The recent, splendid Living Church article by my friend Kenneth Aldrich ”“ “Confessions of an Episcopal Fundamentalist” ”“ has provided timely food for thought and prayer,if not indeed something very close to manna from heaven, for Episcopalians committed to the “fundamentals” of orthodox Christianity, and in particular for those on that Anglican front-line which is what the Diocese of South Carolina seems to have become!
In my own preaching and teaching at the Cathedral in Charleston I have used Father Aldrich’s article, as well as the recent widely controversial edict of Pope Benedict XVI (nothing new there and therefore nothing for us to get bent out of shape about!), to undergird my conviction that the way forward for us in this Diocese and at this Cathedral should be to focus on two ecclesiological bottom-lines.
The first, always, is the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as God’s Word Written, in terms of which the identity and integrity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is constituted by the Spirit of Christ Himself. The second, for Anglicans, must be the apostolic witness and continuity of this Church Catholic, embodied and passed along by bishops who commit themselves to be faithful guardians of “the faith once delivered to the saints” as contained in the Bible and expressed in the Creeds of the Church’s conciliar tradition. To put it in the words of one of the first Reformation-era Anglican bishops, John Jewell: “We have planted no new religion but only have preserved the old that was undoubtedly founded and used by the apostles of Christ and other holy fathers of the primitive church.”
Our current priority must be praying and working towards getting Mark Lawrence re-elected and consecrated as such a bishop, with (God willing) his service of consecration and “seating” in this Cathedral next January.
In the meantime, as we witness the tragic, if gradual, break up of the Episcopal Church as we have known it, we can console ourselves that, on the one hand, Jesus promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His Church but, on the other hand, He said nothing about the putative claims of modern denominations as such or their “autonomy” (nationally or provincially) ”“ which are, after all, nothing but modern institutional fictions.
Anglican Christianity is surely in the process of re-aligning itself around relationships of apostolic faithfulness, integrity, and collegiality among and between bishops and dioceses committed not to humanly institutionalized structures (which in the long course of church history wax and wane) but to the divinely constituted One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.
As one of my own mentors in cathedral ministry, a British Dean put it: “Hold fast to Christ, and for the rest remain uncommitted.” May it ever be so for the Diocese, Bishop, and Cathedral of South Carolina ”“ and indeed, as a matter of fervent prayer on behalf of all of us, for the See of Canterbury itself and its occupant, that the re-alignment of Anglicanism should not lose that historic rootedness through so many centuries of church history.
Well said. Amen and Amen!
Well, I am neither in the cathedral nor the diocese to which he is speaking; which is just as well, because I would have to differ from both of his “bottom lines.”
I’ve said before that, in my view, Scripture is a human document — a remarkable and impressive one, worthy of great respect and close study; but not “God’s Word Written.”
And the “faith once delivered to the saints” is no such thing. Christianity has grown, changed, and evolved continuously from the earliest house churches depicted in Acts to the present day; and doctrine and understanding of doctrine has changed as well. There is no moment in time — not the death of the last apostle, not the final bang of the gavel dismissing whichever of the great ecumenical councils you consider the last one — at which one can plunge in a stake and say, “Here, Christian doctrine achieved its perfection; from this point on, the only allowable work is explication and illumination; any departure from this is error and heresy.”
Remember what happened to the servant who buried the money entrusted to him in the ground to preserve it exactly as it was?
In Comment #2, I hear the sound of Beelzebub applying a crow-bar to the door.
Are you suggesting that I am Beelzebub, or merely that I’m one of his dupes? And am I meant to be using the crow bar to be breaking in somewhere, or out of somewhere?
I ask simply out of curiosity 🙂
I don’t know, Ross, you could be anyone. This is the internet, after all.
What I meant was, once a man tells himself there is no “pure Christianity”, that it has been continuously evolving, mutating, and transmogrifying into whatever we want it to mean, he becomes vulnerable to any lie of the Evil One. In his hubris, he might think he is smarter than the apostles, the saints, the ecumenical councils, and might even go so far as to found his own religion, one that says he can have 27 wives, or that countenances suicide-bombing, or that blesses sodomy.
That in a nutshell is what has torn the Episcopal Church apart. Is the Faith really revealed truth from God Himself, that we must take with utmost seriousness, or is it just something we just make up to suit our tastes?
“I’ve said before that, in my view, Scripture is a human document—a remarkable and impressive one, worthy of great respect and close study; but not “God’s Word Written.â€
Why then is it worthy of “great respect and close study”?
[i] Let’s comment on the post, please. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Remember what happened to the servant who buried the money entrusted to him in the ground to preserve it exactly as it was?
Refresh my memory – was the servant supposed to turn the talents into something else altogether, or into more talents? I think you need another parable, Ross.
#2 writes: “Remember what happened to the servant who buried the money entrusted to him in the ground to preserve it exactly as it was?”
This is a verse totally 100% unrelated to your comments. You demonstrate a typical technique that is to paraphrase a scripture in a context unrelated to its intent and use it in an attempt to make some obtuse point.
Many other scriptures exist that speak directly to your comments; however, they contradict your comments so I understand why you chose one unrelated.
It seems contradictory to me that so many Christians seem to think the God that created the world, was resurrected from the dead, and ascended to heaven ( just to name a few high points) is incapable of preserving one book of truth through the ages.
#5:
I prefer the middle that you’re attempting to exclude.
#6:
Why worthy of great respect and close study? Because it’s a remarkable book. Surely you don’t mean to imply that nothing that does not come directly from God’s mouth is worthless?
#8:
The servant was supposed to take some risks with what was entrusted to him in order to make it into something more.
#9:
You are, of course, free to disagree with my use of the parables. Personally, I find this one instructive in the present circumstance.
#10:
Could? Certainly. He also could have dropped some infallible physics, chemistry, and biology texts into our laps and saved us a lot of time; but he didn’t. I’ve seen nothing that suggests to me that the Bible is anything other than the writings of very sincere and prayerful — but fallible — men and women.
I’m mindful of Elf Lady’s request to stick to the subject of the article, so I don’t want to drag out this side discussion too far. And I daresay it would only end up in the same impasse that such discussions always seem to lead to. But in fact, the nature and extent of revelation in Christianity — whether in the context of Scripture, or in the assertion that the “faith” was “once delivered” — goes near to the heart of what divides us.
Ross.
You have hit the point. We are divided, and exactly on the issues of revelation, authority, historicity and factuality. We are often at an impasse over these.
There is a real spiritual cohesion among we who hold to an understanding that the Scriptures are an accurate record of God’s work with humanity. These actions are focused on the resurrection of Jesus. Now I would not propose to know the molecular composition of Jesus resurrection body, but I will state that no one can accurately claim Christianity without accepting that God acted in time and space resurrecting Jesus. Jesus’ Resurrection is a real action by God in the world. Those who believe this are bound to each other in faith.
Getting back to the posting, Jesus’ resurrection, understood as history, is part of our ancient apostolic faith. It is a difficult truth to come to terms with, but it is neither negotiable nor transformable. To spiritualize or mythologize the resurrection is not to make it more understandable and hence more accessible to the contemporary mind. These ‘evolutions’ empty it of power for everyone. More are not gained by this kind of development, rather all become lost. The tenacious insistence on this factuality in our faith has always been an impasse to many. It is the Resurection that stopped the Athenians from listening to Paul at the Areopagus. It is a blunt fact. And there is a great divide between those who accept that God has worked in the world on our behalf in raising Jesus from the dead and those who do not.
I have never found believing that Jesus rose from the dead and easy truth. But when I allow this act by God as fact to work its way in me, I am filled with awe and dread and love and shame and joy and peace allatonce. It simplifies everything; as a point in history it calls me from my theories into the presence of the living God as a child to receive instruction. What do I have to offer in the face of such a thing but silent worship and full attention. Accepting Jesus’ resurection draws me into God’s story; it makes real all the rest of the Scriptural account of this story. I invite you to put away your cleverness for some time and meditate on the resurection of Jesus as fact. See where it takes you and what it means for the whole of your existence. That is what it is to be Christian. That is what we who want to preserve the faith are so stubborn about. We do not hold to factuality because we are thick or fearful. Accepting the resurection fills us with fear and understanding, rejecting it only makes smugness. We hold to factuality because this is the world we are called into, and it is a marvelous world indeed. I invite you brother to wade into this terrible unknown world where God brings life from death.
In Christ Jesus, true giver of life,
Scott Henthorn
If scripture is of no more value than Homer, Shakespere or Harry Potter then then has been inordinate time devoted to its study. And of course the official teachings of the church and ordination vows are worthless.
From the BCP 525
[blockquote]The Bishop says to the ordinand
Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of
Christ as this Church has received them? And will you, in
accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop
and other ministers who may have authority over you and
your work? Answer
I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I
do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to
salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine,
discipline, and worship of the [Protestant] Episcopal Church
[in the United States of America].[/blockquote]
If, one actualy believes entirely that
[blockquote] Scripture is a human document [/blockquote]
then the next logical conclusion is indeed that
[blockquote] the “faith once delivered to the saints†is no such thing. [/blockquote]
There are plenty of “remarkable” human documents out there, including, but not limited to the writings of Confucius, the teachings of Buddha, and yes, even the Qu’ran of Mohammed. Given that as humans we are capable of choice, it would seem logical that we should pick and choose from among these human documents those teachings that seem to us to be useful.
But if one believes as the author of this article does, that scripture is “the Word of God Written” and that the “faith once delivered” has been accurately reflected in that Word, there is only one choice, and that is to [i]give up[/i] personal choice and trust in the choice that God has given us.
I applaud the writers firm stance on the authority and trustworthiness of the Scriptures. Whether the Bible is fully truthful is a matter which is of importance to us theologically, historically, and epistemologically. Jesus, Paul, and other major New Testament writers regarded the Scriptures as authoritative even in its details. This being the case, certain implications follow. If God is omniscient he cannot be ignorant on any matter. If he is omnipotent, he is able to affect the biblical authors writing so that nothing erroneous enters into the final product. And since truth is one of his primary attributes, he would certainly desire to use his abilities so that we would not be mislead in any way by the Scriptures.
The church has historically held to a general belief in the complete dependability of the Bible. Throughout church history when a theological movement begins by regarding Biblical inerrancy as a
peripheral or optional matter, it soon follows that this movement abandons or alters other doctrines which the Church has ordinarily considered of major importance. Such examples are the deity of Christ or the Trinity.
The epistemological question is simply, How do we know? Since the basis for knowing and holding to the truth of any theological proposition is that the Bible teaches it; it is of great importance that the Bible be found true in all of its assertions. To the extent that we abandon the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture, other bases for doctrine will be sought – and with it will come a shrinking of the list of fundamental doctrines of the faith. This shrinkage is due to the fact that it is very difficult to establish the Trinity or the virgin birth of Christ upon either a philosophical argument or the dynamics of a psychology of religion.
Blake once said that “I think; therefore I am” was the most dangerous idea anyone ever had. His objection was that it put man and his ideas in the center of reality. If not scripture, where is the tertium quid of Lewis, the point of reference from which conflicting ideas may be discerned.
The servant was supposed to take some risks with what was entrusted to him in order to make it into something more.
Which doesn’t erase the fact that in the end he was supposed to have more of the same thing he was originally given not a “new thing”.
#12 William Scott says:
Why do you think that I do not believe in the Resurrection? I do; and not merely in a “spiritual” or “mythological” way. I would indeed be cautious of thinking that we understand too exactly what happened there, but I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead in a real, literal, and historical sense.
What bearing does that have on the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture?
Ross,
I was aware that I might be wrong in this asumpton. And apologize, and am glad you hold this apostolic teaching.
I cannot form an absolute connection between a factual resurection and the divine origin of scripture. But the resurection is certainly the focus of apostolic teaching. You had claimed in your posting that there was no such thing as once and for all Christian teaching. I was using the resurection to challenge this claim. And it is no secret that the resurection is denied by many in our communion.
I think my invitation remains intact. You already own the resurection of Jesus. This is not an isolated or merely interesting fact; not just a really neat thing that God has done. It seems to me there is no other fact in all of history that is more important aside from our creation. A document that has as part of its record God’s action in resurrecting Jesus is more than merely human. This event happened in a particular community under the influence of the texts we still use. At least by implication the Bible has association with the agency of God in human affairs through the chosen people, Abraham’s offspring, and we who have been grafted into that family tree. In this sense at least Scripture is the text we use to seek Divine council. In these books we expect to find both human longing for God and God speaking back.