Umm--hmm.

I confess to not being able to follow all of this. Perhaps my mind isn't subtle enough. Personally, I'd want to reply: never mind the water, what exactly does the Incarnation mean for humanity?

I understand some folks prefer to trend East, but references to Athanasius's On The Incarnation would have made me feel a lot better.

For some reason, a thought just danced through my mind concerning the "test of orthodoxy" this man is being subjected to that reminds me alot of the folks from the Orthodox Anglican camp. Forgive me, but he's being made to dance for us even though his diocese already decided that he was orthodox enough to be their bishop. Perhaps we should instead learn more about Buddhism in order to understand where he might be coming from and who knows, it might make us better Christians? (Please don't start investigating me now.)

The role of a bishop is to safeguard and teach the faith. In such a role the question is not whether he can plumb great depths of subtlety. The question is clarity.

Is it too much for him to say clearly and without qualification, I believe what the creeds and the ecumenical councils teach about who Jesus is (and I have some other interesting thoughts to share based on my reading of Gregory of Nazianzus and others...)?

Derek - he has said that over and over in ordination and renewal of baptismal vows -- I guess I wonder why you don't believe him.

Ann, only because when asked a direct question now he gives an indirect answer. I bear no ill will against the guy and I'm not a theological witch-hunter.

I do believe bishops need to hold and teach the creeds. That's it...

I think this is fine as far as it goes, but that it doesn't go nearly far enough. I myself would follow Bonaventure on the incarnation, which owes a great deal to the Eastern Fathers. The incarnation does deal with sin, but the superabundant, excessive, self-communicative goodness and love of God and God’s gracious will to share it (self-communication as in Thomas or Rahner) is the fundamental motive and intrinsic cause of this reality which is the summit and goal of creation itself, i.e. the hypostatic union. I agree with Rahner that the human being is created as the possibility of incarnation. I also agree that we are always, already touched by grace, related to Christ whether we choose to accept it or not and thematize grace in a concrete historical form. Rahner also held that the very logic of incarnation and cosmic presence of Christ had an intrinsic dynamism toward such concrete, historical, social, and thefore ecclesial being.

What I am missing in Forrester is a clear sense of the intrinsic connection between the Incarnation and the paschal mystery. If incarnation means anything, all the particular details of the story of Jesus as told in the Gospels, including its climax in death and resurrection matter profoundly. A superficial reading of Rahner could miss this point, but especially the writings on Ignatian spirituality and some of the shorter articles on the Investigation would render such a reading problematic. A close reading of Athanasius or the liturgical tradition, especially the Vigil rite and baptism, would show that being "in Christ" is not only participation in his incarnation but also in his dying and rising. Eastern Christianity is not Augustinian and shouldn’t be made to be such. And Anglican Christianity has not always been a huge fan of Augustine, arguably at our peril. But Eastern Orthodoxy does have a doctrine of sin and grace, because these are present in the Scriptures and in the liturgy. As Forrester no doubt knows the latter is dealt with under pneumatology. No Eastern Christian, certainly not the fathers, could ignore the basic Pauline kerygma of Christ crucified and risen, nor could he or she evade his related account of being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6, the epistle for Vigil) and the relationship between this baptismal participation in the paschal mystery and the concept of the Body of Christ or being "in Christ." That Forrester feels the need to alter this particular liturgy, quite fundamental to our liturgical tradition and the baptismal ecclesiology at the living core of the 1979 Prayer Book (and the Consultation’s platform, I might add), in a way that eliminates or minimizes references to sin, is deeply troubling. I would say that this level of scrutiny would ordinarily be unwarranted, but Forrester has made certain choices to bring it on himself.

I have no absolutely no desire to ally myself with some of the forces arrayed against the confirmation. I want Forrester to give a successful defense of his orthodoxy and understand orthodoxy to be a relatively big tent.

I would suggest he clarify his remarks further and make them seem less evasive by tackling three related issues:

1) the relationship between incarnation and paschal mystery with clear attention to the saving significance of the later in the broader context of the former and our participation in it through holy baptism

2) specific attention to Romans 6 and to the themes of purification/cleansing "laver of regeneration" in the biblical witness about holy baptism, as well as the distinction between God's onlybegotten, "natural" Son and God's children through grace.

3) attention to the conversation between Rahner and Henri de Lubac about the doctrine of grace, i.e. if we are always bathed in an ocean of grace, how does grace remain prevenient and unmerited? And what is the specific Christological foundation of grace? In other words, how do Word (i.e. incarnate, crucified, and risen Jesus) and Spirit come together in our theosis?

Satisfactory answers to these questions would in my view take away all reasonable grounds to object.

By the way, I never found Bishop Lawrence's evasive responses as helpful as Forrester has already been. He’s not there yet, but at least Fr. Forrester seems to be moving in the right direction.

Do we know that participation in Buddhist meditation is a denial of the creeds? Did Fr. Forrester ever reject his faith in Jesus Christ? Perhaps the problem is with our assumptions or reactions and not with him.

I have spent 50 years as a member of the Diocese of Northern Michigan so I know of what I speak. Peter Pearson (above) errors when he claims people of the Diocese consider Thew Forrester as orthodox enough to be their Bishop.

1.) Few people outside his inner circle knew how committed he was to Zen Buddhist philosophy until the ruckus over how his election was railroaded through came to light.

2.)Thew Forrester and his cronies saw to it no one but his name could be placed in nomination for Bishop. His cronies also saw to it that only their names could be placed in nomination as his "support team".

3.)Thew Forrester has installed Mutual Ministry advocates in all but one Congregation in the Diocese.

4.)Mutual ministry proponents comprised about 90% of the delegates that attended the sham convention approving him as Bishop-Elect. Little wonder the Diocese loudly proclaims he received an astounding 90% of the vote.

As one Senior Warden said to me "Why waste all that gas to attend a meeting whose result is already a foregone conclusion?"

At a recent meeting called to discuss finances of the Diocese Thew Forrester predicted the Diocese would be bamkrupt in 7 years. Given the turmoil he has created by engineering his election that prediction has a ring of truth to it.

I understand that, to most reasonable people, the problem never was with his Buddhist meditation practices, which can be done even by Atheists. I think he clarified them previously, and his response was very clear and acceptable.

The problem, as I read it from other people's comments is that, when examining the content of some of the liturgies he created, and of his sermons, it was clear to them that Fr. Forrester did not agree with any interpretation of the doctrine of the Atonement, and deliberately changed liturgies to conform to his views. This would be, then, a real challenge on how we understand common prayer as shaping our theology.

Others find the election process against the canons.

Well, that's my perception... I'm not following the subject closely. I just pray the bishops arrive to a reasonable decision.

I'm very uneasy with the scrutiny to which we - not just here - are subjecting Kevin Thew Forrester. Ann Fontaine's concern that liberals are trying to prove something looks true here. We've told the global Anglican communion that we operate in fundamental trust of our dioceses and that our local discernment processes are, we believe, a means of listening to the Spirit. With the exception of Al Covell's note above, everything I've heard about the Northern Michigan process (including all the other criticisms and wondering if it was canonical) has suggested to me that a diocese had chosen to use our structures in a non-standard way for the sake of more patient listening and more discernment. Al Covell's note reminds us that not everyone in the diocese agrees with how it was done or the outcome. Worth hearing, but not, I think, the basis for our church's rejecting Northern Michigan's election.

'Conservatives' began this by expressing outrage at the election process and at Thew Forrester's disciplined meditation practice. Just as those voices got weary of explaining what Thew Forrester really meant and believed (despite what he said), more typically 'liberal' voices joined in.

Have the last few years convinced us that we want to be a confessional church. It reminds me of the painful experience of reading of a Baptist seminary that was debating whether 'five point' Calvinists could be on the faculty, generally agreeing that 'four point' Calvinists could. I like to imagine that Anglicans understand that 'faith' means 'trust' and it's not trust in a specified list of religious opinions but trust in God as known in Jesus Christ and the community that gathers in his name.

Bishop Briedenthall faults Thew Forrester for an unacceptable (the Bishop claims) doctrine of the atonement. As near as I can tell, it's that Thew Forrester disagrees with Augustine (and Aquinas) and agrees with most of the Eastern Fathers of the church- he doesn't think sin made the atonement necessary as a fix, he believes God's intention from the beginning was union with humankind and filling all of creation ('That God might be all in all.')

At the beginning of this comment thread, Derek asks about water, the waters of Christ's baptism and what Gregory Nazianzen (and actually a number of Eastern Christian teachers) saw, felt and understood in the waters of Christ's baptism that was crucial in our human encounter with God.

In January, I was in Ethiopia with a group of twenty Episcopalians celebrating Timkat, the Ethiopian Orthodox commemoration of the Baptism of Christ. The Episcopal Cafe provided us with a theme text that helped make it evident how Christians could consider the Baptism to be the most important feast of the year (as Ethiopian Orthodox do) and why 150,000 people would gather for a two day long liturgy to celebrate it in Addis Ababa, with proportionate sized crowds in every major city in Ethiopia. January 11, our own Speaking to the Soul had this quotation from St. Ephrem the Syrian:

[for The Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord]

"Today the Source of all the graces of baptism comes himself to be baptized in the river Jordan, there to make himself known to the world. Seeing him approach, John stretches out his hand to hold him back, protesting: Lord, by your own baptism you sanctify all others; yours is the true baptism, the source of perfect holiness. How can you wish to submit to mine? But the Lord replies, I wish it to be so. Come and baptize me. Do as I wish, for surely you cannot refuse me. Why do you hesitate, why are you so afraid? Do you not realize that the baptism I ask for is mine by every right? By my baptism the waters will be sanctified, receiving from me fire and the Holy Spirit. . . ."

"See the hosts of heaven hushed and still, as the all-holy Bridegroom goes down into the Jordan. No sooner is he baptized than he comes up from the waters, his splendor shining forth over the earth. The gates of heaven are opened, and the Father’s voice is heard: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” All who are present stand in awe as they watch the Spirit descend to bear witness to him. O come all you peoples, worship him! Praise to you, Lord, for your glorious epiphany which brings joy to us all! The whole world has become radiant with the light of your manifestation."

From Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymns on Nativity: Epiphany, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament II, Mark, edited by Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998).

What I see and hear in Kevin Thew Forrester is a pastoral and liturgical theologian, a leader (and writer) well-grounded in what Anglicans used to appeal to -the Tradition of the undivided church, and a Christian committed to listening with a compassionate, evangelist's ear to people on the edge of church and outside it, listening for their longing and desire and committed to finding ways to speak Gospel to them authentically.

If GAFCON has primed us to demonstrate that we can demand people (particularly bishops-elect) PROVE their faith, I think we're wandering toward sectarianism. Like the politicized process of apporving U.S. Supreme Court Justices, we may be starting here in a process where nearly every election goes to accusations, revelations, and innuendo. I was moved at Thew Forrester's election. I'm sad for what the subsequent controversy says about our church.

"Cronies"?!

Mr. Covell, I'm afraid you've revealed so much more about yourself, than about the Diocese of Northern Michigan or its Bishop-Elect.

***

Dance to our tune, you haven't gone "nearly far enough"?

:-0

There is THE Examination, on pp.517-520 of the BCP. As long as Thew Forrester is prepared to give the canonical responses as printed therein---and I've been given no reason to think he won't---let this inquisition be ended already!

JC Fisher

I agree with J C Fisher that the examination on pages 517-520 is sufficient.

Gary Paul Gilbert

The question here is not so much what Forrester affirms. It's clear enough that union, even theosis, in and through our relationship with the incarnate Word, is a focal meaning of baptism. Our own use of the Baptism of our Lord as a baptismal day points us in this direction. (But let's not forget Pentecost, All Saints, and above all Easter).

The question concerns what he is denying when he refuses to conform to the Church's liturgy. I myself remain deeply troubled that Forrester doesn't seem able to use the Prayer Book rite. I would welcome scholarly debate about the directions in which that rite should evolve, though I think that even here I would find myself opposing Forrester's views.

But my concern runs deeper than that: what do his revisions of the baptismal rite and his consistent preaching over many years say about his Christology? Our Christology and soteriology (the two are always interdependent) is embodied in the liturgy, especially Easter Vigil and the baptismal rite, and the Eucharistic prayers. Can he affirm the full range of meanings present in the catechism:

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?

A. The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God's family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.

Can he affirm, without any evasiveness, the basic elements of the witness of the New Testament, including not only Paul but the Gospels and other writings therein? This is a diverse body of teaching, but paschal mystery is a clear unifying center, along with the other elements of the "rule of faith." The task of bishops, since the election of Matthias (admittedly there's an evolution in the first two centuries, but this is the NT paradigm for the establishment of the historic succession), has been to continue the eyewitness testimony to the resurrection. The bishop's role as normative minister of the sacrament has to do with his or her role as successor of the apostles in the local church (diocese). This is exercised collaboratively and shared with all the baptized, but the bishop is its living embodiment in our midst.

I don't think there is anything overly confessionalist about asking the question, when someone has given us serious reason to doubt whether he can wholeheartedly affirm something so central to our liturgical-exegetical-creedal traditions.

Again, the appeal to Rahner and the Eastern fathers is helpful. It moves us in the right direction. But has it gone far enough?

I'm not at all concerned with inquisitions. I am passionate about the creeds and the lex orandi, as well as the rule of faith.

I believe that a drift toward taking basic Christian doctrine more seriously is wholly salutary. The pendulum could swing too far, but we are hardly in any danger of that, especially in the Episcopal Church. More reasonable moderates and conservatives do have a point here. We need some basic theological integrity, as well as genuine openness to legitimate diversity. This is especially true when it comes to questions of practice. Bourgeois liberal openness can mask enormous class privilege in some of our congregations, and a basic commitment to the implications of baptism and Eucharist would radicalize the Church at a time when this witness is very badly needed.

We live in a time where disagreement on almost any matter makes us enemies (at best) and it looks like we are seeing some of that here in this conversation. As I understand it, that is completely opposite of the Anglican vision of making a house big enough for all sides to pray together in peace. If we choose to move to a more confessing stance and orthodoxy becomes the test of whether we can stay, then we have to ask whose orthodoxy gets to decide and I am really uncomfortable with that. Several years ago I made a decision to enter the Episcopal Church. The openness and understanding that I thought I saw was part of my reason. One of the lessons that I have learned about people in my life is that they usually accuse others of the sins they would rather hide in themselves. So maybe this man is not as manipulative and filled with bad intent as some would like to believe. Liberals are not evil and neither are conservatives but we come pretty close when we allow ourselves to treat our brothers and sisters in ways that we ourselves would not like. That's more fundamental than theology or canon law or even the question of being right.

I have tried to follow the discussions about bishop-elect Forrester with an open mind. But this one just blows my mind. It reminds me of Lawrence's equivocations.
Is he just too learned and subtle for my small brain? or is he just equivocating? The more I read, the more I think Bishop Briedenthal has it right.

Lisa Fox

Ann Fontaine and Donald Schell suggest that non-conservatives who express opposition to Thew Forrester being ordained bishop are trying to prove something to conservatives. Maybe. But, having read Tobias Haller's and Derek Olsen's Blogs for years and having read essays and books by Bishop Briedenthal, I am disappointed to see their integrity dismissed so, and feel defensive on their behalf. One could just as easily suggest that those who have come to Forrester's defense are motivated less by a reasoned theological examination of what he has actually said/written than by a knee-jerk reaction to the bellacosity of the Stand Firm crowd - the enemy of my enemy must be my friend.

If this statement on the Incarnation stood alone, I'd not have much of a problem with it. The problem is I've read enough of the bishop-elect's material to put it into context. And the context is troubling.

Forrester has a tendency to lift themes from the the early church and Eastern Orthodoxy out of their theological environment amd transplant them into soemthing quite foreign to what they were about.

Like Thew Forrester, I am taken with the idea that the Incarnation is the point of Ceation. I agree with Duns Scotus more than Aquinas here (via Charles Willaims). But, the Rev. Forrester misrepresents these theologians by ignoring their recognition of human sin as a tragic contradiction of the goodness of God's creative intent. Given the reality of human sin, the incarnation includes the cross. To talk of the Incarnation, as the Rev. Forrester does, as merely the manifestation of what is already inherently true in creation does not reflect the fulness of what those he quotes were about.

And it is incongruous with too much of the theology of our Book of Common Prayer which is a problem in a church that says, "If you want to know what we beileve, come worship with us."

I commend The Rev. Forrester's integrity in recognizing this incongruity and consequently rewriting rewriting the Rites of the church to fit his ideosyncratic take on thing.

Lex orandi, lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief) has been a hallmark of our tradition. The Rev. Forrester appears to turn that on its head.

I don't have an especially well-developed opinion on the bishop-elect's Christology, and have really benefitted from reading all of these comments.

I do have a couple of thoughts on the nature of the conversation:

I am glad that we have moved beyond the "Buddhist bishop" line being pushed on the church by reactionaries.

I am not sure that complaints about the process in Northern Michigan are any worse than the complaints I have heard privately about the episcoapal selection process in other dioceses.

I don't think those who have criticized employing a Mutual Ministry model for selecting a bishop have demonstrated that they understand how important this model can be in rural dioceses. They seem, therefore to be employing a one-size fits all model for no fully articulated reason.

I don't think that liberal critics of the bishop-elect can be accused of anything beyond trying to articualte and defend a coherent Christology.

It is necessary, some times, to say "This far, and no further." I am not saying that this is such a case, because, frankly, I haven't given the bishop-elect's writings the kind of attention necessary to make such a call. But I have to respect those who have read his work with an open mind and can't support him.

Jim,

Thank you for your measured and reflective comments on this conversation. I do hear the thread with an additional level of concern and I will use a bit of your wording to nuance that concern.

"I don't think that liberal critics of the bishop-elect can be accused of anything beyond trying to articualte and defend a coherent Christology."

You're right to raise concern about 'accuse,' and maybe some of us have strayed that direction. I think 'defend' us also accurate, however, and the air that something we love is under attack and needing defense captures part of what troubles me.

"It is necessary, some times, to say 'This far, and no further.' I am not saying that this is such a case, because, frankly, I haven't given the bishop-elect's writings the kind of attention necessary to make such a call."

In our struggles with the communion, with Rowan Williams' leadership and the question of what cost we should pay (and who pays) to stay in conversation, I've heard your frustration clearly. We haven't said, 'Thus far and now farther,' when you've been profoundly clear that we'd crossed a line. Theologically it seems a whole lot trickier. The 'conservatives' do have their litmus tests of what they call 'orthodoxy.' What I hear in Thew Forrester is someone who is reading the tradition and contemporary scholarship and reflection, both deeply, and actually doing theology. It's not clear to me that his critics (some of them my friends) are, in this instance, allowing themselves to do the same, though, yes, many of them are certainly capalbe of it. How many of our sitting bishops operate with set theological formulae and look for certain familiar words to know something is theologically tolerable. Too many, it seems to me. I think Thew Forrester is taking heat for doing the work. If we can't consent to an election of someone who takes those risks, who listens to those on the edge, who tries to use what we've said together in the past to address the present, we are in very serious trouble. And, as the Blue Book statistics make clear, we ARE in very serious trouble. I've been the median age of Episcopalians for the last thirty years. We're graying because we're talking to ourselves and insisting that anyone who wishes standing among us has to talk like we do. That is a dead end.

"But I have to respect those who have read his work with an open mind and can't support him."

And the "can't support" is what troubles me there. You've gotten it from those who are acknowledging that nearly everything he says can be found in solid Christian tradition, that he does talk (even compellingly) about the Incarnation, and "can't support" keeps coming down to friends and colleagues who say they're not happy with the particular nuance or lack of nuance of something he's said, or that they wish, in addition to many good things he has said, that he'd say more.

What all this seems to come down to is what defined, as I read it, the Continental Reformation, and what Elizabeth refused to let our newly independent church do. It's a pattern of "I'd rather be right than in relationship." Anglicanism's genius has been shared prayer and life and open discussion of theology. If we're ready to give that up, GAFCON really has won.

Hi Donald,

I appreciate your concerns about the motives for examining Fr. Thew Forrester's theology & liturgical practice and the discomfort this brings up.

I am a bit to the right of Tobias Haller and a bit more to the right of Derek Olsen, but I find that their approach is largely consonant with my own.

The desire that I have, at heart, is not primarily to protect something I love as much as it is to inquire whether this person loves what I love with a love that I can recognize as such--that is: What does he love? Does he love the same tradition of faith, in all its wild diversity, that I love? Is he, in short, the kind of Anglican bishop we need at this moment in our common life?

The big problem is that up until now, he has been an unknown quantity to many of us. I see a good faith effort to get to know who this person is, what makes him tick, and most importantly what (and Who) he loves.

If you were elected a bishop, for instance, I'd have no problem at all consenting to your election, because I have a deep sense that you and I love the same Jesus, even if we have differences about the best course for the Episcopal Church. I have a deep sense that you want to build up the Church and to make disciples of those who want to follow Jesus.

I don't have that sense (yet?) of Fr. Thew Forrester. Why? Because I don't quite recognize Jesus in what he's saying. The "Jesus" he talks about is rather foreign to me. What I'm trying to discern is whether I'm just not listening well enough to a new song sung in a different key, or whether he's whistling an entirely different tune altogether than the Jesus tune I recognize whenever I open our Prayer Book.

So I wonder, not does he understand everything just as I do, but is he recognizably loving and teaching others to love the same Jesus that we have promised to proclaim? So far, I haven't been able to answer that question with any confidence.

So I am hopeful that if we keep the love of Jesus at the center of our discernment, and not the issues of power and fear and recriminations, Jesus' Holy Spirit will lead the decision-makers charged with consenting or withholding consent to act in a way that gives glory to Jesus. If that means saying "no," it is no reflection on the worthiness of Fr. Thew Forrester as a human being or even as a theologically sensitive and pastoral priest. It would simply be akin to a COM saying that a person is called to lay ministry rather than the priesthood.

We cannot refrain from the tough work of discernment because we don't like saying no. Sometimes, that's the most loving thing to do, both for the individual involved and for the community. I am not saying that this is where the Church must end up in this case, merely making the case that one must contemplate a "no" if in one's heart of hearts one cannot hear the "Jesus song" from this person.

Donald,

A bishop's job is to teach the doctrine and discipline of the church and to ensure that he or she "oversees" are doing the same.

I do indeed have a litmus test for anyone being confirmed as a bishop in this church: do you believe, teach, and preach the creeds (and can we see that in your preaching and teaching) and will you expect your clergy to do likewise?

I don't think that's too high of a bar. Do you?

Derek and Nathan,

The shape and interpretation Nathan offers to this conversation makes good sense to me.

I've been thinking recently about episcopos and oversight, overseer, supervisor, superintendant and how many of those words are not actually about what we mean by vision.

Ignatius of Antioch said two things about the bishop that point, as I read them, to something else. First, he said where the bishop is at Eucharist with God's people, there is the catholic church. Rather than imagining the bishop is the secret ingredient that makes the assembly catholic, I think it's the visioning functiong (which would have been evident in Ignatius's Greek) that makes this so. The bishop sees the church's wholeness. Christ is fully present in the assembly and the vision-bearer, vision-declarer sees it. It's a prophetic discernment.

The second thing Ignatius said that is relevant here is that the bishop images God for us and is most like God when he is silent. Putting the two pieces together, what I hear is that the bishop's loving seeing of the church is more God-like than inspired preaching, teaching, or godly correction (though these have their place, of course).

So, the creed. I'd reframe the test you've articulated -
do you trust, teach and preach Jesus and will you guide us praying in his name to the Father? That doesn't mean I don't believe the creed. I do. But I believe our unity is relational and doxological both centered in the practice of common prayer.

David Evans, my first patristics professor, would say that the creeds and councils didn't unite the church. In fact, starting with Nicaea, every council (and councils later rejected ahd changed false councils) ignited a prolonged struggle and that unity was what the church managed to achieve a generation later. The unity was in relationship. David was Russian Orthodox, but to me his historical observation makes additional sense of Elizabeth I's wise insistence that our unity would be in common prayer and not in confessions.

Donald, do you know things about your wife? Things like where she grew up, who her parents were, if there were siblings, what the significant moments in her life were, etc. All of that is data and is not the relationship. But doesn't that data give you a context and a frame of reference for the relationship?

That's how I see the creeds. No, they're not the relationship--and yet they're critical to it. If we base a relationship on faulty or erroneous information then it may cause trouble and heartache in the process (I know it has at times for me...). The points of the creed give essential information about the participants in the relationship and ground major pastoral understandings (Should we hate the flesh and creation? No, God made them. How could God know how I feel? Because God too has walked in our flesh. etc...)

In other words, I agree that our faith is relational and doxological. But that doesn't mean that there's no place for the propositional specifically within the relational and doxological.

Derek,

That's good work with the analogy. And all that I'd add is that the knowing - where she grew up (and the stories), her parents, even the parts of the story that are hard give me pleasure. What I know was learned and is known in the context of love. So, I'm with you completely there. I'm also with you saying there's room for the propositional within the relational and doxological. So, troubles me in the conversation about Kevin Thew Forrester's faith? That I don't hear us listening for him, for the who beyond the propositions. We seem to be listening for other implicit (or missing) propositions beyond the propositions.

I think we're talking about (and to a too limited extent with) a good theologian. I also hear someone who is a faithful and deeply committed Christian. What any of us doesn't say at any moment is boundless. Listening for what we didn't say at one time and another rather than putting what we did say into a frame of loving and patient listening to the person we hear speaking is dangerous. After Nicaea was established as orthodoxy, everyone was judged as Nicene or not Nicene depending on whether they agreed with the questioner. In 662 Maximus the Confessor died, condemned as a heretic for his superb Christological work on the human and divine will in Christ. His condemners judged his faith 'not Nicene' and cut his tongue out and cut off his right hand to prevent any further teaching of heresy. In 681, the Sixth Ecumenical Council cleared Maximus of charges of heresy and used his theological work to refine our understanding of the Incarnation.

Yes, that's an extreme story, but it's not unique. When we're using the creed as our standard without listening to the person and taking a stance of suspicion of things that don't sound familiar, we're almost certain to lose sight of the person, and so in danger of losing sight of the faith we share.

Relationship is indeed important, but the early apologists always maintained that they were upholding the faith of the creeds. The creeds are not ultimate; the mystery they define is. The question is whether Fr. Forrester's teaching reliably points people toward the mystery, as framed by the Scriptures and the rule of faith. The more I learn about his teaching, the less confident I am that this is so.

From this discussion I take away that I was wrong that the Episcopal Church honors intellectuals and that it stresses worship and mystery over silly theology/Christology. Forrester sounds pretty traditional to me. Rahner was a big reference at General Theological years ago and was not controversial. Now a citation of Rahner is controversial?

I don't think his Christology is unorthodox. I would welcome it if it were more open, actually.

The creeds and other doctrines did not fall from the heavens but were imperfect products of their time. The trinity was a way for the early movement to speak of its experience of God through the man Jesus. Today words such as "God" and "man" would be defined very differently and probably would not be chosen if we were starting from scratch. A world in which there was no fall from perfection but rather an evolution of different life forms is very different from anything the theologians have imagined.

I knew Breidenthal at Saint Mary the Virgin in Manhattan and can say he is well-intentioned on many issues. On LGBT issues he is pro-marriage equaltiy but it doesn't seem to have occurred to him casual sex is a reality for many and that many moral philosophers approve of it. He still seems caught in a paradigm where the church gets to judge everyone to see if they fit its standards when the secular world seems far more open and enlightened, such as on LGBT issues. Whereas fifty years ago, the law, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, pediatrics were homophobic, today it seems only religion is stuck in the middle ages or at least ambivalent about leaving it. There seems to be an inverse proportion between orthodoxy and progress toward social equality.

Such are my scattered reactions (ambivalence?) to this dissecting of Forrester. Reminds me of the Western dissection of God in the Trinity. The church has no magical connection to truth or to wisdom.

I would vote for someone who is on the side of experimentation and honesty.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary, I don't think your characterization of the debate is either fair or helpful. There isn't anything silly about trying to work out fundamental questions about Christ's person, his life and his death. And I don't think most of us are troubled by the bishop-elect's references to Rahner. Finally, I think most of us are aware that doctrine is socially constructed. But describing the process that produces a proposition does not necessarily tell us anything about whether the proposition is true or false.

From Dick Graybill - Deputy to General Convention from Northern Michigan:

When we entered on a discernment process of selecting a bishop, we wanted to follow all canonical procedures. The members of the team were selected to represent as wide a spectrum of membership as possible. I would point out that the person who has been in contact with you was dropped from membership in his last congregation many years ago because he was not attending or supporting the congregation. It is my understanding that he moved to the other end of the diocese and did not transfer his membership. He has not been seen or recognized present in any congregation in years, probably as many as 10. We provide a seat and voice to all members of congregations in the diocese at convention and most votes are done by consensus. The adoption of the plan to use a discernment team was by consensus.

The team met monthly for nearly a year and proposed to the convention in Oct of 2008, that we have a team approach to the episcopate. They proposed to that convention that, consistent with our approach to congregational development with ministry support teams, an episcopal support team would have one nominee for bishop just as all other positions on the team. The convention accepted that plan with only 4 dissenting votes. The nominee was not then identified and the discernment team proceeded with interviews. I am not sure where in the process you would have had us seek advise of the larger church. We have been in consultation with several members of the House of Bishops, several seminary educators and liturgists. The PB has been informed along the way.

I can not respond to your theological points as I really do not know what they are in substance. I will say that Kevin has been a part of the life of this diocese for nearly 10 years and I have been enriched by his teaching. With regard to the liturgical issues, I would be happy to respond to specifics. Every liturgy of which I am aware was developed by a group to respond to specific situations and all requirements of the liturgy have been included. I would appreciate your help in identifying any false doctrine which may have escaped us.

I have been a deputy to every General Convention since 1979 and have heard the rumors that surround the consent process. I know when these are confronted, they usually are found to be based on misinformation or misunderstanding. I want to clear this up for our process.

Dick Graybill
Northern Michigan

Gary-

Are you saying that we need to favor casual sex, just because moral philosophers say it's okay? Just because the Bishop doesn't agree with them, or find them convincing as a Christian argument doesn't mean that he is ignorant of them. There is a danger of being hip and relevant, the first one being becoming irrelevant due to fading into the background.

"Gary, I don't think your characterization of the debate is either fair or helpful. There isn't anything silly about trying to work out fundamental questions about Christ's person, his life and his death. . . . [D]escribing the process that produces a proposition does not necessarily tell us anything about whether the proposition is true or false." --Jim Naughton

I know it doesn't seem helpful to keep pointing out that this discussion is about words, opinions, narratives, and is pretty much evidence-free. It's like going to the theatre and noisily reminding people that they're watching a play, not reality. The play is the topic. It's important and affects our view of reality, so is worthwhile. But arguments going back to Nicea have little relevance in a world of physics, biology, and psychology. Too bad that post-Darwin efforts to find out what aspects of the Church's experience can continue to inform us in an age of evidence have been sabotaged by traditionalists who will see the Church die of stasis rather than allow it to adapt. This discussion attempts to continue building the bridge between past and present, but meanwhile people are moving on. They won't be back, but the hard times ahead make the appeal of the fundamentalists (backed by the Dominionist billionaires) more dangerous than ever.

I'm tempted to rewrite a quote used by justice Mark Cady in the Iowa Supreme Court verdict yesterday: "As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, 'It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.'”

One might paraphrase: 'As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of [the apostles]. . . .” Well, the persistence of the rules isn't simply blind imitation, but an attempt to continue their use for good, but eventually, enough must be enough.

Murdoch Matthew
spouse of the more orderly-thinking Gary

Jim, I find it significant you used the term “work” in the context of Christology. This culture, as literary theorist Avital Ronell says, is obsessed with production and work to the point where when one is pondering a menu in a restaurant a service person asks, “Are you still working on that?” Even mourning, as in Freud, becomes a “work of mourning.” There is a lot to be said for nonproductive uses of language and for sheer play. Many people in the pews go to church for many other reasons than the standard Jesus story, if there is indeed a standard story. They are often too polite to let the clergyperson know that they do not buy the standard reductions of the stories in the scriptures. The theologians and bishops may consider such people ignorant or mere cafeteria churchgoers but I think they are onto something that is not simply New Age but is rather picking up on the repressed of the tradition. I believe Thew Forrester is onto something too.

The people of Northern Michigan can take care of themselves, as one can see in Dick Graybill’s posting: “I can not respond to your theological points as I really do not know what they are in substance. I will say that Kevin has been a part of the life of this diocese for nearly 10 years and I have been enriched by his teaching. With regard to the liturgical issues, I would be happy to respond to specifics. Every liturgy of which I am aware was developed by a group to respond to specific situations and all requirements of the liturgy have been included. I would appreciate your help in identifying any false doctrine which may have escaped us.”

Likewise, people are smart and can figure out their own lives. The young do not, contra John Robison, need to be lectured that casual sex is wrong. Breidenthal and company may pontificate as much as they want about faithful relationships but I doubt any of it will do much good. People are marrying at a later age and LGBTs are still not allowed to marry in many places so people date. They also necessarily have sex before marriage. The sex-negative tradition has little to teach on this matter. The church leaders should be listening to people rather than imposing outdated doctrines. Listening would imply they have not figured it all out.

Gary Paul Gilbert

One might wish that we weren't a Church that affirms the Nicene Creed as a non-negotiable doctrinal standard, but we are.

Very specific problems have already been alleged with Fr. Forrester's Christology. I don't find Dick Graybill's contribution at all helpful. Saying there's no problem doesn't answer these criticisms. He seems either to be obfuscating, ignorant of or not understanding the issues raised (he himself suggests as much), or begging the question. How do any of these options advance this conversation?

I'm sorry if this way of putting it doesn't seem "nice" to some who gather here, especially my friend Ann, but I suspect that this particular intervention, whether intentionally or no, will result in sidetracking us from something rather important.

Bishop Breidenthal's remarks were quite public and clear, and Fr. Forrester offered a public response. Wouldn't the sound procedure be to assess the claims each makes on their merits, asking each to clarify his own position where necessary? I still find Fr. Forrester to be extremely slippery here. Does he really answer what Bishop Breidenthal so lucidly lays out?

Bill,
I’m responding to you since you’re the last contributor in this thread. Some of what you write matches others objecting to Kevin Thew Forrester’s election. (by the way he and his wife use Thew Forrester as an un-hyphenated composite last name). I do mean to address you and the thread.
“One might wish that we weren't a Church that affirms the Nicene Creed as a non-negotiable doctrinal standard, but we are.”
I’m baffled at this stark language. ‘Non-negotiable?’ Didn’t our own General Convention authorize the omission of the filioque? And toward other Christians coming to the Episcopal Church, do we only accept their baptisms it they assented to the Nicene Creed when they were baptized? So far as I know our standard is the simple question of whether they were baptized in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And when we engage in ecumenical conversation with Christians who don’t use the Nicene Creed, is acknowledging that creed the basis for our conversation? In fact, we share communion with Mar Thomas Christians in India, though we are far from shared communion with Nicene Orthodox like the Russians, Greeks, etc. ‘Non-negotiable’ looks like a rhetorical flourish. Do we question the orthodoxy of New Zealand Anglicans for writing a new creed? Has someone quoted Thew Forrester disparaging of the Nicene Creed? For missionary and apologetic reasons, he has followed New Zealand and used a different statement of Christian faith.
“Very specific problems have already been alleged with Fr. Forrester's Christology.”
As I read it the ‘very specific problems’ are contradictory. Are you concerned that his Christology reduces Christ to the merely human? Or is it that the cosmic understanding of the Incarnation makes the coming of Christ too decisive for all humanity and the whole cosmos? I don’t think the Western discomfort with theosis language is actually Christological at all. And again, it’s a strange stance ecumenically for Anglicans to say that we reject language that was already in common use in the time of the undivided Church.
“I don't find Dick Graybill's contribution at all helpful. Saying there's no problem doesn't answer these criticisms. He seems either to be obfuscating, ignorant of or not understanding the issues raised (he himself suggests as much)…”
Dick Graybill offers very, very helpful elucidation of process questions in the election. He is responding to a voice accusing the discernment committee and the diocese of cronyism and railroading the election. Adding data about the transparency of the process, a progress report aiming for a team leadership with the bishop, and proposing a single candidate before Kevin Thew Forrester was under consideration answers specific concerns. On the other hand, “obfuscating, ignorant of or not understanding the issues…” sounds insulting to me. Or else, I’ll gladly accept the same labels. I certainly have not heard theological objections that make any sense to me. And I at least question whether the strongest objections actually acknowledge the breadth of historical (and orthodox) Christian teaching.
“…or begging the question.” Does this mean you think Dick Graybill is being deliberately evasive?
“I'm sorry if this way of putting it doesn't seem "nice" to some who gather here, especially my friend Ann, but I suspect that this particular intervention, whether intentionally or no, will result in sidetracking us from something rather important.”
I believe you mis-spoke here. That you suspect that “…[shirking] this particular intervention…will result in sidetracking us from something rather important.” As for seeming nice, as one who has repeatedly written in support of Thew Forrester, I find that another troubling bit of innuendo. What troubles me is people who I think of us measured reflective voices, who, for whatever reason seem ready enough to judge our brother’s faith lacking that nothing he or anyone else can say is quite enough. I’m also concerned for our church to see us apparently ready to discard of scoff at the witness of Louis Weil, Bishop Bruce Caldwell, Bishop Tom Ray, Bishop Rusty Kimsey, Bishop Tom Ely, and our Presiding Bishop.
“Bishop Breidenthal's remarks were quite public and clear…” Bishop Breidenthal’s remarks were quite evidently public. However, I didn’t them clear or the discussion that followed them in the Café at all clarifying.
“…and Fr. Forrester offered a public response. Wouldn't the sound procedure be to assess the claims each makes on their merits, asking each to clarify his own position where necessary? I still find Fr. Forrester to be extremely slippery here. Does he really answer what Bishop Breidenthal so lucidly lays out?”
I don’t know about sound procedure. It has not been typical of Anglicanism to challenge the orthodoxy of bishops-elect. Gene Robinson declaring that he wanted to share Eucharist with Peter Akinola is, I think Anglicanism at its best. So is the confirmation process somehow different? To this point we’ve confirmed bishops who were, to my ear anyway, far less rooted in Christian tradition and far less open and gracefully committed to engagement with the stranger for evangelism than Kevin Thew Forrester. What I here Ann Fontaine asking for her isn’t ‘niceness,’ it’s Anglican patience, forebearance and mutual respect for one another based on shared love for Christ and willingness to pray together.

Thank you, Donald! You put the case beautifully! As Ann says, there are many Christologies or ways of approaching the figure Jesus. Forrester has not denied the Nicene Creed.

I personally would be willing to throw it out as a litmus test of orthodoxy. The creeds are testimonies of faith but not tests of faith. The apostles' creed is more ecumenical.

They can also and probably should be rewritten as the United Church of Christ has done.

Gary Paul Gilbert

http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html

United Church of Christ Statement of Faith—adapted by Robert V. Moss

We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, who is made known to us in Jesus our brother, and to whose deeds we testify:

God calls the worlds into being, creates humankind in the divine image, and sets before us the ways of life and death.

God seeks in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin.

God judges all humanity and all nations by that will of righteousness declared through prophets and apostles.

In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord,God has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the whole creation to its Creator.

God bestows upon us the Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.

God calls us into the church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be servants in the service of the whole human family, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table,to join him in his passion and victory.

God promises to all who trust in the gospel forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace,the presence of the Holy Spirit in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in that kingdom which has no end.

Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto God.

Amen.

United Church of Christ Statement of Faith in the form of a doxology

We believe in you, O God, Eternal Spirit, God of our Savior Jesus Christ and our God, and to your deeds we testify:

You call the worlds into being, create persons in your own image,and set before each one the ways of life and death.

You seek in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin.

You judge people and nations by your righteous will declared through prophets and apostles.

In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Savior, you have come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to yourself.

You bestow upon us your Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.

You call us into your church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be your servants in the service of others, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil,to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory.

You promise to all who trust you forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, your presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in your realm which has no end.

Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto you.

Amen.

Donald,

The remark about the Nicene Creed is a specific response to Murdoch Matthew's post "But arguments going back to Nicea have little relevance in a world of physics, biology, and psychology."

The Quadrilateral defines the Nicene Creed as "the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith." It is therefore a non-negotiable component of our ecumenical stance.

It is also privileged in our liturgy since it must be confessed on Sundays and other major feasts at the celebration of the Eucharist. I take this central placement within the community's liturgical life to be part of the lex orandi, even though the Creed was of course originally doctrine that arose out of earlier doxological practice, as well as the exegetical tradition.

The catechism states that the creeds are "our basic beliefs about God" and goes on to refer to the Nicene Creed "as the creed of the universal Church." We claim to be part of the universal Church, i.e. the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. Assenting to the Creed is part of what that means.

I accept that many of our members have doubts about this or that article. Some may doubt the whole thing or even whether creeds are a good idea. The clergy do promise to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church, and that includes the Nicene Creed. We respect conscience and don't try to weed out the unbelievers but we also try to form conscience and to form mature Christians who can profess and live the Church's faith.

As you well know, a bishop's first act as bishop is to lead the assembled people in "confessing" the Creed: "N., through these promises you have committed yourself to God, to serve his Church in the office of bishop. We therefore call upon you, chosen to be a guardian of the Church's faith, to lead us in confessing that faith."

The Nicene Creed follows (BCP, p. 519)

And so, I don't find it at all hyperbolic to claim that the Nicene Creed is a nonnegotiable doctrinal standard for us, whether in the original version or in the one with the filioque.

I was not directly criticizing Fr. Forrester on this point. I was responding to someone who seemed to believe that Nicea was irrelevant to the debate. Nicea is one of the touchstones, indeed a "non-negotiable" and central one by which we should assess the orthodoxy of a Christology. I still believe that Fr. Forrester's Christology falls short of this standard, especially when one considers the rest of the liturgy of the Prayer Book. As I read the Creed "For us and for our salvation" governs everything that follows, and not just "he came down from heaven."

I still think one of the most helpful things that could happen would be for Fr. Forrester to clarify further what he takes to be the role of the death and resurrection of Christ in the salvation of the world. Does he believe the faith expressed in the Preface for Holy Week, for example? This remains a serious question for some of us. As I've said before, I want him to succeed in reassuring people. His answers so far have gone in the right direction, but not far enough.

As for my remarks about Dick Graybill's contribution, I think that Bishop Breidenthal's remarks had already advanced this conversation beyond considering Northern Michigan's process. I think that that process was deeply flawed and that, if it is (as Bishop Breidenthal's remarks indicate) consistent with the canons, these canons need to be amended to rule out such a process in the future. But that's neither here no there.

What he says may be helpful for those who are still alleging that the process didn't conform to the canons. I'm willing to concede that point. What I find unhelpful, either obfuscating, ignorant (the most charitable reading and one that Graybill himself suggests), or question begging is his statement that reads:

"I can not respond to your theological points as I really do not know what they are in substance. I will say that Kevin has been a part of the life of this diocese for nearly 10 years and I have been enriched by his teaching. With regard to the liturgical issues, I would be happy to respond to specifics. Every liturgy of which I am aware was developed by a group to respond to specific situations and all requirements of the liturgy have been included. I would appreciate your help in identifying any false doctrine which may have escaped us."

Again, this statement, which Ann may have lifted out of context, does not respond to the serious doctrinal problems that Bishop Breidenthal raises. I would like to see standing committees and bishops ask Fr. Forrester similar questions and not merely to accept his written statement, which I judge to be insufficient, for reasons stated above. I would also like those who may think Bishop Breidenthal is off base to ask him for additional clarification. I am advocating a serious theological discussion not a witch hunt. Then let those who are charged with making this discernment, some of whom are far more sympathetic to Fr. Forrester's stated positions than I, make it.

I cannot accept that movement toward serious theological scrutiny when red flags have been raised is a bad thing. We continue to be a very broad expression of Church, but there are limits. Even if, as may well happen, Fr. Forrester receives the required consents, this kind of conversation strengthens rather than weakens the Church. It will also, at least potentially, strengthen his position within the House of Bishops, should he take his place among them, if he responds to concerns of this kind in a way that is truthful and non-defensive. His initial response indicates that he is willing to be in dialogue. Why not let that continue? This is a discernment, not a secular election. Why not trust the process, including the consent process? This kind of thing should have been done decades ago.

Are we actually having a discussion to defend why a bishop should hold and teach the creeds?

The creeds are a product of their time as is the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral. The view of scripture is very different today than what it was back in 1886. The higher criticism from Germany was only beginning to be read in mainline Protestantism. Union Theological in Manhattan would have to break off from the Presbyterians in 1893 in order to teach the newer scholarship. And even back then they only said that scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation--not that it was infallible. The two creeds are "sufficient statements of the faith," which would imply they are simply a starting point. The historic episcopate back then was thought to go back to the time of the apostles. The only relevant part of the Quadrilateral on the episcopate is that it must be "locally adapted." The specifics of such documents are less important than the underlying principles, which in 1896 was ecumenical relations among the churches. The Episcopal Church was saying it would enter into negotiations with other denominations but that it saw the scriptures, the creeds, the two sacraments, and the historic episcopate as a necessary basis for such ecumenical dialogue. At that time, I remember, now the Episcopalians did not extend eucharistic hospitality to other Christians, yet another change in context.

One can assent to creeds and the like as expressions of their time but not binding today in their specifics.

The point in all this is that Forrester may experiment to update the religion. And as Weil says, these experiments are controlled, ready to be evaluated by others in the denomination.

Gary Paul Gilbert