I have found many leaders in the church who have reduced [the Baptismal Covenant] to the last question alone: “Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?”
They seem to have forgotten that the Covenant begins with creedal affirmation.
Any reasonable reading of the Baptismal Covenant affirms that the Episcopal Church is at its very core a “creedal church.” It is not correct to make such a broad generalization that “the Episcopal Church is not a church that
readily thinks in terms of ”˜doctrine’” when our Baptismal Covenant starts with a common doctrinal statement.
–(The Very Rev.) Kevin E. Martin of Dallas in The Living Church, January 16, 2011, issue, p. 22
This is exactly what my focus will be in preaching and teaching this year. The challenge/objective will be that when parishioners hear the phrase or are asked about the place of the phrase, “Baptismal Covenant”, in the parish or in their own life, they will first think of doctrine (as in the Apostle’s Creed) AND praxis (as in the order of the covenant in the BCP), rather than praxis at the expense of doctrine.
Good one, Kevin.
Bishop Martin comes across as one of the more thoughtful recent bishops of TEC.
Let’s make note, too, of this post from 2008 by Creedal Christian (Bryan Owen+) http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com/2008/06/all-of-baptismal-covenant.html .
And the Living Church in December:
[blockquote]Today we begin to publish online the Christmas issue of The Living Church, given to a symposium on “Jesus and the Unity of the Church†— a call for a renewed “ministry of reconciliation†in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17,18) “across both real and apparent lines of division over matters of sexuality and order.†We will publish six responses in the days preceding Christmas. [/blockquote]
The lead-off was Dr.’s Leander Harding and Christopher Wells’ statement, “Teaching Jesus and the Unity of the Church”, which is found here (after the italic text prefacing it by TLC editors):
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/12/17/teaching-jesus-and-the-unity-of-the-church
The first responses can be seen here with their links:
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/12
The first published responders included Ian Douglas and Jo Bailey Wells; Joseph Britton and Geralyn Wolf; Andrew Doyle and Douglas Travis; John C. Bauerschmidt and William S. Stafford; Shannon S. Johnston and Ian Markham; Sarah Dylan Breuer and Dale Rye.
And then Harding and Wells provided a post-script after the responders here:
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/12/25/the-lord-who-unites-us
May I presume that Kevin+ was also responding, or was this a separate thought or article?
pageantmaster,
You’ve got the wrong Martin. Kevin Martin is dean of Dallas Cathedral (and former president of ERM), and Dan Martins is the bishop-elect you mentioned. However, they would both be in agreement on this subject.
#4 Oops – you are right Fr Eaton – this has been my day for gaffs.
So what is up with Living Church? Looks like they really are the publication wing for ‘Covenant’. Where is all this coming from? Lambeth Palace must be thrilled.
If we’re discussing these, here’s an excerpt from the response by Ian Douglas+ and Dr. Wells:
“We contend that the leaders of the Episcopal Church, whom we know, and with whom we have worked through the years, believe that Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God. To state otherwise is a contentious position often intended to distance sister and brother Christians from each other”…
I would suggest they clarify the Presiding Bishop’s statement to the newspaper in Arkansas(I’ll find the link if necessary) that we “come to our experience with God through the holiness we see in other human beings”–to my mind, that denies both God Incarnate AND the Atonement.
“Experience with God” or relationship with God basically comes from humanity? Yet “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” or “No one comes to the Father but by Me” is beside the point? One does not come to an experience with God through the Atoning Sacrifice, and/or also one’s own repentance and reconciliation?
I don’t believe my position is “contentious”–it’s a fair question–Is the Presiding Bishop’s position that of a Creedal Christian, or of some sort of Deist?
Here’s a link, TEC’s leader in her own words–thank you for the references, Anglican Mainstream:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/06/08/bishop-jefferts-schori-in-her-own-words-2/
#4 Fr Eaton – looking at it, I think it was +Andrew Doyle of Texas who I was thinking of rather then the Dean of Dallas; my error, but this is an excellent piece. Fr/[+]Dan Martins is due approval and congratulations, but on different grounds.
#6/7 Yes, you are quite right – +Ian Douglas and Jo Bailey Wells make an odd and implausible contribution to be sure, and what they write is just not consistent with what the Presiding Bishop is on record as saying.
It is when you go back to what people actually say and write that they catch themselves out, unless they are being truthful..
What’s interesting is that the last question of the Covenant is rendered meaningless if the first questions of the Covenant aren’t taken seriously. And vice versa. It doesn’t make sense to ‘strive for justice and peace among all people’ unless, on a fundamental level, you believe that Life wins out every time. And the reverse is also true… if you believe that Life wins… What’s stopping you from all this here striving? The two go together, and it’s refreshing to see some newer leaders move the pendulum a bit.
#7: Whenever I read transcripts of her interviews, I’m always struck by how she seems to have no sense that, as PB, she is “speaking for the church.” She just responds with her own opinions/ideas. There is no continuity with tradition, church doctrine, nothing but what she happens to think. And then that becomes “doctrine” in the minds of many people. This past Sunday our rector claimed that TEC and “the whole Anglican Communion” does not have a “checklist” of beliefs like “other churches” but is all about our relationships with each other. He can easily point to the PB’s statements to support what he says.
Isn’t there any discipline regarding doctrine in TEC?
RE: “We contend that the leaders of the Episcopal Church, whom we know, and with whom we have worked through the years, believe that Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God. To state otherwise is a contentious position often intended to distance sister and brother Christians from each otherâ€
Well no.
To “state otherwise” is to respond to the very clear statements by “leaders of the Episcopal Church” throughout the scores of years in which they have been making such statements and which have been carefully noted on this very blog and which make it very plain that they see Jesus Christ as a nice and good man to model oneself after.
And to “state otherwise” does indeed reveal [i]the vast chasm[/i] of distance between those who believe the Christian gospel within TEC and those “leaders of the Episcopal Church” who believe and promote another gospel entirely.
To “state otherwise” does not actually “distance” — it merely *reveals* the already existing distance.
We seem to be in interesting times. I grew up in the Episcopal Church, family on both sides have been Episcopalians. To be a full member, I memorized the Lords Prayer, Apostle’s Creed and Ten Commandments–and then, at age 12, kneeled before the Bishop (who I can’t remember who he was). After that, you just showed up. I think our society has drifted so far away from its Christian origins that more and more assumptions are subject to challenge–in any public setting. I don’t know if the Episcopal/Anglican Church has ever excommunicated anybody; the ABC has always been irrelevant to the TEC–other than as symbolism for a community (which now does not really seem to exist); I was taught to shrug off whatever the National Church leaders said; and I don’t think I can recall any important act of leadership from a Bishop that impacted what I thought. I still seem to have an emotional tie to my Anglican roots, but I am not sure what that means now–or if it is even good. Certainly, the current TEC leadership is within mainstream American thought–perhaps even more than the conservatives. From an “American” perspective, the problem with the TEC is that they won’t act like anybody sensible going through a divorce: agree to a reasonable division of the property and a parenting plan in the best interets of the kids.
And to follow on #11’s comment, “stating otherwise” does not mean, in ANY way, that we’re just trying to make the forum/situation “contentious”.
If anyone wants to talk about “contentious”, I live in a CP diocese with a traditional bishop. I haven’t noticed him(AT ALL) trying to force revisionists out of this diocese. I CANNOT say the same for the revisionist diocese that my traditional family was basically forced out of, and back then we all knew which other traditionals were on that “bishop’s” hit list. The other good thing about my “new” diocese is that my “new” bishop does not take aspirants, postulants, or fellow clergy to gay-disco bars for downtime. That might be seen as a “contentious” act for most because most would probably consider that an inappropriate use of clergy time, and say so. Yet, simply disagreeing with something does not mean that one seeks to be “contentious”; that’s just spin where one side of the conversation assumes a passive-aggressive posture of victimhood as part of making their case. When the “case” is solid, however, one need not resort to such tactics.
I think the Living Church folks have put forth a good-faith effort here, but I also believe, like #12, that we’re “divorced” in all but name.
Re: #10:
“I’m always struck by how she seems to have no sense that, as PB, she is “speaking for the church.†She just responds with her own opinions/ideas. There is no continuity with tradition, church doctrine, nothing but what she happens to think”.
It’s a hallmark of narcissism that narcissists live in their own reality, and that reality always starts and ends with “I” or “me”.