Thursday, March 18, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

The Rev. Thew Forrester’s Trinity Day Sermon (audio and text) and service leaflet

Sunday, March 15, 2009 • 4:38 am

We have decided to post these documents: sermon, audio, and service leaflet without comment. They speak for themselves. We encourage those of you who remain inside the Episcopal Church to forward these documents to your bishop (who may at this time be present at the House of Bishop's meeting) and members of your Standing Committee. Thew Forrester's Buddhism is problematic, but these documents raise even more significant questions about the fitness of the Rev. Thew Forrester for the office of bishop because his words seem to represent a direct challenge to the Doctrine of the Trinity as the Episcopal Church has received it and as it is articulated in the Nicene Creed.
The Audio Version may be heard here

Here is the sermon text:
Trinity Sunday—Kevin Thew Forrester [05.18.08]

Reading from Matthew 28: 16-20

Well, there are a number of things that come together this morning in the liturgy. The Gospel in Matthew talks about baptism this morning, and it’s connected up with what we call Trinity Sunday today, and that’s all held in our tradition in redemption. So, I’ll preach on redemption, baptism and the Trinity today and it’ll take about forty-five minutes, and to weave it all together (heh, heh)—well I am going to talk about all of them, and hopefully we’ll weave them together in less time than that. I’ve been reading this over the past several months, and doing some research and writing in early Christianity as it pertains to baptism, and focusing on a treasure in our past that we’ve forgotten about. At least I have not been taught about it, and maybe you have heard about it. It’s the strain of Christianity that came out of Syria—Syrian Christianity. And Syrian Christianity goes back to the first century. So it is an ancient, it is an early stream of Christian experience and Christian theology. And, in fact, the Syrian church came up with its translation of the New Testament, the Syriac New Testament. And there is a woman, her name is Gabriele Winkler, and she’s done some of the writing on these Syriac Christians, and what’s drawn her to it is that they’ve a very positive approach to that word and the experience of Jesus in terms of the Redeemer, which is in contrast to much of Greek Christianity, and that’s important because our New Testament, that we have in English, translates the Greek text.

Now, I’m not going to get real technical, but let me give you some examples, ‘cause it really goes to the heart of something. The Greeks have a very negative, on the whole, understanding of that term redemption. And, uh, I wrote some of this down so I would get it right. When the Greeks talk about, and you find this in the New Testament, talk about redemption, they talk about us being freed from something, being rescued from something, being saved from something. So there’s something we need to be rescued from, something that we need to be delivered from, something we need to be saved from. So there’s a negative response, there’s something negative that we need to be rescued from in the Greek New Testament. She says in the Syriac New Testament the equivalent of the Greek verbs meaning to deliver, to redeem, to save—they’re not used. Instead, they come up with Syriac terms, and the Syriac terms are these, they’re fascinating: they are “to give life,” “to make alive,” and “to cause to live.” That’s very different—to cause to live, to make alive, to give life.

So let me give you, I think I have five examples here. If you look at Matthew Chapter 9 in the Greek New Testament, it says in verse 22 “your faith has saved you,” okay? Now in the Syriac New Testament it says this “your faith has made you alive.” That’s a difference. Your faith has made you alive. One chapter later, Chapter 10 verse 22 in Matthew it says in the Greek “the one who endures to the end will be saved.” The Syrian Christians experienced Jesus and they wrote and translated it “the one who endures will be living,” will be alive. Then, if you go to the Gospel of Luke, in the second Chapter in verse 11, which you hear all the time at Christmas, it says “To you is born this day the Savior,”—I always have in mind the Charlie Brown Christmas play (heh, heh, heh)—“To you today is born the Savior.” I think it’s Linus, or someone, who says that, holding his blanket. The Syriac text says “to you is born this day the one who makes alive,” the lifegiver. That’s who was born this day, the lifegiver. And then, one chapter later in Luke, it reads, in the Greek, “all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” and the Syriac says “all flesh shall see the life of God.” Let me give you one more, and this is from Luke 19. It says “the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost,” and the Syrian Christians, in their New Testament said “the Son of Man came that He may seek and make alive.” That’s very different. I find that amazing. In the Syriac New Testament when, so it’s their translation, they had the Greek and they made their own translation, and they were very deliberate in their choice of words, Jesus is baptized. That’s one of our themes today, right, baptized, baptism; He goes in the waters of the river Jordan. He emerges and have Him baptized by John, and the Syrians say “the one who rises is the unified one who is the lifegiver.” He’s the unified one and He’s the lifegiver, and those two are very closely connected. Jesus is the lifegiver because He is the unified one.

So, what does that mean? Well, we heard in the gospel today in Matthew that, for His community, Jesus says that all, what all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. That’s what we heard today, right? All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Well, we could slightly rephrase that and keep it, keep its true meaning, I think, if we would say: Jesus realized that all that He is, He had received from God. Jesus is the one that realized all He is, “all I am, I have received from God.” And in response, we read in the gospels later on His response, to having received everything from God is that, “into Your hands I commend my spirit and Thy will be done.” He receives everything from God and He returns everything to God. That is what it means that everything has been given to Jesus, all the power. His very center, the center of His heart, of His body, of His mind, is the living God. All things come from the divine source for Jesus—who He is, His self identity, His soul, that just means His understanding of who He is, He has come to realize and it’s key in that baptismal moment, that He is the very presence of the living God. That is who He is. He is one who is unified with God. That’s what the Syrians are getting at. Jesus realizes that God dwells in His very being, He is one with God, and He is one with you and me. And because He is one, He is the lifegiver. He can show us the path of life, which is the path to realizing that we are one with God. We are one with one another.

There is a passage, it’s one of the earliest passages we have that pertains to baptism, in the New Testament, it’s one of the early formulas, and it’s in the Letter to the Galatians, and we’ve heard it often. It’s that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. Now, it’s fascinating, the Greek and the Syriac text agree on the translation of that. “All are one in Christ Jesus.” Now I find that kind of fascinating for a couple reasons. One, I look out here and I see lots of males and females, still, right? And I see rich and poor, black and white, I see gay and straight, I see Muslim and Christian. We’re all here, and yet that text in Galatians says that no longer exists. And I’m pretty sure when Jesus came out of those waters of baptism in the Jordan they still saw a Jewish man, right? Who wasn’t a slave, but was free. So what does that text getting at, that baptismal text, because we are man and we are women; we are rich, we are poor; some of us are wealthy, some of us not so wealthy, huh? The text is talking about, that we have all these categories by which to define one another and to define ourselves. We have lots of boxes that we can put ourselves in and put one another in. And all those categories still exist after our baptism, but what the scriptures are getting at, and what the Syrians are realizing, they only exist on the surface. But if we continue to take ourselves for th thtose categories, what we will do is be at war with ourselves and at war with one another, and we give no, we give no space for each other to grow. If all I see is a man or a woman, I do not see Barb for all that you are, I’ve simply reduced you, haven’t I, to a category? I’ve reduced you to an object. And those boxes are made of walls, and the walls are hard and they are thick. And whenever there’s a wall it’s something to fight over. Look at the new wall that’s going up in Israel. My guess is that in a thousand years it won’t be there. Look at the Great Wall of China. Walls don’t work. Categories don’t work. If we think that they’re going to define us for who we essentially are, and protect us from our deepest fears, and satisfy our deepest longings, the boxes don’t work.

We have these categories, of course, but what Jesus realized, and what the Syrian Christians experienced in Jesus, is that if we go to our depths of who we are, the categories aren’t there. The only thing that exists in the depth of Jesus, the only thing that exists in the depth of Jesus, is the living God. They talk about in the New Testament, in the Greek, the kenosis of Jesus, the self-emptying. The categories are gone in terms of this is who I am essentially. All that’s left is the presence of the living God. That’s all that is left. And it’s why He is one with God and one with us. Everything Jesus is He receives from God and He gives it back in a grateful spirit of surrender. But there is more, ‘cause I would invite us to consider that not only has all authority been given to Jesus, it has been given to you and to me. We have been asked, we have been invited to receive all that is from the living God, a God who is not “out there,” but a God who is the center of our very being.

One of the amazing insights I have found in the interfaith dialogue is that, no matter what you name that source, from which all life comes—you can name that source God, Abba; you may name that source Yahweh; you may name that source Allah; you may name that source “the great emptiness;” you can name that source many things, but what all the faiths in their wisdom have acknowledged in the interfaith dialogue is that, you and I, we’re not the source. We receive from the source, and what we are asked to do is give back to the source. In other words, what the interfaith dialogue has recognized is that there is a Trinitarian structure to life. That’s what I’m driving at this morning. We make the Trinity much too complex. The Trinitarian structure of life is this: is that everything that is comes from the source. And you can name the source what you want to name the source. And our response to that is with hearts of gratitude and thanksgiving, to return everything back to that source, and there’s a spirit who enables that return. Everything comes from God. We give it back to God. And the spirit gives us the heart of gratitude. That is the Trinitarian nature of life. And you can be a Buddhist, you can be a Muslim, you can be a Jew, and that makes sense. And we all develop more elaborate theologies, but the truth is we live and have our being in a God who asks only one thing of us: to grow into people who give thanks that God is our center, God is our life, that we are one with God. And as we grow into realization, that we are one with this God who lives in us, and the only thing God asks us is to give back everything in thanksgiving, we live. It’s what the Syrians said, “we will know what redemption truly is, we will come alive, we will be made to live,” because we will know—not because someone told us—because we know that God gives us life. And all God asks of us is “give it back to Me in return.”

We are told in the scriptures that Jesus did not make equality with God something to be grasped at. All Jesus did, in the end, was say “into your hands I commend my spirit.” We are asked this day, and we are reminded in baptism, that there is only one thing asked of us, and it is to say with our minds, and our hearts, and our bodies “into your hands I commend my spirit.” And the source, our God, will hold us and take care of us. Amen.

Here is the Sunday leaflet documenting the fact that the one who delivered the sermon above was indeed the Rev. Thew Forester. Notice also the wording of the collect(authored by the Rev. Forester) and the re-wording of the scriptural readings, and, importantly, the "Update From the Episcopal Ministry Discernment Team" toward the end (the leaflet will be linked here later today as a PDF primary source document...for now, here is the text)
THE WORD OF GOD
(Sunday Take-home Insert – Trinity Sunday I RCL)
Collect
Presider: The Lord is with you.
Assembly: And also with you.
Presider: Let us pray together:
God of earth and sky,
Fire and water, life and death,
You are the gracious Source
Of all that is:
From You,
We receive creative minds;
From You
We receive beautiful bodies;
From You
We receive hearts woven of love;
This day, born anew of your Spirit,
We gratefully return
All we are to You:
Our Life, our Hope, our Love. Amen.

A period of silence for reflection follows each lesson and the sermon. Allow your attention to drop in and down and rest upon your breath. When distractions arise – such as thoughts and sounds and smells – simply notice and return to the breath.

Christian Scriptures Genesis 1:1-2:4a

Reader: A reading from book of Genesis.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became chaos and emptiness, and darkness came over the face of the Deep – yet the Spirit of God was brooding over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Light: Be!” and light was. God saw that light was good, and God separated light from darkness. God called the light “Day” and the darkness “Night.” Evening came, and morning followed – the first day. Then God said, “Now, make an expanse between the waters! Separate water from water!” So it was: God made the expanse and separated the water above the expanse from the water below it. God called the expanse “Sky.” Evening came, and morning followed – the second day. Then God said, “Waters under the sky: be gathered into one place! Dry ground: appear!” So it was. God called the dry ground “Earth” and the gathering of the waters “Sea,” and God saw that this was good. Then God said, “Earth: produce vegetation – plants that scatter their own seeds, and every kind of fruit tree that bears fruit with its own seed in it!” So it was: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed, and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. And God saw that this was good. Evening came, and morning followed – the third day. Then God said, “Now, let there be lights in the expanse of the sky! Separate day from night! Let them mark the signs and seasons, days and years, and serve as luminaries in the sky, shedding light on the earth.” So it was: God made the two great lights, the greater one to illumine the day, and a lesser to illumine the night. Then God made the stars as well, placing them in the expanse of the sky, to shed light on the earth, to govern both day and night, and separate light from darkness. And God saw that this was good. Evening came, and morning followed – the fourth day. God then said, “Waters: swarm with an abundance of living beings! Birds: fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky!” And so it was: God created great sea monsters and all sorts of swimming creatures with which the waters are filled, and all kinds of birds. God saw that this was good and blessed them, saying, “Bear fruit, increase your numbers, and fill the waters of the seas! Birds, abound on the earth!” Evening came, and morning followed – the fifth day. Then God said, “Earth: bring forth all kinds of living soul-cattle, things that crawl, and wild animals of all kinds!” So it was: God made all kinds of wild animals, and cattle, and everything that crawls on the ground, and God saw that this was good. Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, to be like us. Let them be stewards of the fish in the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, the wild animals, and everything that crawls on the ground.” Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them; female and male, God made them. God blessed them and said, “Bear fruit, increase your numbers, and fill the earth – and be responsible for it! Watch over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things on the earth!” God then told them, “Look! I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the earth, and every tree whose fruit carries its seed inside itself: they will be your food; and to all the animals of the earth and the birds of the air and things that crawl on the ground – everything that has a living soul in it – I give all the green plants for food.” So it was. God looked at all of this creation, and proclaimed that this was good – very good. Evening came, and morning followed – the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed.
On the seventh day God had finished all the work of creation, and so, on that seventh day, God rested. God blessed the seventh day and called it sacred, because on it God rested from all the work of creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Reader: Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church.

Assembly: Thanks be to God.

Psalm 8: How Glorious Is Your Name (Rory Cooney)

This music covered under OneLicensing #A-714367

The Epistle 2 Corinthians 13:11-13

Reader: A reading from Paul’s letter to the Community at Corinth.
And now, sisters and brothers, I must say goodbye. Mend your ways. Encourage one another. Live in harmony and peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the holy ones send greetings to you.

Reader: Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church.

Assembly: Thanks be to God.

Hymn (see hymn board)

We stand as able.

The Gospel Matthew 28:16-20

Deacon: A reading from the Holy Gospel according to Matthew.
Assembly: Glory to you, Lord Christ.

The Eleven made their way to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had summoned them. At the sight of the risen Christ they fell down in homage, though some doubted what they were seeing. Jesus came forward and addressed them in these words: “All authority has been given me both in heaven and on earth; go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. Baptize them in the name of Abba God, and of the Only Begotten, and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you. And know that I am with you always, even until the end of the world!” Deacon: Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church. Assembly: Thanks be to God. The readings are taken from The Inclusive Hebrew Scriptures Vol. I, II, and III and The Inclusive New Testament

with © permission from: Priests for Equality/Quixote Center, P.O. Box 5206 Hyattsville, MD 20782 301-699-
0042. Collect is by Kevin G. Thew Forrester.

WELCOME! We welcome all visitors and guests this morning. After the service, you are invited to the Great Room on the lower level (accessible by stairs or elevator) for coffee and conversation.

TODAY’S HOSPITALITY AND WORSHIP LEADERSHIP THIS WEEK AT ST. PAUL’S CHURCH FOOD BANK DONATIONS The Food Bank items for May are: baked beans, canned vegetables and powdered beverage mixes. As always, other items are welcomed. Monetary donations can be made by writing “Food Donations: on the memo line of your check or marking the envelope the same when donating cash. Both can be placed in the collection plate on any Sunday. Questions about Hunger Ministry? Call Larry Shell: 360-8214 or email him at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

ATTENTION YOUTH!
Mark the following dates on your calendar and plan on attending these activities:
Today – Older youth will view together and discuss the movie “Prince Caspian”, this afternoon or evening. Specific time will be announced.
Sunday, May 25th – Youth Sunday. This will close our Sunday Youth Programming for the summer.
The Youth Ministry Team will celebrate our Youth and our time together with an ice cream social after the service.
Tuesday, May 27th – Youth Ministry Meeting, 5:30-7:30 pm in the Great Room. Bring a sack dinner and please come and offer feedback for this past year and ideas for next year’s Youth programming. Be a part of this important ministry in “thought, word (and,or)deed”!

Presider: Kevin Thew Forrester
Preacher: Kevin Thew Forrester
Deacon: Pat Micklow
Organist: Jan Brodersen
First Reader: Mary Sullivan
Second Reader: Barb Carpenter
Prayers of the People: Coralie Hambleton
Chalice Bearers: Kai Carrigan and Dan Carpenter
Ushers: Bertha Loehde and Jim Jajich
Server: Dan Platt
Altar Guild: Bertha Loehde and Ann Smith
Nursery Attendant:
Coffee Hour Hosts: Sandy and Burt Purrington and Vince Reed
Evening Prayer Officiant: Mary Sullivan
Children’s Ministry Jim Edwards, Cathy Greer Cole, and Nancy Railey
Eucharistic Visitors: MGH: Kai Carrigan; Betsy Barnwell and Robina Payant: Kay
Payant; Marcella Platt: Marcia Franz

Tuesday 20th Morning Meditation
Camp New Day
8:00 am
6:00 pm
Wednesday 21st Evening Prayer
Choir Practice
5:30 pm
7:00 pm
Thursday 22nd Morning Meditation 8:00 am
Sunday 25th Holy Eucharist: 2 Pentecost
All Parish Breakfast
10:30 am
9:30 am
18 May 2008
Year A Trinity Sunday

ALTAR FLOWERS
Anyone wishing to have flowers on the altar in memory or celebration of a loved one can sign up on the list on the board in the atrium. If you have any questions or would like more information, contact Jayne McQuaid at 226-2355.

SUMMER QUARTER SIGN UP/AVAILABILITY LIST LITURGICAL LEADERS, USHERS AND COFFEE HOUR HOSTS
The Summer Quarter list and rosters for the various activities are posted through June 8 on the “Sign Up” bulletin board across from the Chapel. Completed Summer Quarter schedules will be distributed beginning June 15. If there are periods when you should not be scheduled, please indicate that in the appropriate spaces of the schedule “Away”, or roster – “Comments”. This is especially important during the period of summer vacations. You may use the appropriate roster to increase or decrease your involvement in any of these activities. I especially need more people to serve as coffee hour hosts. Bob Railey

THE RELIGIOUS VOICE IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE
Sponsored by the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan and the Interfaith Forum of Marquette County What does it mean today to be a citizen who is committed to their faith? What is the role of the voice of faith in democracy? How can the many voices of the faithful conduct a civil discourse with elected officials? How do we affirm both the “Separation of Church and State” (or Mosque or Synagogue or Temple…)? How do we affirm the value language of the
many faith communities? What about ‘hot button’ issues on war, capital punishment, the environment, healthcare and poverty?

These questions and others will be the focus of this conference to be held at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Marquette on Saturday, June 14th, 10 am – 3 pm. Entitled “The Religious Voice in the Public Square”, it promises to invite participants into conversation around these questions as we “strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.” Conference planners have invited Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, US House of Representatives Tom Casperson, Michael Lahti, Steven Lindberg and Gary McDowell (or a representative from their respective offices), and local leadership to come and enter into conversation with us. Retired Judge Pat Micklow of Marquette will be moderator of the conference.

Lunch will be provided. Please register by June 7th. For more information, please contact Rayford Ray at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or by phone at 906-360-1901, or to register please call Jane Cisluycis at 800-236-0087, or email (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

OUTREACH SUNDAY
Next Sunday, the last Sunday of the month, is Outreach Sunday. Please come prepared to contribute to either or both of the following outreach efforts: 1. Combat local hunger – Non-perishable food items and designated money are given alternately to two Marquette area food pantries: St. Vincent de Paul or the Salvation Army 2. Each month, a different local social service agency receives our “Outreach” contributions. This month’s agency is: Camp New Day

AN UPDATE FROM THE EPISCOPAL MINISTRY DISCERNMENT TEAM
May 13, 2008
The discernment process is moving along on schedule. Our first few sessions were led by Marcia Franz, Kevin Thew Forrester, Fran Gardner and Hazel Satterly. Formation and team building were on the agenda for the first few meetings. Kevin led us through a brief oversight of the Enneagram showing us how our personality traits impact group process, how we receive and give information and how we make decisions. Later, using Steven Charleston’s reflection on Episcopal Ministry and spending time in discussion centered around the Congregational responses to questions 1, 2 and 3, the group has begun to get a clear direction of the expectations and hopes of the people in this diocese. This information will be refined and provided to each community for review.

Manuel Padilla and Warren Maki from the Finance Committee worked with the group regarding the budgetary information that will also impact the direction of the discernment process. The group was very interested in this information, believes it to be an integral part of our approach to fiscal responsibility and knows this will impact Episcopal Ministry here in the Diocese of Northern Michigan.

The EMDT asked for clarification of its charge from the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee responded and the team is now clear on their tasks. The team will develop the process of discernment based on the Discovery Process used in the local congregations. Clearly there are steps that need to be adjusted or changed to fit this new category of discernment of our Episcopal Ministry. We are currently identifying these areas and working on adapting the process that has worked so well to define leadership and ministry support in the local communities. The group is also expected to discern the roles encompassed in Episcopal Ministry as well as identify people gifted for the role of Episcopal Ministry. Presentation of the names of people discerned for Episcopal Ministry here in the Diocese of Northern Michigan and their identified roles are to be presented at the Diocesan Convention in October.

This work is grounded in prayer, ongoing, sometimes overwhelming, but exciting. You can be proud of the work the Episcopal Ministry Discernment Team is doing. They are a group of dedicated, prayerful people discerned by you.

Please continue to support them in prayer and presence as they wrestle with discerning Episcopal Ministry here in the Diocese of Northern Michigan.

186 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

What’s that hollow sound?

[1] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 03-15-2009 at 04:26 AM • top

Oh. My. God.

[2] Posted by bigjimintx on 03-15-2009 at 07:03 AM • top

It’s a little difficult to follow the above sermon, but while wading through that shambolic mess, I was struck by something.  For all the time that Forester harps on the difference between Jeses “saving” or “redeeming” and him “giving life,” he still manages to miss that both the Greek and Syriac translations express the idea that without Jesus, we are dead.  The idea that Jesus saves us from death and gives us life is the very basis of Christianity.  I suppose it’s not surprising that Rev. Forester can ignore it even as it stares him in the face, but it is very sad.

[3] Posted by Kubla on 03-15-2009 at 07:26 AM • top

(a few comments cross-posted on and pasted from the T19 post re: the DioSC convention resolution calling for consents to be denied for TF’s consecration)
—————————————————————————-
(beginning at this link:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/21029/#345002)
March 14, 11:28 am | [comment link] 
23. John Wilkins wrote:

I don’t think this sermon is particularly egregious.  I’m also a little less confident than Kendall that Forrester is a Buddhist in the same way other people become Muslims.  There are Jesuit priests who are also Roshis:  they don’t believe in reincarnation; nor do they believe that Buddha is God. 

All the resolution seems to say is that the sermon is confusing, and for that reason he should not be affirmed as a Bishop.  but i’m not sure if you clearly enough demonstrate why his sermon is wrong.

That said, I do agree that a bishop who has an incoherent Christology is far more serious problem than a bishop who is gay. 

Shall we now move on to the filioque clause?

March 14, 1:54 pm | [comment link] 
24. Milton wrote:

#23 Thank you , John, for a stout defense of the clarity of the Gospel and its power to save fallen humanity from its otherwise inevitable eternal alienation from the LORD God, to whom the only way to the Father is God the Son, Jesus Christ.  As always, I knew we could count on you for such.

It does disturb me, just a little, that TF never mentions Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity, and this on Trinity Sunday.  Let’s see, he mentions “God” and describes him as “great emptiness” or as whatever’s-his-name, who is somehow the source of all things, from emptiness, no less.  ................, Hmmmmm,..........

He mentions the Holy Spirit.  Uhh, make that “the Spirit”.  Oh dear,...... make that “a spirit”. .............Is this a person, or a wind, or a feeling, or a distilled spirit? ........ Uhh, John,...oh, let’s get back to that, after reviewing 1 John 4:1-6.  That is, if we can crack open that dusty old Bible without the cover breaking and falling off from dry rot.
Something else nags at me.  Before I confessed that I was a sinner and a rebel against God, preferring my own will to His perfect and holy will (and the two were NOT the same will!), I certainly was not one with God, and that was no illusion, that was the cold, dreadful reality.  Even after salvation and regeneration by the most personable and Holy Spirit, my will is only imperfectly given over to His will, by His grace more and more, I pray.  We certainly don’t start out one with God who is holy, holy, holy, and we aren’t reconciled to Him by sitting quietly and focusing on respiration.  Only shed blood of a sinless human being could accomplish that, and there has only been and only ever will be one such man.

Bt the way, if you really want to rehabilitate TF with orthodox Christianity, you might want to pick a better example for comparision than the Jesuits.  They have for centuries unblushingly and sometimes proudly included notorious and open heretics among their ranks, and are a constant thorn in the side of Rome.

The filioque clause?  Not much of a problem either way, especially if you believe orthodox theology of the Holy Trinity, that each of the 3 persons is co-equal, co-eternal, uncreated, in unity in one Godhead, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

Uhh, John, please stop trying to reassure me about TF.  I simply find myself more unsettled and uneasy about him-and about you-than before.

March 14, 6:19 pm | [comment link] 
25. Dilbertnomore wrote:

Milton, that’s gonna leave a mark!

March 14, 6:38 pm | [comment link] 
26. Milton wrote:

My intent is not to leave a mark, but to look into the wide open spaces that vague statements leave for the listener to assume agreement with the speaker, when in fact terms have often been so redefined as to gut them of their traditional meaning.

I went to the link robroy provided (thanks, robroy!) and listened to the entire sermon, at 15 minutes toward the limit of the typical Episcopal attention span.  I highly recommend everyone interested do the same.  TF seems to start out decently, but stresses the different wordings of the Syrian Bible from the Septuagint (in wide use in the 1st century and the scriptures from which the NT writers quoted and to which they referred) on salvation.  Jesus gets a lot of mentions by name, unlike the quote above.  But TF harps on the Syrian use of “give life” or “bring life” or “make alive” as though it contradicted the Septuagint’s use of “to save” or “salvation” in the same passages.  He either misses the point or intentionally deceives by ommision.

He says that “salvation” is used as though there were something we were being saved from, in a negative sense, as though the Septuagint, and orthodox traditional Christianity with it, only consisted of a “Get Out of Hell Free” card, and never spoke of the restored relationship of fallen man to holy God.  If we needed restoration, reconciliation, forgiveness, regeneration (and we did and do!), then we are not born “one with God” as TF implies that we already all are and only have to discover that reality through Zen meditation.

TF repeatedly professes amazement, a sense of profound discovery, and a subtly implied realization that the Syrian Bible reveals how we have been duped and subjugated by the conspiracy of the church councils to supress this, the true and authentic and positive Gospel, in favor of the bad old negative Septuagint.  He doth protest too much.

TF made the amazing discovery that Jesus really never said we needed salvation, especially not from our sins, which TF cannot bring himself even to suggest might be the case for himself or his congregation.  No, Jesus realized, better late than never, it having finally dawned on Him at his baptism (nice subtle tie-in with revisionist TEO baptismal abysmal covenant theology) that He was one with God, and that we all are, just like Him, one with God.  No conviction, confession, repentance from sin required, no death to self, taking up our cross (shudder!) every day and following Him, no “no one comes to the Father except through Me” exclusivist, triumphalist kind of talk.  Oh, no!  Jesus came to make us alive!  No mention of the automatic implication by sheer logic, stated explicitly in the NT and in the Gospels by this same Jesus, that the only reason one would need to be “made alive” is if one were not alive!  Only a dead person needs to be made alive!  “For why does one also hope for what one sees?” The Septuagint, and a safe bet says that the Syrian Bible as well, says both that we need “salvation” (from sin, by the way) and that we need to be “ made alive”, being by birth into fallen nature dead in sins and trespass.  A distinction without a difference, a false dichotomy, a non-existent molehill magnified and projected onto a large screen by the Wizard of NMich!

TF never affirms the Holy Trinity and the divinity of each of its Persons and their unity in one Godhead.  He instead substitutes his own understanding that all religions illustrate a Trinitarian pattern to life, the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit being depersonalized to “a great emptiness” and “a spirit” who gently points out to us blind morons that we were one with god-the-great-emptiness all along, and we just need to live up the life.  Why TF didn’t just sit cross-legged and breathe in unison with the cosmos and the congregation for 5 minutes instead of redefining the Trinity out of existence (the Buddhist goal of Nirvana!) on Trinity Sunday with 15 minutes of verbal contortions and distortions is beyond me.

As a side note, TF makes note without missing a beat of the presence of (we expected this) gay and straight (what, no Ls or Ts?) and Muslims in the congregation that day!  Better hope no one tells their imam they were in a Christian church servi…., never mind!  I never once heard in the sermon any mention of the divinity of Jesus in Himself, only that He showed us the way to the divine.  Mohammed might still grumble a little, but TF’s seminary classmate KJS heard her “vehicle to the divine” Christology affirmed loud and clear.

March 14, 10:52 pm | [comment link]

[4] Posted by Milton on 03-15-2009 at 07:35 AM • top

It will sound cliched, but my first thought is, where do I start?!

For now I will start with the statement about the self-emptying of Jesus:

The only thing that exists in the depth of Jesus, the only thing that exists in the depth of Jesus, is the living God. They talk about in the New Testament, in the Greek, the kenosis of Jesus, the self-emptying.

Disclaimer:  I’m not a trained theologian.  But when I think about what the New Testament says about Jesus, the word that comes to mind is fullness, not emptiness.

John 1:15-16
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”  From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

Eph 1:22-23
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Col 1:16-20
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.  For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Col 2:8-10
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.  For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

Heb 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Interesting, isn’t it, how the passages that talk about the fullness of Deity dwelling in Christ also talk about His authority… something else Forrester is quick to deny.

BTW, I found this brief “Theopedia” entry on the question of the “kenosis of Jesus” and the interpretation of Philippians 2:7 to be helpful
http://www.theopedia.com/Kenosis

More later, I’m sure… but this is very troubling stuff.

[5] Posted by Karen B. on 03-15-2009 at 08:01 AM • top

This is the funniest part (in every sense of the word “funny”):

The discernment process is moving along on schedule. Our first few sessions were led by Marcia Franz, Kevin Thew Forrester, Fran Gardner and Hazel Satterly. Formation and team building were on the agenda for the first few meetings. Kevin led us through a brief oversight of the Enneagram showing us how our personality traits impact group process, how we receive and give information and <b>how we make decisions.<b>

HA! HA! HA!  What a bunch of suckers.  So Kevin gets on his on discernment team and pulls out his magic star to show them how to make decisions and…surprise!  The magic star pointed to him!

There is a sucker born every minute.

[6] Posted by DietofWorms on 03-15-2009 at 08:05 AM • top

Fr. Matt,
I don’t have time now for a long comment.  But for the moment, let me say thanks and prayers from those of us who are behind the lines.  This is a dark place and we are grateful to all those who shed light.
TJ

[7] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-15-2009 at 08:23 AM • top

Milton, fantastic comment and analysis, thank you!

[8] Posted by Karen B. on 03-15-2009 at 08:28 AM • top

What’s spooking me is a vague memory that the last GenCon used a phrase like “triune God” to rebut the resolution on the authority of Scripture… something like, “Scripture under the authority of the triune God.”  Wonder if they had this de-Christianized stuff in mind.

HEY, IF YOU ARE STILL IN TEC, DO WHAT MATT SAYS AND GET THIS TO YOUR BISHOP AND STANDING COMMITTEE ASAP. Between the sermon and the announcement, many moderates and even some revisionists are going to have strong reservations about giving consent.

[9] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-15-2009 at 08:29 AM • top

Pageantmaster’s Collect for the day:

Today, let us empty ourselves,
and return to the Great Emptiness,
All that we have received:
Nothing to Nothing;
Nil to Nil;
Zilch to Zilch;
De nada…
with Gratitude.

[10] Posted by Pageantmaster on 03-15-2009 at 08:31 AM • top

Tim+, your memory is pretty good.  The resolution you’re thinking of is D069 from GC06.  Proposed by Kendall Harmon, the original read:

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention acknowledges that the Bible has always been at the centre of Anglican belief and life, and declares its belief that Scripture is the Church’s supreme authority, and as such ought to be seen as a focus and means of unity.

http://gc2006.org/legislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=358&type=ORIGINAL

It was gutted and passed both the HoB and Deputies in this form:
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention acknowledge the authority of the triune God, exercised through Scripture.
http://gc2006.org/legislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=358&type=CURRENT

[11] Posted by Karen B. on 03-15-2009 at 09:17 AM • top

Diet of Worms,
I would ask a bit more charity on your part towards the Title IX clergy and laity involved in this travesty.  Please remember that for the last 20 years, they have been indoctrinated in this and have had NO orthodox support whatsoever from outside the diocese.  Big time experts were brought in from EDS and Dio. of Michigan, the Bishop of Wyoming was a consultant, and according to the diocese, KJS herself was being consulted.  If you were on this committee, and your total education in theology, ecclesiology and church history was contained in a home study course for volunteer clergy developed by, you guessed it, Kevin Thew Forrester, or you were the asst. warden of a parish with an ASA of 15 desperately trying to keep the doors open, these guys just steamrolled right over you.
  The real pity is that a decade ago, they decided to make this place a laboratory for EDS and CDSP experiments in theology and ecclesiology.  You should see the churches that were built a century or more ago, founded by missionary priests from Nashotah and such places.  It is pretty clear if you look at St. James in Sault Ste. Marie or St. Paul’s in Marquette that this was once an Anglo Catholic diocese of some stature- financially if not in numbers of members- although those were much better once upon a time.
  Diocese of Northern Michigan is the future of the Episcopal Church if it stays the course it is now committed to.

[12] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-15-2009 at 09:54 AM • top

Prayers for the Diocese of Northern Michigan.

[13] Posted by Pageantmaster on 03-15-2009 at 10:17 AM • top

I forced myself to suffer through TFs exposition on Matt. 28:16-20, and that was about all I could handle.

This passage from Neh. 6:8 sums up this mans “theology” pretty well: “Then I sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart.”

[14] Posted by GSP98 on 03-15-2009 at 11:17 AM • top

I will be honest and admit I could not bring myself to stride through this tar pit of a sermon. Why bother?  I know the end result, even if one gets out you are still in one hell of a mess.  However from what I did read one thing, besides this gentleman’s lack of theological acumen,struck out at me. 

The early Church was very vocal in condemnation of any heresy they saw arising.  Why they even held several councils when certain heresies gained too much ground.  Now if the Syrian Christians truly had a Christology that was in opposition of what was the accepted teachings I do believe some good Father would have been all over that like white on rice.  If the translation of Scripture read out in the Churches to Syrian Christians was heretical in the eyes of other Christians the Church would not have been silent on that matter.  They took defense of orthodox teaching very seriously.  As to them it was a matter of saving souls. 

From this I must conclude that the Syrian Christians did not come up with a new spin which put those gloomy, sin laden, dour, kill joy Greeks or Romans in their place.  No instead the meaning was the same even if expressed differently.  That in sin we are dead but in Christ we are alive.

[15] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 03-15-2009 at 11:22 AM • top

Thank you so much for posting this. It is much worse than even my jaundiced Sunday ears had expected. Was I hearing Buddhistic Adoptionism in this part?

“That’s what we heard today, right? All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Well, we could slightly rephrase that and keep it, keep its true meaning, I think, if we would say: Jesus realized that all that He is, He had received from God. Jesus is the one that realized all He is, “all I am, I have received from God.” And in response, we read in the gospels later on His response, to having received everything from God is that, “into Your hands I commend my spirit and Thy will be done.” He receives everything from God and He returns everything to God. That is what it means that everything has been given to Jesus, all the power. His very center, the center of His heart, of His body, of His mind, is the living God. All things come from the divine source for Jesus—who He is, His self identity, His soul, that just means His understanding of who He is, He has come to realize and it’s key in that baptismal moment, that He is the very presence of the living God. That is who He is. He is one who is unified with God. That’s what the Syrians are getting at. Jesus realizes that God dwells in His very being, He is one with God, and He is one with you and me. And because He is one, He is the lifegiver. He can show us the path of life, which is the path to realizing that we are one with God. We are one with one another.”

I am stunned…

[16] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 03-15-2009 at 12:20 PM • top

The Trinitarian structure of life is this: is that everything that is comes from the source. And you can name the source what you want to name the source. And our response to that is with hearts of gratitude and thanksgiving, to return everything back to that source, and there’s a spirit who enables that return. Everything comes from God. We give it back to God. And the spirit gives us the heart of gratitude. That is the Trinitarian nature of life. And you can be a Buddhist, you can be a Muslim, you can be a Jew, and that makes sense.

Now I am completely confused on his theology after reading his sermon. I will listen to it later to see if I get a better understanding. I am not holding my breath. This doesn’t make any sense to me on what his Trinitarian structure is. Where is Jesus and the Holy Spirit in all of this or do they just go with the God source flow as well?

[17] Posted by martin5 on 03-15-2009 at 12:31 PM • top

I’ve read and heard some abysmal sermons in my day, but this one of Forrester’s is horrible.  Utterly.  Beneath.  Contempt.

[18] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-15-2009 at 12:37 PM • top

Underground Pewster’s selection of a text from the sermon reminded me of another of the points I wanted to critique which doesn’t seem to square with the Biblical witness:

He can show us the path of life, which is the path to realizing that we are one with God. We are one with one another.

Jesus doesn’t merely show us the path of life, He IS the Way and the life, only in Him is found eternal life.

To the rich young ruler who asked what he must do to have eternal life, Jesus told him to keep the commandments, and then hearing that he did so, said “come follow me”

John 14:6 of course says famously:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And there are several other Scriptures that are equally clear that Christ does not just show us the path to life, He Himself IS that path. 

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

John 5:39-40
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

I Jn 5:12
He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Forrester equates the path of life to knowing we are one with God.  That to me sounds like the words and seduction of the serpent in the Garden… wanting to be one with God on our own terms, rejecting His authority and what He tells us about the way to have true union with Him.

[19] Posted by Karen B. on 03-15-2009 at 12:40 PM • top

The opening of the collect:

God of earth and sky,
Fire and water, life and death,
You are the gracious Source

I don’t recall ever having heard our Lord addressed as the God of . . . death.

[20] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-15-2009 at 12:56 PM • top

Kevin is a theological whack job.  No doubt about it.

[21] Posted by Greg Sample on 03-15-2009 at 01:12 PM • top

Episcopalians have several ways of addressing the Lord as the god of death.  For example, Yama is the Buddhist god of death and the underworld, and Mara is the Buddhist god of death and desire.  Surely there are others.  This will all become clearer when Thew Forester’s teaching mission as an Episcopal bishop bears wider fruit throughout the Anglican Communion.

[22] Posted by Chazaq on 03-15-2009 at 01:14 PM • top

I just feel really sad upon reading the sermon. The shallow contrast between what Thew Forrester finds “positive” (which seems to mean broadly Johannine) and what he finds “negative” (which seems to mean broadly Pauline). Thus, the reading of Scripture against itself. The failure to recognize that metaphors of redemption come from the OT. The idiosyncratic use of scholarship. The disastrous venture at a Trinitarian theology. It all just makes me really sad.

[23] Posted by driver8 on 03-15-2009 at 01:24 PM • top

Jill, good point.  I spent some time doing a concordance search for God AND death, or God AND dead.  I can’t find any passage in Scripture where God is referred to as God of the dead.  What IS talked about is Christ’s victory over death.  In one verse He is called Judge of the living and the dead.


Ps 68:20
20   Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death.

Acts 2:24
24   But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.


Matt 22:31-32
31   But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you,  32   ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Acts 10:42
42   He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.

Not that Google searches mean much, but when one Googles “God of death” nothing Christian comes up in the early results.

I’m currently leading a series of studies on the names of God with the women I teach here in Africa.  What deep riches there are in discovering so many of God’s names and all the aspects of His character.  It’s deeply sad to me that with such wealth of descriptive imagery and names for God in Scripture that Thew Forrester would have to go outside the Biblical witness and make up names for God that are not among the names God Himself has revealed.

[24] Posted by Karen B. on 03-15-2009 at 01:31 PM • top

A partial list of standing committee contacts, as gleaned from the Episcopal Peon thread—
Chicago
The Rev. Suzann Holding president
Rector, Church of Our Saviour, Elmhurst
MthrSuzi [at] aol [dot] com
The Rev [dot] Bonnie Perry
Rector, All Saints, Chicago
bonnie [at] allsaintschicago [dot] org
The Rev [dot] William Nesbit, Jr., secretary
Rector, St. Charles, Saint Charles
scecrector [at] sbcglobal [dot] net
Colette Holt
Church of Our Saviour, Chicago
Colette [dot] holt [at] choltlaw [dot] com
Barbara Larsen
Grace Church, Oak Park
bklarsen1809 [at] comcast [dot] net
Michael Perillo
St.  Andrew’s, Grayslake
Mikejr12 [at] aol [dot] com


Colorado
Mr. Ken Von der Heiden, President, Northwestern Lay Representative, Term ending October 2010
The Rev. Sally Brown, Vice President, High Plains Clergy Representative, Term Ending October 2009 -
sally [at] standrewdenver.org
Mr. Sam Burns, Southwestern Lay Representative, Term Ending October 2009
The Rev. Scott Campbell, Sangre de Cristo Clergy Representative, Term Ending October 2010
padrescott [at] gmail.com
The Rev. JoAnn Ford, Southwestern Clergy Representative, Term Ending October 2010
stjohnsouray [at] ouraynet.com
Ms. Lelanda Lee, Front Range Lay Representative, Term Ending October 2010
Dr. Ted Lewis, Sangre de Cristo Lay Representative, Term ending October 2011
The Rt. Rev. Robert J. O’Neill, Ex-Officio, Bishop of Colorado
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Mr. Bob Poley, Ex-Officio, Diocesan Treasurer
The Rev. E.J. Rivet, Northwestern Clergy Representative, Term Ending October 2011
Ms. Erin Smith, Ex-Officio, President of Episcopal Church Women of Colorado
Mr. Jay Swope, High Plains Lay Representative, Term ending October 2011
The Rev. John Wengrovius, Front Range Clergy Representative, Term Ending October 2009
Fr.John [at] calvarygolden.net


Georgia
http://www.georgia.anglican.org/committees.html

Michigan
Chair, Rev’d Barbara Cavin- holyspirit6452 [at] sbcglobal [dot] net

Minnesota
http://www.episcopalmn.org/standing_committee

Mississippi
John Anderson, Jr. - none
John Carrier II - jxc2[at]comcast[dot]net
Bill Livingston - rector_bill[at]bellsouth[dot]net
Ed McCants - edcoleI[at]comcast[dot]net
Danny Ray Meadors - drmeadors[at]cableone[dot]net
Edward O’Connor - eandoc1[at]aol[dot]com
Chan Osborn de Anaya - revchan_cec[at]bellsouth[dot]net
Kyle Seage - kseage[at]comcast[dot]net
Bishop Gray- pjones[at]dioms[dot]org

Olympia
Contact—Tiffany Brannon, tbrannon[at]ecww[dot]org

Rio Grande
http://www.dioceserg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58

San Diego
The Rt. Rev. James Mathes, bishopmathes[at]edsd[dot]org
San Diego Standing Committee:
The Standing Committee is composed of eight members: four clergy and four laity.
Officers: The Rev. Paul Carmona, President pcarmona[at]sbcglobal[dot].net
Stephen Treadgold, Vice President streadgold[at]health-law[dot]com
Canon Peter Bergstrom, Secretary info[at]campstevens[dot]org
2009 Term: The Rev. Paul Carmona, Stephen Treadgold
2010 Term: The Very Rev. Scott Richardson, Canon Peter Bergstrom
2011 Term: The Rev. Wes Hills, Ana Garcia
2012 Term: The Rev. Leland Jones, Luisa Bonillas, Ph.D.

South Dakota
http://www.diocesesd.org/WHO_WE_ARE/DIRECTORY/COMMISSIONS/standing_committee.htm

Southeast Florida
http://www.diosef.org/directory/standing-committee.shtml
bishopfrade[at]aol.com

Southern Virginia
http://www.diosova.org/contactgov.htm

Tennessee
The Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee
50 Vantage Way, Suite 107
Nashville, TN 37228
+The Rt. Rev. John C. Bauerschmidt, Bishop
info[at]episcopaldiocese-tn.org
Standing Committee
“Dr. David Rowe” drowe[at]bellsouth.net
“The Rev. Leigh Spruill” leighspruill[at]stgeorgenash.org
“The Rev.Stuart Phillips” stuphill[at]bellsouth.net
“ The Rev. Vicki Burgess” church[at]stphilipsnashville.org
“The Rev. Randall Dunnavant” crdunnavant [at]comcast.net
Mr. Shelton Clark  
Mr. Ed Miller, Esq.

Upper South Carolina
http://www.edusc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=42

[25] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-15-2009 at 01:32 PM • top
[26] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-15-2009 at 01:35 PM • top

After listening to the ‘sermon’, he is Unitarian. That is why I could not figure what he meant by Trinitarian.

I had no idea that the inclusive folks had their own inclusive readings.

The readings are taken from The Inclusive Hebrew Scriptures Vol. I, II, and III and The Inclusive New Testament.

[27] Posted by martin5 on 03-15-2009 at 01:48 PM • top

Jill Woodliff, #20 - Forester may be referring to Revelation 1:17-18:  Fear not; I am the first and the last; I am He that liveth,and was dead; and behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and death.”

Forester’s sermon avoids mention of sin and repentance, the necessity of the Cross for Christ AND for us.


However,in Luke 24:47, Jesus commands, “...that repentance be preached in His Name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” 

Matthew: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…”

Mark: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

John: “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you…Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose sins you retain, they are retained.”

Galatians: “...there be some that trouble you that would pervert the gospel of Christ.  But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed….for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Preaching Christ and Him Crucified was good enough for St. Paul. 

The Remission of Sins is mentioned in:
Matthew 26:28
Mark 1:4
Luke 1:77
Luke 3:3
Luke 24:47
John 20:23
Acts 2:38
Acts 10:43
Romans 3:25
Hebrews 9:22
Hebrews 10:18

Thew Forester is preaching a false syncretized religion and a false gospel.

[28] Posted by Floridian on 03-15-2009 at 02:10 PM • top

meant to add: “...the necessity of the Cross for Christ AND for us.”  WE must crucify sin and the flesh (Galatians 5:24; Galatians 6:14)

[29] Posted by Floridian on 03-15-2009 at 02:14 PM • top

#27 martin5, the Inclusive NT & Hebrew Bible are the work of “Priests for Equality”. This is their website https://www.quixote.org/pfe/index.html. There seem to be a number of links which address or promote this enterprise [amazon has its reader reviews as always], but you can get a pretty good idea of what this new “translation” is all about just by reading from the website.

[30] Posted by GSP98 on 03-15-2009 at 03:22 PM • top

27+30
Check the lectionary readings in the Sunday Bulletin Matt cites, and then look them up in your own, non-inclusive, Bible.  It will give you an idea where they are coming from.

[31] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-15-2009 at 03:42 PM • top

Thank you #30. Now I have been enlightened.

[32] Posted by martin5 on 03-15-2009 at 04:13 PM • top

Matt+,

Thank you for posting this.

Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer

[33] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 03-15-2009 at 04:14 PM • top

martin5 (#17) had the money quote.

If you read that, you understand just how weird his view of the Trinity is—one that makes equal sense to Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists.

I know there’s a lot to choose from, but if you want to pick one quote to send to your Bishop and to the members of your Standing Committee—this is it.

[34] Posted by hanks on 03-15-2009 at 04:56 PM • top

TF’s sermon wasn’t all bad, but a few of the more ridiculous claims in it nevertheless make it more than one should have to bear.

First, I’m rather tired of liberals talking about how “deeper” insight into Christianity can be gleaned from lost gospels, the gnostics, the Syrians, or whatever hot new alternative happens to strike their fancy today. There really is nothing new under the sun: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel”

Oddly enough, there’s nothing wrong with the Syrian translations he finds so appealing. His mistake is to make “salvation” versus “life” a dilemma when really it’s not. As Ephesians affirms, we were dead in our trespasses, so the salvation of the greek translation is synonymous with the life-giving of the Syrian translation. This isn’t too hard of a point to grasp: either Thew Forrester is completely clueless that sinning entails a death that we must be rescued from, or he’s being deliberately disingenuous by creating a dilemma where he knows one doesn’t exist.

Just as bad is TF’s claim that it doesn’t matter what we call the “source” so long as we realize that it’s not from ourselves (James 2:19 comes to mind here). Of course, to claim such a thing you have to overlook a myriad of scriptural witnesses such as:

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved - Acts 4:12

For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins - John 8:24

This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us - 1 John 3:23

But still, one has to wonder how much mileage can be gained out of sermons like these, since undoubtedly many in Episcopal leadership have theologies just as atrocious, with the only difference being that they’re smart enough not to call too much attention to this by claiming to also be a Buddhist, Wicca, Muslim, or whatever. In a sense, it’s incredibly sad that the best chance of Thew Forrester getting derailed is to keep hammering on the Buddhist affiliation, even though it’s the underlying theology illustrated here which is so much more troubling.

[35] Posted by LDW1988 on 03-15-2009 at 06:18 PM • top

you may name that source “the great emptiness;”

Waiting for our patronizing Buddhism experts to show up and explain that actually Zen Buddhist meditation isn’t about a focus on nothingness at all, at all.

[36] Posted by James Manley on 03-15-2009 at 06:32 PM • top

I am having difficulty understanding those on this thread who suggest that this sermon is “not all that bad…”

Do you understand what he has done? The Nicene faith declares that God is One being and three Persons…One substance and three distinct Persons of that same substance…“the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…One God”

Thew Forester redefines the Trinity as: “Source, us, and the Spirit that helps us give back to the Source”

We are somehow merged into the 2nd Person…Jesus realizes his “godness” and shows us the way to realize our “godness”.

This undermines not only classical theism—replacing it with a sort of Hegelian panentheism—-but also includes humanity, every human, in the second person of the Trinity

Forester undermines the unique divinity of Christ in order to make all human beings divine. He makes God man in order to make man God in a sort of counterfeit Orthodox incarnation formula.

[37] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-15-2009 at 06:45 PM • top

Matt, thanks for summing it up for us.  I hate to sound lazy, but there was no way I was going to try to dredge through that drek and try to make sense of it.

[38] Posted by AndrewA on 03-15-2009 at 06:57 PM • top

I did, AndrewA, and I still could not make sense of it. Thanks for the explanation on the Trinity. I just knew that everything flows to the source - God. Made me want to get out of the boat and abandon ship.
I just knew it was really, really, really bad. If you thought it wasn’t, it means you probably haven’t heard a good sermon lately.

[39] Posted by martin5 on 03-15-2009 at 07:54 PM • top

This do-it-yourself approach to theology and liturgy has been exhibited by far more clergy than Rev. Forrester:  http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13902
Yet, we are a lectionary-based church.  We know for a fact that these clergy have heard the scriptural warning that one can lose his inheritance in the kingdom of God.  I firmly believe some seminaries convey an attitude that allows a dismissal of the warnings associated with a false gospel and willful disobedience. 
The attitudes learned are more important than even the factual knowledge.  If one learns an attitude of humility, one will correct himself.  If one learns an attitude of arrogance, one will not.

[40] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-15-2009 at 08:21 PM • top

And what are you when you are not alive, before you are “made alive”?

Hmmmmm, what is the opposite of alive?

Could it be DEATH? Isn’t death a negative state and wouldn’t being “made alive” be a rescue from the negative state of death?

I’m just sayin….

[41] Posted by StayinAnglican on 03-15-2009 at 10:01 PM • top

FWIW you would get absolutely no idea of Gabriele Winkler’s work in liturgical history from this sermon. In a series of distinguished articles she has argued for an Spirit/Sonship/Messianic/Adamic baptismal theology in early Syrian christianity.

(I do seriously wonder if Fr. Thew Forrester encountered Winkler’s work refracted and reinterpreted through the “contemplative” - and self consciously heterodox - writer Cynthia Bourgeault - see for example the report on her teaching at http://cuccinfo.blogspot.com/2007/06/notes-for-adult-christian-education.html).

[42] Posted by driver8 on 03-16-2009 at 01:12 AM • top

Fr. Matt- 37
“Thew Forester redefines the Trinity as: “Source, us, and the Spirit that helps us give back to the Source”
This is completely consistent with his “affirmations” in the diocese’s “Dar statement” that declared each of us to be “an only begotten child of God.” And with his statements that we are “incarnations of God” or “incarnations of the Trinity”.

The greater tragedy in this is that every missioner and every member of the standing committee is signatory to those documents as well.  One assumes that a similar joint statement will be put before the 12 member “episcopal ministry team” once the new “bishop” is enthroned.

[43] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-16-2009 at 06:12 AM • top

Fr Forrester must have a very charming personality, because (from reading) his delivery is atrocious and his composition is baffling.

I would love to have a trained logician go through this “sermon.”  Non sequitors are as plentiful as clam shells on a New England beach.  Even a thoroughly liberal, but old style, NT scholar would not accept this thing as an exegesis of the passage.  Fr Forrester seems to be a theological magpie, scavenging through various spots in Christian history in search of bright beads of odd thoughts from the sidelines of the Church, then stringing those thoughts together on the thinnest of connections, and claiming he has thus shown the inner truth of the Christian faith.

And he can’t even remember that Linus is the “Peanuts” character with the blanket.  Sheesh!

[44] Posted by AnglicanXn on 03-16-2009 at 07:10 AM • top

Matt+ is absoslutely right in challenging anyone who says that TF’s “theology” isn’t all that bad.

See if you can understand the following gibberish (what I described above as the “money quote” you should send to your Bishop and Standing Committee):

In other words, what the interfaith dialogue has recognized is that there is a Trinitarian structure to life. That’s what I’m driving at this morning. We make the Trinity much too complex. The Trinitarian structure of life is this: is that everything that is comes from the source. And you can name the source what you want to name the source. And our response to that is with hearts of gratitude and thanksgiving, to return everything back to that source, and there’s a spirit who enables that return. Everything comes from God. We give it back to God. And the spirit gives us the heart of gratitude. That is the Trinitarian nature of life. And you can be a Buddhist, you can be a Muslim, you can be a Jew, and that makes sense.

Try comparing that to what the Nicene Creed has to say about the Trinity.  This is some weird cobbling of new age pantheism—put together by a “theological magpie” (nice description, AnglicanXn).

This is dangerous, non-Christian stuff—a “trinity” equally understood by Christian, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist.

[45] Posted by hanks on 03-16-2009 at 07:55 AM • top

We need priest and bishops free from the burden of the theological gymnastics they must put themselves through to justify their lack of belief.

If you just can’t believe, that’s ok, just don’t drag us down the rabbit trail with you.  And don’t keep taking a check as payment for introducing your strange ideas into the flock.

It’s just not that difficult to cull the non-believers out of the priesthood, if you have some at the top with an idea of institutional governance.

Back to Basics, I say!!

[46] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 03-16-2009 at 08:02 AM • top

PS—- The church has been abused by these people in the sense that the church was dumb enough to keep paying people that didn’t believe in the basic ideas handed down. 

It’s not that complex.  We wuz played. People will play you if you let them.

[47] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 03-16-2009 at 08:25 AM • top

The more I read Forrester’s sermons, the more I see not so much the hand of Buddha but of my old friend, Mary Baker Eddy.

Mary Baker Eddy wrote about Jesus Christ (or as I learned in Christian Science, Christ Jesus - a very important theological switch):

[S&H;333] XII.The word Christ is not properly a synonym for Jesus, though it is commonly so used… Christ is not a name so much as the divine title of Jesus. Christ expresses God’s spiritual, eternal nature. The name is synonymous with Messiah, and alludes to the spirituality which is taught, illustrated, and demonstrated in the life of which Christ Jesus was the embodiment.

[S&H;332] XI.Jesus was the son of a virgin. He was appointed to speak God’s word and to appear to mortals in such a form of humanity as they could understand as well as perceive. Mary’s conception of him was spiritual, for only purity could reflect Truth and Love, which were plainly incarnate in the good and pure Christ Jesus. He expressed the highest type of divinity, which a fleshly form could express in that age. Into the real and ideal man the fleshly element cannot enter. Thus it is that Christ illustrates the coincidence, or spiritual agreement, between God and man in His image.

[S&H;497:13] 4.We acknowledge Jesus’ atonement as the evidence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man’s unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and death.

And Thew Forrester says:

He receives everything from God and He returns everything to God. That is what it means that everything has been given to Jesus, all the power. His very center, the center of His heart, of His body, of His mind, is the living God. All things come from the divine source for Jesus—who He is, His self identity, His soul, that just means His understanding of who He is, He has come to realize and it’s key in that baptismal moment, that He is the very presence of the living God. That is who He is. He is one who is unified with God. That’s what the Syrians are getting at. Jesus realizes that God dwells in His very being, He is one with God, and He is one with you and me. And because He is one, He is the lifegiver. He can show us the path of life, which is the path to realizing that we are one with God. We are one with one another.

Christian Science sees Jesus as the “Way Show-er” as does Thew Forrester, not “the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.”  The uniqueness of Jesus is diminished and He is separated as a separate entity from Christ.  As a child I learned “Shepherd show me how to go ...” the foundation of Christian Science and it seems, Thew Forrester’s theology.  Jesus is the Gnostic Way-Shower, not The Way.

The substitution for “triune” for “The Trinity” is also of note, for it invites new expressions into what constitutes the word “triune.”  If Christ is reinterpreted in a Forrester-way, then in fact we are now participants (isn’t that the theme for General Convention 2009?  “I in You and You in me”) in this conception of “God.”

In this understanding - which is a thread throughout Forrester’s sermons, we share in the Triune God for we are the redefinition of the word “christ,” of which Jesus is the Master to “show us the way.”  So we are “christ,” we are equal with God.

And so there is no need for the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.

bb

[48] Posted by BabyBlue on 03-16-2009 at 08:25 AM • top

Very astute observation, Mary.  I was also raised in CS, and the first time I learned about Gnosticism, I recognized CS’s foundation.  “There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance, in matter.  All is infinite Mind, and its infinite manifestation.” etc.
And lest anyone doubt the importance of early teaching, I typed that from memory, and I left CS in 1973.

[49] Posted by Miss Sippi on 03-16-2009 at 08:54 AM • top

I thought at first that there was no coherent set of beliefs behind Fr. Thew Forrester’s teaching. I don’t now think that. The specificity of his use of the arguments and “sources” of self consciously heretodox writers has changed my mind. I think he holds and is teaching an heretical anti-Nicene theology.

[50] Posted by driver8 on 03-16-2009 at 08:55 AM • top

AnglicanXn, that was outstanding imagery you used to convey your point in 44.  A tip o’ the hat to you me lad!

[51] Posted by rwkachur on 03-16-2009 at 09:39 AM • top

Fr. Matt,

I respect your decision to publish Fr. Kevin Thew Forrester’s sermon without comments.  Your observation that it speaks for itself says it all.

I am, however, puzzled that in 50 comments, in some 1000 words in those comments, I found the word “heresy”, or some version of thereof, twice, and the word “heretic”, or some version thereof, twice.  In only one of these, #50, did I find them used directly and clearly to describe Fr. Kevin Thew Forrester or the teachings in his sermon.

If my modest research has produced accurate results, let me be the second on this thread to declare that I view Fr. Kevin Thew Forrester a heretic.  Let me be the first on this thread to declare that I view Fr. Kevin Thew Forrester an apostate.  Let me be the second to declare that I view Fr. Kevin Thew Forrester’s teachings heretical and believe that they constitute apostasy.

I expect to be soundly rebuked for judging.  I am convinced that judgment is demanded of a Christian.  In my view, heresy and apostasy must be recognized and branded as such.  I believe that we must speak out, in clear language, not euphemisms.  I believe that we should be willing to call a spade a spade.  Had more of us been doing this over the past five or six decades, TECUSA might not be in its present perilous state, nor would many of the souls it has led astray.  I have tried since the early seventies, been ostracized, left three times and returned twice; it has not been easy, or for that matter, probably very effective.

God bless.

[52] Posted by Ol' Bob on 03-16-2009 at 09:41 AM • top

Hey Ol’ Bob, just because some of us didn’t use the “h” word, doesn’t mean we aren’t on the same track.  Trust me, you are not alone in you judgment.

I referred to his theology as “a weird cobbling of new age pantheism” and “dangerous, non-Christian stuff”—and that most certainly equals heresy.

[53] Posted by hanks on 03-16-2009 at 09:54 AM • top

<blockquote:(#49) “There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance, in matter.  All is infinite Mind, and its infinite manifestation ...”</blockquote>

“... for God is All in All.”  I too remember and I left in 1975.

And now it’s back again.

bb

[54] Posted by BabyBlue on 03-16-2009 at 09:58 AM • top

I scanned the sermon, and came away with the impression that he was describing the concept behind the motion picture: “The Fountain”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountain

; - )

On a serious note, this line sums it up for me: “And you can name the source what you want to name the source.”

[55] Posted by tired on 03-16-2009 at 10:01 AM • top

#49: “There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance, in matter.  All is infinite Mind, and its infinite manifestation ...”


Right. “… for God is All in All.”

I too remember and I left in 1975. Wow. I bet we both can finish the quote:

“Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness. Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.”

And now it’s back again.  What say you, Thew?

bb

[56] Posted by BabyBlue on 03-16-2009 at 10:04 AM • top

[9] Timothy Fountain, [11] Karen B., and [48] Baby Blue,

You all seem to be upset about the word Triune, which to me has always seemed a perfectly approriate shorthand for its literal meanings, i.e., as it can be interpreted in either direction. It was always explained as meaining “Three-in-one” and, by extension “One-in-three,” which seems to me pretty concretely Nicene. I don’t think we should necessarily be eager to address the word, but rather more focused on the misuse that may be made of it, which is what appears to me has happened with Forrester and with GenCon 2006.
After all is said and done, ISTM that one of the hallmaks of our opponents (worthy or otherwise), is the plasticity of their use of words.

Of course, I may be misunderstanding your demurrals.

Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer

[57] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 03-16-2009 at 10:27 AM • top

Ol’ Bob, we thought it was too obvious to mention that TF is a duck, and knew we would have to describe his bill, feathers, web feet and quack in detail so the reappraisers would not easily be able to say that he wasn’t a duck.

Besides, the “h” key on our keyboards is half worn out from typing comments here and at T19!

BTW, expect no condemnation from us.  You are not judging (pronouncing damnation) you are discerning (observing and describing what you observe and making decisions on that basis), which is what Scripture and common sense call us to do.

[58] Posted by Milton on 03-16-2009 at 10:36 AM • top

Well, there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth!

The only thing more bizarre than hearing these words come out of the presumptive bishop’s mouth (I forced myself to listen to the audio) is to think that this sort of theology is perfectly acceptable to many Episcopalians and the TEC leadership. That’s the damning thing.

I don’t know how these people can consider themselves to be part of the Anglican Communion. No, wait, I do know: They’re trying to lead us out of our narrow-minded way of thinking.

This is, quite simply, all the evidence anybody needs that TEC is actively working to destroy Christianity. It is ... satanic.

[59] Posted by Lay observer on 03-16-2009 at 10:43 AM • top

Seeking documentation of the Trinity sermon, I can’t find it on their parish website. Has it been scrubbed or am I just missing it.

[60] Posted by Jim Workman on 03-16-2009 at 10:46 AM • top

Rev. Forrester is not simply a lone ranger who knew how to play the system.  The system of priestly formation within TEC is part of the story.  Rev. Forrester was a RC grad student of a RC theologian whom the Vatican booted out, and he ended up in TEC
http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/news_items/kevin_thew_forresters_backstory/
So, at least some of the false thinking preceded CDSP.  However, a classmate at CDSP during that era observes that the General Ordination Exam was used to target the seminarians who had a biblical theology.
comment 44 of http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/21041/
Like the federal gov’t sending in a hazmat team to a toxic waste dump, a theological clean-up operation is needed in Northern Michigan to avoid the development of a cult.  Yet, the Presiding Bishop is also a CDSP graduate of the same era.
The problem is systemic.

[61] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-16-2009 at 11:08 AM • top

The audio file is at
http://web.mac.com/dweingarten/iWeb/stpaulstest/page1/page1.html

But, did SFIF do the transcript or is the original elsewhere?

[62] Posted by Jim Workman on 03-16-2009 at 11:14 AM • top

Ol’ Bob,
From my experience on this website, opinions are welcome here and encouraged.

[63] Posted by martin5 on 03-16-2009 at 11:21 AM • top

Jim,
From what I understand from behind the scenes chit chat, the transcript was produced by several SF readers working together. We owe them our thanks!
—elfgirl

[64] Posted by The_Elves on 03-16-2009 at 11:25 AM • top

Absolutely correct Bob. While Gene Robinson is certainly a heretic, the heresy in this sermon is far deeper and more dangerous…it directly undermines God’s own self revelation and presents in its place a false god.

[65] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-16-2009 at 11:27 AM • top

Elves, et al—Muchas gracias.

I’ve read through the sermon once and will forward it to our Bishop, who is seeking to know more before deciding on consent.

The sermon is very revealing. My opinion is that it may have one of the most reductionist definitions of the Trinity I’ve ever heard or read.

(The Rev’d) Jim Workman (serving in the Diocese of Upper SC)

[66] Posted by Jim Workman on 03-16-2009 at 11:35 AM • top

This is more than just a simple “redefinition of words”...far more.

[67] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-16-2009 at 12:04 PM • top

[61] Jill Woodliff,

Your analysis that Forrester’s “confusion” well antedates his time at CDSP is correct. And I suspect that it was in some significant part that confusion that resulted in his departure from the Catholic Church. Clearly, he was one of those agitating in defense of Fr. Charles Curran at that institution. Fr. Curran was the Catholic moral theologian to whom you referred, and he dissented from the teachings of the 1968 Humanae Vitae from the outset, and I believe to the present day.

My only reservation about a theological house cleaning in Northern Michigan when phrased as a (more than rhetorical) question is, to what body of theologically non-questionable clergy in the Episcopal Church would you suggest such a task might, reliably and efficaciously, be entrusted?

As I am sure you know, I am now a Catholic (although I will not be accepted fully into the Church until the question of prior marriage and remarriage is satisfactorily resolved by the archdiocesan marriage tribunal). I had begun to suspect in the middle 1990s that I might be called out of the Episcopal Church by the Holy Spirit and first briefly explored the Catholic Church as a possible destination at that time. Again in about 2000 I looked again. Both parishes I explored seemed like spiritual deserts to me—there was little transcendence in the language of the liturgy, the hymnody was abysmal (so no transcendent help there), and the preaching was, at best, mediocre in terms of speaking to my heart. In the summer of 2008 three independent individuals, unknown to each other, two Catholic and one Episcopal investigating the Catholic Church but not yet committed to joining, recommended to me a particular parish that had excellent preaching and transcendent liturgy and music. Faith and I even met the ex-Episcopal gentleman and his family there for Mass one Sunday when the choir was not on at our regular parish.

But it was not until this past September that I received the revelation of the Spirit’s “marching orders” for my life. It came as an almost breathtakingly instantaneous realization—a realization that was conceptual, yet neither visual nor verbal. Until last Friday, I was unable effectively to articulate the intellectual understanding that had been granted me.

Last Friday (13th March 2009) I visited the web site of First Things, a journal with which not a few commenters of this site are familiar, and read the “daily article” there. Towards the end of that article is a quotation from John Henry Newman, written about a year prior to his conversion to Rome, that sums up rather well the core of that instantaneous revelation. I quote it here to save you, and others, the inconvenience of visiting their website.

The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given. . . . If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties, between latitudinarian and sectarian error. You may be tolerant or intolerant of contrarieties of thought, but contrarieties you will have. By the Church of England a hollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the sects of England an interminable division. Germany and Geneva began with persecution and have ended in scepticism. The doctrine of infallibility is a less violent hypothesis than this sacrifice either of faith or of charity. It secures the object, while it gives definiteness and force to the matter, of Revelation.

The article in question, by Edward T. Oakes, S.J., is entitled Benedict’s Vatican II Hermeneutic. (It can now be found at their On the Square page located at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/.)

Blessings and regards to you, Jill, and to all of my Christian brothers and sisters who visit this site,
Keith Toepfer

[68] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 03-16-2009 at 12:31 PM • top

The Trinity, for Thew Forrester, is defined by applying a “Trinitarian structure” found in all of life, to God, Jesus, and the Spirit.

In other words, what the interfaith dialogue has recognized is that there is a Trinitarian structure to life. That’s what I’m driving at this morning. We make the Trinity much too complex. The Trinitarian structure of life is this:

-that everything that is comes from the source. And you can name the source what you want to name the source.

-And our response to that is with hearts of gratitude and thanksgiving, to return everything back to that source,

-and there’s a spirit who enables that return.

Everything comes from God. We give it back to God. And the spirit gives us the heart of gratitude. That is the Trinitarian nature of life.

And you can be a Buddhist, you can be a Muslim, you can be a Jew, and that makes sense. And we all develop more elaborate theologies, but the truth is we live and have our being in a God who asks only one thing of us: to grow into people who give thanks that God is our center, God is our life, that we are one with God. And as we grow into realization, that we are one with this God who lives in us, and the only thing God asks us is to give back everything in thanksgiving, we live.

So, putting this with other points earlier in the sermon:

-God (call God what you will) is the source of all things
-Jesus was one who was utterly clear that all he was and all he had to give was from God
-The Spirit of God enabled Jesus to return all to God.

Get that and you have the Trinity, and furthermore, you have redemption.

[69] Posted by Jim Workman on 03-16-2009 at 12:38 PM • top

What would be interesting (possibly only to me, )would be to post a semon or two selected at random from the conservative side of things; and discuss it in a simliar manner. Not that I am in any way saying that Forester is not a heretic; just that we need to see the log in our own eye. Would we hear the Gospel; or law? Semi-pelagianism? Would it be error free, but also Gospel free? Would it be Gospel centered, or Church centered?

[70] Posted by Jimmy DuPre on 03-16-2009 at 01:22 PM • top

Jimmy, as soon as you see an orthodox priest proclaiming that he/she is a Bhuddist/Muslim/Hindu/Wiccan, put right up here on SFIF.

We are not in the business of searching out the “gotcha”, rather, it appears that the SFIF bloggers are just putting up what has easily come to them.  It doesn’t appear to me that anyone has been really digging all that hard to find this stuff.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, these strange priests are attracted to TEC like a heat seeker up the exhaust port of a MIG fighter jet.  Apparently, we are the clearinghouse for every dazed and confused spiritualist on the planet.

[71] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 03-16-2009 at 02:08 PM • top

Oh my!  Well, anybody who was wondering why elevating Spew Forester was a bad idea should be pretty clear by now.  That wacky Unitarian-Buddhist has no business behind any pulpit that claims Paulhine roots at all!

And I’m just tickled over this whole “inclusive” Scripture thing.  If Gutenberg were alive today, and he read that mess, he’d probably go back in time and burn his printing press and the building to the ground.

Oh, that Wacky Spew!

On a more serious note:  God’s blessings and my deepest, most earnest prayers for all those stuck under his ministry.  God Bless You, and KEEP the FAITH (not Spew’s, of course.)

mrb

[72] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 03-16-2009 at 03:12 PM • top

Fr. Matt,
Greetings in Grace.
All I can say about this is three words. Oh My God. This is obvious ramblings of a mad man.
If we just look at the sermon itself and not the content we can see that this fellow is not educated in proper English.  The sermon is choppy, incoherent, rambling, with no subject-verb agreement.  This sermon basically is grotesque and confusing.  It is like putting one’s mind through a meat grinder.
If one focuses on the content, then we can see this is definately the ramblings of a madman or one who is not school in Christian theology. 
Having dealt with spiritual warfare for many years one can tell there is blatant Buddhist theology in this sermon.  My eyes almost went blind with the Buddhist words and philosophy jumping out at me.
If TEC approves this fellow as bishop, then there is no future for the church.  This is a very dangerous fellow.
If we empty ourselves then the that invites Lucifer into us to take us over.  Our old mind, body, soul and sins are to die to God, arise again in the newness of life with Him on High.  This we have to do to renew our mind, body, and soul for Him.
Peace,
The Herald

[73] Posted by ShakeOffTheDust on 03-16-2009 at 10:53 PM • top

I probably don’t really want to know, but this so like a train wreck that I can’t avert my eyes- so I’ll ask:

Do you have a copy of what they used for the, uh, Mass? Like what Eucharistic prayer?

[74] Posted by Trey on 03-17-2009 at 04:44 AM • top

I think one’s theology always emerges in the sermon one constructs. I can review my own sermons and find the Anglo Catholic Evangelical and Charismatic elements. Without re quoting Forrester, it is obvious to me that his beliefs are an amalgam of many faiths and beliefs. His Christology, doctrine of the Trinity and man are in error. It is one thing to excuse the Jesuits of embracing Buddhist meditation but this is an individual who would be charged with chasing away false doctrine. I do not believe he sees the uniqueness or fullness of Christ. He views Christ as a Buddhist would view Him, as empty. Both the Anglican Scotist and Stephen Noll have correctly referred to Forrester as a pantheist. The main problem I have with Forrester is his willingness to add elements to the basic Gospel message that do not belong. Thus, he is preaching another gospel and seems to think it is somehow an evolved gospel when it is not gospel any longer.  This person would not pass his canonical exams for deacon in our diocese. Are these strange ideas for TEC? No, he is the face of TEC for the world to see.

[75] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-17-2009 at 07:00 AM • top

Perhaps I’m just too unsophisticated to understand, but why are some on this site (and in the church, apparently) so blase about priests suppoting heresy but horrified when they are elevated to the episcopacy?  Priests make disciples and soon the entire church becomes infected. 

I read the comments seemingly giving a pass to the Jesuits—oh, those crazy Jesuits!  What shenanigans are they up to now?—recognizing that however distasteful that attitude may be to me, it’s not my church.  But the comment by the Arkansian priest that “while eccentricity of this sort is to be expected amongst some of our clergy…” raises no hackles on this site?  That’s a surprise. 

My mother always said, “Take care of the nickles and the dollars will take care of themselves.”  I submit that if we take care of the deacons and priests (and vestrymen and Suynday school teachers), the bishops will take care of themselves.

[76] Posted by Fidela on 03-17-2009 at 07:16 AM • top

hi Fidela,

I don’t think many are “blase” about the ordination of heretical priests and deacons. I will say, however, that a bishop’s calling…to embody the doctrine and discipline of the Church universal…means that for a particular church body to consecrate a heretical bishop, with the consent of the whole church, signifies a step into corporate heresy whereas the ordination of an heretical priest generally implicates the bishop and people of one diocese.

[77] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2009 at 07:23 AM • top

Matt+
Please fix the misspelling of Forrester’s name.  You have it wrong all three times in the title and entry.  That means this post is not showing up in any Google searches, or in the Stand Firm search if one searches on “Forrester”.

Thanks!

[78] Posted by Karen B. on 03-17-2009 at 07:38 AM • top

Thanks for your reply, Fr. Matt, though I do not find it satisfies my frustration.  It seems to me that this is squeezing the tube at the wrong end to stop the flow.  Let us not reserve our outrage for bishops only, thinking, “That priest over there, he’s not in my diocese, and after all, he’s not a BISHOP.”  It is, after all, from such priests that bishops are elected.

[79] Posted by Fidela on 03-17-2009 at 07:41 AM • top

This ‘priest’ doesn’t think he needs to be saved from death into life. 

He doesn’t believe Athanasius’ Creed.

And they’ll make him a ‘bishop’????

Lord, have mercy; Christ, have mercy; Lord, have mercy.

[80] Posted by Bo on 03-17-2009 at 07:55 AM • top

Pardon my ignorance, but are there TEC people participating in this discussion, or are most of the above people who have departed for the Southern Cone or some such (as have I)? I’m just curious whether the above reflects a growing awareness as to what TEC is up to among remaining Episcopalians, or is “us” railing against the heretics. Why? Because my impression is that the typical liberal Episcopalian wouldn’t be too upset with the bishop-elect’s sermon. It would be good to know I’m wrong.

[81] Posted by Lay observer on 03-17-2009 at 08:02 AM • top

#79. Fidelia,

It seems to me that this is squeezing the tube at the wrong end to stop the flow.

I agree and thus my statement from post #75.

This person would not pass his canonical exams for deacon in our diocese.

The problem you address at the bottom of the tube goes much deeper than the ordination of Deacons and Priests. An orthodox aspirant would not be allowed to become a postulant in many TEC parishes. Additionally, many who are bothered in TEC about Forrester’s consent process are only questioning the process. This allows the process to be “redone” if necessary and the good folks of TEC will be desensitized to his candidacy via the first go round.

[82] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-17-2009 at 08:12 AM • top

#81. Lay observer,
You have an interesting point (as usual). I believe many of those inside TEC are not that overtly uncomfortable with Forrester’s theology and many of the protesters are concerned on the surface at least about the process while underneath, some are less willing to speak against his heretical views. On the outside the arguments seem to focus on his theology and less on the consent process. This is not hard and fast but in general how this seems to be playing out.
Someone like Jim Workman #69. probably has more of a problem with the consent process since he can find a coherent concept of the trinity in the sermon.

So, putting this with other points earlier in the sermon:
-God (call God what you will) is the source of all things
-Jesus was one who was utterly clear that all he was and all he had to give was from God
-The Spirit of God enabled Jesus to return all to God.
Get that and you have the Trinity, and furthermore, you have redemption.

The concept of the Trinity is not easy to articulate but on the two occasions I have preached on Trinity Sunday I have included the Athanasian Creed from the BCP for the congregation to recite. Many in TEC have never even seen this creed let alone recited it.

[83] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-17-2009 at 08:43 AM • top

Dcn Dale—It may be a coherent concept of the Trinity (coherent to Thew Forrester’s overall outlook), but it is way, way less than *adequate* in the light of the vast, deep efforts of hundreds of published scholars and spiritual leaders to plumb the depths of the Trinity.

[84] Posted by Jim Workman on 03-17-2009 at 10:27 AM • top

#84. Jim Workman,
Thanks for the clarification. It wasn’t clear to me from your posting whether you agreed with it or not. I am glad that you don’t agree with it. Frankly I’m not sure he could have articulated the concept of the Trinity as well as you, using his sermon. I still think you would also be bothered with the process aspects too.

[85] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-17-2009 at 11:16 AM • top

Dcn Dale—He can get around process problems as South Carolina did. My questions are about his reputed rewrites of the Sunday Eucharist and omission of the Nicene Creed, the real meaning of his Buddhist lay ordination, his extreme universalism (cp. Bishop as apostle of Christ), and the question whether he would abide by the Communion’s requests for restraint in gay issues.

[86] Posted by Jim Workman on 03-17-2009 at 12:43 PM • top

Jim+, I would just add that not only is it “inadequate” in that it does not pay attention to published scholars, but it directly contradicts both scripture and tradition. Forrester’s understanding of the nature of God is not theistic much less Trinitarian.

[87] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2009 at 12:49 PM • top

This sermon, in other words, reveals a far more serious problem than any raised about him before and than any raised about VGR

[88] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2009 at 12:51 PM • top

Matt+: I agree with 87/88. I was trying to engage in Anglican understatement.

[89] Posted by Jim Workman on 03-17-2009 at 12:54 PM • top

Okay, I see…my understatement meter must be off. Thanks

[90] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2009 at 12:56 PM • top

Kevin Thew Forrester:

“God of earth and sky…”

Saint Paul:

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following m the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in n the sons of disobedience…”

I think Kevin’s getting his gods mixed up.

[91] Posted by gatogordo on 03-17-2009 at 06:30 PM • top

I like that hymn that has the phrase “I the Lord of Sea and Sky” (I think it’s called “Send me” but it doesn’t sound like that’s what Forrester had in mind.

[92] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 03-17-2009 at 06:45 PM • top

92 Fenelon Spoke I think the song to which you are referring is “Here I am Lord” by Daniel L. Schutte (b. 1947, Neenah, Wisconsin) who is an American composer of Catholic liturgical music and a contemporary Christian songwriter.

[93] Posted by EmilyH on 03-17-2009 at 07:30 PM • top

Oh, that reminds me of
“God of Wonder Beyond Our Galaxy….” I almost puked every time I heard it, drove my kids CRAZY!

After four months of 8 AM Roman Catholic Contemporary Piano Music, though, I’m starting to miss the old gee-tar….

What’s wrong with an organ??  Anybody remember how to play one of those??? 

I’m such a dinosaur….KTF!...mrb

[94] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 03-17-2009 at 08:30 PM • top

93 -EmilyH - I should also note that Schutte is a Jesuit.

[95] Posted by Trey on 03-17-2009 at 08:34 PM • top

FWIW Schutte left the Jesuits in 1986.

[96] Posted by driver8 on 03-17-2009 at 09:21 PM • top

driver8

I sit corrected!  Thank you.

[97] Posted by Trey on 03-17-2009 at 09:24 PM • top

What’s wrong with Jesuits? I see at least two Jesuits on the field every time I watch an NFL game. They must be OK if the NFL allows them to officiate at their games! After all, everything I have ever read supports the conclusion that the NFL does have very high standards for their officiating crews.

grin

Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer

[98] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 03-18-2009 at 08:59 AM • top

Hello Y’all,
I just could not stand it any longer, this is just too good not to share.  Thew is an evangelist!  Yeap that’s right, an evangelist. Just like ol’ Spong.  At least that is how ++KJS sees it.  Birds of a feather flock together.
++KJS told a group of clergy that Spong was an evangelist, and she didn’t even crack a smile…  This is all part of the continuing revelation because these people are not satisfied with the Revelation that our Lord gave us already.  Thew needs to be reminded of what Jesus said in Rev. 22:18-19.  But then again he has already said he believes in the Great Nothing.

[99] Posted by humble country parson on 03-18-2009 at 09:37 AM • top

#99 No question ‘+‘Spong (and TF?) are evangelists. Of what, now that’s a different issue.

Lenten blessings,
-miserable sinner

[100] Posted by miserable sinner on 03-18-2009 at 10:09 AM • top

Sure Spong is an evangelist. He’s the evangelist (small e) of ‘“luv”
All you need is “luv”. God doesn’t exist; The Bible was entirely racist, homophoboc and exist and isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on execpt that Christ was a good guy and we should follow his moral precepts as long as they don’t contradict post modern conventions.

For a bracing antidote to Spong I recommend “Perfect fear casts out luv” by Peter Kreeft, a RC writer and philosopher. You can find his webiste on the internet.

Spomg didn’t have the courage to get rid of his Epicopal collar and Bishop’s ring years ago when it was clear he was a UU. I know people who have a cult of Spong. These are the same people who see no need for personal transformation in Christ, really. They think the whole pupose of the church is a social service agency but use vaguely Christian language. These are the Christ was “one among many good guys” type of approach.

[101] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 03-18-2009 at 10:24 AM • top

Meant that Spong thinks the entire Bible is racist, hompohobic and “sexist”.

[102] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 03-18-2009 at 10:27 AM • top

Why do you care?  Didn’t you leave the Episcopal Church?  Why are so many of you from outside of TEC so annoyed by this?  Why not get riled up when the Roman Catholic bishops do “bizarre things” (i.e. excommunicating doctors who performed an abortion on a 9 year old girl who would have died, and too many other examples to list)?  I haven’t been on this site in quite a while and am not surprised to see that anger pervades everything on this blog!  How unfortunate that you all are so unhappy in life with no better outlet.

[103] Posted by Mark Johnson on 03-18-2009 at 10:31 AM • top

Ahem, Mr. Johnson, some of us who are “annoyed” happen to be members of TEC. And you seem to have brought your own anger with you?

[104] Posted by oscewicee on 03-18-2009 at 10:33 AM • top

Me? I was never part of the Episcopal Church to begin with. And why do I care?  I came here because I hgappend on the site, and I have more in common with conservative Christians in a number of cases than I do with liberal ones, although I endorse the ordination of women. I care that people who claim to be ministers of the Christian faith hold no tradtional Christian doctrine and I don’t think people should be serving as Christian ministers while they are Wiccan or Budhist or Muslim. Just because people are argumentative and have strong views that may contradict yours doesn’t make them unhappy. :^) Actually, I am quite happy. I have a strong faith in Jesus Christ, a wonderful Christian community and family and I like what I do.

I bid you peace and wish you well.

[105] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 03-18-2009 at 10:39 AM • top

But yes, I am a bit angry that Spong continue to remain a Bishop in the Episcopal Church when he doesn’t accept its doctrine-the doctrine he agreed to at his ordination. I think not getting out of TEC is a wimpy and weasely action,  although Spong may very well be a nice person who loves his family, his friends. his neighbors and his dog.

[106] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 03-18-2009 at 10:44 AM • top

Hi, Mark (#103),
I agree that those out-of-TEC could do better than just gawking and taking shots.

I’m still in TEC, and let me tell you why I have serious problems with the plan to consecrate the Rev. Thew Forrester as a bishop:

1) The theology of this sermon is awful - it violates the vow that he and I both took at our ordinations (swearing belief in Scripture as the Word of God, containing all things necessary to salvation).  While a lay person might harbor all kinds of opinions while exploring the faith, an ordained leader makes promises that bring limits and obligations to his/her speculations.  It is the difference between dating and getting married - this sermon is the equivalent of “playing the field” rather than living in a covenant.

2) The model used to select Thew-Forrester presents real problems.  Mutual Ministry, as a friend pointed out, assumes that the person to fill the role is already present in the congregation.  Northern Michigan has been in a serious decline - for them to not consider bringing in leadership help from outside really betrays the best interests of the people.  And for Thew Forrester to be part of the very team that elevated him doesn’t pass the smell test.

3) The role of a bishop, in the words of the Prayer Book itself, involves leadership outside of ones own diocese.  To take a questionable candidate (point 1 above), selected in a questionable “process” (point 2), and then force that person upon the wider church by consecrating him a bishop, is most inappropriate.  Even some moderates I know, who were General Convention delegates last time, find this candidate an affront to the resolutions passed by the national church body.

I don’t know if these points are helpful, but I want you to know that this goes beyond sarcastic ranting.  If TEC truly means to be “inclusive”, as it claims, then there have to be some standards that help very different people to trust one another and even agree to disagree while remaining in communion. The Northern Michigan situation destroys trust and degrades our relationships by betraying the common language and practice of The Episcopal Church.

[107] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-18-2009 at 10:48 AM • top

I don’t consider myself “gawking and taking shots”. I am giving my views and I have friends who are either Episcopal clergy or laypeople so what hepopens in TEC concerns me. I certaintly don’t want the Episcopal Church to be in decline or ordain people who aren’t Christian. I was never told that a person needed to be in the Episcopal Church to make comments here. If the moderateors inform me of that I will leave. I’d much rather talk about Christian dicipleship, but nobody seems to want to talk about that.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ

[108] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 03-18-2009 at 10:53 AM • top

Why does this RC care?  Frankly because the Episcopal Church is the canary in the coal mine of mainline Protestant Christianity.  And I understand the need for faithful witness to the Gospel by non Catholic Christians. 

There are Catholic beliefs such as the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility that non Catholics can not in good conscience and on their reading of scripture can not ever embrace.  However since they do hold to those revealations which have been regarded as Christian in post pre and post Reformation days I sure as heck regard them as fellow believers.  Believers who love and serve God with their whole being. 

These people have found a savor of Christianity in Protestant denominations.  From these denominations they have spread the Gospel and brought the light of Christ to many.  Now that light is being gradually snuffed out by the heresy embraced by the likes of Thew Forrester and KJS.  Their witness is mocked as bigotry and intolerance.  Their hatred of sin and their love of a savior is seen as divisive and schismatic.  In short they are in a battle for souls.  And all Christians are called to join the fray and tell them they are not alone.  That we who do not share every teaching of their denomination at least share with them the declaration that Jesus is Lord.  And that we will support their determination to not let the faith once give to the saints fall forgotten on the path to universalism taken by their churches.

[109] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 03-18-2009 at 11:00 AM • top

Amen, Timothy Fountain.

[110] Posted by oscewicee on 03-18-2009 at 11:02 AM • top

FenelonSpoke - I’m not the site host.  SF welcomes any and all to comment, so my comments have no authority to keep any away.

Mark found non-TEC comments a stumbling block.  I am simply trying to move that aside so that he might see some reasonable concerns about the No. Mich. situation, generated by folks who are still in TEC.

Your comments above seem by and large reasonable and your #105 is a good explanation of why a sypathetic Christian from another denomination or tradition might stop in and comment here. 

For someone like Mark, it might be worthwhile for someone like you to explain more of how a Bishop becomes a stumbling block to ecumenical relationships.  That is a very real concern in the No. Mich. case, and a point that those outside of TEC can make with more clarity and reality than can I from within.

My “gawk” comment was more about folks who leave TEC, then come back to make some really cutting and frankly unhelpful comments.  That is not the same as what you are doing by visiting ecumenically.

[111] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-18-2009 at 11:06 AM • top

#103 Mark I think you raise an important point re: why are so many here on this blog no longer affiliated (or perhaps never were but found their way here) with TEC and are angry.  I can’t speak for everyone, but….

I’m attending, for about six months now, a Roman Catholic Church, the Church of my birth.  In 1987 after severe contemplation I left the RC church and joined a very conservative (although I did not realize it at the time) Episcopal Church and promptly fell in love.

I feel in love with the reverence, the intellectual yet Scripturally sustainable preaching (how many people in TEC’s leadership think THOSE two words are mutually exclusive nowadays?), the music, the Anglicanization of what for me had always been a Latin event (Mass).  I was even drawn to the intellectual debate and positions on things Rome had put its foot down on long ago.  It was, in my opinion, the perfect church.

Amazingly, in just 20 short years, a bare tic of the clock in church years, my Church has EMBRACED the ridiculous and profane in a way that led me for the protection of my children to leave.  How could I knowingly encourage my children to attend a church that allowed BISHOPS, the GUARDIANS of the faith to not just question, but DENY the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the boundaries of marriage, a prohibition against supporting abortion, and now Forrester, who has not the faintest clue how to point a soul onto the path of salvation and is going to probably become a Bishop.

Clearly as a parent, I would be remiss in doing otherwise but removing them from this (TEC) environment.

Is Rome perfect?  Of course not!!  I still have questions about the True Presence, the music is terrible, the Mass boring, my fellow parishioners RACE through every spoken word like they are on the verge of wetting their pants.

But there is no argueing with important things. The catechism exists, Canon Law exists, and whether I agree with it or not they are official and in most cases enforced positions.  And they are unfailingly Orthodox in everything I consider salvific.  At my core I cannot argue with that.  Will there always be teachings I consider ridiculous?  Of course, I could name 5 or 6 that are irritating me even as we speak.  But they are adiaphora, and a Soul is not something to take chances with, especially the souls God has put into my household to guard. 

So I’m angry.  Angry because my dream with TEC was ended prematurely and I am no longer able to share it with my children.  Angry because the Dark One is in charge in TEC.  Angry because the historic deposit of the faith has been spent in TEC.

And I’m still here, listening, commenting, writing, and learning, on the outside chance that the Lord will have mercy on this Church and end it or perhaps cleanse it. 

In a way, I guess I just had to grow up.  Going from 26 years old to 47 years old I have learned the value of the Biblical Standard, Church Teachings, the Mercy and Sacrifice for me of the Living Christ.  So I guess I’m angry about my blissful, unaware childhood in that magnficient vehicle called the Episcopal Church which kicked off skyward for me in 1987, has come crashing to earth in 2008. 

Hope that helps….

KTF!...mrb

[112] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 03-18-2009 at 12:11 PM • top

Well, of course TF and Spong are evangelists, of a sort, if it is indeed an ill wind that blows no one good news.  There is another who evangelises about the same message.  He has belched forth his inverted good news since he hissed it in the garden, raised up the sons of Korah, led the sons of Israel astray to Baal of Peor, entered Judas, even trying to evangelize Jesus in the desert, and whispers in our ears, shouts in the media and shoots his flaming missles to this day.  Yes, TF, Spong, et al, are but evangelist proteges of their true mentor.

[113] Posted by Milton on 03-18-2009 at 12:26 PM • top

#103 Right back at ya - what do you care if people from outside TEC comment? Haven’t you got enough “stuff” within TEC to be busying yourself with?

[114] Posted by driver8 on 03-18-2009 at 01:11 PM • top

#109 Thank you, Paula, many times over for your standing in solidarity with us, united in the bodily risen one Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose name is the only name under heaven and on earth by which we must be saved!

Your comment is a true example of “what unites us is far more than what divides us”, and eloquently and charitably stated.  My path has indeed been a long and winding road, from childhood and adolescent RC under priests who could not or would not answer my questions and around seemingly lackadaisical pew sitters (my mother being a faithful exception) to college and 20s new-age dabbler to late 20s UU, to marrying into and then growing to love the Episcopal church, at least in what was and is a muddled middle congregation with faithful priests trying to lead, to late 30s delivery from addiction and to true faith by the Lord Jesus Christ in spite of TEC theology, to attending a Nazarene church since June whose pastor’s radio sermons were a lifeline for 8 years before, now that family issues arising have made our TEC church no longer a safe place for me spiritually or emotionally.

Your prayers and support here on SFIF mean more to me, and I am sure many others, than I can put into words available on this side.  No doubt we will have many words for such when we are united in that city which will have no need of the sun or moon for light, for the glory of God will illumine it, and its lamp will be the Lamb!

[115] Posted by Milton on 03-18-2009 at 01:12 PM • top

#98. MA,
OK big fella, what is the ever so subtle humor here? Do Jesuits wear striped shirts? I graduated from a Jesuit school (Marquette University) and still don’t have a clue so clue me (and perhaps others) in.

[116] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-18-2009 at 02:09 PM • top

From a sociology of religion perspective, how much is the N. Michigan diocese situation connected to the ordination of female priests? I’m not arguing here that female ordination is necessarily a bad idea; I’m just pointing to the role - whether positive or negative - that gender might play in the foundationalization (or conserving) of traditional doctrines.

<a >To wit</a>:

Just a generation ago, mainline Protestant clergy were made up almost exclusively of men. Over the last two decades, the number of women clergy in the mainline increased nearly three-fold, from only 7% in 1989 to 1-in-5 (20%) in 2008. While still a minority in the church, as the percentage of women in the ministry continues to grow, female clergy have the potential to dramatically shift the balance of opinion of mainline churches and denominations on a variety of key issues. They will also increasingly influence mainline congregants, who make up nearly one-quarter of all voters and 18% of the general population—an estimated 40.7 million Americans.

The Clergy Gender Gap on Social Issues

Consider the stark gender differences on the volatile issue of same-sex marriage, which most mainline denominations have been fiercely debating over the last few years. Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) female clergy believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry, compared to only about one-quarter (27%) of male clergy—a gap of more than 30 points.

This clergy gender gap is more than three times as large as the gender gap among all Americans. One-third of all women support allowing gay couples to be married legally, compared to one- quarter of men, an 8-point gap. Among all mainline Protestants, the gap between men and women is even smaller at 5 points (31% to 36% respectively).

This pattern is also clear on the issue of abortion, where the clergy gender gap is 34 points. Nearly 8-in-10 (78%) female clergy say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared to only 44% of male clergy. Among all Americans, the gender gap is only 5 points on this issue, and among mainline Protestant laity, the gap is only 3 points.

[117] Posted by NewTrollObserver on 03-18-2009 at 02:28 PM • top

Dcn Dale,

In every televised NFL game I have watched in the past several decades (since the NFL began placing identifying abbreviations on the backs of the officiating crew’s shirts) there have always been two members of the crew whose official designation is S.J., which every Christian should know stands for Society of Jesus, which is the official name of the order of what are more commonly called Jesuits. I am very surprised that you, a Deacon in the Episcopal Church, would not recognize the abbreviation used by all Jesuits.

I can only wonder what has become of our educational system that you would not be aware of that. grin

Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer

P.S. Of course it may not be limited to the NFL. I can’t be sure because I haven’t ever noticed similar designations for those crews who officiate college games.

[118] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 03-18-2009 at 02:51 PM • top

MA, I bow in your general direction.  I did not get the side-judge reference, and I’ve been watching any available pro football game since Superbowl III.
grinning back atcha!

[119] Posted by GillianC on 03-18-2009 at 03:18 PM • top

#118. Martial Artist,
Thanks for the explanation. You’re talking to a person who (honestly) thought it an amazing coincidence as a freshman that all the college administrators had the same first name. I am someone barely out of Piaget’s concrete operational developmental stage. After 8p (my bed time), I am pretty much in the sensori motor phase. Now you know why the Jesuits accepted me as a student. They are a missionary society.
Blessings brother

[120] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-18-2009 at 03:59 PM • top

#117. NewTrollObserver,
I question whether it is a good idea for women to be the spiritual head of men. My wife is happy to let me run the spiritual household while she pretty much is the abbot in the more mundane things such as budget, work assignments and schedule sovereignty.

[121] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-18-2009 at 04:19 PM • top

MA,
No one gets your sonar navigational chart jokes told in Latin either. You’ll have to explain those also.

[122] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-18-2009 at 04:24 PM • top

#112 Mike Bertaut
Thanks for explaining.  I am so sorry.

[123] Posted by Pageantmaster on 03-18-2009 at 04:53 PM • top

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Jews had a gesture to express utter horror, the rending of the garment.  We don’t have one of those gestures.  But, if we did, I’d be doing it right now.  This guy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and needs to get booted from the fold!

[124] Posted by Modest Mystic on 03-19-2009 at 12:49 PM • top

In an earlier post (#116) someone asked what Kevin Thew Forresters views on women in the pristhood; His wife Rise Thew Forrester is also an ordained priest and shares the duties at St Paul’s with him!  I will continue to pray for the Lord to guide him and his family through this as they are obviously in way over their heads at this point.

[125] Posted by Lileth on 03-20-2009 at 05:25 PM • top

...in the Greek New Testament, it says in verse 22 “your faith has saved you,” okay? Now in the Syriac New Testament it says this “your faith has made you alive.”

The “Thewster” is arguing against himself here.  Either that or he only gets half the point.  If we say we are made alive, what does that say about our former state?  Why, we were dead, of course.  Which is exactly what the Bible we know tells us (Eph 2:1)
He doesn’t even see that he is disproving his own point.

[126] Posted by JohnK on 03-20-2009 at 09:32 PM • top

Why, MM… such an outburst….you apparently can be less Modest than you proclaim.
Which reminds me of a joke…
Which is the biblical battle that is the favorite of all pirates?

Aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgh-mageddon, of course.

And then, Dale, there is the letter sent from heaven in reply to the Superiors of both the Franciscans and the Dominicans who had asked, in the midst of great turmoil and words of war, which order was loved of God most!
The reply letter was as follows:
“My Dear Friors Minor and Preachers,
I so dearly value your passion in devotion, but what a silly question to be asking of Me.  You know better.  Of course, I love you both the same.
With all my Love,
[signed] God, S.J.”

[127] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-20-2009 at 11:17 PM • top

Fr. Rob,
And as they used to say, “You should be on the stage with humor like that, there’s one leaving in 10 minutes”. By the way I hope God is with Marquette during March Madness.
YBIC

[128] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-21-2009 at 06:31 AM • top

This is what we get from 40 years of slow erosion of sound theological thinking.

“Give me the child until he is seven and I care not who has him thereafter.”
—St. Francis Xavier

[129] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 03-21-2009 at 07:09 AM • top

Long time no type, Rob+.  It’s good to see you again.  I’d love to hear off-thread how you’re doing.  I suspect you were kidding with your shock at my reaction (especially followed by the pirate joke which I enjoyed).  But, for me, that is a typical reaction to syncretism.  Thank you Little Myrmidon for the Xavier quote.  Until I was 12 when I converted, I was a Baha’i, so I am sensitive to syncretism even in its more gentle guises.  Also, there are at least two senses to the word “modest”.  I meant both of them when I chose this handle.  One to strive for and one that is.

[130] Posted by Modest Mystic on 03-21-2009 at 12:00 PM • top

Here we go. Northern Michigan is now responding to questions raised here and elsewhere on the internet.
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/episcopal_church/northern_michigan_defends_thei.html
Episcopal Café, a ministry of the Diocese of Washington, is stepping up to defend K. Thew Forrester.

There is little doubt that a majority of Standing Committees and bishops will consent. But the questions raised first by Stand Firm are not being answered. We will just hear glowing testimonials until this next victory is achieved.

[131] Posted by Bull Street on 03-22-2009 at 04:40 AM • top

#131 Bull Street,

We believe the discernment process that we have followed has been open, thorough, faithful and canonical, with a greater degree of outside scrutiny and support than most traditional search processes.

The process would not have received the “greater degree of outside scrutiny” if it had been “open”, “thorough”, “faithful” and “canonical”

[132] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-22-2009 at 06:34 AM • top

What concerns me at this point is the ambivalence I feel about Forrester’s election and the probable granting of the consents. Part of me simply says, “Go ahead and just do it. Show the world what TEC has become.” The other part of me does not want this to happen because it also negatively affects the Anglican Communion and church universal. Why hasn’t the ABC, who should know better commented on this? For his apologists who say he has no real power, it seems like this would be right up his alley to offer a comment. His silence is deafening. It is breaking TEC’s own BO33 but who is calling them on it besides grass roots Christians? Heresy seems to have become an irrelevant concept in TEC because of the focus on the “schizmatics” who are viewed as the real enemy.

[133] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-22-2009 at 06:52 AM • top

Dcn Dale (#133),

Rowan Williams has, in effect, abdicated his position as a Christian leader.  I would from here forward, aside from divine intervention, never look to him to act in any mode of meaningful Christian leadership ever again.  He has fully demonstrated his lack of will so to do.  On the other hand, if TEC consents to Forrester’s election, perhaps Dr. Williams’s slumber would be sufficiently interrupted to spur him to make some sort of tepid statement.

[134] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-22-2009 at 07:26 AM • top

133 and 134-
I think ++Rowan recognizes that he can have no impact at the level of diocesan affairs within TEC.  If he intended to excommunicate heretic bishops, he would have done it already.  He could not even bring himself to withhold their invitations to Lambeth to those who are heretics, or those who violated church order, or those who had lied to him to his face.  He certainly does not want to set a precedent that would allow KJS or Peter Akinola to comment on each bishop nominated in the Church of England.
  And what could he possibly do anyway?  Appoint a commission of pastoral visitors to review the election and get back to him with a report in 2011?
  One of our difficulties in dealing with ++Rowan (and his in dealing with us) is that we expect him to react to each and every affront to Christianity perpetrated by TEC. In fact, in this case, if you read his Advent letter of 2007 or his addresses at Lambeth last year, he has already addressed the situation of Rev. Forrester.  Of course he thinks this is whole circumstance is ridiculous.  But no one in TEC paid any attention to those statements.
  Clearly, there was some kind of back room agreement at the last Primates meetingTEC is going to do whatever they are going to do.  I rather think that ++Rowan has given up worrying about keeping them in the “top tier” of the Communion.  I don’t think TEC’s opinion will carry much weight in the Covenant discussions- they aren’t going to sign it anyway.  Whatever “mediation” goes on from here on out will be focused on getting KJS to let dioceses sign onto the Covenant, and working out an agreement between the Communion and ACNA such that ACNA recognizes the jurisdiction of bishops who do sign the Covenant.
  For yours truly (who resides within N. Michigan) this will all take much too long, but at this point, I have done everything I can think of to do to oppose this “election”.  The cavalry is not coming. If the bishops of TEC decide once again to deny their ordination vows, then so be it.  Perhaps I will invest some time in determining where in TEC’s history the Apostolic succession was broken.  Because I cannot find another reason why so many bishops of “this church” have excommunicated themselves from the Church.

[135] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-22-2009 at 07:53 AM • top

#131 Alas what the greater church will not realize is that the “signers” of this letter are the same handful of people who run the show here and have been on board with all this from the beginning - you don’t see individual names that would reveal how “in bred” the supposed large list of people supporting really is.

I have resigned myself as well to the probably consenting of this travesty.  Bishop Forrester can bring his Unitarian/Buddhist theology to the remaining members of the diocese and will no doubt be able to eulogize in grand New Age fashion when he finally buries the diocese in a few short years.

[136] Posted by NMIepisopalian on 03-22-2009 at 07:58 AM • top

#134 AR and #135 TJ,

I think ++Rowan recognizes that he can have no impact at the level of diocesan affairs within TEC.  If he intended to excommunicate heretic bishops, he would have done it already.


I am not suggesting the ABC excommunicate anyone in TEC. I am asking him to offer an opinion as a leader of the AC on Forrester’s election that would guide the standing committees in considering their consents. The ABC does have a stake in this since Forrester will not just be a Bishop in TEC but the AC as well. I would agree with AR #134

Rowan Williams has, in effect, abdicated his position as a Christian leader

.Where are those voices within TEC in any leadership position or outside of TEC who oppose this election? Fr. Dan Martens at least said Forrester should not be consecrated because of his Prayerbook violations. Who is more culpable in this, the PB who should no better but does not or the ABC who does know better but says nothing? I am really tired of hearing excuses on behalf of the ABC. This sounds like the statement, “If only the King knew about this.” He knows, and there is no “deeper wisdom” in his silence. To me, every time he remains silent it is the same thing as implied agreement.

[137] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-22-2009 at 08:24 AM • top

107 Timothy Fountain+  Well said!  (Can you use a curate?)

[138] Posted by Robert Easter on 03-22-2009 at 08:57 AM • top

I am not suggesting the ABC excommunicate anyone in TEC.

Deacon Dale,
I think you are suggesting exactly that. If the ABC speaks publicly, he has 3 options.  He can endorse the election.  He can say that he doesn’t like it, but will live with it if the man gains consents.  Or he can say that the man is not a bishop of the church, regardless of whether he gains consents.  In the latter case, he has indeed broken communion with both the elected bishop, and anyone who voted for consent. I suppose there is a fourth option- he could make an idle threat to take some form of action, and then not take it- ala Gene Robinson.  But that last has not worked well.

Both South Carolina (via a convention resolution, no less) and Dallas (via an executive committee resolution) took very strong stands against consents. So if you count those as people “in a leadership position”, then some in leadership have spoken out.  And believe me, there are those of us within the confines of this diocese who said prayers of thanksgiving that they made such bold declarations. I would anticipate few if any votes to consent from Communion Partner dioceses- perhaps even Bp. Little will find some other paperwork to do that will distract him from the consent process.  It is the other 96 (less one or 2 open sees) diocesans we need to worry about.
  My point was that ++Rowan (in his several letters and addresses on the nature of bishops) has already said that this would “not be helpful.”  TEC is just “not listening.”  From my experience in this so far, the personal letters/emails I have written have been much more effective than any statement I have posted on a blog (and if any reading this are involved in the consent process, and there is any information I can provide, I can be reached via the pm and email features on SF), and it may be that ++Rowan, or the TEC bishops opposed to this “election” are going a non public route.  I certainly imagine that any bishop who is in regular correspondence with ++Rowan, or those writing to ++Rowan and asking his opinion, are getting a straight answer about what he thinks. And I rather suspect that +Mark Lawrence and others made their opinion known to colleagues at the last HoB meeting.
  There is no rational argument to be made that consenting to this election could be good for the greater church.  I suspect that most bishops of the Communion outside TEC have come to the conclusion that this will not impact the wider church, because TEC has already effectively broken communion with the wider church.

[139] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-22-2009 at 08:57 AM • top

The cavalry is not coming.

We are here. It may not be enough but on the other hand several questions have been raised on not only the process of the ‘election’ but also on the man himself. Even if consent is given, it will not be rubbered stamped by all. Instead, it may shed light on a larger problem TEC has ... the foundation of the Anglican faith that has been passed down is crumbling.

[140] Posted by martin5 on 03-22-2009 at 11:20 AM • top

Slightly off-topic.  Why is a diocese with less than 10 stipendiary clergy, and an ASA smaller than a number of TEC’s larger churches, a diocese? 

To the diocese and the bishop’s coming to TF’s defense. 
Meditation practices notwithstanding, please explain that ‘Easter liturgy’ of his creation.  (darn straight I’m using scare quotes) I’m still not seeing that TF’s beliefs on what genetic role Saint Joseph played in the incarnation (psst: the correct answer is - None) squares with 2000 years of Christian tradition.  If TF cannot get this right, he seemingly cannot in good conscience commit to what the BCP’s consecration service requires of him. 

Lenten blessings,
-miserable sinner

[141] Posted by miserable sinner on 03-22-2009 at 05:30 PM • top

#138.TJ,

Deacon Dale,
I think you are suggesting exactly that. If the ABC speaks publicly, he has 3 options.  He can endorse the election.  He can say that he doesn’t like it, but will live with it if the man gains consents.Or he can say that the man is not a bishop of the church, regardless of whether he gains consents.

Since you are offering the ABC three options, how would option two be excommunication of Forrester? That is what I am talking about.

[142] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-22-2009 at 06:58 PM • top

There seems to be some misunderstanding.  The Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t a pope, we are not RCs, and it’s fully up to TEC who it chooses as a bishop.  The Archbishop of Canterbury has no power to ‘endorse’ the election or not.  In these circumstances, he’d be crazy to say in public whether he ‘likes’ the consecration of a particular bishop, or not.

[143] Posted by Soapy Sam on 03-22-2009 at 07:46 PM • top

#143. Soapy Sam,

In these circumstances, he’d be crazy to say in public whether he ‘likes’ the consecration of a particular bishop, or not.

So it’s perfectly OK for him to comment on secular and social issues like incorporating Sharia Law into British Law but it would be “crazy” of him to comment on a theological issue within the Anglican Communion as the Archbishop of the Anglican Communion. Think about how absurd that sounds.

[144] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-22-2009 at 08:04 PM • top

The Primates will decide how to handle Forrester’s consecration; they will have nothing to do with him.

[145] Posted by Cennydd on 03-22-2009 at 08:18 PM • top

Mad Potter,
What to you think the other primates will have to do with a Buddhist Bishop?

[146] Posted by Bo on 03-22-2009 at 08:36 PM • top

Soapy Sam,
Who do you think it was who did not invite VGR to Lambeth? The ABoC cannot tell TEC who to consecrate or not.  But he can determine whether that person is recognized as an Anglican bishop, just by saying yea or nay.  Now, it is the habit of the current ABoC to be fuzzy about things in the US- where he did not invite VGR, nor the non-TEC Anglican bishops, but allows that they are bishops, and Anglicans, sort of.  In the case of the fellow claiming to be the bishop of Zimbabwe, neither he nor any other Anglican primate left any doubt about what they thought, and who is the legitimate Anglican bishop of Zimbabwe.  So, he can take action when he wants to.  Unfortunately, he seldom wants to.

[147] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-22-2009 at 08:51 PM • top

My typing is worse than yours, I read through it.

I gather then that you don’t think a ‘do not invite’ notice will be issued?

[148] Posted by Bo on 03-22-2009 at 08:59 PM • top

I wouldn’t worry about the Primates just yet.  If there are 56 bishops left in TEC who believe in the Trinity (granted, a stretch), Rev. Forrester won’t get consent, and the Primates will have nothing to worry about.  But I think we can assume that the 22 Anglican provinces in broken or impaired communion with TEC will have a problem with an openly heretic bishop, Buddhist or otherwise.  Personally, I think it might even be the sort of thing that could bother the likes of ++Morgan and ++Aspinall.  Forrester could end up being recognized by TEC, Brazil, New Zealand, some dioceses of Canada and precious few other places.

[149] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-22-2009 at 09:00 PM • top

If Dcn Dale rereads my post he will spot, second time, that I did not say it was perfectly OK for the Archbishop of Canterbury to comment on incorporating sharia law into English law.

tjmcmahon, however, makes a good point about it being possible not to invite a bishop to a Lambeth conference, and perhaps (if there’s a Lambeth conference in 2018) we’ll see if Bishop Thew Forrester is invited.

[150] Posted by Soapy Sam on 03-22-2009 at 11:06 PM • top

#143, it is exactly that line of reasoning that has made Rowan Williams, in effect, abdicate his authoritative position as AbC.  ISTM that a logical argument can be made that the see of Canterbury is currently vacant.  Of course, the obverse could be argued, in that deciding to not lead an organization is actually leading (down the primrose path to dissolution). (Further, he seems now to be primus inter pares only in his own mind.) #153, I wonder what the over/under might be on Forrester’s consents, and then AbC’s invitation (or lack thereof).  Buy hey, will anybody care enough to do Lambeth 2018?

[151] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-23-2009 at 03:05 AM • top

Athanasius Returns, I like your post (154) and think it interesting.  On reflection I’d still hold that the Archibishop of Canterbury has no ‘authoritative position’ at all over the American church.  The Northern Michigan consecration for Americans to decide on.

The argument that the See of Canterbury is vacant I find too abstruse for my powers of reasoning.  If I asked the advice of my cynical friend Mr. Worldly-Wiseman, he’d tell me to check whether someone was collecting the salary every month and living in Lambeth Palace.

As for dissolution, a split is happening—oh, and litigation:  now, that’s not exactly the same thing as dissolution.  I don’t claim to know if there will be a Lambeth conference in 2018, or a GAFCON.  Too many variables for any prediction to be credible.

[152] Posted by Soapy Sam on 03-23-2009 at 04:06 AM • top

#153. Soapy Sam,

If Dcn Dale rereads my post he will spot, second time, that I did not say it was perfectly OK for the Archbishop of Canterbury to comment on incorporating sharia law into English law.

1. No Soapy, you didn’t say it but unless you are willing to say that it is not OK for him to comment on Sharia Law (which I believe you would allow him to do) then what could he comment on?
2.

On reflection I’d still hold that the Archibishop of Canterbury has no ‘authoritative position’ at all over the American church.

KJS would be in absolute agreement with you on this one however I have been referring to moral authority not legal authority. IF he offered an opinion it would be a form of moral leadership. If you say that he has no moral authority either then in my mind it is because he has abdicated it by his silence.

[153] Posted by Fr. Dale on 03-23-2009 at 06:17 AM • top

I wonder if Thew Forrester will be a simple country bishop or will he “take it on the road” like another enlightened bishop? I have this recurring vision (daytime nightmare) of this young man as the new Spong—taking the next leap—“A Bishop Looks at a Personal God.”

[154] Posted by Gator on 03-23-2009 at 07:53 AM • top
[155] Posted by martin5 on 03-23-2009 at 10:42 AM • top

To paraphrase George Lucas, “May The Source be with you.”

RT Barr

[156] Posted by rtbarr on 03-23-2009 at 08:59 PM • top

OK, Dcn Dale, I’ve been trying to imagine a world where it would be up to me to allow or not allow the Archbishop of Canterbury to say this or that. Here’s the dialogue (Rowan and Superarchbishop Sam):

Rowan:  Superarchbishop, is it OK if I tell them what I’ve been thinking about the role of sharia in Britain today?
Sam:  No, Rowan, keep quiet about all that.  Just tell them about the Arians again.
Rowan:  Aw, Superarchbishop, why can’t I have any fun?
Sam:  You’ll understand when you’re grown up.

Well, that wasn’t so hard.  But it wasn’t the real world.  Moral authority?  OK, you’re right on that.

[157] Posted by Soapy Sam on 03-24-2009 at 05:01 PM • top

“So, I’ll preach on redemption, baptism and the Trinity today and it’ll take about forty-five minutes”

How does a 12-15 minute homily turn into a 45 minute whatever? This guy is goofy.

[158] Posted by ctowles on 03-27-2009 at 01:29 PM • top

My name is Susan Burt, I am the oldest daughter of Rt Rev John Burt, about to have his 91st birthday, bedridden, confused, and barely hanging on to life in my parents home in Marquette, Michigan. My mother told me tonight how upset she has been over the controversy with Kevin Thew-Forester. I read his sermon on Trinity Sunday, read most of your posts and want to speak with you, maybe only briefly tonight.
Kevin has been wonderful to my parents and our family. Bringing communion repeatedly to the house, arranging a beautiful funeral, really the best minister I’ve ever experienced. I would have been up dicussing things about faith with him, but when I visit he’s usually driving around the UP in other churches. I live in West Virginia.
It’s really shocking to read your posts… they seem snide and angry and petty. It strikes me that most of you don’t know much about Zen Buddism, and are intolerant of people different than you. How many of you have sat down and talked to Kevin?  Also I followed the sermon quite well… I was really interested in the Syrian translations of redemption. They reflect my own experience. I’m a pretty smmart woman, always trying to understand my relation to Christ and his teachings. No one has ever been able to explain the Trinity to me, and even my father confessed he didn’t know what would happen after death. Just reading Kevin’s sermon here kind of filled me up on some level. I have read enough of these old texts and critiques of them to know that Christianity requires us to think and pray/ meditate on finding the meaning in Jesus’ teachings. Much of scripture contradicts itself. The first thing for me has been to put aside the old testament ( which Muslims are also taught and raised on) and reading and rereading the New. I’ve lived my whole life in the Episcopal church, and I don’t believe any one can say they really have an unshakable understanding of the Trinity. God is the God of everyone…. you and I, Kevin, a gay person, a convict. Do you really think only conservative Episcopalians are Children of God? Many important and deeply religious theologians have explored other religions. Have any of you ever tried meditation… clearing the mind from all the “stuff whizzing around” to get into a contempletive state where you Temporarily leave the focus of the world? Have any of you fallen deeply in love with someone of your own gender? Do you think we are the center of the world? We all need to relax a little about those that are different from us, and “judge not lest ye be judged”. Loving God (coming to know Him,) and loving your neighbor as yourself are the true foundation of our being as Christians. I really like the Syrian translations of redemption, because repenting for your sins is necessary for you psychologically, but searching for God is a lifelong struggle, and I’m not sure any 2 people experience God in the same way. Learning to love your neighbor AS YOURSELF is what makes us Christians, in my opinion and it’s a lifelong struggle also. I’d really like to talk to Kevin about how he prays. How do any of you pray? I have to teach myself,,,I never really learned it in the church. But I’m happy to share it,and it doesn’t just mean parroting Bible verses written thousands of years ago from a culture very far away from us. I think Kevin is a great gift to the Upper Peninsula, and I really urge you to get to know him and what he’s doing there before you gang up to exaggerate his “heresies”. The Episcopal Church is supposed to be for everybody, why not extend a little compassion to people who aren’t the same as you? I don’t see any conspiracy here on Kevin’s part, he sounds like he’s working very hard to renew people’s faith. He’s renewing mine, in the Trinity sermon. Anyway, I just wanted to give another point ov view for you to consider. Sincerely, Susan Burt

[159] Posted by Susanburt on 03-28-2009 at 02:18 AM • top

Susan Burt, you seem to have to problem disagreeing with people that you have never met, based on our words in public.  Why should we be held to a different standard?

Not once, mind you, has anyone said that Kevin is not a nice person, doesn’t visit people regularly, isn’t charming at coffee hour or any thing of the sort.  So what?  Anyone can be a nice person.  You don’t have to be Christian to be a nice person. However, you do have to be a Christian to be a bishop, and in order to be a bishop you should also be a teacher of sound doctrine.  Judging by his public statements and your own statements, he is not a teacher of sound doctrine.  Of course, that doesn’t seem to make him any different from the majority of TEC’s bishops or the majority of teachers that you seem to have come into contact with.  Kevin will fit right in, and no one will notice the difference.

[160] Posted by AndrewA on 03-28-2009 at 04:15 AM • top

Mad Potter,
What to you think the other primates will have to do with a Buddhist Bishop?

Definatly Hiltz and Barry Morgan.  Probably Scotland and New Zealand, whose names escape me at the momement.  As usual the silence from Japan, Korea, India etc will be deafening.

I’m afraid I have to back Mad Potter on this.  It is a mistake to equate the Primates of the Anglican Communion with the FCA Primates.  The latter may arguably be the best of the primates, but they are not the whole of the Anglican Communion.

[161] Posted by AndrewA on 03-28-2009 at 04:22 AM • top

Susan Burt, you seem to have to problem disagreeing with people that you have never met, based on our words in public.

Sorry, it is early in the morning.  I should have said:

““Susan Burt, you seem to have no problem disagreeing…”

It never ceases to amuse me how people that have never met me first say that I should not criticize a particular person because I haven’t met me, and then goes on to lambast me.

In other words, if Susan can make statements about us and judge our arguments and our views based upon our public, printed statements on this blog, than we can also make judgments about Kevin’s teachings and theology based upon his publicly available printed and recorded statements.  We can also make statements based upon his actions, such as the changes in liturgy. 

Using Susan’s standard, I should never, for example, say anything critical about President Bush or President Obama, because I have never actually met them.  Furthermore, if I do meet them, and it turns out that they are “nice people” than somehow the fact that I disagree with their policies and actions is irrelevant.  I cannot imagine the dilemma that would be caused if there were two “nice people” on the ballot!  How could you possibly make a choice?  Besides, making a choice would require judging, and “judge not least you be judged.”  No wonder they only had one name on the ballot.

[162] Posted by AndrewA on 03-28-2009 at 04:47 AM • top

It strikes me that most of you don’t know much about Zen Buddism

Okay, then lets take a look at some statements by people that do know about Buddhism.

http://www.americananglican.org/assets/News-and-Commentary-Files/2009/Uniqueness-of-Christ-Feb09.pdf

I’d link more, but I can’t seem to get the Stand Firm archive to work.  The short answer is that there are those among us that are very well educated on Buddhism.

is the God of everyone…. you and I, Kevin, a gay person, a convict.

Well, that certainly suggests some exciting new possibilities for TEC’s next search for a bishop. 

I’ve lived my whole life in the Episcopal church, and I don’t believe any one can say they really have an unshakable understanding of the Trinity.

Perhaps it is time for you to get out some more and explore other “faith traditions” in order to come to a “deeper understanding” of God.  Of course, I’d recommend sticking to Christian options if you want to come to a better understanding of the Trinity, such as the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Churches.  I would not suggest exploring religious options that explicity deny the Trinity.

Learning to love your neighbor AS YOURSELF is what makes us Christians, in my opinion and it’s a lifelong struggle also.

No, actually that isn’t what makes you a Christian.  But even if I were to use that standard, I would not be loving myself by allowing myself to fall into heresy.  Nor would I be loving myself to allow myself to become a bishop seeing how I’m completly unqualified to be a bishop, though for different reasons than Kevin.

[163] Posted by AndrewA on 03-28-2009 at 05:05 AM • top

Susan, I am sorry about your ill father, and it’s wonderful that Forrester has been a great minister to your family. You seem quite articulate about your POV as to why Forrester is suitable to become a Bishop. Perhaps it’s not helpful to assume that people here haven’t tried meditation. It does have a 800 plus year old History in the Orthodox churches. One doesn’t have to go to Buddhism to do meditation. :^)

Also, there are two reasons as to why many people on this site oppose Forrseter. As the poster above remarked, it’s not about not being a nice person. It’s about process and theology. It sounds like it was a stacked process, In addition. Bishops have central responsibilities in the church-one of them is accepting the historic doctrine of the church. It sounds like many people here don’t believe that Forrester accepts the doctrine of the church based on his sermons, liturgy and remarks in print.

In addition, you suggest you have “put aside” the Old Testament. Do you think Forrester has done that? Do you think it’s appropriate for Christian minister to do that? After all, Jesus was a Jew.

Peace

[164] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 03-28-2009 at 05:44 AM • top

Incidently, the rejection of the Old Testement was clearly defined as heretical quite some time ago.

[165] Posted by AndrewA on 03-28-2009 at 05:55 AM • top

Susan Burt,
In peace, I pray that those of us who have posted comments on this thread will treat your comments with respect and careful consideration. I have been raised in the Episcopal Church and have likewise come out befuddled over matters. I found that by attending church on Sundays, “Sunday school,” etc., that instead of developing a maturity in Faith, I had lost the love I once knew. There are many people here far more skilled than I who can explain to you the beauty of the Trinity. There are those who can try to put into the small box of a SF post the history of the Creeds.

In the long run, please take the time to learn more, I would like our members to suggest readings which might be helpful to you.

And yes, for 30 years I have practiced and studied meditation, and I am oh so very aware of the tender traps therin. That is what concerns me about Thew’s sermon. I fear he may be stepping into one or more of those traps, and I think he should consider extricating himself before he moves up in rank.

[166] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 03-28-2009 at 06:53 AM • top

Susan, my prayers for you and your family.  I will try to put this very gently out of respect for what you and your family are experiencing.  It seems to me you are taking the global discussion on the nomination of KTF to the esteemed role of bishop and personalizing it based on the emotional stress you and your family are under.  I am very glad that you and your family are receiving the pastoral support you require from Rev Forrester.
However, as a member of this diocese who has lived through the past 22 months and observed the “process” that HE (Kevin) designed that has now put HIM in the bishop’s chair - close scrutiny of his theology is in order.  Perhaps some of the comments here ARE full of bombast - but in many ways this is a club for like minded individuals - that said, pray on the issues surrounding this choice of a man who will not only serve this diocese but will be a member of a group that serve the entire church.  I myself have stated here and elsewhere that he is not a “card carrying” buddhist - however, his love of buddhism has clearly affected his theology and his actions.

Without any rancour I would remind you that he has, against the canons of the church and his ordination vows, removed the Nicene Creed from the regular Sunday services (until a near revolution in the congregation forced him to put it back last September), he regularly writes his own Eucharistic prayers, he routinely writes his own collects…whether or not the language is beautiful or the ideas compelling, the very act is against the rules.  A priest who does these things for a particularly experimental congregation with the reluctant ok of his/her bishop is one thing - KTF took advantage of the absence of a bishop to do this - and now he is a candidate for bishop himself.

He denies the Trinity - his sermon on the trinity makes no sense whatsover - his explanation is convoluted - it is as if he stood in the bright day and declared the sun to be the moon.

He denies sin and the need for redemption - he has stricken everything that he sees as “atonement theology” - and yet he has grossly misrepresented atonement theology to the congregation - painting with a broad brush.

All of this could be excusable (perhaps) in a liberal priest reflecting the experimental beliefs of his/her church under the disapproving but silent gaze of his/her bishop.  Yet, KTF has taken advantage of the absence to push this theological b.s. onto a confused and uncertain congregation.  Many in the congregation have repeatedly requested a return to the language of the prayer book and he has essentially refused.  This does not make him an appropriate candidate for the office of bishop.

Yes, I’m sure he is a nice man and a loving husband and father, I’m sure he is full of many interesting ideas and compelling theories - that does not make him an appropriate candidate for bishop of the church - in fact, it may make him an inappropriate candidate for priest.

Prayers again offered for you and your family.
Christ’s Peace.

[167] Posted by NMIepisopalian on 03-28-2009 at 08:03 AM • top

Nicely and well put, NMIepiscopalian.

[168] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 03-28-2009 at 08:24 AM • top

Well, Ok guys, I just want to say a few things. There have been a few of you who were polite about me thinking KTF is “nice” and has been “nice” to my family. This is not the point. The point about my father is that he is a (retired) bishop of Ohio and was a strong leader in the church, and I shared many discussions with him over the years, many discussions of church issues, Lambeth conferences, ordination of women, civil rights, racism, crises of faith, ecumenical movements, Christian-Jewish relations,church doctrines, translations of “the resurrection of the body” etc etc.  My grandfather, Bates Burt, was the rector at St Paul’s in Marquette when my father was growing up. I think I’m upset more about the tone many of you have that discounts a liberal, socially conscious bishop. KTF showed a huge respect for my father and a recognition of his importance in the church. My sadness is mostly over the fissures in the church, seemingly fueled by fearfulness of other points of view.
Also, I wasn’t raised on ideas of “heresies”… thought that was a Papal problem, but I do know that Jesus Did Say: Love God with all your heart soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself…. and these were the two great commandments on which all other laws rested. So on that basis I have tried to pay more attention to the New Testament… and I know the OT is a cornerstone for Jew and Muslims also. It’s way harder to interpret, because it all happenned before Jesus came to interpret for us our relationship to God. The text is often taken out of context, and can be made to prove contradictions.
I’ve read and discussed lots about the Trinity… I’m just being honest that 50 years after being confirmed, I really don’t inderstand it…. and I bet many of you don’t either. Somebody want to try a paragraph?
The sermon on the Trinity resonated strongly with me, and seemed clearer than other explanations. And the Syrian perspective on redemption gave me a new way to look at another confusing issue. I need religious mentors who think and wrestle with ideas, and are engaged in developing their own understanding of the Divine and morality. Yes they should KNOW the doctrines and creed history, but we were all created to find meaning in our lives, and the body of Christ is made up of all of us. Anyway, I’m going to Marquette in a couple weeks, and I will try to see if KTF has time to discuss the Nicene creed, the change in the service, and atonement theories. I guess it’s not really my business to be in this “club of like-minded people” but it’s my church too, and I don’t see much “open, honest debate” going on… so at least I got to have a say.
Anyway, I do plan to talk to some people in the church, the retired Bishop of the UP, and my mother. I have a hard time believing KTF denies the reality of sin and atonement, but I would like to know. So if anybody’s interested I’ll stay open minded and tell you what I found out when I come home. I sure wish my father could still talk to me about all this faith he left me with!
Sincerely, Susan
By the way, I have been deleted off this site… what’s the deal on this “open conversation?” You guys are really pretty unbelievable. You can’t deal with one little peon’s dissenting voice? You are so set on this idea of getting rid of KTF that you don’t want to hear what I find out in Marquette? Well, if that’s so I have REALLY lost respect for you… I think this dialogue is good for all of us in the church and if you wish , individually to know what I find out, please email me. Thanks. , Susan

[169] Posted by Susanburt on 03-31-2009 at 10:05 PM • top

Susan,

How were you “deleted” off the site?

As to your complaint, it’s simply not true that those of us here think Forrester isn’t fit to be a bishop because he’s a socially conscious progressive; it’s because we don’t think he’s a Christian. See my post on how Forrester’s statements, articles and sermons stack up against the Nicene Creed:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/21466/

Neither does it follow that because not everyone here can explain the Trinity in a paragraph, we are therefore not capable of determining whether Forrester’s words and actions over the years reveal him to be a Buddhist with only the the most superficial resemblance to a Christian, and thus not fit to be a priest, much less a bishop.

We’re sticking to Forrester’s history, his statements, articles, sermons, and other acts as evidence he’s not a guardian of the faith.

[170] Posted by Greg Griffith on 03-31-2009 at 10:24 PM • top

Susanburt,
I am sure most of us would be interested in what you find out. I have two objections - the process used in selecting a bishop and this is most important to me, the evidence that he is not guarding the faith as I think a bishop should.
The best way someone explained the Trinity to me and I know I wont do it justice. Was that the Trinity is like water it can be ice, steam or a liquid but they are all still water - just in different forms.

[171] Posted by martin5 on 03-31-2009 at 10:37 PM • top

Susan,
I don’t fear other points of view.  I fear for the souls of those who deny the Saviour.

You did notice that Our Lord was quoting the Old Testament when He gave His answer to the question of the ‘greatest commandment’, right?  And that He, unlike KTF knew that there is a God to love (and not some nothingness), did not escape your notice, did it?  It is also important that we remember that the Love of God is the greatest, and that Love of our Neighbor as our selves is the second.  We can not deny our God to show ‘love’ to our neighbor.  Not only is that a false love, but even if it were not, it would be violating the Greatest to keep the Second.

I hope you notice also in the New Testament that we are given a New Commandment - that we love our fellow Christians as Christ has loved us.  That is more than we love ourselves!  (We who are husbands have also to Love our wives as Christ loved the Church - shame on us (myself included) who refused to obey that command).

Heresy is a Church Problem, from the local Church upwards and outwards.  The Noble Bereans checked with the Scriptures to see if the teachings were true.  ( Acts 17:11 ) Perhaps you should give following their example a try.  Does what KTF say match to scripture? 

(Not that Godly Counsel is to be avoided, but rather that the Scripture should be the real test, and not men).

Athanasius did a pretty good job on the Trinity, albeit a bit long and repetitive. 

The key difference in the real Trinity and what KTF is going on about is that ‘we’ are NOT part of the Trinity.

The Virgin Birth is plainly taught in the New Testament (though it is there as well, even in Genesis).  That too, is something KTF seems to have ‘missed’ in his study of Scripture.

The Syrian Texts use the positive statement, but how can one be made alive who is not dead already?  How is that theologically different from the Greek Text?

I have been wrestling with my understanding of the Scriptures and the Divine since I was a teen-ager.  I once doubted the worthiness of the God of my Ancestors.  I looked around, studied Islam, Zoroaster, and the Norse Gods.  I have listen to my kin who are JW.  One of my sons spent time in the Mormon delusion.  Christ offers what no one else does - Life, Forgiveness, Knowing of Himself, and a God who beat death in a ‘fair-up fight’.

I have spent four days Angry with my God.  This was after I recognized His worthiness, and did not diminish my love nor confidence in Him.  When He took my son (on Black Saturday, 2002, the day we got him home from the Hospital), I was mad at Him.  I learned a bit of what the Apostles felt on the first Black Saturday, and of what Job felt when he said ‘though He slay me, yet shall I trust Him’.  And I learned that He listens, even when we are yelling at Him.  And that He is big enough to hold us while we pound His chest, our futile fists beating on the chest of God our Father.

I am more assured of His worth, of His Love, and His Grace now than I have ever been in my life.

I am also more aware that I daily prove myself to be an unprofitable servant.

I hope you ‘hang around’.

I hope you and I can share, that we can help each other grow, and that we can come to walk together under the guidance of the Scriptures and the Holy Ghost.

[172] Posted by Bo on 03-31-2009 at 10:51 PM • top

Susanburt says

The point about my father is that he is a (retired) bishop of Ohio and was a strong leader in the church

and

My grandfather, Bates Burt, was the rector at St Paul’s in Marquette when my father was growing up. I think I’m upset more about the tone many of you have that discounts a liberal, socially conscious bishop. KTF showed a huge respect for my father and a recognition of his importance in the church.

...  all of which deserves respect.  But it means that she is unfair in describing herself as

one little peon

[173] Posted by Soapy Sam on 03-31-2009 at 11:08 PM • top

Not sure how one can “Love God with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your strength” and simultaneously spit on God’s own self-disclosure? It’s a little like a husband telling his wife that he truly loves her, but the “her” he loves has a completely different personality and looks like his high school girlfriend.

[174] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 04-01-2009 at 03:28 AM • top

I am not discouting a liberal soccially conscious Bishop. My point was that neither your father or grandfather are Kevin Thew Forrester and because he had good conversations with your father who respected him does not automatically make TF a suitable candidate for a Bishop if he’s a quasi Christian who rejects the divinity of Christ and other major parts of the creeds.

[175] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 04-01-2009 at 06:18 AM • top

susanburt, possibly you think you were “deleted” off SFIF because you composed a comment as lengthy as the most recent one of yours that did make it to the post, and when you clicked “Submit” the comment vanished.  Many of our comments have met the same fate.  The reason is that all websites disconnect a client (your computer) from the server computer on which the web site is hosted after 10 minutes or so to prevent the server from being bogged with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of client computers connected to it.  When you click on a link or click Refresh or F5 your computer reconnects to the site and downloads new info.  But anything not sent before the connection timed out is lost, including comments that take longer than the timeout to compose.

Make it a habit to select all your text comment with the mouse, click Copy (or Ctrl-C) before submitting.  Then if your comment does not appear, click on the blank comment window and click Paste (or Ctrl-V) and your copied text will reappear and you can again click Submit, after which your comment now should post successfully.

[176] Posted by Milton on 04-01-2009 at 12:38 PM • top

2nd line should of course read “did not make it to post”.

[177] Posted by Milton on 04-01-2009 at 12:39 PM • top

On 3rd read, the 1st version was correct!  Ooops!

[178] Posted by Milton on 04-01-2009 at 12:59 PM • top

More Unitarian drivel from Forrester+.
And to use The Inclusive New Testament, which its authors describe “is a re-imagining of the Christian scriptures and our relationship to them. Not merely replacing male pronouns, the translators have rethought what kind of language has built barriers between the text and its readers.”
A quick Google reveals comparisons:
Colossians 3:18-19.
New American Standard: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them.”
Inclusive New Testament: “You who are in committed relationships, be submissive to each other. This is your duty in Christ Jesus. Partners joined by God, love each other. Avoid any bitterness between you.”
Like I said, more Unitarian drivel.

[179] Posted by meh130 on 04-05-2009 at 05:02 PM • top

susanburt
Should you discuss KGTF with the retired bishop (whom I assume to be Bishop Ray) then be aware he was at least partially responsible for KGTF coming to the Diocese from the Diocese of Eastern Oregon where he had worked with Jim Kelsey. Also if you can access the archives of UPCHAT you’ll see and sense how strong the sentiment is against him.

[180] Posted by ruauper2 on 04-15-2009 at 10:14 PM • top

#175 Thank you for that testimony, Bo. Although it was meant for susan, it blessed and encouraged me as well.
-Keith

[181] Posted by GSP98 on 04-15-2009 at 11:53 PM • top

Keith,
I wish I was always as prayed up as I was when I wrote that.  He has lead me through some troubles, chased me down in others, brought me to my knees in repentance in some, lifted my head by His love in others and and always been with and for me. 

I can not tell the why or the how of it at all.  But I come to know Him I have believed more and my confidence is increased with each trouble.

[182] Posted by Bo on 04-16-2009 at 06:34 AM • top

Totally confused.  I assume that he’s talking about the Syrian Orthodox Church, one of five ancient non-Chalcedonian churches in the “Monophysite” confession (the others being the Armenian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church of India). oracle training It doesn’t seem like he understands much of their theology, their very public repudiation of the theology of TEC, or the various other religions he mixes into his vast stew of syncretism.  He shouldn’t be rejected because he’s a Buddhist, he should be rejected because he’s fundamentally ignorant of all that he tries to mix into one!

[183] Posted by smith67 on 03-03-2010 at 05:47 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.