An Episcopal priest who has practiced Zen meditation and espoused unconventional ideas about Christianity has lost his bid to become a bishop in Michigan, the church announced Monday (July 27).
The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, who was elected in February to lead the sparsely populated Diocese of Northern Michigan, failed to gain “consent,” or ratification, from a majority of elected standing committees in the Episcopal Church’s 110 dioceses, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori announced.
A majority of Episcopal bishops also rejected the election, according to Neva Rae Fox, a church spokeswoman, who declined to release exact tallies.
Under church rules, a bishops’ election is not valid unless ratified by a majority of standing committees and bishops.
The controversy surrounding Thew Forrester’s election, stoked in large part by conservative bloggers, blended age-old concerns about fidelity to key Christian tenets with 21st-century online activism. At times, it seemed to mirror a secular political campaign, with the candidate’s public talks and personal history parsed by supporters and detractors alike.
Ultimately, both liberal and conservative Episcopalians judged Thew Forrester’s singular spirituality insufficiently orthodox — even in a church known for tolerating progressive theology and open-mindedness.
A number expressed concern about the Michigan priest’s decade-long practice of Zen meditation, changes he made to baptism rites, and ideas he espoused about salvation, including the existence of multiple paths to God. Others objected to the election process in Northern Michigan because Thew Forrester was the only candidate on the ballot.
Bishops are rarely rejected once they are elected by their diocese.
In 2007, Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina lost his first bid after concerns were raised that he would lead the diocese to secede from the denomination, but a year later he was re-elected and gained consent from the wider church.
Episcopal Church archivists say the last candidate rejected on strictly doctrinal grounds was James DeKoven, in 1875; he put candles on the altar and practiced other “high church” rituals, which were controversial at the time.
The rejection of Thew Forrester comes just a day after Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, criticized the Episcopal Church for departing from church tradition by lifting a de facto ban on gay bishops and allowing blessings for same-sex unions. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion.
“This could be taken as a strong shout from two different places about the importance of doing theological work on our foundations,” said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina, which voted against Thew Forrester.
Thew Forrester, rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Marquette, Mich., said in a statement that “I have been extraordinarily blessed and honored to walk with my friends from the Diocese of Northern Michigan over these past months as their bishop-elect.”
“As we live and move and have our being in Christ, there is truly a Holy Wisdom in all that is unfolding, and as St. John of the Cross affirms, a face in `all that happens,”‘ Thew Forrester said.
The seven-member standing committee of the diocese of Northern Michigan said in a statement that it is “disappointed and saddened by the outcome of the consent process.”
The committee members also said they hope the church will reflect on “how new communication technologies affect the consent process.”
By DANIEL BURKE
c. 2009 Religion News Service
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 28, 2009 at 6:59 pm
He was rejected because they found his “singular spirituality insufficiently orthodox.” Guess as liberal as the Episcopal church is, it wasn’t liberal enough to accept this man where he currently is in is spiritual journey. Kind of sad, in a way.
posted July 28, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Maybe a third tier will start some day, ps.
posted July 28, 2009 at 7:36 pm
There’s those wacky Episcopalians in the news again.
posted July 28, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Gays get married and go to heaven; Buddhists meditate and go to Hell. Hmmm.
posted July 29, 2009 at 12:44 am
The sad thing, pagansister, would be for the Episcopal Church, or any church or religious body, to elect a man as a high-ranking representative when that man’s “spiritual journey” is not taking him in a direction that is not shared by the historic church body. Churches are not in any way, shape, or form intended to be places where we all embark on our own private “spiritual journeys”: nothing from Scripture or tradition allows for that. If the church judges a potential bishop as insufficiently representative of what that church affirms, then it’s their duty to make sure that a better representative gets the job. This is not to condemn those who aren’t able to become bishops but to make clear that a person whose main job is to shepherd the flock according to Christian faith and practice should have an impeccable record of faith and practice.
posted July 29, 2009 at 9:47 am
I do understand that most if not all religions want leaders that promote their tenets, NateW. Guess he could become a Unitarian Universalist!
)
posted July 29, 2009 at 10:49 am
This says more for the lack of understanding about Buddhism than it does for staying the Episcopalian course. I think of it like this…
If you want to start a spirited discussion down here in the South, that is not about sports (GO SOX!), politics (Hefelumps v. Mules), or religion (debts! trespasses!), ask how people driving to New England get around or through New York City. There are several possibilities, each with their own trade offs. But no matter which route is taken the result will be the same.
Now to make this a metaphor, the same is true for the religious journey. In fact, as with the trip around or through NYC, the more options the driver has, the more satisfactory the trip will be. I think this candidate for Bishop simply had more options and experiences in his repertoire than some of his more orthodox (“We ALWAYS go this way no matter what”) colleagues. It is their loss for not being open to what he can offer. I think he may have a lot to say, and I hope he collects some of this thoughts in printed form.
O well, it is certainly neither the first nor the last time something like this will happen. So the orthodogs will likely stay in their pack and fuss that nothing new or different happens to enable them to reach the folks in the pews.
posted July 29, 2009 at 11:47 am
Nicely said, jestrfyl…. ” I think this candidate for Bishop simply had more options and experiences in his repertorie than some of his orthodox ( ) colleagues. It is their loss for not being open to what he can offer.” I agree….
posted July 29, 2009 at 12:39 pm
We “orthodogs” are perfectly happy with how we’re reaching people in the pews, thank you. It certainly just seems like we’re wanting to reach them with something entirely different from what others are trying to reach them with: the concrete and corporate body of Christ, not a vague and ambiguous sort of God/spirituality that we all come to on our own private “spiritual journeys.” For us “orthodogs,” if a spiritual journey is not leading specifically to Christ, then that journey is not judged to be the best possible one by the standards of what the Christian community over the centuries has come to regard as true. If an individual’s conscience is drawing him or her into practices and beliefs that are quite different from those that Christians have found to be successful in leading to Christ in the past, that’s okay, but such people should not be placed in charge of representing and shepherding the broader Christian community. The clergy is not the proper location for experimentation with ideas and practices that the rest of the community does not (yet?) judge to be a proper path to deeper communion with the Trinity.
There are certainly infinite types of “options” and experiences to be had within Christian orthodoxy, and it is the duty of both clergy and laity to ensure that those who are in high leadership positions are committed first and foremost to exploring and drawing out the depth, richness, and diversity of orthodoxy, NOT to judging orthodoxy inadequate and looking for new kinds of spirituality beyond what the broader community deems representative of its corporate spiritual journey.
posted July 29, 2009 at 1:00 pm
jest anyone can muck up the water until the object of affection is unclear in the end that affection for Christians goes to Christ and if you read the teachings of the bible it certainly gives clear instructions about idolatry, being God even references this type of worship as being a prostitute. So for a religion that follows a set of instructions it becomes something else where it or travels a different course then it becomes something else. It is plainly said in scripture, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” Matt. 6:24. or Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” It’s pretty much a no brainer and it leaves little room for argument but of course some will still have to argue the word of the LORD for their personal agenda sake.
posted July 29, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Guys, you are missing the larger principle. One can practice Buddhism as a Christian path. It is a spiritual discipline, not a replacement of one celebrity for another. There is no other master to follow in Buddhism. Marcus Borg has a magnificent book on Jesus and Buddah. I suggest it as reading material. I think the bishops ought to read the book too. There is an astounding amount of overlap with the two.
I am not finding orthodoxy inadequate. Quite the contrary it is certainly a valuable path for many people. But it does not necessarily have to invalidate a different path. That is one of my biggest gooiest complaints about Christians (but not Christianity) – everyone is so sure they are on the only right route and any other route is false, dangerous, sinful. Bah!
I think of it like this (another metaphor) Christ is the north star, and using whatever tools at hand we make our journey toward God with that orientation and the Spirit’s companionship. If Buddhism makes the rip better, go with it. But don’t tell someone else they cannot. Then your faith has dissolved into simple arrogance.
posted July 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm
The problem, NateW, is that the Episcopalians are being selective in their orthodoxy.
In Romans 1:27, Paul states unambiguously: “Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Yet the Episcopalians are ordaining actively gay bishops.
On the other hand, even though the Bible says nothing at all about Buddhists “receiving due penalty for their perversion”, the Episcopalian hierarchy refuses to ordain a bishop (voted in by his diocese) that believes that Buddhism might be a legitimate path to heaven.
Where is the justice in this? If you are using “the standards of the Christian community”, NateW, you should at least be consistent.
posted July 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm
jest there is no larger principle than Christ, for He said so Himself. Borg is the last person or one of them that I would take any spiritual ques from and even your message water down the gospel and calling Jesus a celebrity I hardly think that a Christian value of Christ. The only arrogant statements here are made by you in comparing Christ with Zen Buddhism a practice in which their is no provision for the Lordship of Christ, do you remember “Christ the LORD?” Not Christ the secondary, or Christ the celebrity, or even Christ the North Star. The North Star is a guide Christ is the destination the Word which created the guide. That mediocre watered down gospel is a way of as Jesus said shutting the door to heaven in people’s face.” It is a scheme.
posted July 29, 2009 at 7:08 pm
And who made up the “gospels” cknuck? Human beings, thus they were changed over the centuries as folks changed their minds about what “JC actually said” (like anyone knows!) And where does it say that human beings can’t change a few things? After all, now the good book has been changed into “modern language”. Something is surly lost in that form as well from whatever the heck the original language was, and the translations from that to now…2009. It is a book…subject to change like everything else. There are just as valuable bits of advise and lessons from the many religions on this planet…none superior to another. The superiority claims are brought about by the followers of the different beliefs.
posted July 29, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Lynne Semaine: “Gays get married and go to heaven; Buddhists meditate and go to Hell. Hmmm.”
Hmmm…would you prefer it the other way around?
“the Episcopalians are being selective in their orthodoxy.”
All Christian denominations are “selective in their orthodoxy”, even the hardcore conservatives, for the most part. Oh, they’ll go on all day about Leviticus 18:22 (homosexual acts are an abomination to God), but you’ll never hear them bring up Leviticus 20:13 (if two men have sexual relations, kill them). So if the conservative Christians don’t treat the entire bible as “infallible”, isn’t a bit hypocritical to expect it of the liberal ones?
posted July 29, 2009 at 11:08 pm
pagan you are just so desperate for it to be true that the bible is not God’s Word: relax either you are right or the bible is right, what do you have to lose?
Mordred, I teach the whole bible, yes Lev. 20:13 is very relevant but I’ve never seen anyone murdered anymore than I’ve ever seen a perfect person after teaching Matt. 5:48, yet it is all perfect and inerrant. Jesus said that it would be beyond the grasp of many regardless of their vanity and prideful intellect. But if a person ever does get it they will learn their purpose to serve and not be served and not to bend to the world’s pressure when it comes to truth.
posted July 30, 2009 at 1:59 am
cknuck: “yes Lev. 20:13 is very relevant but I’ve never seen anyone murdered”
Of course you haven’t. But I’ve read it about in more news stories than I want to remember. I’m sure it must atheists doing that in the name of science or something, though; a Christian would never do that, even though it’s in their holy rule book.
“Jesus said that it would be beyond the grasp of many regardless of their vanity and prideful intellect.”
What is it with you guys not liking smart people? Always whining and moaning about the so-called intellectual elite. It’s sad, and frankly it says more about you than me that you think “intellect” is something shameful.
“But if a person ever does get it they will learn their purpose to serve and not be served and not to bend to the world’s pressure when it comes to truth.”
You tell me I’m just bending to the pressures of “the world”. Problem is, in my world, most people seem to think the way you do. So who’s really bending?
posted July 30, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Believe me, cknuck, I’m not “desperate”. I’m sure it isn’t the word of anyone but a group of JC pushers from a very long time ago….and you’re sure you’re right so neither of us has anything to lose. It is a book…period…among many, many books. A group has chosen to make it special, as have other groups who have made certain books special.
posted July 31, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Mordred if you made sense in you accusations then I would be happy to respond
posted August 10, 2009 at 9:52 am
Well so much had been said and debated on concerning this matter on another website entitled StandFirminFaith.com.I am glad to see this result occur. Iwish the man much success and hope for his understanding to become more and more aligned with Christ. We indeed may learn from others but “our God is a jealous God” and will not share His glory with another.