The only candidate on the ballot [in Northern Michigan], Thew Forrester, 51, has practiced Zen meditation for a decade and received lay ordination from a Buddhist community.
Conservatives are outraged at the election of this “openly Buddhist bishop,” as they call him, charging Thew Forrester with syncretism — blending two faiths, and dishonoring both.
The bishop-elect and the Lake Superior Zendo that ordained him say the angst is misplaced. The ordination simply honors his commitment to Zen meditation, they say. He took no Buddhist vows and professed no beliefs that contradict Christianity….
The Rev. Kendall Harmon, an Episcopal theologian from South Carolina, argues that Thew Forrester is a greater threat to his church than the openly gay bishop whose 2003 election has led four dioceses to secede.
“It’s the leadership of this church giving up the unique claims of Christianity,” Harmon said. “They act like it’s Baskin-Robbins. You just choose a different flavor and everyone gets in the store.”
The article is more interesting in what it says about Ann Holmes Redding, including revealing quotes such as her likening Christianity to a child that sometimes fights with another child (Islam). I thought she had been defrocked already. If only TEC would move in her case with the alacrity with which faithful Christian priests joining ACNA have been deposed.
Incredible, truly, that the concept of Christianity in the Episcopal Church has come to this. Less than thirty years ago that it was still an uphill effort to gather enough Standing Committee consents for any bishop-elect who would not profess convincing belief in all the tenets of the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed and the “god-man” understanding of Jesus Christ established in the 5th century by the Council of Chalcedon. Now savior-less interfaith syncretism appears to be where the Spongians in charge remain determined to lead, the difference between Episcopalians and Masons is that Episcopalians seek publicity.
Henry [#2] writes:
Henry, less than thirty years ago it was also the case that ‘everyone knew’ common peptic ulcers were caused by diet and stress. Since then, though, additional evidence and insights have been revealed to us. Now, the consensus of people who have studied all the evidence is that ‘everyone’ was wrong — such ulcers are caused instead by an easily-treatable bacterium. (The two Aussie docs who discovered this, and who had to buck medical dogmatists on the point, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine a few years back.)
In the same vein, it does the church no good — and insults the memory of the Teacher — to categorically refuse to consider that the Creeds, authored by men, might simply be wrong.
It does DC no good to make such silly remarks. If the faith of Nicea and Chalcedon is not true, then using the capital-T for “teacher” means exactly nothing. It means less than to use capitals for DC. If Jesus is just this guy, then why oh why do people like DC continue to get up on Sunday and go to “church”? It says a lot more about conditioned reflexes (Oh, by the way, Pavlov was an Orthodox Christian believer, and Nobel winner) more than it does about rational thought or faith in Episcopalians and other Unitarians. If you don’t believe, have the guts to sleep in on Sunday. It makes no sense to hang on the extreme periphery of Christendom offering advice from an unbeliever. Just have brunch.
nwlayman [#4], I’d be happy to pick up this discussion again after you’ve had a chance to read up on the fallacy of the false dichotomy, and to find the three examples of the same in your comment. Until then, we’d both be wasting our time, because we’d be talking too much past one another to be able to have an intelligent conversation.
DC, if you can’t own the Creeds and Chalcedon, you are not Christian in the defined dogma of the Church Universal. You may believe whatever you choose but you deny the Faith. You certainly may do so. It is clear however that in so doing you elect to not be Christian in the received sense. Man up and call it what it is, “what I think”. But then sheer consistency should have you denying you are a Christian in any historical sort of way.
Check out the Scriptures and the Fathers. You might want to try here: http://www.creeds.net/
dwstroudmd [#6], I was baptized as an infant into the (soi-disant) Church Universal. I greatly admire the Jesus of whom we read in the NT, possibly above anyone else. I try, imperfectly, to obey the Summary of the Law that he (reportedly) emphasized as the key to eternal life. I fail to see, therefore, why my claim to the title of Christian is not as valid as anyone else’s —, like, say, yours.
On the subject of manning up … hell, I’m not even going to respond to that.