In the Christian Church, bishops are not “private citizens”. They are called “to be one with the apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel, and to testify to Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings . . . [and] to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” (BCP, p. 517). These are solemn obligations, and inherent to the ministry of bishop in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. St. Paul himself lays this charge upon his successor, Timothy: “Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).
A bishop’s teaching ministry must never be idiosyncratic. We have no message other than the one that has been given to us. The task of bishops is to pass on that message as faithfully as we can; to proclaim Jesus Christ ”“ crucified, risen, coming again; clearly and winsomely to present his person and his work; and to offer the world a Gospel that challenges, heals, and restores us to a relationship with the Father. With the information I have at hand, I am not convinced that Fr. Thew Forrester would be able to discharge this essential obligation of episcopal office.
I cast my No vote without joy; indeed, with sorrow in my heart. If the Church denies consent for Fr. Thew Forrester to be consecrated as Bishop of Northern Michigan, it will be a tragic development for the diocese, and for Fr. Thew Forrester himself. He is, from all reports, a beloved and respected priest, passionate about ministry and committed to his people. Please join me in praying for him, and for the diocese, that in the midst of a most difficult time Jesus will be experienced more and more deeply, and ultimately his kingdom extended and his people with encouraged.
“A bishop’s teaching ministry must never be idiosyncratic. We have no message other than the one that has been given to us. The task of bishops is to pass on that message as faithfully as we can; to proclaim Jesus Christ – crucified, risen, coming again; clearly and winsomely to present his person and his work; and to offer the world a Gospel that challenges, heals, and restores us to a relationship with the Father. With the information I have at hand, I am not convinced that Fr. Thew Forrester would be able to discharge this essential obligation of episcopal office.”
And yet the bishop speaking here thinks Forrester is a good candidate… As has been noted over and over, Christianity is incompatable with Buddhism.
#1… I agree. This is a common pattern from moderate bishops. They want to have it both ways. They want on the one hand to appear to take a firm stand for the Nicene faith, typically in the form of disciplining some priest (though they don’t typically do so until the orthodox blogosphere has made it difficult to do otherwise); but at the same time they give the priest in question appallingly fulsome praise. Bishop Wolf did they same thing with Ann Holmes Redding.
If Forrester really is a heretic, then why would it be a tragedy if he isn’t the bishop of Northern Michigan? If he is a heretic, how could he be passionate about Christian ministry? If Ann Holmes Redding is a person of “utmost integrity” — how could she have been taking money from a church and reciting creeds she disbelieves?
Oh, Sure they are compatible. All that is required for a succesful integration is that you actually *believe* neither.
Then either or both, along with wicca, druidism and neopagan crystal-gazing can be understood in a metphoric and symbolic nature only, so that they support whatever is already in my head to believe.
They, collectively become only the window-dressing I put around my own thought, and can be interchanged at will.
Give me a real Buddhist any day over this lukewarm mish-mash “Oh! that you were either cold or hot!…”
Anyone know the scorecard up and down at this point?
[blockquote] I cast my No vote without joy; indeed, with sorrow in my heart. If the Church denies consent for Fr. Thew Forrester to be consecrated as Bishop of Northern Michigan, it will be a tragic development for the diocese, and for Fr. Thew Forrester himself.[/blockquote]
So if it will be tragic if the Church denies consent, why vote ‘no’? Did I miss something in what he said?
This is a typically gracious piece of writing by my old friend, Ed Little. He states with clarity the reason for his vote, theologically, ecclesiologically, and ecclesiastically, and yet there is a generosity to what he writes and how he writes it. In affirming the strengths of Fr. Forrester he demonstrates clearly that there is no need to kick a man when he is already down.
Having read what Bishop Little said I then looked at the responses to his statement and was disappointed to see that for those who claim orthodoxy there is little place for generosity or grace. Orthodoxy is not just about believing rightly, it is about doing rightly as a consequence of that belief, but it seems that for some this excludes grace, generosity, or merely civility.
[blockquote] This is a typically gracious piece of writing by my old friend, Ed Little. He states with clarity the reason for his vote, theologically, ecclesiologically, and ecclesiastically, and yet there is a generosity to what he writes and how he writes it. In affirming the strengths of Fr. Forrester he demonstrates clearly that there is no need to kick a man when he is already down. [/blockquote]
I agree. This looks kind of like a White House firing, where the POTUS gives gracious praise in public for the person who’s resignation he’s requested in private, and the soon to be former employee expresses gratitude and his sincere wish to spend more time with his family. There is no need to be publicly uncivil or punitive in this explanation of denial of consent. There is no denying that this will be a tragedy for the diocese, just as we understand that it would be a greater tradgedy for TEC and the AC to consecrate yet another unworthy leader.
Fascinating. Neither myself, nor poster Martin5, suggested that the bishop attack the person of Thew F. The bishop’s calm measured gentle statement of and rationale for objection was fine. That alone is what should have been said.
What Martin5 and myself objected to was then adding fulsome (and according to Elanor #7, dishonest) praise regarding TF’s person that undercut the objection.
That said, it’s obvious that I have hurt the feelings of Richard Kew, who is a deep and close friend of the bishop. And for that I am truly sorry. Because of that, I don’t feel it would be productive to keep “debating” this point, since it will only grind salt into an RK’s wound. Again, I am sorry and will bow out of further comments.
The reason that I wrote “And yet the bishop speaking here thinks Forrester is a good candidate… As has been noted over and over, Christianity is incompatable with Buddhism.” is that in the part he quoted, he noted a list of things that a bishop needs to have but Forrester clearly does not because of his split allegience. I would be just as appalled by a person being put forward (especially in the unusual circumstances that currently are involved) who has doctrine that is spot on with the historic faith and yet goes out and rolls a joint with his friends a few times a week. One who is ordained is supposed to preach Christ through both his “life and doctrine.” We should not have need to appologize for not ordaining somebody to a position when these two conditions are not met.
That being said, #’s 6 & 7, you are right that we do not need to pour salt on the wound, but we certainly should not say a bishop should meet qualifications X, Y, and Z and although this person does not meet X or Y I hope he still is ordained, this is the problem I had with what the bishop wrote. I truly think there is a major problem with this kind of thinking.
P.S. there are plenty of things I’m sure he could have said to praise Forrester besides, in essence, ‘I hope he becomes a bishop even though he doesn’t hold the apostles’ teachings.’
Thank you, Jon. I think it is enough to say ‘no’ and respectfully give your reasons for it. Just like those who vote ‘yes’, I hope they also give their reasoning for it. This candidate has raised some issues that are problematic for many judging by the responses by the different dioceses around the country. I have not added any ‘salt’ by questioning his statement afterwards. It was intended as an honest question.
#6. Richard Kew,
[blockquote]If the Church denies consent for Fr. Thew Forrester to be consecrated as Bishop of Northern Michigan, it will be a tragic development for the diocese, and for Fr. Thew Forrester himself.[/blockquote]
It is one thing to say “no” in a courteous way but I think this statement is confusing and makes one question what Bishop Little has said prior to this. It almost makes it sound like he is voting “no” but hopes KTF will get the necessary consents. I realize he is your old friend but hope you will view this objectively.
Bishop Little and Fr. Kew demonstrate that one may exercise firm, explicit, articulate dissent without hard-heartedness. They note that the current unfortunate state of affairs provides no outcome that will not cause injury to people who earnestly seek God’s Kingdom (howbeit in misguided ways). The process toward nomination and consecration should not have come to this point.
Neither of these gentle men expressed or implied the wish that Fr. Thew Forrester be consecrated; at the risk of ascribing to them opinions that they do not hold, I will suggest that they would regard his consecration as an even greater tragedy for him for Northern Michigan, and for the church as a whole. One may hold such an assessment, however, without scandalizing Jesus’ little ones in Northern Michigan by making that assessment explicit. At a time of great tribulation in the church, we more work to be done in building up sound faith and responsible ecclesiology than in distributing insults and ascribing dishonest and unworthy motives to thoughtful leaders.
Grrr; careful editing produces even greater muddle than the spontaneous composition.
“…we have more work to be done…”
#13. AKMA,
[blockquote]One may hold such an assessment, however, without scandalizing Jesus’ little ones in Northern Michigan by making that assessment explicit.[/blockquote] Would you clarify what this statement means?
I didn’t mean to imply anything about honesty or dishonesty, simply that at certain levels of leadership, we expect professionalism and gracious, civil behavior. For instance, gratuitous public use of the F bomb or other obscenity (a la LBJ) is generally considered unprofessional (unless you are a WWII 4 star general). Praising a man you consider essentially good hearted but a poor choice for bishop, looks to me like decent behavior by a church leader.
Dcn Dan: I take Bp. Little to be showing charitable respect for the people of Northern Michigan who have tried their best to choose a fitting bishop for their diocese.
The church in Northern Michigan has been taught and encouraged to think in the ways its leaders now do; as the Epistle of James reminds us, the judgment for those errors lies with those who taught them thus.
17. AKMA,
Thanks for the clarification.
Has anybody publicly announced a ‘yes’ vote for Forrester?
Dcn Dale and Sidney: My current count is 15 No, 1 Yes.
The Yes vote I’ve recorded is Neff Powell of SW VA. He supposedly wrote his clergy about it following the HoB meeting, but I’ve not seen the letter, so it’s still somewhat in the category of “hearsay” – would love better confirmation.
Anglican Centrist has 5 other bishops listed as voting No which would take us up to 20 No votes & 1 yes. See Anglican Centrist’s post here: http://tinyurl.com/dxckzm
Not sure where he’s getting info on Rhode Island, SW Florida or Mississippi. He’s in North Carolina, so news of +Curry’s NO vote seems solid enough as does the report re: South Carolina & Springfield.
#20. Karen B.
How many “no” votes would end his bid?
I’m not sure on the exact number of diocesan bishops at this point – i.e. how many sees are vacant and what canon law will mean in terms of votes from the rump dioceses of San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh and Ft. Worth, but if there are 111 TEC dioceses, 56 No votes would mean he is denied consents. Note, this is 56 NO votes by either bishops OR standing committees – he has to gain consent of a majority of both.
To put it positively: to gain consent he needs 56 or more Yes votes from the standing committees PLUS 56 Yes votes (give or take a few…) from the bishops.
AKMA #13, “Neither of these gentle men (Bishop Little and Fr. Kew) expressed or implied the wish that Fr. Thew Forrester be consecrated…”
I think you are completely incorrect in saying that Bp. Little did not imply he wished Forrester to be consecrated from the fact that he said “If the Church denies consent for Fr. Thew Forrester to be consecrated as Bishop of Northern Michigan, it will be a tragic development for the diocese, and for Fr. Thew Forrester himself.” In other words, he should be consecrated so that there are no hurt feelings, forget what a bishop is supposed to be…
So, as I said, I think he says pretty clearly that he hopes Forrester is consecrated.