Does anyone know where we can see the baptismal rite that Bishop Breidenthal refers to?

If we're headed to theological tests for bishops, I do hope that our church doesn't forget that penal substitionary atonement is one among many atonement theories. As Bishop Breidenthal describes Thew Forrester's theology, it sounds to me to be in the ancient tradition of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia and company, the ancient fathers and mothers who understood Christ primarily in his work as our teacher. The most mystical strand of that tradition in Syrian teachers like Isaac of Nineveh is powerfully compelling and makes a good complement to a compelling re-thinking of atonement such as Rene Girard is doing.

Bishop Breidenthal's critique is in the tradition of Augustine's critique of Pelagius (which ends up with Westerners judging the whole Easter church 'semi-Pelagian') and in the tradition of Anselm, unquestionably a great theologian, but also one whose atonement theory sounds to many today as verging toward an abusive Father and victim Son.

Reading Thew Forrester's "I have called you friends": an Invitation to Ministry I was moved at a remarkably clear vision of the presence Christ in the Christian community. I certainly hope and pray that our church has the courage to welcome such Thew Forrester's theologically reflective voice among our bishops.

It didn't seem on my reading that +Breidenthal is using penal substitutionary atonement as a litmus test (as some do) but that he's protesting an absence of the concept of sin.

My reading of this letter is similar to Derek's. I have not looked closely at the Bishop Elect's sermons or statements (having been distracted by all the vitriol about his meditation practice), but it would interesting to be able to see the sermons that were once, and are not longer, posted online.

I wonder if we have just one Christology in the Episcopal Church - I doubt surveying the HOB would produce one single strand.

A "Buddhist bishop" confuses the public.

I found the piece on Louis Weil's support for Forrester much more persuasive. Weil is one of the major liturgists of the Episcopal Church and presents a more dynamic view of the role of the bishop as both continuing the tradition and working at the margins to develop new forms. Breidenthal's model seems static, whereas Weil seems open to the future, to what Jacques Derrida called the à venir, the to come, of the future (avenir).

Gary Paul Gilbert

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/cdsp_professor_of_liturgics_on_1.html

Ann,

I don't think it is a matter of "just one Christology". But at some point, we either believe what we pray (lex orandi, lex credendi, after all) or we don't. If we do, our theology needs to at least be congruent with that contained in the Prayer Book. If not, then we are each free to write our own liturgies to suit our own eccentric understanding. Having read several of the Rev. Forrester's sermons, articles, and an Easter Vigil service (including a Eucharistic prayer) that he wrote, I conclude that the Rev. Forrester errs too far toward the latter.

We can hardly enforce our doctrine and discipline upon extreme conservatives like Bob Duncan while winking at every extreme in the other direction and remain credible.

I was with you til the Duncan analogy, Matt. The cases aren't remotely similar, and no one who has followed Duncan's long campaign to discredit the Episcopal Church and replace it as the North American branch of the Anglican Communion can take such a ludicrous comparison seriously.

While I think it is healthy to have conversation around how sin is defined and its relationship with cultural morality, etc. I tend to agree with the Bishop of S.Ohio that one cannot ditch the concept altogether and remain in healthy communion with Christian faith and practice. This isn't a conservative/liberal sort of question but a basic identity question.

Alissabeth Newton

I'm no theologian, nor church historian, in the least (disclaimer)...

...but my first blush reaction was much like Donald Schell's.

While Bp. Breidenthal says he's not counting Forrester's Buddhist practices against him, I wonder if he would judge the SAME Christology lacking, if it came from one formed in a Eastern Christian theological background (which is to say, that what Bp. Breidenthal criticizes in Forrester, sounds very much like EO "theosis", IMO: through Jesus's incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection, Christ supernaturally empowers us to become as he is, One with God.)

[Ironically, of course, the English term "at-one-ment" was originally not unlike the Eastern "theosis" concept---but once the Puritans got hold of it, out went the unitive Spirit, in came the punitive Law! >:-/]

JC Fisher

[feeling a need to repeat my initial disclaimer---all the above is just my own opinion]

Jim,

The analogy was meant to be very narrow inasmuch as Bishop Duncan was deposed for failing to uphold the doctrine and discipline of this church. I am not arguing with that deposition. Or suggesting a strict parity between the Duncan actions and Forrester's teaching. But, there are many who remain in TEC who wonder if our concerns flow in only one direction.

If the anaolgy doesn't work, that is fine. I regretted using it almost as soon as I posted it for more reasons than one. Let's not let it sidetrack the discussion.

Matt,

Okay by me.

Frankly, I am over my head here, so don't have much to offer. I am very glad we aren't talking about Zen meditation, which I always thought was rightwing bs. The other objections seem much more legitimate. But, as I say, I am over my head.

It is a pity that the Northern Michigan election has become loaded with partisan reflection. Rather like lovers in a deep quarrel, every statement becomes loaded with past hurt and recrimination.

Thus one comments where angels fear to tread.

There seem to me to be two important issues here. First of all does the "functional" approach to ministry, which teaches that in baptism we all individually receive the charism of leadership, and that ordination or setting apart or recognition in what ever form by the local church, conform to the doctrine and discipline of our church as expressed in the Ordinal and the Catechism?

Secondly while the church has never defined a specific doctrine of the Atonement, the words of our liturgy, particularly in Holy Week and Easter, would seem to commit us to a belief in the Atonement, that Jesus in his death and passion has atoned for the sins of the world and that the atonement is at the heart of our dying with Christ in Baptism and rising with him in the Resurrection. May a bishop of this church, in the light of the solemn commitment made in the ordination vows, teach a theory of Christian life which discounts the Atoning death of Christ as the means by which our sins, and the sins of the whole word, and their reward, are set aside?

In what manner are we permitted to construct liturgies of our own construction for public and parochial use, given our promise only to use those usual rites and ceremonies set for by the authority of the church?

A bishop promises to be the center of unity, right belief and Christian practice. He represents the whole Church, as well as the Province and the diocese. May the "local" church, TEC for us, recognize and raise up a person to fulfill these roles who cannot in good faith affirm and protect the faith received by the whole Church?

It seems to me that these are the matters to be considered by bishops and standing committees as they consent or withdraw consent in an election.

Bishop Breidenthal wrote, "According to Thew Forrester, Jesus revealed in his own person the way that any of us can be at one with God, if only we can overcome the blindness that prevents us from recognizing our essential unity with God. The problem here is that the death of Jesus as an atonement for our sins is completely absent, and purposely so. As I read Thew Forrester, nothing stands between us and God but our own ignorance of our closeness to God. When our eyes are opened, atonement (not for our sins, but understood as a realization of our essential unity with God) is achieved."

I live quite near the epicenter of the Unity School of Christianity, this understanding of Jesus seems quite familiar to me. It is a modern quasi-Gnosticism, in which the believer's right perception is important, and not any existential act of God in Christ. The most esoteric of the Christian mystics never denied that our unity with God is in and through Christ. Most of those who speak as Bishop Breidenthal describes never quite get to a docetic Christology; but theirs is certainly one of Jesus as Great Moral Teacher, and perhaps as Prophet, but not as Messiah.

I can't speak to the accuracy of the Bishop's interpretation, because I haven't seen the documents myself. However, if this is how Bishop Breidenthal understands Bishop-elect Thew Forrestor's Christology, I can't blame Bishop Breidenthal for choosing not to support the election.

Marshall Scott

If I remember correctly, the initial assault on Kevin Thew Forrester came from the Institute for Religion and Democracy -- an organization funded by Dominionist billionaires. They've been sowing mischief in mainline Christianity for years now, setting up a fundamenalist orthodoxy and thwarting the churches' attempts to assert a social gospel. So as with the issues of queers and of episcopal authority, we don't have an honest difference of opinion -- we have right-wing hissy fits designed to hobble and stigmatize the everyday, well-meaning church. Scaife, Ahmundson, and others PAY people to winnow writings and actions in the mainline bodies and pull out anything that can be made an issue of, to confuse and divide ordinary church people.

It's worked. We have leaders who know better from their seminary classes swearing allegiance to the Prayer Book and pre-Darwinian understandings, guarding their every utterance lest it be seized upon by the opposition. The church's message is being frozen at what is hoped will be a noncontroversial level. It is also an irrelevant level, and people are moving on to other approaches, or none. The right-wing doesn't care -- if they can't rule the church as part of their power grab, it's enough to cripple the institution so it can't offer meaningful opposition, or alternatives.

So does Thomas Breidenthal actually propose a Roman-style theory of the Atonement as a litmus test for prospective bishops? Are candidates for bishop to be limited to those with no paper trail, who've never said anything in their sermons, who only paraphrase the Gospel reading or the Prayer Book? What is this concept of sin we must hold to remain in healthy communion with Christian faith and practice?

We know now that human beings weren't created perfect and then fell from grace. That idea of sin cannot be held in a world of development and evolution. And the several theories of Atonement only demonstrate that what the death of Jesus has to do with the lives of his followers is not clear. We need to be exploring what the Church's experience has to offer to people in an age of evidence, but the mainstream church seems intimidated by the power-seekers. No wonder -- at stake is not just belief, but control of the organization and the keys to the property.

All this stuff about atonement, redemption, sacrament is STORY -- both the mainstream and the fundamentalists have their narratives and none of them can be backed up with facts. I prefer one side over the other, but it's opinion versus opinion. Neither side can be proved wrong. There is the fact of Jesus, but the myriad of interpretations of his ministry began immediately. It's no good calling the ones that we now disagree with "heresies" -- at the beginning every heresy was simply the Christianity of a certain place. Power suppressed them, not argument. In a previous age, Truth used to be tradition backed up by authority. Nowadays, we look to facts and evidence, as well as a track record of what works.

We say that the church isn't the institution or the buildings but the people. Well, the people are moving on to other paradigms. The church can fade away , or figure out how to move with the people.

Murdoch Matthew
Spouse of Gary

I respect Bishop Briedenthall greatly. He was an assistant at St. Mary's in NYC, the flagship parish of the Episcopal Church. In his heart, he is a good catholic. However, I disagree with his decision not to support Fr. Forrester. What distinguishes the Anglican brand of catholicism is our inclusiveness. And that means we accept and affirm a variety of theological viewpoints, on atonement, the Eucharist, abortion, and may other issues. I'm not on board with penal substitution, ransom, or satisfaction theories, but all are accepted, respectable viewpoints. I am a combination of moral influence and christus victor theories, again, both well accepted, familiar theories of atonement. Fr. Forrester offers us yet another view. Rather than condemn it, I invite Bishop Briedenthal to open his mind just a crack and consider how Fr. Forrester's understanding of Jesus contributes to the body of knowledge and prayer to our common life in the Church. A church that is big enough to accomodate Bishop Spong, a low churchman who holds many viewpoints with which I disagree, is surely big enough to accomodate a priest whose reflections on atonement are a little outside the box.

The Bishop of Southern Ohio seems to be upset that Forrester fails to use the same vocabulary he uses. His insistence to impose his preferred notion of "salvation from an objective alienation from God" (however that would be objective) recalls Rome's insistence in ecumenical discussions that other churches use the very same terminology as it. He says Forrester prefers to speak of a "more realized union with God," which I agree with J C Fisher sounds like the Greek Orthodox notion of theosis. Would Breidenthal censor Lancelot Andrewes, who said "Whereby, as before He of ours, so now we of His are made partakers. He clothed with our flesh, and we invested with His Spirit. The great promise of the Old Testament accomplished, that He should partake our human nature; and the great and precious promise of the New, that we should be “consortes divinae naturae”, “partake his divine nature,” both are this day accomplished?" What would he make of Julian of Norwich, who also speaks more of at-onement? Seems to me this is all pretty much metaphorical language and that there are different approaches. All see through a glass darkly. I see no reason for choosing Breidenthal's approach over others--especially when doing so appears to be moving TEC even further away from Eastern Orthodoxy as well as implying that Anglicanism is better than other Christianities and other religions and nonreligions. Breidenthal's approach also seems to imply that for Asians to be Christians they must learn to speak Latin.

Breidenthal assumes he is speaking about something factual, as if the word "salvation" referred to an object and theology were some kind of hypothesis which could be tested. This is the kind of pious nonsense which makes many people today prefer spirituality to religion.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Not to imply that Dr. Breidenthal or other commenters here are right-wingers or sowers of discord. It's just that the right-wing is very experienced at pushing people's buttons, and sitting back while insiders take the bait and exhaust themselves fighting over the suggested talking points. (While dogs fight over a steak left by the back fence, the house is left unguarded.)

Murdoch Matthew
spouse of Gary

I have no need to defend my bishop (Bishop Breidenthal), whose words speak for themselves. I do want to express my agreement, with a couple of qualifications. If Fr. Forrester's views are as Breidenthal describes them, there is every reason to withhold consent. I know that Breidenthal is a judicious , charitable, and intelligent man. It is clear he bent over backward to give Forrester a fair hearing and was not in the end convinced. His letter acknowledges a broad, generous orthodoxy, including a variety of interpretations of the atonement, but there are some limits imposed by the basic Christian narrative and the normative exegetical-liturgical traditions as we have received them and are attempting to carry them forward as the Church in our own day. If you can't develop some positive account of what it means to assert that "Jesus died for our sins and rose for our justification," you probably can't do the job a bishop is required to do. Same thing goes for denying the bodily resurrection by the way. God's gracious initiative in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus liberates us from the power of sin and death. A bishop is fundamentally an apostle: an embodied witness to the Easter Gospel and its life-changing power.

Illusion is not strong enough to capture what Christians mean by "sin," and it may be here where, pace Breidenthal, Forrester has been led astray by his Buddhist commitments. I believe "in the forgiveness of sins," we confess in the Apostles' Creed. This belief is also enshrined in the prayer the Lord taught his disciples. The will may retain some liberty, but our power to choose the good is objectively compromised by sin and reconciliation with God and neighbor must come through divine initiative, grace that is prevenient, unmerited, and undeserved. In the end, this grace is mediated by Christ, the giver of the Holy Spirit. It is through our union with him in his dying and rising that we become his brothers and sisters, children of God, and the temple of the Holy Spirit.

What does disturb me just a little bit in Breidenthal's remarks is the notion that we should care about how this episode might play in the Anglican Communion. If Forrester is engaging in false teaching, then he should not be confirmed. To weigh how this appears on a worldwide stage, comes too close to the logic of B033 for my comfort.

Forrester's failure to use the baptismal rite of the 1979 Prayer Book alone, in my view, disqualifies him from confirmation as a bishop. The Prayer Book has the force of canon law, and, while there is some latitude in how the liturgies are fleshed out, Forrester's departure seems to be of such a kind that he is no longer conforming to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.

Sorry to disappoint some of my liberal friends, but I think Bishop Breidenthal got it more or less right.

I also think that, if as he alleges, the process in Northern Michigan, which had no proper election, is consistent with the canons, then the canons need to be amended so that this kind of thing can't happen again. I am gravely concerned that a single unopposed candidate was brought forward.

Which, I suppose, is a long way of saying "What Derek said (#2)."

I have read Bp Breidenthal's letter with some attention. I had also read some of the sermons to which he refers, as well as other material from Bp-elect Thew Forrester.

I approach this from the language of the canons, which requires standing committees to state that they "know of no impediment" to the consecration. This leads to a discussion of "what is an impediment." It seems to me that the impediment (if it is truly there) in this present case would be the impediment of "defective intent." Thew Forrester is not happy with the present theology of the Episcopal Church, it seems. It is not that he denies the "satisfaction theory" of the atonement, but appears to deny the need for any theology of atonement whatever, as the "division" which "at-one-ment" is designed to remedy is purely illusory -- and artifact of human imperceptions.

Just as in marriage counselling I advise couples not to marry if they are intent on "changing" their partners to become more what they wish they were (a formula for disaster in my experience) so too I do not think it wise for one to seek to take up the mantle of a guardian of the faith if one is intent on being its reformer. This is not to say we need not work for change in certain aspects of the church's life -- but the object of change the Bp-elect seems to be intent on is a "core doctrine" --- and if one cannot sign on to that core doctrine, as it stands, it seems to me that there is an instance of defective intent.

I said the same thing regarding the Bp of South Carolina in terms of intent to observe the discipline of the church; and was heartened by his eventual clarifications that he had no intent to lead his diocese out of the church. The clarifications that the Bp-elect of N.Mich. has issued to date do not offer me the same kind of assurance in view of doctrine. He really does appear to think what Bp Breidenthal perceives him to think. He is welcome to those thoughts -- but it seems to me not to commend his episcopacy.

Oh my, Tobias. I fear the lesson learned will be don't leave a paper trail and don't pick a bishop-elect who has one. And that would bias bishop selection even more away from theologians and towards administrators. No more Rowan Williams' (r.e. his theological explorations on the teachings of the church on homosexuality).

No, John, it means that the paper trail should demonstrate a clear grasp of Christian orthodoxy. I.e., the Scriptures as read through the ecumenical creeds. And since most of the "paper" is sermons preached to congregations, I'd certainly hope the "paper trails" of our clergy demonstrate this.

In response to John Chilton,
it seems to me that a priest who did not have a public record of teaching the doctrine of the church is not a good candidate for bishop.
Patrick Coleman

Ok. I'll admit to some pot stirring to flesh out the arguments.

John, consider the pot lightly stirred. ;-)

Seriously, though, I think Thew Forrester reveals himself to be a more than able administrator -- I would say it is his strong suit. And if that's all that being a bishop was about, I'd say, fine. But I don't think it is unusual to expect bishops to have a theological grounding and centering in those basic Christian doctrines. (BTW, I do not think T-F is inclining in an Eastward direction (at least towards Eastern Orthodoxy) and notions of theosis -- which is always in and through Christ. He admittedly passes further east to notions of awakening, shedding of illusion, and so on. Reading his sermons was an eye-opener for me. And if it is true they've been removed from public view, that seems all the more suspicious.

So in the long run, I don't think an examination of theological views is likely to stifle the election of theologically astute bishops. To expect bishops to be articulate exponents of the church's teaching is, I think, not too much to hope for.

Tobias says it is okay to rethink doctrine but not core doctrine. Define "core doctrine." So it is okay to think but not too much? So much for the view that the Episcopal Church is the thinking person's church.

In the beginning of the movement there were many Christianities, as Elaine Pagels has shown in her work, but "orthodoxy" claimed it had God in its pocket. Some people go over to Buddhism and other Eastern traditions because they have not been taught our own tradition has or has had many other approaches.

Gary Paul Gilbert

"This is not to say we need not work for change in certain aspects of the church's life -- but the object of change the Bp-elect seems to be intent on is a "core doctrine" --- and if one cannot sign on to that core doctrine, as it stands, it seems to me that there is an instance of defective intent."

Unfortunately - the bishops seem to be voting more on "see we are as hard on liberals as we are on conservatives" rather than from any thing else. IMO.

Gary,

The Episcopal Church states that it upholds the ecumenical creeds, the canons and the apostolic succession/historic episcopate. This connects us organically to one particular set of communities out of the mix of so-called early Christianities.

It pains me to see many progressive Christians making a bee-line for ancient heresies, often without ever looking at the wide breadth of Christianities that fall entirely within credal orthodoxy.

"To expect bishops to be articulate exponents of the church's teaching is, I think, not too much to hope for." --T. Haller

But what if the church's teaching is wrong? Or not even wrong, but just theoretical speculations that have nothing to do with present-day life? I can't comment on Dr. Forrester's episcopal qualifications. I'm objecting to the easy referencing of "sin" as though we know what we're talking about. Human beings are not creatures who need Divine Grace to reclaim a previous condition of perfection. We are organisms, part of the web of life on earth, who have developed consciousness and are struggling to understand ourselves and the universe in which we find ourselves. The Church's teaching is from another age. It is shattering now because women and gays can see that they've simply been left out of the story. The attempt to insert us is showing that the whole story needs rethinking. As I said, I don't know whether Dr. Forrester would make an effective bishop. I do see theology as a branch of literary criticism, explicating and analyzing ancient narratives (and extrapolating from them). Medieval theology perpetuates a medieval church (great music and liturgy, tho); it doesn't move us on to better understanding of people's needs today.

Murdoch Matthew
who was writing at the same time as his spouse, Gary

Yesterday, I had posted a link to a rather lengthy reflection on this topic on my blog, but heard through the grapevine that this is not allowed at Episcopal Cafe. I apologize--I was merely trying to save space so people wouldn't have to scroll so far down in order to avoid my ramblings.

Tobias Haller has since posted reflections that are more succinct than mine, but for the record I will post my blog post here, too, for anyone who's interested.

I might also note that while "core doctrine" has never been defined, I believe the infamous Righter Trial of the late 1990s resulted in a ruling that stated that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the Creeds, and the 1979 Prayerbook were the "containers" of "Core Doctrine," and therefore that on the subject of human sexuality, what was found in the Scriptures was inconclusive as to whether it was "core doctrine" or not. Therefore Righter was acquitted. In this case, we might look to those "containers" and see whether we could come up with a more conclusive answer. I agree with Tobias that this is entirely possible, and the verdict is not likely to be in Fr. Forrester's favor.

Herewith, my prolix post:

Breidenthal's No and Weil's Faint Praise

Having read both Bp. Breidenthal's letter and Prof. Weil's letter, I am impressed by how thoughtful these men have been, though interestingly, Prof. Weil never comes right out and says, "Good job on the Baptismal rite, Kevin!" As someone used to scrutinizing letters of recommendation (I was in admissions work for a few years), what comes across strongly is Prof. Weil's personal affection for Fr. Forrester as a human being and confidence that he would be no worse than any other bishop and might be better than most. This is an endorsement, but not a ringing one. In fact, part of me wonders whether the letter doesn't end up damning Fr. Forrester with faint praise. (Though by "damning," let me be clear I am not refering to the ultimate disposition of his eternal soul...)

Before going into Bp. Breidenthal's concerns, I want to highlight some very important sections of Prof. Weil's letter. First, Prof. Weil reflects,

I have read the baptismal rite carefully and it seems to me that as an experiment it models the type of process which we need, local testing, critical reflection, and, eventually, appropriate revision...My concern is not with experimentation guided by responsible oversight, but rather what I see here on the west coast (and which I am told of in other parts of the country) of a new kind of clericalism in which whatever liturgical whim the rector wants to impose on a congregation, often apparently with inadequate theological and liturgical knowledge, becomes the liturgy of the hour. I am frequently sent examples of these liturgies (--NOT by the rectors themselves!), and the problems both theological and liturgical are often very serious. Liturgical development requires appropriate leadership and a willingness to test and criticize; the first idea that pops into one’s head is not necessarily good liturgy.

Note here that Prof. Weil states that the liturgy "models the type of *process* which we need," not "the type of *liturgy* we need." If Prof. Weil actually liked the liturgy, I would like him to come right out and say it! As it is, I suspect he is being very diplomatic and polite. I am not a liturgical scholar like Prof. Weil, but I know my way around a prayer book, and although I was unable to locate the baptismal liturgy to which Prof. Weil refers, I have studied Fr. Forrester's Easter Vigil liturgy from last year (entitled Kindling the Ancient Fire Sharing Stories of Life-Death-Rebirth Receiving the Sacred Fruits of Earth), and I must say, that aside from any aethestic qualms I might have about celebrating it in a parish of my own, it raises some serious questions about the intention of the liturgy. I can get into that in more detail if people want to discuss the finer points of lex orandi, lex credendi, but suffice it to say it raises questions for me about the sort of "Christian" such liturgies are intended to form.

Coming back to the paragraph quoted above, I wondered whether Prof. Weil might be counseling Fr. Forrester against that "new kind of clericalism" whereby "whatever liturgical whim the rector wants to impose on a congregation, often apparently with inadequate theological and liturgical knowledge, becomes the liturgy of the hour." Is he probing whether this has been the case in Fr. Forrester's parish? I do not think that Prof. Weil is accusing Fr. Forrester of "inadequate theological and liturgical knowledge," but I see something pointed and cautionary about stating that "the first idea that pops into one’s head is not necessarily good liturgy."

In any event, Prof. Weil does at least obliquely imply that he has some confidence that Fr. Forrester has "a willingness to test and criticize." Indeed, everything I have read by the man demonstrates a creative and keen mind, one that isn't afraid of asking tough questions or of doing a bit of trailblazing. The question of whether those trails cross the border from what is recognizably "Nicene" into the alien land of another religion or of beliefs antithetical to the Apostolic Faith that bishops are called to teach and uphold is one that each person in this consent process will have to struggle with. Admittedly, I have my doubts, and I am envious of anyone who can reply with certainty that this bishop-elect does not stray too far. At best, what I hear from his defenders is "Who's to say what 'too far' is? Are we supposed to be the judge of that?" As I have indicated in earlier reflections on the Consent Process in general, drawn directly from the ordination service for a bishop, entitled, Questions to Ask When Considering Consents, I find this line of questioning a cop-out and too evasive of the tough questions. I suspect that people in their heart of hearts really do have judgments and answers to these questions, and if they do, they should have the courage of their convictions.

I'm going to come back to Prof. Weil's letter in just a moment, because he raises a separate issue not tied specifically to liturgical experimentation. Turning to Bp. Breidenthal's letter, I must say that my concerns are more or less the same as his, though I would not necessarily take issue as Bp. Breidenthal does with the particular atonement theory Fr. Forrester espouses (or fails to espouse), since it is, as comments at The Lead have pointed out, possibly commensurate with Orthodox theology, particularly theosis. In my read of the bishop's letter, part of his concern is not so much with the content of the theology as its mode of expression. To put it in my own words, I am concerned that much of what I have read in Fr. Forrester's sermons and experimental liturgies betrays an over-realized eschatology. Everything is already done.

What does this have to do with being a bishop, one might ask. This is the big question, and it's not one I am confident in answering, other than to say that I try to be on guard about my own assumptions about God and how God acts in relationship to us, always testing those assumptions against the tradition of the Church, the witness of Scripture, and the discernment of the worshipping community. I do wonder whether Fr. Forrester's assumptions have been subjected to the same testing.

I agree with Bp. Breidenthal that Fr. Forrester's experience with Zen Buddhism and the manner of his election are not in and of themselves disqualifying from episcopal office. Let's also give up on the liturgical innovator line of attack for a moment. I am not suggesting that we do give up on it entirely, since in the Episcopal Church, praying shapes believing, but for now let's say, for argument's sake, that Fr. Forrester, as a bishop, should be as free as any other bishop to innovate to his heart's content, and to encourage others to do the same. Is there any further ground for concern?

Interestingly, Bp. Breidenthal does not cover any new territory, but Prof. Weil does. Significantly, he writes,

One further comment. You mention that the question has been raised about the distinction between the ministries of bishops and those [of] priests, with bishops being understood as “guardians of the faith.” Speaking historically, certainly this has been an important dimension of the episcopal ministry. But for me, I must bring to this question the work of the late Raymond Brown on this question. Probably some thirty years ago he published a very important little book titled Priest and Bishop. In it, and on the basis of his substantial work on the books of the New Testament, Brown proposed a missionary model for the episcopate. He calls for the bishop to exercise the radical ministry implied in the ancient title pontifex — bridge builder. In this model, the bishop is the one who is reaching out into the expanding edges of the community, and who then interprets the various voices in the Church to each other in order to build up the unity of the Body which transcends such differences as progressive and conservative. The priests, on the other hand, Brown sees as the resident pastors, those charged with the building up and nourishment of the local communities, and in that sense the conservators of the tradition. For the episcopate, I would hope that, given the needs of the church in our own post-Christian world, Brown’s interpretation of the episcopate might be given fuller expression.

This was startling to read in a letter that has been touted as an endorsement of Fr. Forrester, for it made me ask, "Is this bishop-elect the sort of person who can be a "bridge-builder," not just between other religious traditions and the Christian tradition. but as Weil writes, is he able to interpret "the various voices in the Church to each other in order to build up the unity of the Body which transcends such differences as progressive and conservative"? As Weil says, I, too, "would hope that, given the needs of the church in our own post-Christian world, Brown’s interpretation of the episcopate might be given fuller expression." My question is: Can Fr. Forrester (not to mention many of those currently in the House of Bishops, whether progressive or conservative) give fuller expression to Raymond Brown's important vision for the episcopate?

Ultimately, I have no vote in this decision, and so I will not presume to answer this question by telling anyone who has a vote what to do. I hope my bias is transparent enough so that people can take away from these off-the-cuff reflections whatever is of value without feeling that I am trying to arm-twist anyone into saying "No" to someone who by all accounts is a lovely human being and a deeply caring pastor. But given the bar that Weil sets for the episcopacy, I am given more pause for thought with regard to Fr. Forrester's election than I am even by Bp. Breidenthal's letter. This surprises me, for I expected Prof. Weil's letter to be a much stronger endorsement of Fr. Forrester than it turned out to be.

While Fr. Forrester might be right that viewed from one angle, Jesus "does not raise the bar to salvation, but lowers it so far that it disappears," in my reading of Prof. Weil's challenging letter, Raymond Brown appears to raise the bar so high for the episcopate that very few people could clear it. Perhaps, therefore, it is ultimately too high, and Fr. Forrester is being treated unfairly. I would not want to see him scapegoated as the object for conservative ire, as much of the folderal over his being a "Buddhist Bishop" has tended to be. On the other hand, perhaps it's about time The Episcopal Church started taking criteria such as Raymond Brown's more seriously.

Prof. Weil's strongest (and warmest) language comes at the end:

I do want personally to confirm my joy at your election to the episcopate for the Diocese of Northern Bishop. The past several bishops have been personal friends, and I would rejoice to see that continue. As a small diocese, it seems to me that the kind of corporate reflection on liturgical developments which I think we need might be embodied more immediately than in large dioceses in which inter-parochial communication is often so difficult, and I believe that you could foster that [communication] very effectively.

What is Prof. Weil saying here? Essentially, that he's happy for the guy, has been friends with past bishops of that diocese and would be happy to stay friends with him, and that he can affirm his leadership as a communicator. As a closing paragraph, this is not a stellar recommendation for the office of bishop.

Now, I may have read Prof. Weil's letter with too much suspicion, in which case I would be happy to hear him say, "Kevin's liturgical skills are super; he'd make a great bridge-builder between progressives and conservatives, and will undoubtedly build up the unity of the Body of Christ through his ministry as a bishop, which is what we so need nowadays." Does Prof. Weil come right out and say that? This question I feel confident answering with a straightforward response: No.

Gary, all doctrine is subject to further examination and elucidation -- that is part of the theologian's task. But "core" doctrine is "core" because it contains the postulates of the faith, some basic affirmations upon which the rest of the doctrine is built. Which is not to say they are a closed book: to date the church as a whole has not settled on any one particular theology of the Atonement, for instance.

But when core doctrines appear to be, not just being understood in new ways (which I think is great) but dismantled or misused (T-F's explication of kenosis in one of his "responses to criticism" seems to me to be almost completely backwards); or not clearly explicated (as in his response concerning the Incarnation) then I find that there is a question about suitability for the office of bishop.

As to Murdoch's observation that the church might be wrong, I not only agree but can join the 39 Articles in affirming that it is definitely sometimes wrong. I do not think the core doctrines are under threat by gays and women -- on the contrary, I think they are being more fully realized.

But what if the church's teaching is wrong?

Then one has no business solemnly engaging to conform to it, as every bishop must do.

Doctrines are a social construct and as such can be deconstructed. Any doctrine which no longer reflects people's experience or hurts people should be abandoned. Traditions must not be honored simply because they go way back but must be tested against new social realities. Homoousia and homoiousia may have gotten people worked up at a certain time but that distinction makes no sense today in a world where evolution rather than a fall from perfection is the context in which people think. Whereas Pusey got into trouble for preaching real presence in the eucharist, today few people would care about such church fights. Calling something heresy today would make it more attractive to many people because they have a gut sense the churches have lied to them about many things. Today people are fighting over ethics, over whether LGBTs should be allowed access to civil and religious marriage. And the church seems stuck on its old mythology or hesitant to embrace full equality of all persons. Orthodoxy is a bummer.

The Anglican Church of Canada says that blessing same-sex couples almost touches core doctrine so the process for treating LGBTs as equals will take longer. "Core doctrine" is not a welcome term for LGBTs in general because the tradition is a history of discrimination and superstition.

I will have none of this core doctrine discourse.

The liturgical language may be seen as a record of where the community has been but must not be seen as a test of faith. It is rather a testimony of faith. How one treats each other is the real test. And in this respect the church has failed miserably.

Gary Paul Gilbert

A Church without core doctrine is intellectually incoherent.

Gary, I believe the Anglican Church of Canada said that the question of same-sex marriage was not a matter of core doctrine, but that since it did have doctrinal implications (that is, the church claims to have a doctrine on marriage) it must go through the process required for alterations to or expansion of any doctrine. I think this will happen within a very few years. Like you, I wish it would happen sooner, and I too can be held guilty of impatience in this regard.

Where I find the distinction of core doctrine helpful is in the reassurance I have in the knowledge that the issues surrounding sexual ethics are not core to the faith -- that is why they not only have changed over time but are capable of further change. I take this as good news.

This issue is as important to me as it is to you, but I don't see it as having any relevance to the discussion of bishop elect Thew Forrester. Here we are dealing, not just with novel ways of expressing or exploring the old truths concerning God and the nature of God, but with what appear to be rejections of the old truths -- which are not true because they are old, but old because they are true.

We will indeed see some old things pass away (God willing) in our lifetimes; but there are also eternal realities that will stand, indeed, upon which the change in the others is dependent. This is part of what Jim is referring to as intellectual coherence.

I would welcome from Thew Forrester, for example, a clear answer -- in his own words and without resorting to quotes from anybody else -- to the question, "What essential differences do you see between Buddhism and Christianity?" I have no objection to the use of Buddhist practice, and many of the moral ideals of Buddhism are remarkably congruent with a Christian life. But it appears to me that there are important distinctions as well, and I remain troubled by what I see as some of the elements of Buddhism that do not sit well with Christianity being imported into KTF's teaching and liturgical expression. A comment on the difference between satori and salvation, for example, would be helpful -- as KTF appears to see the latter in light of the former.

It is not that I'm trying to get him to say the words I want to hear, but that I want to hear something I recognize -- in its meaning -- as at the heart of the Christian faith. I see that in Rahner, I see that in the Cappadocians -- but in spite of quoting from them I don't see it in KTF -- in his own words.

"Core doctrine" is not a welcome term for LGBTs in general because the tradition is a history of discrimination and superstition.

Nothing quite like being spoken for without ever being asked. This aggressively dogmatic rejection of doctrine and the past is your prerogative. Do not paint me with your brush.

(sorry, I hit "submit" to soon.)

I left a narrowly confessional system for TEC because it had a wide room for discussion but was honest in its desire to stay true to the core of Christian belief.

My mileage varies quite far from the likes of Pagles and I think she grabbed the wrong end of the stick, as it where, but that is for another discussion entirely.

Yes, Tobias the Anglican Church of Canada said that relationships between same-sex partners touch on core doctrine, thus allowing their denomination to delay marriage equality for LGBTs. A silly notion called a doctrine of marriage (whatever sacramental nonsense that would be) was used to continue the view that LGBTs are the problem rather than the Anglican Church of Canada's ongoing homophobia. The United Church of Canada, which takes a more reserved stand on doctrine, has endorsed religious and civil marriage for LGBTs, perhaps because they never had a sacrament of marriage.

Contra Robison I think this particular example shows how "core doctrine," even the possibility of its invocation, is bad news for LGBT equality. Tradition is not a static thing which must either be taken in or rejected but remains to come. The promise of respecting the dignity of each person is yet to be honored and will never be fully honored. It would be impossible to reject the tradition and do something completely new just as it would be impossible to duplicate the religion of the white male bishops who invented it in the first place and tried to turn it into a system which necessarily excluded women, gays, nonwhites, etc. That is why I view with suspicion the term "intellectual coherence."

Rather than insisting on a clear distinction between Buddhism and Christianity I would ask the question why there has to be a clear distinction and what it is that sets off a resistance to the so-called nonChristian religion? This is a complicated question and I fear some of the implications are that many Christians still believe they are superior to other traditions and nontraditions.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary Paul Gilbert

Having read sermons, looked at liturgies, and considered responses by bishop-elect Thew Forrester, I think Fr. Haller's and Fr. Carroll's assessments are on the whole correct. This reads as a Christology not in accord with our Creeds.

Bp. Breidenthal's concern reads not as a specific endorsement of a particular theory of Atonement, but rather that any understanding of Jesus Christ that lacks Atonement is a defective understanding of the Incarnation. The bishop-elect seems to understand that the problem is our knowledge and that if we overcome our illusion we too can recognize our oneness with God. I won't deny that there are Christian mystical theologies of this sort, but those that are orthodox recognize that the possibility of increase in unity with God is possible at all because of Jesus Christ in his Person and work.

We have trod this road long before, and it is one of the most ancient of heresies along with docetism. St Irenaeus is the orthodox response with compate to any interpreting sin merely as lack of knowledge. Such an interpretation is at the heart of the various systems known collectively as "gnosticism".

I am concerned like several others that our reserved but quite solid Quadrilateral is not taken seriously in the soteriology or lack thereof in the bishop-elect's thought. The Quadrilateral is in many senses mere Christianity, and for Anglicans provides walls for our roomy house.

With approval or not of the Ordinary, I find it troubling that the central rites of our tradition, Baptism and Eucharist, were changed up with a rite not authorized for experimentation by General Convention. That is the fundamental difference between EOW and others--the former are authorized and were put together and thought about by a number of liturgists and theologians.

I might note that for me the core doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity are liberative as a gay person. Rather than oppressive, I see them as the lens for thinking about my person and relationship in moral and positive terms.

Christopher, It is easy to level a word like "gnosticism" at someone if one does not bother to read more recent scholarship on the variety of practices in the early days of the movement. "Heresy" as a term is an unfortunate conversation stopper. In the olden days it was easy to use it because the church or monarch had an absolute monopoly on religion. One had to pretend to conform. In a modern democracy, people will pick and choose elements of different spiritual practices which they find helpful and will discard those they find less helpful. The question is not whether one finds so-called core doctrine liberating or oppressive but rather how one draws the distinction. A conservative Roman Catholic would find Papal infallibility core doctrine, so this distinction doesn't settle things. It is rather like, "Thou shalt do no murder," which looks like a command but which fails to define "murder." Don't do what I don't approve of is what it says, in an unhelpful way.

Even if one buys the idea of core doctrine, which I don't, it won't solve anything.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary,

I am well aware of various movements calling themselves “Christian” in the apostolic and primitive eras. Their existence does not mean therefore that we Anglicans are not committed to particular doctrines. We are committed to the first four ecumenical councils, so simply because various sects and groups existed in the first or second century is interesting history, helps us understand our own better, but does not overturn that we are a Chalcedonian Communion of Churches.

You seem to want to willfully, and I underscore that word, want to ignore that as Derek reminds and reminds, we are committed to that community that upholds the historic episcopate as guardian of the teaching, the Creeds (already a formulation of the Apostles’ is in use by St Ireneaus), and the two sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.

I remind you that St Ireneaus was not allied with a monarch, but rather was martyred. You’re reading in modern categories into that history.

Quit being sophistical and pulling in other traditions. We’re discussing Anglicanism, not Roman Catholicism. We who are Anglican do have core doctrines and we’re clear about what they are and they’re not up for a vote. And we’re clear about those that will guard our teaching: the Quadrilateral. If tomorrow our General Convention or the Anglican Consultative Council were to say nay to the Incarnation or Trinity, you can guarantee I would call them heretics. We simply are not a democracy in the sense that we can vote yes or no on our core.

If that stops the conversation, that is no reason not to name a denial of an Atonement of anyking in Jesus Christ as what it is, heresy. Nearly 1800 years ago, St Irenaeus set forth the orthodox response to this claim of sin as mere illusion and rescue as realization. That response sits with us still in the formulation of both our Creeds: “For us and for our salvation…”

Christopher, The last time I checked in the Prayer Book the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral is in the Historical Documents of the Church along with the incomprehensible Athanasian creed.

Irenaeus was less than charitable with differing faith groups. In a world of religious pluralism holding that one's own religion is superior to others is not helpful, to say the least.

Gary Paul Gilbert

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_106683_ENG_HTM.htm

"God is, at the very least, a mystery," Jefferts Schori said. "God's intention is for a restored relationship with all humanity. My job is to proclaim the good news of Jesus, but I cannot deny God is not at work in other ways."

Oh my, will we ever be able to ordain a bishop who isn't an admiral in the queen's navy.

I don't think that Christopher's use of the word "heresy" implies that he does not tolerate other religions. He just sees Fr. Forrester's views as incompatible with what us Anglicans uphold (the historical creeds). There are other churches that have decided to follow other paths (different confessions, or no creeds whatsoever). That doesn't make them more or less sincere in their statements. But if I go (making a very simplistic analogy) to a conservative Presbyterian church and defend Universalism, or if I go to a MCC and say that gays go to hell, I won't be surprised if people call me heretic.

Of course we are in an era of religious pluralism. But I don't see that as an argument to force churches and religions to accept whatever beliefs people have. What I understand is that people are free to join and leave churches, or even put aside religion altogether, and go find new and suitable alternatives. Thank God we are free to choose what religion we want to follow. It would be dreadful if we were forced to follow an established church.

Also, the quotes (said by Bishop Katharine) that John B. Chilton posted, in my opinion, are not necessarily linked with the discussion about Fr. Forrester's Christology. God is a mystery, and we cannot fully understand him/her. However, Christians in general agree that some things were revealed to us, and some things were discerned by our communities of faith. In our case, Anglicans/Episcopalians, we have come to the conclusion that the creeds are part of this revelation and discernment. And surely +Katharine has promised to uphold them too, not only in her consecration vows, but in several moments of her church life, as we all do.

I swing back and forth about this Bishop-Elect case. I don't feel very comfortable to make a comment about the Episcopal Church without being a member of it, to begin with. However, I can say that part of me thinks that he should be consecrated, since he'll make a public statement about upholding the creeds (and therefore, what we believe as a Church) in his consecration. But part of me thinks that, if his theology prior to that has not been consistent with what the Church understands as it core set of beliefs, then it would be contradictory to let this process go further...

I hate to pour fuel on any fire started by the Institute on Religion and Democracy, but I see good reason to join in for it seems to me we are grappling with some very basic issues, such as what we mean by "knowledge" "orthodoxy" "salvation" and such.

I see our debate as bumping into a very difficult and old question: Can God be known in any accurate sense of the word, directly, without the mediation of symbols? The Eastern Churches, in particular, answer with a resounding NO! Mystics Eastern and Western both, agree, even though they do claim direct knowledge of God, but they will immediately explain that the experience is one of not-knowing, (Cloud of Unknowing) not-thinking (Thomas Aquinas) or not-speaking (Eckhart and apophatic mysticism in the East). In sum, the only possible direct knowledge of God (if you outlive it) is utter rapt silence, in which knower and known are experienced as one.

Again, there´s nothing heterodox about Forrester´s stressing unity with God as something always there. John of the Cross, said exactly the same thing in the Ascent to Mt. Carmel. I paraphrase: "At the end of the journey the soul realizes that it was united to God all along." And how else could it be? If were were not united to God, the Ground of all being, even for a nanosecond, we would simply disappear.

In both the Eastern and Western orthodox traditions we would add that mediated knowledge of God is always and everywhere at best approximate, and more accurate in expressing what God is NOT, than in accurately saying what God IS. (Again, Thomas Aquinas). For example, the Eucharistic Prayer of St. John Chrysostom (c.350) calls on "God, ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible..."

Since these approximate expressions of our "knoweldege" of God are after all, knowledge, they are also contextual, and as someone has pointed out above, constructed. In faith, under the guidance of the Spirit, but constructed nonetheles, out of cultural materials in which the authors find themselves. (This insight lies at the core of modern historical-critical approaches to scripture). Thus in the West we are still using Fourth century Greek constructions of God based on neo-Platonic concepts.

The other side of the debate stresses conformity to our received mediations of God, without allowing any adaptation or conceptual re-casting of them. Taking it to the extreme, this means we must become first century (diaspora?) Jews speaking Hebrew and Greek, in order to be Christian.

The same can be said about soteriology (theology of salvation). A particular formulation --in this case Anselm´s, interprets the NT understanding of the sacrifice of Christ for sins in terms of paying a debt to a demanding creditor, the Father (kind of like the IRS) whereas perhaps the main intent of the NT writers was to declare the end of the need for sacrifice as payment for sin, once for all, transcending a foundational theological-liturgical Jewish tenet once the Temple was destroyed.

Bishop Breidenthal´s letter against Forrester confuses the language of the NT with Anselmian soteriology. He´s in good company (Augustine, for example). But he is mistaken in considering Anselmian soteriology as the only orthodox doctrine of salvation. Our tradition includes several different ways of thinking about the unthinkable mystery of the cross.

In the Nicene creed, for example, we do not say Christ died to PAY for sins, but for our salvation (salutem, that is, health, and "pro nobis" --for us).

The core doctrine is that Jesus´death and ongoing life is health-giving (salvatio, sotería) or if you prefer, life-giving. (Criticisms of Fr. Forrester for using the Syrian understanding of salvation as life-giving are utterly unfounded.)

The Paschal Mystery is life-giving not only to individual persons but to the whole Church, born, as Jesus handed over the Spirit, one body, a new Eve, from the side of the new Adam, in water and blood --Baptism & Eucharist-- (Cyril of Jerusalem).

The cross healed us. Made us ONE (1 Cor), "tearing down the dividing wall." and eliminating the need to assure our unity through "instruments of communion" or yet another Covenant. The church is not one by our efforts, but by the cross, the true instrument of communion. To think that we can cause the church´s unity by either demanding intellectual assent to approximate formulations by demanding obedience to the unity police is the height of Pelagianism.

But I digress. The question, to restate it, is to what extent does "orthodoxy" (right praise) depend upon assenting to specific theological formulations, and to what extent can theological formulations be understood (and maybe even translated) into terms that are homiletically at least, more easily grasped by our contemporaries, while keeping to the core meaning of teh original statement? My Lord, one doesn not even have to agree with Cardinal Newman that doctrine develops through time (and space?) to agree to this.

People who cannot countenance this, screaming "heretic" even as they light the faggots are like the poor souls in Plato´s cave, who tied in place and forced to watch shadow puppets, take them for real. For they confuse the names of God with the blazing, unutterable reality of God. Taken to the extreme, the position leads to idealotry --a rather sophisticated form of idolatry in which we confuse OUR concepts about God with the Real Thing, someone very difficult to manipulate to serve our control needs.

I hate to pour fuel on any fire started by the Institute on Religion and Democracy, but I see good reason to join in for it seems to me we are grappling with some very basic issues, such as what we mean by "knowledge" "orthodoxy" "salvation" and such.

I see our debate as bumping into a very difficult and old question: Can God be known in any accurate sense of the word, directly, without the mediation of symbols? The Eastern Churches, in particular, answer with a resounding NO! Mystics Eastern and Western both, agree, even though they do claim direct knowledge of God, but they will immediately explain that the experience is one of not-knowing, (Cloud of Unknowing) not-thinking (Thomas Aquinas) or not-speaking (Eckhart and apophatic mysticism in the East). In sum, the only possible direct knowledge of God (if you outlive it) is utter rapt silence, in which knower and known are experienced as one.

Again, there´s nothing heterodox about Forrester´s stressing unity with God as something always there. John of the Cross, said exactly the same thing in the Ascent to Mt. Carmel. I paraphrase: "At the end of the journey the soul realizes that it was united to God all along." And how else could it be? If were were not united to God, the Ground of all being, even for a nanosecond, we would simply disappear.

In both the Eastern and Western orthodox traditions we would add that mediated knowledge of God is always and everywhere at best approximate, and more accurate in expressing what God is NOT, than in accurately saying what God IS. (Again, Thomas Aquinas). For example, the Eucharistic Prayer of St. John Chrysostom (c.350) calls on "God, ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible..."

Since these approximate expressions of our "knoweldege" of God are after all, knowledge, they are also contextual, and as someone has pointed out above, constructed. In faith, under the guidance of the Spirit, but constructed nonetheles, out of cultural materials in which the authors find themselves. (This insight lies at the core of modern historical-critical approaches to scripture). Thus in the West we are still using Fourth century Greek constructions of God based on neo-Platonic concepts.

The other side of the debate stresses conformity to our received mediations of God, without allowing any adaptation or conceptual re-casting of them. Taking it to the extreme, this means we must become first century (diaspora?) Jews speaking Hebrew and Greek, in order to be Christian.

The same can be said about soteriology (theology of salvation). A particular formulation --in this case Anselm´s, interprets the NT understanding of the sacrifice of Christ for sins in terms of paying a debt to a demanding creditor, the Father (kind of like the IRS) whereas perhaps the main intent of the NT writers was to declare the end of the need for sacrifice as payment for sin, once for all, transcending a foundational theological-liturgical Jewish tenet once the Temple was destroyed.

Bishop Breidenthal´s letter against Forrester confuses the language of the NT with Anselmian soteriology. He´s in good company (Augustine, for example). But he is mistaken in considering Anselmian soteriology as the only orthodox doctrine of salvation. Our tradition includes several different ways of thinking about the unthinkable mystery of the cross.

In the Nicene creed, for example, we do not say Christ died to PAY for sins, but for our salvation (salutem, that is, health, and "pro nobis" --for us).

The core doctrine is that Jesus´death and ongoing life is health-giving (salvatio, sotería) or if you prefer, life-giving. (Criticisms of Fr. Forrester for using the Syrian understanding of salvation as life-giving are utterly unfounded.)

The Paschal Mystery is life-giving not only to individual persons but to the whole Church, born, as Jesus handed over the Spirit, one body, a new Eve, from the side of the new Adam, in water and blood --Baptism & Eucharist-- (Cyril of Jerusalem).

The cross healed us. Made us ONE (1 Cor), "tearing down the dividing wall." and eliminating the need to assure our unity through "instruments of communion" or yet another Covenant. The church is not one by our efforts, but by the cross, the true instrument of communion. To think that we can cause the church´s unity by either demanding intellectual assent to approximate formulations by demanding obedience to the unity police is the height of Pelagianism.

But I digress. The question, to restate it, is to what extent does "orthodoxy" (right praise) depend upon assenting to specific theological formulations, and to what extent can theological formulations be understood (and maybe even translated) into terms that are homiletically at least, more easily grasped by our contemporaries, while keeping to the core meaning of teh original statement? My Lord, one doesn not even have to agree with Cardinal Newman that doctrine develops through time (and space?) to agree to this.

People who cannot countenance this, screaming "heretic" even as they light the faggots are like the poor souls in Plato´s cave, who tied in place and forced to watch shadow puppets, take them for real. For they confuse the names of God with the blazing, unutterable reality of God. Taken to the extreme, the position leads to idealotry --a rather sophisticated form of idolatry in which we confuse OUR concepts about God with the Real Thing, someone very difficult to manipulate to serve our control needs.

I agree with most of what Juan Oliver says, especially: "But I digress. The question, to restate it, is to what extent does "orthodoxy" (right praise) depend upon assenting to specific theological formulations, and to what extent can theological formulations be understood (and maybe even translated) into terms that are homiletically at least, more easily grasped by our contemporaries, while keeping to the core meaning of the original statement? My Lord, one doesn not even have to agree with Cardinal Newman that doctrine develops through time (and space?) to agree to this." Yes! I would quibble about there having been an Original meaning, however, in the same way I would question, in the very next paragraph, his analogy to Plato's cave, in which shadows are grasped as the real Thing. I agree that those who argue that only their understandings of God are real are guilty of idolatry. And yet positing some kind of Origin may also be another kind of idolatry. Shadows are what we are stuck with and I don't see any easy way out of this aporia.

Both the concepts and God are, in a sense, socially constructed.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary,

I did not say, "original meaning" in any favored sense of the term. There must have been a literally "first meaning (to contemporaries) of a given formulation but to assume that we can access that meaning without interpreting the formulation in the light of its temporal, spatial and cultural contexts is a sure path to misunderstanding it.

As I see it, in order to deal appropriately with the socially constructed character of all statement (even statements about God) we must:

1. Understand them in their own historical context, including local politics, economics, gender constructions, etc. (ie., we must deconstruct them) Parroting them back is not enough.

2. Once we understand what the formulations in question meant in their original contexts, we need to find dynamic equivalents in our own contexts and in our own language, culture, etc. ( I know this from experience: I was a court interpreter for many years).

3. Only then can we reformulate the original formulations in a way accessible to our contemporaries.

4. We must also, however, have the courage to ask, Is that original formulation --even after it is re-constructed in todays´contexts-- still true, or was it an utterance valid only for its own place and time? People who think all Divine revelation ceased after the Council of Nicea will have a cow at this suggestion. But even Roman Catholics and some Orthodox accept some sort of theory about the development of Christian beliefs.

Yes all concepts are socially (or culturally) constructed.