Bishop Glenn Davies: TEC’s first Buddhist bishop?

Kevin Forrester’s election needs to be confirmed by a majority of standing committees and bishops in the TEC before he can be consecrated. It will be an interesting test for the TEC. Will they stand for the uniqueness of Christ? Will they recognise that Buddhism and biblical Christianity are mutually exclusive?

Read it all.

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Church of Australia, Anglican Provinces, Episcopal Church (TEC), TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Northern Michigan

9 comments on “Bishop Glenn Davies: TEC’s first Buddhist bishop?

  1. Bernini says:

    [i]Will they recognise that Buddhism and biblical Christianity are mutually exclusive?[/i]


  2. Sarah1 says:


    This is TEC, remember. I think there will be a fine crew of Standing Committees and bishops who do not vote to confirm. But the vast majority of bishops and Standing Committees will do so . . . thus further demonstrating the thing we’ve all been talking about.

    Two gospels.

    Two faiths.

    One organization.

    My guess — judging by the stats from the past five years — is that easily 2/3 of the bishops will approve Thew — or 3/4. Won’t be less than 2/3.

    My estimate of the current house has been that 1/3 or less — probably less — believe the gospel.

    This will be interesting further evidence.

  3. nwlayman says:

    Well, shouldn’t this read first *admitted* Buddhist bishop? Something like Spong (religion all about him and seemingly founded by him), Pike (one of several Unitarians, by no means first or last), or Harris (the Orthodox have a Lesbian bishop too, though all his flock are also Lesbians in Mytilene) ?

  4. robroy says:

    I made a comment at Mark Harris+’s place which I thought was rather droll:

    Bishops are suppose to be defenders of the faith [i]not faiths[/i].

  5. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Unless they are angling for Prince Charles’ title to be…..if he has his druthers or they theirs.

  6. rugbyplayingpriest says:

    more worrying than the Bhuddist bish is the lack of fuss being made about it. This is every bit as heretical and dangerous as Robinsongate…but no one seems very bothered. Were many of the supposed orthodox really just homophobes after all? (Explaining why so many also put up with WO) Or are the faithful now gone to other places and no-one cares much about PECUSA any longer?

    Genuinly find the silence strange…

  7. Sarah1 says:

    Rugby — re: “Were many of the supposed orthodox really just homophobes after all?”

    Um — so far all the folks at SF are just as outraged and horrified as with Robinsongate. We’ve posted literally *scores* of posts at SF.

  8. Pb says:

    I am amused by process of making up names to define folks who disagree with TEC. Get ready to be called Buddhaphobic.

  9. Milton says:

    Or perhaps TEC reappraiser leadership is Hydrophobic?