Questions about the Bishop Elect of Northern Michigan

The Bishop Elect of Northern Michigan has been called "The Buddhist Bishop", "The Anglican - Buddhist Bishop," and has been accused of having "dual" citizenship in two kingdoms, one with a Christian name and one with a Buddhist name, and so forth and so on. He has been been identified as marginal to the standards of The Episcopal Church, in The Episcopal Church through pretense, and a trendy innovator. Others are suspicious of the whole construct of diocesan organization along mutual-ministry models.

All of this is dumped on Keven Forrester's head as the Bishop-Elect, much of it by people who want to use him as an example of how unholy The Episcopal Church has become. First it was Wicca, then it was Islam, now it is Buddhism... see how awful TEC is? First it was messing with the real Book of Common Prayer, then it was augmenting the BCP, now it is using someone else's Book of Common Prayer or worse, no BCP at all but some batch of made up liturgies.

He is being pursued by the dogs of ecclesiastical war who chase him through the corridors of the Stand Firm site, complete with a writing campaign to ward off the evils of unbridled liberalism. The question is raised over on SF, "What can Episcopal peons do about the Buddhist Bishop?" SF has mounted a campaign to get those emails out to Standing Committees and Bishops to tell them to stop this terrible man from spoiling the episcopal soup.

The organized hounding of Fr. Forrester is furthered by the flurry of excitement over at The Living Church of discovering that Fr. Forrester used Eucharistic prayers composed by himself or his wife. The headline reads, "Controversial Bishop-Elect Composes Own Eucharistic Texts." TLC should be warned not to use this sort of headline, it will frighten the children.

We are not told whether the "youth service" and the Eucharistic prayer written for Easter Season 2008 were the prayers for normal Sunday worship or special occasions in which considerable latitude is given forming the Great Thanksgiving. But TLC certainly has the goods on Fr. Forrester. Eucharistic prayers that are written by a priest. Oh My!

TLC noted the opinion of "Canon Ralph McMichael, canon for ministry formation in the Diocese of Missouri," who "expressed concern about the texts." Canon McMichael is not alone in asking such questions. There are several who comment here on Preludium about the need to look into the matter of just what Fr. Forrester does do, write, teach and otherwise proclaim.

The people asking these questions have every reason to expect answers from the bishop-elect, or if not to them directly, at least to the Standing Committees and Bishops who must give consent to his election for it to be valid. But these questions are not the fright mongering TLC headlines, " Northern Michigan Elects ‘Christian-Buddhist’ Bishop" or the SF email campaign. They have already decided that the electors elected badly and that he is false to his calling.

Fr. Forrester already wrote in response to the question of his Buddhist meditation practice. Now perhaps we can ask him to respond to the concerns that have been raised:

Will he support the expectations of the BCP and the Constitution and Canons that limit the variations in the services of the church to those allowed by the BCP itself, or by act of General Convention, or by special permission of the bishop?

What were the circumstances, if any, under which he as a priest used eucharistic prayers not included in the above?

What would he do as bishop if one of the clergy of the diocese were to use orders of service that omitted, or provided alternate versions of the creeds? If one of the clergy used an unauthorized eucharistic prayer at the Sunday Eucharist?

Does his use of alternative eucharistic prayers or creedal statements in any way arise from reservations about the legitimacy of the words of the BCP? If so, can he indicate why he ought to be entrusted with the care for the common worship of the people of an Episcopal Church diocese?

There is lots of talk going on about Fr. Forrester. Perhaps some talk with him might be in order.

There was a time when the litmus test for consent to elections of bishops seemed to consist of knowing that there was no foul play in the election and that the bishop had indeed the right credentials (being baptized, ordained, etc). That was a narrow definition of what was needed for consent. There were of course lamentable exceptions where worthy bishops elect were maligned.

In the recent past questions were raised about bishops being elected who were never never never going to ordain women. Some suggested that the consents not be given. The narrowly defined criteria for withholding consent prevailed. That gave us some bishops who have been no end of trouble.

In recent days there has been greater scrutiny growing from various concerns. This has been a difficult but useful development. This election should be no different. Let's ask the questions in the open and in the open find the answers.

Finding bulletins of various services and leaping from there to some conclusions about what the bishop elect might or might not do as bishop is not helpful. Asking the bishop-elect some questions is.

TLC remarked that "Neither the bishop-elect nor three of the diocese’s media contacts granted interviews requested by TLC" Given the hounding going on this week it is no wonder.

We can hope that standing committees and bishops will ask useful questions by which they can be satisfied or not that consent is in order.

Meanwhile we should pray for Fr. Forrester and his family. What a way to spend Lent.