On my personal blog, I recently posted an analysis of two documents, Bp. Breidenthal’s letter explaining why he was withholding consent to the election of Fr. Kevin Thew Forrester as bishop of the Diocese of Northern Michigan, and a letter of support from Fr. Thew Forrester’s former liturgics professor at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Dr. Louis Weil.

Prof. Weil was kind enough to write a response clarifying and reinforcing his support for Fr. Thew Forrester, which he permitted me to post, as well.

I have decided to continue the conversation on this topic here at Covenant, because this website has the Forums feature, which facilitates dialogue in a way that my own “bully pulpit” blog does not.

Three things stand out to me from Prof. Weil’s response.  As I read it:

1.  Prof. Weil believes that liturgical experimentation of the sort that Fr. Thew Forrester has been engaging in is not only unproblematic for a bishop, but may be a great gift to the Episcopal Church.  Small dioceses potentially serve as better “laboratories” for such experiments than larger dioceses, and the fruits of such experimentation can then be adopted by the larger church after an appropriate period of discernment. 

2.  The fact that such experimentation may be “pushing the boundaries of the commonly-accepted theology” is not a concern to Prof. Weil if it is done with the knowledge and consent of the Ordinary (i.e., the bishop) and is undertaken in a responsible manner, rather than, as too often happens, in a haphazard and unauthorized way reflecting the whims of a rector. 

3.  Prof. Weil believes that the context for Fr. Thew Forrester’s experiments, even though boundary-pushing, do not cross the line of acceptable diversity because in Prof. Weil’s judgment, Fr. Thew Forrester “has a very good liturgical and sacramental sense, and also that he has a very solid grounding theologically.”

I am grateful to Prof. Weil for clarifying that the he does not believe Fr. Thew Forrester is one of those liturgically renegade rectors, so to speak, of which Prof. Weil writes with such disapproval.  I see now that I was clearly wrong to impute any connection in this regard.  Rather, Prof. Weil wanted to a) commend Fr. Thew Forrester for not being renegade, b) affirm his liturgical and theological depth, and c) express his opinion that Fr. Thew Forrester would make a fine bishop.

Interestingly, however, there is one area that Prof. Weil’s response does not address.

{pagebreak}

At the end of my post, I reflected on Prof. Weil’s reference to Raymond Brown’s book Priest and Bishop.  I questioned whether Fr. Thew Forrester could be the sort of bishop who (in Prof. Weil’s words) is able to interpret “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.”  As Weil writes, I, too, “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.” My question then, as now, is: Can Fr. Thew Forrester (not to mention many of those currently in the House of Bishops, whether progressive or conservative) give fuller expression to Raymond Brown’s important vision for the episcopate?

I think it clear that Prof. Weil does not have any anxieties that Fr. Thew Forrester can do so, otherwise I doubt he would have mentioned the book.  Or, to put it another way, Prof. Weil appears to me to be taking advantage of a “teaching moment” by pointing to a model of the episcopacy he hopes this particular bishop-elect might adopt, if he has not already done so.  In any event, Prof. Weil has no concerns over Fr. Thew Forrester’s qualifications, theology, or abilities, and thus would be happy to see him be ordained as a bishop in The Episcopal Church.

Prof. Weil has done a great service to the church by contributing to the church’s ongoing discernment.  It is now up to those who have a vote in the consent process to decide whether Prof. Weil’s endorsement puts to rest any qualms they might have about giving their consent to this election.  For my part, I still have questions, which I will save for another post, but at least we know where Prof. Weil stands in this regard and can give due consideration to his testimony in favor of Fr. Thew Forrester.

View the original post

Prof Weil says:

I really do think that Kevin has a very good liturgical and sacramental sense, and also that he has a very solid grounding theologically.

Bp. Breidenthal says:

According to Thew Forrester, Jesus revealed in his own person the way that any of us can be at one with God, if only we can overcome the blindness that prevents us from recognizing our essential unity with God. The problem here is that the death of Jesus as an atonement for our sins is completely absent, and purposely so.

The contradiction between these two is critical. A bishop in the church that leaves out Jesus as an atonement for our sins does not have solid grounding theologically!

I am glad that Nathan and Prof. Weil have had a civil interaction, but given Weil’s response, I have a hard time taking his endorsement of Fr. Thew Forrester seriously.

Prof Weil says:

My understanding was that the proposed rite had been developed with the approval of the Ordinary, and that it was an experimental use which would be set within a context of reflection and evaluation.  When I read it, I saw that Kevin was pushing the boundaries of the commonly-accepted theology, but, in fact, knowing Kevin, I expected nothing less.

I would hope that we do allow experimentation in our liturgies. This is one of the ways to make sure that our language continues to track with what people understand.

But when something is vitally important, experimentation must be carried out with caution. When doctors do experimental procedures, they use rigorous tests to ensure that the patient is not being subjected to unnecessary risks. Fr. Thew Forrester’s experimentation with the Baptismal rite is analogous to a doctor preforming open heart surgery and experimenting on whether a heart-lung machine is really necessary. I’m pretty sure this will kill the patient.

Nathan,
Your response to Louis Weil’s first letter was thorough, reflective and conscientious.  I appreciate your determination to listen and think with your whole mind and your whole heart.  Your response to Louis’s second letter is graceful and particularly generous (and apt I think) in following Louis’s momentum and implication in quoting the Ray Brown book, even though Louis doesn’t respond explicitly to your final question about the bishop’s function as a bridgebuilder.  I appreciate your spirit of genuine dialogue and committed theological reflection.

Reading Charlie Clauss’s response to your further reflections I was troubled to read, once again Bishop Breidenthal’s assertion that in Kevin’s theology and teaching, “...the death of Jesus as an atonement for our sins is completely absent, and purposely so.”  Bishop Breidenthal’s assessment is being quoted a lot.  What troubles me is that Bishop Briedenthal’s critique seems to ignore the rich breadth of theories of the atonement through Christian history.

The Oxford English Dictionary traces the distortion (yes, some might say evolution) of the English word ‘atonement’ from its original and fairly neutral theological meaning of bringing together, “at onement,” so, “reconciliation” to a culturally distorted meaning of “expiatory suffering.”  What began as a narrowing of meaning and fixing of it on one theory becomes a theological tragedy when what was rich and nuanced becomes simplistic and therefore distorting.  For example some who argue argue, ‘SOMEONE has to make atonement for the death; the price must be paid - blood for blood.”  This mis-application of Christian theological language even contradicts Anselm’s real point, that if Jesus’ death is expiation to pay the price for our sin, the price IS paid - - - wholly, completely, for all sin, and with an abundance of grace left over.

To recall the breadth of atonement theories Christian theologians and preachers have formulated, John Henry Newman wrote a hymn praising God’s work of atonement ‘in all his Ways,’ in the hymn ‘Praise to the Holiest in the Height’ (Hymnal 445, though The 1982 Hymnal’s four verses would be richer and truer to Newman’s intent for printing all seven original verses):

1. Praise to the Holiest in the height,
And in the depth be praise;
In all His words most wonderful,
Most sure in all His ways.

2. O loving wisdom of our God!
When all was sin and shame,
A second Adam to the fight
And to the rescue came.

3. O wisest love! that flesh and blood,
Which did in Adam fail,
Should strive afresh against the foe,
Should strive and should prevail.

4. And that a higher gift than grace
Should flesh and blood refine,
God’s Presence and His very Self,
And Essence all divine.

5. O generous love! that He, who smote,
In Man for man the foe,
The double agony in Man
For man should undergo.

6. And in the garden secretly,
And on the Cross on high,
Should teach His brethren, and inspire
To suffer and to die.

7. Praise to the Holiest in the height,
And in the depth be praise;
In all His words most wonderful,
Most sure in all His ways.

Newman deliberately claims multiple theories, singing God’s praise with an extensive (though not exhaustive) catalogue of atonement theories.  Many theologians focus one theory or another.  And some seem to think Anselm’s theory is ‘the doctrine of the atonement.’  As I read Kevin Thew Forrester his teaching of atonement draws primarily on the classic atonement theories that Newman has summarized in verses 4 and 6.

Interestingly Newman doesn’t lay out in full detail Anslem’s theory that Jesus’ infinite goodness and suffering paid the price of the Father’s infinite, just wrath.  Newman, like Thew Forrester was more shaped by reading the fathers of the undivided church than by the direct legacy of medieval scholasticism.  Shall we also fault Newman with Bishop Breidenthal’s words, ‘...the death of Jesus as an atonement for our sins is completely absent, and purposely so.’?

I’m really puzzled to watch Anglican theologians tripping over this.  Anglicanism claims that its theological roots are in the undivided church - East and West still in communion, the vibrant (and diverse) patristic period.  The reformers and Anglican divines went there for the breadth and freedom in shaping church and liturgy they found there and not in 16th and 17th century Roman neo-scholasticism.

I am doubly puzzled so see our priest and bishop theologians reading Thew Forrester this way (imagining as a teacher and preacher he lacks and denies a doctrine of the atonement) because Thew Forrester draws explicitly on the work of the Roman Catholic philosopher/anthropologist/theologian Rene Girard, one of the most significant teachers of the atonement in the late 20th/early 21st century.

Many, many Anglican theologians and students of theology (including Rowan Williams) who mean to be and believe we are fully orthodox in our theology, are grateful for Rene Girard’s remarkable work.  Reading scripture with Girard we find in Scripture (and in reflection on human culture and literature) that Jesus’ atonement on the cross is God fully present in the Son dying to appease OUR rage. The atonement unveils the sacrificial system on which culture and religion have rested, freeing us to communion with God’s genuine welcome and embrace of us, the God who begins to appear in the Hebrew scriptures as ‘full of mercy’, the God in whom there is no wrath.

Thew Forrester doesn’t lack an appreciation or teaching of the atonement, he is engaged in a deliberate re-examination of the teaching of Scripture and of the church through history of just how God reaches out to us to draw us to God’s self in saving union.  Drawing on the range of atonement theories the church has included, this new work continues the longstanding Christian practice of awed and grateful reflection on the freedom and new life that comes to us in Christ.

Donald Schell

Thew Forrester doesn’t lack an appreciation or teaching of the atonement, he is engaged in a deliberate re-examination of the teaching of Scripture and of the church through history of just how God reaches out to us to draw us to God’s self in saving union.  Drawing on the range of atonement theories the church has included, this new work continues the longstanding Christian practice of awed and grateful reflection on the freedom and new life that comes to us in Christ.

There is much work being done currently to recover the multifaceted meaning of Jesus work on the cross. This work is much needed, for indeed what God has done for us has many sparkling sides. Green and Baker’s *Recovering the Scandal of the Cross* is an example on the more accessible side. Christus Victor, Irenaeus’ CV as Recapitulation, Gregory of Nyssa’s CV as Ransom, Anselm’s, Abelard’s and others are all needed to give the full breath of Atonement. The points that Newman seems to make in vs 4 & 6 are very important too. The very Incarnation itself is a part of the Atonement, and Jesus’ death is to serve as an example to us.

But there is still one large problem: except for Jesus death as an example, Thew Forrester seems not to use any of these others, for on the one hand his view of the Incarnation is so weak as to be meaningless (would he not say that *we all* are Incarnations, thus denying the particularity of Jesus?), and second, he seems to think that there is no problem for which Atonement would be needed. At best he offers up a kind of gnostic Atonement where what is needed is the knowledge that we are already one with God.

The basic question is: Is there something wrong in the Cosmos? I say there is, and Jesus life, death, and resurrection fixed/is fixing it. Thew Forrester’s own words have shown that he doesn’t believe there is a problem. No problem; no need for Atonement.