For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. I Corinthians 3:11
It's happening again. An Episcopal diocese has elected a bishop and stormclouds are swirling around the result. Is it a sign of growing maturity that the bishop's sexual orientation isn't the issue? I think not.
For information on the dispute, see Episcopal Cafe's current round-up .
Part of the dispute stems from the organizational framework of the Diocese since the mid 1980s, which emphasizes a concept called "Mutual Ministry." You'll note that I have intentionally linked to the Diocese's description of this framework. In theory, I like the idea of mutual ministry. Recently (while taking a break while writing draft chapters of my thesis...or published articles), I read Three Minute Theologian's online version of his book, Killing George Herbert . It's a tour de force on how defective present models of Anglican ministry are and finds considerable insight in reform from Bonhoeffer, Rowan Williams, and others. But the key problem of the book that most parishes are still somewhere in the leftmost two models of ministry described in the pyramid plots on the Northern Michigan page. Northern Michigan's aging and shrinking population has been forced toward a model of ministry that may have benefits for the wider church. The details can vary, however. Rather than calling this model uncatholic etc., let's use this dispute as an opportunity to learn from N. Michigan. Maybe, some sort of FAQ could be provided to Standing Committees. Does it concern me that the election was non-competitive? Of course. The Holy Spirit should be free to work in such cases, viz Pope Fabian. But the circumstances aren't yet clear.
Part of the dispute involves the Zen Buddhist practice of the Bishop-elect, Kevin Thew Forrester. In light of pagan and Muslim syncretism by Episcopal priests in recent years, we should ask whether the Buddhist principles Forrester embraces contradict Christian principles, as is quite clear in the former two cases, which imply worship of the asheroth /erotoliturgical expression and denial of Jesus' divine equality with the Father in each case respectively. In both of these cases, it's fairly clear that the foundation upon which these priests were building was not Jesus Christ, God of Israel and human being, crucified, died, and risen. I don't have enough the facts of the case to judge.
The final part of the dispute involves accusations of some of the exact liturgical abuses that go on in my parish most of the time, often to my vexation. There is a part of me that would like to Forrester's alleged total disregard for the authorized worship of the Church severely punished, considering he has been elected to an office of oversight in this matter. I feel especially tempted, knowing how these kinds of changes forced down a parish's throat can have serious consequences for the faith of the faithful. But I also know that some of these changes really can be healing for some people. I think it's more important for us to talk about why liturgical abuses go on and what effect they have and what processes liturgical change be implemented than punishing the abusive. Often the problem is one of ignorance rather than malice. Liturgical abusers need counseling, not punishment.
