The Episcopal Church sits at a crossroads. The Church, on several fronts, must choose between a static, centuries-old portrayal of Jesus and the Bible, a perspective increasingly remote from twenty-first century American life, and a dynamic portrayal of Jesus, retelling his story in images and language relevant and comprehensible to post-moderns. Cutting-edge challenges exist not only with respect to human sexuality but also at other points at which theology collides with advances in science.
Will the Episcopal Church succumb to fundamentalist pressures from within and without the Anglican Communion to become a Church that seeks creedal uniformity? The cost of choosing that direction is to concretize Jesus’ charisma, the vital Spirit of the living God. This displaces risky personal encounters that can lead to life-giving transformation with safe and standardized creedal orthodoxy. Such formulas are like good Christian art: appropriate to a particular moment in the spatio-temporal matrix and not eternally definitive.
Fundamentalism has nothing to do with credal orthodoxy. This artilcle is based on a false assumption but you have to demonize your opponents and what better way than to call them fundamentalists.
This is Modernism capitol ‘M’… classic!
The author wouldn’t know a real fundamentalist if one bit him. However, he can utilize his jargonese all he wishes to accomplish the denigration of those not sufficiently “with it” in his view. A risky personal encounter with an actual person who believes differently and in accord with the Christian Faith, now that’s dangerous. What if such an one were correct? Might require an adjustment of false presumption, eh?!
This says it all:
[blockquote] Alternatively, will the Episcopal Church continue down the risky but exciting and dynamic path that is consistent with our time-honored Anglican tradition: praying together, living in unity in spite of theological and ethical diversity, preserving an openness through our linguistic and liturgical art [b]to God’s ongoing revelation[/b]?[/blockquote]
The is not Christianity. Scripture and Jesus are not God’s final revelation. Rather God gives us new and evolutionary revelation based on our subjective experience (our supreme authority which changes from generation to generation). This is nothing more than warmed over Schleiermacher and Hegel.
I have yet to figure out what are these “advances in science” that are coming into collision with theology.
This sounds like the History Channel and the Jesus Seminar. The false assumption is that there are reliable accounts of Jesus other than the ones found in the Bible. Also, the idea that the “historical Jesus” is just like me.
Our life in Christ is certainly dynamic and fully alive, but this is not in opposition to “creedal uniformity.” The Church has seen fit to dogmatize creedal statements precisely to protect the ability of future generations, until the “bright and appointed day of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ” to hear and respond to the Gospel.
Dr. Clifford’s social club is a good example of the wisdom of this, as it shows how men will warp and distort God’s revelation until we get something like an Epicopal Church that says there’s no truth, humanity is great as it is, Jesus is not the Son of God and His Apostles were misogynists and bigots.
If ECUSA’s leaders took the creeds seriously, the likelihood of its collapse into an insular group obsessed with sex and money would have been greatly reduced.
What staggering heresy. As antidote and defense against this sort of thing, I submit [url=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html]Pascendi Dominci Gregis.[/url]
What is frustrating is that people such as Fr. Clifford are empowered and authorized as official teachers of TEC yet their teaching is contrary to TEC’s official teaching. I know this is a problem of long standing (Pike) but it is frustrating none the less.
[blockquote] This displaces risky personal encounters that can lead to life-giving transformation with safe and standardized creedal orthodoxy.[/blockquote]
I didn’t realize risky personal encounters were a new thing. My own experience of life-giving transformation must not have been authentic…
To quote that learned sage and philosopher Bugs Bunny –
“What a maroon!”
[blockquote]the vital Spirit of the living God[/blockquote]
To (mis)quote Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.”
Clemmitt