Cry Havick!

Pay back is Hell.

I am in no mood to play nice. The objections to Mary Glasspool's election are, almost by their own argument, Donatism.

The supporting the Covenant is condoning Donatism.

On a fundamental level, on it's own merits, their argument is wrong. This "restraint" argument is wrong, again as a matter of unvarnished orthodoxy. The ACC communique is a monument to casuistry and sophistry in it's attempts to not sound Donatistic. +Howe, Harmon+, and the rest are arguing from a weak position. If they were more likely to turn to a hyper moralistic bigot like Pelagius it might make more sence. But they lay claim to Agustin of Hippo, the theologian who defined the doctrine of grace and expanded it to denounce the loathsome theology of Donatus and the rest.

The "inclusiveness" argument is the other half of this equation, or at least a continuation of the expansive ideas of Grace, but it doesn't directly push back, and that is why they continue to play word games claim some specious doctrinal high ground.

I'm tired of playing nice.
I'm sick of being apologetic.
I say we call them out for what they are.

The Anglican Rite in the Roman Church

Northern Michigan episcopal election fails to receive required consents

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on July 27 notified the standing committee of the Diocese of Northern Michigan that the necessary consents to the ordination and consecration of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as bishop were not received within the prescribed time period and therefore his election was "null and void."

In Thew Forrester's case, standing committees had until July 19 and bishops with jurisdiction had until July 25.

"I have been extraordinarily blessed and honored to walk with my friends from the Diocese of Northern Michigan over these past months as their bishop-elect. I treasure the support they have extended me and my family, as well as that I have received from Hong Kong to Holland and from Great Britain to New Zealand, and indeed from so many throughout The Episcopal Church. As we live and move and have our being in Christ, there is truly a Holy Wisdom in all that is unfolding, and as St. John of the Cross affirms, a grace in 'all that happens,'" said Thew Forrester in a statement.

Members of the standing committee couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

Thew Forrester, chosen during a special convention on February 21 to succeed James Kelsey who died in June, 2007, had come under intense scrutiny since his election.

Read the rest here.

Ecumenism, the Eucharist and The "Cool Kids"

In the rash of bad decisions made in the final hours at General Convention this summer (along with cutting the Evangelism, Women's Ministries, Anti-Racism Training, and Education to the vanishing point) was a provision to have "Interim Eucharistic Sharing" with the United Methodist Church. Now I say "bad" not unadvisedly. I'm not going to launch into some screed about how the UMC isn't really a Christian Body and Church, or that it is invalid at some key level. Rather, I am pointing out that there is far to much work that needs to be done before we can even go there.

Methodism and Anglicanism have a common heritage, but the relationship is rocky. In the end, American Methodism was founded by a precipitous act by John Wesley to ordain two men to come to the new nation to act as superintendents, not Bishops, for the nacient Methodist meetings here. Coke and Asbury's names are today remembered in the Publishing Company of the UMC. There was an implicit rejection of the Historic Episcopacy (Not to mention the slightly different concept of Apostolic Succession) in this action. When the old Southern and Northern Methodist Churches, as well as the EUB, merged, they decided upon the tittle of "Bishop" for their District Superintendents but decidedly left out any idea of the Episcopacy that smacked to much of being "Catholic." To this day, if you really measure up the two services for Making Bishops in the Methodist Book of Worship and the Book of Common Prayer, you will note a few differences. In the BCP the idea is that there is a conferring of a separate Order of Ministry and that the recipient will share in the Office of the Apostles. The UMC service of "Consecration" is the elevation of a senior Presbyter, granted special authority and set aside in that role, but still a presbyter. In there lies the difference.

The reason that this becomes important is that the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886 and 1888 defines the "inherent parts of [the] sacred deposit" that we Anglicans consider to be non negotiable. The Fourth Article of the Quadrilateral outlines that we hold the concept of the Historic Episcopacy to be essential to our understanding of the Church, and that we expect to meet it in some form in any other Church with whom we are to attempt parity with. In the Case of the ELCA we were willing to accept their Presbyteral Ordinations in the same spirit that similar ones were received in England after the Restoration. When there are no bishops available and the Church needs to survive, they are acceptable. Loss of the Historic Episcopate due to the forced merger of Reformed and Lutheran Bodies in Germany in the 18th century was, in part, the pretext for our embrace of them. We also have made it so that their Bishops will be in the Historic Episcopate and the Apostolic Succession and the agreement is such that all of their Pastors going forward will be ordained by their Bishops. We are working a type of union within both our and their categories and it's still fairly touch and go.

With the United Methodists, however, we have all of that touchy and unpleasant baggage. Wesley acted outside of our Anglican tradition, even as it was understood at the time, in order to tend to his groups in the United States. That rejection, and the continued rejection of the Historic Episcopate is a major issue that should be addressed.

Another part of this is, and this may sound odd, is that we don't see eye to eye about the nature of the Sacrament it's self. I'm serious. The first problem is the one many people see as being the silliest. You see that Lambeth Quadrilateral I mentioned before has as its third article a commitment to the two Dominical Sacraments using the "elements ordained by Him." At issue here is that the UMC has a doctrinal and social commitment to using pasteurized grape juice ala Welches, and not wine. As the UMC Book of Worship puts it:

"Although the historic and Ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by the United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late 19th century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation for children and youth, and supports the church's witness of abstinence." (pg. 28)

We'll not stop for to long and ponder the implications of this pastoral concern. That the only one that seems to not be tied up with 19th century pietism and general Victorian prudishness about alcohol (in particular when dealing with children) is concern for those for whom alcohol is poison. The proper way to respond to the needs of alcoholics is one that needs to be discussed and dealt with. The TEC's insistence that reception of one species or the other makes for a full communion may be a part of the answer, but such theology seems to be missing in the formularies of the UMC. However, that all is beside the point if one is willing to ignore such a difference in the basic idea of the proper administration of the Sacrament and paper over it.

The other issue is one that, the well written and theologically sound This Holy Mystery aside, there is no real parity between what Anglicans think of the meaning of the Sacrament and that of the UMC. That a major part of the "method" for which Weslians are names was regular reception of the Eucharist is down played if not actively forgotten now. Any sort of theology that even dares approach even the lower end of the Anglican spectrum of the Real presence is shrugged off. There is a need for the UMC to find it's voice on the Eucharist more definitively so that we may know what it is, exactly that we are sharing. The Prayer Book, in almost all of it's iterations starting in 1549 taught some form of Presence. The brief Second Book of Edward VI had the lowest and the proposed Scottish Prayer Book one of the highest. It is a part of our theological heritage that has been a part of our distinctiveness for a long time. We have no one voice on the "how", but pretty strong on the "what," the UMC is still trying to reclaim both. It is not, however, the job of TEC to do that work for them.

Not that any of these considerations matter that much to many at General Convention. Such matters, like real evangelism and the need for a fully funded educational office, are matters anadiaphoron, a thing indifferent. Most matters of theological distinction are really rather unimportant to many in power in our Church. That may seem harsh, in particular those who I just accused of being indifferent may object, but the accusation stands. Trivialities and feel good affirmations as well as sociology and political aphorisms have replaced the hard work of theology. There is a long, low roar of impatience that crescendos into a high pitched whine when ever the topic comes up. It could be simply a matter that almost every seminary is really a school of social work with a few, often resented, theology classes tossed into the mix. Most of our clergy are simply untrained in dealing with complex issues of theology and the culture of the Church has become one that, essentially, down plays such issues as unimportant.

In my last post I mentioned that there is a group of men and women who could best be defined as "The Cool Kids." These are people whose opinions matter in TEC in a way that the rest of our do not. They are the ones who reacted to strongly to the rejection of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester's election, and couldn't quiet understand that theological scruples really existed in a strong enough form to cause "good Liberals" to not support him. They are the same ones who don;t quite yet grasp the point that it is not a failing on the part of younger people to not fit into the same categories of taste and interest; and to like traditional music, or worship and not go running whole hog after new liturgies or new expressions. A desire to experience and use the old is seen as an aberration that must be stopped. It is the same air of assuredness that leads to the echo chamber like atmosphere of Committees like the SCLM, and to weaken the resolve of those who are on the Legislative committee to ruefully send the mess forward to the Bishops because to send it back to the SCLM would have hurt their feelings and it unChristian to harsh on a mellow.

now that I have, in part, defined the "Cool Kid's" I'll stop this post and move onto one about Evangelism, and why our Church seems to hate it.

Holy Women, Holy Men

Blessed feasts of blessed martyrs,

holy women, holy men,

with affection’s recollections

greet we your return again.

Worthy deeds they wrought, and wonders,

worthy of the Name they bore;

we, with meetest praise and sweetest,

honor them for evermore.

12th-century Latin text,

translated John Mason Neale

#238, The Hymnal 1982

The 2006 General Convention, meeting in Columbus, voted to approve an "A" resolution from the Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music (SCLM) to substantially revise the Lesser Feats and Fasts book, the "sanctoral" or "Book of Saints" the Episcopal Church uses for it's, well Lesser Feasts. They then produced (as one member put it a tad condescendingly put it) what "General Convention wanted." They have proposed a massive reorganization of the Book, complete with a new name "Holy Women, Holy Men," based off of the lyric quoted above. It is comprised of 112 additions, several adjustments, but no subtractions. I was surprised by and then a bit turned off by the size of the change, but decided to focus my thoughts into one or two spots. I also kept many of my reflections to myself as I watched the discussion unfold on the blogosphere and the HoB/D list.

The response has been mixed. The Establishment Left of TEC has received this, predictably, with open arms. The Conservatives were equally predictable in their rejection. Apparently, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no" has been amended to end with "in a predictably automatic way according to camp." The rest of us, many of whom you will note over at the side of your screen, were mixed in our reactions. I had several little things that stuck in my craw, some of that will be below. Other people had other issues. So, after a while, I went through and I googled a few of the names I was unfamiliar with. I was underwhelmed by most but one or two stood out as particularly good and others as bad. What kept coming to me was the question of why so many, and why some of the people chosen. Rather than indulge in to overly wrought a discursive essay, I'll simply list and briefly explain some of my problems.

1. Saint John of the Cross: This is the most complicated of my objections, so I list it first. I'll start with my general queasy feeling towards "San Juan de la Cruz" being listed in the book. If we were to take the time to list any other saint by their native name it wouldn't bother me as much. As it is, it is just a precious little addition to make the whole mess more "multi-cultural." Second, the date, November 24th, given on the Calendar for John is unexplained. Admittedly, back in the mists of time that was the date for John's commemoration. His death date is December 14th, that is his commemoration in the Roman Catholic and other Western Churches. In the 19th century his day interfered with the octave of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and so was moved to the day that he joined the Carmelites as John of St Mathias. In the 1950's Rome saw that as silly and moved him back to his first date of commemoration. Why then do we put him there? Even the Church of England commemorates him in December. I would guess that this date matches Ye Olde Kalendar in the Anglican Breviary, one of the many Anglo-Catholic books which has enshrined the 19th Century as the epitome of the Churchs' life and history. No doubt that was one of the reasons, but I'll not lay money on it. Now, there is a perfectly good person in HWHM, Henry Budd, one of the first Anglican Religious in the US, if not the Communion. My question would be though, why not commemorate him on a date of "event" and not put John in his place with the rest of the Church? This isn't just a question of being picky for it's own sake, but rather for the sake of continuity, or dare I say, Catholicity. (I'll also add that I think the collect is trite and precious.)

2. John Muir: He was an agnostic if not an atheist. To be more exact he was raised in the Church of Scotland then in one of the Cambelite sects because his father didn't think that the CoS was keeping it real enough. Later in life he would reject the concept of God all together "as purely a manufactured article as any puppet of a half-penney theater." How is he an example to the Faithful? He is rammed rather uncomfortably in with Archdeacon Hudson Stuck who was an old time social reformer type and outdoors-man. He helped climb Mount McKinley and was active in passing labor laws and teaching discipleship as caring for one another. I haven't found much that identifies the good Archdeacon as an Environmentalist, but my research is incomplete. What I find objectionable is that a faithful Christian is given second billing to a man who had no such faith, no matter how admirable he may be otherwise.

3. Charles, King and Martyr: This is a reverse objection to the one above, but they are connected. Why, after all this time, do we not include him on our calendar? He is present as a feast on the calendars of many of the other Anglican Churches in the World, and he was a Christian faithful to the catholic faith he had received. He died, in no small part, because he refused to compromise on the good order of the Church and was executed by the Puritans because of it. That there is no room on our calendar for him, but there is for Muir is I indicative of part of the trouble. You see Muir is popular with the "cool kids" of the Establishment in TEC, but Charles II is not.

4. The Amazingly Elastic Standards: Here are the standards of inclusion on the Calendar as outlined in 2006. Here they are for the new book. Now, using the standards as given there why would, say Muir, a Cambelite Agnostic/Atheist get recognized when Charles II isn't? I'm being deadly serious here. Are we to assume that the Sierra Club is now a devotional society of TEC? Are we to discount the Anglican credentials of Charles and the fact that he has a devoted society that has lobbied for him, as well as a well defined devotion dedicated to his memory? This is just one example of the "cool kids" making a decision and roling with it. I could list Barth, Fannie Crosby, or Kierkegarrd as example of other faithful Christians who seem to not fill in all the criteria for the calendar but are there and people like Laud, Church, Charlotte Young, or Auber are not.

5. Those Who Have Left Us: HWHM adds three names that stood up and slapped me when I saw them. John Henry Newman, GK Chesterton, and Elizabeth Anne Seaton all left the Anglican faith for "greener pastures" in the Bark of Peter. I am deeply ambivalent about this, in particular with Chesterton who could be very sardonic about Anglicanism. Newman requires his own post.

A bit later I'll expand upon what i mean by "The Cool Kids" and my feelings about the elitism that runs around in our Church.

Episcopal "Reform of the Reform"

"The Episcopal Church is passing through a watershed era. I believe that as the Baby Boomers begin to fade out and Generations X and Y begin asserting our voices, yet more changes remain on the horizon. As these changes are coupled with the growth of information technology, emerging/evolving soical media, and widespread social changes, I think we’re only at the start of a larger, more complicated, more convoluted process than we may suspect."

Read the rest, here.

There are several things in this that I find to be very interesting. The first is the continued statement that those of us who come after the post WWII generation are different and have different needs and desires. One of the key things is that we have lost is any sense of history. We have stopped training clergy in many of our seminaries to be pastoral theologians and educators and turned them into a kind of Spiritual social worker. With the more heavy duty academic work also went an ability to be grounded in the continutity of the Church as a whole. The sloppy things that come out of clergies mouths should be a source of scandal for the Church. A generation of sloppy, amateurish theology and history from the pulpit is combined with a massive amount of bad "scholarship" about the History and life of the Church (Marcus Borg and his hip, yuppie Jesus for the new millennium being chief among them, but Pagels and her amazingly elastic Gnosticism comes in a close second) to make a messy situation.

Some of this is simply an inability of post-modernism to actually construct anything lasting or meaningful. The other part of this is that the post WWII generation tended to be disinterested in building in the Church as much as they were intent on destroying. Diogenies Allen said once that the birthright of the Church had been stolen and destroyed. Part of this destruction is so that those who came after could not return to the past to look for ideas. Rather, the past as drawn by the well meaning, but misguided, intermediate is all that is there, and this image is so incomplete that it is useless. Some of this is a function of a general disdain for History in general, and a substitution for "these are my thoughts on the subject" and a collection of caricatures designed to make the reader feel better about themselves.

What we need is a solid reclamation of our heritage and an insistence upon it as a starting point.

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/thew_forrester_election_report.html


The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester cannot receive enough votes from standing committees in the Episcopal Church to be consecrated as bishop of Northern Michigan according to a tally kept by an Arkansas reporter who has been in contact with all of the Church's 110 dioceses as well as the Convocation in Europe.
The Diocese of Bethlehem's standing committee voted not to consent to Thew Forrester's election tonight, becoming the 56th diocese to withhold consent according to the reporting of Frank Lockwood of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who also reports online at Bible Belt Blogger. If his count is correct, Thew Forrester can only be confirmed if some standing committee's change their votes.
Fifty-six standing committees have withheld consent. Twenty-nine have given consent. Twenty-six have either not voted or not reported on their vote, according to Lockwood.
The Church does not announce the outcome of confirmation balloting until after the 120-day period in which consents may be received. Thew Forrester's consent period ends in late July.

Baptism, Eucharist, and the Hospitality of Jesus: On the Practice of "Open Communion"

Anglican Theological Review ,  Spring 2004   by Farwell, James

The opening of the eucharistic table to the unbaptized is a practice inspired by the radical hospitality of Jesus. Too often, however, the practice of open communion is adopted casually, without the systematic theological reflection called for by something so central to ecclesial identity and mission. Among the issues the practice raises are (1) its reliance on the claim that Jesus would not have shared a ritual meal with his disciples alone, (2) its departure from the paschal ecclesiology at the heart of contemporary liturgical renewal, which links baptism and eucharist to a post-Constantinian understanding of mission, (3) its failure both to appreciate the pastoral value of longing, and to avoid a modernist commitment to the immediate gratification of individual desire, (4) its naive assumption that boundaries are necessarily inhospitable, and (5) its taking the place of genuine evangelism and public ecclesial witness. This essay, while not an exhaustive argument against open communion, addresses these critical issues.

It has become commonplace, in some circles of the Episcopal Church, to argue that communion ought to be offered to the unbaptized in public worship as an expression of the radical hospitality of Jesus. A handful of high profile parishes, in conscientious defiance of the canons of the Episcopal Church that restrict communion to the baptized,1 have undertaken the practice and inspired a number of other parishes to do the same. While the actual practice of offering communion to the uiibaptized does not appear to be widespread, its profile is high enough to have warranted a resolution before the 74th General Convention asking for the appointment of a task force to consider the serious ecumenical and theological ramifications of this growing practice.2 The topic was recently on the agenda of Anglican liturgists who meet annually with the North American Academy of Liturgy. The Episcopal Church is not alone in reconsidering the traditional restriction of communion to the baptized. Recently, scholars and pastors of the Presbyterian Church (USA) devoted a vigorous session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion to this topic, and Methodists have long discussed whether Wesley meant by his claim that the Lord's Supper is a "converting ordinance" that the table should be open to all.

Read the rest here.

Comprehensiveness for the Sake of Truth

While I am not exactly sure of who wrote it, I commend to the attention of the about 6 or so of you who read this little corner of the internets the following sight: Comprehensiveness for the Sake of Truth. In particular, I suggest that you ponder this explanation of and expansion upon the Lambeth Quadrilateral and consider adding your signature to it, as I, and several others whom I respect deeply, have.

If we do, indeed, have a core doctrine, then we must make some effort of defining it. This is as good a start as any. Is this the end of the process? No, but this is a good starting point.

I am a major fan of my XM radio. I was less than pleased when they merged with Sirius.
They took away my Vox and a few other channels I was hooked on and didn't replace them with anything, as far as I could tell. After we moved to Baltimore all we had was the XM, and I stumbled onto The Catholic Channel. I have come to like it a great deal. It's so nice to have Christian programming that doesn't involve mullets and silly repetitive music.

In particular Lino Ruli's Catholic guy show has deepened my faith and many days kept my head from blowing off. More later, I just thought I give a shout out to a fine organization.

Beyond Words

The arrogant and, to be honest, devious and cowardly Donatist conspirators have been unmasked for the schismatic and mendacious villains they are. As is fitting for the subscribers to the, low rent, heresy of the schismatic and false Bishop of Carthage they have freely reinvented the history of the Church and now gone about trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Read the smoking guns of appallingly self serving treason against the Church that has been their home, and their utter disrespect and contempt for their fellow baptized at the following two links. The first is to a set of leaked emails these IRD sycophants have sent to one another, spelling out their plans to deceive and discount the Episcopal Church and the parishioners who are at their mercy in order to further their goals. 

The second is what has to be a presentable document that embodies their quasi Congregationalist excuses for their actions and rational for the institutional perpetuation of their infidelity and nonconformity to the Church Catholic. When I have calmed down, I will explain why these people, many of whom should know better, are so wrong.

Percy Dearmer On the Prayerbook:

Loyalty to the Prayer Book.

THERE was once a man who wanted to escape from a certain prison: he tried to loosen the window-bars, he tried to work out the stones of the wall, he tried the chimney, and he tried the floor. Then suddenly a happy thought struck him. He opened the door and walked out.

I think the historian of the future will say: There was once a Church that wanted to escape from a great mess. Somehow or other this Church had failed to retain her hold upon her members: the people of the country had for centuries been drifting away from her; half the religious folk had formed themselves into other denominations; the great majority of the people somehow had given up going to church at all; those who remained faithful were, in spite of a great Revival, still in singular ignorance as to the principles of their own religion: as a consequence, many of these were so sluggish as to be a source of weakness rather than strength; others were zealous, but their zeal was a source of division rather than of the unity which maketh force. So her enemies raged against her; her own children rushed hither and thither and were not satisfied; while the nation, through its Parliamentary representatives, became insolent, and proposed to refurbish the rusty weapons of religious persecution for the disciplining of her clergy.

[4] This Church was, in fact, in a mess. She had tried so many ways of escape! She had tried Geneva; she had tried Rome; she had essayed a mixture of the two in varying proportions, which was called Moderate; she had tried laissez faire, by which each man did what he found easy and thought nice; she had even tried (heroic and marvellous as it may seem) to establish a Cathedral type of Service in every village church. The one thing that she had never tried to do was to carry out her own laws, and to apply her own principles.

Then one day she had a happy thought. She would be true to her own self, to her own laws. She opened the door, and walked out.

We do not realize the extent of our failure. With everything human in our favour--learning, position, wealth, lofty traditions, the possession of the church buildings, the schools, the universities--we have gradually let our people slip away from us. Goodly was our heritage: if we had but kept what our forefathers had won for us, the whole Anglo-Saxon race would to-day be united in one Church, devotedly attached to it, and most diligent in worship as our ancestors were 1,000 years ago, as they were 400 years ago, as, indeed, a great majority still were, in spite of many losses, 200 years ago.

Read the rest here.

Yet Another Bishop says "No":

Dear brothers and sisters,

Many of you have asked me about the election of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as Bishop of Northern Michigan, and in particular about whether I gave consent for his consecration. I did not; nor did the Standing Committee, which had its own in-depth conversation on this important matter.

Several issues have been raised concerning Fr. Thew Forrester in the months since his election. First, he has undergone “lay ordination” in the Zen Buddhist tradition. Is this simply an acknowledgement that he engages in meditation practices with Buddhist roots? Or does it indicate a more dangerous mingling of Christian and Buddhist teaching, a hazardous syncretism? I do not have a clear answer to that question, though his articulation of the Christian faith seems to blend spiritual categories in a disquieting way. Second, the election process in the Diocese of Northern Michigan, while not uncanonical, gives the appearance of a closed system. The nominating committee presented only one candidate to the electing convention, and thus the election seems like the ratification of a decision already made. Third, the website of Fr. Thew Forrester’s parish – St. Paul’s, Marquette – indicates that he has written his own Eucharistic prayers and even made significant modifications to the baptismal liturgy. The Book of Common Prayer, on the other hand, is part of the constitution of the Church; its use is not optional, and clergy are not free to modify its texts. The Prayer Book is our doctrinal anchor, rooted in Scripture and summarizing the essential teachings of the Christian faith. Fourth, Fr. Thew Forrester’s sermons – also posted on the parish website – indicate a disturbing weakness in his understanding (and embrace) of basic Christian doctrines: the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the atoning work of Christ on the cross. As I’ve pondered Fr. Thew Forrester’s election, this is the most troubling dimension of all, and in the end it is what led me to withhold consent.
In the Christian Church, bishops are not “private citizens”. They are called “to be one with the apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel, and to testify to Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings . . . [and] to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” (BCP, p. 517). These are solemn obligations, and inherent to the ministry of bishop in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. St. Paul himself lays this charge upon his successor, Timothy: “Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).

A bishop’s teaching ministry must never be idiosyncratic. We have no message other than the one that has been given to us. The task of bishops is to pass on that message as faithfully as we can; to proclaim Jesus Christ – crucified, risen, coming again; clearly and winsomely to present his person and his work; and to offer the world a Gospel that challenges, heals, and restores us to a relationship with the Father. With the information I have at hand, I am not convinced that Fr. Thew Forrester would be able to discharge this essential obligation of episcopal office.

I cast my No vote without joy; indeed, with sorrow in my heart. If the Church denies consent for Fr. Thew Forrester to be consecrated as Bishop of Northern Michigan, it will be a tragic development for the diocese, and for Fr. Thew Forrester himself. He is, from all reports, a beloved and respected priest, passionate about ministry and committed to his people. Please join me in praying for him, and for the diocese, that in the midst of a most difficult time Jesus will be experienced more and more deeply, and ultimately his kingdom extended and his people with encouraged. With all blessings I am

Yours in Christ,
+Ed

A Side Note: Yet more on the Consent Process of Father Thew Forrester

Dear Ones,

I write to you regarding my decision not to consent to the election of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forester as Bishop-elect of Northern Michigan. Some of you have been eagerly awaiting this, and I am sorry for the delay. I wanted to allow time to discuss this with our Standing Committee, not to persuade but simply to make sure they heard the following directly from me, which they have. I also wanted to converse directly with Kevin Thew Forrester, which I have done, and I am most grateful to him for that offering.

The Examination within "The Ordination of a Bishop" in our Book of Common Prayer reads as follows:

"My brother, the people have chosen you and have affirmed
their trust in you by acclaiming your election. A bishop in
God's holy Church is called to be one with the apostles in
proclaiming Christ's resurrection and interpreting the Gospel,
and to testify to Christ's sovereignty as Lord of lords and
King of kings.

You are called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the
Church; to celebrate and to provide for the administration of
the sacraments of the New Covenant; to ordain priests and
deacons and to join in ordaining bishops; and to be in all
things a faithful pastor and wholesome example for the
entire flock of Christ.

With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of
the Church throughout the world. Your heritage is the faith
of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and those of
every generation who have looked to God in hope. Your joy
will be to follow him who came, not to be served, but to
serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Are you persuaded that God has called you to the office of
bishop?
Answer: I am so persuaded.

Bishop: Will you accept this call and fulfill this trust in
obedience to Christ?
Answer: I will obey Christ, and will serve in his name.

Bishop: Will you be faithful in prayer, and in the study of
Holy Scripture, that you may have the mind of
Christ?
Answer: I will, for he is my help.

Bishop: Will you boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of
Christ, enlightening the minds and stirring up the
conscience of your people?
Answer: I will, in the power of the Spirit.

Bishop: As a chief priest and pastor, will you encourage and
support all baptized people in their gifts and
ministries, nourish them from the riches of God's
grace, pray for them without ceasing, and celebrate
with them the sacraments of our redemption?
Answer: I will, in the name of Christ, the Shepherd and
Bishop of our souls.

Bishop: Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the
Church of God?
Answer: I will, for the love of God.

Bishop: Will you share with your fellow bishops in the
government of the whole Church; will you sustain
your fellow presbyters and take counsel with them;
will you guide and strengthen the deacons and all
others who minister in the Church?
Answer: I will, by the grace given me.

Bishop: Will you be merciful to all, show compassion to the
poor and strangers, and defend those who have no
helper?
Answer: I will, for the sake of Christ Jesus."

Often when called upon in this vocation to make difficult decisions, I reread these words. On the day of my own examination, these words fell heavy upon me, and with very good reason.

One of the duties of bishops in the Episcopal Church is to consent to diocesan elections taking place within the greater church, and to the results of those elections. This consent process is part of the checks and balances within the church, and, perhaps more importantly, a very real part of the discernment of the Body of Christ-the whole Church.

It has been said that the role of the bishop is to be a bridge, interpreting the universal to the local and the local to the universal. This particular role is often very difficult; however, our history and polity are clear: we do not operate in a vacuum, alone, in our local situations and contexts. We work within a larger context-the Anglican Communion and the rest of the global community-with many more to consider than just those who we see within our midst.

The process in Northern Michigan has many complexities and issues; which issue is most important and serious varies from person to person. Below are the major issues I have considered. After I present each as I understand them, I will address each one from my perspective. The issues are:

1. The election in Northern Michigan included only one candidate: the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester. Standing committees and bishops were asked to consent to an "election." Although the gathered convention of Northern Michigan did in fact vote on this one candidate, some have questioned whether an election took place in this case, since an election typically includes at least one other candidate and some process of voting.

2. Thew Forrester's practice of Buddhism and especially his "lay ordination" in that belief system (My Christian Faith & the Practice of Zen Buddhist Meditation, Kevin Thew Forrester, 26 February 2009and Letter to the House of Bishops, Kevin Thew Forrester, March 11, 2009).

3. Thew Forrester's rewriting of the approved liturgies from the Book of Common Prayer, including the Baptismal Liturgy. (Baptismal Liturgy, Season after Pentecost, St. Paul's Church, Marquette, Mich. and Letter on Liturgy of Baptism, Kevin Thew Forrester, March 27, 2009)

I want to be clear that my decision is in no way a criticism of Total Common Ministry (TCM) or the work the Diocese of Northern Michigan has done in this area. Just over a year ago, I had the great fortune to sit with a group of people from the Diocese of Northern Michigan at the Living Stones Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. I have always been deeply intrigued and inspired by the work of this diocese since the time of Bishop Tom Ray and continued under the inspiring leadership of the late Bishop Jim Kelsey. Their exploration and advocacy of ministry, rooted in our baptismal vows, has been a tremendous gift to the Body of Christ. Kevin Thew Forrester has been an integral part of that work, which I recognize.

During that meeting in Des Moines, this very process of Northern Michigan's selection of a bishop was the topic of our case study. While inspired by their approach and discernment, I and some of the other bishops present, cautioned that the newness and innovation in their approach would most likely require much more education and explanation to the whole church if it were to go forward. The process itself is not nearly the concern for me that it is for many, and in and of itself would not necessarily be a reason to withhold consent. Some have read my decision as proof that I do not support TCM. I emphatically disagree. I believe and have often stated that TCM is part of the emerging church, and one I want to engage, support, grow and learn from. In fact, I continue to urge the planning group of the House of Bishops to bring into our midst representatives of the emerging church and Living Stones. I strongly believe in TCM and at the same time, no emerging system exists outside the collective discernment and the shared authority and oversight which our tradition has always upheld. It is built into our system that the local does not decide such matters alone.

2. Thew Forrester's adherence or learning of meditation practices through the Buddhist belief system does not, in and of itself, trouble me. In my first parish, I invited and participated in a Buddhist-Christian dialogue, which was deeply enriching to me. However, what we discovered in our time together was the fact that though many of our meditation practices were quite similar, what we were attempting and to whom we were connecting in the meditation was quite different. In one document (My Christian Faith and the Practice of Zen Buddhist Meditation, February 26, 2009), Thew Forrester states that his lay ordination in the Zen Buddhist tradition included a welcoming ceremony that included "a resolve to use the practice of meditation as a path to awakening to the truth of the reality of human suffering." In the same document he states, "It embodies a pragmatic philosophy and a focus on human suffering rather than a unique theology of God." This to me is quite different from our resolve in Christianity: that at the heart of our faith and our baptismal covenant are the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In this same document, he states that his ceremony "included no oaths" although in a letter dated March 11, 2009 and distributed to the House of Bishops he provides more details including the "one vow I took and the precepts I affirmed." While he quite succinctly interprets what he intended to do with these vows and affirmations in relation to his Christian faith, to take the step of any type of ordination and "naming" within another belief system seems to me to be a deeper step and one I would take very seriously in relation to the vows taken in our Christian ordination. To this end, the lay ordination does cause me pause.

3. Finally, what troubles me the most about this situation is Thew Forrester's revision of liturgical texts, most especially the Baptismal Liturgy, the very core vow and liturgy of our faith. In a document circulated for the House of Bishops from Thew Forrester, he states that he and his congregation have "explored" the Baptismal liturgy, removing the reference to "Satan" and "accepting [Christ] as the way of Life and Hope." This action was to "complement the BCP"( Liturgy and Community, The Diocese of Northern Michigan, Kevin Thew Forrester, Lent 2009). In the same document, he states that he uses the Book of Common Prayer as a "primary resource." This brought me full circle. The very basis of Total Common Ministry and our very call to life as a Christian-the baptismal vow and liturgy-was being revised, and this is a concern.

I am faced with a situation where any one of these alone might be something that could be worked through; however, the panoply of these made me very uncomfortable and unready to move forward with consent.

This is one of the most, if not the most, difficult decisions I have had to make in my time as bishop. I want very much to honor those in Northern Michigan who have discerned this person and this outcome, but at this time, with the information I have, I cannot. I know and I have heard from many who do not agree with me and are greatly disappointed in my decision. I hold your opinions and feelings with great care and know them to be equally heartfelt. I hold in my prayers Kevin Thew Forrester, the Diocese of Northern Michigan, our diocese and this Church. I pray for the Holy Spirit to continue to enlighten us and I trust what should happen will, regardless of my role. This is my burden to carry. I do it on your behalf and I do not do it lightly, even when we disagree.

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. Gregory Rickel
Bishop of Olympia


(Italics added by your humble host as a matter of emphasis)

A Warm Up Post

In preparation for a longer post I am composing I suggest a quick read here.
While I do not completely agree with Father Haller as to some of the details, a few of which could be considered questions open to conjecture, this is still be best rational as to why certain norms should be adopted or restored. It also could or should serve as a call for other practices to be more fully developed theologically as to their rational.

I would also add that it is a dearly held belief of mine that one of the places the Church as a whole has gone wrong is the assumption that "sloppy" is equatable with "authentic" as one priest friend of mine put it.

More Thoughts on Forrester+:

1- I do not doubt he is a good man. I don't think that is the only qualifier for Bishop. It may not be "nice" to give a candidate a thorough go over, but "nice" isn't a Christian virtue. 

2- The thing that really bothers me is just how (for lack of a better word) glib Fthr. Forrester is. I'm serious. I found his little bon mot about if it where a "bad thing" for a Bishop to meditate and pray to be almost insulating in it's dismissivnes. It's sort of like +Kimsey's little bit of emotional blackmail at the close of his letter. In both cases there was a sense of "how DARE you question me?" 

3- Touching on the above I find his use and misuse of other theologians to be problematic. He rips ideas and quotes out of context and seems to like to play to a least common denominator form of theological language. Don't even get me started about Pelagius ala +Kimsey's letter. For a man with a doctorate, he doesn't seem to be all that willing to sound educated. There is a species of Clericalism that assumes that theology is over the heads of the laity. They don't want to confuse us, poor little dears that we are. So that awful "theology" stuff is left safely on the shelf, replaced by pabulum and buzz words. So much for Baptism as model and basis for participation in the Church. For all our talk about the decline of The Church, where there is growth are places that offer Doctrine. We may find that doctrine repulsive, but it is there and so are people.  

4- One major issue I have with "Total Ministry" (other than the name sounds like it was born in the bowels of a Management seminar) is that it is a closed system. There is little to no outside interference in the "teams" once they get running and self perpetuating. There is a danger of group think written into the process and it seems to have spread. The "group zero" report sums up that there is a defeatist atmosphere in the diocese. From the sounds of it these little cradle congregations seem to be closed to any idea that they COULD grow since doing so would mean opening the doors to people different than what has come. So they chose a man who they seem to not know other than by reputation (there is a comment over at Telling Secrets that the majority of the Diocese's members don't know about his liturgical experiments that is telling) to hold their hands while they drift off into That Good Night. I'm damned tired of the defeatist attitude at all levels of TEC and think we could do better for all of our Bishops than to allow this nursing home Chaplain model to go unquestioned.

From The Times: Credo: Motivated belief and the stringent search for truth

From The Times

John Polkinghorne

If being a scientist teaches you anything it is surely that the world is surprising, often behaving in strange ways that we could not have anticipated. Who would have thought in 1899 that something could sometimes behave like a wave (spread out and flappy) and sometimes like a particle (a little bullet)? Yet that is how light has been found to behave, and physicists have come to understand how this seemingly oxymoronic combination is possible.

This sort of experience means that the instinctive question for a scientist to ask is not "Is it reasonable?", as if we knew beforehand the shape that rationality had to take, but rather "What makes you think that might be the case?"

That is a question at once more open and more demanding. It does not try to specify beforehand the form that an acceptable answer has to take, but if you are to persuade me that some unexpected possibility is true, you will have to offer evidence in support of your claim. Science trades in the search for truth attainable through motivated belief.

So does religion. I am entirely happy to approach the search for religious truth in a similar spirit to that in which I look for scientific truth. If the physical world often proves to be surprising, it would scarcely seem strange if the Creator of that world also exceeded our prior expectations. Perhaps the most surprising thing about Jesus Christ is that we have all heard of Him. Of course He had an impressive public ministry, saying wise things and doing compassionate deeds. But then it all seemed to collapse and fall apart. He was arrested, deserted by His disillusioned followers, painfully and shamefully executed, suffering a death that any pious 1st-century Jew would have seen as a sign of God’s rejection (Deuteronomy says "cursed is anyone hung on a tree").

Two of the gospels tell us that from the gallows he cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" That first Good Friday, it must have seemed that that promising ministry had ended in abject failure and that Jesus had proved to be no more than yet another 1st-century messianic pretender. I believe that if the story of Jesus really ended there, we would never have heard of Him. He would just have dropped out of historical remembrance, as grandiose claims and exciting hopes proved to be empty.

Yet we have all heard of Jesus, and He has been a powerfully influential figure for 2,000 years. Something happened to continue his story. All the writers of the New Testament believe that what happened was his Resurrection from the dead the first Easter Day. Can we today believe this strange counterintuitive claim? Looking for the motivations for this belief requires a careful and scrupulous assessment of the evidence. Here I can do no more than sketch the considerations that persuade me to bet my life on accepting the claim. The belief that within history a man should rise from death to lead a life of unending glory would have seemed as strange in the 1st century as it does to us today. Many Jews believed that at the end of history the dead would be raised, and there were stories of people who had emerged from apparent death for a further spell of life before finally dying, but that was resuscitation not absolute resurrection. The claim that Jesus is a living Lord is quite different. The New Testament offers two lines of evidence. One line is the appearance stories, strangely varied, yet with a surprisingly persistent theme, that initially it was hard to recognise the risen Christ. I believe that this is a genuine historical reminiscence, indicating that these are not just a bunch of made-up tales constructed by a variety of early Christians.

Then there are the empty-tomb stories. If these were just concocted, why make women the discoverers when they were regarded as unreliable witnesses in the ancient world? Clearly there is much more that needs to be said, but I hope I have said enough to show that a scientist, open to unexpected beliefs but stringent in demanding adequate motivation for them, can believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, the fundamental pivot on which Christian belief turns.

The Rev Canon John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS, was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge. His latest book is Questions of Truth, with Nicholas Beale.

Mandatum novum do vobis: ut diligatis invicem

I just ache inside, and I think it's the Eucharist and foot washing that I need. But mostly I think it is the sitting for my hour tonight to pray and wait with Christ that I'm craving. I never "got" Easter until my first Good Friday liturgy. I never really "got" Good Friday until I sat in the dark on Maundy Thursday.

There is no waiting without the washing and the eating. We have to move through this from first to last.

Omnipotens Pater, cuius dilectus Filius, in nocte ante passionem, Sacramentum sui Corporis et Sanguinis instituit: Concede propitius ut idem grate accipiamus in memoriam eius qui in his sacrosanctis mysteriis pignus aeterne vitae nobis donat; per eundem Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.

A Few Things I am Pondering

Theological liberals are flocking to Morgan of Wales (AKA Pelagius). He was a hyper -moralistic, excessively ascetic monk given to long screeds about the decline of society and the need to be ever vigilant against sin. Augustine, on the other hand, preached a God of unmerited grace and perfecting love to whom sinners had recourse in that same Gods' death and resurrection. Augustine's chief sin, according to his Modernist critics, is  to say that we are born in sin, and that we are unable to save ourselves. That is, apparently, offensive to the precious self esteems of many now. Next thing you know, we'll be in the middle of the Federal Theory of Atonement. Meanwhile the neo-Donatist Arminians over at Ft Viagra will, no doubt, be soon be harping upon Augustinian themes against the most recent, and ill advised, defense of the Bishop Elect of Northern MI. There is an irony in that the theologian that one side could resort to is the others mascot.  I'm also not particularly expecting to be thanked for pointing it out.

One other thing I suppose could be said about a connection between Kevin Thew Forrester+ is that Pelagius redacted his own letters and sermons to try and reduce objections to them. That is, I suppose, the fourth and fifth century equivalent of pulling sermons and liturgies down off of the internet once they start to attract unwanted attention. That is just one of the layers of obfuscation that Bishop Kimsey tries to defend with a cry for "transparency" at the end of his letter. Apparently, it's only transparency when it works in your favor. I would argue that it is transparency that has gotten us into this position. The process that elected Forrester+ was not quite as transparent as most of us are used to. While trying to find out more about him, several of us found out all sorts of things. Some of these things have given pause. Then, when they started drawing fire, and the questions could not be deflected with off hand remarks about "the usual suspects" the documents in question were disappeared. (By the way, I resorted to googeling Kindling the Ancient Fire Sharing Stories of Life- Death-Rebirth Receiving the Sacred Fruits of Earth to pull up a pdf file, it's now faded from the parish site I saw it on, but has now been redisplayed at several other sites. Surf with caution.)

The letter ends with the following:

If you prevail and Kevin’s election is not agreed to, what is the next litmus test to

be? And perhaps the telling question is: if you prevail and Kevin’s election is not

agreed to, what word do you have for the people of Northern Michigan? I would

suggest you cut us all some slack and withdraw your opposition to Kevin’s

election. In so doing you would add a moment of grace to a Communion that, I

believe, is in search of openness and transparency, not inquisitional standards

employed through the consent process.

I will refrain from my initial response to his closing paragraph since it seems to serve no other purpose than to manipulate the emotions of those of us who are reticent to see his approval. It got an emotional response, just not one that can be shared in charity. It was a blatantly manipulative pair of questions, followed with a thinly veiled implication that any attempt at applying any sort of theological standard at all is an inquisitorial  act. The summoning of an assumed violent history there is galling when it is then strapped onto Bishop Bridenthhal's well reasoned letter. It was a low and hyperbolic blow to reinforce the first questions implication of dark days and serves as a  follow up to the shrill assumption of superior empathy implied in second question.  

I think that one of the issues we have here is that to say no to Forrester+ is to be not nice. 

It would be mean to say "no" to him, and to his diocese. It is this violation of the deadly virtues of Sentimentality and Mental Timidity precisely that which Bishop Kimsey is protesting. It is to say that we do, indeed have some standards someplace, and we intend to enforce them, broad though they may be. The one thing that came out of the cowardly assault on Bishop Righter is that Anglicans poses a theological core. Now is the time that it shows. I'm just sorry that Bishop Kimsey et al do not like what they see.

Another "no"

Thank you for your letter regarding the election in Northern Michigan of Thew Forrester. I had not heard of this controversial election until I arrived at the HOB Meeting last week in Kanuga. Sufficient concerns about Thew Forrester had been surfacing in the church and the Presiding Bishop took the unusual step of putting this one consent on the agenda. Supporting documents for his election were circulated at the meeting; however many of us were so concerned that it resulted in a protracted conversation. I was one of two Bishops who spoke at length stating reasons why we could not in conscience give consent.

Interestingly enough, my two major concerns had to do with his liturgical practice in which he feels that he has the right to modify the text of the Book of Common Prayer according to his own theological beliefs and assumptions. Secondly, I am deeply concerned by the theological content of some sermons he has posted on the internet. I am grieved to have to take this stance because I know of the suffering that the Diocese of Northern Michigan has endured as the result of Jim Kelsey's tragic automobile accident. I was somewhat embarrassed that during my conversation with the House my voice broke as I admitted that I had awakened very late at night to re-read the materials submitted to see if I could not find such an opening.

My own self-perception is that I am on many matters a social liberal but on doctrinal matters my conservative evangelical Catholicism causes me to pause. It is for that reason and on doctrinal grounds that I am unable to consent to the election in the Diocese of [Northern] Michigan.

Thank you for voicing your concerns, faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr., D.D.
Bishop of Kentucky