Robert Ross– Beyond the basics of faith, the rest is just detail

In the Episcopal Church there are many people like me who prefer to practice our religion while walking down the via media, which is Latin for the Middle Way. We do so not to avoid conflict, but when you walk down the middle you get to see both sides more clearly. If you set yourself down in the far right or left of an issue, I believe you blind yourself to seeing both points of view.

I guess you could call me another mushy Episcopalian. However, I prefer to think of myself as a radical moderate. I strive to find commonalities. I seek the middle way, not because it is easier, but because it allows me to put myself in the shoes of others as we all walk our journey of faith.

As we read the newspaper every day, we see how religion impacts so many dimensions of our world. From Tibet to Indonesia to Turkey to Iraq and Iran, religion is often at the center of the disputes. If we take a step back to see those aspects of our faith that we have in common, we are better able to understand the world we live in. I believe moderation is not a political stance, rather it is an all-inclusive way of looking at things.

Read the whole piece.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Theology

10 comments on “Robert Ross– Beyond the basics of faith, the rest is just detail

  1. Dan Crawford says:

    One person’s “details” are another’s faith essentials. The Creed in today’s Episcopal Church is just “details”.

  2. Branford says:

    The Via Media was never to be the middle of “issues.” Ross says “If you set yourself down in the far right or left of an issue, I believe you blind yourself to seeing both points of view.” But that is a political distinction, not a biblical one. Via Media was a way to worship (and to hold a country together) between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant models of church (circa 1500s), not to be “moderate.” How has this term been co-opted to mean “lukewarm”?

  3. paradoxymoron says:

    “The rest is just details”

    Sounds to me like they’re leaving their brains at the door.

  4. Ad Orientem says:

    I prefer people who stand for something even if I don’t agree with them, over those who stand for nothing. I have more respect for Fr. Jake and Susan Russell.

  5. Jim the Puritan says:

    “The earliest Christian churches were established primarily to assist widows and orphans, the neediest people in those times.”

    Wow. Just wow.

  6. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    [blockquote]When Queen Elizabeth I came to power, she used her power as queen to put an end to religious strife between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In doing so, she said that the things that separate us were mere trifles.[/blockquote]
    Did she really?
    [blockquote]The earliest Christian churches were established primarily to assist widows and orphans, the neediest people in those times.[/blockquote]
    Is that so?
    [blockquote]In the Episcopal Church there are many people like me who prefer to practice our religion while walking down the via media, which is Latin for the Middle Way.[/blockquote]
    You don’t say?
    [blockquote]I guess you could call me another mushy Episcopalian.[/blockquote]
    I guess so.

  7. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    [blockquote]The Rev. Robert M. Ross is chaplain at Wooster School in Danbury[/blockquote]
    Oh dear!

    One is increasingly aware that many of the problems of The Episcopal Church come down to pig-ignorance.

  8. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Pageantmaster, do NOT insult the pig! It’s species-ist at best!

  9. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    Not at all DWS, pigs are bright by all accounts, it is just that they lack education, which in their case is not their fault.

  10. driver8 says:

    There can be time set aside to debate these issues. This discourse must take place, but what I am arguing for is the recognition that those things that unite us are far more powerful than those things that divide us as people of faith

    Of course the real problem is that the author does not truly intend to “stick to the basics”. If he were consistent to his purported understanding of the Via Media one might imagine that his conclusion should be that we should genuinely stick to “the basics”. But of course he means no such thing.

    Instead the Via Media seems to mean that his party will plow on with the “new thang” whilst those who disagree should simply accept it. In other words this Via Media apparently imposes no restrictions on what progressives do, only on how conservatives respond.

    It’s weird isn’t it, that it turns out, as the author sees it, that the Via Media is a one way street?