As we approach the Lambeth Conference it is crucial to understand that enlightened American Episcopalianism is entering a field where what it knows as true could come into conflict. Could, because it is entering a field of play where it is a large group but is not really on its home team pitch. In order properly to engage the enlightened Episcopalian it is imperative that one understand how entrenched this self-understanding is, and how very domineering it is. It speaks of spending a lot of time together, ‘getting to know Gene,’ but the awareness is meant to benefit the cause of enlightenment and never any other way. It may appear that one is just listening and adding things up and dividing by what is put out there, but that is not the way the enlightened Episcopalian thinks. The Bible is capable of myriad interpretations, but there is only one interpretation of the truth when it comes to this view of ‘endless deferral of truth’ interpretation, and only one never-deferred interpretation of the truth when it comes to human sexuality. If things do not go well, enlightened Episcopalians will simply have their views confirmed, and will return and carry on because they are right.
Consider this quote from Bishop Chane in today’s Guardian. “I think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: ‘I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'” he said. “It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.”
Enlightened Episcopalians condemn interpretation of scripture when it indicates something like received truth, and deference to long-standing catholic teaching based upon this. Chane claims such views are totalitarian, but then he simply assumes his own view is unequivocally true and so declares the scriptural-catholic teaching ‘demonic,’ caricaturing the claims of those who hold it. This is the position of enlightened American Episcopalianism: it knows the truth through enlightenment, and all appeals to received truth and catholic deference to this are to come under domination of the Enlightened view. It speaks in terms it knows well (superior knowledge) and projects this onto opponents, but at issue is the nature of the knowledge of God’s word and will for the Church. Enlightened Episcopalians know what is true by personal claim. American enlightened Episcopalians are right because they are on the cutting edge, at the forefront, whilst the rest of the world lags behind and must be instructed.
At issue is whether the rest of the Anglican world will recognize how entrenched and domineering this view is, where it is held, and so allow it to go its own confident way, detached from the burden of mutual subjection in Christ.
“Chane claims such views are totalitarian, but then he simply assumes his own view is unequivocally true and so declares the scriptural-catholic teaching ‘demonic,’ caricaturing the claims of those who hold it.”
I wish that I would have said that.
Partially edited.
Don
[blockquote]What is critical to take in is that enlightened American Episcopalianism is enlightened precisely because its views are capable of being described as a minority, within the vast expression of Anglicanism worldwide. Enlightened Christianity is in the nature of the case a minority view, because the enlightened are onto something new, something that may be widely represented in the culture but which was never able to be squared with the vast preponderance of Christians in the world, never before and not now.[/blockquote]
This is one of the most worthwhile articles on the Unraveling that I have read in several months.
It’s an excellent article – it might be ironic to call it ‘enlightening’ as I first thought of doing! – and also provided a very important commentary on another thread here.
Elves:
re: 1. DonGander
Would it have been permissible to say that Bp. Chanes VIEWS were totalitarian?
All I was trying to do was apply Chanes judgements on himself (as the article did). I do appologise for directing that to Chane when I wanted to echo Chane precisely. Thus I should have refered to Chane’s views.
Am I still in error?
Don
The difference between the reasserters and reappraisers may in fact boil down to this: Reasserters hold a high view of Scripture and believe and proclaim that the Scriptures are the word of God. The truth of Scripture and their inspiration by God are our first premises. To us, any behavior or idea contradicted by Scripture must be wrong or sinful or both.
Reappraisers on the other hand hold a high view of social justice, particularly with respect to anything that seems to invite discrimination or intolerance. Anything that contradicts their view of social justice must be mistaken or sinful or both. Social justice is their first premise. If what contradicts their view of social justice as paramount is found in Scripture, then the Scripture, or at least the interpretation of Scripture, must be wrong.
I propose this is why reasserters and reappraisers continue to talk past one another. We don’t start from the same first premises.
Here we have +Chane seeming to call Jesus Christ demonic, but from the reasserter point of view, Jesus would never have put God into such a small box as to call himself the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore the phrasing of John 14:6 is flawed in some way. The translation of it, or the Gospel’s author’s recollection of what Jesus said must necessarily be incorrect, because Jesus couldn’t possibly have said anything that so obviously contradicts the reappraiser view of the sin of intolerance. From the reappraiser point of view, the primary lesson of the gospels is that Jesus was tolerant. From the reasserter point of view, the gospels teach that Jesus was often not so tolerant, which reflects a characteristic of his Father.
I do not believe these views can be reconciled. Each of us must choose between the premise that Scriptures are paramount and the premise that tolerance is paramount. They cannot both be true.
The great value of this article to me, as an older (how strange that sounds!) American taught to revere the Enlightenment by both secular education and science career, is the delineation of the thought patterns that lead to such self-confidence as is demonstrated by those in TEC zealous to impose their new-found ‘understanding’ of Christianity on the rest of the Christian community where they have access. The Lambeth Conference 2008 is their first significant opportunity to do this and they are going at it with every weapon they can muster.
He has said what I have been saying, that the True Believers assertions, because the source of their Truth is internal and intuitive, cannot be falsified. This has created as sense of infallibility, a vision of themselves as the Elect, chosen by the Holy Spirit. It is terribly ironic, that we should now have an entire wolf pack of Puritans, consumed by certainty. If there is doubt about the burial place of Governor Bradford, one need only search for the place where the soil is dreadfully disturbed as he comes shouldering up alongside his stone like an angry bean. The spirit of the Separatist Congregationalist is still alive, and we have become the Ann Hathaways and t he Roger Williamses of their religious world – except that the roles are precisely reversed. So American! So strong is this tradition! If you stand on your head here, you may fairly say, “plus ca change…etc.” Larry
Rick, thou speakest well. And see my discussion of tolerance below. Larry
Tacit, nothing is a deadly as perfect certainty. This enables the fanatic to kill without qualms and lie without guilt. Larry
Psychology has shown that someone with a belief that resists all evidence to the contrary will never change that belief.
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
The ‘new thing’ religion is based on feelings, wants and wishes and will not see or accept the evidence in Scripture, psychology and medicine.
I’m rubbing my eyes. Did I really just read something good from the Anglican Communion Institute?
When the Episcopal Church was caught up in the debates on women in the priesthood before the irregular ordinations, some friends told me they had joined the Church to work for WO as a step toward federal legislation and subsequentlly dropped out. This was the first indication I had that the Church was being used by outside groups for other purposes. They were involved with a “zero population†movement and considering the Church’s record of lobbying for abortion-on-demand, they have been rewarded.
Old-timers may remember that Bishop Spong appeared before a House Subcommittee in 1996 and made a forceful appeal for legalizing “assisted suicide.†It would be interesting to know who sponsored his testimony, but the real point is that both assisted suicide and abortion on demand are central to the identity of the Enlightened Church and, as far as I know, remain in place.
I am not surprised that there hasn’t been an effort on the part of the revisionist bishops to bring this to the attention of parishioners for their reflection, but I am concerned that reasserters have not made much effort, either. The Gafcon people said that abortion (and presumably assisted suicide) are considered secondary in terms of essentials, but if they remain part of the Church’s arsenal, missionary work in the name of TEC will not succeed.
I hope that those who love the Church will take this problem seriously.
#5, I have to disagree with your characterization of “reappraisers” (or at least this reappraiser). You claim that “To [reasserters], any behavior or idea contradicted by Scripture must be wrong or sinful or both.†But surely you would agree that in practice “reasserters believe any behavior or idea contradicted by [certain passages of] Scripture must be wrong or sinful or both.” I don’t want to revisit old arguments about shellfish and the fabric of clothes, but I find the main difference between reasserters and reappraisers boils down to which parts of scripture get valorized.
Here’s a little game—sample some of the many online representations of reappraisers (blogs, sermons, etc.) and notice how much you encounter Pauline citations. The jump to some reasserter sites and notice how often Matthew is invoked. Now, we are enjoined not to expound one place of scripture against another, but that isn’t what’s going on here. Not should we retreat to the simplistic notion that one can make the Bible say anything one wants. Instead I think both sides thump that part of the Bible that is ideologically amenable and explain away (or remain silent on) those sections that inconveniently unsupportive. I’ll cop a plea on that one.
So getting back to Dr. Seitz, his assertion that “Enlightened Christianity is in the nature of the case a minority view, because the enlightened are onto something new, something that may be widely represented in the culture but which was never able to be squared with the vast preponderance of Christians in the world, never before and not now†is probably true. I agree, even thought this is meant as a slur on reasserters like me.
But where he errs I think is to treat what’s going on at Lambeth as somehow a new “new†development. There have always been reappraisers, and they have always pushed/pulled/dragged Christianity along a worldly (what you might call a “social justiceâ€) road. So now orthodox Anglicans have declared “Too far! You’ve reached a line that cannot be crossed!†and reasserters like me shrug our shoulders because we cannot find a time in church history when the champions of social justice interpretations of the Bible were EVER comfortably in harness with the orthodox of their day.
Since orthodoxy shouted “Too far†at St. John Chrysostom, at William Wilberforce, George Whitefield, at Martin Luther King, why—now–in 2008–are we to believe that this really, really, really is too far? Especially since we believe the scriptural warrants for “social justice,†“tolerance†and “radical inclusiveness,†are so evident?
Wrapped up in all this is the irony of Bishop Chane paradoxically using a condemnation of intolerance to display his own intolerance while Seitz uses the critical methods of the Enlightenment to condemn “The Enlightened.â€
Which parts of St. John Chrysostom’s powerful critique of immorality are you thinking of?
May I draw to the attention of Prof. Seitz and readers of this blog the fact that the TEC ideology of enlightenment, which he so lucidly analyzes, was in fact clearly signposted by Irenaeus in the 180s: “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous.” Valentinians “imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; and maintained that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but they themselves are purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent, than the apostles.”
Dan Ennis, I certainly have seen some reasserters turn to Romans 1 to condemn homosexual behavior, but in all of Scripture I think that is the words of Jesus reported in the Gospel of Matthew that most clearly resolve the question of whether homosexual behavior is sinful and whether homosexual marriage is lawful in the eyes of God. In 15:19 Jesus includes fornication in a list of sinful behavior alongside murder, adultery, theft, and false witness, and in 19:4-5 he explains that God made us man and woman and that it is “for this reason” that we have marriage.
I’m not sure what parts of the Gospel of Matthew reappraisers rely upon to support their beliefs. I have heard many reappraisers point out that Jesus was “inclusive,” that he ministered to the “marginalized,” but the Gospel of Matthew is quite clear that those to whom he ministered who were despised by society were tax collectors and sinners, tax collectors being among the most venal people in all of Palestine during that period of history. One cannot find support in the Gospel of Matthew nor in any gospel for the idea that Jesus endorsed what tax collectors and sinners did. He was quite clear that he spent time with them to call them to repentance.
If Jesus walked the earth today, it would be easy for me to imagine, based on my reading of Matthew, that he would be spending time in, say, gay bars, and eating and drinking there. This would be so that he could call them to repentance, also based on my reading of Matthew.
I disagree that reasserters rely on certain parts of Scripture and ignore others. I am no theologian and claim no great ability at scholarly exegesis. But I have been through all the passages set out in the Episcopal daily lectionary two year cycle at least four times, which includes 100 percent of all four gospels. I continue to follow this cycle to this day. I have yet to read anything that contradicts the position that homosexual behavior is sinful and that marriage between people of the same sex cannot be blessed by God. I find the Scriptures are wonderfully coherent and consistent. There is nothing in any of Paul’s epistles, for example, that contradicts anything in the gospels.
The truth is, I initially approached the question of homosexual behavior as someone who was unabashedly liberal. I truly believed that the Scriptures could not possibly condemn homosexual behavior. And perhaps this experience is what informs my own views about the difference premises of reappraisers and reasserters. What happened to me was that I read and studied the Scriptures. I found that the Scriptures contradicted the worldview I brought to them. And then I had to make a choice.
Reappraisers as gnostics, of course!
#15 — thanks, I am completing a chapter of a book on this, and refer to some of this in an essay reprinted on our web-site. John Behr has a fine book on Irenaeus and the early church’s use of the scriptures (OT) and rule, and it is very accessible.
I, too, would like to be “enlightened” as to how exactly the Church shouted “too far” to Chrysostom.
Chris: thanks for the article. #15 mentions Valentinians and #17 mentions gnostics. Any reflections on these terms that you might want to share. Another term that it might be worth reflecting on is “enthuisiast.” Love to hear any comments you have.
Grant
Grant–I wrote on another thread; I think it was on VGR’s God is bigger than the Bible thread.
Valentinianism appears to have thought the Bible (prophets and apostles) handy-dandy, but because they found a way to let it be a small part of a bigger universe. Various schemes can be deployed here. Unlike Marcionism, V did not have any particular complaint with the OT. Usually one tries to claim that Paul had special revelations not written down, and that Peter was too Jewish, and their ‘disagreements’ are therefore over new revelation. The enlightened get to have it both ways, then. They have access to things that Paul saw but did not write down. So, they are better than the orthodox, and their opinions (‘heresies’) are secrets known as true. Valentianianism is of course very weird–like Jung on a real high. Marcionism is different, probably due to its lineages back into antiochene exegesis. It tends toward literalism and does not like conjoining texts, allegory, a larger sense than the a local sense. So, OT texts are read without any larger sense, and much of the NT as well, and condemned as failing to access the true god. So there is a philosophical universe that both valentianism and marcionism have access to, but it leads to different exegetical/interpretative ends. “Enthusiast” (schwaermer) I take to be a term emerging in the cotext of Luther’s worries about the reformation. Insofar as it points to a biblical analogue, it might be lacking an account of God’s work in time, and so anxious to cut away old things — be they the creation/creative work of God; the OT; RC excesses; state church; or even Anglican Communion! You probably have a reason to point to this, so have at it. My original concern was with ‘God is bigger than the Bible’ comments and I said something about that on the earlier thread. In the context of our present debates, I have found Childs and others’ sensitive accounts of ‘literal sense’ (a la S Thomas) very helpful, and draw on them. But an instinct I see alive in many places, on the right and the left, is what Lindbeck called experiential-expressive readings. How are we like the Jerusalem Council, etc. This seems to me to be the outgrowth of therapy culture and Oprah, at least in the form one sees it today. It also means that Acts 15 is read biblicistically, on the left. People forget that the council used Leviticus to describe what a ruled life would look like for gentile proselytes, considering them ‘sojouners in the midst of Israel.’ An ‘enthusiast’ might say, ‘Peter got a spiritual insight, and we have one too.’ But nothing in Acts canonical movement really reinforces this at all, and in fact the ruling laid down was very ‘conservative.’ You know all this. Neither the ethopian eunuch nor Cornelius are really garden variety gentiles like you and me anyway. The former read Hebrew and was leaving synagogue worship, and the latter was much respected by the whole Jewish assembly.
Chris – thanks. helpful thoughts. Concerning enthusiasm, it seems to me that the ‘enlightened’ appeal to the work of the ‘spirit’, quite apart from testing that spirit by scripture and/or the tradition (or reason for that matter) is used as a trump card. Since those who want to appeal to scripture or tradition are not convinced that the spirit of the enlightened was is the Holy Spirit, this becomes proof that such traditionalists are in fact unenlightened. And so the enthusiasts also show themselves to be gnostic in the sense of being the chosen few who have the divine spark. Seems a terrible dangerous elitist, and arrogant position, n’est pas?
Grant
D’accord. I have a chapter in Figured Out where I deal with Acts 15. Obviously the ‘spirit’ was seen to ‘agree with the Prophets.’ The ruling was drawn from the old scriptures. I doubt many in the early church used the appeal to spiritual enlightenment in the same sense as the TEC enlightened. It seems to me that appeal to the spirit is some odd subset of the scripture/reason/tradition distorted appeal, combined with an experiential-expressivist hermeneutic. We are like people in the Bible, we identify with them, they are like us. The Bible is full of characters from our own experience. Jonathan and David are gay. We have spiritual insights, so did Peter. The canaanite woman sorted out Jesus, and we know what that means for us too. Then, too, there are a lot of bad people in the Bible. Paul was a homophobe. Many people in the OT are bad (they lived before Jesus), but then again, some good people can be found when the line up with some virtue we have identified already (Lindbeck nicely summarised this). Authorial intention was stolen by theories of sources and original authors, and postmoderns declared revenge by turning all intention on its head — including what one might call a canonical intent. ‘John’ does not intend anything. He just shows us a lot of religious people we may or may not identify with. I don’t think ‘heresy’ in the early church looks like this; it does something else. I put that down to our therapy age.
Sorry. See #7. I meant Ann Hutchinson. Larry
#22 Grant: Precisely so. But is not arrogant, save from our point of view. My point above is this, that the position is unassailable because the source of power is interior and absolute. Who durst challenge the Holy Ghost? Will anyone say, “This Holy Ghost thing is a fraud and a scam; you are using the Spirit because you have no cognitive case and you are willing to bet that no one (in this Anglican contest) will challenge you.” The Elect will simply say, “Prove it,” and your challenge is waste water. But I say the TEC case is a fraud and a con game; their citation of the Holy Ghost is morally criminal and culpable. They are selling snake oil whose powers derive from a secret formula whispered by a dying shaman. And their secret ingredient is moral and theological laudanum. Larry
20 et al–Forty two bishops and archbishops conspired to exile St. John, and the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople each refused to lift a finger to prevent the sentence from being carried out.
The predictable response here would be to claim St. John as a reasserter, but in fact it was his concern for social justice that put him out of step with the orthodox of his time–his radical assertion that the episcopate had the standing (and the duty) to speak out against the injustices perpetrated by the state was definitely a “new thing” in 5th century Constantinople.
This is not to say that he denied the authority of scripture or invented new doctrines–just to point out that pushing social justice is a reliable way to run afoul of the keepers of tradition and the wielders of authority.
I’ve kind of hijacked this thread so I’ll stop here.
#26, the obvious flaw in your example is simply that imposing or otherwise facilitating the incorporation of an active gay lifestyle into the Church’s mainstream is in fact NOT a matter of social justice. The ‘enlightened’ have blinded themselves to this fact and pursue their imagined justice cause with great energy, but that doesn’t make it an authentic issue of social justice for God’s people in the real world.
Dan Ennis–Chrysostom called people out for doing wrong, so that makes him like contemporary reppraisers? Please–that’s so general as to be useless–it’s like comparing Gene Robinson to Athanasius because each one wrote a book.