It is probably inevitable, given the logic of institutions, that many bishops (and other clergy, too) should develop a line of pious patter that moves from platitude to platitude with a resounding confidence unsupported by adequate theological underpinnings. Bishops, alas, are rarely scholars or theologians, but they are expected nonetheless to say something on many occasions, and so a certain line of pious patter is necessary. I will readily admit that I am occasionally guilty of it myself (it is an occupational hazard), but afterwards I try to repent. Moreover, to remind myself of the dangers, I make it a point of self-discipline that at least once or twice a year I should reflect on the pronouncements of some episcopal personage, and although the results are rarely edifying, they do keep one “grounded”.
It is probably unfair (Fr. Ralston would tell me I am breaking butterflies on the wheel), but I have developed a special affection for the pronouncements of the Presiding Bishop. She says the darndest things! Consider her Opening Address to General Convention. (You can read the whole thing at www.episcopal church.org/documents/070709_PBopeningaddress.pdf.) Her topic was crisis, and how the Church should respond to it. It “is always a remarkable opportunity” (thank you, Rahm Emanuel). Aspects of the crisis to be explored are: “the needs of the poorest, and the inclusion of those who do not have full access to the life of this Church”; “how the life of this Church intersects with the life of other Anglicans”, and “how will we engage God’s reconciling mission – sharing the good news, healing the world, and caring for all of God’s creation”. A peroration constructed of boilerplate, it reaches a peak with this question: “How will we discover that we ARE [sic] in relationship with all that God has created, and that we’re meant to be stewards of the whole?” Ignore the environmentalist platitude about the stewardship of creation, if you will. It’s motherhood and apple-pie. Note instead the other new-age platitude about discovering that we “ARE” in relationship with all that God has created. There is no sin to be expiated, no wrath to be propitiated, no alienation to be overcome, no fault and corruption of human nature to be set right, no relationship to be repaired and restored, nothing to be atoned for. For we are already in relationship. All we need to do is discover it. Apparently that is what the Cross taught us: that we ARE in relationship. When the Lord prayed for the forgiveness of his enemies, what he really meant was that, in fact, there was nothing to forgive!
Moving on, she tells us that “the crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly ones in Mississippi, they’re all related”. (She gets points for a non-politically correct joke, even if it is not a very good one.) This leads her into the Big Theological Insight. “The overarching connection in all these crises has to do with the great Western heresy ”“ that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.” Excessive individualism is a “soft target”. Who does not deplore it? That the progressive ideology of western liberalism has been one of the prime solvents of traditional communities and hierarchies and one of the prime motors of self-expressive autonomous individualism does not get mentioned. Instead we get a jab at doctrinally-minded Christians. (Having driven so many out of the Episcopal Church already, Jefferts Schori seems intent on making sure the rest leave also.) This “heresy”, she says, is “caricatured [sic] in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends upon reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the centre of existence, as the ground of being.”
One can only imagine the smug glow of higher consciousness and whiske-palian superiority that filled the hall as she said those words. Imagine thinking that a “specific verbal formula about Jesus” should be required for salvation! How narrow-minded! How unsophis-ticated! How provincial! (etc.). But wait a minute. Do not the Scriptures, Old and New ”“ not “my words” – assume that a true faith will be confessed in fairly specific verbal formulae? “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:9). And does not the Baptismal Covenant require a “specific verbal formula about Jesus”? To be sure, faith in Christ is more than belief in propositions: but it is not less. Jettisoning doctrine does not bring us closer to Christ: it just makes him a cipher for our own agendas.
Back to individualism: “That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention. Ubuntu. That word doesn’t have any “I’s” in it. The I only emerges as we connect ”“ and that is really what the word means: I am because we are, and I can only become a whole person in relationship with others. There is no “I” without “you” and in our context, you and I are known only as we reflect the image of the one who created us”. (One has to wonder what she does with Galatians 2:20: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” – all those “I”’s, not a “we” in sight, and a specific verbal formula about Jesus.) She seals the package with a bit of theological name-dropping, certification that her audience has just heard a Profound Insight: “Some of you will hear a resonance with Martin Buber’s I and Thou and recognize a harmony. You will not be wrong”.
Buber? Sure. But the resonance I really heard was with [H.] Richard Niebuhr’s description of the false gospel of liberal Protestantism: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross”.
–The Rev. Gavin Dunbar is rector, Saint John’s, Savannah, Georgia
Notice the use of our relationship with God’s creation. She believes in evolution without intelligent design and this is dishonest to appeal to creation.
Of course, a false gospel is no gospel at all – only Law.
As a Christian and as an Episcopalian, I am offended by the Presiding Bishop’s accusation that it is “heresy” to believe that “we can be saved as individuals”, this is a false accusation because we know that we can be saved through Jesus Christ.
I am disappointed that the Bishops of “her” church have not publicly refuted her statement. How can the Episcopal Church be considered a Christian Church if the Presiding Bishops assertion is accepted without argument.
A couple things:
First, the wrath happened. Is she denying that Jesus paid the price? I’m not sure. We are in relationship – as is all creation – because Jesus paid the price for that. It was a magnificent event that changed all of creation forever. I don’t need to pay for God’s wrath, and neither does anyone else, forever. Because Jesus did that. In history. Those who want to claim God will be wrathful upon others diminish the real, historical event of Jesus going down to hell for the sake of the world. If Jesus did not save the world, once and for all, then what is the point? It doesn’t rely on my assent of it happening or not. It did.
The rector could do a better job when it comes to “individualism.” We all stand condemned at that altar. He blames “liberalism” while defending individual piety. It’s a remarkable shuffle because they are both… the same thing. Perhaps the problem is two different sorts of piety.
The problem with a “specific verbal formula” is clear. Does this mean we should saying the Lord’s Prayer in Koine Greek? The trinitarian formula in Latin? Reading the Psalms in Hebrew? Shouldn’t we be calling Jesus Yeshua? What is the difference between having a “specific verbal formula” and witchcraft? Point, say the words and poof, we’ve got God.
My challenge to the rector is whether or not propositions actually save. I’m not sure if they do. And perhaps the only way we know who is saved is… not intellectual facility in defending what passes for orthodoxy or not, but by who expresses the fruits of the spirit. Perhaps that’s the best we can do. He seems to overlook that the real biblical defense of corporate salvation is in the the story of Exodus. The people of Israel were saved. Not just one.
Moses did not make it. If there is coporate salvation, then can we rule out corporate damnation?
actually, Pb, as Curtis Mayfield wrote, if there is a hell, we’re all going to go.
This is off topic elves so may well not be permitted.
John Wilkins, why do you say Jesus descended into hell? I know we say that he descended into hell and on the third day arose. But I can’t find scriptural evidence for this notion. (Maybe this is just incompetence on my part.) Do you know? Larry