Leaders of the Diocese of Northern Michigan have released three letters defending their diocese’s choice of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as the next bishop.

Andrew Gerns of The Lead on Episcopal Café provides a good summary of the letters here.

The three letters, all available through The Lead, are written by:

Diocesan leaders (Members of the Standing Committee, Commission on Ministry, Diocesan Council and the Episcopal Ministry Discernment Team) [PDF].

The Rt. Rev. Rustin Kimsey, retired bishop of Eastern Oregon and assisting bishop in Alaska [PDF].

The Rt. Rev. Tom Ray, retired bishop of the diocese [PDF].

View the original post

I don’t know when their diocesan conference was held, but it would have been smart for them to have had a resolution passed at the conference that would have empowered this “Ministry Discernment Team” to carry out the actions it did in nominating Rev. Forrester.  And while I personally believe his affiliations with Buddhism are canonically sufficient for him not to receive consents, I don’t believe that is an argument that will be given due consideration in the current climate.  However, I believe the less-than-canonical actions of the the leadership in New York of late in conjunction with the apparently shady process by which the choosing of Rev. Forrester was done, may be enough to sway enough consents away from accepting N. Michigan’s episcopal selection, if for no other reason than fear of falling into canonical anarchy.

So far we have testimonials that Thew Forrester is a fine fellow who makes use of Zen meditation.

Procedural issues can be dealt with by another election.

No one is answering specific questions about beliefs and official Buddhist status.

-What is the official meaning of his Lay Ordination by a Buddhist community? Receiving a Buddhist name and ceremonial apron (shown in a photo in the diocesan newspaper)suggests Jukai, which involves saying the Three Refuges (I take refuge in Buddha, I take refuge in Dharma , I take refuge in Sangha).
-How can he be an apostolic representative of Christ when he writes, “I see now a Jesus who does not raise the bar to salvation, but lowers it so far that it disappears” and “All of creation is always already accepted by God as it is.”
-He affirms the diocesan Response to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, including the following statements: “We seek and serve Christ in all persons because all persons are the living Christ. Each and every human being, as a human being, is knit together in God’s Spirit, and thus an anointed one—Christ.” And, “Everyone is the sacred word of God, in whom Christ lives.” Can an apostle of Christ affirm this carefully-crafted statement?
-Has he omitted or replaced the Nicene Creed in Sunday Eucharists or on major Feasts?

The meeting was held Feb. 21 having been juggled so the vote on election would be completed before General Convention. KGTF’s name was the only name allowed to be placed in nomination for Bishop, the same rule for nomination was required to be members of his “team”. In other words you accepted what the nominating committee offered or you went without. The nominating committee members also arranged things so that their names were the only ones allowed to be placed in nomination to his “team”. A quick look at the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese will reveal that the “team” approach will also circumvent the authority and responsibilities of the Standing Comm. and Diocesean Council.

In the 50 years I have been a member of this Diocese I have never seen seen such a travesty rammed through any convention I have been a delegate to. This one was raw politics in its worst form, pure and simple.

KGTF and his Mutual Ministry cronies have so deeply embedded themselves in all but one congregation in the Diocese that change will not happen until they are removed from power. That house cleaning also applies to the Standing Committee and Diocesean Council. KGTF predicted last month in a meeting discussing finances that the Diocese would be bankrupt in seven years unless things changed for the better. His election will hasten the bankruptcy.

Alvin, how did they gain ascendancy?  You mention this move being “rammed through” diocesan convention, yet you talk about “deeply embedded” influence on a wide congregational level suggesting long-range planning and initiative to convince others. Was is it a slow process from the grassroots up, or was it a power grab?  Just want to know so we have a clearer picture.  Your diocese, for good or for ill, is essentially a case study in what is essentially a new “political” vision that could affect the rest of TEC.

It’s a long story which probably has its roots in the late 60’s and early 70’s with the advent of Prayer Book and Hymnal revisions. Neither revision set well with a majority of members throughout the Diocese but for the most part everyone went along with the changes. About that same time Viet Nam was a hot issue in the Church. The matter was brought up at a convention and while supported by the clergy was defeated by the laity. That disagreement was the harbinger of things to come.

Following one bishop’s retirement election of bishops in the Diocese ran into rough waters. Following his election, ordination and a short tenure one Bishop left to enter a monastery. Another bishop died of a heart attack. In one of those elections who would become the choice for bishop-elect was so divisive the con-vention was adjourned. In that instance a majority of clergy had banded to-gether in support of one of their own to be bishop. The laity, on the other hand, had not shared in that decision. As the balloting progressed it was clear the clergy nominee had continuing support, the laity were just as clear that they would not support him. After several ballots the convention was adjourned. In my estimation this event was the beginnings of the end as far as Diocesan soli-darity was concerned in Northern Michigan.

The arrival of Bishop Ray in 1982 the brought beginnings of a far more liberal approach to church matters. Signals received from 815 as to philosophy, advo-cacy, justice, racism, sexuality, marriage, abortion and, like it or not, election of a gay bishop, have all contributed to disenchantment with the national church and diocesan mimicry of those positions as well.

One has to live or have lived in Upper Michigan to understand its people. They are hard working, honest to a fault and given to a stubborn silence when they disagree with something but generally consider it impolite to openly voice disap-proval. Bishop Ray’s tenure brought to an end general support of the laity for the Diocese. People began to feel his liberal views were being forced on them with the subtle but obvious suggestion that their correctness would come to light at some later date.

The year 1983 signaled the disgruntlement many felt about the Diocese was be-ginning to have a visible and negative impact on membership. Long time mem-bers and contributors in terms of service and financial support began to leave the church. Bishop Ray seized upon Mutual Ministry as the path for congregations to follow. This, in spite of the fact MM is premised on the fact it must start at the local level with outside facilitators, not coaches from the Diocese who obviously have a vested interest in its outcome. The resentment felt by many was that their voices and concerns were being ignored or put aside as simplistic and not suitable for a diocese bent on remaking itself into a thoroughly modern model, one totally divested of the traditions so valued by its older members.

In the 90’s Bishop Ray brought Jim Kelsey on board from the Diocese of Eastern Oregon where he and Kevin Thew Forrester served. Both were heavily involved in MM there and supported by their Bishop, Rustin Kimsey. When Bishop Kimsey left his replacement, Bishop Bill Gregg came with a view of MM that did not coin-cide with those of Kimsey. Apparently he had serious misgivings about MM and lack of training for lay people when it came to Canon 9 priests. Thew Forrester left shortly after Bishop Gregg’s arrival and joined Jim Kelsey who was by then Bishop of Northern Michigan. Bishop Kelsey was gaining much attention for his beliefs that MM was the answer to declining membership and financial woes since it would lead to a rebirth of congregations.

At any rate the period of 2001-2007 brought almost universal use of MM in all but one congregation in the Diocese, Trinity in Houghton still financed their own Rector and had no attachment to MM. Trinity has had a succession of priests during this period with the last leaving in 2008. Attendance there has dropped dramatically with the usual financial woes that entails (Christmas, 2008 had 12 attendees I understand). With Bishop Kelsey’s death Thew Forrester assumed leadership and became the priest at St. Paul’s his salary there a shared combina-tion of Diocesan and local funds.

Thew Forrester has consolidated the MM concept in the Diocese by arranging for MM supporters to be appointed or elected to every policy making or decision making committee, board or council having any say or influence over Diocesan affairs. When a congregation falls on hard times Thew Forrester and his Core Team bring MM on them, moderate the selection process of who will be the MM team, “train them”, install them with much fanfare, maintain contact and control with regular visits and stipulate the amount of financial support expected from the congregation. Minutes of one congregation note they will be able to meet only $10,000.00 of the $27,000.00 they have been assessed for 2009. Average Sunday attendance there is about 20 each Sunday. Apparently MM does not come cheaply nor does it provide fiscal relief for the already financially stressed congregation.

It is at this point that control of local affairs shifts to MM supporters. By now they are in control of most all aspects of congregational life be it worship, marriage, pre-marital or family counseling or community involvement. Of greatest impor-tance however is the fact this group now provides delegates and representatives to the Diocesan power structure. Given its control of affairs the claim that over ninety per cent of delegates voted for Thew Forrester to be bishop was a widely touted one in the media but laughable to those familiar with the Diocese.

If I were part of a congregation facing difficulties I’d want the following points examined if the subject of MM is raised. In all likelihood there are others, far more important than those I mention below. Research is a key here.

1.  Rebuff any effort to impose MM process upon your congregation, its ves-try and priest if there be one in that congregation. This is, by far, the most important fact to keep in mind! This process must come from within the congregation, not funneled down to it from the Diocese level.
2.  The rector, if there be one, and vestry should thoroughly familiarize them-selves with MM and how it interacts with the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of which it is a part. If there is disagreement about the matter MM should be discarded and another approach evaluated.
3.  If it is decided to enter into the MM process then an outside facilitator fa-miliar with the subject should be brought on board. The facilitator must be neutral as to the worth of MM and, just as importantly, so must the Senior Warden.
4.  If it is decided to proceed and the congregation approves the matter of how the selection of volunteers for the various positions will proceed. This is where, I believe; the potential for real harm begins. Not everyone is suited for the ministry but that will not prevent some from volunteering to become a part of MM. As with the priesthood appropriate psychological testing and a social history workup should be required prior to acceptance into the program. Both the testing and history should be done by licensed professionals of the vestry’s choosing but paid for by the volunteer. Minis-try is far more that speaking from the pulpit and a person’s abilities or in-abilities to interact with others or to provide counseling for those seeking help are far more important factors to consider. Some people will volun-teer because of the prestige they believe the position will bring them, oth-ers will do so because of an inflated sense of self-worth and some will volunteer testing and family history warns against their participation.
5.  Keeping the Diocese informed is only fair but must be premised on the fact the decision making process rests with the congregation. If there is disagreement then other alternatives will need examination. After all the bishop is the bishop.
6.  Meetings between the vestry and diocese will be required at some point to delineate relationships but that is getting ahead of the game.
7.  Again, Mutual Ministry is not a process for electing a bishop as some be-lieve.

The above comments are mine alone. They shouldn’t be viewed as any kind of model to follow. My purpose has been to alert others as to what can happen when control of a vestry and congregation is usurped. TEC is watching how MM evolves in Northern Michigan. The Diocese is one of the smallest in the Church, how or if it could be applied elsewhere in larger Diocese’s is open to question. However, do not forget that 815 is watching how the inter-relationship between MM and election process of Thew Forrester plays out. Since the PB and Thew Forrester were seminary classmates. Do not expect to see anything but support of him from that source. Having already set the date and place where she will consecrate him she will be hard pressed to explain away a rejection of him.

Last, I’ve “goggled” the first 15 of 90 pages dealing with the words mutual minis-try. I’ve yet to find a real evaluation of the term itself or an evaluation of same. If you’re interested I’ve added a few links about the subject. I leave it to you to make decisions as to what it was designed to do and what has happened in Northern Michigan.

http://www.diocesefl.org/mod/MutualMinistryReview/Mutual Ministry Review.doc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtoqWhatDpM

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/1521_9742_ENG_HTM.htm

http://leaderresources.org/lifecycles

Peace to All

Alvin,
Thanks for the complete history.  While I have only been here for the last couple years, everything you say is corroborated by several people who have talked to me about the history and particularly the bishop selection process.  If this goes through, they will have a completely self perpetuating process- future elections will not be necessary.  Not that this was an actual election- given that most of the members of the “discernment team” were on it either by virtue of their office or via “discernment” rather than election.