I am sure he will get the necessary consents.

If he is consecrated, it will be interesting to see who the Bishops will be that consecrate him. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Presiding Bishop herself was one of those Bishops.

Just when you think that nothing TEC does can surprise you… it just gets more and more farcical.

slightly OT: why do such small dioceses like this even exist?  Were they at one time large enough to justify their formation?

The fact that none of us are shocked by this event is telling.  This now falls into the “dog bites man” category, unfortunately.

Dcn Dale, I understand from a friend (though I have not yet verified this fact for myself, so it is second-hand) that Kevin Thew Forrester was a seminary classmate of Katharine Jefferts Schori at CDSP.  So I imagine she will be happy to consecrate him.

I hope all readers will wage a similar campaign (though in reverse) to that which many of us here waged towards obtaining consents on behalf of Mark Lawrence.  If you’ll recall, many of us wrote our standing committees and bishops urging them to consent to Lawrence.  I hope in this case we would do the opposite: urging them to vote AGAINST consent.

Get educated on this issue. 

The liberals are going to say Buddhist lay ordination is nothing - just a vow not to kill, or some such.  They’ll say meditation is a good thing.  “We should not worry about the fact that he meditates,” they will say.  They will say that Thomas Merton studied Buddhism… But there is much more to worry about here than what Buddhist lay ordination does or does not mean, or exactly how Christians should or should not meditate.  Don’t be led astray.

Read and publicize this thread:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6799
based on this article in the Dio. Northern Michigan newsletter:
http://www.upepiscopal.org/Hiawathaland/CIHSEPT2007.pdf

That article and its affirmations was largely written by the now bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, Kevin Thew Forrester.  He certainly was part of the core team that approved it and signed on to it.  This is the theology Forrester apparently promotes.  Read it carefully, and then send it to everyone you know who might care about these things:

BAPTISMAL ECCLESIOLOGY

We proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ that everyone and everything belongs. We are continually being created in the image of God, in whom we live and move and have our being. Baptism confirms this most basic truth which is at once, the Good News: all is of God, without condition and without restriction.

We seek and serve Christ in all persons because all persons are the living Christ. Each and every human being, as a human being, is knit together in God’s Spirit, and thus an anointed one – Christ. Jesus of Nazareth reveals this as the basic truth of the human condition:

God is more in me
than if the whole sea
could in a little sponge
wholly contained be.
~Angelus Silesius

We strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being, because each person embodies the living God. Life is inherently and thoroughly sacramental, which is why we love one another without condition.

We stand with Meister Eckhart who, when he gazed deep within himself, as well as all about him, saw that “the entire created order is sacred” as it is grounded in God. We do harmful and evil things to ourselves and one another, not because we are bad, but because we are blind to the beauty of creation and ourselves. In other words, we are ignorant of who we truly are: “there is no Greek or Hebrew; no Jew or Gentile; no barbarian or Scythian; no slave or citizen. There is only Christ, who is all in all.” (Colossians 3:11).

Everyone is the sacred word of God, in whom Christ lives. This baptismal vision of a thoroughly blessed creation leads us to understand the reason for the incarnation in a new way:

People think God has only become a human being there – in his historical incarnation – but that is not so; for God is here – in this very place – just as much incarnate as in a human being long ago. And this is why he has become a human being: that he might give birth to you as his only begotten Son, and as no less. ~Meister Eckhart

AFFIRMATIONS

Because each and every one of us is an only begotten child of God; because we, as the church, are invited by God to see all of creation as having life only insofar as it is in God; because everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation, of God ; as the Diocese of Northern Michigan,

We affirm Christ present in every human being and reject any attempt to restructure The Episcopal Church’s polity in a manner contrary to the principles of the baptismal covenant;

We affirm the full dignity and autonomy and interdependence of every Church in the Anglican Communion and reject any attempt of the Primates to assume an authority they do not have nor have ever possessed;

We affirm the sacramental gift of all persons, their Christ-ness, especially those who are gay and lesbian, and reject any moratorium on the blessing of samesex unions and consents of gay bishops, as it would compromise their basic dignity.

Keep an eye on the SF comment threads.  Folks in the diocese of N. Michigan are researching what Forrester believes and promotes.  See for instance here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/20618/#339399

It is for his theology that Forrester should be rejected as bishop of Northern Michigan.  He does not appear to be a Christian.  He needs to be questioned closely about what he believes, and if he can not without any hesitation or waffling affirm Jesus as God, the unique Savior of Mankind, he should not receive consents.  Period. 

Don’t get lost in the fog the revisionists will spew on this matter, nor get caught up in arguments over the “process”.  Keep a focus on his beliefs.

Tar Heel, you are so right.
Try doing a Google NEWS search on Kevin Thew Forrester or Buddhist Bishop.

Apart from religious media articles spearheaded by George Conger and also the IRD (i.e. articles in the Living Church, Religious Intelligence, Church of England News, and the Christian Newswire), almost total dead silence.

I joke this is the sound of “one-hand clapping.”  But the silence is SCARY.  There appears to be one TV station in Corpus Christi Texas who have a blurb about this on their Religion News page—apparently from a feed by the AP.  But apart from that, at least as of 1-2 hours ago.  NADA.

The ENS article apparently does not mention that Thew Forrester is a Buddhist.  Surprise surprise.

It’s as if this news is promoting yawns.  Of COURSE TEC elected a Buddhist Bishop.  Why is that newsworthy?

Don’t let the liberals or TEC get away with the silence.  Get this news out to your newspapers and TV stations.  Use these links:

Religious Intelligence
The Living Church
Christian Newswire / the IRD

And don’t forget to review and summarize CRUCIAL background, especially his theology that EVERYONE IS GOD:

Key links at Stand Firm include these:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/20611
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19901
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19887
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/11832

And DON’T MISS THIS THREAD which is what got the Dio. of Northern Michigan on most conservative Anglicans’ radar screen back in Oct. 2007:  http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6799

If you’re interested in following through in ACTING on this matter per my #6 and #7, you MUST read what Sarah Hey has posted over at SF:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/20663/

It is excellent, helpful PRACTICAL info for how to get involved.

Above all, I urge folks to pray and ask the Lord what He would have you do.  This may be all too typical news from TEC these days, but it doesn’t mean we have to sit back in apathy and watch it happen, nor enjoy the voyeuristic spectacle as just more of TEC’s chaotic “entertainment.”

I’ll be signing off for the rest of the day… it’s Ash Wed., and I have Lenten commitments, and want to focus any further blogging today on devotional stuff

A blessed Lent to all.  May the Lord show us how to do what will please Him in this matter and in all matters.

ASA of 690 in this diocese??!  Buddhist-Episcopagan bishop??!
ROTFLOL, or as the church lady would say “well, isn’t that special!”

On a serious note, it is so sad that TEC has become little more than a sick joke that sues people.

A local Christian talk show host here in Detroit has been having a field day on us.

I swear, if they do just one more thing ......

If sin is about not seeing our goodness, I am missing something. I wonder what sort of Ash Wednesday service he has.

“be ye not unequally yoked” no man can serve two masters

I wonder what the Primates will think, if Forrester receives the necessary consents and is consecrated?

#16 - additionally is it perhaps time question where needs to be a Diocese of Northern Michigan?  Just fold them into a larger diocese for goodness sake.  It’ll mean more $$$ to sue the orthodox (that should get them excited).

#12 Pb,
“I wonder what sort of Ash Wednesday service he has.”  If he were here in the Central Valley of CA, he couldn’t have ashes if it were a non burn day. In Fresno we have bad air days where we can’t see the foothills and good days when the view is as good as Boulder Colorado.

10. stjohnsrector,
Are you the rector at St. Johns Episcopal Church in Royal Oak?

THANKS BE TO GOD - NO!!!!
St. John’s Episcopal Church DETROIT, next to Comerica Park, a 1928 BCP Parish founded in 1858.
http://www.stjohnsdetroit.org

#20 stjohnsrector,
Thanks for the clarification.  I would imagine the Royal Oak congregation has changed considerably as the demographics of Royal Oak have radically changed also. It’s rather ironic that it is so close to Shrine of the Little Flower RC church also on Woodward Ave. so famous for Father Coughlin.

Karen B, as a reexaminer, I’m not sure what you find offensive in the statement, aside form same-sex marriages.

I also don’t know what people are arguing against.  There seems to be a belief that Buddhism is a fundamentally different religion than Christianity, like Islam.  Is this the case?

One can easily declare Jesus the Son of God and still use Buddhist “technology” like incense, chanting, and meditation.  I would note there are many different sorts of Buddhism.  I would find it hard to imagine a Tibetan and a Christian sharing the same faith, but I can fully imagine a Zen practitioner be a Christian.  There are Catholic priests who do, and are still considered orthodox, such as Randall Kennedy. 

Buddhism as a heresy looks a bit like Arianism, because of its perfectionist elements.  But it need not be practised like that.  It may also look a lot like the apophatic tradition in Christian mysticism.  The difference is whether nothing can be the center, or something.  Christians have often used the via negativa as a way of understanding God. 

This isn’t the case of a Hindu or a Shinto or a Muslim deciding to become a priest or bishop.

22. John Wilkins,
“There seems to be a belief that Buddhism is a fundamentally different religion than Christianity, like Islam.  Is this the case?”
John, do Buddhists believe that Christ is God?

#23 Dcn Dale says:

John, do Buddhists believe that Christ is God?

In general, the answer is obviously “No.”  But the better question is:  “Is it possible to believe what Buddhists believe, and also believe without contradiction that Christ is God?”

Of course, not all Buddhist believe the same thing, any more than all Christians do; and I don’t know exactly what Buddhist beliefs the bishop-elect holds.  My limited knowledge of Buddhism suggests that there are going to be some tensions; but I would not put it beyond the bound of possibility that someone could hold some forms of Buddhism together with beliefs that are recognizably Christian.

But then, I’m a reappraiser; so my boundaries for “recognizably Christian” are possibly different than yours.

John Wilkins, did you see what Karen B. posted above “Baptismal Ecclesiology?” To me that is not consistent with Christian Theology, unless of course you are a gnostic christian.

John Wilkins, Just quickly catching up on the comments here before calling it a night (it’s 7:30 p.m. in my time zone and I need to head home, where I have no internet here in Africa)  I didn’t even remember that the statement said anything about SS marriage.  I didn’t re-read it word for word when I posted it earlier this morning.

What I found “offensive” was the portions of the statement that say
“all persons are the living Christ”
“everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation, of God”
etc.

It totally denies the uniqueness of Christ, the divinity of Christ.  We all become equal to God.

In fact, back in Oct 2007, I did a little “thought-experiment” about this over at Stand Firm.

Here’s my comment from back then:

You know, all anyone needed to do to utterly destroy this idiocy was a simple thought exercise.  A search and replace.  And yes, I’m about to break Godwin’s law here.  But there is exceptional cause:

Here are the 4 direct quotes from the article:
—All persons are the living Christ
—Each and every human being, ... is ... an anointed one – Christ.
—Everyone is the sacred word of God
—Everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation, of God

Let’s try this:
—[Child molesters] are the living Christ
—[Charles Manson], ... is ... an anointed one – Christ.
—[Adolph Hitler] is the sacred word of God
—[Rocks, ear wax, toenail clippings, bird droppings…] is the living presence, or incarnation, of God

This Lent, I have resolved to open my eyes and my heart to my own goodness, about which I have been apparently blinded by my own failure to recognize my own goodness. I am grateful to the Buddhist Bishop for the depth of his insight, and am tempted to include his definition of sin into the Ash Wednesday service this evening. It may help my parish understand that when Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, he learned that he was just as good as we are. (As I write this, I am hearing the divine strains of the Cosmic Hum in the background - can Nirvana be far behind?)

Buddhism is an early split-off from Hinduism, in broad-brush description a “spiritualization” of Hinduism.  The basic cosmic view of both religions is souls caught in a nearly endless cycle of birth, suffering in this world, and reincarnation, and the goal of both is escape from the physical cycle to an undifferentiated merging into the divine.  Hindu and Buddhist views of humans and the divine (not “God”) are really very different from the Christian concepts.  This bishop should choose one or the other.

Dcn Dale [#23] writes: “John, do Buddhists believe that Christ is God? “

Not even all followers of Jesus do.

———————

Karen B. [#26] writes:

What I found “offensive” was the portions of the statement that say
[1] “all persons are the living Christ”
[2] “everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation, of God”
etc.

It totally denies the uniqueness of Christ, the divinity of Christ.  We all become equal to God.

As to [1], my wife and I just came from an Ash Wednesday Eucharist with the traditional Rite I post-communion prayer, including, “... we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son ....”  I don’t see a material difference between that and [1].

As to [2], it’s a little too mystical for my taste, but I don’t think it’s too close to panentheism for comfort.

Some comments on this posting strike me as having little connection to actual Buddhism.  May I suggest the book “Buddhism A Way Of Life And Thought” by Nancy Wilson Ross, about which many long-term practitioners of just Buddhism have said favorable things. The book is short, approachable, and it has balanced coverage of the main streams of Buddhism.

It seems pretty clear that, whatever one may think about the compatibility of (Zen) Buddhism and Christianity, there are many individuals who practice both, without any problematic inner conflicts.

Buddhism comes in many forms—some more “theistic” than others. In fact, many Zen Buddhists hold very lightly to doctrines other Buddhists hold more tightly; one such doctrine is rebirth. In Zen, rebirth is often interpreted in terms of the continual changes, or rebirths, one undergoes in this life. In fact, the focus is on this present moment—and on letting the next life, or lives, or whatever the case may be, manifest as it will. So even belief (in the sense of ‘absolute certainty’, for instance) in rebirth is not necessary in order to practice Zen, or even to take refuge as a Buddhist.

It seems to me that the nominated bishop is more problematic because he holds liberal/progressive Christian ideas, than because he practices Zen. And I’m not even sure anyone knows exactly how he practices Zen.

#22 writes, “One can easily declare Jesus the Son of God and still use Buddhist “technology” like incense, chanting, and meditation.”
Buddhist technology? Technology? Buddhist? Huh?

Incense: ancient Judaism, taken over into Christianity. Not everyone is into incense, admittedly, and I’d guess that in the Christian tradition sandalwood and the other Eastern incense formulas aren’t all that common.

Chanting: ancient Judaism, taken over into Christianity. Again, not everyone is into traditional chant. Jewish chant drives me up a wall (probably because I can’t understand it), and I can only tolerate Gregorian chant in measured doses - but these are powerful spiritual practices used throughout the Judeo-Christian world. (Give me Orlando Gibbons or Stanford.)

Meditation: ancient Judaism, taken over into Christianity. Sure, not everybody is into meditation. When done without a spiritual director profound meditation can actually be a dangerous practice.

Zen, in particular, seems to rely heavily on individual experience, rather than being grounded in Scripture and Tradition, which can be used to check the validity of one’s meditation experiences. No doubt, this reliance on experience would make it particularly appealing to modern secular humanists.

Resolution B033: “Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion .”

I think the bishops and standing committees need to decide whether this applies in this case, and act accordingly.

#29

As to [1], my wife and I just came from an Ash Wednesday Eucharist with the traditional Rite I post-communion prayer, including, “... we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son ....” I don’t see a material difference between that and [1].

Statement [1] implies an identity with Christ, while “members incorporate in the mystical” indicates that we are not identical but intimately connected with Christ. To use biblical imagery, we are ingrafted into Christ.

[2] “everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation, of God” 

You’re right, it’s not panentheism, it’s pantheism. That is, ““God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature”” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) Biblical religion resolutely refuses to identify or subordinate God with or to creation, as pantheism—and this statement—does.

Mr. Wilkins #22 - You make an excellent point.  It is, frankly, not necessarily intuitively obvious that there are grave problems with Fr. Forrester’s statement on baptismal ecclesiology.  I think that there are and would start with Bonhoeffer’s marvelous discussion of Cheap Grace in The Cost of Discipleship wherein he notes the significance of the context within which a thing is said.  He draws attention to the difference between the statement, “I now see that we can nothing know,” on the lips of Faust at the end of a long life of study and (as Kierkegaard points out) on those of a college freshman trying to justify indolence.  Alas, to these ears, the context of Fr. Forrester’s statement appears to much more resemble the latter than the former.  We are given no Eckhartian bona fides by the statement’s author, no demonstration of a proper understanding of the nature of, say, sin to set off the more problematic statements about lack of self-understanding; but rather the quotations appear in a context that appears to justify throwing off the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of Christians rather than joining with them, rejecting the authority of scripture and the Church rather accepting or deepening them, and of misusing what is said rather than being faithful to it.

It’s rather like using Dr. King’s words about judging people based on the content of their character to justify executing those convicted of capital crimes.  Surely Dr. King’s words are true and capital punishment is a defensible practice, but is it really appropriate to use just those words in just that way?  Is that really true to what he intended to convey?  Would you take kindly to such misuse, even though you can surely agree with the quotation?

I would say that that is what you are seeing in the response to this statement.  By and large what’s said is true, in a sense - but the clarifications that this is the sense in which it is intended is missing.  Too much needed context and explanation is left out.  I think it would have been better for Northern Michigan to say nothing at all than put out such a poorly explained statement that at best invites misunderstanding and appears itself to be a gross misuse of plausibly defensible theological verbiage.  I would make it a general rule never to quote mystics in a similar context - too much explanation is required.  Unless of course, your point is to misuse their words to support heretical beliefs to begin with.

D.C.

Not all are in Christ.  Τhat’s the difference.

#32 Ralph,

Zen, in particular, seems to rely heavily on individual experience, rather than being grounded in Scripture and Tradition, which can be used to check the validity of one’s meditation experiences. No doubt, this reliance on experience would make it particularly appealing to modern secular humanists.

Actually, Zen is very much grounded in Scripture and Tradition—at least Zen as it is practiced traditionally. And Zen has a well-developed understanding of “experience”: no experience is Truth. All experiences come and go. Nothing special. Don’t be distracted. Get back to carrying water, chopping wood, and living your life.

#29 D.C. Toedt,
Dcn Dale [#23] writes: “John, do Buddhists believe that Christ is God? ”
“Not even all followers of Jesus do.”
This follower of Jesus believes that he is God.  How about you?

Dcn Dale,  I am sure that DC will answer you, but he has openly stated here and on his blog that he does not believe that Jesus is God.  He will tell you that Jesus was nothing more than an ordinary human being.

Ralph,
I think the differences, especially in meditation, is the definition of meditation and the purpose, or goal.  In Judaism and Christianity, the purpose of meditation is to ‘gain the mind of God’ and to open oneself to the ‘words of the Lord’.  The Psalmist says “I delight in the law of the Lord and meditate on it day and night”.

In Eastern thought, the purpose of mediation is to become one with nothingness, often through the repetition of a meaningless word or mantra.

So, while there may be similar words, usually because the Eastern words are translated with Western nomenclature in mind, the definitions and purposes are quite different.

Is there any other instance in which only one person has been presented to be Bishop?  I am troubled by this, as well as the fact that he was a part of the search committee. 
I also am unclear on why certain dioceses exist when they have such few members - Quincy, Eau Claire, Northern Michigan to just name a few.

Now, there is this:
http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/opinion/the_end_of_reasoned_faith/

He is a heretic, but then again this is nothing new in the TEC.

I was thinking of something last night and want to think aloud a bit further here with you all.  It concerns how we manage dual track concerns - about both the “election” process and the apparent heterodoxy of the bishop elect.

I had been frustrated yesterday to see Kevin Martin’s statement of concern about the process (posted at Covenant and also linked at BabyBlue).  Kevin Martin seemed to set aside any concern about Forrester’s Buddhism to focus only on the process.  On one hand I understand why he might choose to do that as a strategic decision.

BUT, it really does concern me.  It seems the tack Kevin Martin has taken opens us up to the following scenario.  Imagine Forrester is denied consents on the basis of an improper election.  (Think Mark Lawrence…).  So, imagine then the diocese holds a closely monitored open election with many candidates including Forrester.  And Forrester wins fairly, canonically.

What then would we do?  If Forrester had been elected canonically in a truly democratic election would Kevin Martin and others still object?  I.E. is a Buddhist bishop a problem?  Or is it just the manner of his election that is a problem?

I suggest it is both facts that are a problem.  If we focus merely on the election irregularities we are in effect saying what New Hampshire and those who consented to VGR said:  All that matters is that he was canonically elected.

Is that true?

And finally:  I’m not going to get drawn into a discussion about whether a Christian can validly incorporate any Zen practices into their spiritual life.  We’re not just talking about any lay Christian peon here.  We’re talking about a bishop of the Whole Church.

And that was the same issue we faced with VGR.  It wasn’t the question of whether an active homosexual can be a true Christian.  Of course he/she can.  All of us Christians are sinful.  The sin of homosexuality is no worse than the sin of deceit.  If I say a homosexual can’t be a Christian, I’d also have to say a liar can’t be a Christian - and I’d be in trouble.  I struggled with deceit in some situations for years after I’d converted.  TEC’s “Baptismal theology” as hijacked and utilized by Integrity et al is so dangerous.  “All the sacraments for all the people” they proclaim!  And they try to exploit people’s desire to want to be nice and include everyone and not be bigoted, to cross some very important lines.

It is one thing to welcome active homosexuals or Buddhists, or adulterers, or notorious alcholics, etc. etc. into our sanctuary and if they are professed and baptized Christians invite them to the Eucharist. (Hoping and praying for transformation and amendment of life…)  It is another thing to ordain them as clergy and consecrate them as bishops.

Don’t let the revisionists win and don’t let them blur the lines.  Don’t be cowed by comments “do you believe that all Buddhists are bad and that noone who meditates can be a Christian?”

That’s not what we’re saying, and “They” know that.  Be clear on what we ARE saying.

1) The process may have been very questionable and troubling.

2) But even if the process had been perfect and canonical, the nominee chosen should not be consented to if he cannot affirm the faith once delivered and profess the Creeds:  That Jesus Christ alone was and is fully God and fully man, the one sufficient sacrifice for sins for all who receive Him by faith and believe on His name.

3) This is not a personal ad hominem attack.  For all I know Kevin Thew Forrester may be a wonderful man and a very inspiring encouraging person.  But unless he is clearly a Christian and one above reproach who can be held up as a model of faith and a true teacher for the WHOLE church, he can not and should not be a bishop.  Period.

II corinthians 6:3 “put no stumbling block in anyone’s path” I think any “clergy” that could not see this as a problem for believers should have there motives closely examined

Bravo, Karen #43.  Those still in TEC should be protesting this election to their own bishops and Standing Committees on both procedural and doctrinal grounds.

NTO writes, “Actually, Zen is very much grounded in Scripture and Tradition—at least Zen as it is practiced traditionally. And Zen has a well-developed understanding of “experience”: no experience is Truth. All experiences come and go. Nothing special. Don’t be distracted. Get back to carrying water, chopping wood, and living your life.”

Are you saying that Zen scripture and tradition take precedence over individual experience? Or, is experience considered more important?

BTW, I have received an e-mail from another CDSP ‘93 graduate confirming that both KJS and Kevin Thew Forrester were classmates at CDSP.  Class of ‘93.

Louie Crew’s data confirms that Thew Forrester was CDSP 93:
see #82 here.
The Rev. Dr. Kevin Thew Forrester, c3 Northern Michigan. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Bachelors at: Coll S Thos , 80 Other degrees: CUA 84 CUA PhD 92 CDSP MTS 93

However, Louie lists KJS as CDSP ‘94.
In any case, it is likely they had some contact at CDSP…

#46, Ralph,

Zen is quite iconoclastic (and biblioclastic), true, but such iconoclasm, historically, was itself the result of deep study of the Buddhist sutras and Buddhist tradition. Americans attracted to Zen often admire the iconoclasm, without appreciating the sutra-study and adherence to tradition that formed the foundation of such iconoclasm. And Americans who happen to be Christian or Jewish can practice within the iconoclastic stream of Zen, since the focus is on “experience” rather than Buddhist doctrine.

But the question of “experience” is significant. It’s not as if Zen says “Whatever you experience, is true, valid, praiseworthy; so therefore, whatever you experience trumps anything else.” People experience all sorts of things in Zen meditation: visions, voices, images, “supernatural” beings, apparent past-lives. Now, it’s helpful and useful to have such interesting experiences. Such experiences confirm that the universe is not simply a random process of matter-and-energy materialism. But even the most spectacular vision arises, exists, and eventually dissolves. All experiences are transitory, impermanent. Enlightenment itself is not an experience: enlightenment is the penetrative insight into the truth of all experience. As such, enlightenment is not separate from ordinary, everyday life (“chopping wood, carrying water”).