Loading ...The Gospel According to Genpo
flockwoodStand Firm in Faith has posted some of the teachings of Episco-Buddhist Bishop-Elect Kevin Genpo Thew Forrester.
[Genpo is the name Forrester began using after his lay ordination into Buddhism. Genpo, he says, means "way of universal wisdom" although it also allegedly means "mysterious dharma."]
Forrester’s teachings are universalist, New Age and at odds with the Apostles creed and Nicaean Creed, but it’s unclear if they’ll disqualify him from the House of Bishops.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
OK, I guess I’ll be the first to ask…if he isn’t committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, then why would he want to be a bishop of a Christian church? It is really very simple, although I’m sure some will want to complicate it. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
While there are many teachings of Buddhism that are admirable, if one is to receive eternal life, it is by no other means but the Savior of the world. End of story.
Bishop-elect Forrester reminds me much of many of the wonderful Ecuadorean people who would graciously invite us as missionaries into their homes and after hearing our message would say, “Yo creo en Dios, a mi manera,” which interpreted is “I belive in God, in my own way.”
Now that is fine if they were simply saying that they believed in God but not as we Mormons do. That I can accept. What they were really saying is they would believe in God not in the way He would want (I’m not saying the LDS way is that way in this case, you all know what I think, simply referring to the attitude), but in a way that was convenient to them and their lifestyle. If believing would force them to change in any way those things that had become comfortable, then they weren’t going to do it. If it were to become clear to them that Jesus expected certain things that would require change, then well, it just wasn’t going to happen.
I see that in Forrester’s attitude. He sees all these things that appeal to him and what he wants. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. However, this life is not about finding what we want and assuming it will make us happy. It is about finding our Father’s will for us, for that is really where true happiness if found.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Lighten up, David. We’re Episcopalians, not Mormons. We allow a little play in the joints.
And, I always have to chuckle that when someone cites a bible passage in support of a “rules” based theology, it’s always one of those little books at the end of the Bible that many Episcopalians are not sure are canonical, anyway.
Episcopalians and other liberal protestants are simply interested in different theological issues, in many cases, than conservatives. We tend to see economic issues as justice issues and emphasize how a person lives his life more so than what he or she believes. A church, like ours, that can accomodate everyone from N.T. Wright, a conservative biblical scholar, to John Shelby Spong, who is arguably the most liberal theologian in mainstream religion today, both of whom are bishops, is a church with a lot of room in it. We like it that way.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I guess my question would simply be this, Caleb. While you might find it OK to simply say, “lighten up” when referring to the seriousness with which one should take the messiahship of Jesus Christ; would He himself be OK with that?
Perhaps you might not find this passage canonical either, who knows? But, I think I remember something in the book of Matthew….oh yeah…
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
While I believe all men have their agency to believe as they will, Jesus will not force himself upon any man, a “church with a lot of room in it” in the way you’re speaking, just doesn’t jive with scripture in my mind.
But like you said, you have your way of thinking and I have mine.
Have a good day, my friend.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Never having seen a published interview with Jesus, I don’t know what he’d say, but based on all the other data, I’d imagine that Jesus would care a lot more what a person does than what he believed.
As for the Gospel of Matthew, which is a fusion of the Gospel of Mark and the so-called Synoptic Sayings Source, or Q Source, yes, it certainly is canonical, but whether it is reliable is certainly subject to serious scholarly examination. You’ve got to remember, David, that we Episcopalians believe that Christianity is not a book religion. Islam is a book religion, basing itself on the Koran. Judaism is a book religion, basing itself on the Old Testament, or as they tend to call it today, the Jewish Bible. The LDS Church may well be a book religion as well; I don’t know enough about it to know, but the Episcopal Church and its parent body the Anglican Communion are not.
As one of my seminary professors loved to say, Jesus didn’t write a book, he started a church, and placed the apostles in charge of it. Our church considers its bishops to be in direct succession from the Apostles. That is our source of authority and inspiration, not an interpretation of a book. That doesn’t mean that we don’t give the Bible a great deal of deference, but we’re not afraid to look at it from a critical scholarly point of view.
But as you say, that’s us, and maybe we’re wrong. In the world of religion, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Jesus very much cared for the beliefs over the actions of an individual. He was forever saying “because you believed” or “your faith has healed you” numerous times throughout the gospel; doing good is not necessarily for the glory of God/ atheists also do good, but without the belief will not enter heaven.
Likewise,there are many wolves infiltrating the fold–this was prophesied many times warning about them preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:6-8, 1 John 4:1-4; the hazard being they bring in false doctrines/traditions and the lost will follow wholeheartedly with Deuteronomy 18:20-22 telling how to recognize these false prophets/wolves.
Te main objection I have is that nobody cares enough to follow these guidelines–Like it or not David this is exactly what Joseph Smith neglected to do (I am not saying he did not speak to some entity–rather he failed to test the spirits). He started a whole new religion and even gave new revelations that were not Biblical.
This is also what was allowed in the 3-4th century when the Doctrines of Purgatory, Limbo, Original sin among the few were introduced into the “church” and was not questioned nor did it correspond with scripture.
It is getting late “in the Picture” and we need to start being “Biblical” and quite worrying about being politically correct.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Peach, I don’t agree. First of all, it’s unclear to me that any of the gospels accurately present what Jesus said or did, and given the contradictions, it is clear to me that all of them can’t be right. And even if they did quote Jesus correctly, in most cases, the comment was that someone had done something because of their faith; I don’t recall him ever praising anyone for simply believing the right thing and doing nothing. Faith without works, after all, is dead.
I suppose that because of my education and experience in the liberal protestant tradition, I will never be comfortable with assigning the bible more historical value than an analysis of it would confirm. As I said above, Jesus didn’t write a book, he founded a church. The distinction is that when one establishes an organization, that organization must have the ability to evolve to meet new needs.
Interestingly, those who see the Bible as their touchstone for faith are really confirming the role of church tradition, because the only reason we accept the current version of the bible as canonical is because a church organization accepted it as such, and the only reason that people see it as the inspired word of God is because one or another church teaches that. After all, EVERY religious book in the world says that it is the word of God; the reason that conservative Christians believe that the Bible really is comes about because of what they have been taught in their church or denomination. This is, if you think about it, always true of every religious text, or we’d never be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I realize this will be long, but if you don’t wish to read it, that is OK by me:
To some extent, I agree with Caleb (suprise, surpise). I’m sure I’m going to have some jump on this, but the Bible, in and of itself, does not have any authority. It’s rather funny (perhaps another word is better here, I’m not trying to poke fun) that many, most conservative Christians, claim all of their authority from the Bible, when it makes no such claim for itself. What the Bible does is show us a pattern of how God and his Son, Jesus Christ, work with men.
I’ll address your concerns Peach, because I think you deserve an answer, by first of all responding to the scriptures you cite:
Galations 1:6-8: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
I’ve heard this scripture quoted since my childhood by protestant preachers who claimed it somehow discredits Joseph Smith. Usually they emphasized the “angel” part, I’m sure referring to Moroni, and then would claim the gospel preached by Joseph was somehow a perversion of the gospel of Christ.
Point 1: Those same preachers always wanted to tell me that the gospel preached by Joseph was a perversion because he claimed that man could “work” their way to heaven, thus ignoring the grace of Lord Jesus. This just isn’t true. First of all, if you take the bible in its totality, and not just what Paul wrote, but include such writers as James, then it is not just grace that will get us where we want to go. Of course, our works will not get us there by themselves. They never could. But to ignore such scripture as found in the second chapter of James, “Even so faith, if it hath not works is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” just isn’t consistent to what the Bible actually teaches.
I’m not sure who first came up with the idea that grace alone is sufficient. Perhaps they did so because they truly felt that they could do nothing for their own salvation. Perhaps they did so because they just found it more reassuring to believe such an idea. Either way, they were still incorrect. If one reads the Bible in its entirely, it is just not possible to come to that conclusion. The many times Jesus instructs us as to keeping the commandment, being baptized, etc. make it very much impossible to come to a conclusion that grace alone is sufficient, although it is the most important part. The answer is found in the Book of Mormon, in the words of the prophet Nephi: “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do, (2 Nephi 25:23)” and also the prophet Moroni, “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.” (Moroni 10:32-33)
As for the scripture in John, I assume you mean the first epistle of John 4:1-4: “BELOVED, believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.”
I’m not sure how I should take that Peach. You are obviously stating that the communications received by Joseph Smith were not of God, but the scripture you cite does nothing to show that, it only shows that you don’t believe in Joseph, which was not in question. Joseph Smith affirmed his “confess[ion] that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” too many times to mention here, so I have no idea how this scripture discredits Joseph at all.
As for the scripture in Deuteronomy, many so-called prophecies are attributed to Joseph to say, “See, he said this and it didn’t come true!” However, I’m sure I’ve studied the life of Joseph more than any who read this blog and many if not all of them can only be cited as second or third hand accounts. (Such as the “men on the moon prophecy”….nothing but third hand accounts.) Of those that can be fully attributed to Joseph, there are just too many that came true to ignore him and many, I’m sure will happen yet.
And as for revelations that were “non-biblical” I would ask you, must respectively, to name one. But it really comes down to this. Is the Bible the ultimate authority, or is God the ultimate authority? (And no, those are not forms of the same question.) We see the same problem that Joseph came across when he ran into the preacher who directed him to that scripture in James 1:5, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God….” The words of Joseph are appropriate here: “Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.”
If I were to have a chance to speak to that minister, I would ask him the following: “Who told you there was no more revelations or visions?” You see, it would take a revelation from God, the source of revelation, to tell us there would be no more revelation. And please don’t tell me the Bible claims this, because it does not, not once.
So, in conclusion, Peach, the Bible is the not the source of the power or authority of God. It is a book that shows us a pattern and I wholeheartedly testify that it is the word of God through his prophets, but that pattern was and is the call of prophets to give God’s word and, as Caleb stated, a formation of a church by Jesus Christ, which was directed after his death by the apostles who had been duly ordained by him, which church was lost through apostasy and restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith after the same pattern established by the Lord himself, namely “apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evanglists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” The authority to direct the “kingdom” rests with the priesthood of God, and not the Bible. If there were no Bible, would the power of God cease to exist? I think not.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
David, I’m amazed. You’re an Episcopalian at heart after all. Substitute “Cranmer” for “Joseph Smith,” and you’re there.
April 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I find there is truth in all religious persuasions, Caleb. Thomas Cranmer, while I wonder at the way he was appointed to his high position of Archbishop of Canterbury, had a keen religious intellect.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
The general theory is that Henry VIII bribed the papal nuncio for the proper letters of office to appoint Cranmer Archbishop, no doubt because Cranmer had attempted to effect an annulment for him. While bribery may not be the ideal form of choosing of archbishops, one can hardly sniff at the father of the Book of Common Prayer and of English protestantism generally.
The point I was making in my little joke about your Episcopal tendencies, though, was simply that all of us who are members of hierarchical churches tend to believe, in some sense, that our own churches led the people out of the wilderness (well, yours led your people into the wilderness, but made it bloom), and that the hierarchies have some role in determining church doctrine.
Perhaps because of my background in law, which, like politics, is often the art of the possible, rather than the ideal, I tend to look at results. You can imagine that, to a left wing Anglican like myself, much of LDS theology is foreign to the point of incomprehensibility. However, what I can comprehend is that, whatever the LDS church believes, it made the desert bloom and has created a movement that may well take over the world. Those aren’t small things to do, and while one may question the intellectual underpinnings of the thing, one can’t question its success, or the positive nature of much of that success. While I may snipe and carp about the Mormons taking over the Boy Scouts, which was long associated with the Anglicans, I admire their emphasis on family life and learning about nature and the outdoors. I wish we had more of that in the Episcopal Church. While I might cringe at what they teach, I wish we were out there teaching more, too.
Sometimes churches lose that missionary zeal that makes them want to succeed. Amazingly, the Anglican church has had tremendous success in Africa, to the point that the typical Anglican in the world today is young, black, evangelical, and lives in Africa. Too bad we can’t do more here at home.