Nathan Humphrey on Forrester

Another good piece.

Having read both Bp. Breidenthal's letter and Prof. Weil's letter, I am impressed by how thoughtful these men have been, though interestingly, Prof. Weil never comes right out and says, "Good job on the Baptismal rite, Kevin!" As someone used to scrutinizing letters of recommendation (I was in admissions work for a few years), what comes across strongly is Prof. Weil's personal affection for Fr. Forrester as a human being and confidence that he would be no worse than any other bishop and might be better than most. This is an endorsement, but not a ringing one. In fact, part of me wonders whether the letter doesn't end up damning Fr. Forrester with faint praise. (Though by "damning," let me be clear I am not refering to the ultimate disposition of his eternal soul...)

Before going into Bp. Breidenthal's concerns, I want to highlight some very important sections of Prof. Weil's letter. First, Prof. Weil reflects,
I have read the baptismal rite carefully and it seems to me that as an experiment it models the type of process which we need, local testing, critical reflection, and, eventually, appropriate revision...My concern is not with experimentation guided by responsible oversight, but rather what I see here on the west coast (and which I am told of in other parts of the country) of a new kind of clericalism in which whatever liturgical whim the rector wants to impose on a congregation, often apparently with inadequate theological and liturgical knowledge, becomes the liturgy of the hour. I am frequently sent examples of these liturgies (--NOT by the rectors themselves!), and the problems both theological and liturgical are often very serious. Liturgical development requires appropriate leadership and a willingness to test and criticize; the first idea that pops into one’s head is not necessarily good liturgy.
Note here that Prof. Weil states that the liturgy "models the type of process which we need" (my emphasis), not "the type of liturgy we need." If Prof. Weil actually liked the liturgy, I would like him to come right out and say it! As it is, I suspect he is being very diplomatic and polite. I am not a liturgical scholar like Prof. Weil, but I know my way around a prayer book, and although I was unable to locate the baptismal liturgy to which Prof. Weil refers, I have studied Fr. Forrester's Easter Vigil liturgy from last year (entitled Kindling the Ancient Fire Sharing Stories of Life-Death-Rebirth Receiving the Sacred Fruits of Earth), and I must say, that aside from any aethestic qualms I might have about celebrating it in a parish of my own, it raises some serious questions about the intention of the liturgy. I can get into that in more detail if people want to discuss the finer points of lex orandi, lex credendi, but suffice it to say it raises questions for me about the sort of "Christian" such liturgies are intended to form.

Coming back to the paragraph quoted above, I wondered whether Prof. Weil might be counseling Fr. Forrester against that "new kind of clericalism" whereby "whatever liturgical whim the rector wants to impose on a congregation, often apparently with inadequate theological and liturgical knowledge, becomes the liturgy of the hour." Is he probing whether this has been the case in Fr. Forrester's parish? I do not think that Prof. Weil is accusing Fr. Forrester of "inadequate theological and liturgical knowledge," but I see something pointed and cautionary about stating that "the first idea that pops into one’s head is not necessarily good liturgy."

In any event, Prof. Weil does at least obliquely imply that he has some confidence that Fr. Forrester has "a willingness to test and criticize." Indeed, everything I have read by the man demonstrates a creative and keen mind, one that isn't afraid of asking tough questions or of doing a bit of trailblazing. The question of whether those trails cross the border from what is recognizably "Nicene" into the alien land of another religion or of beliefs antithetical to the Apostolic Faith that bishops are called to teach and uphold is one that each person in this consent process will have to struggle with. Admittedly, I have my doubts, and I am envious of anyone who can reply with certainty that this bishop-elect does not stray too far. At best, what I hear from his defenders is "Who's to say what 'too far' is? Are we supposed to be the judge of that?" As I have indicated in earlier reflections on the Consent Process in general, drawn directly from the ordination service for a bishop, entitled, Questions to Ask When Considering Consents, I find this line of questioning a cop-out and too evasive of the tough questions. I suspect that people in their heart of hearts really do have judgments and answers to these questions, and if they do, they should have the courage of their convictions.

I'm going to come back to Prof. Weil's letter in just a moment, because he raises a separate issue not tied specifically to liturgical experimentation. Turning to Bp. Breidenthal's letter, I must say that my concerns are more or less the same as his, though I would not necessarily take issue as Bp. Breidenthal does with the particular atonement theory Fr. Forrester espouses (or fails to espouse), since it is, as comments at The Lead have pointed out, possibly commensurate with Orthodox theology, particularly theosis. In my read of the bishop's letter, part of his concern is not so much with the content of the theology as its mode of expression. To put it in my own words, I am concerned that much of what I have read in Fr. Forrester's sermons and experimental liturgies betrays an over-realized eschatology. Everything is already done.

What does this have to do with being a bishop, one might ask. This is the big question, and it's not one I am confident in answering, other than to say that I try to be on guard about my own assumptions about God and how God acts in relationship to us, always testing those assumptions against the tradition of the Church, the witness of Scripture, and the discernment of the worshipping community. I do wonder whether Fr. Forrester's assumptions have been subjected to the same testing.

I agree with Bp. Breidenthal that Fr. Forrester's experience with Zen Buddhism and the manner of his election are not in and of themselves disqualifying from episcopal office. Let's also give up on the liturgical innovator line of attack for a moment. I am not suggesting that we do give up on it entirely, since in the Episcopal Church, praying shapes believing, but for now let's say, for argument's sake, that Fr. Forrester, as a bishop, should be as free as any other bishop to innovate to his heart's content, and to encourage others to do the same. Is there any further ground for concern?

Interestingly, Bp. Breidenthal does not cover any new territory, but Prof. Weil does. Significantly, he writes (emphasis mine),
One further comment. You mention that the question has been raised about the distinction between the ministries of bishops and those [of] priests, with bishops being understood as “guardians of the faith.” Speaking historically, certainly this has been an important dimension of the episcopal ministry. But for me, I must bring to this question the work of the late Raymond Brown on this question. Probably some thirty years ago he published a very important little book titled Priest and Bishop. In it, and on the basis of his substantial work on the books of the New Testament, Brown proposed a missionary model for the episcopate. He calls for the bishop to exercise the radical ministry implied in the ancient title pontifex — bridge builder. In this model, the bishop is the one who is reaching out into the expanding edges of the community, and who then interprets the various voices in the Church to each other in order to build up the unity of the Body which transcends such differences as progressive and conservative. The priests, on the other hand, Brown sees as the resident pastors, those charged with the building up and nourishment of the local communities, and in that sense the conservators of the tradition. For the episcopate, I would hope that, given the needs of the church in our own post-Christian world, Brown’s interpretation of the episcopate might be given fuller expression.
This was startling to read in a letter that has been touted as an endorsement of Fr. Forrester, for it made me ask, "Is this bishop-elect the sort of person who can be a "bridge-builder," not just between other religious traditions and the Christian tradition. but as Weil writes, is he able to interpret "the various voices in the Church to each other in order to build up the unity of the Body which transcends such differences as progressive and conservative"? As Weil says, I, too, "would hope that, given the needs of the church in our own post-Christian world, Brown’s interpretation of the episcopate might be given fuller expression." My question is: Can Fr. Forrester (not to mention many of those currently in the House of Bishops, whether progressive or conservative) give fuller expression to Raymond Brown's important vision for the episcopate?

Ultimately, I have no vote in this decision, and so I will not presume to answer this question by telling anyone who has a vote what to do. I hope my bias is transparent enough so that people can take away from these off-the-cuff reflections whatever is of value without feeling that I am trying to arm-twist anyone into saying "No" to someone who by all accounts is a lovely human being and a deeply caring pastor. But given the bar that Weil sets for the episcopacy, I am given more pause for thought with regard to Fr. Forrester's election than I am even by Bp. Breidenthal's letter. This surprises me, for I expected Prof. Weil's letter to be a much stronger endorsement of Fr. Forrester than it turned out to be.

While Fr. Forrester might be right that viewed from one angle, Jesus "does not raise the bar to salvation, but lowers it so far that it disappears," in my reading of Prof. Weil's challenging letter, Raymond Brown appears to raise the bar so high for the episcopate that very few people could clear it. Perhaps, therefore, it is ultimately too high, and Fr. Forrester is being treated unfairly. I would not want to see him scapegoated as the object for conservative ire, as much of the folderal over his being a "Buddhist Bishop" has tended to be. On the other hand, perhaps it's about time The Episcopal Church started taking criteria such as Raymond Brown's more seriously.

Prof. Weil's strongest (and warmest) language comes at the end (my emphasis added):
I do want personally to confirm my joy at your election to the episcopate for the Diocese of Northern Bishop. The past several bishops have been personal friends, and I would rejoice to see that continue. As a small diocese, it seems to me that the kind of corporate reflection on liturgical developments which I think we need might be embodied more immediately than in large dioceses in which inter-parochial communication is often so difficult, and I believe that you could foster that [communication] very effectively.
What is Prof. Weil saying here? Essentially, that he's happy for the guy, has been friends with past bishops of that diocese and would be happy to stay friends with him, and that he can affirm his leadership as a communicator. As a closing paragraph, this is not a stellar recommendation for the office of bishop.

Now, I may have read Prof. Weil's letter with too much suspicion, in which case I would be happy to hear him say, "Kevin's liturgical skills are super; he'd make a great bridge-builder between progressives and conservatives, and will undoubtedly build up the unity of the Body of Christ through his ministry as a bishop, which is what we so need nowadays." Does Prof. Weil come right out and say that? This question I feel confident answering with a straightforward response: No.