The headline grabber is that Thew Forrester is both an Episcopal priest and an ordained ”” whatever that means ”” teacher of Zen Buddhism. However, it is also interesting that, when he was elected, Thew Forrester was the only nominee. In an attempt to derail the election, conservatives are asking, “Who anointed him in this manner and why?”
The bishop-elect has avoided mainstream coverage, in part, by declining interviews from publications such as the respected Anglican periodical The Living Church. The lack of info has allowed his supporters to simply say he is being attacked by people who have no interest in understand the complex nature of his approach to these faiths.
However, Frank “Bible Belt Blogger” Lockwood of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has marched into the gap, landing an interview that may be just as hot as his famous ”” on the record, nicely recorded ”” interview with former President Carter in which he called the George W. Bush administration the “worst in history.”
You’ll need to check it out. But here is the top of the story, which is a rare mainstream news report that asks basic doctrinal questions and then prints the answers. Note that Lockwood assumes that this controversy actually centers on religious doctrines and liturgical issues, not simply politics. What a concept.
In reality, what Thew Forrester is saying isn’t anything terribly new within TEC. Even the PB proudly displays much of the same heresy. My journey out of TEC began around the year 2000 when my bishop gave a sermon at our parish that was largely a paraphrase of what KTF anf KJS now espouse. I was gone less than a year later, having remained as long as I could bear it for the sake of my family.
You won’t clean up an organization whose entire purpose is to get and remain filthy, folks.
Frank Lockwood is an awesome journalist. His reporting is very thoughtful and fair. He has the intelligence, curiosity, and knowledge go beyond the usual, nuance free, stereotypical “religious” coverage. The Lexington Herald-Leader should never have let him go!
Jeffersonian, which bishop was that?
The similarity between Forester’s and Schori’s views hasn’t gone unnoticed. However, judging from the reactions of the nonconsenting bishops, it seems to me that Forester’s, um, self-approved freedom to change the liturgy is attracting the most attention, and while I too have big problems with Schori’s theology, as far as I know she hasn’t gone in for such revisionism. Also, I think Redding’s apostasy and Forester’s “ordination” (whatever the heck that means) have changed the playing field. The procedural irregularities and conflicts of interest have only added to the pressure to consider his election more closely. Also, I would hazard a guess that social liberals with commitments to Nicene orthodoxy do not need to rely upon the heretics as much for votes, and therefore are less willing to cut them slack. It is still always going to be hard to depose a bishop who slides into this level of heresy, but it may be the case now that these expressions of heresy may be enough to prevent one from becoming a bishop.
And not that I have paid attention to every election out there, but I’d like some solid evidence that bishops obtained their thrones in spite of plainly heretical statements. The most conspicuous offenders had changes of heart while in office.
#3. C. Wingate,
[blockquote]And not that I have paid attention to every election out there, but Iâ€™d like some solid evidence that bishops obtained their thrones in spite of plainly heretical statements. The most conspicuous offenders had changes of heart while in office.[/blockquote]
So, they were just smart enough to keep their mouths shut until they became bishops. Are you also saying Gene Robinson is the only Gay bishop in TEC? If the Bishops are so orthodox what happened to orthodoxy?
[blockquote]Jeffersonian, which bishop was that? [/blockquote]
Dale, that is just not the history of bishops like Robinson, Pike, and Spong, all of whom wrote copiously. In retrospect I would say that advocacy of Tillich’s ideas was not a good sign; but particularly in the case of Pike and Spong there is a clear pattern of radicalization in their writings, and I don’t think it’s just a question of them being more honest about their heresies. Their positions changed for the worse as time passed.
Yes, I remember Pike was quite orthodox at the start of his career.