Professor Weil supports Bishop-elect Forrester's work.

The Rev. Keven Forrester has been elected bishop in Northern Michigan. Bishops and Standing Committees throughout the church are now determining to consent or not to that election. The Living Church continues to insist (although with quotes) that this is about the "Consents Process Underway for ‘Buddhist Bishop.’" That headline is unfortunate in that it labels Fr. Forrester without owning the fact. He is not a "Buddhist bishop." Period. It appears that he is a person who meditates using methods derived from Buddhist practice. He has made clear statements of his faith and obedience to Christ. But TLC can't let go. Good headlines sell papers.

Meanwhile, the other arguments brought against Fr. Forrester have to do with his use of experimental liturgies and the context in which he is being elected - namely, to an ordained role within a larger group providing diocesan vision and guidance. These are both addressed in significant ways by the following letter from Professor Louis Weil. As usual Professor Weil has both supported Kevin and used this as a teaching moment for us all. I hope bishops and Standing Committees will see in this letter the support for the bishop as one who stretches as well as conserves and that they will give consent to his election.

Here is the letter:

25 March 2009

THE REVEREND DOCTOR LOUIS WEIL
JAMES F. HODGES AND HAROLD AND RITA HAYNES PROFESSOR OF LITURGICS
THE CHURCH DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE PACIFIC

Dear Kevin,

Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your experimental rite for Baptism. I
read it with great interest, thinking of the various debates we had on several issues back
in the ‘70s when I served on the sub-committee for the Standing Liturgical Commission
charged with preparing the new rite for Baptism — which, of course, was eventually
incorporated into the 1979 BCP. Some of the points which this rite raises echo in my
mind with discussions at the time, but also reminded me that liturgical developments are
always “progressive.” The Church is always dealing with its immediate situation, but
even as we do so the horizon is expanding and new issues continue (and always will
continue) to come along, new issues for which former responses are not adequate. I want
to share with you a couple of perspectives from that earlier experience.

With regard to the question of liturgical language which is raised at points in this
experimental rite: during my first term on the Standing Liturgical Commission (in the
1980s), we were charged with the development of rites based upon MP, EP, and the Rite
II Eucharist of the 1979 BCP, rites which would address the need for inclusive language.
Our primary task had to do with inclusive language of the worshiping community, but
hiding in the shadows, of course, were the then-emerging questions regarding inclusive
language in reference to God. One of my memories from our work on this task is the
frustration shared by the members of the Commission when we realized that the
substitution of plural (i.e. Inclusive) pronouns for singular (masculine) pronouns simply
would not work. What we ended up with was simply poor English forms which still
echoed the forms in the BCP. We realized that what was required to address this issue
appropriately would be the development of new texts which would be conceived and
generated out of a context in which inclusive language was a given factor from the start.
With regard to our tentative steps toward inclusive language about God, I remember
well my discovery, particularly in texts by St. Ephrem the Syrian, the incredibly diverse
images used in language about God or in address to God which characterize numerous
texts from the early fathers. I realized that in the unfolding of the Church’s life, that rich
array of images had gradually been pruned down to a primary focus on male and
monarchical images. A very useful book by Daniel Stevick which was published at about
that time confirmed (as the fruit of his research) that in his wider survey of the evolution
of liturgical language, an abundance of images about God had fallen into disuse. This
insight became an important tool for us on the Commission for trying to open up the
range of images about God which might find a legitimate place in the evolution of our
liturgical rites.

I have looked at the experimental rite for Baptism from the Diocese of Northern
Michigan with this past experience in mind. I am, of course, aware that for members of
our Church, this question can raise a high level of anxiety. I really have a lot of
sympathy for that, and that is why I would want to emphasize that what I think at this
time, and what I pleaded for to the Commission shortly before I ended my second term, is
that it is very important for the Episcopal Church NOT to move toward complete Prayer
Book revision at this time, but rather to address the need for the development of a range
of experimental rites which will enable us to address the larger issues of inclusion
without being under the gun to produce a complete book. We need a process of local
development, critical evaluation, and appropriate revision so that, in due course, the
cream will rise to the top and the poor experiments, having been tested and found
wanting, may drop off our plate.

I have read the baptismal rite carefully and it seems to me that as an experiment it
models the type of process which we need, local testing, critical reflection, and,
eventually, appropriate revision. In saying this, I am taking for granted that our situation
(and really for the past twenty-five years) has been very different in this regard to the
long adherence to prayer book conformity which preceded it. I tend to understand our
current situation as ‘fluid’: this is not true only for Episcopalians, but in our Communion
generally, and in the other liturgical churches. Both the liturgical and ecumenical
movements have had enormous impact upon our current pastoral reality. My concern is
not with experimentation guided by responsible oversight, but rather what I see here on
the west coast (and which I am told of in other parts of the country) of a new kind of
clericalism in which whatever liturgical whim the rector wants to impose on a
congregation, often apparently with inadequate theological and liturgical knowledge,
becomes the liturgy of the hour. I am frequently sent examples of these liturgies (--NOT
by the rectors themselves!), and the problems both theological and liturgical are often
very serious. Liturgical development requires appropriate leadership and a willingness to
test and criticize; the first idea that pops into one’s head is not necessarily good liturgy.
One further comment. You mention that the question has been raised about the
distinction between the ministries of bishops and those or priests, with bishops being
understood as “guardians of the faith.” Speaking historically, certainly this has been an
important dimension of the episcopal ministry. But for me, I must bring to this question
the work of the late Raymond Brown on this question. Probably some thirty years ago he
published a very important little book titled Priest and Bishop. In it, and on the basis of
his substantial work on the books of the New Testament, Brown proposed a missionary
model for the episcopate. He calls for the bishop to exercise the radical ministry implied
in the ancient title pontifex — bridge builder. In this model, the bishop is the one who is
reaching out into the expanding edges of the community, and who then interprets the
various voices in the Church to each other in order to build up the unity of the Body
which transcends such differences as progressive and conservative. The priests, on the
other hand, Brown sees as the resident pastors, those charged with the building up and
nourishment of the local communities, and in that sense the conservators of the tradition.
For the episcopate, I would hope that, given the needs of the church in our own post Christian world, Brown’s interpretation of the episcopate might be given fuller
expression.

I know that this has gone on too long, but I hope that perhaps some of my comments
may be useful to you. I do want personally to confirm my joy at your election to the
episcopate for the Diocese of Northern Bishop. The past several bishops have been
personal friends, and I would rejoice to see that continue. As a small diocese, it seems to
me that the kind of corporate reflection on liturgical developments which I think we need
might be embodied more immediately than in large dioceses in which inter-parochial
communication is often so difficult, and I believe that you could foster that very
effectively.

For now, my warm greetings to you and Rise.

Yours ever in Christ,


Louis