (47)
+Ed Little, Northern Indiana
+John Howe, Central Florida
+Ted Gulick, Kentucky
+Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
+Greg Rickel, Olympia
+Bill Love, Albany
+Tom Breidenthal, Southern Ohio
+Paul Marshall, Bethlehem
+James “Bud” Shand, Easton
+Larry Benfield, Arkansas
+Charles Jenkins, Louisiana
+Michael Curry, North Carolina
+James Adams, Western Kansas
+Jim Mathes, San Diego
+Peter Beckwith, Springfield
+Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
+Dabney Smith, Southwest Florida
+Bob Fitzpatrick, Hawaii
+Jim Stanton, Dallas
+Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
+Don Wimberly, Texas
+Gene Sutton, Maryland
+Don Johnson, West Tennessee
+Nathan Baxter, Central Pennsylvania
+Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
+John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
+Jacobus. Fond du Lac
+Michie Klusmeyer, West Virginia
+Peter Lee, Virginia –
+Samuel Howard, Florida =
+Barry Beisner, Northern California =
+Jon Bruno, Los Angeles =
(+Philip Duncan, Central Gulf Coast)
(+Gray, Mississippi)
(+Neil Alexander, Atlanta)
(+Franklin Brookhart, Montana)
+David Alzarez-Valazquez, Puerto Rico
+Francisco Duque, Colombia
+Scott Mayer, Northwest TX
(+Porter Taylor, Western North Carolina))
+Sean Rowe, Northwest Pennsylvania
+Charles vonRosenberg (East Tennessee)
(+John Buchanan (Quincy))
+Mark Hollinsworth (Ohio)
+Bp Guerrero, Venezuela
+Alfredo Morante (Litoral Ecuador) =

Standing Committees, refuse consent – 58 (62)
Rio Grande (N/A)
Mississippi (=)
Dallas (by convention) =
Central Florida =
West Tennessee =
Fond du Lac =
Albany =
West Texas =
Texas =
Southwest Florida =
Maryland =
El Camino Real
Tennessee =
West Missouri
South Carolina =
New York
Northern California =
Arkansas =
Georgia
Northwest Pennsylvania
West Virginia =
Florida =
Western Louisiana =
Springfield =
Rhode Island =
Oregon N/A
Missouri
Arizona
Western Kansas =
Fort Worth (=)
Oklahoma
Alabama
Montana =
Southwestern Virginia =
Iowa
San Diego =
Pittsburgh N/A
North Carolina =
Ohio
New Jersey
Hawaii =
Quincy
Northern Indiana =
Puerto Rico =
Convocation in Europe
Pennsylvania N/A
Colombia +
Colorado
Los Angeles
Northwest Texas =
North Dakota
(Eau Claire)
(Louisiana = )
(Central Gulf Coast =)
(Western Michigan – )
Bethlehem =
Upper South Carolina =
California –
Central New York
Venezuela =
Litoral Ecuador =
Nevada

+++++++++++++

Waiting to hear from 24 Bishops, (plus 10 non-revealed):
+Jean Duracin (Haiti)
+Ambrose Gumbs (Virgin Islands)
+David Lai (Taiwan)
+Wilfrido Ramos-Orench (Central Ecuador)
+Lloyd Allen (Honduras)
+Julio Holguin (Dominican Rep.)

+Dean Wolfe (Kansas) *
+Gladstone Adams (Central NY) *
+Leo Frade (SE Florida) (Abstaining?)
+George Councell (New Jersey)
+James Jelinek (Minnesota) *
+Jeffery Lee (Chicago) *
+Stephen Lane (Maine) *
+Henry I. Louttit (Georgia) *
+Stacy Sauls (Lexington) *
+Brian Thom (Idaho) *
+Wayne Wright (Delaware) *
+Michael Garrison (Western NY) *
+Clifton Daniel III (East Carolina) *
+Kirk Smith (Arizona) *
+Catherine Waynick (Indy) *
+Alan Scarfe (Iowa) *
+George Smith (Missouri) *
+Gordon Scruton (Western MA) *

probably voted but refuse to reveal (10):
+V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)
+Dan Edwards (Nevada)
+Edward Konieczny (Oklahoma)
+Katherine Jefferts Schori (Europe)
+Robert O’Neill (Colorado)
+Mary Gray-Reeves (El Camino Real)
+Barry Howe (West Missouri)
+Prince Singh (Rochester)
+Mark Beckworth (Newark)
+Holly Hollerith (Southern VA)

Waiting to hear from 16 SC’s:
[UPDATE (6-3-09)] I have been unwilling to make any predictions about Standing Committees and their consent decisions. Although there is a tendency for Standing Committees to support their bishop in such decisions, there are just too many people involved, and no diocese votes for offices in a strictly monochrome manner. Nor in every given situation do even “party line” Standing Committees vote the party line. What happened in San Joaquin back in late 2007 and following is a perfect example. For that matter, the Standing Committee votes for Forrester’s consent process is also a perfect example of what folks expected, and what decisions were actually made.
However, at 55 votes out of 111, I already know that there is at least one more Standing Committee vote out there that will make it a majority withholding of consent. But let me just mark the following as to how I think it will go. In the meantime, I am still holding to the tally of bishops I made in February, going 60%/40% withholding, specifically at least 58 withholding and 43 or less consents.

(Haiti)
Taiwan
(Central Ecuador)
(Litoral Ecuador) voted No as of 6-25; got that one right
Honduras
(Venezuela) voted no reported as of 6-22; got that one right
(Dominican Republic)
California voted No as of 6-10; missed that one
Wyoming voted yes as of 6-21; got that one right
(Kansas) voted Yes as of 6-17 got these two exactly backwards
Central NY voted No as of 6-17 got these two exactly backwards
SE Florida
(Upper South Carolina) “No” announced 6-13 – got that one right
(Virginia) “yes” announced 6-23 : Hmm, got that one wrong – weirder than CA
(Bethlehem) “No” announced 6-4 – got that one right
(Navajoland- will abstain?)

taken action but withholding information:
Connecticut
(Long Island)
(Southern VA)
Western MAss
Nevada — voted NO, announced 7-1 (got this one wrong, although my first inclination was they would vote no)
New Hampshire
Michigan
Rochester
(Western North Carolina)
Lexington
(South Dakota)

FINAL UPDATE:   The consent for Thew Forrester was in fact declined by the House of Bishops, along the lines as predicted.  The count for the Standing Committees would make no difference, since one group, the Bishops, declined.

The announcement from the Presiding Bishop’s office never includes the numbers of consents and declines.  So the announcement simply was made that the consent process failed to approve the diocese of Northern MIchigan’s election.

The next attempt by the diocese however was successful with a different person being elected.

The sermon preached at the consecration of A.C. Coxe as Asst. Bishop of Western New York

Wm. H. Odenheimer, Bishop of New Jersey, was asked to preach at Arthur Cleveland Coxe’s consecration as “Assistant Bishop” of the Episcopal Diocese of Western New York, in 1865 (Coxe is officially listed in The Church Annual as having been consecrated as Coadjutor; that same year he became the Ordinary).

Here, in 1865, less than half-way to the current length of existence of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and at an extremely troublesome and tragic time in the life of the USA, the ministry and order of Bishop is clearly articulated both in an understanding of the larger Body of Christ as well as the more provincial meaning.

It should be instructive – without attempting to redefine the terms and theology of Bishop Odenheimer – to our day, and our time.

Here is an excerpt including Bp Odenheimer’s “charge” to Bp Coxe:

“…your Mother the Church welcomes her faithful son to the highest Ministry, in joyful anticipation of the good work for Christ yet to be done. That work is the uncompromising preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom, in all the fulness of its original revelation. CHRIST CRUCIFIED is your theme–the same changeless Gospel, which Priest, and Deacon, and layman must proclaim, according to their several functions. Not to be called of men “Rabbi, Rabbi,” not for the paltry [17/18] trappings of office, do you look forward to the dignity now to be conferred, but as it is indeed, to a dignity giving authority to do harder work for Christ and His Church.

A brother in sacred song as well as in Pastoral efficiency, with Presbyters like Herbert, Keble, and Croswell; be still a brother in that heavenly gift as well as in Episcopal Authority, as you take your seat with Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Ken and Doane. Win souls to Jesus by every power that God has given you, and through every avenue that He has opened to the hearts of man.

The bearer of an honored name, you will to-day consecrate anew to the Triune God the treasures of your intellect and heart, in all their varied richness, and pour them out afresh at the foot of the Cross. For the hill of Ecclesiastical eminence like Calvary of old, is crowned with THE CROSS; and they who, in God’s providence, ascend through the grades of the Christian Ministry to the highest point of Churchly authority, will find themselves lifted up, not for self exaltation but for self crucifixion. “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you”–these words embrace, within their mysterious scope, suffering and sacrifice, as well as authority and dignity. A Bishop’s true crozier is the Cross; his Mitre the crown of thorns: his Ring the stigmata of self sacrifice; and his message of peace and good will the end as well as the beginning of his Holy Ministry.”

You may read it here.