A Member of the Lambeth Commission that first proposed an Anglican Covenant has changed her mind.
Speaking at a conference in New York last week, the Dean of St John’s College, in Auckland, New Zealand, Dr Jenny Plane Te Paa, said that events since the launch of the commission’s report had “caused me to reconsider my initial support for the development of covenant”.
Among the events she cited was the behaviour at the Primates’ Meetings, which had gone from being a gathering for “leisurely thought [and] prayer” to being a “quasi-governance body universally perceived as inappropriate, unbidden, and unhelpful”.
Covenant drafts served to “protect and enhance . . . dominant male leadership, privilege, and power”, she said. In her view, the “fussing with and about one another” needed to stop, in order to reaffirm the bonds that already exist within the Communion.
This woman seems to enjoy a “bully” pulpit in the US. She is one of the liberal revisionists that have dealt a death blow to the Anglican Communion. She and Ms. Schori are a good pair.
Hasn’t she read her Bible and understood that God intended male leadership in his church? Her intentions seem to be to undermine God’s intentions at every turn and turn Anglicanism into a women’s lib social club. Don’t forget God’s wrath, He will NOT be mocked.
I have no problem with women clergy in the Church. I have a major problem with feminism in the Church. By its very nature it rejects authority. That is something we all must submit to, including the inevitable acceptance of our own mortality before God.
Golly, if we could only stamp out “white male heterosexual privilege” there would be no sin left! I think the United Methodists need to hurry up and print a whole extra bunch of their new “Truth and Wholeness: Replacing White Privilege With God’s Promise” DVDs and rush them off to the Anglican hierarchy so we all can get with the program.
If you want to see the silliness to which these topics have risen, visit the United Methodist web site some time. My favorite is the ban on holding denominational meetings in cities that have professional sports teams with Native American names; e.g., no meetings in D.C. (Redskins) or Atlanta (Braves).
#1 – That’s “New Zealand”, not “New Jersey”. Of course, your whole comment is intended as satire.
So what she’s changed her mind. It is a woman’s perogative.
Gee, it sounds like what she’s attacking are things like, um, Ecumenical Councils, and people like, umm, Athanasius, Cyril, Leo and so forth; indeed, the whole of the Early (and Later, for that matter) Church and its modus operandi. And to think that Anglicanism once claimed to embrace the “Fathers and bishops” of the Early Church, as well as the Scriptures — whereas now they are all betrayed with a kiss.
Another example of people trying to make the church and God into their own image, rather than having God through the Church re-make THEM.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Daniel (#3), isn’t that basically what TEC has done in banning its GC from meeting in cities that are not “gay-friendly,” i.e., employer, insurance-wise? Seems like I remember reading that there are only a few places that GC can be held as the rest of the country doesn’t “live up” (or live down, depending upon how you look at it) to their standards.
I was at the conference and Te Paa was gently but firmly taken to task by Archbishop Gomez for misrepresenting the facts and history about how the primates became involved in the crisis. It was really devastating to her basic thesis which was that the Primates were making a power grab.
For critique of some of the presuppositions in her presentation read my own remarks at leanderharding.com/blog
<>
Dr Jenny Plane Te Paa stated:
This is simply false. The Primates’ actions are not universally perceived as inappropriate, unbidden, and unhelpful. In some quarters, ie. ECUSA, they may indeed perceived this way. I have heard statements from ECUSA leadership to this effect.
Can someone give me a little history about Te Paa? To tell the truth, she has the fanatic’s air and posture. Larry
feminism and Christianity are totally incompatible and this speech is evidence of the ‘new religion’ taking over the church from the inside.
Feminism = a philosphy centred on the self and its rights
Christianity = a faith centred on the family and its responsibilities.
Its one OR the other. Take your pick
I’m not suprised that she has withdrawn her support of the Anglican Covenant, since the revised Covenant says that each Church affirms that it “professes the faith which is uniquely revealed in the holy scriptures . . . and which is set forth in the catholic creeds, and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear significant witness.”
“. . . dominant male leadership, privilege, and power…”
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Sounds to me like she has a rather limited toolbox.
😉
It must be very tiring to be constantly defending oneself against mostly illusory offenses. If she wants to see truly brutal patriarchy, she should look at radical Islam.
Thanks, Randy. Was thinking the same thing myself. Who gave her the authority to declare universal inappropriateness? Or does that simply mean in her mind that from all quarters of the universe it is possible to find at least one person who has declared the Primates’ action as inappropriate, etc.?!Never mind if it is only a very tiny response.
In any case, is this her argument? “Nobody else likes it?” Or, “Everybody else is doing it!” Isn’t that what you get out of younger teenagers in response to an unpopular decision by a responsible person (usually adult) who is maintaining parameters?
Glad to see Leander’s comment about Jenny’s comments being challenged by +Gomez. Cole above suggested the head-rearing of feminism. I’m not sure myself if that is the case, but the complaint of male-dominated power grab would rhetorically fit in that category.She should take a look at the list of names on the Standing Committee for Northern Michigan (and without a bishop, I might add) and then try to peddle the suppressive patriarchalism argument, at least for TEC ears.
Again, is that the best she can do – just try to push old buttons and get a resistance going? What is going on here? Is she perceiving a Covenant momentum and simply changed gears; or perhaps has now been recruited (with worn out but still emotional argumentation) to try to persuasively block it?
Her persona (if nothing else) is indeed revered in many TEC and other circles. Power brokers know that. Probably the best response besides that of those like +Gomez who could make such immediate rebuttal is to simply say, Thank you for sharing, Jenny.
RGEaton
Katherine,
I doubt she will do that. Fatwa’s and Death Threats are great inhibitors to free speech.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Rob Eaton+: When a woman says to me that she is a feminist, it starts a conversation that divides the issues of equal respect and rights between men and women and the radical agenda or opinions promoted by the likes of the woman referred to in this article. I point out that the word “feminist†can have a very loaded meaning.
Back in 1913, Rebecca West said “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.”
Should not any Christian do likewise?
#12, – That’s why the Apostle’s Creed starts “I believe”, because ours is a ” faith centred on the family and its responsibilities. ”
The logic escapes me.
Cole,
I hear ya, but I didn’t want to take this thread off-topic by talking about feminism separately. That’s why I used the term “persona” in regards to the speaker. I don’t want us to talk past each other. Also, I share the following not as lecture, but simply as sharing some of the thoughts that prompted my first comment. As well, I have never personally met Dr. Plane Te Paa; I have heard and seen her speak, and paid attention to her rise in Anglican World participation.
I agree there definitely is something she represents whenever she speaks. If it is feminism, as you proposed, then at least I think you should consider that she presents the feminine side of feminism, perhaps the hospitable side of the agenda.
But I think that what she said above is simply a part of her political arsenal, if she needs it. Where her power, her representation really is immediate is in the visual mixed with a little of her personal background: she is an articulate woman (femininely displaying an amazing head of volumnized hair – my daughter is a hairdresser) of aboriginal descent, hailing from a part of the Anglican world where great pains have been taken to provide indiginous authority and power in a multi-cultural society and church, with a measure of peaceful success thus testifying that co-existence with diversity is possible, and where there is a Book of Common Prayer (NZ) that a lot of people in the northern hemisphere Churches think is really, really cool (and make use of, often without the permission from the NZ folks, or from the local chief liturgist).
So she can pull out and spew the feminist rhetoric, but to only focus on that is to not take into consideration the the larger “justice for oppressed peoples” context, and specifically noted in Anglican circles by (often paradoxically intolerant) language which nearly deifies the meaning and use of the Baptismal Covenant. “Why, what other Covenant do we need?!”
She’s gotten herself painted into a corner having publicly supported two (not self-exclusionary, in my opinion) Covenants, and is apparently feeling the need to shed one for the sake of the other. One she now sees as “letting the Church be the Church”, and the other presents too many limitations, for her.
So she came out swinging. Notice, though, she did not use the term I used in my other comment – “patriarchal-ism”. She used “male-power.” As if corruptible power was a respecter of gender.
We have a lot of praying to do.
RGEaton
[i] Slightly edited by elf to make it easier to read. [/i]
She’s also into the Myth of the Noble, er, Aborigine, so she has a very revisionist history of Maori as well…
I wonder if there’s another agenda going on. A new evangelical Anglican seminary with a strong emphasis on Bible and church planting has recently opened in New Zealand as an alternative to the struggling liberal institution in Auckland that she co-leads – one that’s explicitly into feminist ‘postcolonialist’ ideology (not sure if it counts as ‘theology’ in the classical sense) and definitely pro-gay. So, for just about the first time in history there’s an alternative for orthodox seminarians, who are generally the younger and more switched-on kind. Anglicanism in New Zealand has been fairly feminized for some time and has been steadily declining, but there has been some evangelical growth.
Any Kiwis out there care to comment?
#20: I think you are talking past #12. When people with conservative values use the word “family†they are using it in a sense of believing that men and women should live in a natural harmony, as opposed to living with conflict or subjugation. ‘ Too much to say on this subject.
When gender politics gets too wrapped up in the Church, we end up with a KJS. Is that going to fix the problems, or exasperate them? As I simply tried to say above, there are legitimate gender concerns in society and there are agendas that go too far. I’m trying to keep this simple. Thank you Rob+ for your comments.
I suspect that others here are right that feminism is too difficult a term to pin down to be helpful. Perhaps more productive would be to speak of the “hermeneutics of suspicion,” which seem clearly on display in these remarks and would seem to continue to render impossible the trust necessary for any covenant, or indeed any religious body to survive. If Dr. Te Paa truly believes what she says, then, given the circumstances, I can see no way for Anglicanism to continue as currently constituted. Any attempt to maintain Catholic order will instantly have to succomb to the hermeneutic and be seen as ought but an exertion of raw power. In the end, nothing will be left but the exertion of raw power and, whoever wins the resulting Humean struggle, it won’t be the One who died for His Church, or at least anyone interested in Him.
The actions of Katharine Jefferts Schori and the statements of Dr Te Paa are precisely why I am opposed to women’s ordination.
[i] Comment deleted by elf as off topic. Please no discussion of WO [/i]
The lady from New Zealand was a special guest of TEC’s hierarchy at GC ’06 and gave the homily ( a lengthy one as I recall) at one of the Eucharists. Any wonder she’s “changed her mind”? Surely not. It’s always about the power and $ when it’s boiled down.
Gosh, Cennydd, I’ve heard you mention +Spong and +Pike in other threads — does that mean you’re opposed to male ordination, as well? Who’s going to be ordained, frogs?
Hey Leander! (#9) Always nice to see your name on T19. Nice post.
I read your piece (at your blog) and it is interesting. There’s definitely something to it. But ultimately I don’t buy it. I think the actual situation is much simpler.
You are suggesting that the reason that a person like Te Paa opposes the Covenant is that she thinks that the only thing that can be meaningfully said to be true are empirical claims about the physical world, and that everything else is all just anybody’s opinion. That’s why, you think, Te Paa opposes the Covenant: because she thinks it is wrong to push any theological idea as normative for everybody. So you go into some complex discussion of epistemology and scientism and talk about philosphers of science like Polyani and so on… which is all good stuff, but I think you are coming up with a very complex explanation when a far simpler one is right at hand. And that is this:
Te Paa and Co. aren’t bothered in principle by shoving certain ideas down everyone’s throat. They are bothered by having other people shoving creedal ideas down their throat.
Put it differently: suppose that her feminist views had become those of 60% of Anglicans worldwide. And then suppose someone proposed an Anglican Covenant that would include planks in it that mandated deleting references to God as a Father and Jesus as his Son in the Creeds, mandated woman bishops, lesbian marriages, and so on; I assure you that she wouldn’t have any difficulties about it being wrong to impose her truth on the remaining 40%. She’d vote for that Covenant so fast you miss it if you blinked.
I mean, Leander, is it really your experience that the liberal wing of the AC is actually liberal — that they believe in giving great liberty to traditionalists to do their own thing and so on? Is it not more your experience that as soon as they get a certain critical mass they become immensely interested in forcing their opinions (which they suddenly have decided are quite certain God-breathed truths and no longer opinions at all) on all kinds of people. Are all these lawsuits from 815 really the actions of people who just want everybody to be free to do their own thing?
Here is my guess as to what she actually means, given her country of origin (New Zealand Prayer Book, anybody?) and the PC language:
• I belong to a subgroup of Anglicans who have a certain feminist agenda.
• We don’t spell out the agenda to everyone on the outside.
• Those of us on the inside, however, know that it means eventually changing worship services, Bible translations, the Nicene Creed, etc. so that references to God as a Father and Jesus as his Son are eliminated; or alternatively that we create widespread additional use of female language (“Mother Jesusâ€, Jesus as God’s daughter, etc.). The agenda also includes de-emphasizing the atonement (“divine child abuse†according to feminist theologians), creating liturgies for lesbian marriages and elevating lesbians to the office of bishop, and so on.
• Our plan is to effect this change gradually over time.
• If we signed on to a Covenant right now, given the current complexion of the AC, however, it would probably end up rooting us in the historic faith and prevent us from achieving our future plans.
What interests me here is that apparently Jenny Te Paa is the first person to OPENLY break with the recommendations of the Windsor Report and its call for a Covenant. That is, it was a “consensus” document that all the drafters could sign.
My point? I’m wondering if now that the ice has been broken, so to speak, if one or more of those on the conservative side will dare to do the same and publicly acknowledge a change of mind and heart about the wisdom or adequacy of the proposals in the Windsor Report. Personally, I’d love to see more forthrightness and outspokenness from some of the conservatives who may now have second thoughts about the Windsor Report they helped create. I don’t know that there actually are any such people, but I’d suspect there are.
David Handy+
#20 – if you are serious in your critique of my earlier post then I worry about your intellect. Just because the creed begins with ‘I’ does not make it a statement in support of the individual….far from it – it uses ‘I’ in order to urge the self to bind to the doctrines of the wider church and thus the wider family. Hence ‘I belive in the holy catholic and apostolic…’ leads us to sacrifice the opinion of the self to the faith of the church of Jesus Christ.
Feminism is incompatible with Christianity because it focuses on giving power to victimisation and thrives on the desire to right wrongs by pushing the agenda of women over that of men. Which is not equlaity in any sense of the word…regardless of what men may or may not have done. Feminism further pits the sexes against each other rather than support the biblical premise of ‘equal but different called to live in service one for the other’. Feminism thus fosters disharmony. It is totally a part of the selfish ideology of the age and the notion of people living litigatious lives of rights,
Understand that the Christian family always affords women the highest regard and total equality to men….but not at the cost of an other. But I think you know all this really and just want to dig….
“Elves” – Re #26: Huh??? I made passing mention of a more elevated reason for opposing “WO” but it certainly wasn’t the point of the post, which I thought was obviously to underscore #24 to the effect that the “hermeneutics of suspicion” central to at least certain forms of feminism (which some reasonably might just think has something to do with “WO”) is poisonous to the Church. I regret if that was unclear.
Elves – thanks for the editing on my comment. You did well.
But, elves, I’m with Daniel re: his comment to 25. Cennydd really needed to be challenged with an unwarranted or at the least undefended rationale, and one that was thrown right into the beginning of a challenge to another commenter making use of the term “feminism” too easily without much of the same rational argument! I’d say take out 25 for throwing WO into the thread in the first place!
Otherwise, I love you guys (that’s westcoast for “y’all”).
: )
Consider me properly chastised. However………….
#9 Leander Harding:
I read your blog post (http://leanderharding.com/blog/) and found it interesting. But as one of those people who is dubious about the entire idea of a covenant that sets out “the basics of the apostolic faith and to develop a suitably Christian and Anglican process for engaging and settling debates about the common boundaries of faith and practice,” I’d like to offer an opposing viewpoint.
I agree in part with what you say — I do think that the problem with the idea of the covenant is that it asserts with certainty things that we can’t in fact be certain about. But I disagree with your analysis of the epistemology underlying that statement.
It’s not that I consider “belief” an “inferior form of knowledge.” It’s true that you have to come up with some kind of beliefs before you can begin acquiring knowledge. (If nothing else, you have to believe that there is such a thing as knowledge, and that it can be acquired.) But there are degrees of certainty of knowledge. Some things we can know with high certainty, and the sciences, particularly the physical sciences, thrive in this realm. Some things we know with less certainty. Some things we “know” with very little certainty at all. There are not categories of knowledge so much as there is a continuum of certainty.
And when it comes to religious doctrine, the area of fact that can be known with such confidence that all reasonable people must agree is so small, and the amount of interpretation and speculation required to go further is so large, that it really is largely a matter of opinion.
In my opinion, anyway. Take that with about half a 🙂
The irony here is that apparently both sides are feeling as though they are on the wrong end of the exclusion stick. Your essay talks a lot about “imperial pluralism” and the intolerance of theological liberals for theological conservatives. I’ll concede there is (unfortunately) some truth to that. But the very point of this covenant in the eyes of reasserters is to draw a line that excludes theological liberals — including, for instance, me. Is it any wonder that I cast a somewhat suspicious eye at the covenant discussions?
Replying to #34
[blockquote] The irony here is that apparently both sides are feeling as though they are on the wrong end of the exclusion stick. Your essay talks a lot about “imperial pluralism†and the intolerance of theological liberals for theological conservatives. I’ll concede there is (unfortunately) some truth to that. But the very point of this covenant in the eyes of reasserters is to draw a line that excludes theological liberals—including, for instance, me. Is it any wonder that I cast a somewhat suspicious eye at the covenant discussions? [/blockquote]
I hear what you’re saying, Ross, and this may seem like a lame rejoinder, but we conservatives tend not to make any bones about the fact that we are exclusive. We tend to believe that there is one truth, which although at times murky to our sin-blinded eyes, is true for all and is something to which all should conform. Contemporary liberals tend to suggest that this is not the case, and that there is no one truth to which all should conform. Conservativism then can account for its exclusion of what it sees as false, since it believes some theologies are genuinely less true, and thus inferior to others. In contrast, many strains of liberalism tend to exclude just as much while being unable to account for why they exclude. There being no one truth, how could I say that one theology or worldview is inferior, and should be excluded?
Apropos the covenant, how could a liberal of this strain really see the Anglican Communion as being in error for choosing one of the many paths out there for governing itself? What is the real difference between choosing a covenant that picks one path over another, or indeed picks a particular path rather than a laissez-faire “any path will do”? I can’t help but think that your “somewhat suspicious eye” is suspicious because it draws a sharp line between these two possibilities without accounting for why sharp lines are acceptable.
Of course, in calling yourself a liberal you may be meaning something different than what I imagine. However, if the problem is that a covenant excludes, how do you justify excluding a covenant?
YBIC
Stephen
FYI.
Te Paa’s PhD is in anthropology, which should say something about her grasp of the significance of Patristics in her “tool boxâ€. She is a co-dean of the three Tikanga College in Auckland, representing the Maori ‘stream’. We need coincidently a new Pakeha dean: any party interested? Though perhaps such might prefer to join the new venture in Nelson Diocese mentioned above – ?!
She did not want to be ordained in the first instance (apparently), as she did not want to be subject to her uncle, the former Archbishop Hui Vercoe. She is something of a protégée of another past Archbishop figure, the current Bp of Auckland and Chair of the ACC, John Paterson. Hence her comment on “truly representative gatheringsâ€, which is a side-swipe via the ACANZ&P;’s response to the first draft of the Covenant and which preferred the ACC model of representation to those “male dominated†lot, the Primates. She remains therefore something of a force to be reckoned with – though what kind of force, other than a “will to powerâ€, is difficult to pin down exactly.
For the homily to which # 27 refers is a staggering revelation of theological vacuity. And while the line of conversation re “feminism†above in a number of comments is not exactly misplaced, it does not do justice to the New Zealand Prayer Book’s aim of using language forcibly to deconstruct and reconstruct one’s understanding (and praxis) of the Christian Faith. Certainly, being blessed in the so-called Name of the Creator, Redeemer and Giver of Life is a pale shadow of the full reality [yes; wirklichkeit] of the Trinity, being simply modalistic and merely functionalist.
Lastly, if Kiwi culture were not so orientated towards pragmatism, the diagnosis of “radical pluralism†above would be most apt of our own failure in these parts to theologically process the current ills of the Anglican Communion. Yet many here would not want that diagnosis to be pressed too hard. After all, the present Constitution of the Anglican Church probably would not have passed muster if it had been at all the concern of other Provinces. So said our report on the draft Covenant as well! We are far from ready to submit to historic authority thank you; our own perceived independence – that is to say, autonomy – is far too precious! In which light, the crux for any future Anglican Communion remains in the area of Phil 2:1-13 (as cited in the St Andrews Draft). But that implies two things: a doctrinal “coreâ€; and a true reflection of the Image of Christ among his servants. Neither sits too well in many quarters of Aotearoa – as evidenced by e.g. Te Paa.
Here’s hoping these impartial comments help fill some of the blanks.
The Anglican Church of New Zealand is basically a liberal Protestant church with a touch of Catholic haberdashery. Like most of the oldline denominations, its grasp of historic orthodoxy and doctrine is fairly thin, and in seeking to be as positive as possible about a romantic, faux-view of Maori religion and culture, it has uncritically adopted a lot of dubious ideas which, in another context, would be called ‘Blut und Boden’. Pragmatism is certainly the word, along with historical ignorance and isolation.
Re “Blut und Boden”, #37. It is not insignificant that Doug Farrow, one time member of Canada’s Theological Commission, who resigned after GS 04 and before the commissioning of [i]The St Michael Report[/i], cited the Barmen Declaration as a touchstone for our contemporary woes. While some might see this as too strong, I sense it to be actually spot on: the [i]Zeitgeist[/i] shows itself in forceful ways; and the Spirit of Elijah calls us to decide which/what/whom to worship. Nor is Yahweh, the Father of Jesus asleep!! (1 Kings 18, Mk 4 …) Which means a persistent faithfulness in these days on our part.
#30 – “the agenda of women over that of men”. Should not the Christian position be the “agenda of Christ”?
I’m afraid I’m guilty of tossing one-liners around where a longer and more careful post is required. I find that the sentiments expressed about feminism, for example by the rugbyplayingpriest, are couched in a language which seems to be as carefully coded as any liberal-speak, and as easily deconstructed. “Family” is used in a way where I can’t see it as anything but a code-word for “male headship”; the infamous “different but equal” where the “difference” somehow keeps the Y chromosomes getting all the highly-paid jobs and making all the authorititative pronouncements; and I don’t need to discuss the sheer coat-trailling of #5, #21’s remarks about hair-style, and #28’s speculations about sexual orientation. In short, the rhetoric may be a little higher-flown, but many of you are like a gaggle of misogynist high-school boys, jeering at the girls.
***
Back when the Covenant notion was hatched, I predicted it would turn out to be the 40th and 41st articles – the 40th, of course, being the Monty Pythonesque “no poofters”, and the 41st “and no girls, either, neener-neener”. So far, nothing makes me suspect it’s going anywhere else.
Mr. Troup #40 –
The “gaggle of misogynist high school boys” line is highly insulting and utterly unnecessary. I would recommend that you tone down your rhetoric and address actual arguments rather than issuing blanket denunciations. Divine revelation is very specific in rejecting homosexual imitations of copulation as acceptable and crystal clear in considering women moral equals of men while giving no indication whatever that they are vocationally equivalent (ordaining women into the Apostolic Succession continues to be theologically indefensible). The sentiments expressed by Dr. Te Paa are such as render thoughtful theological discussion impossible and prevent any Christian unity as it must be based on mere power politics rather than the self revelation of the Living God and the continuity of His leadership of His Church. The notion that recognition of differences between the vocation of men and women is some sort of “no girls, neener-neener” childish game not only ignores reality but cuts off conversation as it renders discussion of the ontological differences between the sexes impossible and acceptance of a theologically highly questionable hermeneutic a prerequisite for entering the discussion. You are cutting most Christian interlocuters across time out of your potential conversation and leaving out a number of potential participants in this day and age. I would suggest a little more patience with others and less exclusionary bravado. It is clear that the Covenant is intended to be traditionally Christian , which means that revealed understandings of the unacceptability of same-sex imitations of copulation will be accepted and that ontological or at least vocational differences between men and women will be accounted for. You are welcome to argue against such understandings on theological grounds, if you can find any, but frankly I can see no reason to pay much heed to your blanket rejection, particularly given that no argument appears to be forthcoming.
Daniel – Impressive vocabulary, but did I not cite the references to hair-style? So, possibly insulting, but necessary – it was misogynistic, and puerile.
As for much of the rest — See #26, I think.
Mr. Troup –
I remain both unimpressed and alas disappointed. Dr. Te Paa’s comment was, I still think, a good example of why it seems futile to attempt to converse with feminists, when simple head-nodding is all that is apparently expected. Evidently, all you glean from #21 above is a comment on hair style and, well, I’m not sure about #26 since it was, for reasons I still find unfathomable, deleted. I’m sure that I’m supposed to feel the pang of some sort of comeuppance as a result of your reference. At any rate, if that’s all you get out of the various comments above and you really think insults of your interlocuters is what is called for in this situation, then I regretfully rest my case and go to bed. All the best to you anyway.
Daniel – in many ways the requirement to not discuss OWttP cripples this. Yes, I do identify myself as a feminist, in several senses. If the doctrine of different vocations was anything more than a justification of male privilege, there would be an openness to different structures than the patriachal ones historically and presently seen. Let me postulate for the sake of argument that cure of souls is a function of the Y chromosome (or its theological cognate, whatever that may be). In what sense is the Primates’ Meeting involved directly in the cure of souls? It clearly is not, so the requirement for male leadership there does not obviously follow from the need for male priesthood. At any level above bishops, the functions exercised are not primarily those of the ordained ministry, but those of administration. I happen to believe that there is a spiritual gift of administration (“helps” in the KJV language), and I do not see that as a rule the Spirit reserves it to those in Holy Orders.
The ontological differences between the sexes remain to me in the realm of the Platonic realist; far too fuzzy for me. All I can say to that is that in every domain of measurement (*), while there are distinctly different and significant differences between males and femals, there is inevitably an overlap in the statistical distribution. For example, while men are generally taller than women, my wife happens to be taller than I am.
I see the insistence on a binary gender ontology as a lingering vestige of the Church’s long and unscriptural conflation of revelation with Aristotelian philosophy, i.e. Scholasticism. I can’t see Galatians 3:28 as doing anything but rejecting (beforehand) the application of binary category logic to Christianity. That this one binary category has been jealously preserved in praxis is a reflection of the culture, not of Christianity, and it is our shame that the Church has historically and continues to endorse it.
(*) Yes, even genetics. Some somatic females turn out to be androgen-insensitive XYs; some XXs are somatic males. Unless you either are somatically female and have children or have been medically screened, practically speaking, you don’t know your genetic gender beyond a reasonable doubt. About 1% of all human births are “intersex”; I recommend the Wikipedia article if the topic interests you.
Leaving aside the matter of “feminism,” which clearly means different things to different people, I’d like to attempt to re-raise a point I suggested earlier. I think one of the basic problems we are dealing with in this crisis is that the whole approach represented by the Windsor Report and the proposed new Anglican Covenant is wrong-headed and inadequate. That is, it is symptomatic that the the Windsor Commission on Communion was made up of such a wide range of people that it was virtually guaranteed that the outcome would be the sort of compromise that liberals like Jenny Te Paa could live with, at least for quite a while (none of the other liberal members have publicly dared to criticize it yet).
And that is precisely the problem. The Windsor Report is a forlorn and futile attempt to hold together “a house divided against itself.” Well, perhaps that made some sense as an initial experiment in trying to keep the AC from experienceing a formal, devastating major schism. But I think it’s abundantly clear by now that this experiment will fail, and probably always was doomed to fail. Oil and water simply don’t mix. Never have. Never will.
I argue that it’s high time to face reality and concede that the AC not only inevitably will experience a huge schism, but that “it is meet and right so to do.” I hope that now that one liberal has broken ranks and disavowed the WR, that some conservatives will do the same, say like the Primate of Central Africa, ++Bernard Melango, or ++Josiah of Nigeria.
In the end, the question we must all face is this: Do you want to spend your time and effort trying to patch up the old wineskins of the AC in the form in which we’ve known and loved it? Or would you rather invest all that time and energy in trying to build new wineskins that can carry a much more vibrant and healthy form of Anglicanism into the future?
I must admit, for me, it’s a no-brainer. I’m 53 now. I have only something like 20 years of active ministry left. I’d much rather build the Church of tomorrow than waste my remaining years in the futile and frustrating effort to salvage the old wineskins and preserve the Anglicanism of the past, or remodel the Church of the present.
The New Reformation is here to stay. It will doubtless prove just as bitterly divisive as the original Reformation of the 16th century. But it’s also just as utterly necessary and justified.
As far as I’m concerned, Jenny Te Pass and I don’t just live many thousands of miles apart geographically. We live even farther apart religiously. We live on different theological planets, governed by mutually exclusive worldviews.
The sooner the separation becomes unmistakably clear, the better. It’s time for a divorce.
David Handy+
New Reformation Advocate: I couldn’t agree with you more. The problem with the Windsor Report is that the boundary crossing section only protects the Structure of Anglicanism or TEC, but impedes the Scriptural tradition and theology. The State in which I reside has a Good Samaritan Law to protect people trying to provide emergency assistance in good faith to victims endangered by an accident. The WR shuts that concept down when it comes to endangered spiritual health. The Church needs to get on with the business of saving souls.
Ross in #34 above. I think you have missed entirely the point of the critique that I have offered which is understandable based on the very brief presentation that we were asked to make at the Anglican Covenant Conference. Try reading Newbigin’s book Proper Confidence for a more comprehensive presentation. In any event in myho you are simply restating the position that Polanyi et al are critiquing without answering their objections. You are still working with a evidence leads to commitment paradigm rather than a commitment makes possible a evidence and proper confidence paradigm that is how both faith and science work.
#47:
I can’t properly critique Polyani or Newbigin because I haven’t read them, but I have to say that the summaries of their work that I’ve read have left me profoundly unimpressed. It’s possible that the summaries don’t do them justice, of course. But the cursory exposure hasn’t given me any great motivation to pursue them further. So far as I can tell they appear to be taking a couple of pretty obvious insights and using them to attack a straw-man they’ve constructed themselves and labeled “scientism.”
Now, as I said, I haven’t read them, so I could be wrong. I may be doing Polyani and Newbigin an injustice and they may have substantive points to make. So far I haven’t discerned enough substance there to give me any compelling reason to dig further into their ideas, but if you recommend them strongly then I’ll see if I can find space in the to-be-read queue.
Hey Ross. Leander’s reading list is always worth checking out. He’s a good and thoughtful man and worth listening to.
But honestly, I don’t think we need to go there to address what you are saying in your post (#34). You write:
You seem to be laboring under a big misapprehension. Nobody here is saying that the basic beliefs that bind us together as Anglicans should be only those “that can be known with such confidence that all reasonable people must agree.†It’s perfectly reasonable to be an atheist. Or a Muslim. Or a Jew. Or an agnostic. Or a number of others I could mention. These people aren’t being crazy or irrational for doubting or disbelieving in the basic claims of historic Christianity.
So the current question of the Covenant, which is in part a question of defining what these basic beliefs are for us, doesn’t involve a criterion of them seeming reasonable to those outside the faith. Indeed, St. Paul tells us that our faith will necessarily appear to outsiders as folly.
Here’s an analogy which may help. There’s no question that one man can be a democratic socialist, or another a libertarian capitalist (like Milton Friedman), and both can be thoughtful and reasoned men. Likewise, it’s also possible for a man to start out as a democratic socialist and then, over time, honestly change his mind so that he know longer believes the tenets of his party.
But what would be silly for him to do as a democratic socialist is to distribute libertarian or free market literature at party gatherings, or agitate for changing the party’s bylaws so that they favored low taxes and small governments, and so forth. It makes no sense. And it wouldn’t help his case either to explain that his party shouldn’t be defined by these core socialist beliefs simply because they couldn’t be proven unequivocably at the bar of Enlightened Reason.
Now a very interesting question is how we should go about figuring out what these basic Christian beliefs are. Here’s a suggestion. A principle that is often used in trial law is, when you have witnesses who disagree with each other, or even better who dislike each other, find the things that they agree on. So a principle of great utility is to identify the tremendous thunderous agreement across hundreds of great Christian saints and doctors of 2000 years on certain basic claims, people as wildly different as Luther and Pope John Paul, Calvin and Thomas Aquinas, the Lady Julian and Jonathan Edwards – the list goes on. Athanasius, Augustine, Jon Hus, St. Francis, Cranmer, Dante, John Bunyan, John Keble, St. Jerome, the Cappadocian Fathers, the Wesleys, St. Theresa of Avila….
My own suggestion is that we start there. It turns that all this thunderous witness, much as they sharply disagreed with one another, all believed in certain very basic claims. All of them believed in the Trinity. All of them believed Jesus was fully man and fully God. All believed he was crucified, died and was buried; all believed he bodily rose from the grave on the third day. All believed in a Virgin Birth. All believed in Original Sin. All believed that we are saved by Christ and his blood alone – not via some other “vehicle to the divine.†All believed in Satan. And so on.
Now I am unsure what you mean when you call yourself a theological liberal. Most of the people I know who so identify disbelieve in a number of the claims above – at least in the plain sense that the witnesses above gave them.
If so, the thing that baffles many of us is why such persons insist on remaining inside the Church (and as in the case of Borg, Spong, etc.) vigorously agitating from within for the church to alter its historic defining beliefs. They seem to us a bit like that that democratic socialist I told you about. Why not become a Republican, or join the Cato Institute, we wonder? Why insist on calling yourself a socialist when you have Milton Friedmann’s latest book tucked under your arm?
That said, I’d question the utility of the word “exclude” in your final paragraph, at least as it applies to persons. Nobody — at least not Kendall, or Fitz Alison, or Bob Duncan, or any number of traditionalists — wants to exclude theological liberals from the Anglican Communion. No one is saying that these people can’t come to church and be welcomed very lovingly. What we do question is the helpfulness of changing the very essence of what the church teaches.
Mr. Troup (#44) –
It’s always hard to tell by this point if it’s worth responding this late. The binary ontology of the sexes is, according to Divine Revelation, built into the fabric of creation (refer to John Paul II’s “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body” for a fuller treatment) and anyone who has raised boys and girls is well aware of it. As a Nuclear Engineer, I know all about statistical scatter, which does nothing to obviate legitimate observations of the norm. The fact of individual differences from the norm is one of the reasons that the Church has always been pastorally sensitive – without changing her teaching. Female incorporation into the Body of Christ, as clearly stated in Galatians 3:28, is an accomplished fact and no change in vocational status is required. Woman have always been full members of the Church and feminism can do nothing whatsoever to increase what is already realized in full. Dr. Te Paa Worries about a phantom. Women are more than welcome to participate fully at all levels of governance save those that require ordination as both Christ’s example and the Holy Spirit’s leadership of His Church have definitively foreclosed the option. In short: no harm, no foul. The woman has no cause for complaint, though I would not necessarily take issue with moving certain administrative functions from the clergy to the laity (so long as violence is not thereby done to either scripture or tradition). But as things stand, I see this as a non-issue.
By the bye, I think Fr. Handy (#45) is quite right. Te Paa, et. al. are members of a religious sect clearly at odds with my own and would do better to go their own way and worship in whatever manner seems best to them. Such would appear “Ross’s” situation, as ilustrated multiple times above. Best regards to you.
Jon, I think that was very helpful. Let me see if I can respond.
But first, since a couple of people have asked what I mean by identifying myself as a “theological liberal” — and since you helpfully provide a checklist 🙂 — let me go down it:
All of them believed in the Trinity.
I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is a true way of stating an ineffable truth in words. There are doubtless other true ways of stating that truth.
All of them believed Jesus was fully man and fully God.
Yes. (Although I will note that the specific philosophical terminology that Chalcedon used for this — two natures, one person — arises from a particular set of philosophical categories that are no longer much in use; so I’m open to other ways of expressing the same insight.)
All believed he was crucified, died and was buried;
Yes.
all believed he bodily rose from the grave on the third day.
Yes.
All believed in a Virgin Birth.
I’m agnostic on this one — I don’t know, and don’t see that it makes that much difference.
All believed in Original Sin.
No.
All believed that we are saved by Christ and his blood alone – not via some other “vehicle to the divine.â€
Mmm… this one would require a long answer; but the short version is “probably not in the way I believe you intend that statement.”
All believed in Satan.
Again, agnostic — don’t know, don’t see that it matters.
Anyway… I think I get what you’re saying. But to answer the question about “why such persons [as myself, for instance] insist on remaining inside the Church … vigorously agitating from within for the church to alter its historic defining beliefs,” speaking for myself only I can say: this is the church I grew up in. This is one of the places I learned the very teachings you’re saying are against its “historic defining beliefs.” From where I’m sitting, you’re the one trying to change the beliefs of the church I’ve been part of most of my life.
You may reply that your camp has history on its side. If you see the historical defining beliefs as a static collection of unchanging truths, then yes, you’re probably right. If you see them as moving along an arc from the past into the future, then maybe my side is closer.
What a very helpful reply, Ross! Thanks.
As a side point, it would be interesting to see you make another stab at the first two claims (the Trinity and the claims of Calcedon). You seem like an honest and forthright fellow, so this is probably unintentional on your part, but your responses here have the appearance of a certain kind of slippery evasiveness some of us are all too familar with, of people wishing to appear to affirm a creedal statement but then crossing their fingers behind their back with some kind of verbal shilly shallying (and thus their private meaning turns out to be one that would have been opposite to those of all those many different Christians I mentioned). You are so forthright in your rejections of other traditional doctrine that I feel that must just be unintentional, so I’d be interested in seeing whether you could shed some more light on those two responses.
For example, do you believe that there was a sense in which Jesus as the Son of God existed “before all worlds”, as the Nicene Creed claims? And that this sense applies to Jesus but in no respect applies to other humans?
When you say that “the doctrine of the Trinity is a true way of stating an ineffable truth in words” can you comment more fully on some of the ways to state the truth? Is a Muslim’s understanding of God (in its fervent denial of the Trinity) also a true way of stating that ineffable truth? Is Hinduism yet another way of stating that ineffable truth? If so, from my perspective, it is more helpful to say that you feel certain there is some kind of God out there, but don’t know what religious account of him/her/it is most true (if any).
It’s interesting that you say that you don’t see how it matters whether Satan exists or not. That strikes me as immensely helpful and revealing. It reveals a gigantic divide — it’s especially striking that you can’t even see how it could matter. That reveals again a religion and a diagnosis of the human predicament at vast remove from all of the witnesses I mentioned and every voice of the New Testament. To take just one NT voice we have St Paul in Ephesians saying “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
I found it so touching and poignant when you said: “From where I’m sitting, you’re the one trying to change the beliefs of the church I’ve been part of most of my life.” Wow. That helped me understand your situation a lot.
And of course this kind of openness is very helpful to us too. It’s good to hear we aren’t far wrong: that you actually learned to disbelieve large swathes of the traditional faith from the very church you grew up in. Presumably in sermons, and Sunday school classes, and so on — you actually learned the message of unbelief from your rectors and fellow Christians. And that it wasn’t just an isolated anaomolous parish but you see it as something you learned from the church as a whole.
Well, see, that’s what we are concerned about. And it really is our fault too that we have let things get to this pass.
I’d love to hear sometime what it is about the Anglican church that really speaks to you. What traditionalists like about it — what we call the Old Old Story — can’t be the attraction. (The message of God’s grace to sinners is only good news when you believe you are bound in sin and can be washed by the blood of the Lamb.) So what is the attraction? Is it the beauty of the services? I can see that — the beautiful vestments, and the evocative language, and the great music, and so on. Is it that you are just really close to that particular freethinking parish — the people there have always been good to you and they feel like family? Is it like a fun book discussion club, where people get to talk about interesting ideas? Those are the three things (beauty, community, intellectual discussions) I have heard theological liberals stress when I talk to them about what church means for them. I can understand all that. But I’m curious if that’s your experience too.
Again, thanks so very much for your post…
Thanks to Cole (#46) and Daniel Muth (#50) for your kind and supportive words. I appreciate your encouragement.
Let me do the same for Leander Harding (#47) and Jon (#49). I agree wholeheartedly with them both. But for the sake of Ross and other readers who may not have read that marvelous apologist Lesslie Newbigin, let me take a stab at summarizing one of his key insights or strategies for defending the Christian faith as a belief system in which we may rightly have a “proper confidence.”
Newbigin notes that one of the key features of modern western societies is that we make a firm distinction between public “facts” and private “values.” And western culture now assumes that the whole realm of religious faith and practice are matters of personal preference that can’t be proven or disproven. Hence religious matters are relegated increasingly to the private sphere of personal “values” and excluded from the public square.
One of Newbigin’s main points is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ belongs more to the realm of public “facts” than private “values.” Just like 2 + 2 = 4, or water is made up of two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen, or George Washington was the first President of the United States etc. Either it happened or it didn’t. And though it can’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that God raised Jesus from the dead, leaving the tomb empty on Easter mroning, it’s also true that there is excellent evidence that supports that central Christian belief. So much so that it’s more reasonable to believe it than to doubt it. It’s not a blind “leap into the dark.” And that makes all the difference.
David Handy+
A follow up to my earlier #53, with Ross mostly in mind,
Ever since the time of the Enlightenment, elite western culture has sought for absolute certainty in a skeptical age that questioned everything. Thus the philosopher Descartes was one of the first to seek a kind of certainty in philosphy that we find in mathematics. But such certainty is simply not to be had in many field outside math, as postmodernists now recognize.
Still, no math student would get far in arguing with his teacher, “Well, maybe for you 2 + 2 = 4, but for me personally, 2 + 2 =5.” Likewise, no high school or college student would get away with objecting to a bad grade on a chemistry exam by claiming, “Well, for me, water is made up of HO2, not H2O.” These are matters of public knowledge, of objective “facts,” not personal opinions.
And Newbigin teaches us to boldly claim that the resuurection is similarly a “fact,” not just a personal value. Now granted, “we walk by faith, not by sight.” But that doesn’t mean our faith is lacking in evidence that makes it eminently reasonable, so that we can believe the classic tenets of the orthodox faith with “proper confidence,” albeit not with absolute certainty. Remember what Luke wrote at the beginning of his beautiful gospel (Luke 1:4), i.e., that he had checked everything out and wrote his account so that we might be ASSURED of the truth of what we’ve been taught about Jesus and the salvation he won for us. Such assurance is perfectly possible and reasonable, even today. But it remains counter-cultural now, just as it was then.
And here is the payoff in terms of apologetics. IF (and granted Ross, it’s a big “if”) it’s really true that the tomb was empty on Easter morning and God in fact did raise Jesus from the dead, then this is the most important “fact” we could ever know. And here’s why. Because if God really raised Jesus from death and rewarded him with a new, immortal body, thus vindicating his teaching and character, whereas God did NOT raise Buddha, Mohammed, Gandhi, Joseph Smith or any other religious leader in history, then this shows that God himself has placed his stamp of approval on Jesus of Nazareth like no one else. And this takes Christian truth claims out of the realm of mere private values and grounds the gospel squarely in the realm of publically accessible facts.
David Handy+
Last December we witnessed the death of one of the finest theological minds engaged in the interface of Christian faith and science, Tom Torrance. His use of Michael Polanyi, originally a Prof of Physical Chemistry, turned philosopher of science, in his many publications is a tour de force. Anyone concerned with western thought forms and their social impact over the last 300 years – the fruit of which is very much the quagmire of the debates swirling around the AC currently – would do more than well to try to digest Torrance’s wisdom. The best introduction to his theology is Alister McGrath’s [i]T.F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography[/i] (T&T;Clark, 1999) which forms a preparatory exercise to his most important “projectâ€, [i]A Scientific Theology: vol nature, vol 2 reality, vol 3 theory[/i] (Eerdmans/T&T;Clark, 2001/2/3), summarised in his [i]The Science of God: An Introduction to Scientific Theology[/i] (T&T;Clark, 2004).
Why do I cite these texts? Because folks, the truth is already out there! The question is simply whether we are prepared to acknowledge it – or not. In fact, we might even say that there is another kind of rerun going on here, parallel to Romans 1:18ff, but couched in contemporary forms of natural, scientific theology. As they say also say, Watch this space, as McGrath gears up for next years Gifford Lectures.
Have fun with the reading! And then the godly living, in faith and reasonableness.
Art (#55),
I concur 100%. I look forward to McGrath’s lectures too.
The Enlightenment quest for absolute certainty leads in the end to utter cynicism and nihilism. This ws illustrated already very clearly with that great agnostic historian Edward Gibbons, whose famous masterpiece, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (three massive volumes beginning around 1776) is justly regarded as one of the great classics of western literature. After rightly noting that in the first few centuries of the Christian era the Roman Empire was highly syncretistic and pluralistic and tolerant (as long as you paid tribute to “Roma,” the goddess who represented the Roman state), Gibbons made the following astute and witty observation. The stinging, cynical barb comes at the end. He wrote something like this:
“To the Roman masses, all religions were equally true.
To the philosphers, they were all equally false.
And to the politicians, they were all equally useful.”
Vintage Edward Gibbons: urbane, insightful, and utterly cynical in the end. And that’s where Enlightenment rationalism always ends, in nihilism and despair, or with an equally cynical but aggressive view that “might makes right” ala Nietsche.
As Christians, the objective reality of the resurrection gives us a firm basis for unquenchable hope, amid a culture wallowing in despair (see 1 Peter 1:3). Thomas Torrance knew this. Lesslie Newbigin knew this. So have all the great saints, whether profound theologians or not. As today’s epistle in the Daily Office reminds us (from 1 Thess. 4), we grieve, but not as those “who have no hope.” And that makes all the difference.
David Handy+
Hmm. Well, let’s start with the Trinity.
I find it helpful to approach the Trinity with the approach that one of my professors uses. He says that the early church was confronted with a number of propositions that they knew in their gut had to be true, but which appeared to lead to contradiction. For instance, they knew that there was one God and one God only. They knew that Jesus was their savior. They knew that only God could save them. They knew that Jesus had been human, had experienced limitation and had been moved by passion, and had died. They knew that God was infinite, impassable, and eternal. And so on. In the end they managed to find a philosophical construction which resolved the apparent paradox and affirmed all the things they knew were true, and so we have the doctrine of the Trinity.
So I would say that I agree with most of the underlying tenets that tied them in knots. God is one. Jesus is God, but distinct from God. The Holy Spirit is God, but distinct from God and from Jesus. These things are all true (I believe) and there appears to be a paradox because we cannot grasp the true nature of the Godhead. We can try to find ways to construct an understanding that resolves the paradox in ways we can wrap our heads around, and that’s fine, so long as we remember that it’s a constructed understanding. If it gets in our way, then we should abandon it and go back to where we began: God is one, Jesus is God but distinct from God, the Holy Spirit is God but distinct from God and from Jesus, and this cannot be but it is. The careful Nicene definition of natures and persons is just such a constructed understanding; if it helps, great, but if it doesn’t then we shouldn’t get hung up about it.
There’s a Zen Buddhist saying: if you meet the Buddha in the road, kill the Buddha. As I understand it, it means that there is truth, and there are ideas about truth, and if your idea is getting in the way of seeing the truth behind it, you must destroy the idea. That’s kind of what I’m getting at here.
Similarly with Chalcedon. Jesus is God, eternally. Jesus was a human being and lived a mortal life. God cannot begin and end, but God was born and died. How can this be? One way of constructing an understanding is the Chalcedonian definition, but it’s just an idea. The truth behind the idea is that Jesus is God, and Jesus was a mortal human, and this cannot be but it is.
As for Satan — if there is an angel who rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven, then all that means is that there is one more sinner in a universe that we already know has more than a few, and he stands in need of salvation as we do.
However, I would agree with you that we probably have “a diagnosis of the human predicament” that is far apart from each other, because I’ve never seen that it’s sin, precisely, that is the fundamental human problem. I would instead describe it as… incompleteness? Unfulfillment? Inadequacy? It’s hard to put words to something I have a clear sense of. We’re smart monkeys, and that’s pretty impressive for monkeys, but our proper end is to be angels and we can’t get there. And the world we live in is in similar straits: for where it came from it’s not bad, but there’s an unbridgeable gap between where it is and where it needs to be.
How to make that leap that we can’t make? Jesus has shown us the solution, by enacting it: we die, truly die, and are reborn, as ourselves but more than ourselves. The world, too, must die and be reborn. We can’t travel that path on our own, but God can take us through because Jesus has done it. This pattern of death and rebirth is, by God’s act in Jesus, the pattern for fundamental growth not only for us but for everything in the world.
And so my answer to “Are we saved by Jesus alone?” is “Yes and no” — which will doubtless strike you as liberal wishy-washy-ness, but I’ll try to explain it. God, through Jesus, has established the template of death and rebirth as the only way we can grow beyond our limits, and it is possible only because Jesus has done it. But any faith that grasps that fundamental pattern of utterly profound transformation — and it can be grasped because God has written it into the very fabric of the world — is on the right track and so can find salvation, if by “salvation” one means being this kind of growth.
Does Christianity contain the best understanding of that “fundamental pattern”? For me, it does. I think we happen to have a handle on a historical truth that no other faith has, namely, the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. But I don’t think that belief in that particular bit of history is necessary to be able to get at the underlying truth of death and rebirth, and for some people Christianity positively gets in the way of understanding it. For those people, Christianity is not the best way to get to God… nor even to Jesus.
So what is it that speaks to me about Anglicanism? It is a sacramental church, which is important to me because I think it is in the sacraments that God and creation intersect most closely. It is also a church — or at least the part of it that I grew up in is — that does not presume to mandate the ways I must believe things. And, if it comes to that, it is a church that is open to different ways of expressing human sexuality, because I think that is one area where the traditional church has become very fixated on some very narrow ideas.
Does that help?
Daniel at #50 – if I read #36 aright, Dr Te Paa [i]is[/i] ordained, according to the procedures and belief of the Anglican church. I believe from what you write that you are a Roman Catholic, and so under [i]Apostolicae Curae[/i], she is exactly as ordained as any other Anglican priest – that is, not at all – making the whole discussion totally theoretic.
I’m surprised a fellow engineer can maintain a pre-modern philosophic world sense. The binary nature of gender is about as real to me as the binary nature of “chewing the cud” in Leviticus – a good approximation, but not a fundamental underpining. Two-valued verbal logic is long obsolete, and you can’t possibly use it to describe the real world.
After all, one can’t describe the classical Roman Catholic view of the Mass in two-valued logics, so why grasp at that medieval straw on something so much more measurable?
Ross, #51 and #57; New Reformation Advocate, #56.
“All of them believed in the Trinity.
“I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is [i]a[/i] true way of stating an ineffable truth in words. There are doubtless other true ways of stating that truth.†Plus your long, moderately helpful comment.
Bp Stephen Neill once remarked that the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much about the nature of God as about the identity of a particular human being – that he was/is God; and concomitantly, Christology is not so much about the nature of Christ as about God – that God is able/free to become a human being. This comment reinforces the fact that Trinitarian and Christological concerns are the flip-side of each other. What generated the mental striving which led to the Creed of first 325 and then 381 was the sheer fact of humans worshipping a man alongside Yahweh. Either this is idolatry – or it is reality; and if the latter, what sort of reality? As many have now shown (Hengel, Hurtado) this move of the earliest Christians took place well before the completion of what we now term the NT canon.
One of the most exciting developments in recent theology is a revival in thinking about this core Trinitarian doctrine of the Church (we may conveniently date its start from Jüngel’s Barthian “Paraphrase†of 1964). As Robert Jenson, a major player in this recent doctrinal revival, would put it: the separation of ‘hypostasis’ from ‘ousia’ gives us “a creative disruption of Hellenic interpretation of reality, which [enables] the triune God’s peculiar reality to become speakableâ€, and which terms are “items of linguistic debris knocked from Hellenistic philosophy by collision with Yahwehâ€. One might also mention Pannenberg’s seminal essay, “The Appropriation of the Philosophical Concept of God as a Dogmatic Problem of Early Christian Theologyâ€. While we ourselves may not culturally resonate immediately with these ontological terms themselves in our postmodern age, matters of ontology remain crucial, as Pannenberg and/or von Balthasar, two further participants in this revival, in their respective ways have shown clearly – despite rather pathetic moves to “question back†and “overcome metaphysics†(O’Leary).
In other words, the Nicene Creed is not merely [i]one[/i] way of expressing this reality – as TF Torrance would say, all contingent expressions are ‘paradeigma’, “pointers†– it is simply the most congruent, as the general theory of relativity is currently the most congruent also. While of course further theories, like the literature of the past 45+ years, will emerge in the future, they just [i]build upon[/i] what has gone before.
Yet radical novelties of the ethical kind now being proposed by TEC et al are just that, novelties, that are incongruent with what the deposit of the Faith has generated. In this light, Rom 12:1-2 exhorts us to be “not conformed to this aeon but to be transformed by the renewal of our mindsâ€, which exegetically ties in with Rom 1 via the matter once more of “worshipâ€, as well as echoing the NT baptismal catechism (see e.g. Eph 4:17ff). This “transformation of minds†is well aided and abetted in our day by the likes of TFT and many others referred to.
Consequently, with David Handy, I should also add “godly living†in “hopeâ€. For the resurrection was [i][b]the[/b][/i] singular event that precipitated Christians having to embark down the road leading to specifically Trinitarian forms of thought – and living – and living, once more, in ways that surely address Te Paa’s doubtful concerns: viz again only von Balthasar’s [i]Theo-drama[/i] in relation to “power†issues! As Robert Jenson, once more, would put it: “When creedal articles for the Spirit end with resurrection and life everlasting, they merely specify what the Spirit in himself as person is. … The Spirit is God as the Power of God’s [i]own[/i] and our future.†Just so, the Trinitarian God is uniquely our human hope – and only [i]this[/i] God may be this for us.
[blockquote] We’re smart monkeys [/blockquote] No, we’re beings who have been infused by the very Breath/Spirit of the Living God. Sometimes we’re dumber than monkeys.
If the problem is not sin but self-fulfilment, then the problem of a (e.g.) frustrated child molester is to find out how to molest children without having society stomp on him/her.
Our problem is our sin. We need salvation.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Ross (#57) and art (#59),
Wow, I love it when a blog like this gets down to dealing with the core doctrine of the Trinity. It appears that both of you, Ross and art, acknowledge that the traditional language about the Triune God is not sacrosanct. Like all human language it is limited and subject to change over time. The difference appears to be that Ross seems reluctant (correct me if I’m misreading you) to accept the language of the ecumenical Councils as normative and binding (until reformed and clarified by yet another Council). Art seems much more comfortable living within the theological world boundaried or inscribed by those famous counciliar statements. I certainly am at home and comfortable within those boundaries.
One of the problems we face in contemporary Anglicanism is that while the FACT of doctrinal development and change is now acknowledged on all sides, we still lack any agreed CRITERIA for evaluating new doctrinal innovations. And that is killing us. I mean, it’s just devastating us.
For instance, it is surprising to me that the famous seven tests or criteria that John Henry Newman proposed back in 1845 in his classic book, “The Development of Doctrine,” hardly ever get mentioned, and almost no one tries to apply those 7 tests as a way of evaluating whether the new “gay is OK” doctrine of TEC and western elite culture is a valid development or an impermissible corruption. Personally, I still find Newman’s tests helpful, even if his reasoning is somewhat circular. And I think when we use Newman’s 7 criteria as the basis for evaluation, the proposed notion that “gay is OK” flunks all seven tests.
But I appreciate art’s mention of some of the major theologians who have helped to revive the old doctrine of the Trinity and make it central once again, including Robert Jenson and Hans von Balthasar (and implicitly Karl Barth). Let me add a few more. Karl Rahner helped emphasize (as Barth also did) that the so-called “economic” Trinity (God as he has made himself known to us humans) is one and the same with the ontological Trinity (God as he is in himself, apart from us). And since Thomas Torrance has already been mentioned prominently above, let’s pay him honor as another leader in the revival of the Doctrine of the Trinity. One of his last but perhaps most important and enduring books is called simply, “The Trinitarian Faith.” It’s a major tome of some 400 dense pages, and it’s notable how a Calvinist like Torrance deeply appreciates and reappropriates the classical teaching of the early Fathers, not only Athanasius and the Cappadocians, but lesser known figures too, especially Cyril of Alexandria.
Most of all, however, I’d commend the work of the late English theologian Colin Gunton. His books, especially “The Promise of Trinitarian Theology,” are particularly lucid and compelling, it seems to me.
I submit that the question is not, is the language of the Creeds imperfect and in theory reformable? I think Ross, art, and I would all agree that it is. The real question is this: is that post-biblical language still binding and normative for Christians in the meantime? And again, my answer is a resounding and confident, “YES.”
David Handy+
With regard to the larger discussion here, I sense the usual difficulty with reasserter/reappraiser communication: a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of Divine Revelation, a problem that precedes both Nicea and Chalcedon. Discussion of the formulation of Nicene Trinitarian theology or Chalcedonian Christology, in order to be undertaken coherently, must presuppose a fundamental agreement among the parties regarding the availability to the Christian Church of both General Revelation (knowledge of God from creation as alluded to in Romans 1, for instance) and Special Revelation (God’s self-revelation in and through Holy Scripture and His leadership of His Church as therein promised). I do not sense in this discussion that this fundamental agreement exists between “Ross” and his various interlocuters, though I may be wrong.
“Ross” – Both the Catholic Tradition and its various Protestant offshoots (we can reasonably debate which category Anglicanism belongs to – I’m an Episcopalian, Mr. Troup, by the way – remember that we are not required to accept WO as valid and are welcome to accept seven vice two sacraments) holds that, as our Lord, being the fulfilling Revelation of God, is both divine and human, so secondary revelations – Scripture and the Church – are both human and divine. That is, both are incarnational. In scripture, God reveals Himself not only off the page, as it were, in burning bushes, lights on the road to Damascus, etc., but on and through the page as well. There is no doubt that scripture is written by men, human authors free to write what they wish as they wish and within the confines of their own cultural context. At the same time, the Christian Faith has always held that these men were inspired by the Holy Spirit such that what they wrote accurately and adequately communicates that which is necessary for salvation. And one of those things necessary for salvation is factual knowledge about who God is in Himself. When the Church speaks about Scripture as being infallible she means it only with regard to those things necessary for salvation and again, one of those things necessary for salvation is objective knowledge about who God is. In other words, scripture, while it may be limited by time and place of composition with regard to scientific or geopolitical facts (though this requires careful handling), cannot be wrong about who God is. Like the prophets, the biblical authors are human and they are bound by time, place, and culture. But they are at the same time inspired by God and cannot give misinformation about Him, for such information is timeless and unaffected by time, place or culture.
Likewise the Church is incarnational, made up unquestionably of fallible men who exist in particular times, places and cultures. Yet she is also headed by Christ Himself and is His Body and so is a mystical being that cannot be separated from Him. It is the Church’s belief that, led by Him, her children at Nicea, for instance, adequately and accurately discerned and clarified what He revealed in Sacred Scripture with regard to Himself and reflected His divine will in developing the Trinitarian formula. His having sent no prophets to correct the teaching of the Council in the millenium and a half since gives assurance of this, as does its universal acceptance to this day.
Here, I think, is where the traditional defense of Christian dogma begins. We can know some things of God by observation of His hand in creation (both its initiation and continuation), but cannot know His nature, cannot know that which is sufficient for salvation without His revealing it. The nature of that revelation is incarnational, the Word becoming flesh, and is given to us in scripture and the Church. It is on this that the formulations of the Councils, the development of doctrine and the defense of the Faith reside.
Mr. Troup – Once again, the male/female dichotomy, both physical and ontological, is apprehensible via General Revelation (I have two daughters and I am well aware that neither they nor my wife are like me – though surely “flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone”) but is clarified and deepened in Special Revelation (Christ Himself says, “from the beginning, He created them male and female” – Mt. 19:3). The fact of the dichotomy is given and why I should judge its veracity from its age rather than its merit is a mystery to me. Granted, you didn’t bring it up, but it is unquestionable that in contrast, we are being asked of late to credit an essentially meaningless homosexual/heterosexual bifurcation (the addition of the “bisexual” category to the mix adds neither sophistication nor clarity) as a given. Once again, both General and Special Revelation are clear that this approach is to be rejected. I am not a heterosexual, I am married.
You mention the engineering profession, which we apparently share. I am glad. However, I would say that it is precisely because of my immersion in the scientific world of six-factor formulae and two-group fast fission diffusion equations that I appreciate the marvels of medieval philosophical achievement. We live in a dark and painfully ignorant age that continues the foolish attempt to answer philosophical questions with scientific data, thus producing ideology. Data and science are essentially what the Church and the Christian Faith must never, ever be: useful and relevant. Best regards – DWM
#62:
(There’s no need to put my name in quotes, by the way. Ross is my real name.)
I think you’re right about the “fundamental disagreement” concerning the nature of divine revelation. I didn’t reference that in my last post because I’ve gone around the track with other T19ers on this one before, and I’m not sure what more there is to be said.
I don’t see scripture as being divine revelation in the sense that you describe. I think it contains revelations given to particular people, who wrote them down (or told them to others who wrote them down) with no guarantee of getting it right. I think it also contains things that people were sincerely but mistakenly convinced were divine revelation. I don’t think that there are any unique safeguards granted to scripture, in contrast to any other document, that guarantee it to be without error even in the limited sense of “accurately and adequately communicat[ing] that which is necessary for salvation.”
(Sometimes at this point in the discussion, someone will reply that if scripture is not inspired, then how can we know anything with certainty? Given that several messages upthread I was accused of demanding absolute epistomological certainty before believing anything, I await such a reply with eagerness.)
In any event, you’re right that this disagreement exists and contributes to a significant communication gap. I don’t buy the idea that accepting scripture as unique divine revelation is necessary to be a Christian. You, I’m guessing, would assert that it is — based on your statement that the Catholic and Protestant churches are all united on this. So now what?
#63 – Sir:
I prefer to avoid first names in this medium since I believe that it leads to the illusion that we know each other and adds a personal element that detracts from the intellectual seriousness of the conversation and would therefore prefer to be referred to as Mr. Muth.
Good final question. First of all, let me say unequivocally that I have no problem sharing a pew with you, as I do constantly with people who hold views I reject or at least do not think much of. Theological confusion amongst the faithful is pretty much the norm and I see no reason not to very much hope in a God who will be patient with His errant children.
However, I must note that the Book of Common Prayer, the hymns, and formularies of the Anglican Church were all written assuming the nature of Divine Revelation that I have limned above. Honesty, it would seem to me, would dictate that those who enter guardianship of the treasures of Anglicanism must hold such understandings or at least pretend publicly that they do. Bishops, for instance, who believe as you do would best imitate their unbelieving predecessors and proclaim their devotion to traditional Christian understandings. After all, this would merely make them hypocrites, and these only lie about themselves. The other option is for them to lie about the Church, claiming that she is not what she is or can become what she can never be and remain His Church. However personally honest, this is a far greater sin against God and His people.
One might argue that just as Israel and Judah could hobble along for a time being led by kings such as Mannasseh, so can TEC suffer for a season or three under the likes of her current leadership. I don’t believe it. TEC is not “the Church.” She is a small and shrinking backwater of that tiny little minority of the world’s Christians who happen to be able at the moment to fog a mirror. This does not mean that TEC is unimportant – the world would be a sadder and duller place without her – only that she cannot be looked on in terms of the nation of Israel or in light of the promises of Christ regarding the victory of the Church against the gates hell. I strongly suspect that these latter may very will clobber TEC and it looks like they probably will and that will be a shame.
Christian leadership cannot hold as you do with regard to Divine Revelation and remain Christian leadership. The problem of TEC is a problem of such leadership. I would be as glad to worship in a pew next to Mrs. Schori as I would be next to you. I cannot, however, accept either of you as bishops and no arm of the Catholic Church can long abide such leadership. Given the circumstances, the best thing would be for our current leadership to recognize that they are in communion neither with their forbears nor their peers who hold with the historical Church. They should be honest enough to leave and leave that which was given to the historical Church to those leaders who are at least willing to claim to accept what she has always been. Failing that, they should let the rest of us go in peace with what treasures we can take.
My advice to you: keep doing what you’re doing and pray that the Living God will continue to guide and touch you with His Truth, who is, after all, the Truth. I shall continue doing likewise. All the best – DWM
##61-63:
Thanks folks for the engagement; and I hope Ross not to reinvent previous “tracksâ€.
Again and again it seems to me that many a hotly debated issue peels back to expose the twin core of “revelation†and the nature of deity – we would say “Trinity†as Christians. So the fact that we’ve landed up there via Te Paa’s opening comments is not remarkable, so it seems to me.
What is however noteworthy is the failure, again it seems to me, of many a seminarian to be equipped to see just how essential these two core doctrinal concerns are. And this not merely in terms of being able to ‘parrot’ the historical theology ‘properly’; but rather to feel under the skin the sheer frisson of the questions before us all. To be sure, to have that degree of self-reflectivity both as an individual and as a member of a culture/institution does not come naturally to some/many. Yet of all people, for Christians, who have known themselves to be taken out of Adam and to be immersed in the emerging new creation that is Jesus Christ, such a dynamic should – I reckon! – be at least somewhere pretty close by. And no; I am not wanting just to champion what seems to be currently in vogue among Episcopalians via talk the Baptismal Covenant. What is uppermost for me is the ability to translate all such theological talk – after all, the premise of both the NT Catechism and those Early Church Rules of Faith – into any specific cultural setting, whether of Late Antiquity or of Late Modernity, as this latter is going through its death throes in North America (oops; sorry for that judgment call on what is ‘really happening’ in the upper echelons of power, and the pews, in both TEC and the Canadian Anglicans!).
A case study to assist. Our esteemed scholarly Archbishop of Canterbury wrote some time ago and has now had it republished a study that is as much cultural history as it is patristic theology. I refer to [i]Arius: Heresy and Tradition[/i] (1987/2002). For earlier Ross listed a set of categories, #57, which apparently the culture of the day “knew†to be “divineâ€. Oh yeah?! Who says?! Now; of course it’s a bit more subtle than that! Hence my reference to Pannenberg’s famous “Appropriation†essay (#59). But – and now fast forward to the present day – when Robert Jenson writes a book entitled [i]Unbaptized God[/i] (1992) he is pressing the essential button, the one that engages the so-called General/Special Revelation dynamic. For built into classical notions of deity are matters of temporality ‘defined’ by contrasting that which changes and decays and perishes versus (‘obviously, naturally’!) that which is infinite, etc. But who says that the latter are/have to be ‘deity’?!! The point of my starting out #59 with Stephen Neill was to anticipate having to deal more throughly with the likes of ‘the more usual approach’. (E.g. John Hick would say that the Incarnation is like trying to square a circle. Again, who says?! [i]Why presuppose[/i] that deity is like a square and humanity like a circle – or should that be vice versa?!)
The present revival in Trinitarian doctrinal thinking is based on Karl Barth’s premise, the actuality determines the possibility. (Yes; David Handy is right to refer to Rahner’s Rule or [i]Grundaxiom[/i], even if it needs handling carefully.) That is, as we investigate the sheer object in space-time before us who is Jesus of Nazareth, as the Word-become-flesh, so we are lead ineluctably to the Subject who reveals Godself to us. This is the crux of Torrance’s and McGrath’s “Scientific Theology†[which is a bit more “scientific†by the way than the current PB’s scientism via her oceanography … Lord have mercy!] It is also the premise of Jenson’s Trinitarianism which consistently hammers away on the anvil of divinity-and-temporality, “reconceiving†(Thomas Weinandy) triunity as the “whence and whither†of God, as the Father who is Unoriginate and the Holy Spirit who is Unbounded Futurity, the “twin poles of deityâ€, the one who is eternally faithful across all time(s), and who is able to be so faithful on account of being the triune deity that God is/has shown himself to be. Nor is it a coincidence that Colin Gunton, whom David Handy correctly references, has right from his doctoral thesis days ([i]Becoming and Being[/i], Oxford, 1978) been deeply influenced by Jenson. Together with his [i]Promise[/i] collection of essays, both his [i]Actuality of Atonement[/i] and [i]Yesterday and Today[/i], both of which are deep interactive engagements with the Tradition and contemporary cultural thought forms and codes of life, breath his modus operandi.
Where is all this going? As I said earlier, the truth is already out there. In principle, the dynamic of engaging with the deposit of revelation as given us in the Holy Scriptures via the Tradition and via the “domestication†(Placher) of what just happens to be our own, most ambivalent western cultural history of the last 300 years when it comes to notions of ‘deity’ – much of this Trinitarian hermeneutical work has been done; hallelujah! No; this is not some finished project! Its implications for global Church life across six continents are only just beginning, I suspect, as this 21st C Church engages especially the cosmologies of the Ancient Eastern cultures – just as the Nicene Church engaged, had to engage the Hellenistic cosmologies of its day. [BTW I have spent c. 1/3 of my life in Africa, so this cross cultural ‘reading’ comes – now – fairly easily.] But meanwhile much of western Christianity is struggling to sift – that is, if it really [i]wants[/i] to sift – what is its own cultural, historical ‘baggage’ from what is ‘truly’ Gospel. Such a sifting is made far trickier of course by the fact that much of the fruit of the Gospel is also “out there†(i.e. what Ross might readily assume, I suspect, to be General Revelation – ?). BUT – and it is a [i][b]huge[/b][/i] qualifier – what happens to that very fruit when it becomes severed from the root, Jesus himself, taking on a life of its own over decades and even centuries. And yes; I mean that notion, “human autonomyâ€, premised once upon a time upon unique insights into Trinity and Image of God via “relation†and so “personhood†(notably via Augustine with whom perhaps Gunton is a little too harsh; so now Barnes and Ayres), but now, centuries later, having sought its own authority (Gen 3/Ex 32-33), it has become most sour, a pseudo deceitful ‘freedom’ indeed.
So when we westerners try to handle “money, sex or power†– I seek still to remain on topic! – these core features of human existence, exemplified via their Christian opposites in poverty, chastity and obedience, [i]when we dig deeply enough[/i], actually throw up – yes! – “revelation†and “Trinityâ€. But these are no mere cyphers or doctrinal tenets to be signed off in some set of ordination vows or pulpit themes. They are the very engine room of the Christian Faith, as this encounters all facets of human life. Just so, 1 Cor 1-4, 8:4-6, which gave Lesslie Newbigin typically his title, [i]Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture[/i] – a classic case study in what I have been suggesting in this comment, and I suggest also soon to be enjoyed by you, Ross!
I conclude with Eberhard Jüngel, who John Webster reckons to be one of the most astute living interpreters of Barth: “The traditional language of Christianity insists, therefore, on the fact that we must [i]have said to us[/i] what the word ‘God’ should be thought to mean. The presupposition is that ultimately only the speaking God himself [or, the God who himself speaks] can say what the word ‘God’ should provide us to think about [or, what we are to understand by the word ‘God’]. Theology comprehends this whole subject with the category of revelation.†It is the current revival of Trinitarian doctrine, generated via Yahweh’s Messiah’s encounter with any and every human culture, as tabled in the metanarrative of Scripture, which, for me, offers us the most hope – yes; that word! – when it comes to determine crucial matters of power, sexuality, freedom, etc., and so all the wrangles of the current Anglican Communion. [i]The Virginia Report[/i] offered us a first take, even if its concept of Trinity was too monarchial. Yet praise be to God, the triune God, for the providential literature of the past few decades: Moltmann is surely correct to direct us to the doxological Trinity!
Mr. Muth – I do apologize for my mistake. You may be surprised that I am in substantial argeement with you regarding Devine Revelation, both Special and General, although I believe in the inspiration of Scripture but deny infallibility.
Medieval philosophy is a lot like medieval astronomy – a huge and effortful piece of work, containing much good material, but erected on a foundation of false axioms. The false axioms of the medieval astronomer were, of course, the geocentric universe and the perfection of the heavens. Without confounding science and religion, I believe it is both possible and necessary to apply the modern tools of thought to the Devine Revelation.
You very likely have a self-consistent position; rejecting apparently a lot, perhaps all, of the post-1928 changes in the Anglican church. I strive for a self-consistent position embracing several of them, specifically OoWttP and the remarriage of divorced persons. That’s troublesome, because it does open both cans of worms – the authority of Scripture and sexuality. The humorous [i]Law of Evolving Systems[/i] states that “recanning a can of worms requires a larger can.” I strive for one, including the [i]both/and[/i] of modern logic.
And I realize that the Anglican Covenant will not be anything like my point of view, and may well exclude it. “Even so, it still moves.”
Mr. Troup –
Much thanks for your kind response and my regrets that I haven’t the time at present to continue the discussion much longer. The issue moderns seem to have understanding the Medieval worldview seems to stem primarily from a disconnect with their teleological and non-utilitarian worldview. You mention their astronomy as an example, and rightfully so. First of all, as a matter of direct observation, they, like we, watched the sun go around the earth every day. Copernicus’ claims, generally recognized as sensible – it made more sense for the smaller body to orbit the larger one vice the obverse – but were also quite counterobservational. Of course, his assumption, like Galileo later and everybody until Kepler, that the orbits were circular prevented his model from really solving any problems.
The bigger issue, of course, was that the geocentric universe was theologically instructive. It is often claimed that the earth being the center of the universe reflected its high place in creation and man’s place at its pinnacle and that man was cut to size by the Copernican revolution, as he was even more so later by Darwin. Those who maintain this merely display their ignorance. If they ever read Dante, they would realize that at the center of the earth is hell and at the center of hell is Satan, trapped in the ice, which freezes harder every time he beats his wings (of course, the added kinetic energy would actually tend melt the ice, but who cares?). The ennobling places were out in the realm of the celestial spheres, all moving in perfect, circular orbits.
Whether these were valid, scientific observations was less important than what the model said about the place of man, set on the surface of the world, head pointed toward the spheres, feet aimed toward damnation. He moved betwixt the two and every decision pulled him either closer to the realm of the spheres or to the inferno. Scientific validity was not nearly as interesting (and I believe that it is still not) as how the physical world, declared “good” by its Creator and hallowed by the physical presence of God Incarnate, reflected the spiritual state of man.
The Medievals saw nature not as a tool to be used by man – that was a result of the inappropriately-named Enlightenment – but as a book in which man could read the story of Christ. I very much doubt that anyone actually believed that pelicans actually tore off strips of their own flesh to feed their young or that badgers dropped their genitalia to escape predators – and why should we care if anyone did? – what mattered is how these creatures were seen as reflecting Divine reality, teaching some Christian moral.
I would maintain that we should not learn of the Medieval worldview with the aim being to feel superior to it, but rather to gain wisdom from, imitate, and perhaps extend its insights. Atheists are constantly trying to draw philosophical conclusions from scientific data, inventing things like racism, Marxism and other deadly ideologies. What if we Christians rediscovered the Medieval view of nature as a book written by God to show us Christ? Christ was baptized in the Jordan, near the lowest terrestrial place in the world, the Great Rift valley, a sort of wound in the very crust of the earth. Does that not teach us something about who He is and what He was doing during His earthly ministry?
I am aware that there are limitations to this approach. I am not convinced that the dual nature of light as particle and wave really teaches us anything about the dual nature of Christ. But I’m willing to explore and discuss it. Joining valid scientific observations to a Medieval (and Patristic, for that matter) teleological approach would seem to these eyes to be a service to the Church and those lost to whom she is called to minister. It’s a thought anyway. In Him – DWM
Thanks again for a most considered post. Before he went right off the rails, Matthew Fox was responsible for one genuinely useful reframing of ideas: “You are very special, the Universe has taken 15 billion years to make you.” Like the feet to Hell medieval framing, this makes Man significant in the face of a scientific worldview; not vanishly insignificant.
OTOH, medievals were at least willing to claim that they believed that the barnacle goose was a fish so as to eat it in Lent. I’ve dealt with dog breeders who hold firm to some distinctly pre-Mendelian notions, too. (How is it that the Church gets no credit for Fr. Mendel?)
Anyway, we’ve wandered a bit from the original topic. I don’t find the St. Andrew draft covenant particularly offensive; and perhaps I wish for a more complete redaction of Dr Jenny Plane Te Paa’s objections, because they seem to turn on some subtleties I don’t perceive. I am, however, sincerely “allergic” to claims of male leadership as a requirement, and most especially as a devine commandment.