Episcopal consents, "orthodoxy" and praxis

The election of Fr. Thew Forrester as bishop of Northern Michigan is causing a stir. Now, I imagine that outside the august circles of the Episcopal Church, this has not (yet) been more than a blip on the radar; however, it has become noteworthy inside the Episcopal corner of the Kingdom for several reasons. The unusual (some would say irregular) process used in his election, his extensive use of Buddhist meditation as a spiritual discipline, his use and promotion of liturgical prayers that deviate significantly from the forms and uses of the Book of Common Prayer and alternatives approved by General Convention, not to mention the theology expressed by his sermons and writings, have all resulted in a buzz of reaction.

The reaction hinges on a facet of our ecclesiology: a bishop, while elected by a local diocese, is not only a bishop of that diocese. One is ordained as a bishop of and for the whole church, and recognized as such-- indeed, throughout the whole Anglican Communion (except for those Provinces Not Playing Well With Others; but that is a discussion for another day). Because of this, a bishop's election must be approved by the other dioceses in the Episcopal Church-- a majority of our diocesan bishops and Standing Committees must formally consent to the election before said bishop may be ordained.

Because of concerns about the above list, there are an increasing number of bishops & SCs who are declining to give consent. Among those is my ordaining bishop, +Ed Little, from Northern Indiana. He posted a lengthy and gracious explanation for his decision to withhold consent; you can find it here. Whether or not one agrees, one cannot help but appreciate the manner in which he addresses the issue. "Respecting the dignity of every human being" and "seeking and serving Christ in all persons" are things that Ed does very, very well, and part of why I am proud and grateful to consider him both mentor and friend.

I noticed this morning that some folks on T19 have reacted with their usual sarcastic aplomb. Even a bishop who acts in what they believe is the "proper" manner by withholding consent, is not immune from snarky criticism if his explanation is not sufficiently condemnatory.

Fr. Richard Kew observed that too often "...for those who claim orthodoxy there is little place for generosity or grace. Orthodoxy is not just about believing rightly, it is about doing rightly as a consequence of that belief, but it seems that for some this excludes grace, generosity, or merely civility."

The lack that Fr. Kew notes is the reason I usually do not read comments over there (and will not visit some other so-called "conservative" blogs at all). It is also why comment moderation is enabled on my blog-- and further, why I will not use the "O" word in reference to spewers of the venomous, self-righteous proclamations that often spring forth when discussing anything or anyone they think less than pure by their stringent standards. Orthodox is as orthodox does-- not out some sort of works righteousness, but as the fruit of "a true and lively faith"-- and the doing is not limited to acts of charity, but ideally encompasses all of one's actions and interactions. One can disagree without being disagreeable, and offer faithful opinion without denigration, insult or ad hominem attack.

********
Added later: Thankfully, Fr. Kew's comment seems to have been a reality check for the commenters on that particular post. Let those who have ears, continue to hear.