Dr. Fairfield: Classic Biblical and Anglican theology believes in a God who exists as a community of three Persons, who are nevertheless one God. We believe that these Persons exist beyond the universe, “other” than time and space. And we believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
Likewise we trust that God loves the universe and intervenes constantly to preserve it, and to heal it from the toxins that evil has mysteriously spread throughout it. We believe that Jesus was and is the Second Person of the Trinity. He existed and exists outside of all time and space. Nevertheless in His love he entered history in Bethlehem some 2,000 years ago, to be with us, and to rescue us. We believe that Jesus died on the Cross to pay for our sins, thus to satisfy the norms of justice that He, the Father and the Spirit forever uphold.
And we believe that Jesus rose from the dead as a matter of historical fact – not as the resuscitation of a corpse, however, but as the first instance of a wholly new life that He wants to share with us for all eternity. Finally we believe that Jesus personally affirmed the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, and personally commissioned and sanctioned the teaching that the Church later acknowledged to be the New Testament.
These Scriptures represent God’s official message to the human race. And while its interpretation requires the utmost of care, scholarship and grace, its central message is non-negotiable. Modernism, taken to its logical conclusions, rejects all of these classic Biblical and Anglican affirmations. For Modernism, the word “god” refers to an impersonal force that is wholly within the universe.
There is no dimension of this “force” that is not fully invested in the cosmos. This “force” neither speaks nor acts. But we know it exists because we encounter it in the depths of our psyches, in moments of transformed experience that the 19th century German thinkers like Friedrich Schleiermacher called “god-consciousness.”
Modernists attribute these moments of transformed consciousness to an undefined “Spirit.” Modernism therefore rejects Jesus as the pre-existent Second Person of the Trinity.
For Modernism, Jesus was simply a Palestinian sage, who was the first human being in evolutionary history to experience “god-consciousness” fully and perfectly. Otherwise he was purely human. He did not rise from the dead. Rather, His followers experienced a “Christ event” in which their dead teacher seemed to be still present and alive to them. Therefore the prospect of an actual life after death is both iffy and unimportant for Modernism.
Finally Modernism views the Bible as it does all the holy books amongst the world religions, namely as a human artifact. The Bible represents one ancient people’s attempt to talk about “god-consciousness” and to pass on that experience to new converts.
But Modernists believe that the Bible was completely conditioned by its ancient environment, and has considerable historical interest but no authority for Christians today. As one Episcopal bishop recently put it, “The Church wrote the Bible, so the Church can re-write the Bible.” To sum it up, Modernism uses all the old familiar Christian words, but changes all the meanings. And it neglects to tell the laity. “Why does any of this matter anyway?”
Dr. Fairfield: As you can see, these two belief systems are mutually exclusive. Either you believe in a God who is both beyond time and space and within it, or you believe in a “god” who is merely an impersonal force completely inside the cosmos. There is no half-way point, no via media between these two opposing religions (the classic Anglican via media meant something entirely different).
I think many reappraisers would deny they are modernists, at least in part.
In some cases they would be right – Dr. Fairfield does say that social liberalism does not necessarily make one a “modernist.” In other cases, it would be a case of “thou doth protest too much.”
You bet, Jennifer! I do not recognize either myself or TEC in Dr. Fairfield’s description. His description is a Straw Man that has been put forth numerous times over the past few years, and it bears no resemblance to the theological and biblical positions of any of the many priests and several bishops that I know personally who might be labeled “reappraisers” by the “reasserter” camp.
As I read Dr. Fairfield’s description of his theology, I would agree with most of it. While I agree with him on the Resurrection, I would suggest that his doctrine of the atonement is not the only one that has been held in classical Anglicanism. I also would qualify his saying that Jesus personally sanctioned the teaching that became the NT. Much of the NT consists of theological reflections on Jesus’ life (death, resurrection, etc.) and teachings by people who never knew him personally, and is not a record of what he personally taught his disciples. I am not suggesting that these NT teachings are not canonical, or in the spirit of Christ, but they are hardly Jesus’ direct teachings.
Bob from Boone, maybe you can’t recognize yourself or TEC in his explanation, but I can recognize it both in you and many of the reappraiser Episcopal Bishop’s I have known in the last 35 years, i.e. they are “hardly” Jesus’ direct teaching…..and you must know this through “divine revelation” I am guessing?
They can deny that they are modernists all they want. That does not make them any the less modernist.
#3
I’m glad that you haven’t gone completely down the modernist road, but your second qualification just serves to demonstrate Dr Fairfield’s point, and your first qualification partially.
“I would suggest that his doctrine of the atonement is not the only one that has been held in classical Anglicanism.”
If you you mean by that that it is possible to be classical Anglican and disregard a substitutionary picture of the atonement, then I disagree with you (if you don’t mean that, then my apologies). Granted, there is also (and must be) a place for Christus Victor and perhaps other models in our view of the atonement, which most re-asserter Anglicans I guess would hold in addition to substitution; but substitution (whatever the model) is an important part of the biblical (and thus Anglican) picture of the atonement. See Hebrews, Isaiah, and quite a lot of the rest of scripture and the writings of the fathers.
“Much of the NT consists of theological reflections on Jesus’ life (death, resurrection, etc.) and teachings by people who never knew him personally, and is not a record of what he personally taught his disciples. I am not suggesting that these NT teachings are not canonical, or in the spirit of Christ, but they are hardly Jesus’ direct teachings.”
Which is (not precisely, but close enough) what Dr. Fairfield said about the re-appraiser view of the nature of scripture; and emphasises the difference between the two religions. To re-asserters, the NT is written (partially) by people who knew Jesus personally, and equally importantly all of it was written under the guiding influence of the Holy spirit. Thus I fully agree with “These Scriptures represent God’s official message to the human race. And while its interpretation requires the utmost of care, scholarship and grace, its central message is non-negotiable.” That is God the entire trinity, not just the son. God-Breathed is closer to dictation than “theological reflection.”
Actually, I don’t think of BfB or many other reappraisers as “modernists,” but as “post-modernists.” They are willing to change the meaning of almost any text to suit their own understanding and not change their understanding to suit the meaning of the text. They re-interpret historic truths to support their pre-conceived beliefs. They are responsible for the idea of “your truth” vs “my truth” as opposed to “The Truth.”
As post-modernists, they take the “true” statements (such as scripture is written in a specific cultural setting or that God cannot be fully known by human minds ) and make them the much larger than they are in relation to The Truth.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
True, there are a number of streams in the reappraiser camp just as there a number of differences in the reasserters. So we have the modernists, post-modernists, and old fashioned liberals, to name but three, with numerous variations within those camps. All with slightly different views. And there are, of course, some still with some remnant tinges of orthodoxy.
Which, of course, makes discussion with them harder. You aim your argument at a modernist view, and they turn out to be post-modernist. And so on.
The fine points of theology can be debated forever in the TEC context. But I believe the NT was written entirely by people who knew Jesus; just as my last Cursillo Rollo was written by someone who knows Jesus personally. To state otherwise is to state that he is dead. I know what Bob meant. But, this is not a fine point to me. It is central to my Christology.
Thanks #9
Please remove my (partially) from #6
The new testament was written by folks who described things that had happened during their life time. Scholars are surprised that they can detect strands of the primitive tradition.
Typically, on Trinity Sunday I have spent time reflecting more on the three separate persons and functions of the Trinity than on their oneness. This year God spoke to my heart about the One Holy God. In St. John’s Gospel, (Chapt. 16) Jesus was speaking about the Jews who were accusing Him of blasphemy because He claimed to be God. Jesus turns it right around and says the blasphemy is that they don’t believe in Him. What is the one sin that cannot be forgiven? —- The “sin against the Holy Spiritâ€. Everything the Spirit does testifies and gives glory to Christ Jesus. So the blasphemy or sin against the Holy Spirit is to not believe in Jesus….that He is the Son of God and one with the Father…that it is only through Him that we have access to the Father. For if we reject Him, then we reject the God and Father who sent Him .
Many in TEC seem to buy into the idea of Pluralism and reject Jesus as the Christ, the Lord God almighty. But we have His assurance that one day every kneel will bow and will confess Jesus is Lord. He didn’t come here to condemn people….but to draw all people to Himself. It is a life or death matter. What kind of love is it when we fail to speak the Truth?
The consequences of rejecting Christ or making Him “optional” are just beginning to be seen. The Head of the Episcopal School where I work part-time told the School Chaplain that she would be sitting out in the congreation this year….that it was the Head’s call since she runs the school. Apart from the hymns, there is very little mention of Christ in Chapel Services….and we are NEVER to imply that He is the only way to savlation. When Christ is optional, then so are His representatives.
Rev. J, #4, I won’t bother to reply to your mischaracterization of my position.
#7, you write: “Actually, I don’t think of BfB or many other reappraisers as “modernists,†but as “post-modernists.†They are willing to change the meaning of almost any text to suit their own understanding and not change their understanding to suit the meaning of the text. They re-interpret historic truths to support their pre-conceived beliefs. They are responsible for the idea of “your truth†vs “my truth†as opposed to “The Truth.â€
Your statement does not characterize my position at all, in fact is quite false re me. I have been a teacher of texts, both sacred and classical, for forty years, and I do not play such games with the text. I must say I find it amusing to what conclusions others jump in passing judgment on me on the basis of some of my brief statements. What in what I said about the NT has a post-modern ring to it? I am taking a position widely held by respected NT scholars.
As for theologies of atonement, I discern at least three different theologies in the history of Christian thought and do not feel constrained to be bound by the substitutionary atonement model. There are other ways of understanding Christ’s sacrifice than Anselm’s or Calvin’s.
I stand by my “Straw Man” characterization of Fairfield’s statement. If his POV is characteristic of TESM, it is no surprise that so many bishops are unwilling to send their candidates there.
The statement is dreadful. It grievously misrepresents the great majority of reappraisers. Phil Snyder’s characterisation of reappraisers is also dreadful. ‘YBIC’. There is great hypocrisy here (and one might remember the things Jesus said about hypocrites). ‘Post-modernist’ is indeed a slippery term, but, like B from B, I am a professional academic and I can assure you all that not a single one of the reappraisers who regularly post here is ‘post-modernist’.
This is a caricature of reappraisers. It’s as if we said all reasserters believe the world was created in 6 24-hour days about 4000 years ago–makes them easy to despise.
You are all giving way too much credit to the reappraisers.
They are [those] who can not stand up to the God of the Bible. They themselves are guilty of many of the things they “reinterpret” in the Bible, and to change the church is easlier than changing themselves.
bl
Slightly edited by elf.
“Force”?
I do view Scripture as a human work capable of error, so I’ll concede Dr. Fairfield that much. But I’m not sure where he’s getting this “impersonal force that is wholly within the universe” view that is supposedly characteristic of “modernists.” Certainly I wouldn’t describe my own beliefs that way.
I believe it was Paul Tillich who said that we must always remember that God is not a person — God is most definitely not less than a person, but God is not a person. To put that another way — a “person,” an entity with thoughts and desires and will and so on, is simply the thing in our finite experience that seems to be the least unlike God. But to describe God that way is to speak by analogy, and even if it’s the best analogy we have it’s still a weak one. If Dr. Fairfield wishes to interpret this as saying that God is an “impersonal force,” so be it, but I think that’s a strained interpretation.
17, as opposed to a transcendent God who stand outside creation, but enters into to it and actively interacts with humanity.
Hello to BfB and John Sch. I think the problem here is one of statistics. I am guessing that, for you two, the only doctrine you are interested in reappraising is the one connected with homosexuality. In all other respects (I am guessing) you see yourself as deeply committed to all traditional Christian doctrines (original sin, the Devil, heaven, hell, the empty Tomb, the virgin birth, the Trinity, the council of Chalcedon, the salvic uniqueness of Christ and his cross, etc.). So it bothers you for someone to paint a portrait of reappraisers that suggests that they are interested in appraising many of these doctrines too.
I am fine with accepting your claim that you personally aren’t like that portrait. But as with anything else in human behavior, try to understand that for us that just makes you the exception that proves the rule. Just because you can exhibit one counterexample doesn’t invalidate a broad trend. It’s like when a smoker trots out George Burns as an example of a man who smoked like a chimney his whole life and lived to be an old man — as though that disproves a doctor’s general claim that smoking causing cancer.
Again, try to imagine this from our point of view. We see parish bookstores stocked with books by Borg and Spong. Somebody is reading these books. We see lots of reappraisers refusing to sharply criticize these guys, but rather often refering to them in favorable terms. We have these kinds of guys being invited (as our PB did prior to her elevation) to dioceses and parishes to teach their heresies. We find recent GC’s soundly defeating resolutions that say nothing critical of homosexuality but which simply try to affirm general doctrinal claims that almost all Christians have believed. And so on. Cut us some slack and at least tell us that you can see why we might believe that a large and increasing number of reappraisers wish to see many other doctrines reappraised besides just the presenting question of homosexuality. You don’t have to agree — but at least admit that there is a prima facie case to be made for that.
The only way to really answer this question would be to do some very solid statistical surveying of Episcopalians to find out what their beliefs are and see whether there is a correlation between those who favor gay marriage rites and gay bishops, and those who also reject other aspects of traditional church teaching. If such a study were done, are you really saying you’d bet $100 that the study wouldn’t reveal any such correlation? If so, your perception of reality is markedly different from mine — or you mind losing $100 a lot less than I would.
Note to BfB. Boring Bloke (#6) makes a really sound point to which I don’t think you have adequately responded. He writes:
“If you you mean by that that it is possible to be classical Anglican and disregard a substitutionary picture of the atonement, then I disagree with you (if you don’t mean that, then my apologies). Granted, there is also (and must be) a place for Christus Victor and perhaps other models in our view of the atonement, which most re-asserter Anglicans I guess would hold in addition to substitution; but substitution (whatever the model) is an important part of the biblical (and thus Anglican) picture of the atonement. See Hebrews, Isaiah, and quite a lot of the rest of scripture and the writings of the fathers. ”
He says two things: that there are a number of models for substitution, and that substitution itself doesn’t preclude a number of additional models (BB gives Christus Victor as a good example). But if we are hearing you right, you are rejecting ANY sense of substitutionary atonement, which flies in the face of huge amounts of biblical witness: Pauline, Petrine, the author of Hebrews, and so on. In fact a lot of that witness is actually part of our traditional Anglican liturgy.
Another quick thought: if “classical Anglican” means anything it should mean the Anglicanism of Cranmer and Hooker and Donne (etc.) — the time when Anglicanism was defined in the 39 articles, when Hooker’s LAWS was written, and so on. I am not saying that subsequent developments must be wrong — I am just saying its just an odd use of the word “classical” to refer to those. Given this common sense use of the word, all the Anglicans in this classical period agreed on believing in some kind of substitutionary atonement.
Or sin either. Or a god who cares one way or the other.
#19
I can’t speak for B from B. What bothers me – and, as is evident, angers me – is the dreadful lack of charity. Lack of charity occurs when one side doesn’t make the slightest, infinitesimal, attempt to comprehend the other’s point of view. I understand completely, and as far as I can, empathise with, reasserters’ points of view. I also experience emotional sorrow for our disagreements. Characteristically – there are exceptions – the reciprocation is dismal. Instead, one gets gross over-simplication and distortion. It’s not good enough.
#15
Thank you for that. It shows you are a just person.