On The Reverend Kevin Thew Forrester’s Theological Departure

The Diocese of Northern Michigan has selected and put forward for the rest of the church’s consideration as its next bishop, the Reverend Kevin Thew Forrester. This selection has proved to be controversial for several reasons. Most troubling is that his theology seems not to conform to the theology found in the Book of Common Prayer which is the formal expression of the theology of The Episcopal Church. In The Ordination of a Bishop, the assembly is asked, “[I]f any of you can show any reason why we should not proceed, let it now be known,” (BCP p. 514). What follows is an attempt at offering that reason.

Quite a bit of attention has been given to the Rev. Forrester’s practice of Zen meditation. By itself, that does not concern me. I have read and reread the Damapada and other Buddhist scriptures. They have inspired, informed and edified me. Along with other scriptures, like the Tao Te Ching, they can be understood as analogous to the “seeds of the Logos” Justin Martyr saw in the ancient Greek philosophers. Buddhist authors like Thic Nhat Hahn, Sharon Salzberg and others have informed and shaped me. I sometimes pray using a Christianized version (via Julian of Norwich) of Metta Meditation. We have a Buddhist who is actively involved in the common life of St. Barnabas.

Incorporating the wisdom of other traditions into a basically Christian framework, is a non-issue. Thomas Merton is a well-known example of someone who did that with Buddhism. At first, I assumed this was the case with Rev. Forrester. But, the more I began to read what is available of Rev. Forrester’s thinking, I began to wonder if he was merely using Christian language to promote a basically Buddhist worldview ,i.e., substituting Christ for Buddha, church for sangha, gospel for dharma, etc. Much that he writes is indistinguishable from something like Cultivating the Mind of Love, The Practice of Looking Deeply in the Mahayana Buddhist Tradition by Thich Nhat Hanh. This is a wonderful little book by the way, but it is not Christianity – and makes no claim to be. So, perhaps the Rev. Forrester is not so much a Christian informed by Buddhism as essentially a Buddhist who uses Christian terms to teach Buddhist concepts.

But, upon further reading, I have come to the conclusion that neither is the case. Rather, the Rev. Forrester’s teaching appears to be an idiosyncratic amalgam of Christian and Buddhist language to flavor a spirituality of his own imagining – a spirituality that is essentially Gnostic.

Unfortunately, the Rev. Forrester’s sermons, writings, and liturgies seem to have been removed from the St. Paul, Marquette website. But, I have managed to track down a few of these on my own and a few things have been sent to me.

A Trinity Sunday sermon Rev. Forrester preached last year is here. Besides some tendentious and suspect appropriation of themes from the ancient Syriac church, the Rev. Forrester said,

“One of the amazing insights I have found in the interfaith dialogue is that, no matter what you name that source, from which all life comes—you can name that source God, Abba; you may name that source Yahweh; you may name that source Allah; you may name that source “the great emptiness;” you can name that source many things, but what all the faiths in their wisdom have acknowledged in the interfaith dialogue is that, you and I, we’re not the source. We receive from the source, and what we are asked to do is give back to the source. In other words, what the interfaith dialogue has recognized is that there is a Trinitarian structure to life. That’s what I’m driving at this morning. We make the Trinity much too complex. The Trinitarian structure of life is this: it is that everything that is comes from the source. And you can name the source what you want to name the source. And our response to that is with hearts of gratitude and thanksgiving, to return everything back to that source, and there’s a spirit who enables that return. Everything comes from God. We give it back to God. And the spirit gives us the heart of gratitude. That is the Trinitarian nature of life. And you can be a Buddhist, you can be a Muslim, you can be a Jew, and that makes sense. And we all develop more elaborate theologies, but the truth is we live and have our being in a God who asks only one thing of us: to grow into people who give thanks that God is our center, God is our life, that we are one with God. And as we grow into realization, that we are one with this God who lives in us, and the only thing God asks us is to give back everything in thanksgiving, we live. “

In many ways it is an expression of a common enough pluralism. As is usually the case with such thinking, it ignores real otherness and co-opts the beliefs of others to fit what the preacher believes, claiming that, deep down, they actually believe what he believes. I suspect that many Jews and Muslims, let alone Buddhists, would be surprised to learn that they are actually Trinitarian – if they were not outright offended by such presumption. The Rev. Forrester is able to claim that we are all Trinitarian by reducing the Trinity to a generic spiritual principle. But, I suggest that, however halting our Trinitarian language is, Christians claim it says something rather more about God than he is claiming. It is, as Rowan Williams has said, “the least worst language we have for God.” I do not think a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist would agree.

Nor can Christianity be reduced to but one expression of a vague generic spirituality. In Readings in John’s Gospel, William Temple, that most Anglican of Anglicans, wrote, “’Blessed be the Lord God of Israel’ – it is not a universally diffused divine essence of which we speak, but the Living God – ‘for he has visited and redeemed his people’ [in the giving of God’s Son in the Incarnation and Crucifixion of Jesus].” P. 48

In an article in the July/August edition of Hiawathaland, the diocesan newsletter for Northern Michigan, the Rev. Forrester expresses a gnostic understanding of Jesus as no more than a bringer of enlightenment:

“Awareness of belovedness is, as far as I see it, the very life blood of the way of Jesus. For me it is sacred salve to the soul – salvific. It is the way of salvation.”

“Sin has little to do with being bad. It has everything to do, as far as I can tell, with being blind to our own goodness. And when we are blind, we hurt ourselves and each other – sometimes quite deeply.”

“All of creation is already accepted by God as it is.”

Similarly, in a Response to the St. Andrew’s Draft, of which the Rev. Forrester was primary author and a signatory, there is this:

“As we listen we awaken to the truth that all creation is one in Christ. To truly awaken is to have our blind eyes opened to the inherent beauty of all that is. As we awaken we are naturally drawn out in mission to care for others and to do all in our power to relieve their own bondage and suffering . . . . we are already one in Christ.”

That we are beloved by God is good news. But the really Good News of Christianity is that God has done something in the giving of his Son that delivers us from our bondage to sin and death. As, again, William Temple wrote, “This is the heart of the Gospel. Not ‘God is love’ – precious truth but affirming no divine act for our redemption” (Readings in John’s Gospel, p. 48). Love is good. But love that does nothing to change our reality is just sentimental.

Reducing the human dilemma to a lack of true knowledge is Gnosticism. The Christian claim is that our problem runs deeper than that. How can one say that “we are already one with Christ” and pray our Eucharistic prayers or pray our collects with integrity?

To his credit, the Rev. Forrester recognizes the incongruity. In one sermon, he flatly rejects the language of Eucharistic Prayers and the language of the Collects. His revisions of liturgical rites also reflect a rejection of the theology of the Book of Common Prayer. In the version of the Easter Vigil which he composed for use at St. Paul, Marquette, MI, the Rev Forrester removes language of sin and redemption and any language of Christ’s victory over death.

This is also true of the Eucharistic Prayer composed by the Rev. Forrester used in the same service.

The Eucharistic prayer reveals an Adoptionist Christology:

As the Risen Anointed One,
Jesus is forever embraced by you as Christ,
embodying your eternal mercy and
revealing the way of compassionate justice
as the path of rebirth.

And a basic Gnosticism:

Kindle a fire in us
that burns away the veil of blindness,
so that we behold your presence
as the Center of all life.

Both of the above selections are from
Kindling the Ancient Fire
Sharing Stories of Life-Death-Rebirth
Receiving the Sacred Fruits of Earth
Gathering for the Great Vigil of Easter

The Rev. Forrester is also primary author and a signatory of A Response from the Diocese of Northern Michigan’s Standing Committee to the "Dar es Salaam Communiqué," in which there is the following:

“Baptism confirms this most basic truth which is at once, the Good News: all is of God, without condition and without restriction.”

This is incongruous with each of the Eucharistic Prayers and the Rite of Baptism, particularly the renunciations.

“Because each and every one of us is an only begotten child of God; because we, as the church, are invited by God to see all of creation as having life only insofar as it is in God; because everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation, of God”

Claiming “each and every one of us is an only begotten child of God” and that “everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation of God” is a pantheism incompatible what we say (and pray) we believe about Jesus Christ as the Incarnation of God. It also contradicts the language we use in every rite of the Book of Common Prayer, not to mention the Catechism.

I know these are serious charges. I do not make them lightly. I am not given to finding false teaching under every rock. And it is no small thing to reject a candidate put forward by a diocese to be its bishop. But I also believe, with Charles Gore, that ours is a tradition that is “conspicuously orthodox on the great fundamentals of the Trinity and the Incarnation” (Roman Catholic Claims, p. 173). If we believe the rule of our praying is the rule of our believing, then the prayers of our common worship must guide what we teach and preach. One whose stated beliefs are as at odds with that common worship as are the Rev. Forrester’s can hardly “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” (BCP p. 517).

The Anglican tradition is rightly celebrated for its comprehensiveness. But that comprehensiveness has never meant doctrinal indifference or that Anglicans intend to be anything other than part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Phillips Brookes referred to the Episcopal Church as the “roomiest church in Christendom.” But even the roomiest church has walls and doorways. We are a tradition that has sought to embody a generous orthodoxy. But even the most generous orthodoxy will need occasionally to say “no” to teachings that contradict that orthodoxy. The Rev. Forrester’s words indicate that he has departed the room and moved beyond the realm of even a very generous orthodoxy.