IRD slams syncretistic Christian practice, Bishop elect Forrester, and yells "fire" in the theater.

Ah, the excitement in the wonderful world of the Purity First crowd. They have yet another bit of news to pick over. This time it is the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, Kevin Forrester. In an article published today, the Institute for Religion and Democracy has now descended upon Forrester like a swarm of flies. Too bad that what it has to say is so misleading.

IRD says:

"An Episcopal priest who has received a Buddhist lay ordination has been elected bishop in the Diocese of Northern Michigan."

George Conger, writing for the Church of England Newspaper, quoted a Northern Michigan diocesan statement saying, "The bishop-elect had been “drawn into the Christian-Zen Buddhist dialogue through centreing prayer and his desire to assist persons in their own transformation in Christ. As many of you well know, he has practiced Zen meditation for almost a decade. Indeed, with marvellous hospitality, the Buddhist community welcomed him in his commitment to a meditation practice as an Episcopal priest (in a process known by some Buddhists as ‘lay ordination’)."

What is the commitment taken by someone regarding zen Buddhist meditation, and what is this business about "lay ordination." As I understand it, so called "lay ordination" so roughly like the covenant part of the baptismal vows... it is the commitment to a way of approaching the world. So what do those vows look like?

Here is one set, The Great Vows for All, from HERE.

The many beings are numberless, I vow to save them;
Greed, hatred, and ignorance rise endlessly, I vow to abandon them;
Dharma gates are countless, I vow to wake to them;
The Buddha's way is unsurpassed, I vow to embody it fully.

Here is another, the Ti-Sarana, from HERE:

I take refuge in the Buddha
I take refuge in the Dharma
I take refuge in the Sangha.

IRD believes in taking these vows, or something like them, Bishop-elect Forrester is practicing dual faiths.

IRD reports that his former bishop Jim Kelsey said he was "walking the path of Christianity and Zen Buddhism together." That is different from "practicing dual faiths."

Unlike creeds, which state beliefs, these particular vows constitute resolves - in this case to "take refuge" or "to save, abandon, wake to, or embody." IRD assumes that it is not possible to meditate using Buddhist meditation techniques or to take such vows without acting contrary to the teachings, path, and faith in Jesus Christ and that Forrester is involved in the practice of dual faiths, not benign meditation techniques.

Forrester is placed in the same camp with "Pennsylvania priest Bill Melnyk was revealed to be a druid" and "Seattle priest Ann Holmes Redding (who) declared that she was simultaneously an Episcopalian and a Muslim." IRD notes that "both Melnyk and Redding were eventually inhibited from priestly duties." This of course is the veiled threat...that the same will or ought to happen to Forrester.

So the question is out in the open: Can a Christian take the baptismal renunciations and affirmations and the vows of the baptismal covenant and still say one of the sets of vows given above? (I do not know if these are the vows Fr. Forrester took, only that they are often spoken of as vows within Buddhism.)

We certainly understand refuge. We Christians take refuge in God, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

The refuge in the dharma is very broad indeed... dharma can refer to law, higher truth, a virtuous path, religious duty. We Christians certainly can take refuge in the religious life devoted to God's truth. It can also refer explicitly to the teachings of the Buddha. This of course is less easily a place of refuge for Christians, although even there much can be learned.

The refuge in the sangha is a close parallel to the notion taking refuge in the church. Sangha is most often understood as the community of people of common refuge. It is the gathering of, if you will, refugees, strangers in a strange land, people whose home is envisioned in something like a faithful community. Again, Christians can take that vow, thinking of the church community as sangha. But of course it can be taken as the or a community of Buddhists. In that sense sangha is not easily adopted.

It is the refuge in the Buddha that is the most problematic, not because the one who was the Buddha, the one who woke up or was enlightened, is in any way a person not to be emulated as a good, virtuous, or enlightened one, but rather because the "enlightened one" becomes identified with the person who was enlightened and the person becomes worshipped rather than the path followed. Buddhists are given, as are we all, to confusing the messager and the message. Some Buddhists follow the one who was enlightened, others seek enlightenment. There is a world of difference.

To take refuge in the vision of the enlightened one is to want to be enlightened and to see the Buddha, or anyone else who has achieved enlightenment, as a source of light towards which we move. In that sense taking refuge in the Buddha is like seeking to be surrounded by the cloud of witnesses - the saints in light. It can also mean taking refuge in the person who became the Buddha. Again there is all the difference in the world.

Many believe that way, the way of refuge in the person of the enlightened one, is a mistake. Zen Master Lin Chi is reported to have said, "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet a Patriarch, kill the Patriarch." In the "great vows for all" above, note that it is not the Buddha that is "unsurpassed" it is the Buddha's way. The Buddha's way might be reduced to a set of formal practices, but the range is very broad and some forms of Buddhist meditation does not require any formal set of beliefs at all.

A Christian, engaged in meditation and fully aware of the dangers of syncretistic practice, can I believe, take refuge in the law, particularly the law of love, in the community of seekers, and in the vision of enlightenment. I believe the Buddha and the Christ could stand together in the same path, keep silence together, and break fast. There is no reasons why we cannot do so as well.

As to the "proof" test of denying all others, I don't know. If being Christian requires that one deny the efficacy of any other religion we then have to ask which Christianity is being talked about. The core I suppose is, "Do you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?" That I affirm. I do not believe that one must renounce the Buddha, the Sangha and the Dharma, understood in a wider sense. But that is a useful question to ask.

IRD doesn't ask it, it assumes the purity of Christian belief makes impossible engagement in a path that is informed by more than one religious tradition. IRD want religious purity, by bishops of a church that only some of this particular "ecumenical alliance" even consider useful or necessary to the life of the faith community. Some in this alliance don't even recognize the orders of the bishops of this church. But they can be righteous on our behalf. And they do so so that The Episcopal Church will be pushed to a particular notion: that Christian belief (as they interpret it) and democracy (as interpreted by IRD) are one. When their work is finished there will be no escape from the identification of true faith and democracy. From there theocratic ideal is no longer a distant dream. It is a devastating reality.

IRD President James Tonkowich is quoted as saying several things. I quote them with brief comment

The issue is not whether meditation is good, it is what is being meditated on. Attempts by Christians to be syncretistic devalue other religions,as well as their own.

The issue is precisely whether meditation is good. Only some forms of meditation involve meditation ON. It betrays a singular lack of depth to suggest that meditation must have an object. The observation about syncretistic attempts suggests that that is what is going on in Christians using Buddhist meditation techniques. That is a leap of several logical steps not shown.

Suppose one took Islam's call to prayer five times a day seriously, as seriously as do the best Muslims. Would that be syncretistic? No. It would be taking their call as our own.

If this kind of meditation is truly in the Christian monastic tradition, why do you need to go to Buddhism to find it? The reality is that this particular meditative practice is not in step with Christian doctrine.

There is no "this" in "this particular meditative practice." Buddhist meditation, even Zen meditation, involves a wide variety of practice. The vows may be problematic, but the practice involves matters not determined by particular religious communities or their vows.

Buddhism is not merely a series of practices, saying so devalues it. Buddhism is an entire worldview.

Well, so IRD says. Let's ask a wide variety of Buddhist. And should we discover that there is a world view common to all Buddhists would we decide that that world view is on the face of it false because it differs from our own? I am not a follower of Jesus Christ because of a "world view." I am a follower of Jesus Christ because Jesus is the light that enlightens and the love that heals.

These interfaith innovations go far beyond witnessing and respecting other faith traditions. They seek to blend Christianity with other belief systems in a way that ultimately compromises the message of the Gospel.

Fr. Forrester may or may not be involved in "interfaith innovations." I doubt it. IRD is terrified by the possibility that something might "blend Christianity with other belief systems in a way that ultimately compromises the message of the Gospel." This is the sort of thinking that led some to gasp that a bishop form Sri Lanka was doing some syncretistic muttering in his closing words at the Lambeth opening Eucharist. It turns out he was using traditional chant and form to carry Christian words of blessing.

While church leaders may respect other faiths, their vow of Christian ordination has always meant an exclusive commitment to Jesus Christ and the Christian faith.

Exclusive commitment to Jesus Christ and the Christian faith does not exclude the use of spiritual tools, techniques and even forms and symbols from other disciplines and faiths. If this were not so we would be hard pressed to explain how Christmas trees, academic intellectual rigor, prince bishops and Thursday got into the lives of committed Christians. (None of these by the way have any warrant in the experience of the New Testament.) They got there because they were part of one or the other religious and social systems already there. (Remember the great slogan, "Put Thor back in Thursday"?)

No one from IRD seems to have asked Bishop-elect Forrester if he holds "exclusive commitment to Jesus Christ and the Christian faith." I bet he does.

But asking was never part of this game plan. The plan was to label him syncretistic. Just as the headline of the Church of England Newspaper article is "Anglican-Buddhist is elected Bishop in Northern Michigan" a headline that sells papers by trumping up charges of syncretistic practice. The purpose of this headline is to hang the Bishop-elect upon the fears of bishops unwilling to face into the wind that blows from the neither portions of the body politic.

Once again the plan is in place: "off with his head." It is a plan from Alice in Wonderland.

'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

'Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

We know what to say to the IRD: You're nothing but a pack of cards!