In a story published Friday, the Democrat-Gazette interviews the Buddhist abbot who helped Thew Forrester take his Buddhist vows. The story also contains interviews with bishops supporting and opposing Thew Forrester and an interview with the bishop-elect.
Among other things, Thew Forrester said he believes in evil, but not a literal Satan. He also rejects the idea that Jesus came to earth to die for the sins of the world:
“God did not send Jesus here to be killed or be crucified by the Romans, which is a brutal murder. But Jesus has become incarnate to reveal to us who God is. He’s a God of love and forgiveness and mercy. ”¦ Jesus’ death itself was not the will of God. God did not desire Jesus to be killed,” Thew Forrester said.
Good, sound theology, for a Unitarian Unversalist. The man is not Christian, by definition. How in the world can he be ordained, and how can he not be apostate?!
[i]”“God did not send Jesus here to be killed or be crucified by the Romans, which is a brutal murder. But Jesus has become incarnate to reveal to us who God is. He’s a God of love and forgiveness and mercy. … Jesus’ death itself was not the will of God. God did not desire Jesus to be killed,†Thew Forrester said.”[/i]
Wow..if this is accurate how can anyone mitigate such statements? No Agnus Dei to take away the sin of the world and since Jesus’ death was against God’s will..no Agony in the Garden. How could we have gotten it wrong for so long until this latest candidate to the episcopacy came along to correct us?
And, the roman, if “God did not desire Jesus to be killed,” no all-powerful, redeeming God either – Jesus being “killed” means God was powerless to stop His death.
No one should bother disputing Kevin’s twisted theology, since it is a formulation precisely contrary to all of the received teaching of both Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Any orthodox Christian who has a modicum of knowledge can see that Kevin is condemned by his own words as a soul-destroying heretic. Though he would not see it this way, Kevin desires to become a heresiarch for the purpose of leading others astray, because SURELY he will teach this rubbish bare-headed in church if he should become a pseudo-bishop. At the very least he would be deposed in the Roman and Orthodox Churches, and probably be excommunicated as well, for holding and teaching strange doctrines which if believed would overthrow the entire structure of the Christian faith all the way down to its foundations.
Let me repeat what I said a couple of weeks ago (about this Forrester guy): This man is NOT qualified to serve in a vestry of any Christian church. Period.
The fact that he is a priest – in – good standing in the Church is a joke; and the idea of elevating him to the bishopric is an insult to Christianity and to Our Lord.
I certainly understand some people may have opposing ideas on some issues and teachings of the Church, but not on the core essentials such as these.
What in the world is going on here? With men and women like this in leadership, what is the future of Anglicanism? Unless something drastic happens………..
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, Texas
I don’t know Fr. Forrester, but he sounds like one who seeks both the truth and to serve others. It’s not at all clear that a bishop needs any other qualification.
#6, for an atheist, you’re probably right.
While attending the University of California forty years ago, I knew a number of Thesophists — and wacky Episcopalians. The Theosophists were at least honest about their system of belief. The Episcopalians were trying on every new (read “cool”) thing or ancient thing that they discovered hoping to import it into PECUSA. To a great extent they have succeeded. But I always wondered why they just didn’t do the honest thing and become Theosophists who believe —
The three declared objects of the original Theosophical Society as established by Blavatsky, Judge and Olcott were as follows:
First — To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.
Second — To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and Science.
Third — To investigate the unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man. Note: From Wikipedia
As the “sheeple” in the US-UK march on in blissful ignorance an inanity, I am commanded to be faithful. When a group begins to believe only in their innate superiority and entitlement, they do not bother to think deeply or pursue any objective that does not have them (as in the “me generation”) at the center. There is no room for the trinitarian God in this equation.
Has anyone pondered why the charge of the new age is led by the English speaking world? I humbly suggest that at least part of the answer lies in that old adage: follow the money.
DC, read the ordinal. Your ignorance can be remedied. Genpo’s, not so much, since it is apparently willful blindness.
I agree with Spiro (#5), it is incredible that he is still a priest.
dwstroudmd [#9], like any organization, the church is entitled to define the prerequisites for office; that doesn’t mean the prerequisites it has chosen are wise.
I sincerely hope people follow the link at the bottom of Bible belt blogger’s entry to the full text of the article as there are many quotes of real value in there.
[blockquote]God did not send Jesus here to be killed or be crucified by the Romans, which is a brutal murder. KTF[/blockquote]
[blockquote]And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 13:8[/blockquote]
This is not a man sufficiently grounded in Scripture to be a Bishop.
#6. D. C. Toedt,
[blockquote]I don’t know Fr. Forrester, but he sounds like one who seeks both the truth and to serve others. It’s not at all clear that a bishop needs any other qualification.[/blockquote]
Based on your above qualifications, an attorney, waiter, scientist, philosopher, concierge, bartender, or pretty much anyone could be a bishop. By the way D.C., how about adequate training as a prerequisite? And don’t forget he is a nice guy too.
#6 – this is not an ad hominem attack, but when you wrote “I don’t know Fr. Forrester, but he sounds like one who seeks both the truth and to serve others. It’s not at all clear that a bishop needs any other qualification” I thought that surely you must be writing ironically, or in jest. There are many, many requirements for being a bishop, most of which are found in the Ordinal. Please turn to BCP page 517 to get a rather good list -for starters. Seekers ought always to be most warmly welcomed in the church’s life. Those who have “Found” (as well as having been found by) Jesus and have an exemplary grasp of the historic Faith (which not only bishops but the whole Church, clergy and lay, are called to guard) as well as other identified gifts are the only ones who should be made clerics.
[i]“The faith is not a static reality. It’s continually evolving and dynamic,†he said. “I think what we’ve done is quite responsible and appropriate and indeed the church needs to do it in order to stay relevant in the 21st century.â€[/i]
I apologize beforehand to my Anglo-Catholic brethren across the river and I intend no insult to you all but this statement only reinforces our (RC) stereotype of Protestantism as a “make-it-up-as-you-go-along” religion.
#16. the roman,
I apologize to my traditional Roman Catholic brethren across the river and I intend no insult to you all but Hans Kung was Roman Catholic.
Dcn Dale –
Hans Kung was also stripped of his status as a Catholic theologian. Arguably, he is a material heretic, but I’m fairly certain he isn’t a formal heretic, at least in his published writings. In any case, what I’ve read of Kung would make him a rather conservative protestant, not nearly as far out as Forrester. To my knowledge (and it’s been awhile since I read him), he doesn’t deny creedal truths.
In other words, our wing nuts are a lot closer to the fuselage than your wing nuts. 🙂
forgot the smilies aren’t working…
#18. Words Matter,
[blockquote]To my knowledge (and it’s been awhile since I read him), he doesn’t deny creedal truths.[/blockquote]
It’s been awhile for me too but I remember that Huns Kung denied the divinity of Christ. I would call this a heretic. He got into trouble with the Roman Church because he denied Papal infallibility. He participated in the Third Buddhist-Christian Theological Encounter. He was allowed to continue teaching theology just not as a Catholic. He remained a practicing priest. As an Anglo Catholic, I have the greatest respect for the R.C. Church but the “umbrella” of Roman Catholicism also includes liberation theology and Daniel McGuire who taught at my Jesuit University and advocated euthanasia. Roman Catholicism even contains those who deny the holocaust. So, while it is a bastion of orthodoxy at it’s core, pretty much all perspectives in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism could still fit under the umbrella of the Roman Church.
Dcn Dale –
I went googling and found claims that Fr. Kung denied the divinity of Christ, specifically in On Being a Christian, but I found no evidence. I have an abbreviated version of that book and found no such denial. NOTE: I have no respect for Kung, McGuire, McBrien, Chittister, or any of the others, but specific allegations do need evidence.
I will, however, allow that some Catholics, somewhere, deny the divinity of Christ. But they are part of the Roman Catholic Church; they are not part of “Roman Catholicism”, as you put it. Catholic and Anglican ecclesiology are profoundly different. We view the Church in light of the magesterial teachings which are binding on the members. That some (many!) members rebel against their duties of faith and practice is no surprise. From the Catholic perspective, the presence of tares doesn’t sully the Faith. Some tares even end up bishops and running seminaries, although they have fairly well hidden their heresies and deviancies (if you get my drift). Let me back-peddle: it’s a false dichotomy to speak of the Church and the Faith as separate, but it is true that a defined Faith exists under magesterial authority and that Faith judges the Church, laity and clergy alike.
A couple of notes, not to be contentious, but to clarify:
The University of Tubingen is a public entity. The Church has no say in who they hire to teach, accept in the Catholic theological faculty. After losing his Catholic credentials, Fr. Kung transferred to the ecumenical faculty.
Is it supposed to be a bad thing to participate in a Buddhist/Christian dialogue? What about the Christian/Muslim dialogue convened by Pope Benedict? Are the papers online? I couldn’t find them.
Holocaust denial does not touch on matters of Faith. In fact, with 1.2 billion people, you will find someone in the Catholic Church who believes just about any crazy thing you want to mention. See comments above. I will also note that the relationship of the SSPX and the Church is pretty complex and Bp. Williamson probably shouldn’t be blamed on us. He originally went to them because we wouldn’t ordain him.
The magesterium responded to Liberation Theology; of course, individual members of the Church continue to hold Marxist ideology, I suppose (I don’t know any). Again, see comments above.
Finally, I would note that when we speak of another Christian communion, we speak of them according to their own point of view. It makes no sense to apply Anglican ecclesiology to the Catholic Church. I understand that you disagree with us on the nature of the Church, but to see what we do outside of our reference is not helpful.
BTW, I understand that your snark was in reply to the roman’s snark, and, while I agree with his point, I wouldn’t have made it in this forum. This business with Fr. Forrester (as with Bp. Robinson) is tragic and us outsiders should basically stay out of it. I try (failing sometimes) to limit my comments on Anglican matters and focus more on the frequent Catholic posts.
Best wishes.
#21. Words Matter.
“In any case, what I’ve read of Kung would make him a rather conservative protestant”
[blockquote] Küng’s prolific writings questioned the formulation of such traditional church doctrine as papal infallibility, the divinity of Christ, and teachings about the Virgin Mary. In 1979 a Vatican censure that banned his teaching as a Catholic theologian provoked international controversy, and in 1980 a settlement was reached at Tübingen that allowed him to teach under secular rather than Catholic auspices.[/blockquote]
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/324920/Hans-Kung
For you to compare Kung to a “conservative protestant” demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Christology of conservative protestants or an unwillingness to believe he was against the divinity of Christ. They would be in agreement about the error of the Papal infalability, the teachings about Mary and celibate clergy but conservative protestants certainly believe in the divinity of Christ. If you are unwilling to accept the EB as a reliable source then there is not much else I can say.
an unwillingness to believe he was against the divinity of Christ.
23. Words Matter,
I believe I have provided you with evidence that Kung did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Now, would you like to recant your comparison of a heretic to conservative protestants? That has now become my point.
Dcn Dale,
Words Matter was right. I should have kept my thoughts to myself. I am sorry for making comments that painted everyone with the same brush. The RCC has had her share of characters as well and heretical ideas are not exclusive to one creedal denomination over another.
My in-laws left TEC for Uganda as it were and will be staying with us when ACNA gets together here in Bedford, Tx this June. In the 6 years I’ve known them I’ve watched their journey with prayful hope. It saddened me to see their consternation, their embarrassment, their pain and ultimately their decision to leave TEC after a lifetime of service. I guess in the end they felt being faithful to the Truth outweighs loyalty to a “province” although they of course remain Anglican.
Heretical Roman Catholics do not necessarily interest me because they excommunicate themselves and need our prayers that they might return. But much like a passerby at an accident I am fascinated by the continuing struggles within that church which compelled my beloved in-laws to leave. They themselves do not share my interest, it’s behind them now and unlike Lot’s wife they’ve no inclination to look back.
So if indeed I have insulted you or anyone else I apologize, it wasn’t a very useful or helpful comment to begin with and I’ll practice biting my lip harder next time.
God bless.
Dcn Dale,
If it makes you happy, fine. You seems a little defensive, though. Perhaps if you read what I actually wrote. Apparently I wasted my time trying to be irenic.
roman,
I’m thinking of crashing an ACNA liturgy to hear some good music and preaching. Might see you in Bedford.
Great work by Frank Lockwood. A really solid detailed story.
No surprise to see the support voiced by +Ely and +Caldwell, they were two of the sponsors of Northern Michigan’s bishop search process so have been very involved in this election, as I believe, has been the Presiding Bishop.
Words Matter:
[blockquote]In other words, our wing nuts are a lot closer to the fuselage than your wing nuts.[/blockquote]
On a somewhat lighter note . . .
The smilies may not be working but I’ll be laughing over that comment for some time to come. Just made my day.
But is the Bark of Peter now a great big aircraft instead? That’s what I call some serious [i]aggiornamento[/i]!
Anglicans still rely on the traditional seafaring model, which is why the Episcopal Church keeps getting compared to one of those trans-Atlantic ocean liners (the name escapes me at the moment) that has all sorts of trouble keeping people onboard, and may have a great deal more.
It’s not wing nuts we’re worried about, just too many loose rivets. Boy, are they ever loose!
That, and not enough screws in the cloakroom coat hooks. But we’re pressing on.
Now that you’re airborne, maybe you folks could do an occasional fly over . . . er . . . just in case.
Words Matter and the roman,
My essential reason for pressing my point is my hope that conservative Protestants, especially reformed Catholics, and Anglo Catholics will become closer to Roman Catholics. It is my hope that within my lifetime there will be alter pulpit fellowship between ACNA and Roman Catholics. If not, in the next life we will be together in the communion of Saints.