Moreover, the simple fact that the House of Bishops should be broad in its theology and open in its mind (while true) does not preclude bishops and standing committees from determing in faith that a given candidate is out of bounds.
Kimsey likewise claims that Breidenthal (and those who agree with him) are "blocking access" to the floor of the House of Bishops - as if such access were a birth right of anybody. That's simply not so. As well, to accuse Breidenthal and others of "shutting off a faucet" of conversation and theological exploration likewise goes to rhetorical extreme that is simply absurdist. Finally, to suggest that Forrester was "elected overwhelmingly" is likewise nearly meaningless -- since Forrester was the ONLY candidate. Getting 88% of the vote would normally be impressive - unless you run uncontested.
Bishop Kimsey writes:
Dear Thomas:
I am alarmed by your March 31, 2009 letter regarding Kevin Thew Forrester’s fitness for his episcopal election.
If I am accurate in my reading of why you refuse to consent to his election, you maintain that unless a person holds the same view of a theology of atonement that you do, they have no right to be a bishop. “Being alarmed” does not come close to the emotion I know by your position in this matter.
The theological issue you raise has to do with the question of what did God wrought on that Good Friday through the death of my Lord, Jesus. You maintain: the conviction at the heart of our faith tradition, namely, that we are in bondage to sin and cannot get free without the rescue God has offered us in Jesus, who shouldered our sins on the cross.
And you maintain that: he (Kevin) appears to be settled in his conviction that our relation to Christ is not about salvation from a condition of objective alienation from God, but about a more realized union with God.
My alarm is simply this: are you attempting to stifle and/or eliminate a theological discussion that is as old as our faith tradition? Are you attempting to say that the Augustinian view of Original Sin is the only game in town? You and I could cite theologian after theologian who disagreed with one another over this pivotal issue of our nature--and the corresponding issue of the nature of God’s grace--and what occurred on Good Friday--and what was consummated on Easter morning, but the primary point of my entreaty to you is that we should welcome the debate. I find it reprehensible to even think of denying you access to the floor of the House of Bishops because of your theological belief about atonement. In the same vein, I find it reprehensible to think of your denying Kevin Thew Forrester access to the floor of the House of Bishops because of his
theological views on this pivotal issue. I also believe you are naïve if you think Kevin is a lone voice about union and communion with God through Christ being THE cardinal tenet for our understanding of salvation. Irenaeus comes to mind and there are more….and more….and more.
One of my fondest heroes in my twenty years in the House of Bishops was Bennett Sims. Bennett was a great admirer of Pelagius, that irascible and wise opponent of Augustine of Hippo, and Bennett often would proclaim it time for a heresy (Pelagianism) to be revisited for the sake of truth seeking. Bennett was ever the guardian of digging deeper and exploring more widely the parameters of our blessed faith tradition, and the House of Bishops was more attentive to one another and wiser because of him.
You may be right about those things that matter most to you, but you do not have the right to turn off the faucet of discussion and discernment in our quest for the truth. I have been a bishop for twenty eight years and I fear for the environment of our great Church when lines are drawn in the sand as you have done with Kevin’s consent process and proclaim that a good Christian person does not have the right to pursue his quest for truth as a bishop…..even when elected overwhelmingly by his brothers and sisters in Christ in a diocese he has served faithfully for eight years.
If you prevail and Kevin’s election is not agreed to, what is the next litmus test to be? And perhaps the telling question is: if you prevail and Kevin’s election is not agreed to, what word do you have for the people of Northern Michigan? I would suggest you cut us all some slack and withdraw your opposition to Kevin’s election. In so doing you would add a moment of grace to a Communion that, I believe, is in search of openness and transparency, not inquisitional standards employed through the consent process.
Thank you for your attention, and I wish you well.
I am Faithfully yours in Christ,
Rustin,
Assisting Bishop for the Diocese of Alaska
8 comments:
I find it problematic that this implies that the episcopate is a right, rather than primarily a responsibility. I am reminded of Fr. DeKoven, who also did not receive consents though in core matters, he was orthodox. He, I'm sure, was hurt by this, perhaps even angered. But he persevered as an Episcopalian, and we are blessed to commemorate him for his faithfulness on March 22. If indeed Fr. Thew Forrester is faithful, his faithfulness will not be measured only if by his becoming bishop.
I am troubled that it is a problem for bishops, as well as the entire Church, to raise doctrinal questions when an episcopal candidate is presented who does not seem to adequately articulate the faith once delivered. And indeed, articulates an understanding that seems at odds with our core to the point of willingly and willfully changing our central rites (Baptism and Eucharist). It is the responsibility of our bishops to raise these questions. And it is the responsibility of every Episcopalian, ordained and lay alike, to do the same. As a layman, I withhold my "Amen!" and "Axios!"
(As an aside, as a layman and liturgist, I grew very weary of the almost complete breakdown of the Prayer Book as normative for our central rites. It's hard to really sink deeply into the constancy of God's love when it's all changed up every week, every month, and every year.)
I also believe you are naïve if you think Kevin is a lone voice about union and communion with God through Christ being THE cardinal tenet for our understanding of salvation. Irenaeus comes to mind and there are more….and more….and more.
Certainly, St Irenaeus is big on my list of companion theologians. However, what Bp. Kinsey seems to miss is that many of us do not find in Fr. Thew Forrester's sermons, writings, or liturgies this "through Christ" aspect. Only through, with, and in Christ is communion and union with God possible because alienation and estrangement are in Him overcome. That Hinge seems weak in places, and missing in others. In what I have read, it seems more that Christ reveals that if we take the scales off our eyes, throw out illuion, and get a clue, we can realize our already union with God. This is sin as lack of knowledge, rather than sin as alienation. It is more gnostic, than orthodox.
I would suggest that were Fr. Thew Forrester more familiar with St Nazianzus, Rahner, or Maurice in our own tradition, he would find powerful affirmations of that union and communion that are nonetheless orthodox because it is through, with, and in Jesus Christ who has overcome...
So, yes, we have a variety of understandings of Atonement, having no one teaching endorsing a particular theory, but we do have a clear recognition that Atonement is part-in-parcel of the Incarnation--"for us and for our salvation" "forgivness of sins". God the Son, Jesus Christ, overcomes our estrangement and alienation from God for us as one of us. The Bible has a richness of takes on this that give us insight into the amazing work that this is for us and to us. All sorts of these biblical metaphors and synedoche show up in our Creeds and Prayer Book. To overlook that we do affirm Atonement if not a particular theory takes skill. I think Bp. Kinsey ignores that we do affirm the Atonement if eschew a theory. Fr. Haller in a comment noted that Fr. Thew Forrester goes further East than the Eastern Church, and as I noted, I think Buddhism has influenced his theology toward an unacceptable position, in contrast to say, Thomas Merton.
Again, we have a broad range of theologians on our calendar, theologians who didn't always agree with one another, but all of them would affirm our Creeds as worthy symbols pointing to the Truth who pursues us. This Truth, as Maurice reminds, is not a proposition finally, but rather our symbols lead us to those living Persons Who are indeed trustworthy. This content of faith, this content of in Whom we place our trust because He has shown Himself, shown Himself as trustworthy, and indeed, first trusted for us as one of us is at the heart of living faith in the Living God. Or if we want the nature/character/descriptors of these Persons in Whom we trust are what our Creeds sufficiently maintain.
And red herrings of lumping concern for these core doctrine with inclusion of gay persons demonstrates that "inclusion" is an inadequate category, not only for dogmatic theology but, to my mind, for ascetical/moral theology. The question for me has always been faithfulness in response to Christ. Both forms of theology are always about Who is God as shown through Jesus Christ and made present to us in the Holy Spirit. The former asks Who it is we praise. The latter how it is we will live praiseworthy lives in response to the One we praise.
What I find particularly is this insistence on wanting to lean on Pelagius. His theology was all about a ridged and unbending morality and the fear of apostasy through sin. He is much more fitting for the more Arminain among us. Precious little grace and little to no forgiveness without earning it through constant repentance. I can understand that those who hold their autonomy dear don't like Augustine, but the stern Judge on the Sky that Pelagius presents is just not what I would take to be their cup of tea.
Based on my reading of Pelagius' work - as found in B.R. Rees' compilation, as well as De Bruyn's translation of Pelagius' commentary on Romans - Pelagius was an ultra-moralistic puritan, and I'm not sure he'd be any more appealing to Forrester or Kimsey than Augustine or Jerome. Ironically, if Pelagius were in the House of Bishops, I think he'd be very far away from either Forrester or Kimsey theologically.
I have some comments on this over at Episcopal Cafe. Including some telling quotes from Irenaeus himself.
The irony here with Morgan (that's his actual name) is thick. I sometimes get the impression that they don't read these guys to deeply. He's just a way at slapping at the boogie man that is Augustine.
I think my comment over at Episcopal Cafe was a bit to pointed to be published. The essence of it is over on my blog.
Sir, I know Irenaeus, and you're no Irenaeus.
This letter misses the point entirely. Bishop Breidenthal is not out on a witch hunt, nor is he holding out one Christology that any bishop-elect must embrace. He is insisting on the basic grammar of faith, Irenaeus might call it the rule of faith. In other words, he is doing the work of a successor of the apostles, keeping the Church to true to the teaching of the apostles which has been preserved in the public teaching of the Church.
A simple question: What does KTF make of Good Friday? Can he take part in any of the liturgy as laid out in the BCP?
Yes indeed TH.
Post a Comment