[S Dakota] An Open Letter About Consents To The Election Of The Would Be Bishop Of Northern Michigan

In contrast to the open nomination process we used here in South Dakota…

Tim: Are you referring to the most recent diocesan election in South Dakota?  Perhaps you deliberately used the past tense to suggest that this type of orchestrated election could possibly be foisted upon the folks of South Dakota?

Piedmont - this diocese is small and uses “Mutual Ministry” at the congregational level. So, the kind of travesty worked on the No. Mich. folks could be done here.  Add to this the entanglement of the national church, which provides 1/2 the diocesan budget via a GenCon grant.

Prone as I am to gripe, I have to say that the current election (Coadjutor) in process here has been open and canonical.

The votes of bishops and standing committee regarding Northern Michigan will be another clear indication of the direction of TEC.  I am serving in divided diocese (not my canonical residence); if the local bishop and standing committee vote affirmatively regarding Thew Forrester’s consecration, it will be time to secure another place of service.

At the end of the open letter is the following appropriate and well-crafted closing:

What is being done in Northern Michigan is not good for the wider church. And a bishop is not just a “local matter” – s/he serves the wider Episcopal Church and even the Anglican Communion.

As we enter this holy season of Lent, all of us are challenged to hear “the message of pardon and absolution set forth in the Gospel of our Savior, and of the need which all Christians continually have to renew their repentance and faith” (Ash Wednesday liturgy). We plead with you to help the church repent of provocative actions and help us find unity in Jesus Christ. We are asking only for the basic unity provided in the Book of Common Prayer – what is going on in Northern Michigan violates both the letter and spirit of our common life in Christ.

For TEC to continue forward with consents leading to consecration would so fuel the fire of sycretism as to fan into full and consuming flame a conflagration that will fully and irreversibly open the door to chaos, totally disrupt the mission of the church, and reflect abysmal witness to how TEC as a body treats the holy name and person of our LORD Jesus Christ.

Or, are dioceses’ individual autonomy(s) something TEC must allow expression of?  Hmm, the permutations of THAT are intriguing…

Classic sacramental theology clearly states that Christians only benefit by the grace and purpose of a sacrament if he or she is clearly “in a state of grace”  and is seeking from the sacrament that which Christ intends.  This is stated clearly in the introduction preceeding Confession in the 1928 BCP and Rite One,but it applies to all 7 sacraments.  This state of grace includes moral truth; but it also includes the seeking from the sacrament that which Christ intends to give.  Clearly Kevin Thew Forrester (and V.G. Robinson as well) clearly do not fit into any such definition.  What Forrester and Robinson and their dioceses are trying to do is no where in the scope of Christ’s intention for His apostolic ministry or for Holy Orders.  So, I contend based on this ground alone that V. G. Robinson was never actually consecrated.  Words and hands alone without the Holy Spirit do nothing.  No actual configuration of Robinson’s soul to Christ ever took place.  Robinson is a placebo, and so would Forrester be as well.  That means TEC would have two dioceses that have no bishop!

If this appointment….it certainly can’t be called an election, because it isn’t one….isn’t stopped, the Global South primates won’t look kindly upon it, and it will backfire in TEC’s face.  Guaranteed!

If we can’t stop a gay Bishop, how in the world can we expect to stop the ‘official’ consecration of a mere Zen Buddhist?

No guarantee that it can be “stopped.”  We are doing what Scripture commands.  Warning must be given, otherwise the blood is on our hands.  Sometimes warnings change hearts and save souls.  Sometimes they are they way of enacting God’s judgement, just in the speaking.  Sometimes they bring crud our way, teaching us to carry the cross.  If God’s word is spoken, it will not return empty. 

Once they’ve been warned, it really is Thew Forrester’s/N. Mich’s/TEC’s and whoever-else-consent’s problem.

I guess you folks are all in a tizzy because of the bishop elect’s “Buddhist Lay Ordination”?  In charity I am assuming you don’t know what that entails?  Now your
more “learned” posters certainly DO know or OUGHT to, and shame on them!!!

It does NOT make him a member of a different faith or Buddhist clergy.  It simply involves the professing of five precepts… which are to abstain from: killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct or intoxicants. I hope all of us “orthodox” Christians try to follow that path.

#9, perhaps you ought to read some of the other posts on the subject. I think we’re all aware of what it entails.

But to spell the rest out for you, Buddhism is another religion. It is not compatible with Christianity. For a Christian priest to make vows for another religion calls into question his commitment to the church and to his Christian faith. It is impossible to validly syncretize the two faiths in one body.

The Dalai Lama is down with Buddhism and Christianity being incompatible. The Pope is good with the separation as well. Just about anyone who takes either religion seriously syays much the same. To argue otherwise is either the height of hubris (my will or nothing) or plain ignorant.

Placing your hands over your ears and saying “la la la” is not liturgical chant.

One must take into account the ontologic change conferred by the ordination.

Olallamike,
I guess you can include me among those “all in a tizzy,” if by that you mean those who are concerned that a person who espouses an understanding of Christianity shaped more by Buddhism than the historic traditions of the Christian church.  I do not think any one is objecting to anyone abstaining from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct or intoxicants.  I agree that persons of various religions (and no religion)can evidence a noble ethical standard.  Moral behavior is not unique to Christianity, the uniqueness of Christianity is recognizing Christ as the center of existence and creation.  Christ’s mission is to redeem us and restore our relationship with God. 
Many persons meditate and/or pray, but I think Christian prayer is different from non-Christian prayer and meditation (if it is a religious practice) by a Christian is different from meditation by a non-Christian.

Ralph, my point made in post #5 is that no sacramental/ontological change occurred at Robinson’s consecration.  And this will be true with Forrester’s consecration as well.  Robinson is a priest living in the deepest sin.  Forrester will soon follow unless his service is stopped, only his sin will be of a different nature.

#13 Te Deum

...no sacramental/ontological change occurred at Robinson’s consecration.

I believe that’s quite likely. God ordains, using the hands of the bishops. I’m not at all certain whether he can be considered still to be in Holy Orders, and I don’t believe that I would attend a service in which he is presiding.

And this will be true with Forrester’s consecration as well.

Quite possibly so. From what is being said, I think that he needs to have a careful, thorough psychological and spiritual dissection to determine whether he should be allowed to remain in Holy Orders. Not just because of the Zen stuff, but also because he seems to be so far out theologically.

The post in #11 is admittedly a bit ambiguous. It doesn’t say which ordination (Christian or Buddhist) I’m talking about, does it? Read it again in context with post #9, which I should have quoted.

The question in my mind is whether his acceptance of those 5 worthy precepts, in the context of officially putting on Zen, have brought about some sort of mystical, spiritual, or other type of invisible “change” that would interfere with his ability to function in Holy Orders in Christianity.

To a secular humanist (which I am not), it would make no difference. To a Christian mystic, it does matter.

Dear Father Timothy,
Thanks and prayers for you and all those who had the courage to sign and send this letter.  The remnant of orthodox Episcopalians in this diocese is indeed tiny, but we are being sustained by the prayers of so many around the country, indeed around the world.  This man may gain consents, but if so, it will not be because good men and women stood by and did nothing.
Blessings,
TJ

PS- I tried to post this on your blog, but could not get past the security word thingy (it just said “loading” but never loaded- probably something to do with my flash settings or something)

I seems we all agree that this person has no business wearing a purple shirt.  But for those who are of the orthodox/traditional wing; isn’t this just another vehicle to force those traditionalists out of TEC and into the new Anglican Province?  Are there still some who feel TEC can be reversed and thus saved?  At my former TEC parish, they took a year plus to find a new Rector; who was completely inappropriate even for Massachusetts! The Vestry voted him down and they are starting over - looking for someone “Middle of the road who will appeal to everybody”...I’m still laughing over that one…
MassPK

#9, Since all those precepts are things orthodox Christans ought to be doing, anyway, WHY DO WE NEED TO BRING BUDDHISM INTO THE DISCUSSION AT ALL?, according to your way of thinking.  Even a liberal Christian bishop should be a representative of the Christian religion, and not an advocate for something else.  (I predict he will have little trouble taking his seat in the HOB.)

Ontological change is regardless of the worthiness of the minister.  As much as I DON’T like to say it, +Robinson is a bishop…his principal consecrators and two other consecrating bishops were male as well(I believe).  And if the same happens with the Zenpiscopal bishop, alas, yes as well.  Now, if KJS comes to be principal “consecrator”, you may start throwing more doubt in.  I believe “invalid matter”, in her case, is the problem.  This makes what they DO with their authority even more serious.  Shepherds will be kept to a higher standard at the Judgement Seat.  Now…would I receive Sacraments from them???  No.  Unless I was on the edge of death and there was no alternative.  And I would pray off the spiritual residue that came through the “back door” from them.

What you have said raises questions TX.  In the case of VGR there is someone living openly in a state of unrepented sin.  Is it possible for such a person to receive Holy Orders?  We do not know since the point has never been made in this way before?  In the Michigan case, can a person who is NOT a Christian believer receive Holy Orders?  My belief is that it is not possible.  In the VGR case, Archbishop Akinola has said that it is not possible to conecrate sin.  Are the conecrating bishops in these cases doing nothing more than committing some kind of sacreligious act?  Yes, that’s what I believe.  But, the point has never been raised before.

Let me step back into this conversation about sacramental grace and ontological change.

I understand St. Augustine’s point about sacraments being efficacious in spite of the moral disposition of the celebrant.  But his premise was worked from the notion that the priest or bishop has been first off properly consecrated and ordained. Augustine understiood how sacraments are an essential part of God’s plan, that they are a privledged means of receiving God’s grace, and that each sacrament flows directly from the heart and the redeeming ministry and will of Jesus Christ.

This being said, God intends to make Himself present and to confer His grace in the particular way each sacrament offers whenever a sacrament is “properly enacted” in the church.  This is what is meant by the ancient term “ex opere operato”.  What is “properly enacted?” It is that the sacrament is celebrated in accordance with “the intention of the Church.”  The fruits of each sacrament depend on the moral and theological disposition of the Christian who receives them.  This is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1127-1130 with principle reference to paragraphs 1127 and 1128.

It is not the intention of our Heavenly Father that He consecrate an active, disobedient, rebellious, twister of His Word and Sacraments to the episcopate, or to the priesthood, or the diaconate!  It is not the will (or the ability) of the Church that she make morally neutral sinful distructive behavior or to perpetuate it as a healthy way of life.  This kind of thing does not flow from the heart, the life or the ministry of the glorified Son of God: Jesus Christ.

In the case of V.G. Robinson there was no ontological change!  This would be true of Forrester as well, if I understand his situation clearly.  Sacraments do not tie up God’s Hands nor do they put Him strings on Him to do our bidding just because we pray a liturgical prayer.  Scripture tells us that God hears the prayer of a righteous person, but of sinners, no.  See 1 Tim 1:9.

As pastors and catechists we need to take this very seriously.  Consider the people we prepare for Holy Matrimony.  Are they required to make their confession the day of their wedding?  Maybe one reason why so many Christians struggle and fail in their marriage is because they start off their married life with too little grace and this is because of past sins not properly confessed!

In post #19 the question is asked, “Are the conecrating bishops in these cases doing nothing more than committing some kind of sacreligious act?  Yes, that’s what I believe.”  Let me assure you, my friend that the whole Catholic world joins you in saying your yes!  Sacramentally Robinson’s consecration was empty.  So his episcopal acts are equally void and null.