What other religious leaders are saying about the teachings of the Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester, the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan: “I don’t really see what there is left to say – the unique incarnation, saving death, bodily resurrection and universal lordship of Jesus are basic to Christian faith and to question that means you are disqualified from being an upholder of that faith in any official capacity in the church. That such a man should be considered even a possibility for a bishop is quite simply extraordinary.” – The right Rev. N.T. Wright, lord bishop of Durham, England “I think [Thew Forrester is] solidly a Christian believer, a disciple of Jesus Christ and will be a faithful bishop. … I don’t think he’s outside the tent of acceptable theological thinking and understanding.” – The right Rev. Tom Ely, bishop of Vermont “This gentleman, apparently, doesn’t believe the creeds. … The doctrine of redemption through the incarnation and atoning work and resurrection and heavenly reign at present and future return of the second person of the Godhead: That is Christianity. Take that away and you have destroyed the Christian religion. Period. That’s what Christianity is about.” – Regent College Professor of Theology J.I. Packer
[blockquote]Creative bishop elect[/blockquote]
I suppose that is one way of putting it.
[i]But Frank Guthrie, president of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Indianapolis, said he’s hesitant, as a lay person, to challenge Thew Forrester’s theology or to second-guess the people of Northern Michigan.[/i]
Presumably Mr. Guthrie was informed when he was elected to the standing committee that this was one of its functions, bishops being for the Church, not just the diocese.
What does he imagine the consent process to be about? If it doesn’t allow for review of dubious cases, then why bother to have the standing committees vote consent in the first place?
From the point of view of consistency, I trust he voted “aye” on the Lawrence election when it was under the microscope.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
[blockquote]The right Rev. N.T. Wright, lord bishop of Durham, England “I think [Thew Forrester is] solidly a Christian believer, a disciple of Jesus Christ and will be a faithful bishop. … I don’t think he’s outside the tent of acceptable theological thinking and understanding.†-[/blockquote] I guess we learn quite a bit about the orthodoxy of others by their comments on KTF. Is anyone else surprised by this comment besides me?
Dcn Dale, the quote you cite was made by the Bishop of Vermont and not the Bishop of Durham. At least that’s the way I read article.
#4. the roman,
Thanks, I misapplied the name to the quote. Pageantmaster emailed me to say this too. Never mind. So sorry.
It is confusing, the way it’s written. I had to do a double take on it.
But not as confused as the theology of Thew Forrester.
#6.vulcanhammer,
Thanks, there does seem to be a blurring of who said what. I should have realized from the get go that N.T. Wright would not have said that.
[blockquote]“I don’t really see what there is left to say – the unique incarnation, saving death, bodily resurrection and universal lordship of Jesus are basic to Christian faith and to question that means you are disqualified from being an upholder of that faith in any official capacity in the church. That such a man should be considered even a possibility for a bishop is quite simply extraordinary.†– The right Rev. N.T. Wright, lord bishop of Durham, England[/blockquote]
I would say that is a very clear view from the Bishop of Durham. I did wonder to start with if there was confusion with what the Bishop of Chester said a while ago, but this is not one of his quotes [he was talking I see about the Ragsdale “Abortion is Holy” EDS Dean appointment].
Coming from Bishop Tom I would say it is significant, but if you think about it, is incredible that bishops in a church in our Communion would think any thing else. It is as far as I know the first public comment by an English bishop on this and in my view good that he has spoken up for the Gospel.
[blockquote]This gentleman, apparently, doesn’t believe the creeds.[/blockquote]
This has not been a disqualifier for a while, it would seem. While leaving out the parts one doesn’t believe has been alluded to by many, I recall an interview w/+Robinson explicitly saying that was a strategy he was encouraged to employ while in school in order to proceed to ordination. I firmly believe +Robinson was/is not unique in this regard, though it is tragic one could be ordained at all, let alone a bishop while not fully assenting to the tenets of the creeds.
9. montanan,
I am in agreement with your observation. Many of the liberals in TEC view the creeds as quaint vestiges of an unenlightened bygone era. KJS as one example has frankly admitted that she views Scripture through the eyes of Science. So much for the faith (those things unseen) as a necessary aspect of our theology.
Given how far “outside the box” … a veto will not be at all surprising.
I also have issues with the process behind his election.
While some in The Episcopal Church here in the United States may view the Apostles Creed as quaint … the great majority in my rather liberal parish certainly don’t.
As for the Presiding Bishop viewing Scripture though the eyes of Science … I applaud her. Science is a God given gift.
And speaking of Church … time to go.
The Apostles’ Creed expresses the faith of those who were martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There has been no finer expression of Christianity since.
11. First Family Virginian
[blockquote]Science is a God given gift.[/blockquote]
As someone who has produced and published research, I would not argue the value of science as a gift from God. It is not however something through which I view my faith. Science is, in my view not another religion and the truth discovered via science may inform faith but it does not supersede it. I would not capitalize the word “science” unless it were at the beginning of a sentence which demonstrates the difference of our perspectives.
Dcn Dale, as an engineer who has published a little research in his time ([url=http://www.vulcanhammer.info/drivability/isa.php]including this[/url],) I am inclined to agree with you.
I think one of the key weaknesses of the New Atheism (among others) is that it tends to turn science into a secular religion. Once science becomes a religion, it ceases to be science.